Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Gandahar]

Mr2Mike said:

This article suggests the subsidies are costing us about one billion per year. Not exactly chump change.

Yes that is the figure I got from other sources but didn't bother posting it here.

It's about £1 billion per year which is about £35 per tax payer, so less than one fill up of your car. A lot less than the other person claimed.

Compare total wind turbine subsidies to what EDF is getting promised for one plant

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ed...

"It is understood that EDF and Government negotiators have compromised on how long a subsidy – a term that neither party believes is accurate but is generally accepted in wider industry – could be guaranteed. Known as "the strike price", this is the minimum that EDF would be paid for any electricity generated, meaning that should the market price fall below that level the Government would make up the difference.

EDF and other nuclear developers need those guarantees because otherwise they could risk losing billions and would not go ahead with investment. Industry sources said that the strike price being discussed is around £96-£97 per megawatt hour, towards the bottom end of the anticipated £95-£99.50 range.

However, in exchange for receiving a relatively low price, EDF demanded the guarantee be in place for 40 years. This was double the initial proposal and has been a sticking point delaying the deal."

So EDF could be potentially subsidised for 40 years if the price of electricity falls. Estimates are up to £10billion.

This may cost nothing, or may cost a fortune, we will not know until a long time in the future, but it shows that subsidies for wind power are not unique. Though you would think they are reading some posts. There is a definite biased viewpoint on how some energy sources are good and some are bad, without too much actual facts as long as it backs up the preconceived ideas. Hence why wind power will always be perceived as some as being subsidised above and beyond just because they do not like them.

Hey, just because the lefties like them doesn't mean they are all bad

[dickymint]

^^^ Science?

[Gandahar]

hairykrishna said:

Energy prices have been going up;



Renewables only make up a couple of percent of the generation mix. Hence their somewhat overpriced contribution makes next to bugger all difference to our electricity bills. Higher prices are driven primarily by increases in the wholesale price of gas, increased margins for the suppliers and to a lesser extent higher prices of other fossil fuels.

Carbon taxes are 2% on your average £1267 fuel bill, so about £25 per year.

[SkepticSteve]

Gandahar said:

So EDF could be potentially subsidised for 40 years if the price of electricity falls. Estimates are up to £10billion.

BUT!

It will keep producing power, NON-STOP 24hrs 365days a year for those 40 years!

Any possibility of a comment on that level of service and reliability?

[grumbledoak]

dickymint said:

^^^ Science?

No. It's just yet another campaigning greenie stinking up the science thread. How original.

[George111]

Gandahar said:

Mr2Mike said:

This article suggests the subsidies are costing us about one billion per year. Not exactly chump change.

Yes that is the figure I got from other sources but didn't bother posting it here.

It's about £1 billion per year which is about £35 per tax payer, so less than one fill up of your car. A lot less than the other person claimed.

Compare total wind turbine subsidies to what EDF is getting promised for one plant

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ed...

"It is understood that EDF and Government negotiators have compromised on how long a subsidy – a term that neither party believes is accurate but is generally accepted in wider industry – could be guaranteed. Known as "the strike price", this is the minimum that EDF would be paid for any electricity generated, meaning that should the market price fall below that level the Government would make up the difference.

EDF and other nuclear developers need those guarantees because otherwise they could risk losing billions and would not go ahead with investment. Industry sources said that the strike price being discussed is around £96-£97 per megawatt hour, towards the bottom end of the anticipated £95-£99.50 range.

However, in exchange for receiving a relatively low price, EDF demanded the guarantee be in place for 40 years. This was double the initial proposal and has been a sticking point delaying the deal."

So EDF could be potentially subsidised for 40 years if the price of electricity falls. Estimates are up to £10billion.

This may cost nothing, or may cost a fortune, we will not know until a long time in the future, but it shows that subsidies for wind power are not unique. Though you would think they are reading some posts. There is a definite biased viewpoint on how some energy sources are good and some are bad, without too much actual facts as long as it backs up the preconceived ideas. Hence why wind power will always be perceived as some as being subsidised above and beyond just because they do not like them.

Hey, just because the lefties like them doesn't mean they are all bad

EDF are going to build power stations which will deliver electricity when we want it (all the time), in vast quantities. They have a proven model which we all know works. It even produces less CO2 than wind turbines over the lifespan of the plant which is going to be measured in 10s of years - possibly 40 or 50.

Lack of investment over the past 30 or so years has left us in desperate need of proper electricity generation and so EDF are in a strong position to bargain, but they are also taking on a large financial commitment which governments seem unable to do these days because of hand wringers, nimby's and the fact our politicians are "low rent" compared to many over the last 100 years. We we do need to probably dig a bit deeper than we have in the past.

The windmill fiasco of the last 10 years will hopefully come to an end soon so we can get back to sensible, realistic power generation which will keep us alive in our old age and enable industry to compete overseas without shipping all the but the boardroom to China or India.

Nuclear is one of the safest industries we have - take away the scare stories and look at the true figures provided by the likes of the WHO (eg, regarding Chernobyl) . . . ignore the likes of Greenpeace and examine the truth - nuclear is as safe as it gets and far safer than oil/gas/coal ever was or ever will be.

[dickymint]

^^^ In the absence of SCIENCE I can only assume it's settled

[Mr2Mike]

dickymint said:

^^^ In the absence of SCIENCE I can only assume it's settled

You appear to be adding plenty of science-free posts yourself...

[jshell]

hairykrishna said:

Energy prices have been going up;



Renewables only make up a couple of percent of the generation mix. Hence their somewhat overpriced contribution makes next to bugger all difference to our electricity bills. Higher prices are driven primarily by increases in the wholesale price of gas, increased margins for the suppliers and to a lesser extent higher prices of other fossil fuels.

The TRUE Hockeystick!

[odyssey2200]

dickymint said:

^^^ Science?

E=MC2

HTH

[dickymint]

odyssey2200 said:

dickymint said:

^^^ Science?

E=MC2

HTH

Get it right it's E=mc²

[odyssey2200]

dickymint said:

odyssey2200 said:

dickymint said:

^^^ Science?

E=MC2

HTH

Get it right it's E=mc²

I couldn't figure out how to get the 2 to be a ²

Edited by odyssey2200 on Sunday 22 September 21:55

[Apache]

George111 said:

EDF are going to build power stations which will deliver electricity when we want it (all the time), in vast quantities. They have a proven model which we all know works. It even produces less CO2 than wind turbines over the lifespan of the plant which is going to be measured in 10s of years - possibly 40 or 50.

Lack of investment over the past 30 or so years has left us in desperate need of proper electricity generation and so EDF are in a strong position to bargain, but they are also taking on a large financial commitment which governments seem unable to do these days because of hand wringers, nimby's and the fact our politicians are "low rent" compared to many over the last 100 years. We we do need to probably dig a bit deeper than we have in the past.

The windmill fiasco of the last 10 years will hopefully come to an end soon so we can get back to sensible, realistic power generation which will keep us alive in our old age and enable industry to compete overseas without shipping all the but the boardroom to China or India.
Good post
Nuclear is one of the safest industries we have - take away the scare stories and look at the true figures provided by the likes of the WHO (eg, regarding Chernobyl) . . . ignore the likes of Greenpeace and examine the truth - nuclear is as safe as it gets and far safer than oil/gas/coal ever was or ever will be.

[Ali G]

I'll just post this one up again..

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/index.htm

It's not that CO2 does absolutely nothing - it probably does.

Just not that much...

However, amplification of the (limited) CO2 effect is totally non-science.

[Gandahar]

George111 said:

Gandahar said:

Mr2Mike said:

This article suggests the subsidies are costing us about one billion per year. Not exactly chump change.

Yes that is the figure I got from other sources but didn't bother posting it here.

