Renewables not the future - Adam Smith Institute
Discussion
Unsurprising Article said:
Scottish Renewables said the report was one-sided and completely overlooked the benefits of renewables.
The industry body's chief executive Niall Stuart said: "The report is full of serious flaws and oversights, and not once does it mention the need to tackle climate change, or its massive economic, social and environmental costs.
"The authors completely overlook the latest evidence on cost showing that large-scale onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear, with large reductions in the costs of all renewables in the future.
Seriously?The industry body's chief executive Niall Stuart said: "The report is full of serious flaws and oversights, and not once does it mention the need to tackle climate change, or its massive economic, social and environmental costs.
"The authors completely overlook the latest evidence on cost showing that large-scale onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear, with large reductions in the costs of all renewables in the future.
Mattt said:
I'm not well read on energy/renewables but surely it is being subsidised now for future benefits? So saying 'renewables are more expensive than traditional energy' is coming from the University of the Bleeding Obvious.Wish I had taken a screen shot of that page earlier this morning.
Classic example of BBC bias, someone clearly wasn't on message when writing it. It's now been completely re-written in support of The Cause, earlier it was much more critical of renewables with a very different headline.
Now got some spokesman for renewables that wasn't there this morning and the usual drivel from the WWF.
Classic example of BBC bias, someone clearly wasn't on message when writing it. It's now been completely re-written in support of The Cause, earlier it was much more critical of renewables with a very different headline.
Now got some spokesman for renewables that wasn't there this morning and the usual drivel from the WWF.
nelly1 said:
Unsurprising Article said:
Scottish Renewables said the report was one-sided and completely overlooked the benefits of renewables.
The industry body's chief executive Niall Stuart said: "The report is full of serious flaws and oversights, and not once does it mention the need to tackle climate change, or its massive economic, social and environmental costs.
"The authors completely overlook the latest evidence on cost showing that large-scale onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear, with large reductions in the costs of all renewables in the future.
Seriously?The industry body's chief executive Niall Stuart said: "The report is full of serious flaws and oversights, and not once does it mention the need to tackle climate change, or its massive economic, social and environmental costs.
"The authors completely overlook the latest evidence on cost showing that large-scale onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear, with large reductions in the costs of all renewables in the future.
1: Quote the cost to install a certain MW of power, a nuclear plant will run at 95% capacity a wind turbine at ~20%. Quote cost for installing the wind turbine in the most accessible location
2: Don't account for the fact that nuclear plant has a 60 year lifespan and a wind turbine 20 years.
The fundamentals of nuclear are pretty good it's expensive capital cost followed by cheap operating cost in comparison to it's power output.
The issue is the financial risk, you have to put down billions to build the plant with the associated risk that overruns will increase the size of your loan and delay the date at which you start paying it back. Once you have built the plant it generates very cheaply however consider the following:
1. Demand for power drops off.
2. Government bans nuclear power.
3. Gas price drops through the floor.
Because you have a massive loan to pay off you simply have to generate. If you stop generating your costs in terms of loan interest and staff wages remain the same as if you are operating. Because it likely to take 20 years to pay off your initial loan you have to hope that none of these things happens in the next 20 years. In an unregulated market you have to sell your electricity at the lowest price because you can't afford not to generate.
You also have to decommission the plant at the end of it's life which actually over a 60 year lifetime equates to quite a low value in comparison to value of electricity generated. However the issue would be what if for whatever reason you had to decommission the plant early.
With gas turbine plant to capital costs are low so if demand drops off you can simply stop generating and mothball the plant or even in-extremis move the plant to somewhere else.
In short you need managed market to see nuclear however over the course of a 60 year plant lifetime you will get cheap electricity which to the country as a whole is a good thing.
Windpower on the other hand is just mental!
Talksteer said:
How to lie with statistics:
1: Quote the cost to install a certain MW of power, a nuclear plant will run at 95% capacity a wind turbine at ~20%. Quote cost for installing the wind turbine in the most accessible location
2: Don't account for the fact that nuclear plant has a 60 year lifespan and a wind turbine 20 years.
The fundamentals of nuclear are pretty good it's expensive capital cost followed by cheap operating cost in comparison to it's power output.
The issue is the financial risk, you have to put down billions to build the plant with the associated risk that overruns will increase the size of your loan and delay the date at which you start paying it back. Once you have built the plant it generates very cheaply however consider the following:
1. Demand for power drops off.
2. Government bans nuclear power.
3. Gas price drops through the floor.
Because you have a massive loan to pay off you simply have to generate. If you stop generating your costs in terms of loan interest and staff wages remain the same as if you are operating. Because it likely to take 20 years to pay off your initial loan you have to hope that none of these things happens in the next 20 years. In an unregulated market you have to sell your electricity at the lowest price because you can't afford not to generate.
You also have to decommission the plant at the end of it's life which actually over a 60 year lifetime equates to quite a low value in comparison to value of electricity generated. However the issue would be what if for whatever reason you had to decommission the plant early.
With gas turbine plant to capital costs are low so if demand drops off you can simply stop generating and mothball the plant or even in-extremis move the plant to somewhere else.
In short you need managed market to see nuclear however over the course of a 60 year plant lifetime you will get cheap electricity which to the country as a whole is a good thing.
Windpower on the other hand is just mental!
Thanks, interesting post.1: Quote the cost to install a certain MW of power, a nuclear plant will run at 95% capacity a wind turbine at ~20%. Quote cost for installing the wind turbine in the most accessible location
2: Don't account for the fact that nuclear plant has a 60 year lifespan and a wind turbine 20 years.
The fundamentals of nuclear are pretty good it's expensive capital cost followed by cheap operating cost in comparison to it's power output.
The issue is the financial risk, you have to put down billions to build the plant with the associated risk that overruns will increase the size of your loan and delay the date at which you start paying it back. Once you have built the plant it generates very cheaply however consider the following:
1. Demand for power drops off.
2. Government bans nuclear power.
3. Gas price drops through the floor.
Because you have a massive loan to pay off you simply have to generate. If you stop generating your costs in terms of loan interest and staff wages remain the same as if you are operating. Because it likely to take 20 years to pay off your initial loan you have to hope that none of these things happens in the next 20 years. In an unregulated market you have to sell your electricity at the lowest price because you can't afford not to generate.
You also have to decommission the plant at the end of it's life which actually over a 60 year lifetime equates to quite a low value in comparison to value of electricity generated. However the issue would be what if for whatever reason you had to decommission the plant early.
With gas turbine plant to capital costs are low so if demand drops off you can simply stop generating and mothball the plant or even in-extremis move the plant to somewhere else.
In short you need managed market to see nuclear however over the course of a 60 year plant lifetime you will get cheap electricity which to the country as a whole is a good thing.
Windpower on the other hand is just mental!
Renewable's might have their place, and be viable, but not for primary power production.
Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
Wind power to run a storage heater in a garage from a small turbine etc.
Lots of small little bits here and there, that are not essential to have, but do use a significant amount of energy when you add them up.
Hmmmm
Dave
Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
Wind power to run a storage heater in a garage from a small turbine etc.
Lots of small little bits here and there, that are not essential to have, but do use a significant amount of energy when you add them up.
Hmmmm
Dave
kji7 said:
Wish I had taken a screen shot of that page earlier this morning.
Classic example of BBC bias, someone clearly wasn't on message when writing it. It's now been completely re-written in support of The Cause, earlier it was much more critical of renewables with a very different headline.
Now got some spokesman for renewables that wasn't there this morning and the usual drivel from the WWF.
Wow hasn't it just.Classic example of BBC bias, someone clearly wasn't on message when writing it. It's now been completely re-written in support of The Cause, earlier it was much more critical of renewables with a very different headline.
Now got some spokesman for renewables that wasn't there this morning and the usual drivel from the WWF.
Here you can see the difference: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/467718/diff/...
That site is excellent for watching how articles are changed on the BBC site.
I was once told that for a Windymill to break even on the CO2 created making the damn thing (mostly the concrete base) it would need to run at full pelt, 24/7 for 7 years.
I dont understand how people can look at them as a viable source. As a top up when demand peaks maybe, but unless you build absolutely 1000's of them you arent going to supply stable base load.
Alstom make steam turbines/Generator trains that can push out 2GW. Two of those in a standard nuclear plant with 2 reactors and thats 4GW of power all day, every day. What does a windymill do 5MW tops? averaging much less than that. You need 800 turbines just for to cover that.
I dont understand how people can look at them as a viable source. As a top up when demand peaks maybe, but unless you build absolutely 1000's of them you arent going to supply stable base load.
Alstom make steam turbines/Generator trains that can push out 2GW. Two of those in a standard nuclear plant with 2 reactors and thats 4GW of power all day, every day. What does a windymill do 5MW tops? averaging much less than that. You need 800 turbines just for to cover that.
Mr Whippy said:
Renewable's might have their place, and be viable, but not for primary power production.
Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
Thermal solar doesn't make some sense it makes a HUGE amount of sense. Sadly it doesn't attract the feed in tariff so it has almost vanished from the public eye.Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
thinfourth2 said:
Thermal solar doesn't make some sense it makes a HUGE amount of sense. Sadly it doesn't attract the feed in tariff so it has almost vanished from the public eye.
On a recent trip to south africa I asked what the Black boxes were on the roof. Heats the water and pool was the reply.But then its sunny down there
Pesty said:
thinfourth2 said:
Thermal solar doesn't make some sense it makes a HUGE amount of sense. Sadly it doesn't attract the feed in tariff so it has almost vanished from the public eye.
On a recent trip to south africa I asked what the Black boxes were on the roof. Heats the water and pool was the reply.But then its sunny down there
As all you have to do is raise your water from 10C to 20C and you have gained energy and you will manage that on an overcast day. Combine thermal panels with a thermal store and you a good way towards a zero carbon house. Being zero carbon means low heating bills which you can spend cash on emitting carbon in a more fun way.
30C you have gained more
40C and you are getting into able to run underfloor heating
50C and up and you are laughing
Of course in sunnier climates its even more of a no brainer talk to folk from a sunny country and tell them you use electricity to heat water and they will look at you funny. Tell them you have photovoltaic cells which produce electricity which is used to heat hot water and they will be guiding towards a nice padded cell.
My old Villa used reverse taps during the daytime, water tank on roof was supposed to be for cold water - but during the daytime in the desert heat it would heat up - enough for a very hot shower. I would then use the 'hot' indoor system as cold water (with the system turned off obviously).
Oakey said:
You cheeky b
d
Apparently we have plenty of gas, locally sourced.dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jis-K8wmwhs&fea...
And for all the earthquake horror stories, renewables have the same effects too.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4473382,00.ht...
[quote=12gauge]
Apparently we have plenty of gas, locally sourced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jis-K8wmwhs&fea...
/quote]
Thanks for that link. This could or rather will be a global game changer.
Apparently we have plenty of gas, locally sourced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jis-K8wmwhs&fea...
/quote]
Thanks for that link. This could or rather will be a global game changer.
tank slapper said:
Wow hasn't it just.
Here you can see the difference: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/467718/diff/...
That site is excellent for watching how articles are changed on the BBC site.
Excellent post my friend! Bloody hell.Here you can see the difference: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/467718/diff/...
That site is excellent for watching how articles are changed on the BBC site.
thinfourth2 said:
Mr Whippy said:
Renewable's might have their place, and be viable, but not for primary power production.
Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
Thermal solar doesn't make some sense it makes a HUGE amount of sense. Sadly it doesn't attract the feed in tariff so it has almost vanished from the public eye.Ie, some solar heating for hot water in summer, to a storage tank might make some sense.
That isn't bad going, and it the perfect kinda implementation of these kinds of energy source in my view. They make financial sense without any subsidy, and they actually work. Yes, now and again you might have cooler water than you would want, but it's essentially free!
My dad just bought a wind turbine too, I think it was £25,000, he is after another two soon, as even with reduced subsidy they are still a good contract and attract a good return over their life vs £25,000 in the bank!
I'm not quite as keen on them. He is in those just for the money which is the sad part really.
One example of good sensible use of 'free' energy, and another one showing the exact opposite.
I guess an element of corruption is the reason for the lop-sided nature of it all!? Are the wind turbine producers pushing subsidy via central government for their product using dodgy stats etc?! Hmmmm
Dave
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff