The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
Aurora team disclose their education and experience.
https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
The three people that appear to hold positions related to renewable technologies are economists or lawyers, one of the directors has a Mathematics PhD, but seems to use it for economics. https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 25th July 14:30
Evanivitch said:
I thought a lot of this thread was based on the unjustifiable economic costs of renewables?
It depends if you are the ones paying for them or the ones making money from them. In that respect I am interested in the economics where it ties in with social values and quality of life, in an increasingly technological society the cost of energy governs the cost of purchase and use of the technology associated with a higher standard of living. The economics at the consumer end are also a proxy for the efficiency and utility of the system, the economics of punting energy into the system without any responsibility for running the system are different.
Toltec said:
It depends if you are the ones paying for them or the ones making money from them.
My point was simply that what's wrong with economists looking at the economic implications of renewables?Economists sharing an office with people that have genuine education and experience in energy and renewables seems a more appropriate mix than an individual with a background in Geology.
I'm not saying either is correct in this instance, just that one is clearly more justified than the other.
Evanivitch said:
My point was simply that what's wrong with economists looking at the economic implications of renewables?
Economists sharing an office with people that have genuine education and experience in selling energy and renewables seems a more appropriate mix than an individual with a background in Geology.
I'm not saying either is correct in this instance, just that one is clearly more justified than the other.
Nothing wrong with that if some of them are looking at the economics for the consumer as well as the producer.Economists sharing an office with people that have genuine education and experience in selling energy and renewables seems a more appropriate mix than an individual with a background in Geology.
I'm not saying either is correct in this instance, just that one is clearly more justified than the other.
Some engineers and scientists would be good too.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
https://utilityweek.co.uk/mps-overestimate-opposit...
Not sure what is more embarrassing, the fact that only 8% of our full time elected officials know that onshore wind power generation is the cheapest form of new generation or that 12% of them think Hinckley is.
Government by opinion poll as the basis for recommending policy for probably the largest community cost project to be undertaken in the next 50 years?Not sure what is more embarrassing, the fact that only 8% of our full time elected officials know that onshore wind power generation is the cheapest form of new generation or that 12% of them think Hinckley is.
Why would you trust a selection of the public - most likely people with no expertise at all in anything very much - to understand poll questions and provide useful answers?
"The most recent government survey of energy attitudes shows that just two per cent of the population strongly opposes the technology."
Really? (In the context of your comments about the cheapness of Onshore wind generation)
"A public survey by Renewable UK found that 66 per cent would support a change in policy to allow more onshore windfarms to be built where they have local backing."
34% then do not support a change in policy? So what about this 2% claim for the technology?
"A separate report by the National Infrastructure Commission, published earlier this month, suggested the switch to greener energy can be achieved without increasing bills."
"Suggested that ....."
Maybe they could give a guarantee?
It sounds like this "poll" is a meta data dredge put together by vested interests with a view to embarrassing MPs by publicising a "weakness" in their abilities.
But will the public be surprised? Do the voters really expect MPs to know anything or make sensible decisions? And are they silly enough to look at such numbers as are reported in the link (not that many will know about them of course) and not conclude that they look somewhat suspect.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
From the guy that prolifically uses ‘probably’ in his posts ?
Me?If I was setting policy and convinced by the research data about what I was writing I would want to exclude any possibility of doubt.
But that's not the political way when papers and articles are published.
"I might look after your interests as a voter" would not win my MP my vote - unless the alternatives were so poor that the least worse option would be to accept abject mediocrity.
The entire article looks alike a collection of old school weasel words and phrases to me but I'll be relatively kind about it so as not to hurt your feelings.
If I could not offer more than the content suggests - especially in respect of
"A separate report by the National Infrastructure Commission, published earlier this month, suggested the switch to greener energy can be achieved without increasing bills."
which is certainly not a promise of any sort by anyone, least of all the organisation touting the "news" you linked to - then I would not want my name associated with the spread of the insidious ideas that the article pushes with no compunction about attempting to underpin the statement with anything meaningful to support it.
