The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

But anyway, despite all the comments about how expensive it is, our power is cheaper than the European average.

2015
British energy firms charge most for electricity in Europe - why?
Failing competition and expensive Government projects mean our pre-tax electricity costs outstrip every EU country, for the first time.

2018
For years the reasons behind Europe's cheaper power prices have been something of a mystery until now.
It's a well-known fact among energy wonks that UK industrial electricity prices are higher than those of France, Germany, and many other European counterparts.


https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/3025947/...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...


Any developed country with higher energy prices than us is silly. Hiigh energy prices drive up the cost of living and make vulnerable poor people (often elderly) choose between heating and eating. Energy has turned into a silliness competition.

[Gary C]

Turbo, V8 etc

How can you be so certain that co2 isn't a problem ?

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

Turbo, V8 etc

How can you be so certain that co2 isn't a problem ?

In accordance with general scientific principles, the onus is on the delusionists to support their position by providing repeatable experimental evidence that supports their claims for AGW. Alternatively, the onus is on the delusionists to support their position by providing a model (or models) that supports their claims for AGW. Either option is required to underpin a scientific Theory.

Similarly, in accordance with general scientific principles, it would be illogical for non-believers to be required to prove a negative, otherwise you could extend the question to: "How can anyone be certain that any element or any compound isn't a problem?", which would be nonsensical.

[Condi]

There is enough data out there to show the world is warming, across all continents and all seas, and that the rate of change is increasing.

There is enough lab data to show that CO2/methane/ozone etc cause an increase in temperature as concentration increases.

There is enough data to show that levels of CO2/methane/ozone etc are increasing in the atmosphere to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.




So... which bit do you disagree with? And which bit of science dont you like?

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

2015
British energy firms charge most for electricity in Europe - why?
Failing competition and expensive Government projects mean our pre-tax electricity costs outstrip every EU country, for the first time.

2018
For years the reasons behind Europe's cheaper power prices have been something of a mystery until now.
It's a well-known fact among energy wonks that UK industrial electricity prices are higher than those of France, Germany, and many other European counterparts.


https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/3025947/...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...


Any developed country with higher energy prices than us is silly. Hiigh energy prices drive up the cost of living and make vulnerable poor people (often elderly) choose between heating and eating. Energy has turned into a silliness competition.

Instead of relying on the Telegraph, why not look at the EU's statistics office which puts EU average prices at 0.20 Euro per KWH, and UK prices at 0.18 Euro per KWH, after all subsidies and costs are taken into account. The 3 most expensive countries are Denmark, Germany and Belgium - all at least as developed as we are.


https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...


EDIT - if you have a look into the data, energy for German industry is considerably more expensive than energy for UK industry, while taxes for UK households are significantly lower than most of western Europe.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 12th December 20:51

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

There is enough data out there to show the world is warming, across all continents and all seas, and that the rate of change is increasing.

There is enough lab data to show that CO2/methane/ozone etc cause an increase in temperature as concentration increases.

There is enough data to show that levels of CO2/methane/ozone etc are increasing in the atmosphere to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.




So... which bit do you disagree with? And which bit of science dont you like?

I disagree with the bit where the basic building blocks of scientific theory are ignored. What's "liking" got to do with science? Science should primarily be about validating hypotheses by repeatable experiments and/or models that actually work.

Others have already comprehensively demolished the various hypotheses guesswork proposed by the delusionists on the climate change thread.

[rscott]

V8 Fettler said:

I disagree with the bit where the basic building blocks of scientific theory are ignored. What's "liking" got to do with science? Science should primarily be about validating hypotheses by repeatable experiments and/or models that actually work.

Others have already comprehensively demolished the various hypotheses guesswork proposed by the delusionists on the climate change thread.

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

[Gary C]

rscott said:

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

Except that it's fundamental and at the heart of this thread.

[wc98]

Condi said:

There is enough data out there to show the world is warming, across all continents and all seas, and that the rate of change is increasing.

There is enough lab data to show that CO2/methane/ozone etc cause an increase in temperature as concentration increases.

There is enough data to show that levels of CO2/methane/ozone etc are increasing in the atmosphere to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.




