The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
rolando said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The cost of the ones that exist ?
I think it’s best I start to ignore you tbh
If your beloved windmills worked all the time, there would be no need for any back-up generators, including the ones that exist and the ones that will be needed in the future until such time as you come up with your solution to intermittency.I think it’s best I start to ignore you tbh
This means that for every MW of installed windmill capacity there has to be an equal installed capacity of dispatchable electricity generation.
Now answer V8's question.
V8 Fettler said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
On the plus side - Offshore wind will be subsidy free soon.
All that money that you have bitterly contested as 'Yours' that will have helped the industry get to a point of it being without Tax payers money going forward, so it can be used to fund the expensive Nuclear option you crave perhaps - assuming those economics stack up ?
Are you ok with your money being used that way ?
Does this include the costs of back-up generating capacity?All that money that you have bitterly contested as 'Yours' that will have helped the industry get to a point of it being without Tax payers money going forward, so it can be used to fund the expensive Nuclear option you crave perhaps - assuming those economics stack up ?
Are you ok with your money being used that way ?
He is highlighting my :
Offshore wind will be subsidy free soon.
and then saying:
Does this include the costs of back-up generating capacity?
How is that a question?
Investors and developers believe they can supply energy to the grid through wind - without subsidy. They believe that it will also be for a lesser price than fossil or nuclear sourced energy. (if not, they couldn't sell it - agreed?)
That's all there is to my statement that he has highlighted.
As for the backup-intermittency, you bang on about Tesla are not the only ones working of the solution. Statoil and Masdar have their scheme up on the Hywind project. Orsted have their own version and as you and many others still have failed to grasp - the volume of deployment, and location of deployment is felt by the utilities to provide the back up.
Those are investment projects made by those private companies to provide the solution. They are not 'Your' taxes.
You stated that "> Offshore wind will be subsidy free soon.<"
I responded with ">Does this include the costs of back-up generating capacity?<"
You then became irrational.
The question remains unanswered: are the hidden subsidy costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the back-up generating capacity included within the cost calculations used to support your statement that offshore wind will be subsidy free soon?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
The question remains unanswered: are the hidden subsidy costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the back-up generating capacity included within the cost calculations used to support your statement that offshore wind will be subsidy free soon?
You know the answer is No. I'd also counter that is not what you meant when you first said it - and equally so would state that you are either trying to just repeat an (self) amusing mantra or don't understand how this works.
Are you suggesting that once Offshore wind becomes direct subsidy free and equally trading its 'product' on the open marketplace it should subsidise Fossil and Nuclear Power?
My question was simple and clear, with little possibility of misinterpretation.
You'll need to define "direct" and "indirect" subsidy.
LongQ said:
And yes, the same accusation could be made about Nuclear which is why at some point, as EDF pointed out a few days ago, if developers and politicians (especially politicians) could settle on a design that could be, mostly, repeated with enhancements based on experience gained the costs could be reduced.
It would not be entirely unexpected if the next lot, in an attempt to gain power, will place another moratorium on nuclear to appeal to the breathlessly concerned.Then move to shut down gas in a stunning demonstration of ineptitude to be picked up by the nasty bunch following on afterwards.
But that is politics and democracy - for better or worse.
Ali G said:
Here resteth the political folly that marine reefs may be built upon and other species may thrive.
Has a ring to it - perhaps that not intended.
not really about building reefs, more about putting in physical barriers ,specifically for the utter clowns pulse trawling. would be easier to shoot them all in the face but apparently that isn't politically acceptable these days Has a ring to it - perhaps that not intended.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You know the answer is No.
I'd also counter that is not what you meant when you first said it - and equally so would state that you are either trying to just repeat an (self) amusing mantra or don't understand how this works.
Are you suggesting that once Offshore wind becomes direct subsidy free and equally trading its 'product' on the open marketplace it should subsidise Fossil and Nuclear Power?
don't you accept there is a point where wind becomes non viable paddy ? where that point is i have no idea ,regardless of cost we haven't reached it yet as evidenced by continued power supply this winter so the current mix is achieving the main aim of keeping the lights on. in the future if traditional sources are only going to be used on calm days where is the investment incentive for those providing and maintaining those sources ? I'd also counter that is not what you meant when you first said it - and equally so would state that you are either trying to just repeat an (self) amusing mantra or don't understand how this works.
