FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Ivinghoe beyond out means pt2
Ivinghoe beyond out means pt2
Jump to: Newest in thread
Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?"
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I will be giving any form of solar power or wind farm a wide berth. Life span is limited and disposal of turbines and solar panels is damaging to the environment.
Nuclear power has to be the long term solution. We need to start building new nuclear power stations and quickly
Redundant wind turbines are being stored in the USA and no one knows how to dispose of them economically . The damage to wildlife is also concerning.
I will not be wasting any of my money investing in green energy unto we have a more viable solution . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"I will be giving any form of solar power or wind farm a wide berth. Life span is limited and disposal of turbines and solar panels is damaging to the environment.
Nuclear power has to be the long term solution. We need to start building new nuclear power stations and quickly
Redundant wind turbines are being stored in the USA and no one knows how to dispose of them economically . The damage to wildlife is also concerning.
I will not be wasting any of my money investing in green energy unto we have a more viable solution . "
You don't have the choice of giving anything a "wide berth" just like everyone else. You will be "wasting" your money on unstable and insecure fossil fuels and renewables, just like everyone else.
Thank you for your contribution, Pat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will be giving any form of solar power or wind farm a wide berth. Life span is limited and disposal of turbines and solar panels is damaging to the environment.
Nuclear power has to be the long term solution. We need to start building new nuclear power stations and quickly
Redundant wind turbines are being stored in the USA and no one knows how to dispose of them economically . The damage to wildlife is also concerning.
I will not be wasting any of my money investing in green energy unto we have a more viable solution .
You don't have the choice of giving anything a "wide berth" just like everyone else. You will be "wasting" your money on unstable and insecure fossil fuels and renewables, just like everyone else.
Thank you for your contribution, Pat."
. Last time I checked no one was compelled to install solar panels and gas boilers will remain viable for a considerable time . Like msny people I will wait onto more viable options come along . Electric cars do not appear to be the future either. They are too heavy in addition to being tok expensive .
Mine will probably be the choice of many people . We will see how technology develops before making any commitment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also...yes the title is fucked up
I was thinking there was some link to a proud English medieval legend 
Disappointed now!"
I have a problem on my phone that I saved the space button as an n.
So when I sometimes type ? if I got to hit space bar and hit an n.
It tries to predict a word it thinks I am typing. So the word can by typed perfectly. I hit the n not space. And it reverts it to a word I have saved accidentally. And those words can vary WILDLY depending on how bad the typos were.
I gave up trying to correct it a long time ago as it always seems to re save the n as a space. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 50 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Also...yes the title is fucked up
I was thinking there was some link to a proud English medieval legend
Disappointed now!
I have a problem on my phone that I saved the space button as an n.
So when I sometimes type ? if I got to hit space bar and hit an n.
It tries to predict a word it thinks I am typing. So the word can by typed perfectly. I hit the n not space. And it reverts it to a word I have saved accidentally. And those words can vary WILDLY depending on how bad the typos were.
I gave up trying to correct it a long time ago as it always seems to re save the n as a space. "
Oh! Never even heard of saving keyboard letters on a phone. I just use the factory default and switch off predictive. When I make a typo it is me hitting wrong letter.
I was hoping for some link to Ivanhoe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will be giving any form of solar power or wind farm a wide berth. Life span is limited and disposal of turbines and solar panels is damaging to the environment.
Nuclear power has to be the long term solution. We need to start building new nuclear power stations and quickly
Redundant wind turbines are being stored in the USA and no one knows how to dispose of them economically . The damage to wildlife is also concerning.
I will not be wasting any of my money investing in green energy unto we have a more viable solution . "
Plot Twist!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"I will be giving any form of solar power or wind farm a wide berth. Life span is limited and disposal of turbines and solar panels is damaging to the environment.
Nuclear power has to be the long term solution. We need to start building new nuclear power stations and quickly
Redundant wind turbines are being stored in the USA and no one knows how to dispose of them economically . The damage to wildlife is also concerning.
I will not be wasting any of my money investing in green energy unto we have a more viable solution .
You don't have the choice of giving anything a "wide berth" just like everyone else. You will be "wasting" your money on unstable and insecure fossil fuels and renewables, just like everyone else.
Thank you for your contribution, Pat.. Last time I checked no one was compelled to install solar panels and gas boilers will remain viable for a considerable time . Like msny people I will wait onto more viable options come along . Electric cars do not appear to be the future either. They are too heavy in addition to being tok expensive .
Mine will probably be the choice of many people . We will see how technology develops before making any commitment. "
Unless you are off-grid you will be receiving electricity from renewable energy.
You may also be using a methane and Hydrogen gas mix.
Enjoy! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
"
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
For any 1 actually interested."
Does the author investigate prayer renewables than offshore wind (and the article uses a fair bit of conjecture as well).
How does he feel about tidal energy? Solar? Hydro? Biomass? Geothermal?
(And as an aside, we also need to consider the elephant in the room - Nuclear) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
"
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now?"
This guys seems to have data to back up his claim that renewables are more expensive for the consumer.
I haven't checked but you asked for 'credible' (whatever that actually means)
https://heartland.org/opinion/wind-power-and-solar-power-arent-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now?
This guys seems to have data to back up his claim that renewables are more expensive for the consumer.
I haven't checked but you asked for 'credible' (whatever that actually means)
https://heartland.org/opinion/wind-power-and-solar-power-arent-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/"
The heartland institute are a climate change denying libertarian outfit.
Not exactly credible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now?
This guys seems to have data to back up his claim that renewables are more expensive for the consumer.
I haven't checked but you asked for 'credible' (whatever that actually means)
https://heartland.org/opinion/wind-power-and-solar-power-arent-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/
The heartland institute are a climate change denying libertarian outfit.
Not exactly credible. "
As I said, I haven't checked, I have no idea who they are.
What I'd really like though is for you to attack the data rather than the messenger. We can all attack messengers who we don't like.
If that guy is wrong then fair enough, as I said yesterday 'Green being cheaper' means fuck all because if gas is more expensive then we use the gas price. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 50 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction."
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality."
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
For any 1 actually interested.
Does the author investigate prayer renewables than offshore wind (and the article uses a fair bit of conjecture as well).
How does he feel about tidal energy? Solar? Hydro? Biomass? Geothermal?
(And as an aside, we also need to consider the elephant in the room - Nuclear)"
None of that matters.
The discussion is the cheapness of wind vs gas.
And it's been debunked.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now?"
Why. You're flat out refusing to read the article above. Because you know you can't rebuttal anything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
( it costs more from renewables)
Does gas set the price of energy?
(Partly)
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
( yes, increasing the supply of domestic gas would reduce the price of gas for uk consumers.)
Let me know when you decide to read up on tbe substance and actually try and rebuttal.any points.
Show me a credible article or paper that shows that renewable energy is more expensive than gas. Not the ones a random IT consultant has made himself. Off you pop.
Gas does set the price of energy, but do they to explain why it is only "partially". Your own words and then something other than an IT guy's tweets.