So... which bit do you disagree with? And which bit of science dont you like?

are you saying the montreal protocol is partially responsible for global warming ? new one on me.do you know what level of co2 in the atmosphere is required to maintain life on earth ?
have you been watching al gore lab experiment videos ?

[LongQ]

Condi said:

Instead of relying on the Telegraph, why not look at the EU's statistics office which puts EU average prices at 0.20 Euro per KWH, and UK prices at 0.18 Euro per KWH, after all subsidies and costs are taken into account. The 3 most expensive countries are Denmark, Germany and Belgium - all at least as developed as we are.


https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...


EDIT - if you have a look into the data, energy for German industry is considerably more expensive than energy for UK industry, while taxes for UK households are significantly lower than most of western Europe.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 12th December 20:51

Is it instructive that of the three countries in Europe that you mention, Denmark and Germany have a reputation for being leaders in the deployment of Wind Generation? Or indeed "renewables" in general?

I'm not sure how Belgium stands on renewables but as I recall they have some conflicts about Nuclear generation and a some internal political challenges that probably make most decisions about any long term strategy especially problematic. Having the EU headquartered there complete with many well paid EU employees with tax free salaries probably does nothing to help their overall costs of living balance but may tend to boost the price of many things due to the relatively high disposable income in certain parts of the country and compared to the average across the EU. So they can "afford" the energy prices they are asked to pay.

Maybe.


ETA: It's worth drilling down into the sun sections of the article.

I see Spain is the 4th most expensive country.

Edited by LongQ on Thursday 13th December 01:26

[LongQ]

Some information about Belgium.

These articles seem to reflect the EU Stats reports and expand on them with further details and observations.

http://www.amcham.be/policy/energy/energy-costs

http://www.amcham.be/blog/2018/10/belgium-unplugge...



No doubt more sources can be found if needed.


It's sort of interesting that we are not far from enjoying an Interconnector link to Belgium. One wonders which direction will see the most flow.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-belgium-...

[Evanivitch]

Gary C said:

rscott said:

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

Except that it's fundamental and at the heart of this thread.

It's not necessarily.

UK energy policy can be driven by several other factors that are more localised.

- North Sea Oil and Gas production is in decline
- UK coal reserves are inaccessible to economic access
- UK fracking is not gaining favour with the public
- Therefore UK is dependent on fuel imports
- UK is very coastal with high exposure to offshore winds
- UK solar exposure is reasonable
- Large tidal flows located around coastline
- Renewables can be a significant contribution in reducing UK dependency on import fuel
- Temperate climate with few extremes over prolonged periods
- Heat pumps viable in most conditions
- Long history of nuclear energy with general public support. But lack current industrial capability to build effectively

[alangla]

LongQ said:

It's sort of interesting that we are not far from enjoying an Interconnector link to Belgium. One wonders which direction will see the most flow.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-belgium-...

OK, another dumb question time. Given there's (according to Gridwatch) a 2.5GW France-Belgium interconnect, which is (0945 GMT) transmitting nothing either way and given that we've got an interconnect to France (0.8GW towards France at 1000 GMT, but predominantly France -> UK), why would the Belgians want to buy from us rather than the French the majority of the time? At the moment we and the French seem to be generating a lot of wind energy, but Gridwatch suggests Belgium doesn't have much in the way of renewables - would this basically be an outlet for excess UK wind energy but not doing a lot of business the rest of the time?

[Gary C]

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

rscott said:

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

Except that it's fundamental and at the heart of this thread.

It's not necessarily.

UK energy policy can be driven by several other factors that are more localised.

- North Sea Oil and Gas production is in decline
- UK coal reserves are inaccessible to economic access
- UK fracking is not gaining favour with the public
- Therefore UK is dependent on fuel imports
- UK is very coastal with high exposure to offshore winds
- UK solar exposure is reasonable
- Large tidal flows located around coastline
- Renewables can be a significant contribution in reducing UK dependency on import fuel
- Temperate climate with few extremes over prolonged periods
- Heat pumps viable in most conditions
- Long history of nuclear energy with general public support. But lack current industrial capability to build effectively

I mean, CO2 is driving or being used politically to drive, the direction of energy policy in the uk.

As to V8 assertion that it's the climate scientists to prove CO2 is the cause of man made warming and until proved we should carry on however we wish is a bit childish.