Are you suggesting that once Offshore wind becomes direct subsidy free and equally trading its 'product' on the open marketplace it should subsidise Fossil and Nuclear Power?
currently if wind is generating too much power suppliers are paid not to feed the power into grid ,yes ? will this also stop in the future ? genuine questions ,not having a dig.
wc98 said:
not really about building reefs, more about putting in physical barriers ,specifically for the utter clowns pulse trawling. would be easier to shoot them all in the face but apparently that isn't politically acceptable these days
Strictly off topic..Coral reefs in UK (cold) waters.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ukc...
There is more unknown than there is known, generally.
Ali G said:
Strictly off topic..
Coral reefs in UK (cold) waters.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ukc...
There is more unknown than there is known, generally.
cheers for the link, rockall is the home of some of the largest specimens of many atlantic species . i have seen pictures of cod over 100lbs from the area. iut would be more heavily commercially fished if they could work out how to get the squid back in tip top condition, apparently the area is heaving with them at certain times of year. some massive blue fin tuna there in summer/autumn as well. Coral reefs in UK (cold) waters.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ukc...
There is more unknown than there is known, generally.
as for the unknowns, there are plenty close to shore in the intertidal and inshore zone never mind deeper offshore waters. we certainly don't know as much as we like to think about the marine world. i do know electrocuting flat fish to get them to spasm up out of silt/sand/mud is not a clever idea for the long term sustainability of the target species ,even without taking the negative effects on other species into consideration.
apologies for going o/t.
wc98 said:
some massive blue fin tuna there in summer/autumn as well.
Apparently, one or two caught the attention off the coast of Scarborough sometime ago.http://www.scarboroughsmaritimeheritage.org.uk/art...
These days, it would be global warming.
Ali G said:
Apparently, one or two caught the attention off the coast of Scarborough sometime ago.
http://www.scarboroughsmaritimeheritage.org.uk/art...
These days, it would be global warming.
lol. i have also seen recent video from a north east commercial boat that filmed a huge shoal of them busting what appeared to be mackerel in the north sea last year. a mate has had several to 500lb off the west coast of ireland this year on a recreational boat although i believe the purpose of those skippers getting a licence to target them this way is to establish track record for the future should the various rules around catching them for sale relax (something i hope doesn't happen).http://www.scarboroughsmaritimeheritage.org.uk/art...
These days, it would be global warming.
we currently have a few humpback whales in the forth munching their way through the huge amount of herring and sprat there at the moment. bait fish numbers gone through the roof in recent years, similar to what happened pre gadoid outburst at a similar state of the amo in the past. will be interesting to see how the climate community spin the cooling atlantic in coming years. i seem to remember a quote along the lines of "what happens if it turns out to be all natural variation ? they will probably kill us ". may turn out to be prophetic yet
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Gary C said:
But of course we will be paying for two lots of generators with associated companies and staff and shareholder and maintenance etc so inevitably it will be more expensive.
But NASA have now published an article saying it's necessary !
How is it different to a Nuclear co, a Gas Co, a Coal Co all supplying the same Grid ?But NASA have now published an article saying it's necessary !
You've now got a Nuclear co, a Gas Co, a Coal Coand NOW a Wind Co.
No different
The point is, if you need 50 GW, you build and maintain 50 + a bit GW. If you have 50 GW of wind, you need upto 50GW of alternative generation (though, I understand your point, if the wind area is large enough and interconnected, then it's unlikely to be calm everywhere) So your paying to maintain, run, staff etc upto double the generation. Now I'm not saying it's not going to be necessary, or unachievable.
Anyway, anyone like to guess how much we get for our electricity ? Given £50 MWhr is seen as cheap wind
Edited by Gary C on Sunday 21st January 21:23
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
We are agreed that the cost of the hidden subsidy for the back-up generating capacity is not included within the cost calculations you refer to when stating that offshore wind will be subsidy free soon. The unknown is: how much is this hidden subsidy?
My question was simple and clear, with little possibility of misinterpretation.
You'll need to define "direct" and "indirect" subsidy.
any idea how free markets (will) work?My question was simple and clear, with little possibility of misinterpretation.
You'll need to define "direct" and "indirect" subsidy.
More importantly, what's your view on the cost of the hidden subsidy for the back-up generating capacity?
wc98 said:
Gary C said:
Anyway, anyone like to guess how much we get for our electricity ? Given £50 MWhr is seen as cheap wind
£18 mwhr ?Edited by Gary C on Sunday 21st January 21:23
Wish we could access all the low carbon money.
Gary C said:
wc98 said:
Gary C said:
Anyway, anyone like to guess how much we get for our electricity ? Given £50 MWhr is seen as cheap wind
£18 mwhr ?Edited by Gary C on Sunday 21st January 21:23
Wish we could access all the low carbon money.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff