The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[DocJock]

Ahem >>>>

[gadgetmac]

Condi said:

I'm confused. The IPCC believes in man made climate change, but the anti-renewable posters here dont believe in man made CC. So why are they using the small parts of the IPCC research they do believe in to argue their case? Either you trust the scientists and their conclusions, or you dont.

Because they cling to every scrap of anything remotely backing their case regardless of its origin. It’s what happens when you have precious little of it being generated by anti AGW agencies.

[Condi]

Anyway there is another thread over there >>>>>>>> if you want to debate the politics or science of climate change.

This thread is about the future of power generation.................... which is not coal!

[rolando]

Neither is it unreliables.

[DocJock]

...thank goodness.

Any of you ever been down a pit? It's awful.

My auld fella worked for the NCB and had to go down to keep the pumps running when the miners were on strike. I joined him once, never again. The conditions were horrendous.

[V8 Fettler]

DocJock said:

...thank goodness.

Any of you ever been down a pit? It's awful.

My auld fella worked for the NCB and had to go down to keep the pumps running when the miners were on strike. I joined him once, never again. The conditions were horrendous.

Good money could be earnt down t'pit, particularly when compared to what else was available in a typical coal mining area.

[V8 Fettler]

gadgetmac said:

Condi said:

I'm confused. The IPCC believes in man made climate change, but the anti-renewable posters here dont believe in man made CC. So why are they using the small parts of the IPCC research they do believe in to argue their case? Either you trust the scientists and their conclusions, or you dont.

Because they cling to every scrap of anything remotely backing their case regardless of its origin. It’s what happens when you have precious little of it being generated by anti AGW agencies.

Or perhaps to demonstrate the inconsistencies within the believers' argument.

Anti-AGW "agencies"? Do these exist?

[dickymint]

From Tallblokes site - fellow PH'er for those that don't know him................




“Unprecedented” wastage of resources


Crazy world of climate finance [image credit: renewableenergyfocus.com]

According to Federal Audit Office data, the Energiewende has cost around 34 billion euros in 2017 alone. In addition to the federal government’s expenditure of almost 8 billion euros, this also includes the burdens on end consumers, in particular due to the renewable energy levy (EEG). “The Federal Government, incidentally, does not have an overall grasp of the costs or any transparency in this respect.”

The wastage of resources to implement the Energiewende was “unprecedented”.


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/federal...

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

I'm confused. The IPCC believes in man made climate change, but the anti-renewable posters here dont believe in man made CC. So why are they using the small parts of the IPCC research they do believe in to argue their case? Either you trust the scientists and their conclusions, or you dont.

It's irony, easily visible dripping from the pixels. You've got the boot on the wrong foot. If agw supporters believe climate models they (you?) should believe that global proliferation of windfarms within the lunacy of decarbonisation will lead to climate change that windfarms were created to prevent. Delicious irony. Or if the models are wrong about windfarm impacts they (you?) will be forced to accept that the models are indeed useless as demonstrated by their inability to replicate reality even with 70+ and 100+ sided coins being tossed. Which is it? Windfarm proliferation causes climate change or IPCC models are baloney?

gadgetmac said:

Because they cling to every scrap of anything remotely backing their case regardless of its origin. It’s what happens when you have precious little of it being generated by anti AGW agencies.

No, it's irony. See above

Clinging to doctrine is a faith trait, others refer to peer-reviewed science and the data therewith rather than take anybody's word for it which they (you?) do on a regular basis where it suits. Hence the irony

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

Good money could be earnt down t'pit, particularly when compared to what else was available in a typical coal mining area.

I think that says far more about the economic abandonment of coal mining areas than it says about the pay of coal miners.

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Condi said:

I'm confused. The IPCC believes in man made climate change, but the anti-renewable posters here dont believe in man made CC. So why are they using the small parts of the IPCC research they do believe in to argue their case? Either you trust the scientists and their conclusions, or you dont.

It's irony, easily visible dripping from the pixels. You've got the boot on the wrong foot. If agw supporters believe climate models they (you?) should believe that global proliferation of windfarms within the lunacy of decarbonisation will lead to climate change that windfarms were created to prevent. Delicious irony. Or if the models are wrong about windfarm impacts they (you?) will be forced to accept that the models are indeed useless as demonstrated by their inability to replicate reality even with 70+ and 100+ sided coins being tossed. Which is it? Windfarm proliferation causes climate change or IPCC models are baloney?

gadgetmac said:

Because they cling to every scrap of anything remotely backing their case regardless of its origin. It’s what happens when you have precious little of it being generated by anti AGW agencies.

No, it's irony. See above

Clinging to doctrine is a faith trait, others refer to peer-reviewed science and the data therewith rather than take anybody's word for it which they (you?) do on a regular basis where it suits. Hence the irony

The colinder in my kitchen has fewer holes than your argument. Sadly, I dont have the time to detail them all now, and if you want to debate the scientific or political aspects of global warming there are other threads on here for you to do so.


This thread is not about climate change, or global warming, but is about power generation. The future of power generation is set by economic factors and government policy, which itself may be influenced by climate change, but for the industry which is looking to provide solutions, we dont make the rules, we just play by them. If you want to debate the science behind the rules then go elsewhere.

[rolando]

Condi said:

The future of power generation is set by economic factors and government policy, which itself may be influenced by climate change, but for the industry which is looking to provide solutions, we dont make the rules, we just play by them. If you want to debate the science behind the rules then go elsewhere.

But should government policy on the future of power generation be allowed to override the technical competence/incompetence of the engineering used to generate that power? In other words, have they looked at the options to see if they can satisfactorily meet demand at an economical cost to the end users?

[Condi]

rolando said:

But should government policy on the future of power generation be allowed to override the technical competence/incompetence of the engineering used to generate that power? In other words, have they looked at the options to see if they can satisfactorily meet demand at an economical cost to the end users?

Yes, because that is a governments job. They have to balance the needs of everybody and create rules which are beneficial to society overall.

If engineers were told to produce low cost power then huge coal stations using cheap, dirty fuel, close to towns and with no scrubbers would be the solution. The public, however, didnt like the great smogs of the early 20th century, and that was when the government started introducing rules which increased cost, but had a social benefit.

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

rolando said:

But should government policy on the future of power generation be allowed to override the technical competence/incompetence of the engineering used to generate that power? In other words, have they looked at the options to see if they can satisfactorily meet demand at an economical cost to the end users?

Yes, because that is a governments job. They have to balance the needs of everybody and create rules which are beneficial to society overall.

If engineers were told to produce low cost power then huge coal stations using cheap, dirty fuel, close to towns and with no scrubbers would be the solution. The public, however, didnt like the great smogs of the early 20th century, and that was when the government started introducing rules which increased cost, but had a social benefit.

The smogs of the early 20th century were caused by households burning coal to generate heat, electric heating and centralised energy production reduced the smog, think millions of homes with low chimneys against a few with large chimneys and controlled emissions.
Now with the explosion of log burners we are heading in the opposite direction.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

Condi said:

Yes, because that is a governments job. They have to balance the needs of everybody and create rules which are beneficial to society overall.

[StanleyT]

V8 Fettler said:

DocJock said:

...thank goodness.

Any of you ever been down a pit? It's awful.

My auld fella worked for the NCB and had to go down to keep the pumps running when the miners were on strike. I joined him once, never again. The conditions were horrendous.

Good money could be earnt down t'pit, particularly when compared to what else was available in a typical coal mining area.

There were some jobs that paid even better in 1984 and 1985 if your Dad and Uncle were in the Rotherham police force! Lots of O/T and overnight allowances to be shipped down to the mostly peaceful protests in South Wales (never st on your own doorstep in a strike) while the Mets finest bully boys were brought in to the NW for a bit of minor baiting.

My other uncle took me down in a pit (near Whitwell before the strike somewhere) and part way down told me the lift was going at nearly 60 mph! I didn't believe him at the time, then went to a mining museum in Lancashire a few years later and a) saw that the cages did indeed go down at that speed and b) there wasn't much to the cage apart from what I'd seen from the inside - I assumed it was a huge lift type structure........nope not a life for me either.

I remember a summer job in the late 1980s where there were loads of ex-miners - we were all on the same money, miners, women, students; £3.50 ph on 9hr evening shift on lathes. These poor guys were broken from the drop in salary they'd had from 10 years previous, financially and in spirit. Mostly divorced, no family and worked an evening shift to stop themselves drinking themselves to death.

Mind you, never wait to butter your toast in the morning. I remember being at Selloffafield in the late 1990s when they went from 40% shift premium to £6k / £8k fixed premium. The amount of Scoobies, Imprezzas and other sports cars straight up for sales as workers could no longer afford them was ridiculous. Plenty of living beyond them means there to keep up with the Marras.

[V8 Fettler]

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

Good money could be earnt down t'pit, particularly when compared to what else was available in a typical coal mining area.

I think that says far more about the economic abandonment of coal mining areas than it says about the pay of coal miners.

The fact remains that mining in the UK mid-1970s onwards was relatively well paid, particularly for face workers.

[Condi]

Oh look, we're back to discussing 1970's coal policies again.....

Even Corbyn, who wants to take the country right back to the 1970's has more progressive energy policies than the contributors on this thread.

Although even the most evangelistic wind support has to be sceptical of his promise to build 50 gig of offshore wind!!

[Toltec]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

Condi said:

Yes, because that is a governments job. They have to balance the needs of everybody and create rules which are beneficial to society overall.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

Oh look, we're back to discussing 1970's coal policies again.....

Even Corbyn, who wants to take the country right back to the 1970's has more progressive energy policies than the contributors on this thread.

Although even the most evangelistic wind support has to be sceptical of his promise to build 50 gig of offshore wind!!

For the short term, I would prefer cheap, reliable and robust electricity generation provided by coal. Others may prefer expensive, unreliable and unstable electricity generation by wind.