The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
hum. seem to be arguing against myself a bit.
No im not saying coal is the future or easy.
its just that there is lots under the uk and we could be self sufficient.
but we wont because its evil (yes cost now we have let the mines go and started demolishing the 1000mw stations) but basically this whole thing started because of emisions, CO2 and acid rain, lets not forget that
No im not saying coal is the future or easy.
its just that there is lots under the uk and we could be self sufficient.
but we wont because its evil (yes cost now we have let the mines go and started demolishing the 1000mw stations) but basically this whole thing started because of emisions, CO2 and acid rain, lets not forget that
Did somebody mention acid rain?
I attended a symposium on this topic in the mid-80s. Poster papers as well as others in print such as the one by Lewis and Weibezahn attributed acid rain conditions in their target area (S America) to NOx from seasonal vegetation burning, not V8s or factories in other countries. Not coal-fired power stations or 4x4s or Prince Charles' estates. Does vegetation burning take place anywhere else, one might ask. Fast forward ~20 years to the Clean Air Task Force report dated October 2001 and titled "Why the Acid Rain Problem is Not Solved" (it stll isn't, wrong approach). Scientists at the symposium spoke of trying to replicate vegetation damage using acid rain and failing, noting in passing that disease could replicate it much better.
Another non-success story that alarmists keep quite about is the ozone layer, where the Montreal Protocol (1987 iirc) has done nothing worthy of note.
2001 the hole is getting worse
http://www.wnd.com/2001/06/9757/
2003 the hole is getting better
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/08...
2006 ...the ozone hole is getting worse again
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/16/env...
2010 the ozone hold is getting better again
http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/110714/srep00038/f...
2013 2014 it’s getting worse yet again
http://www.livescience.com/40609-ozone-hole-bigges...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2648...
2016 it’s getting better once again
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/3...
Watch this space for ca 2019 as odds-on it’ll be getting worse.
Ozone levels in the stratosphere are driven by stratospheric temperature and solar uv levels.
Now we have the global warming false alarm over plant and tree food causing similar misdirection in policy, spawning non-solutions as always but this time to a non-problem we didn't cause and which politicians can't influence using tax structures and subsidies. The mere thought that useless politicians can control a complex coupled non-linear chaotic planetary climate system by virtue of their own hot air would be hilarious if it wasn't both arrogant and tragic.
I attended a symposium on this topic in the mid-80s. Poster papers as well as others in print such as the one by Lewis and Weibezahn attributed acid rain conditions in their target area (S America) to NOx from seasonal vegetation burning, not V8s or factories in other countries. Not coal-fired power stations or 4x4s or Prince Charles' estates. Does vegetation burning take place anywhere else, one might ask. Fast forward ~20 years to the Clean Air Task Force report dated October 2001 and titled "Why the Acid Rain Problem is Not Solved" (it stll isn't, wrong approach). Scientists at the symposium spoke of trying to replicate vegetation damage using acid rain and failing, noting in passing that disease could replicate it much better.
Another non-success story that alarmists keep quite about is the ozone layer, where the Montreal Protocol (1987 iirc) has done nothing worthy of note.
2001 the hole is getting worse
http://www.wnd.com/2001/06/9757/
2003 the hole is getting better
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/08...
2006 ...the ozone hole is getting worse again
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/16/env...
2010 the ozone hold is getting better again
http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/110714/srep00038/f...
2013 2014 it’s getting worse yet again
http://www.livescience.com/40609-ozone-hole-bigges...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2648...
2016 it’s getting better once again
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/3...
Watch this space for ca 2019 as odds-on it’ll be getting worse.
Ozone levels in the stratosphere are driven by stratospheric temperature and solar uv levels.
Now we have the global warming false alarm over plant and tree food causing similar misdirection in policy, spawning non-solutions as always but this time to a non-problem we didn't cause and which politicians can't influence using tax structures and subsidies. The mere thought that useless politicians can control a complex coupled non-linear chaotic planetary climate system by virtue of their own hot air would be hilarious if it wasn't both arrogant and tragic.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No it won’t happen because of economics.
Take the romance out of it
Does not economics apply to the use of unreliables? Or does the sector rely on £billions of taxpayer's money each year? Take the romance out of it
You can see how the investment of Taxpayers Money has worked in reducing costs.
Or is that too difficult to understand?
The subsidies for wind power have certainly reduced the overall costs for the installers of wind power.
My domestic electricity bills have just about doubled since the madness started around 2002, how is that reducing costs for me?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You are keen to blame.
How much has your consumption of electricity charged- don’t guess, and if you don’t know, then it’s a futile point to needle.
What was the unit price you were paying over the years?
The price of fossil fuels overvthose same years?
It’s fairly clear to others here where cost have increased. Sorry it doesn’t suit your argument.
The environment and social aspects in the energy companies pass on only kicked in around 2013.
I am keen to ensure that responsibility clearly sits with those who are responsible, particularly where my money is concerned. You might regard that as "blame".How much has your consumption of electricity charged- don’t guess, and if you don’t know, then it’s a futile point to needle.
What was the unit price you were paying over the years?
The price of fossil fuels overvthose same years?
It’s fairly clear to others here where cost have increased. Sorry it doesn’t suit your argument.
The environment and social aspects in the energy companies pass on only kicked in around 2013.
My domestic electricity consumption has fallen since 2002.
Could you please re-word your last sentence to improve clarity.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If you insist that your Energy consumption has gone down - then so be it.
Why you electricity costs have doubled is not Renewables.