But remember Paddy, as you keep taking the time to tell me for some reason only you understand, I'm not an expert and I have no influence - just observations and opinions and a number of years observing similar situations and their outcomes which leaves me questioning many things.
If you want to believe this stuff unquestioningly go right ahead. Your kids, if you have any, may or may not end up loving you for it. Time will tell.
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
Aurora team disclose their education and experience.
https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
The three people that appear to hold positions related to renewable technologies are economists or lawyers, one of the directors has a Mathematics PhD, but seems to use it for economics. https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 25th July 14:30
V8 Fettler said:
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
Aurora team disclose their education and experience.
https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
The three people that appear to hold positions related to renewable technologies are economists or lawyers, one of the directors has a Mathematics PhD, but seems to use it for economics. https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 25th July 14:30
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
From the guy that prolifically uses ‘probably’ in his posts ?
Me?If I was setting policy and convinced by the research data about what I was writing I would want to exclude any possibility of doubt.
I and others have often written on here how you provide eloquent and lengthy responses - weaving in an economics aspect to eat thread subject but each post is littered with "probably" "presumably" " I assumes"
There is three of this in your last post in the Comedy thread for arguments sake.
I have referred to this before how your style intentionally attempts to steer but without validation.
turbobloke said:
V8 Fettler said:
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
Aurora team disclose their education and experience.
https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
The three people that appear to hold positions related to renewable technologies are economists or lawyers, one of the directors has a Mathematics PhD, but seems to use it for economics. https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 25th July 14:30
Head of Research - degree in Economics and an MSc in Environmental Policy
Head of GB Renewables - undergraduate studies at the University of Melbourne in Law, and completed an MBA and MPA at the University of Oxford
Head of Flexible Energy & Battery Storage - MPhil and DPhil degrees in Economics
The one guy that actually seems to-
Head of Modelling - MSci in Theoretical Physics and Applied Mathematics from the University of Birmingham and a DPhil in Applied Mathematics from the University of Oxford
The rest just run the company and sell their services.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
From the guy that prolifically uses ‘probably’ in his posts ?
Me?If I was setting policy and convinced by the research data about what I was writing I would want to exclude any possibility of doubt.
I and others have often written on here how you provide eloquent and lengthy responses - weaving in an economics aspect to each thread subject but each post is littered with "probably" "presumably" " I assumes"
There is three of this in your last post in the Comedy thread for arguments sake.
I have referred to this before how your style intentionally attempts to steer but without validation.
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Friday 27th July 09:34
Ignoring context is another fine attribute of your comprehensions skill and its application. But never mind, some people in the support group that appears here from time to time love you for that.
Note that when commenting on some interesting claims that project into the future and cannot be confirmed and so are not supported by real life recorded evidence or audited numbers it would seem to be entirely wrong to treat the suggestions as anything more than suggestions - unexplained suggestions in many cases.
It becomes very difficult to make any comments with certainty if you wish to comment on the uncertain outcome, an outcome that will remain uncertain until any results have been recorded and audited.
I know such matters are of less interest to you when discussing the projected future but I happen to think it is important to keep such perspective it one wishes to be realistic.
Interestingly nearly all of the official Climate Change reports and press releases are full of "could" and "might" , "likely" and similar words and "projections" that "assume" certain "scenarios" in order to be able to offer anything to write about.
I look forward to your critique of the writers of such pieces now you have set out your standards in the public domain.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
Aurora team disclose their education and experience.
https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
The three people that appear to hold positions related to renewable technologies are economists or lawyers, one of the directors has a Mathematics PhD, but seems to use it for economics. https://www.auroraer.com/about/our-team/
Roger Andrews is a geologist.
Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 25th July 14:30
Experience of running an organisation with success is all that is required.
An example of Aurora's previous efforts:
Aurora in 2016 said:
Aurora has modelled the impacts of a UK coal phase-out, concluding that the power system could cope with closure by 2025, or even earlier, at minimal cost to consumers.
The UK already has a significant pipeline of capacity from offshore wind, additional interconnectors to other parts of Europe and new nuclear power stations, Wronski points out.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-uks-looming-electricity-supply-gapThe UK already has a significant pipeline of capacity from offshore wind, additional interconnectors to other parts of Europe and new nuclear power stations, Wronski points out.
Is this the offshore wind that is capable of generating zero power? We've seen how the interconnectors performed dismally during the cool spell earlier this year. Current new nuclear power stations? Where are these?
Aurora in 2016 said:
Aurora has modelled the impacts of a UK coal phase-out, concluding that the power system could cope with closure by 2025, or even earlier, at minimal cost to consumers.
It looks as though Bill Gates had some modelling done, and disagrees. This was posted at some point in the past probably in a climate thread.'In an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday (Gates said) that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be “beyond astronomical”.'
Google's highly qualified, ultra-green and costly team of engineers and scientists agree on non-viability (see RE<C).
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Source ?
Not within the last 5 years they haven’t- when prices have plummeted
You’ve trotted this out before and been proven outdated and wrong.
Stop sneaking it back in.
Hilarious stuff Sherlock! I stated in my post that I'd posted it previously but you don't know where or when. If that's sneaking it in, you have a special interpretation of sneaking.Not within the last 5 years they haven’t- when prices have plummeted
You’ve trotted this out before and been proven outdated and wrong.
Stop sneaking it back in.
Your wild assertion that it has been 'proved' wrong is silly as well as wild, your wishful thinking cup is overflowing. Source? Bill in the FT. Drop him an email.
Out of date? Bill was talking about the future, not the present or the past. The comment he made referred not only, if at all, to the cost people pay for their energy, but the cost of producing / connecting / operating / repairing / decommissioning so many unreliables plants either solar farms or windfarms, without the parallel reduction in emissions promised but so rarely delivered.
Carbon Brief said:
Europe seem to be ushering in a new era of “subsidy-free” renewables, which can be deployed without government support.
Yet “subsidy-free” is a nebulous phrase that means different things to different people. In fact, many of the “subsidy-free” schemes announced over the past 12 months would not meet the purest interpretations of the term.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-does-subsidy-free-renewables-actually-meanYet “subsidy-free” is a nebulous phrase that means different things to different people. In fact, many of the “subsidy-free” schemes announced over the past 12 months would not meet the purest interpretations of the term.
This heavily subsidised project isn't working yet but 'we' taxpayers stand to pay through the nose until ~2035.
Article said:
The world's biggest offshore wind farm is to be built 75 miles off the coast of Grimsby, at an estimated cost to energy bill-payers of at least £4.2 billion.
The giant Hornsea Project One wind farm will consist of 174 turbines, each 623ft tall - higher than the Gherkin building in London - and will span an area more than five times the size of Hull.
Developer Dong Energy, which is majority-owned by the Danish state, said it had taken a final decision to proceed with the 1.2 gigawatt project that would be capable of powering one million homes and create 2,000 jobs during construction.
First electricity from the project is expected to be generated in 2019 and the wind farm should be fully operational by 2020.
The wind farm was handed a subsidy contract by former energy secretary Ed Davey in 2014 that will see it paid four times the current market price of power for every unit of electricity it generates for 15 years.
Nothing was/is disproved as per your reasoning by assertion, and the date thing as usual from you is irrelevant. Bring on 2035 The giant Hornsea Project One wind farm will consist of 174 turbines, each 623ft tall - higher than the Gherkin building in London - and will span an area more than five times the size of Hull.
Developer Dong Energy, which is majority-owned by the Danish state, said it had taken a final decision to proceed with the 1.2 gigawatt project that would be capable of powering one million homes and create 2,000 jobs during construction.
First electricity from the project is expected to be generated in 2019 and the wind farm should be fully operational by 2020.
The wind farm was handed a subsidy contract by former energy secretary Ed Davey in 2014 that will see it paid four times the current market price of power for every unit of electricity it generates for 15 years.
Lest anyone should forget.
Windmills are neither clean nor green and they produce approx zero % of global energy requirements.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-...
Windmills are neither clean nor green and they produce approx zero % of global energy requirements.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff