Flatline wrote:Not really, wind is unpredictable.
No it isn't.
Flatline wrote:Not really, wind is unpredictable.
What’s the wind speed and direction in Plymouth next Tuesday?Imploding Turtle wrote:No it isn't.
That should have been Iraq obviously.Colburn_Claret wrote:That's like saying Syria would be a lot worse off without Saddam Hussein.
They bring order and discipline and national pride, they don't bring justice or peace. Unless your on their side of course. By that I mean their lackies not you personally.
Russians still have a deep fear of democracy.
Bertiebeehead wrote:What’s the wind speed and direction in Plymouth next Tuesday?
You are obviously an expert on global warming and its predicted changes to global weather patterns.Stayingup wrote:We should have done it a long time ago. But split ends braless women mainly have stopped it. Well see how they go in when we run out and they freeze.
Where are all the warmists now the Country is in the grip of Siberian type westher. Quiet aren't they.
Stayingup wrote:We should have done it a long time ago. But split ends braless women mainly have stopped it. Well see how they go in when we run out and they freeze.
Where are all the warmists now the Country is in the grip of Siberian type westher. Quiet aren't they.
Haha!DCWat wrote:I read something not so long ago about Germany having found a method of producing / creating natural gas.
11mph you say?Imploding Turtle wrote:Northerly wind, ~11mph. Plenty of info to begin to plan for energy such a wind will provide us. And the info will only get more reliable the closer we get to Tuesday.
Rowls wrote:11mph you say?
Crikey. That's enough wind to power up my phone!
For a few minutes, at least.
Not quite what I read and was referring to, Rowls.Rowls wrote:Haha!
They're called "gasworks" and we used to have the dirty places dotted all over the country!
Hi DC, were you referring to their biogas production? A couple of years ago I attended a bioenergy workshop in Leipzig (which was run by the DBFZ) so I had to sit through quite a few talks on the stuff.DCWat wrote:Not quite what I read and was referring to, Rowls.
You couldn't last one sentence without making a false statement.Rowls wrote:I'm not wrong on renewables though. They are hideously expensive compared to fossil fuels.
And you think that fossil fuel companies don't receive billions upon billions every year through subsidies and tax breaks?You do get the odd article claiming that they are now "cheaper" but they don't take into account the massive subsidies that renewables receive and the taxes that are applied to fossil fuels. Coal, gas & oil still far cheaper than renewables.
I can’t remember the detail (I’ll have a look and see if I can find a link). Ultimately it was a method of producing a man made ‘natural gas’, therefore allowing production locally, avoiding the need for reliance on gas rich countries and the need for long distance transfer.Karhu_Claret wrote:Hi DC, were you referring to their biogas production? A couple of years ago I attended a bioenergy workshop in Leipzig (which was run by the DBFZ) so I had to sit through quite a few talks on the stuff.
The amounts of funding going into biogas research was staggering, especially when compared to the UK. As a result their research facilities are fantastic, certainly put a lot of ours to shame.
Out of interest Rowls, what do you feel would be the best way to decarbonise the grid and what would be an acceptable time frame to achieve this by?Rowls wrote:I'm not wrong on renewables though. They are hideously expensive compared to fossil fuels.
You do get the odd article claiming that they are now "cheaper" but they don't take into account the massive subsidies that renewables receive and the taxes that are applied to fossil fuels. Coal, gas & oil still far cheaper than renewables.
It's well worth our time investing in renewables because it creates new technology and the price is dropping all the time but there is still a long, long way to go.
The report that Independent references was produced by International Renewable Energy Agency.Imploding Turtle wrote:You couldn't last one sentence without making a false statement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 60051.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think "decarbonizing" the grid is a waste of money, time and effort and will continue to make poor people poorer. We're all paying around 10% extra per year on our fuel bills to fund wealthy land owners to put up windmills.Karhu_Claret wrote:Out of interest Rowls, what do you feel would be the best way to decarbonise the grid and what would be an acceptable time frame to achieve this by?
Do you think it's fair that poor people should have to pay extra on their fuel bill to pay subsidies to wealthy land owners so they can put up giant windmills which produce electricity at a far more expensive rate than traditional power stations?Karhu_Claret wrote:Out of interest Rowls, what do you feel would be the best way to decarbonise the grid and what would be an acceptable time frame to achieve this by?
Hi IT, see my post above - I don't see any mention of fosil fuel subsidies in the Guradian article you linked - or maybe you didn't intend the link to refer to the UK's £9.6bn/year subsidy of fossil fuels.Imploding Turtle wrote:
And you think that fossil fuel companies don't receive billions upon billions every year through subsidies and tax breaks?
This article from three and a half years ago shows that the UK subsidises fossil fuels to the tune of £9.6bn/year. You don't even have to guess how much renewables are subsidised because in 2016 the entire renewable spending was barely over £6bn. Not subsidies, spending.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ns-targets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rowls wrote:The article also does not reference any kind of pre-subsidy price for either kind of energy, nor does it specify if it is comparing both prices equally or before subsidy for fossil fuels vs after subsidy for renewables.
The indepedent is as worthy as a source these days as the Daily Express.
Why are you only looking at the Levelised Capital Cost and deciding that's what to base your entire argument on? Why isn't "Total System Levelised Cost of Electricity" a better comparison?Rowls wrote:Show your source Turtle like you always insist and let people dissect it.
Renewables are still typically far more expensive than fossil fuels.
It's tricky to find good stats because there is so much obfuscation about it but even this pro-renewable analysis shows a base rate of gas-fired power station at 12.8/unit versus 43.3/unit for wind power. It doesn't include the price of coal because it admits it would have to factor in penalties (ie. taxes) that are levied on coal.
https://www.quora.com/Per-unit-of-energ ... ssil-fuels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyway, goodbye now I'm off to work.
I think you mean wind turbines, very easy mistake to make though.Rowls wrote:Do you think it's fair that poor people should have to pay extra on their fuel bill to pay subsidies to wealthy land owners so they can put up giant windmills which produce electricity at a far more expensive rate than traditional power stations?
As above mate.Rowls wrote:I'm off to work mate. I've made a bad error in my previous post but YOU go find the figures.
I'm not sure how possible that is these days.
There's so much guff out there, such as the Independent links you've posted.
Rowls wrote:As above mate.
Like I've said previously - renenwable are essential for a balanced energy system but currently they are not viable.
They are unreliable, we cannot store the energy AND they are more expensive.
YOU go find the unbiased figures.
It's tricky isn't it? Why should it be so difficult? What's the obfuscation about?
Are you serious? Do you have alzeimers or some other form of short term memory problem?Rowls wrote:What figures?
Rowls wrote:Show your source Turtle like you always insist and let people dissect it.
Renewables are still typically far more expensive than fossil fuels.
It's tricky to find good stats because there is so much obfuscation about it but even this pro-renewable analysis shows a base rate of gas-fired power station at 12.8/unit versus 43.3/unit for wind power. It doesn't include the price of coal because it admits it would have to factor in penalties (ie. taxes) that are levied on coal.
https://www.quora.com/Per-unit-of-energ ... ssil-fuels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyway, goodbye now I'm off to work.
He?Rowls wrote:Fair enough then let's use these figures - tell me how he calculated his "variable O &M" costs and exactly what they are.
Tell me what the basic cost of wind is versus gas (clue- it's not what you said it was, just as it wasn't what I said it was)
Once we know what his "variable O & M" costs are we could start to dissect these figures properly.
If we can't find them out properly these figures are as useless to us as an Independent article.
All the best
Hi IT, the discussion is about the UK and the cost of renewables v fossil fuels in the UK. The IRENA report only references new projects in 2017, globally, but not in the UK. More importantly, the IRENA report says nothing about the costs in the UK. However much sunshine there is in Saudi Arabia it doesn't, for example, impact the efficiency of electricty generated by solar PV in the UK. Similarly, however much rain there is in Norway, where there is a very high proportion of hydro-generation, doesn't make hydro-generation any cheaper in the UK, even though we still get a lot of rain, but don't have as many mountains.Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. It was the wrong link. It's corrected now.
And yes, Rowls was making a false statement regarding the costs of renewables relative to fossil fuels. I'll remind you of what he said "They are hideously expensive compared to fossil fuels."
Your bullet points prove his statement was false, so why are you asking me " how is Rowls making a false statement?"
Global weighted average of onshore wind = $0.06/kwh
Fossil fuel power cost for G20 (almost all the globes power consumers) = $0.05 to $0.17/kwh
Would you agree with Rowls that £0.06/kwh is "hideously more expensive" than $0.05 - $0.17/kwh?
Hi Karhu, I think you are mixing the "global poor" who exist in many countries, including Bangladesh and other low lying geographies and the "fuel poor" in the UK. The UK governments environmental energy policies only impact electricity bills in the UK.Karhu_Claret wrote:I think you mean wind turbines, very easy mistake to make though.
The poorest in society will be the ones most affected by climate change - do you think it's fair that poor people should bear the brunt of a changing climate?
8% of the energy bill goes towards 'environmental & social costs' - this goes towards funding FiTs and other forms of subsidy. It also helps fund projects such as ECO, RHI and other social programmes that are aimed at reducing the energy costs of poor people.
To give this amount context, 5% of the energy bill is the suppliers pre-tax margin. This helps with none of the above.
And, it will keep the cyclers fit - so the NHS wins, as well.bfcjg wrote:If we get poor people to pedal bikes it will keep them warm and the turbines connected to the wheels will generate electricity fees the grid and keep my champers cool in the fridge. We all win.
FFS lets hope none of the Tory hierarchy read this thread!!bfcjg wrote:If we get poor people to pedal bikes it will keep them warm and the turbines connected to the wheels will generate electricity fees the grid and keep my champers cool in the fridge. We all win.
I never thought of that so it's win win win. Also if we hang a pot noodle in front of them so the sad deranged fools pedal harder thinking they'll get to it will create so much energy we could export it Scotland so they could light up their hovels .Paul Waine wrote:And, it will keep the cyclers fit - so the NHS wins, as well.
Hi IT, thanks for the new link.Imploding Turtle wrote:
And you think that fossil fuel companies don't receive billions upon billions every year through subsidies and tax breaks?
This article from three and a half years ago shows that the UK subsidises fossil fuels to the tune of £9.6bn/year. You don't even have to guess how much renewables are subsidised because in 2016 the entire renewable spending was barely over £6bn. Not subsidies, spending.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -subsidies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;