The basic science is simple, the response of the planet is so complex to be almost Unfathomable, but is that really a reason to totally ignore it?

As I have said before, I don't know what is going to happen, and sub Saharan Africa is probably going to make it a moot point anyway.

Ho hum.

[WatchfulEye]

Play away.
http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/#/home

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

Except that it really is fundamental and at the heart of this thread

It has been said:

UK energy policy can be driven by several other factors that are more localised.

- North Sea Oil and Gas production is in decline
- UK coal reserves are inaccessible to economic access
- UK fracking is not gaining favour with the public
- Therefore UK is dependent on fuel imports
- UK is very coastal with high exposure to offshore winds
- UK solar exposure is reasonable
- Large tidal flows located around coastline
- Renewables can be a significant contribution in reducing UK dependency on import fuel
- Temperate climate with few extremes over prolonged periods
- Heat pumps viable in most conditions
- Long history of nuclear energy with general public support. But lack current industrial capability to build effectively

Alex Chisholm as Permanent Secretary at BEIS in his governenment web article Energy Policy Now And The Direction It Is Headed said:

We are one of the youngest departments, with a remit cutting across government and the small task of reshaping the British economy.

. . .

Decarbonisation

. . .

The landmark Climate Change Act made us the first country in the world to set a long-term, statutory emissions reduction target.

Reshaping the economy...decarbonisation...Climate Change Act.

Back from dreamworld into harsh reality.

[PRTVR]

Came across this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-bolivia...
Basically Germany has secured access to vast lithium deposits in Bolivia, is as people are suggesting that part of the future is in batteries, why is the UK not doing the same, we appear to have no plan, apparently china is buying up all the lithium mines, nothing like controling the market and the price, we may be heading towards a very expensive future with battery powered items, be it vacuum cleaners or grid support.

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

rscott said:

Which is where any debate on the science should stay - away from this thread..

Except that it's fundamental and at the heart of this thread.

It's not necessarily.

UK energy policy can be driven by several other factors that are more localised.

- North Sea Oil and Gas production is in decline
- UK coal reserves are inaccessible to economic access
- UK fracking is not gaining favour with the public
- Therefore UK is dependent on fuel imports
- UK is very coastal with high exposure to offshore winds
- UK solar exposure is reasonable
- Large tidal flows located around coastline
- Renewables can be a significant contribution in reducing UK dependency on import fuel
- Temperate climate with few extremes over prolonged periods
- Heat pumps viable in most conditions
- Long history of nuclear energy with general public support. But lack current industrial capability to build effectively

I mean, CO2 is driving or being used politically to drive, the direction of energy policy in the uk.

As to V8 assertion that it's the climate scientists to prove CO2 is the cause of man made warming and until proved we should carry on however we wish is a bit childish.

The basic science is simple, the response of the planet is so complex to be almost Unfathomable, but is that really a reason to totally ignore it?

As I have said before, I don't know what is going to happen, and sub Saharan Africa is probably going to make it a moot point anyway.

Ho hum.

Unusual to describe adhering to basic scientific principles as childish. One risk of not complying to basic scientific principles is the risk of spending £300billion and more on a pointless exercise when there are more beneficial uses for the money.

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

Unusual to describe adhering to basic scientific principles as childish. One risk of not complying to basic scientific principles is the risk of spending £300billion and more on a pointless exercise when there are more beneficial uses for the money.

And another risk is rising sea levels, etc etc.

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

I'm not certain how it's going to turn out, but I'm open minded enough to listen, and listen hard.

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

V8 Fettler said:

Unusual to describe adhering to basic scientific principles as childish. One risk of not complying to basic scientific principles is the risk of spending £300billion and more on a pointless exercise when there are more beneficial uses for the money.

And another risk is rising sea levels, etc etc.

Anyone with an engineering/science background can see tha basic science behind the potential of GW, and I get your points on the proof, but your put downs of anyone who supports the idea of GW is a wee bit childish.

I'm not certain how it's going to turn out, but I'm open minded enough to listen, and listen hard.

The occasional caustic comment has been posted, generally in response to the name calling and swearing by various delusionists, is that not permitted?

(More listening needed to avoid confusion between AGW and GW)