The cost of decarbonisation of the Energy industry in the UK AND the social policies which include the Catvity Wall, the Solar the..... is less than 20% since the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Breakdown of a typical dual fuel bill Source: Ofgem
Wholesale costs 38%
Network costs 26%
Environmental and social obligation costs 8%
Other direct costs 1%
Operating costs 17%
Supplier pre-tax margin 5%
VAT 5%
Crack on here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-a...
Yesterday: Why you electricity costs have doubled is not Renewables.
The cost of decarbonisation of the Energy industry in the UK AND the social policies which include the Catvity Wall, the Solar the..... is less than 20% since the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Breakdown of a typical dual fuel bill Source: Ofgem
Wholesale costs 38%
Network costs 26%
Environmental and social obligation costs 8%
Other direct costs 1%
Operating costs 17%
Supplier pre-tax margin 5%
VAT 5%
Crack on here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-a...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Yes of course it does- stupid rhetorical question.
You can see how the investment of Taxpayers Money has worked in reducing costs.
Or is that too difficult to understand?
Have costs to the consumer reduced or not?You can see how the investment of Taxpayers Money has worked in reducing costs.
Or is that too difficult to understand?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Is your Google f
ked? Why are you asking me?
The cost of Electricity according to you has increased.
According to the sensible heads of PH it is by en large due to the costs of the fuel, grid, infrastructure and alike - with a position that the Green Taxes also have an impact.
You want your doubled bill to be due to the cost of Renewables.
Graphs, tables, the internet and opinion will never change that - so I think we are done here on the subject.
Because you stated ">You can see how the investment of Taxpayers Money has worked in reducing costs.<" Your words: reducing costs.ked? Why are you asking me? The cost of Electricity according to you has increased.
According to the sensible heads of PH it is by en large due to the costs of the fuel, grid, infrastructure and alike - with a position that the Green Taxes also have an impact.
You want your doubled bill to be due to the cost of Renewables.
Graphs, tables, the internet and opinion will never change that - so I think we are done here on the subject.
I can see that you find those graphs and tables awkward to deal with.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Cost of Windpower
Well done for being obtuse and ensuring you don’t read properly
Your posts lack clarity.Well done for being obtuse and ensuring you don’t read properly
Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
V8 Fettler said:
Your posts lack clarity.
Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
What are you basing your claims on? Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
Most punters are not actually aware of subsidies or how they work.
And how do you derive at the conclusion in your final paragraph?
The final sentence of yours describes you perfectly.
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your posts lack clarity.
Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
What are you basing your claims on? Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
Most punters are not actually aware of subsidies or how they work.
And how do you derive at the conclusion in your final paragraph?
The final sentence of yours describes you perfectly.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Unlikely
I believe we both think you are a tool
You are riding the wind farm energy gravy train good for you..I believe we both think you are a tool
so why not go quietly forth and stop digging yourself big hole
by trying to defend this folly building exercise ... AKA green tokenism...
remember most scams fail because people brag about them...
V8 Fettler said:
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your posts lack clarity.
Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
What are you basing your claims on? Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
Most punters are not actually aware of subsidies or how they work.
And how do you derive at the conclusion in your final paragraph?
The final sentence of yours describes you perfectly.
Edited by MYOB on Sunday 17th December 23:25
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Has it crossed your mind you could be wrong?
What if you are?
Would you be prepared to admit you are also a dinosaur?
Or do you admit you’d prefer distinction?
Or simply it’ll all blow over ?
Pick one.
(For the record I’m as much Oil n Gas as Wind Power but you seem to be betwixted on the latter).
Spell check gone wrong? What if you are?
Would you be prepared to admit you are also a dinosaur?
Or do you admit you’d prefer distinction?
Or simply it’ll all blow over ?
Pick one.
(For the record I’m as much Oil n Gas as Wind Power but you seem to be betwixted on the latter).
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your posts lack clarity.
Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
What are you basing your claims on? Most punters are only interested in overall costs, including subsidy.
The overall costs to consumers in 2017 would be substantially lower if we had several twin reactor PWRs (£3.5billion each at 1995 prices), as should have followed Sizewell B. Alternatively, DRAX x 5. The current dog's dinner arrangements are illogical, incoherent, ludicrous and costly.
Most punters are not actually aware of subsidies or how they work.
And how do you derive at the conclusion in your final paragraph?
The final sentence of yours describes you perfectly.
Edited by MYOB on Sunday 17th December 23:25
You can expect as much meat on the bone as you wish.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You are keen to blame.
How much has your consumption of electricity charged- don’t guess, and if you don’t know, then it’s a futile point to needle.
What was the unit price you were paying over the years?
The price of fossil fuels overvthose same years?
It’s fairly clear to others here where cost have increased. Sorry it doesn’t suit your argument.
The environment and social aspects in the energy companies pass on only kicked in around 2013.
Price at the gate is lower in real terms than it was in the 90's for generators not able to get any green subsidy. Which is ironic as we produce no real CO2 emissions, but have to operate in the same market as large coal stations as we could not avoid the climate change levy. We have been operating right on the edge of profitability since about 2000.How much has your consumption of electricity charged- don’t guess, and if you don’t know, then it’s a futile point to needle.
What was the unit price you were paying over the years?
The price of fossil fuels overvthose same years?
It’s fairly clear to others here where cost have increased. Sorry it doesn’t suit your argument.
The environment and social aspects in the energy companies pass on only kicked in around 2013.
Must be said, we did get bailed out by the gov when NETA screwed us
Edited by Gary C on Monday 18th December 10:01
MYOB said:
By the by you fanatics out there, I'm actually opposed to onshore wind farms personally 
But I'm wise enough to understand the need for them alongside other fuel types.
Since you declare sufficient wisdom, you no doubt can advise upon how essential onshore (and offshore) wind are in the mix of UK energy generation.But I'm wise enough to understand the need for them alongside other fuel types.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff