Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Energy Prices
#21
BB. Nicely done.
Reply
#22
(08-02-2017, 11:49 AM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 07:16 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-01-2017, 11:04 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: How much does the tax payer subsidise nuclear industry compared to the renewable energy industry?

Read Matt Ridley's article. This is all a product of the UK's fixation with decarbonisation at any cost. We're even backing the wrong nuclear horse.

Decarbonisation at any cost is the best thing we can do as a collective. This isn't about markets or competition or anything to do with the economy, clean renewable energy will be e great thing if we can manage it. Solar and wind are easy, quick and inexpensive to set up hence why they are currently rolling out. We will be looking to expand our tidal resources once Swansea bay is fully up and running (the fact it isn't is a huge failing on the Tories who have been dragging their hands about it for years). Once that is sorted and proved viable on a short scale then we will expand. We are currently exploring the avenue of geothermal plants in mainly Cornwall and Devon but that is a ballache to set up and has a similar mechanism to fracking so could be very hard to get off the ground.

As for nuclear, what are you on about? Thorium plants are a fair while away, probably a decade until Canada can get them running with no hitches at which point I hope we will be using that to replace and expand our current operations. As for fusion, it could very well be the case that we will not be alive before that's an option, and the current idiotic decision to leave Euratom with Brexit has harmed that immensely with issues in both Oxford and the south of France with respect to fusion research cropping up. If you're referring to our inability to build to run a nuclear programme as we have done in the past, blame the Labour and Tory governments who got rid of it for short term money saving goals.

As for your article, anyone advocating shale gas is an idiot. It's a seriously short term solution to a growing problem that A) in the long term contributes to the probems that it primarily is employed for, reducing coal usage and B) the short term effects of it are likely to outweigh the short term benefits with health, water and issues with tremors and C) we live in a very dense country unlike the US and these issues will effect more people than in the US.

What it comes down to over and over and over and over again with infrastructure issues is short termism. France and China thought long term with nuclear, and we didn't. As such, we are currently bending over. We thought short term with our rail industry, with our telephone infrastructure and as such we have to overpay for HS2 and a lot of our network isn't electrified, and we have a shit copper cable telephone network where everyone else uses full fibre infrastructure.

You lost me at "quick & inexpensive to set up". Swansea Bay is yet another ludicrous scheme that will serve to load costs onto industry and familiies.

You seem perfectly happy to accept the "settlled science" over Climate Change (which I don't necessaily dispute), but not the "settled science" about the safe regulated use of fracking as a technique.
Reply
#23
(08-02-2017, 03:20 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 11:49 AM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 07:16 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-01-2017, 11:04 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: How much does the tax payer subsidise nuclear industry compared to the renewable energy industry?

Read Matt Ridley's article. This is all a product of the UK's fixation with decarbonisation at any cost. We're even backing the wrong nuclear horse.

Decarbonisation at any cost is the best thing we can do as a collective. This isn't about markets or competition or anything to do with the economy, clean renewable energy will be e great thing if we can manage it. Solar and wind are easy, quick and inexpensive to set up hence why they are currently rolling out. We will be looking to expand our tidal resources once Swansea bay is fully up and running (the fact it isn't is a huge failing on the Tories who have been dragging their hands about it for years). Once that is sorted and proved viable on a short scale then we will expand. We are currently exploring the avenue of geothermal plants in mainly Cornwall and Devon but that is a ballache to set up and has a similar mechanism to fracking so could be very hard to get off the ground.

As for nuclear, what are you on about? Thorium plants are a fair while away, probably a decade until Canada can get them running with no hitches at which point I hope we will be using that to replace and expand our current operations. As for fusion, it could very well be the case that we will not be alive before that's an option, and the current idiotic decision to leave Euratom with Brexit has harmed that immensely with issues in both Oxford and the south of France with respect to fusion research cropping up. If you're referring to our inability to build to run a nuclear programme as we have done in the past, blame the Labour and Tory governments who got rid of it for short term money saving goals.

As for your article, anyone advocating shale gas is an idiot. It's a seriously short term solution to a growing problem that A) in the long term contributes to the probems that it primarily is employed for, reducing coal usage and B) the short term effects of it are likely to outweigh the short term benefits with health, water and issues with tremors and C) we live in a very dense country unlike the US and these issues will effect more people than in the US.

What it comes down to over and over and over and over again with infrastructure issues is short termism. France and China thought long term with nuclear, and we didn't. As such, we are currently bending over. We thought short term with our rail industry, with our telephone infrastructure and as such we have to overpay for HS2 and a lot of our network isn't electrified, and we have a shit copper cable telephone network where everyone else uses full fibre infrastructure.

You lost me at "quick & inexpensive to set up". Swansea Bay is yet another ludicrous scheme that will serve to load costs onto industry and familiies.

You seem perfectly happy to accept the "settlled science" over Climate Change (which I don't necessaily dispute), but not the "settled science" about the safe regulated use of fracking as a technique.

Solar and wind are quick and inexpensive to set up, shown by both being available to normal people to set up, which has happened. Swansea bay is an experimental setup to see the scope of tidal power, our greatest natural resource as an island nation, and as with any experimental setups the costs are high. It's a concept and concepts cost a lot of money. Once the kinks are sorted through the development of Swansea bay, tidal power will be much less expensive to implement around the country.

As for your "settled science" bollocks about me, climate change is irrefutable. We are seeing the effects around the globe and all evidence is quantifiable. Same with fracking causing minor tremors and a risk of ground water contamination. The risks are minimal in the US and Canada due to a few main features that are not replicated for the UK, a sparsely distributed population, issues with fracking in the US are much less likely to harm a concentrated population which we don't have with our very high population density and little distribution around the country. The risks in respect to this are well shown by Canada's position, the 4 provinces that it is legal in have very few people living in them, whereas the major population provinces it is banned outright. I am not opposed to fracking in principal, I am supportive of it in the UK such as our sensible approach of it being done away from the population centres on sandstone as it has been done since the 1970s in the North Sea away from everyone but am firmly against shale rock fracking. Another issue is how our houses and infrastructure have developed, a minor tremor in the US will cause virtually no damage on a small town in the Midwest, compared with the large amount of damage it would cause to a small town in the UK. The older states in the northwest with older infrastructure such as Vermont, New York and Maryland have outlawed it because of this as well as the previous reason.
Reply
#24
(08-02-2017, 12:50 PM)Beano16 Wrote: I don't embrace any rush back to state run energy, as a young trainee contracts manager I recall the then British
Gas telling us that they would visit us to "negotiate" next years contract. This involved them telling us how much
we would have to pay and how much we could actually use. I will never ever forget them telling us "that is all
the gas we can let you have next year, we have no more on the shelf available"

When commercial gas supply was finally privatised, we saw a drop in price of 60% on the first contract and no
limits on how much they had "on the shelf" For the first time in years, we were actually starting to enjoy similar
rates for our energy as companies that we were trying to compete against in Holland and Germany, and in heavy
engineering that was so key.   

I know that the privatisation of both domestic gas and electricity market in terms of competition has not worked,
and this is partly down to pathetic regulation in my view, but 70% of consumers have a pretty simple option of
saving up to 25% of the cost by switching and some just don't seem interested, other perhaps need help.

The problem with this argument is that if everyone took advantage of the lowest tariffs, then erosion of the energy suppliers' profits would be such, that those low tariffs would have to rise in cost.

When the only differentiation in a product or service is the price, then it is in the suppliers interest to make the pricing structure as complicated as possible.

Those of us who are reluctant to switch energy suppliers, probably understand the futility of doing this on a long term basis.
Reply
#25
(08-02-2017, 05:11 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote: Solar and wind are quick and inexpensive to set up, shown by both being available to normal people to set up, which has happened.

Without ridiculous subsidy, which we all pay for, there would have been zero adoption of solar power outside hippies communes.

The same goes for wind. Enriching already uber-rich landowners at the expense of producers and families is scandalous.
Reply
#26
(08-03-2017, 06:54 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 12:50 PM)Beano16 Wrote: I don't embrace any rush back to state run energy, as a young trainee contracts manager I recall the then British
Gas telling us that they would visit us to "negotiate" next years contract. This involved them telling us how much
we would have to pay and how much we could actually use. I will never ever forget them telling us "that is all
the gas we can let you have next year, we have no more on the shelf available"

When commercial gas supply was finally privatised, we saw a drop in price of 60% on the first contract and no
limits on how much they had "on the shelf" For the first time in years, we were actually starting to enjoy similar
rates for our energy as companies that we were trying to compete against in Holland and Germany, and in heavy
engineering that was so key.   

I know that the privatisation of both domestic gas and electricity market in terms of competition has not worked,
and this is partly down to pathetic regulation in my view, but 70% of consumers have a pretty simple option of
saving up to 25% of the cost by switching and some just don't seem interested, other perhaps need help.

Those of us who are reluctant to switch energy suppliers, probably understand the futility of doing this on a long term basis.

Can't argue with this point, but working with that I have saved each switch and I know that makes me part of
the broken system, but I refuse in the short term to stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly when I can at
least save money in the wait while someone wakes up and begins meaningful regulation of some type.
Reply
#27
(08-03-2017, 09:02 AM)Beano16 Wrote:
(08-03-2017, 06:54 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 12:50 PM)Beano16 Wrote: I don't embrace any rush back to state run energy, as a young trainee contracts manager I recall the then British
Gas telling us that they would visit us to "negotiate" next years contract. This involved them telling us how much
we would have to pay and how much we could actually use. I will never ever forget them telling us "that is all
the gas we can let you have next year, we have no more on the shelf available"

When commercial gas supply was finally privatised, we saw a drop in price of 60% on the first contract and no
limits on how much they had "on the shelf" For the first time in years, we were actually starting to enjoy similar
rates for our energy as companies that we were trying to compete against in Holland and Germany, and in heavy
engineering that was so key.   

I know that the privatisation of both domestic gas and electricity market in terms of competition has not worked,
and this is partly down to pathetic regulation in my view, but 70% of consumers have a pretty simple option of
saving up to 25% of the cost by switching and some just don't seem interested, other perhaps need help.

Those of us who are reluctant to switch energy suppliers, probably understand the futility of doing this on a long term basis.

Can't argue with this point, but working with that I have saved each switch and I know that makes me part of
the broken system, but I refuse in the short term to stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly when I can at
least save money in the wait while someone wakes up and begins meaningful regulation of some type.

I've switched energy supplier a couple of times down the years (phone and broadband too), each time due to my dissatisfaction with the service I was receiving. This may just be my own personal experience and opinion, but I detected that the suppliers I was with couldn't give a flying one about my custom, making almost zero effort to dissuade me from switching when I made it clear I was considering it. I reasoned that they know for every customer that leaves them, someone else is coming to them, so what's the point putting in the effort to appease an unhappy customer. I've been with my current suppliers for 5 years now and consequently I'm on their standard tariffs but I'm reluctant to switch because I fear I'd lose the good service I get now.
Reply
#28
(08-03-2017, 07:49 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-02-2017, 05:11 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote: Solar and wind are quick and inexpensive to set up, shown by both being available to normal people to set up, which has happened.

Without ridiculous subsidy, which we all pay for, there would have been zero adoption of solar power outside hippies communes.

The same goes for wind. Enriching already uber-rich landowners at the expense of producers and families is scandalous.


The subsidies are there to broaden our electricity supply, increasing competition for energy and provide a much more sustainable energy supply for us. Even taking away the subsidies, do you really think that it is cheaper and quicker to build a gas power station? My arse it is.

And as I've said before, as a liberal I may add, diversifying our energy supply and bringing in renewables has nothing to do with the economy. If we don't do something now, half of London could be underwater.
Reply
#29
When I'm reading by candlelight due to the lack of wind and chronic underinvestment in cheap baseload energy infrastructure I'll thank my lucky stars we 'diversified' energy supplies in a vain attempt to prevent me having to punt down the Victoria Embankment.
Reply
#30
(08-03-2017, 10:05 AM)BoringBaggie Wrote: And as I've said before, as a liberal I may add, diversifying our energy supply and bringing in renewables has nothing to do with the economy. If we don't do something now, half of London could be underwater.

BB, upland turbines make the problems of lowland flooding worse. Digging up peatland (which is also nature's most effective method of carbon capture) and pouring concrete is only going to have one effect - compromised water retention/accelerated run-off. And it's not just the turbines, either: there are access roads; sub-stations; pylon runs extending to hundreds of miles (inevitable with power - such as it is - being generated so far from the areas of consumption) - all of them displacing a natural sponge with hardcore and concrete. There is really no sustainable environmental argument for onshore wind power; it's little more than a scam to line the pockets of landowners. As indeed is allowing grouse moors to be designated as agricultural land; presumably on the basis that, for a few days each August, they're loosely engaged in poultry production.

And then there's open-grazed sheep farming - the most inefficient and destructive method of producing insignificant amounts of food it would be possible to imagine. Perhaps that's best left for another day...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)