It's about £1 billion per year which is about £35 per tax payer, so less than one fill up of your car. A lot less than the other person claimed.

Compare total wind turbine subsidies to what EDF is getting promised for one plant

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ed...

"It is understood that EDF and Government negotiators have compromised on how long a subsidy – a term that neither party believes is accurate but is generally accepted in wider industry – could be guaranteed. Known as "the strike price", this is the minimum that EDF would be paid for any electricity generated, meaning that should the market price fall below that level the Government would make up the difference.

EDF and other nuclear developers need those guarantees because otherwise they could risk losing billions and would not go ahead with investment. Industry sources said that the strike price being discussed is around £96-£97 per megawatt hour, towards the bottom end of the anticipated £95-£99.50 range.

However, in exchange for receiving a relatively low price, EDF demanded the guarantee be in place for 40 years. This was double the initial proposal and has been a sticking point delaying the deal."

So EDF could be potentially subsidised for 40 years if the price of electricity falls. Estimates are up to £10billion.

This may cost nothing, or may cost a fortune, we will not know until a long time in the future, but it shows that subsidies for wind power are not unique. Though you would think they are reading some posts. There is a definite biased viewpoint on how some energy sources are good and some are bad, without too much actual facts as long as it backs up the preconceived ideas. Hence why wind power will always be perceived as some as being subsidised above and beyond just because they do not like them.

Hey, just because the lefties like them doesn't mean they are all bad

EDF are going to build power stations which will deliver electricity when we want it (all the time), in vast quantities. They have a proven model which we all know works. It even produces less CO2 than wind turbines over the lifespan of the plant which is going to be measured in 10s of years - possibly 40 or 50.

Lack of investment over the past 30 or so years has left us in desperate need of proper electricity generation and so EDF are in a strong position to bargain, but they are also taking on a large financial commitment which governments seem unable to do these days because of hand wringers, nimby's and the fact our politicians are "low rent" compared to many over the last 100 years. We we do need to probably dig a bit deeper than we have in the past.

The windmill fiasco of the last 10 years will hopefully come to an end soon so we can get back to sensible, realistic power generation which will keep us alive in our old age and enable industry to compete overseas without shipping all the but the boardroom to China or India.

Nuclear is one of the safest industries we have - take away the scare stories and look at the true figures provided by the likes of the WHO (eg, regarding Chernobyl) . . . ignore the likes of Greenpeace and examine the truth - nuclear is as safe as it gets and far safer than oil/gas/coal ever was or ever will be.

"EDF are going to build power stations which will deliver electricity when we want it (all the time), in vast quantities. They have a proven model which we all know works."

If that is the case they should be confident, that on the free market selling electricity, that they will be competitive and selling us the cheapest prices. But it seems they do not want to risk that and instead want a multi billion guarrantee that if they do build the powerstation it gets a subsidy if it cannot match those free market prices. Which sounds a lot like people are castigating wind for. But wind gets less money. Go figure.

" We we do need to probably dig a bit deeper than we have in the past"

But only for your favoured energy generation it seems.

"The windmill fiasco of the last 10 years will hopefully come to an end soon "

What fiasco? I don't see any massive cost to Britain for windpower compared to nuclear both financially or accident wise. There is always some cost for any resource.

"Nuclear is one of the safest industries we have".

True, but when it goes pop it really goes pop. So much so Japan seems to be prepared to pay more just so they do not have to worry about it any more.

[Blib]

Free market prices? So, you agree that subsidies to windmills and solar should be removed?

Good for you!

[alock]

Now we're through summer in the Arctic, when do you think the BBC will publish a correction for this article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

[dickymint]

alock said:

Now we're through summer in the Arctic, when do you think the BBC will publish a correction for this article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

When Hell freezes over.... oh wait..

[rovermorris999]

The article said "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Ho bloody ho.

[airbrakes]

rovermorris999 said:

The article said "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Ho bloody ho.

Whereas back int the real world, it's been the biggest ice sheet this summer for years!