Do explain the method by which British gas will undercut the global price for UK consumers. Who told you this?
Is it cheaper now?
This guys seems to have data to back up his claim that renewables are more expensive for the consumer.
I haven't checked but you asked for 'credible' (whatever that actually means)
https://heartland.org/opinion/wind-power-and-solar-power-arent-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/
The heartland institute are a climate change denying libertarian outfit.
Not exactly credible.
As I said, I haven't checked, I have no idea who they are.
What I'd really like though is for you to attack the data rather than the messenger. We can all attack messengers who we don't like.
If that guy is wrong then fair enough, as I said yesterday 'Green being cheaper' means fuck all because if gas is more expensive then we use the gas price."
They won't because they can't.
They'll just say Gully. Gudgin , Steve, David aren't reliable sources of information. Even though they use publicly available data in their point from government sources as well as pricing sources such a trading economics.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 50 weeks ago
Brighton |
Aren’t all forms of new technology more expensive in the beginning and then reduce in price as they evolve, improve and then become common place?
While this discussion appears to have as a starting point of wind v gas, surely the future is a mixed economy of energy sources/generators with built in redundancy to offset shortfalls in one or the other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
For any 1 actually interested.
Does the author investigate prayer renewables than offshore wind (and the article uses a fair bit of conjecture as well).
How does he feel about tidal energy? Solar? Hydro? Biomass? Geothermal?
(And as an aside, we also need to consider the elephant in the room - Nuclear)
None of that matters.
The discussion is the cheapness of wind vs gas.
And it's been debunked.
"
No, the debate here originally was the cost of renewables. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry."
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry."
I have no links to the fossil fuel industry, but I'm going to disagree.
We don't know what the costs of 'renewables' are yet, because we don't have all the parts of a renewable energy system. Renewables don't provide reliable energy 24/7, so we need to have some other sort of supply in the times when not enough is being generated. That means grid-level storage, but at present that doesn't exist, so we don't know what it will cost. When grid-level storage become possible, then we'll find out what 'renewable' energy really costs.
Of course another way to look at it is to see what we're doing right now, with gas and coal being used to back up solar and wind. If 'renewables' didn't exist, we'd have started building nuclear power stations ages ago, and the problem would already be solved. So the true cost of renewables could be said to include our current reliance on fossil fuels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
"
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry."
. It would be interesting to know how you came the conclusion about the fossil fuel industry .
Installation of either solar panels or heat pumps is expensive. Some people are already having to remove heat pumps . In addition to high instalation and capital costs heat pumps fail to heat houses to a sufficient level in cold weather , create noise which many require as unacceptable and require a significant outside area to install. In addition radiator sizes have to increase significantly.
It is difficult to see any real benefits of heat pumps. I had a quotation for instalation and it seemed obvious to me that they were a waste of money even after various government subsidies.
I have purchased two new combination. boilers recently and the thought of a heat pump did not even enter the equation. A plumber has literally just left my house and a heat pump did not even enter the equation . High efficency combi boilers will be around for a long time yet . I cannot see many people wanting their outside space clogged up with a heat pump and having to use addition sources to heat their house in cold weather because heat pumps fail to deliver sufficient heat. This ignores the fact that installation costs are ar least three times that of a combi boiler. . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.. It would be interesting to know how you came the conclusion about the fossil fuel industry .
Installation of either solar panels or heat pumps is expensive. Some people are already having to remove heat pumps . In addition to high instalation and capital costs heat pumps fail to heat houses to a sufficient level in cold weather , create noise which many require as unacceptable and require a significant outside area to install. In addition radiator sizes have to increase significantly.
It is difficult to see any real benefits of heat pumps. I had a quotation for instalation and it seemed obvious to me that they were a waste of money even after various government subsidies.
I have purchased two new combination. boilers recently and the thought of a heat pump did not even enter the equation. A plumber has literally just left my house and a heat pump did not even enter the equation . High efficency combi boilers will be around for a long time yet . I cannot see many people wanting their outside space clogged up with a heat pump and having to use addition sources to heat their house in cold weather because heat pumps fail to deliver sufficient heat. This ignores the fact that installation costs are ar least three times that of a combi boiler. . "
I had a heat pump fitted, it’s brilliant, and I got it partially paid for by the government (Tory government ) , you need to move with the times, you can’t be a Luddite forever  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass."
Look a the direction then uk is taking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
I have no links to the fossil fuel industry, but I'm going to disagree.
We don't know what the costs of 'renewables' are yet, because we don't have all the parts of a renewable energy system. Renewables don't provide reliable energy 24/7, so we need to have some other sort of supply in the times when not enough is being generated. That means grid-level storage, but at present that doesn't exist, so we don't know what it will cost. When grid-level storage become possible, then we'll find out what 'renewable' energy really costs.
Of course another way to look at it is to see what we're doing right now, with gas and coal being used to back up solar and wind. If 'renewables' didn't exist, we'd have started building nuclear power stations ages ago, and the problem would already be solved. So the true cost of renewables could be said to include our current reliance on fossil fuels."
What you have just described is what I mentioned above. The opportunity cost.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking."
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not? "
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy."
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.. It would be interesting to know how you came the conclusion about the fossil fuel industry .
Installation of either solar panels or heat pumps is expensive. Some people are already having to remove heat pumps . In addition to high instalation and capital costs heat pumps fail to heat houses to a sufficient level in cold weather , create noise which many require as unacceptable and require a significant outside area to install. In addition radiator sizes have to increase significantly.
It is difficult to see any real benefits of heat pumps. I had a quotation for instalation and it seemed obvious to me that they were a waste of money even after various government subsidies.
I have purchased two new combination. boilers recently and the thought of a heat pump did not even enter the equation. A plumber has literally just left my house and a heat pump did not even enter the equation . High efficency combi boilers will be around for a long time yet . I cannot see many people wanting their outside space clogged up with a heat pump and having to use addition sources to heat their house in cold weather because heat pumps fail to deliver sufficient heat. This ignores the fact that installation costs are ar least three times that of a combi boiler. .
I had a heat pump fitted, it’s brilliant, and I got it partially paid for by the government (Tory government ) , you need to move with the times, you can’t be a Luddite forever "
Your experience would not appear to reflect that of other people. If it was partly paid for by the government it can hardly be considered to be cost effective . The true cost of your installation is completely distorted if was subsidised. . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy.
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction. "
Well not really.
The total uk usage has increased.
But wind has increased further and will be increasing further at a faster pace
So it stands to reason to use wind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?"
"Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy."
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy.
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction.
Well not really.
The total uk usage has increased.
But wind has increased further and will be increasing further at a faster pace
So it stands to reason to use wind."
No, it stands to reason to use all - since nobody has ever argued that wind is the sole renewable energy source moving forwards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
An energy system, like any engineered system, needs built-in resilience. So multiple sources of energy are a good thing. It's not down to cost alone, or for that matter the least polluting technology. An overlooked weakness of renewables is that they all connect into the national grid. That is a vulnerability. The grid could suffer failures or could be the target of hostile forces. Then we are without heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and transport (if EVs). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.. It would be interesting to know how you came the conclusion about the fossil fuel industry .
Installation of either solar panels or heat pumps is expensive. Some people are already having to remove heat pumps . In addition to high instalation and capital costs heat pumps fail to heat houses to a sufficient level in cold weather , create noise which many require as unacceptable and require a significant outside area to install. In addition radiator sizes have to increase significantly.
It is difficult to see any real benefits of heat pumps. I had a quotation for instalation and it seemed obvious to me that they were a waste of money even after various government subsidies.
I have purchased two new combination. boilers recently and the thought of a heat pump did not even enter the equation. A plumber has literally just left my house and a heat pump did not even enter the equation . High efficency combi boilers will be around for a long time yet . I cannot see many people wanting their outside space clogged up with a heat pump and having to use addition sources to heat their house in cold weather because heat pumps fail to deliver sufficient heat. This ignores the fact that installation costs are ar least three times that of a combi boiler. .
I had a heat pump fitted, it’s brilliant, and I got it partially paid for by the government (Tory government ) , you need to move with the times, you can’t be a Luddite forever Your experience would not appear to reflect that of other people. If it was partly paid for by the government it can hardly be considered to be cost effective . The true cost of your installation is completely distorted if was subsidised. ."
I couldn’t care less, my taxes help to pay for it, it is saving me money on my bills. You need to move with the times, you’re getting left behind |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either."
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy.
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction.
Well not really.
The total uk usage has increased.
But wind has increased further and will be increasing further at a faster pace
So it stands to reason to use wind.
No, it stands to reason to use all - since nobody has ever argued that wind is the sole renewable energy source moving forwards"
Not at all. The uk isn't really moving in the direction of solar.
Stts in the above reply.total gw in wind have almost doubled since 2017.
49.6 vs 80.1
Total optimum capacity for supply has gone from 28.5%(17% aupplied)
To
68.4% total capacity. And 24.6% supplied.
Wind is by far the most efficient and cost efficient generation of renewable.
And there are more to go online.
This vs a 30% increase in solar. Which as a total of uk consumption of electricity went up 1%.
When comparing prices I can include the more expensive solar energy if you'd like?
I'm not sure why you'd want to weaken your position though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.. It would be interesting to know how you came the conclusion about the fossil fuel industry .
Installation of either solar panels or heat pumps is expensive. Some people are already having to remove heat pumps . In addition to high instalation and capital costs heat pumps fail to heat houses to a sufficient level in cold weather , create noise which many require as unacceptable and require a significant outside area to install. In addition radiator sizes have to increase significantly.
It is difficult to see any real benefits of heat pumps. I had a quotation for instalation and it seemed obvious to me that they were a waste of money even after various government subsidies.
I have purchased two new combination. boilers recently and the thought of a heat pump did not even enter the equation. A plumber has literally just left my house and a heat pump did not even enter the equation . High efficency combi boilers will be around for a long time yet . I cannot see many people wanting their outside space clogged up with a heat pump and having to use addition sources to heat their house in cold weather because heat pumps fail to deliver sufficient heat. This ignores the fact that installation costs are ar least three times that of a combi boiler. .
I had a heat pump fitted, it’s brilliant, and I got it partially paid for by the government (Tory government ) , you need to move with the times, you can’t be a Luddite forever Your experience would not appear to reflect that of other people. If it was partly paid for by the government it can hardly be considered to be cost effective . The true cost of your installation is completely distorted if was subsidised. .
I couldn’t care less, my taxes help to pay for it, it is saving me money on my bills. You need to move with the times, you’re getting left behind "
It'd literally doing the opposite as the numbers prove.
But hey ho. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 50 weeks ago
|
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy.
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction.
Well not really.
The total uk usage has increased.
But wind has increased further and will be increasing further at a faster pace
So it stands to reason to use wind.
No, it stands to reason to use all - since nobody has ever argued that wind is the sole renewable energy source moving forwards
Not at all. The uk isn't really moving in the direction of solar.
Stts in the above reply.total gw in wind have almost doubled since 2017.
49.6 vs 80.1
Total optimum capacity for supply has gone from 28.5%(17% aupplied)
To
68.4% total capacity. And 24.6% supplied.
Wind is by far the most efficient and cost efficient generation of renewable.
And there are more to go online.
This vs a 30% increase in solar. Which as a total of uk consumption of electricity went up 1%.
When comparing prices I can include the more expensive solar energy if you'd like?
I'm not sure why you'd want to weaken your position though.
"
The point being, as you well know, that renewables aren’t going to be single source, they’ve never been sold as single source, and nobody thinks they’ll be single source.
Plus regardless of what your dubious sources say, we’re heading in the direction of renewables and there’s nothing that you nor any right wing climate change denying think-tank can do to stop it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
"
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on this topic, which I will change at some point...
However, are we missing the point of renewables when referred too as £ cost? Surely the benefits come through cleaner energy manufacturing and a cleaner environment.
As with all things that are not the primary they will cost more and lag in technology until they tip the scales in usage towards primary use.
If the argument is the technology does not meet consumption, that is totally different topic and one that is far more worrying than £ cost.
What am I not understanding, more than happy to pointed in the right direction.
Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
They aren't.
The above article points out this fallacy.
Read the article.
I'm not even sure they're cleaner given that.
You have the opportunity cost.
Yes I have already pointed out. The befnefits of win and green calculations of c02 are oftecslculated at the idea thay they will operate at a fixed percentage.
They rent reaching those percentages.
You the nhave the opportunity cost.
For example. If after you've done all the workman travel, cement making,drilling, mining the ores, transporting the turbines etc? Mining the copper wires, planting them in tbe sea bed...I can go on.
You calculate that the wind fsrm will operate and generate 100mwh but infact it only generates 60 mwh.
You then have to burn gas. Turn on the gas generator which is now less efficient that running it constantly at 100%.
This co2 in gas used must be part of that wind energy co2 cost.
Because of tbe failure tog enerste by wind
Who is arguing that a renewable energy plan will only rely on wind? I think it’s a valid question to ask the author of that piece why he doesn’t discuss other renewables such as solar, hydro, tidal or biomass.
Look a the direction then uk is taking.
The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thatsbjust electricity. Not energy.
The end of 2011 - 750 MW capacity
The end of 2022 - 14,000MW capacity and growing month on month.
That’s a good thing, right? Heading in the right direction.
Well not really.
The total uk usage has increased.
But wind has increased further and will be increasing further at a faster pace
So it stands to reason to use wind.
No, it stands to reason to use all - since nobody has ever argued that wind is the sole renewable energy source moving forwards
Not at all. The uk isn't really moving in the direction of solar.
Stts in the above reply.total gw in wind have almost doubled since 2017.
49.6 vs 80.1
Total optimum capacity for supply has gone from 28.5%(17% aupplied)
To
68.4% total capacity. And 24.6% supplied.
Wind is by far the most efficient and cost efficient generation of renewable.
And there are more to go online.
This vs a 30% increase in solar. Which as a total of uk consumption of electricity went up 1%.
When comparing prices I can include the more expensive solar energy if you'd like?
I'm not sure why you'd want to weaken your position though.
The point being, as you well know, that renewables aren’t going to be single source, they’ve never been sold as single source, and nobody thinks they’ll be single source.
Plus regardless of what your dubious sources say, we’re heading in the direction of renewables and there’s nothing that you nor any right wing climate change denying think-tank can do to stop it. "
Renewables won't be a single source. Bit the wind side is the largest and is growing at a faster rate than tbe others and is the cheapest.
He certainly my comparison only being to the cheapest
Like I said. I was being kind leaving out solar, hydro etc.
Atm tbe cheapest supplier of the cheapest renewable is still 100% more expensive than the day ahead rate kof gas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
"
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation."
so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?"
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break even |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break even"
so the 50 and 107 aren't equivalent numbers ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 50 weeks ago
newark |
Electricity is a complex mess but in simple terms gas gets climate taxed twice with one tax changed at the “gate” and the other for the emissions and since gas tends to set the market price this adds to price of renewables not on fixed rates.
Most Renewables are either on fixed rate deals that go up with inflation with for example Hornsea one currently gets just under 196 quid a MWH whatever the market rate is or market rate plus a subsidy which also goes up with inflation and this what most onshore Scottish wind farms get.
These subsidies last for 15 to 25 years and some techs get more than others with when it was built also making a difference on the amount of subsidy paid. There is also something called the capacity market where you are paid a percentage of production capacity depending on tech for 1 to 15 years and is open to all “fuels” not on another subsidy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break evenso the 50 and 107 aren't equivalent numbers ? "
They are. It's the cost of tbe same unit of electricity production. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break evenso the 50 and 107 aren't equivalent numbers ?
They are. It's the cost of tbe same unit of electricity production."
okay, so my energy provider isn't paying 50 for gas nor 107 for green ? I missunderstood what the day ahead rate is. I read your post as being the market rate for gas verus a theoretical break even rate for green. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 50 weeks ago
newark |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break evenso the 50 and 107 aren't equivalent numbers ?
They are. It's the cost of tbe same unit of electricity production.okay, so my energy provider isn't paying 50 for gas nor 107 for green ? I missunderstood what the day ahead rate is. I read your post as being the market rate for gas verus a theoretical break even rate for green. "
See my post higher up as it gives the basics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The growth in solar in the U.K. has been immense in the past decade, has it not?
Not particularly. I'm the last 6 years it's gone up 1% form 3.4 to 4.4 and thats just electricity. Not energy.
An increase from 3.4% of the total to 4.4% of the total, is an increase of nearly 30% in solar. Not exactly "immense", but not trivial either.
In terms of solar its immense the capacity went up 30% in 7 years.
In terms of total output 12.8 gw was it's maximum it's now at 14 gw
Wind
Generated 49.6gw in 2017 and in 2022 80.1 gw
It went from 17% to 24.6%
So the point stands.
I am using wind. Because clearly thatsbthe direction the government has headed in.
It's also the most efficient renewable.
So if we are talking green policies vs gas.
Again I am being VERY kind. When I say that comparing the price of gas at £50 vs the best renewable source at £107. Shows that gas is still twice as cheap as any renewable source currently.
for the dumb and those that can the arsed to trawl through a thread I suspect is largely name-calling....
Is the 50 and 107 how much the energy supplier are paying the paying the energy provider ATM.
The 50 is what gas currently costs at the day ahead rate today.( and other than the last 18 months is the average for the last few years)
The lowest bid that there is for wind( the cheapest renewable) that is actually being supplied is £107.
Though each year this cost goes up with inflation.so suppliers are paying 107? How much are they selling energy for?
No the article has a good explainer.
They say their break even their supply cost. But this goes up with inflation. Excludes subsidies and its what they can charge to break evenso the 50 and 107 aren't equivalent numbers ?
They are. It's the cost of tbe same unit of electricity production.okay, so my energy provider isn't paying 50 for gas nor 107 for green ? I missunderstood what the day ahead rate is. I read your post as being the market rate for gas verus a theoretical break even rate for green. "
They pay those.
It would be easier if you rea fthe paper or have you read it and it'd not making sense?
I had tk read it 3 times and watch linked dividers from another thread tk understand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Electricity is a complex mess but in simple terms gas gets climate taxed twice with one tax changed at the “gate” and the other for the emissions and since gas tends to set the market price this adds to price of renewables not on fixed rates.
Most Renewables are either on fixed rate deals that go up with inflation with for example Hornsea one currently gets just under 196 quid a MWH whatever the market rate is or market rate plus a subsidy which also goes up with inflation and this what most onshore Scottish wind farms get.
These subsidies last for 15 to 25 years and some techs get more than others with when it was built also making a difference on the amount of subsidy paid. There is also something called the capacity market where you are paid a percentage of production capacity depending on tech for 1 to 15 years and is open to all “fuels” not on another subsidy."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"Renewables are both cleaner *and* cheaper. It’s a win/win.
Generally speaking, only people who disagree with this tend to have links to the fossil fuel industry.
I have no links to the fossil fuel industry, but I'm going to disagree.
We don't know what the costs of 'renewables' are yet, because we don't have all the parts of a renewable energy system. Renewables don't provide reliable energy 24/7, so we need to have some other sort of supply in the times when not enough is being generated. That means grid-level storage, but at present that doesn't exist, so we don't know what it will cost. When grid-level storage become possible, then we'll find out what 'renewable' energy really costs.
Of course another way to look at it is to see what we're doing right now, with gas and coal being used to back up solar and wind. If 'renewables' didn't exist, we'd have started building nuclear power stations ages ago, and the problem would already be solved. So the true cost of renewables could be said to include our current reliance on fossil fuels."
That is completely wrong.
We could have built nuclear decades ago.
Our failure to do so is nothing to do with renewables.
You've made up a connection which doesn't exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently."
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't know what the costs of 'renewables' are yet, because we don't have all the parts of a renewable energy system. Renewables don't provide reliable energy 24/7, so we need to have some other sort of supply in the times when not enough is being generated. That means grid-level storage, but at present that doesn't exist, so we don't know what it will cost. When grid-level storage become possible, then we'll find out what 'renewable' energy really costs.
Of course another way to look at it is to see what we're doing right now, with gas and coal being used to back up solar and wind. If 'renewables' didn't exist, we'd have started building nuclear power stations ages ago, and the problem would already be solved. So the true cost of renewables could be said to include our current reliance on fossil fuels."
"That is completely wrong.
We could have built nuclear decades ago.
Our failure to do so is nothing to do with renewables.
You've made up a connection which doesn't exist."
You waited 2 whole days, just to post *that*?
There are many reasons why nuclear power stations didn't get built: they are long-term projects with no short-term gain for the government commissioning them, they produce deadly radioactive waste, the general populace is against them, etc. But in recent years we've come to realise that the deadly radioactive waste isn't actually anywhere near as bad as we used to think it was, and that other forms of energy generation produce pollution that is just a dangerous, but much harder to control. Even the green lobby is onboard with nuclear now.
By the turn of the millennium it was obvious that fossil fuels were bad for the planet, and would run out at some point. We chose to ramp up wind and solar generation, and just hoped that the necessary grid-level storage would get invented eventually. That hasn't happened.
If wind and solar hadn't been there to distract us, we would have built nuclear power stations, and by now we would already have a carbon-free energy system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 50 weeks ago
West London |
"We don't know what the costs of 'renewables' are yet, because we don't have all the parts of a renewable energy system. Renewables don't provide reliable energy 24/7, so we need to have some other sort of supply in the times when not enough is being generated. That means grid-level storage, but at present that doesn't exist, so we don't know what it will cost. When grid-level storage become possible, then we'll find out what 'renewable' energy really costs.
Of course another way to look at it is to see what we're doing right now, with gas and coal being used to back up solar and wind. If 'renewables' didn't exist, we'd have started building nuclear power stations ages ago, and the problem would already be solved. So the true cost of renewables could be said to include our current reliance on fossil fuels.
That is completely wrong.
We could have built nuclear decades ago.
Our failure to do so is nothing to do with renewables.
You've made up a connection which doesn't exist.
You waited 2 whole days, just to post *that*?
There are many reasons why nuclear power stations didn't get built: they are long-term projects with no short-term gain for the government commissioning them, they produce deadly radioactive waste, the general populace is against them, etc. But in recent years we've come to realise that the deadly radioactive waste isn't actually anywhere near as bad as we used to think it was, and that other forms of energy generation produce pollution that is just a dangerous, but much harder to control. Even the green lobby is onboard with nuclear now.
By the turn of the millennium it was obvious that fossil fuels were bad for the planet, and would run out at some point. We chose to ramp up wind and solar generation, and just hoped that the necessary grid-level storage would get invented eventually. That hasn't happened.
If wind and solar hadn't been there to distract us, we would have built nuclear power stations, and by now we would already have a carbon-free energy system."
No, I didn't "wait" to do anything. I jist posted when I posted.
Sizewell B was commissioned in 1997.
Hinckley Point C started being built in 2016. Some delays with austerity and then China.
There is a big investment in small modular reactors right now.
We also live in a country that cannot even fill potholes in our roads.
None of this has anything to do with renewables. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself."
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself.
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
"
No, the majority of what is in this bit of motivated "reasoning" comes from "calculations" based in incorrect assumptions from company accounts and misrepresentations of lobby groups and industry bodies.
Nobody needs Government data to know that the cost of borrowing and purchasing has risen for producing and building everything including fossil fuels as much as renewables. So will future costs of renewables be higher than predicted? Obviously yes, like the cost of absolutely everything.
Again, the fossil fuel price is the primary reason for everything else rising.
You don't seem to know what you were reading here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
So, back once again to seeing if you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions which you have now failed to do over more than one thread:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself.
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
No, the majority of what is in this bit of motivated "reasoning" comes from "calculations" based in incorrect assumptions from company accounts and misrepresentations of lobby groups and industry bodies.
Nobody needs Government data to know that the cost of borrowing and purchasing has risen for producing and building everything including fossil fuels as much as renewables. So will future costs of renewables be higher than predicted? Obviously yes, like the cost of absolutely everything.
Again, the fossil fuel price is the primary reason for everything else rising.
You don't seem to know what you were reading here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
So, back once again to seeing if you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions which you have now failed to do over more than one thread:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?""
So you are saying the company accounts are incorrect?
Or the assumption.
If so which assumption.
What lobby group and bodies and assumptions arethese? Feel free to divulge.
Lots of hot air coming out of yountodaynwith very little substance.
Why would the cost of capital in gas go up if the capital has already been paid off for the plant? Vs a windfarm yet to be built?
Please explain.
But fossil fuel price has come down..how can it be responsible for green energy costs rising? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself.
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
"
The source is the article you think proves something and all of the sources that it refers to.
Even when I read it and explain why it is nonsense you are unable to respond and go full ostrich and bury your head and repeat what you wrote before.
You repeat other people's "arguments" without understanding them and demand that they be "debunked" even they are a long way from starting as true.
I have indulged this on more than one occasion.
I'm not going to waste my time slowly repeating the explanation that I already gave.
In future I will just point people to reliable sources as your random Twitter threads and home-made websites are misleading. At least due to motivated reasoning but quite possibly deliberately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself.
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
No, the majority of what is in this bit of motivated "reasoning" comes from "calculations" based in incorrect assumptions from company accounts and misrepresentations of lobby groups and industry bodies.
Nobody needs Government data to know that the cost of borrowing and purchasing has risen for producing and building everything including fossil fuels as much as renewables. So will future costs of renewables be higher than predicted? Obviously yes, like the cost of absolutely everything.
Again, the fossil fuel price is the primary reason for everything else rising.
You don't seem to know what you were reading here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exploding-the-cheap-offshore-wind-power-fantasy
So, back once again to seeing if you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions which you have now failed to do over more than one thread:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
So you are saying the company accounts are incorrect?
Or the assumption.
If so which assumption.
What lobby group and bodies and assumptions arethese? Feel free to divulge.
Lots of hot air coming out of yountodaynwith very little substance.
Why would the cost of capital in gas go up if the capital has already been paid off for the plant? Vs a windfarm yet to be built?
Please explain.
But fossil fuel price has come down..how can it be responsible for green energy costs rising?"
You understand what happens when you get a loan to invest in something and the interest rate increases?
You understand what happens if you plan to invest in something based on a loan and the interest rate increases?
Gas plants require maintenance and replacement too, as well as fuel. Has the price of gas increased recently? How about maintenance and replacement costs?
Fossil fuel price has "come down" from what too what?
This is the same "we are recruiting more police officers", after sacking a load of them argument... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"I am afraid re iterating the same incorrect poont doesnt debunk whatsbin the thread.
Please epost a specific point in the thread that's wrong."
I have written the points out clearly after you demanded that I read and respond to this drivel if a link. You are unable to respond to them other than just claiming that I'm wrong.
Good work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"This is the 4th time of asking."
You have been responded to clearly and directly.
You still cannot find any reliable source of data to answer this:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since easy asked a question here
The contortions that you have to do.
The cost of installing renewables and generating cost per unit are lower than gas and falling. The current blip in installation cost is mirrored in gas due to that while inflation/cost of living thing that you may have noticed. Once installed the cost to generate power from a wind turbine or solar panel is tiny whereas gas has to be purchased.
I know you love to argue about words and that giving fossil fuels tax breaks is not "subsidy" but handing them billions through the back door rather than a direct cash transfer is exactly that.
The high gas prices drive the market price of energy even though renewables are cheaper. That's due to a poor pricing system, the lack of investment in nuclear and the late investment into grid storage (which is being remedied).
Gas makes energy more expensive, not renewables.
