It's freezing,Russia stops gas to Ukraine, Europe could run low.Are you still against Fracking?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:30 am

Flatline wrote:Not really, wind is unpredictable.

No it isn't.

Bertiebeehead · Post by **Bertiebeehead** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:50 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:No it isn't.

What’s the wind speed and direction in Plymouth next Tuesday?

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:58 am

I read something not so long ago about Germany having found a method of producing / creating natural gas.

If that’s an option it would seem a better option than renewables that are inefficient and not cost effective.

Whatever the chosen solution, not being reliant on others has to be the aim.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:33 am

Interesting podcast about local communities in Germany taking control of their energy supply and going 100% renewable in the process:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/co ... ts-podcast" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plus a bit of reading material for those who are interested:

http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.p ... a566af95d6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:15 am

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.

That should have been Iraq obviously.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:39 am

Bertiebeehead wrote:What’s the wind speed and direction in Plymouth next Tuesday?

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.

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:29 am

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.

You are obviously an expert on global warming and its predicted changes to global weather patterns.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:40 am

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.

Wow. There really are people like you still around who don't understand what the word "global" means in "global warming".

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:42 am

DCWat wrote:I read something not so long ago about Germany having found a method of producing / creating natural gas.

Haha!

They're called "gasworks" and we used to have the dirty places dotted all over the country!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:43 am

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.

11mph you say?

Crikey. That's enough wind to power up my phone!

For a few minutes, at least.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:45 am

Rowls wrote:11mph you say?

Crikey. That's enough wind to power up my phone!

For a few minutes, at least.

Why? Are you using your cock as a turbine?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:49 am

Zing.

Oscar Wilde ain't got nuffink on you bro

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:50 am

Stop making stupid statements. You've previously been informed how you are wrong on renewables, so why do you keep making the same ignorant posts? It's almost as if the facts don't matter to you.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:58 am

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.

What would be a game-changer for renewables would be a vastly increased ability to store energy at a low cost. If we could do that then it would be feasible to rely heavily on wind power. But until that day comes, wind power is only going to provide supplementary power to the grid.

If you check out my posts you'll find I talk sensibly about the need for a balanced energy policy that combines all our forms of power.

You, on the other hand, sound like a salesman for wind turbines and use references to penises to form your "argument".

Good day.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:00 pm

Rowls wrote:Haha!

They're called "gasworks" and we used to have the dirty places dotted all over the country!

Not quite what I read and was referring to, Rowls.

chadders · Post by **chadders** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:11 pm

We're already heading for serious trouble with global warming - releasing huge amounts of locked up carbon by fracking isn't the brightest idea long term.

Karhu_Claret · Post by **Karhu_Claret** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:38 pm

DCWat wrote:Not quite what I read and was referring to, Rowls.

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.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:41 pm

Rowls wrote:I'm not wrong on renewables though. They are hideously expensive compared to fossil fuels.

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;

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.

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;

But this is a thing you people like to do. You like to criticise renewables because they receive government subsidies yet you completely ignore the many billions more in subsidies that fossil fuels receive.

I don't even know why i'm angaging you on this, yet again. Because it never affects your opinion because facts don't matter. Your opinion cannot be changed by them. I don't know why that is but it's true.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:45 pm

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.

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 · Post by **Karhu_Claret** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:46 pm

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.

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?

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:06 pm

Most renewable technology is unreliable, what do we do on a cloudy windless day cancel everything. If/when the technology is there to adequately store it fine, however until then we need to be energy sufficient so get the gas up and build nuclear.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:21 pm

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;

The report that Independent references was produced by International Renewable Energy Agency.

IREA per their website: "The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) is an intergovernmental organisation that supports countries in their transition to a sustainable energy future, and serves as the principal platform for international cooperation, a centre of excellence, and a repository of policy, technology, resource and financial knowledge on renewable energy. IRENA promotes the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and prosperity."

Quoting (extracts) from Exec Summary of the report:

"For projects commissioned in 2017, electricity costs from renewable power generation have continued to fall.

• Bioenergy-for-power, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind projects commissioned in 2017 largely fell within the range of generation costs for fossil-based electricity.(The fossil fuel-fired power generation cost range for G20 countries in 2017 was estimated to be between USD 0.05 and USD 0.17/kWh). Some projects undercut fossil fuels, data collected by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows.

• The global weighted average cost of electricity was USD 0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) from new hydropower projects in 2017. It was USD 0.06/kWh for onshore wind and 0.07/kWh for bioenergy and geothermal projects. • The fall in electricity costs from utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) projects since 2010 has been remarkable. The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of utilityscale solar PV has fallen 73% since 2010, to USD 0.10/kWh for new projects commissioned in 2017.

Three key cost reduction drivers are becoming increasingly important: 1. technology improvements; 2. competitive procurement; 3. a large base of experienced, internationally active project developers.

Record low auction prices for solar PV in Dubai, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia in 2016 and 2017 confirm that the LCOE can be reduced to USD 0.03/kWh from 2018 onward, given the right conditions.

So, IT, how is Rowls making a false statement? Can I assume that both you and he are referring to the UK, as the thread is about fracking and gas consumption and reneable energy generation in the UK? Plus you mention the UK subsidising fossil fuels..... though the Guradian article you link does not say anything about fosil fuel subsidies (is it just the wrong link)?

Let's assume that IREA only provides the facts - and is not also preaching a little "self-interest." (As we know, we all agree governments never do that). IREA is only speaking of new projects in 2017. IREA is speaking of things like solar power being cheap in Saudi Arabia - and similar geographies with strong sunshine.

So far as wind power and solar power is concerned in the UK - as in most geographies - we have the issue that the wind may not be blowing (or is blowing too strongly) and the sun may not be shining when we need to consume the power.* So, we either need to supplement with extensive (and currently expensive) battery storage or we need to have alternative back-up power generation. So, the true cost comparison should be "how much does power generation cost to provide the power when we need to use it?" and the answer to this question is that fosil fuel generation remains fantastically cheaper than almost all "commercial" renewable power sources.

* Anyone want the football game stopped when the floodlights go out because the wind has dropped? Or, play all games at midday? More importantly, anyone want to be told that their operation has been stopped because the hospital power supply has gone down? Or, that they are limited to X hours use of the operating theatre per week? Or that their aircraft can't land just yet because the aircraft control system is short of power?

Yes, let's de-carbonise - but let's not sacrifice people in the "here and now" just so in 20, 30 or 40 years time there may be lower C02 emissions. And, let's be honest about the costs of the de-carbonisation.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:27 pm

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?

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.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:28 pm

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?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:29 pm

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;

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.

Do have anything that backs this up? I started work in the UK oil & gas sector in 1980. Where is the UK gov't subsidising this sector?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:32 pm

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.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:36 pm

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?

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:42 pm

I saw some protesters last night. Goodness me. What a bunch of misfits and unemployed latter day hippies. How do we allow such minority groups to sway opinion from what is the common sense thing to do. Frack.

Technology moves very quickly these days and it will be safe to drill down. Otherwise maybe no fuel. What would would Mr and Mrs split ends do to warm little Jeremy with?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:42 pm

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.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:42 pm

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.

What's the pre-subsidy price of electricity generated from fossil fuels? You find that for me and i'll spend time looking for the pre-subsidy price of renewables.

In fact why don't you tell me how much per year renewables subsidies cost us in total? 3 years ago fossil fuels were costing us £9.6bn a year. What's the figure for renewables?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:46 pm

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.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:54 pm

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.

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?

What you've done is look at the initial capital cost of the two and said that because it's cheaper to build a natural gas plant than a turbine that must mean that it's cheaper. Do you realise how stupid that is? You've completely ignord the O&M column because what does operation and maintanence matter, right? And you've completely ignored O&M plus fuel, because in your little mind apparently gas power plants don't need fuel. You utter moron.

So, when you account for fuel, ops and maint. and initial capital costs the price per MWh for wind is $58.50 versus gas costs of $55.80 for Advanced CC, $56.40 for Conventional CC, $105.40 for Conventional CT. "Hideously more expensive" you said, and you've done a great job of proving yourself wrong.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about so shut the **** up.

Karhu_Claret · Post by **Karhu_Claret** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:57 pm

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?

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.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:58 pm

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.

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?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:00 pm

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?

I used the figures you provided, and you thought were good enough when you thought they were backing you up. But suddenly now that you realised they DON'T back you up they're too biased for this conversation? lol. **** off.

Edit: and by the way, those figures that you're trying to imply are biased? They're from the US Energy Information Administration. That's part of the US federal government, you daft ****.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:01 pm

What figures?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:04 pm

Rowls wrote:What figures?

Are you serious? Do you have alzeimers or some other form of short term memory problem?

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.

And by the way, why haven't you edited that post to correct the massive mistake you made? And why haven't you change your opinion since you now know that you were completely wrong about renewables being "hideously more expensive" than fossil fuels? The difference, according to the information you linked to, is $2.70/MWh. That's 0.0027/KWh. So are you going to double-down and claim that less than one-third of one cent per kilowatt-hour qualifies as "hidesously more expensive" than fossil fuels? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong?

Or are you going to go with the third option of trying to claim that the information you used to support your argument is actually false/biased now that you know it completely contradicts your argument?

I think i know which one you'll choose.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 pm

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

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:13 pm

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

He?

He didn't calculate anything. The figures are from the US government.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:19 pm

I'm optimistic that fusion reactors will be able to solve our energy needs, but we might have to wait a good few years for that goal to become realisable. Then there's thorium nuclear reactors which some say have great potential.
I think we should be looking to these technologies to solve our energy needs rather than extracting more carbon from the ground. That surely can't be the solution when you bear in mind the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and the local ecological costs.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:27 pm

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 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.
So far as wind power is concerned, the cost comparison should take into account the "reliability" of the wind, i.e. does the wind blow and is power generated when the power needs to be consumed? If not, are there power storage facilities available that can store the power when the wind blows and enable it to be consumed when the power is needed? If we are seeking "like for like" cost comparisons on this basis, then the wind power needs to add in the cost of battery storage. Has IRENA done that?

Not my bullet points btw. These are direct quotes from the IRENA report.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:34 pm

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.

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.

Personally, I do have a problem with subsidies for people who could afford to install pv on their roof tops being paid for by people who live in flats and other rented accommodation because they can't afford to own their own homes.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:39 pm

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.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:07 pm

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.

And, it will keep the cyclers fit - so the NHS wins, as well.

EDIT: "cyclers"? - let's try "cyclists."

Dejavu · Post by **Dejavu** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:17 pm

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 · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:25 pm

Paul Waine wrote:And, it will keep the cyclers fit - so the NHS wins, as well.

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 · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:36 pm

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;

Hi IT, thanks for the new link.

So, your "UK fossil fuel subsidies" source is a report produced by a "climate change" research (or pressure) group: Oil Change International. The report is titled: Empty promises G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production

For the purpose of this report we (OCI) identify three types of fossil fuel production subsidies:
• national subsidies delivered through direct spending and tax breaks of $70 billion • investments by majority state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that account for another $286 billion • public finance from majority government-owned banks and financial institutions that amounts to another $88 billion per year on average in 2013 and 2014.

Chapter 3 sets out the methodology used in this report to identify and estimate subsidies to fossil fuel production as well as raising issues of data transparency.

(Extract from Chapter 3):
Although G20 governments have vowed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, they have not set a definition for these subsidies, and individual G20 countries and international organisations use different definitions, and include different types of subsidies, in their current estimates.

For example: ‘The UK defines fossil fuel subsidies as government action that lowers the pre-tax price to consumers to below international market levels’ (UK DECC, 2015), a definition which primarily excludes the subsidies which are directed towards fossil fuel production.

Nonetheless, there is an internationally agreed definition of subsidies. In its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) the World Trade Organization (WTO) defines a subsidy as ‘any financial contribution by a government, or agent of a government, that is recipient-specific and confers a benefit on its recipients in comparison to other market participants’ (WTO, 1994).

This definition (WTO, 1994) includes:
• direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans and equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan guarantees)
• government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)
• government provision of goods or services other than general infrastructure, or purchase of goods, below market-value
• income or price support.

OCI " have used this as a basis for identifying subsidies to the production of coal, oil and gas."

My comments: So, OCI uses an agreed WTO definition - which, of course, has been agreed for different purposes - to make their claim about the level of "subsidy" provided by governments for fossil fuel production.

Sorry, I think we understand this sort of thing these days as "fake news." It gives us some big figures, but is otherwise meaningless and some might say (oun intended) "hot air."

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:50 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:56 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:01 am