Anyone looking up cost of gas Vs renewables will see this. You have to work hard at reinterpretation to get to your Twitter conclusions.
Show us a verifiable article or some papers rather than some incoherent ramblings on Twitter
These are not contortions. This is the twitter thread.
Feel free to read it. It has links to studies.
Instead you won't. you'll just insult instead.
The thread with links and quote tweets goes into great depth on its sources.
your point on cost of installation and generation is addressed with links in the tweets.
Instead of just making assumptions.
Read the tweets first?
So, nothing but a Twitter thread still. Gold standard information.
Outstanding mic drop.
Not trawling through the nonsense to "debunk" some ramblings.
Stop trying to pass Twitter or YouTube off as the reality that needs to be disproved.
Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?
So again not reading the twitter thread.
Or the links in it.
Or tbe substance link here which gives a very detailed breakdown from government websites and links, along with companies House data.
All you have is insults. Because you can't be bothered reading.
Or maybe it's because you read last kfmkt and realised you were way way way way out of your depth.
Once again, the Twitter and internet ramblings of a guy who works in IT on the topic of energy transition is not something that requires debunking.
IT IS NOT TRUTH.
Just like Briefings for Britain. At least they have some expertise in the field even if the market which they claim to understand showed them the finger when they tried to implement their ideas.
Using your latest hero to explain away what industry and the data is saying is upside-down logic.
You are proving yourself to be an uncritical follower despite your ego claiming originality.
See you've epaid no attention. Because this is a completely different source.
It has nothing tk do with twitter.
Maybe read the link posted above? It's one of the sources used by the twitter account.
All you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance.
You insist wind is cheaper. But are refusing ti read any other source saying differently.
I read plenty of "sources" that say differently.
Like this one, they tend to cherry pick data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
I read this "source" and it turned out to be a waste of time.
Simple highlights:
The request for subsidies is not because renewables are more expensive. It is to prevent technology development moving to the US and the EU where they want to move leadership in a strongly growing high tech industry away from China.
Renewables will cost more because of inflation. Who'd have guessed?
Renewables will cost more because interest rates have gone up. Who'd have guessed.
The most amusing is that the cost of renewables will cost more because the price of fossil fuels has gone up.
All future tense.
Cost of electricity calculated from accounts is nothing much it costs to generate electricity. It is how much that is charged because a large part of the renewable production is charged at the much higher gas price due to a dysfunctional pricing system.
It's the complete opposite of your claim.
The reliance on fossil fuels makes everything more expensive.
The price of gas has also been well above your claimed price of £50 MWh. That is also, not the cost of generating electricity from gas, which is significantly higher.
All of this without calculating anything resembling the cost that climate change will impose on the economy.
Your "source" has been read and "debunked". You're welcome because it was an utter waste of time like most of your arguments turn out to be when nudged just a little.
If you can find some vaguely credible information to answer these questions there is something to discuss:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
You just replying yes, no and maybe doesn't cut it, however inflated an opinion you have of yourself.
This is a source of factual govenrmwnt data.
Not assumptions.
Feels ree to cite your sources.
I'm not sure where you think the debunking came from. As not 1 person in here has seemingly bothered to read it. Including yourself.
The source is the article you think proves something and all of the sources that it refers to.
Even when I read it and explain why it is nonsense you are unable to respond and go full ostrich and bury your head and repeat what you wrote before.
You repeat other people's "arguments" without understanding them and demand that they be "debunked" even they are a long way from starting as true.
I have indulged this on more than one occasion.
I'm not going to waste my time slowly repeating the explanation that I already gave.
In future I will just point people to reliable sources as your random Twitter threads and home-made websites are misleading. At least due to motivated reasoning but quite possibly deliberately."
5th time which specific assumption / calculation/ description is wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course "
I'm not sure where David turver is based from.
Can you point to his Tufton street link? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Whybis the bid wrong?
Why is the breakdown of inflation costs wrong?
Whybis the gas price wrong?
Please be specific.
"
Everything ring built or that has outstanding debt is more expensive.
That is not "wrong" it is just useless information.
EVERYTHING, not just renewables.
Gas prices were and are higher than renewables. They set renewable prices.
There is a difference between the cost of production and the price at the point of sale.
Your heroes calculation decided that the cost of renewables was revenue per unit produced.
It is not. It is far, far cheaper to produce, but the price being paid is based on the marginal cost of gas which has been running at hundreds of dollars per unit.
You do not understand any of this as you are completely unable to address the simple questions that I keep presenting and you ignore.
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
I'm not sure where David turver is based from.
Can you point to his Tufton street link?"
Bottom of the Netzerowatch website:
"CONTACT US
Net Zero Watch
55 Tufton Street,
London, SW1P 3QL"
Davis Turver's Twitter account is full of it. He agrees with everything they say... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whybis the bid wrong?
Why is the breakdown of inflation costs wrong?
Whybis the gas price wrong?
Please be specific.
Everything ring built or that has outstanding debt is more expensive.
That is not "wrong" it is just useless information.
EVERYTHING, not just renewables.
Gas prices were and are higher than renewables. They set renewable prices.
There is a difference between the cost of production and the price at the point of sale.
Your heroes calculation decided that the cost of renewables was revenue per unit produced.
It is not. It is far, far cheaper to produce, but the price being paid is based on the marginal cost of gas which has been running at hundreds of dollars per unit.
You do not understand any of this as you are completely unable to address the simple questions that I keep presenting and you ignore.
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?""
Everything that has outstanding debt is more expensive.
Which point are you addressing here.
Many remeables are being built now and have debt.
Many gas stations do no for example a fair few were built in 60s and 70s.
The hero decided nothing.
These were the bids amounts at total cost of production. At minimum pricing to recoup total cost of production and capital.
The current gas price is cheaper than the cheapest renewable bid.
He used the average over the time period since renewables began ( because this is How's the bid is compared today vs prior years taking into account inflation)
"It is not. It is far, far cheaper to produce, but the price being paid is based on the marginal cost of gas which has been running at hundreds of dollars per unit."
This specific point.
You are conflating the cost of capital and prodctuction with the cost to consumer.
Remember we spoke of this. The bids are the cost to retrieve the capital investment and break even.
They are the subsidised by taxes( not included in the calculation) the green levy.
These are the minimum prices set. Which go uo with inflation.
I genuinely think you are struggling to comprehend the difference that the bid price agreed and actual.the bid price is the advertised price, which is not being delivered but is simply staying as the advertised price.
You're confusing what the grid suppliers ( big 5 charge) vs what the windfarms are charging them.
You seem very confused om this
This is why he specifically delved into the revenue accounts for some of the specific windfalls and their advertised lines of revenue vs what is actually being received as what they are ultimately charging the grid is far greater than the bandied costs to the consumer.
You seem to have failed to grasp the basics of this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
I'm not sure where David turver is based from.
Can you point to his Tufton street link?
Bottom of the Netzerowatch website:
"CONTACT US
Net Zero Watch
55 Tufton Street,
London, SW1P 3QL"
Davis Turver's Twitter account is full of it. He agrees with everything they say..."
Does he say he's at Tufton street? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
I'm not sure where David turver is based from.
Can you point to his Tufton street link?
Bottom of the Netzerowatch website:
"CONTACT US
Net Zero Watch
55 Tufton Street,
London, SW1P 3QL"
Davis Turver's Twitter account is full of it. He agrees with everything they say...
Does he say he's at Tufton street?"
Nobody said that Turver was at Tufting Street.
I thought you were the one keen on reading details. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Then im Not sure why _irldn brought up net zero.
They form no part of this discussion.
All good then.
No link to Tufton street. "
I brought it up because the narrative is almost identical. Doesn’t mean there IS a connection but it IS interesting how closely aligned the narrative is. So close in fact that a connection is highly plausible.
If that is the case then the people/orgs funding the various Tufton St orgs have clear agendas. And in that case it makes the claims questionable as they are partisan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Then im Not sure why _irldn brought up net zero.
They form no part of this discussion.
All good then.
No link to Tufton street.
I brought it up because the narrative is almost identical. Doesn’t mean there IS a connection but it IS interesting how closely aligned the narrative is. So close in fact that a connection is highly plausible.
If that is the case then the people/orgs funding the various Tufton St orgs have clear agendas. And in that case it makes the claims questionable as they are partisan."
Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link."
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us."
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then im Not sure why _irldn brought up net zero.
They form no part of this discussion.
All good then.
No link to Tufton street.
I brought it up because the narrative is almost identical. Doesn’t mean there IS a connection but it IS interesting how closely aligned the narrative is. So close in fact that a connection is highly plausible.
If that is the case then the people/orgs funding the various Tufton St orgs have clear agendas. And in that case it makes the claims questionable as they are partisan."
OK so no proof. Good |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us."
Yes. It seems when people can't actually breakdown a debate and form a rebuttal, the easiest thing to do it attack the article writer and not the data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Then im Not sure why _irldn brought up net zero.
They form no part of this discussion.
All good then.
No link to Tufton street.
I brought it up because the narrative is almost identical. Doesn’t mean there IS a connection but it IS interesting how closely aligned the narrative is. So close in fact that a connection is highly plausible.
If that is the case then the people/orgs funding the various Tufton St orgs have clear agendas. And in that case it makes the claims questionable as they are partisan.
OK so no proof. Good "
Proof of what? What needs to be proved? You are coming across as very defensive! Increasingly so.
It is very clear Turvey is saying the same things NetZeroWatch are saying. He retweets links to their articles. So while he may not be part of the organisation, he clearly agrees with what they are saying.
I think it is entirely relevant to provide context. In response to your other post...that is not attacking him or you or anyone.
NetZeroWatch have an agenda. They are part of the Tufton St community of organisations. Those organisations hide their affiliations and sources of funding but some has been uncovered and shows support from oil and gas industry, particularly Exxon Mobil. So when they fund research and release data, I think it is important people are aware of those connections and their agenda.
Don’t you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"No proof turver has connections to Tufton street.
Glad we got that sorted.
"
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone. Round and round we go.
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"No proof turver has connections to Tufton street.
Glad we got that sorted.
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone. Round and round we go.
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?"
Tick tock |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No proof turver has connections to Tufton street.
Glad we got that sorted.
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone. Round and round we go.
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Tick tock"
What's your link to him working for them, being paid by them.
Or any one at Tufton street?
Tick tock.
As of yet no link. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"No proof turver has connections to Tufton street.
Glad we got that sorted.
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone. Round and round we go.
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Tick tock
What's your link to him working for them, being paid by them.
Or any one at Tufton street?
Tick tock.
As of yet no link."
I haven’t said he does. Show me where I did?
Now answer my questions just like you always demand of others! Tick tock |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context."
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?"
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
"Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course"
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry? "
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry?
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded?"
Nope but we should always be aware of who is behind the data.
Let’s be honest here. If a group of organisations that have a clear agenda but refuse to declare where their funding comes from are undertaken research and releasing their findings, then something underhand is behind it. If all above board, then why the secrecy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry?
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded?
Nope but we should always be aware of who is behind the data.
Let’s be honest here. If a group of organisations that have a clear agenda but refuse to declare where their funding comes from are undertaken research and releasing their findings, then something underhand is behind it. If all above board, then why the secrecy?"
It was a simple question really.
Although, I'd challenge you to find me truly partisan data, or surveys, or news pieces for that matter.
Of course we should look for alternative data, analyse and collate. Only then can we actually make up our minds as to whether we believe it or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!"
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry?
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded?
Nope but we should always be aware of who is behind the data.
Let’s be honest here. If a group of organisations that have a clear agenda but refuse to declare where their funding comes from are undertaken research and releasing their findings, then something underhand is behind it. If all above board, then why the secrecy?
It was a simple question really.
Although, I'd challenge you to find me truly partisan data, or surveys, or news pieces for that matter.
Of course we should look for alternative data, analyse and collate. Only then can we actually make up our minds as to whether we believe it or not."
Indeed but the modus operandi on here is one or two of our regular posters must have inordinate amounts of time on their hands to read research papers. They then post this data as FACT and challenge anyone to DEBUNK which of course none of us mere mortals can because:
a) we don’t have the time to identify the correct counter arguments, to research and then absorb detailed papers/data and then present it and
b) can’t be fucking arsed!
These regular posters then take that as evidence they are right whereas all that has actually happened is people don’t have time/inclination to counter post. And if they do then we are taken down the semantics minutiae rabbit hole with huge reply+quote soon blocking up the thread closing it down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
"
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry?
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded?
Nope but we should always be aware of who is behind the data.
Let’s be honest here. If a group of organisations that have a clear agenda but refuse to declare where their funding comes from are undertaken research and releasing their findings, then something underhand is behind it. If all above board, then why the secrecy?
It was a simple question really.
Although, I'd challenge you to find me truly partisan data, or surveys, or news pieces for that matter.
Of course we should look for alternative data, analyse and collate. Only then can we actually make up our minds as to whether we believe it or not.
Indeed but the modus operandi on here is one or two of our regular posters must have inordinate amounts of time on their hands to read research papers. They then post this data as FACT and challenge anyone to DEBUNK which of course none of us mere mortals can because:
a) we don’t have the time to identify the correct counter arguments, to research and then absorb detailed papers/data and then present it and
b) can’t be fucking arsed!
These regular posters then take that as evidence they are right whereas all that has actually happened is people don’t have time/inclination to counter post. And if they do then we are taken down the semantics minutiae rabbit hole with huge reply+quote soon blocking up the thread closing it down."
Most of the time I firmly sit in group B.
We have to remember it's easy to just ignore, rather than clogging up the thread (I know, we're now doing just that). Let them believe they're right, I'm sure it won't make you stay awake at night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 49 weeks ago
|
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock"
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)"
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K"
We established you have no links |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 49 weeks ago
|
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links"
Sounds like they've got a ticking clock in their belly. Beware! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links"
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"Oh and David Turver retweets links to NetZeroWatch articles. Thinking clearly aligned (probably influenced) if no explicit link.
I seem to remember seeing a thread round here in which someone sensible made the suggestion that we all focus on analysing the data put forward in a post, rather than just dismissing anything that appears to originate from sources with which we disagree.
Fat lot of good that did us.
It’s hard to trust data sources when the people behind the data (and research methodologies) have a partisan agenda. Re-read my OP. I said I did not know if data etc is correct or not. But I do think it is right to highlight the connections with places like Tufton St as it provides context.
So even if the data is correct, because you don't agree with their ideologies, it's OK to dismiss it?
Very few who provide us data are completely partisan.
Or am I reading it wrong?
Feisty have you read the thread before jumping in? My first post in this thread said...
Not saying if wrong or right. I have no idea and lack the time (or sufficient motivation) to thoroughly research it but the stuff on wind energy not working etc is coming from NetZeroWatch.
Guess where they are based?
Yep 55 Tufton St.
I am sure their funding model is sufficiently opaque (or even totally obscure) but in line with many of the Tufton St Mafia “think tanks” I bet some of their funding comes from the oil and gas industry! Not that that means there is an agenda here of course
Context behind the data matters.
If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.
The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry?
Who being feisty today??
I'm just wondering if we now dismiss data because we don't like how it's collaborators are funded?
Nope but we should always be aware of who is behind the data.
Let’s be honest here. If a group of organisations that have a clear agenda but refuse to declare where their funding comes from are undertaken research and releasing their findings, then something underhand is behind it. If all above board, then why the secrecy?
It was a simple question really.
Although, I'd challenge you to find me truly partisan data, or surveys, or news pieces for that matter.
Of course we should look for alternative data, analyse and collate. Only then can we actually make up our minds as to whether we believe it or not."
Is this like the "alternative facts" that Trump started his tenure in the Whitehouse with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 49 weeks ago
newark |
"This is the 4th time of asking.
You have been responded to clearly and directly.
You still cannot find any reliable source of data to answer this:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?""
Gas set the price of electricity 84 % if the time in 2022 based on studies from just down the road from you at the UCL or university college London for those who may not know. As for increasingly gas production it would depend on if got sold on the open market or if the sold for UK use only. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 49 weeks ago
newark |
"This is the 4th time of asking.
You have been responded to clearly and directly.
You still cannot find any reliable source of data to answer this:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?""
As for renewables if you lucky enough to own some and have the sense plus money to build battery storage as an ex girlfriend of mine did they are great however the 90% of country who do not own any are overpaying as there was dash to build big quick without building a grid that could cope.
I get my data from OFGEM,mygrid,grid intensity,Drax insights,BEIS which is now changing to the DESNZ and a few other sites plus my ex as mentioned above works for the national grid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 49 weeks ago
West London |
"This is the 4th time of asking.
You have been responded to clearly and directly.
You still cannot find any reliable source of data to answer this:
"Does it cost more to generate energy from gas or renewables?
Does gas set the price of energy?
Will increasing gas production in the UK affect the global price of gas? Will any increased production influence the geopolitics and pricing of any fossil fuels?"
As for renewables if you lucky enough to own some and have the sense plus money to build battery storage as an ex girlfriend of mine did they are great however the 90% of country who do not own any are overpaying as there was dash to build big quick without building a grid that could cope.
I get my data from OFGEM,mygrid,grid intensity,Drax insights,BEIS which is now changing to the DESNZ and a few other sites plus my ex as mentioned above works for the national grid."
Absolutely correct about grid connections being the bottle neck.
We are paying for increasing renewables production as fast as possible (through necessity as we left it so long).
As you said the price is still mainly driven by gas prices though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
David Turver retweeted this today...
"You think the UK is too far gone? I’m leaving the country next month because as someone in their 20s, I can only see things getting worse & worse.
My town used to be lovely, now it’s full of young migrant men. Keep up the good work, pages like yours give me hope that there are some sensible people left!"
And that included replies such as...
“People like [snip] are effectively being made into refugees from their own country, displaced by feral incomers and forced to flee for their own safety and wellbeing.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?"
Morley is surprisingly quiet? Wonder why he won’t answer these very basic questions? Fifth time asking Tick Tock! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Morley is surprisingly quiet? Wonder why he won’t answer these very basic questions? Fifth time asking Tick Tock!"
Sorry quarter end.
And we agreed turber has no connections as you inferred. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Morley is surprisingly quiet? Wonder why he won’t answer these very basic questions? Fifth time asking Tick Tock!
Sorry quarter end.
And we agreed turber has no connections as you inferred."
Why are you avoiding the questions? They are really simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Morley is surprisingly quiet? Wonder why he won’t answer these very basic questions? Fifth time asking Tick Tock!
Sorry quarter end.
And we agreed turber has no connections as you inferred.
Why are you avoiding the questions? They are really simple."
Because they don't affect the discussion.
He has no links to them.
You admitted this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 49 weeks ago
|
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?"
Turver retweets well know crack pot and Tufton street stooge Catherine McBride, no wonder he only has 1000 followers and zero credibility |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Is that crocodile from Peter Pan in here? That might explain all this ticking & tocking.
Morley loves a tick tock time based demand on others but seems to disappear when he is asked!
Because you ask nonsense questions.
No e of which prove any connection to Tufton as you attempted to infer.
But I am glad you admit that he has no connections.
Answer the questions. 3rd time of asking! Tick tock
The crocodile's back!
(crocodile emoji here, if it exists.)
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
We established you have no links
You seem to be struggling with answering some very basic questions. Fourth time of asking TICK TOCK
I’ll make it easy and repost them here...
Q1. Does Turvey say the same things NetZeroWatch say?
Q2. Does Turvey retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?
Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turvey agrees with NetZeroWatch?
Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?
Morley is surprisingly quiet? Wonder why he won’t answer these very basic questions? Fifth time asking Tick Tock!
Sorry quarter end.
And we agreed turber has no connections as you inferred.
Why are you avoiding the questions? They are really simple.
Because they don't affect the discussion.
He has no links to them.
You admitted this "
Nope. Totally relevant to the discussion. You are avoiding the questions. Wonder why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
BTW Turver’s 1171 followers just saw him retweet another NetZeroWatch post. Even if he has no direct association (which nobody claimed he did) he is very much certainly influenced and supportive of what comes out of Tufton St. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"BTW Turver’s 1171 followers just saw him retweet another NetZeroWatch post. Even if he has no direct association (which nobody claimed he did) he is very much certainly influenced and supportive of what comes out of Tufton St."
Oh just spotted Turver also retweeted another NZW post 3 hours ago |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 49 weeks ago
Brighton |
"BTW Turver’s 1171 followers just saw him retweet another NetZeroWatch post. Even if he has no direct association (which nobody claimed he did) he is very much certainly influenced and supportive of what comes out of Tufton St.
Oh just spotted Turver also retweeted another NZW post 3 hours ago "
Actually in the last 36hrs Turver has retweeted six NetZeroWatch articles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
