FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why does Britain have the highest inflation rate of all Westwrn European countries?
Why does Britain have the highest inflation rate of all Westwrn European countries?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
How about a mixture of both? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS is your entire life spent on whining about losing the Brexit vote?" yawn…. standard response #3 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS is your entire life spent on whining about losing the Brexit vote? yawn…. standard response #3" Ditto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS is your entire life spent on whining about losing the Brexit vote?" Perhaps you could enlighten us all then? Ignoring the B word, why has the U.K. got the highest inflation in Western Europe? What is so special about the U.K.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Probably more down to needing to import more then we export. We manufacture very little for export. And inport most of the food we eat and still expect to eat the same things all year round. Saw a food bank on TV tonight giving out raspberrys must be expensive as imported. We need to get back to healthy basics first." Mmmm… I recall Jacob Rees Mogg and other Brexit luminaries saying that BECAUSE we were primarily food importers, that food would be much cheaper if we left the EU. Was he lying or just too ignorant to know better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long" There is merit in that argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long There is merit in that argument." No there isn't. Attacking the BoE is just a lazy trope. Inflation can be caused by many different factors. Raising interest rates only helps cut inflation that is demand led, it does nothing at all to help with supply-side inflation and in fact can make it work by increasing costs to the supply-side. Energy costs did the job of removing demand from the consumer side of things, increasing interest rates has just added more misery to ordinary people for no possible benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shortages of products during covid pushed up prices, remember the microchip shortages, the Ever Given blocked the suez canal cutting off supplies. Many everyday items were already starting to creep up in price. Ukrainian war, has impacted us through gas and oil prices. Opec are reducing oil production to keep prices where they want them. Supermarkets had been agressive on cost control for years, they could no longer control costs as they had in the past, due to continuing rises in raw material, energy and logistic costs. Pay rises across many sectors have also trickled through to the consumer with increased prices, lorry drivers, chefs etc. Some would say inevitable with so many different things impacted us at the same time. " None of those issues are uniquely British only issues though are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shortages of products during covid pushed up prices, remember the microchip shortages, the Ever Given blocked the suez canal cutting off supplies. Many everyday items were already starting to creep up in price. Ukrainian war, has impacted us through gas and oil prices. Opec are reducing oil production to keep prices where they want them. Supermarkets had been agressive on cost control for years, they could no longer control costs as they had in the past, due to continuing rises in raw material, energy and logistic costs. Pay rises across many sectors have also trickled through to the consumer with increased prices, lorry drivers, chefs etc. Some would say inevitable with so many different things impacted us at the same time. None of those issues are uniquely British only issues though are they?" Every country has faced the same problems, however infrastructure, production and wages will all be different The effects of those things and many more are unique to each country. Wage increases as an example, our lack of gas storage impacted us significantly and our supermarkets have historically been forcing prices down. The changes have hit us hard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long" Why hasn’t he been sacked then ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Agreed and there is no one single cause it’s a myriad of reasons. but has brexit contributed to higher inflation yes it has - it is partly responsible for a decreased workforce leading to higher wages in some sectors and some well documented food shortages. It’s not the only factor or even possibly the main factor but it is partly a factor. " I think that it is probably reasonable to say that Brexit has made the country less resilient to external factors right? So when we get hit by something negative, the Brexit thing just lands another couple of punches on us as we flail around. Totally unnecessary, totally avoidable and easily fixable without even having to join the EU. Oh for Politicians who would be honest with us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Agreed and there is no one single cause it’s a myriad of reasons. but has brexit contributed to higher inflation yes it has - it is partly responsible for a decreased workforce leading to higher wages in some sectors and some well documented food shortages. It’s not the only factor or even possibly the main factor but it is partly a factor. I think that it is probably reasonable to say that Brexit has made the country less resilient to external factors right? So when we get hit by something negative, the Brexit thing just lands another couple of punches on us as we flail around. Totally unnecessary, totally avoidable and easily fixable without even having to join the EU. Oh for Politicians who would be honest with us." How is it easily fixable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long There is merit in that argument. No there isn't. Attacking the BoE is just a lazy trope. Inflation can be caused by many different factors. Raising interest rates only helps cut inflation that is demand led, it does nothing at all to help with supply-side inflation and in fact can make it work by increasing costs to the supply-side. Energy costs did the job of removing demand from the consumer side of things, increasing interest rates has just added more misery to ordinary people for no possible benefit." The BoE got addicted to low interest rates and huge sums of QE. You pump money into the economy l, you get inflation. They took their eye off the ball. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long There is merit in that argument. No there isn't. Attacking the BoE is just a lazy trope. Inflation can be caused by many different factors. Raising interest rates only helps cut inflation that is demand led, it does nothing at all to help with supply-side inflation and in fact can make it work by increasing costs to the supply-side. Energy costs did the job of removing demand from the consumer side of things, increasing interest rates has just added more misery to ordinary people for no possible benefit. The BoE got addicted to low interest rates and huge sums of QE. You pump money into the economy l, you get inflation. They took their eye off the ball." The BOE governor is chosen by the government, why hasn’t he been sacked for this ‘apparent’ massive error?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because we printed and spent more money." How does that affect food prices? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long There is merit in that argument. No there isn't. Attacking the BoE is just a lazy trope. Inflation can be caused by many different factors. Raising interest rates only helps cut inflation that is demand led, it does nothing at all to help with supply-side inflation and in fact can make it work by increasing costs to the supply-side. Energy costs did the job of removing demand from the consumer side of things, increasing interest rates has just added more misery to ordinary people for no possible benefit. The BoE got addicted to low interest rates and huge sums of QE. You pump money into the economy l, you get inflation. They took their eye off the ball." There is not a single generic way to cause inflation and by the same token there "should" not be a single generic way that inflation is taken back under control. I am guessing that the trope that you are repeating here is something that you have heard or read somewhere? If you think about the inflation that we are experiencing just now, it is pretty evident that it has got nothing whatsoever to do with consumer demand. The scenario you allege would mean that the excess money in the economy would cause more demand - that is just not happening in this case. Energy costs took out massive amounts of cash from the economy and the reasons to lift interest rates was nullified by the increase in energy costs. There isn't a glut of cash in the economy and nor was there when this round of inflation started. raising interest rates is not the medicine in this instance, consumer demand is already flat and squeezing even more will send us into stagflation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You print money then you have more money in circulation. More people are given money, as in furlough and state aid. People then buy more as they have this money. There is then an excess of people buying things, goods are in demand because people have been given the money. Hey presto if something is in demand the price goes up. It's called hyperinflation. See the weimar republic in Germany in the 1920s for more info. The reich mark became worthless as goods became hyper expensive because the German government put more money into circulation. If there is less money people have less available, less is bought so prices come down to tempt buyers." £500 billion more was printed? That's a lot of wedge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You print money then you have more money in circulation. More people are given money, as in furlough and state aid. People then buy more as they have this money. There is then an excess of people buying things, goods are in demand because people have been given the money. Hey presto if something is in demand the price goes up. It's called hyperinflation. See the weimar republic in Germany in the 1920s for more info. The reich mark became worthless as goods became hyper expensive because the German government put more money into circulation. If there is less money people have less available, less is bought so prices come down to tempt buyers. £500 billion more was printed? That's a lot of wedge." 80% of all available usa dollars were created. from 2020 onwards | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You print money then you have more money in circulation. More people are given money, as in furlough and state aid. People then buy more as they have this money. There is then an excess of people buying things, goods are in demand because people have been given the money. Hey presto if something is in demand the price goes up. It's called hyperinflation. See the weimar republic in Germany in the 1920s for more info. The reich mark became worthless as goods became hyper expensive because the German government put more money into circulation. If there is less money people have less available, less is bought so prices come down to tempt buyers." Except that in this case you are wrong. Unless you can tell me how having more money in circulation means that people are currently both saving less and spending less. Where is the excess money that you refer to? And how is the excess money responsible for high energy prices and high housing costs? How is it responsible for the high cost of butter, tomatoes, potatoes and cucumbers? The situation in 1930's Germany is nothing like what is happening in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You print money then you have more money in circulation. More people are given money, as in furlough and state aid. People then buy more as they have this money. There is then an excess of people buying things, goods are in demand because people have been given the money. Hey presto if something is in demand the price goes up. It's called hyperinflation. See the weimar republic in Germany in the 1920s for more info. The reich mark became worthless as goods became hyper expensive because the German government put more money into circulation. If there is less money people have less available, less is bought so prices come down to tempt buyers. Except that in this case you are wrong. Unless you can tell me how having more money in circulation means that people are currently both saving less and spending less. Where is the excess money that you refer to? And how is the excess money responsible for high energy prices and high housing costs? How is it responsible for the high cost of butter, tomatoes, potatoes and cucumbers? The situation in 1930's Germany is nothing like what is happening in the UK. " How if theres more money are peope spendong and saving less your purchasing power goes down. More money in circulation pushes down the exchange rate and oushes up the price for good as buying your currency becomes easier. Goods go up in price quicker than wages go up more, stuff is bought on credit. (Particularly properties) So younactually end up with a smaller disposable income. Prices went up 20% Your wages went up 12% But your cash in hand still went up. See exchange point for higher energy . costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You print money then you have more money in circulation. More people are given money, as in furlough and state aid. People then buy more as they have this money. There is then an excess of people buying things, goods are in demand because people have been given the money. Hey presto if something is in demand the price goes up. It's called hyperinflation. See the weimar republic in Germany in the 1920s for more info. The reich mark became worthless as goods became hyper expensive because the German government put more money into circulation. If there is less money people have less available, less is bought so prices come down to tempt buyers. Except that in this case you are wrong. Unless you can tell me how having more money in circulation means that people are currently both saving less and spending less. Where is the excess money that you refer to? And how is the excess money responsible for high energy prices and high housing costs? How is it responsible for the high cost of butter, tomatoes, potatoes and cucumbers? The situation in 1930's Germany is nothing like what is happening in the UK. " "Unless you can tell me how having more money in circulation means that people are currently both saving less and spending less" More money in circulation brings down the value of money, so you can have more money but you need more money to buy things. "How is it responsible for the high cost of butter, tomatoes, potatoes and cucumbers?" The higher costs of the above will again come from the lower value of the £ on imports, pushing up the cost balances that out. Other things have played a part in the higher costs for food and other consumables such as wage increases, cost to ship and energy to produce. "And how is the excess money responsible for high energy prices and high housing costs?" the higher energy costs are a direct result of cutting off the supplies from Russia, supply and demand. Housing as far as I'm aware has not increased, unless you mean something different? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some economists were pointing to our historical availability of cheap food, mainly driven by supermarket bargaining power. Now that food staples have risen, then our food prices have risen more than our European neighbours. They are expecting bigger drops in the inflation rate, over the coming months." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some economists were pointing to our historical availability of cheap food, mainly driven by supermarket bargaining power. Now that food staples have risen, then our food prices have risen more than our European neighbours. They are expecting bigger drops in the inflation rate, over the coming months." I read that food inflation is the main reason that the overall inflation remains high. However they also say that Germany has even higher food inflation than the UK but overall inflation is a bit lower so other factors must be at play. One of those mentioned is the energy rises affect the UK more. I assume this is due to lack of storage but not sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long" But that argument doesn’t really make sense as uk interest rates are still a good deal higher than the us interest rate bearing in mind they were both basically zero…. Most economists believe that even the us didn’t raise it early enough… you could argue the uk did it too early and the us too late! But the uk also had to protect the currency due to the ineptitude of the truss/kwatang era…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Agreed and there is no one single cause it’s a myriad of reasons. but has brexit contributed to higher inflation yes it has - it is partly responsible for a decreased workforce leading to higher wages in some sectors and some well documented food shortages. It’s not the only factor or even possibly the main factor but it is partly a factor. " So primarily you agree beingbin the EU was giving us cheep labour and keeping cost's down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Agreed and there is no one single cause it’s a myriad of reasons. but has brexit contributed to higher inflation yes it has - it is partly responsible for a decreased workforce leading to higher wages in some sectors and some well documented food shortages. It’s not the only factor or even possibly the main factor but it is partly a factor. So primarily you agree beingbin the EU was giving us cheep labour and keeping cost's down." Thats’s not the point that’s being made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because Andrew Bailey is an idiot and should have raised interest rates at the same time as the USA but he waited too long But that argument doesn’t really make sense as uk interest rates are still a good deal higher than the us interest rate bearing in mind they were both basically zero…. Most economists believe that even the us didn’t raise it early enough… you could argue the uk did it too early and the us too late! But the uk also had to protect the currency due to the ineptitude of the truss/kwatang era…." The bofe didn't raise at the same time. And the rates aren't as high as usa | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent statistics suggest U.K. inflation is 10.1%. No other Western European country is experiencing anything like this. Spain is 3.1%, France is 6.6% and Germany is 8.8%. Do you think it is because we are leading the world in being honest about how we measure our statistics? Or is because we might have done something a bit stupid a few years ago?" "Greedflation" is a term being used to describe one part of the problem. Not just in the UK. No problems can be caused by Brexit, small or large. Consequently they cannot be addressed and cannot explain any differential that might exist. Not sure that anyone else has really managed to answer your question. All things being the same the UK should always have had higher inflation than the rest of Europe... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent statistics suggest U.K. inflation is 10.1%. No other Western European country is experiencing anything like this. Spain is 3.1%, France is 6.6% and Germany is 8.8%. Do you think it is because we are leading the world in being honest about how we measure our statistics? Or is because we might have done something a bit stupid a few years ago? "Greedflation" is a term being used to describe one part of the problem. Not just in the UK. No problems can be caused by Brexit, small or large. Consequently they cannot be addressed and cannot explain any differential that might exist. Not sure that anyone else has really managed to answer your question. All things being the same the UK should always have had higher inflation than the rest of Europe..." Did me not putting "energy account for most of it" not answer it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent statistics suggest U.K. inflation is 10.1%. No other Western European country is experiencing anything like this. Spain is 3.1%, France is 6.6% and Germany is 8.8%. Do you think it is because we are leading the world in being honest about how we measure our statistics? Or is because we might have done something a bit stupid a few years ago? "Greedflation" is a term being used to describe one part of the problem. Not just in the UK. No problems can be caused by Brexit, small or large. Consequently they cannot be addressed and cannot explain any differential that might exist. Not sure that anyone else has really managed to answer your question. All things being the same the UK should always have had higher inflation than the rest of Europe... Did me not putting "energy account for most of it" not answer it?" No. "All things being the same the UK should always have had higher inflation than the rest of Europe..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad." The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame." Labour?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour? "90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
"Actually. I took a moment and agree. This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying. "We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue. Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs. The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87. We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass. As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs. Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output. Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
"Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned. If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels. Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway. As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind. "I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy? Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive. And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green. I think you misunderstood my point on wind. It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy. On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyways The energy crisis is only one element of the current inflation problems." It's the main element electricity rose 66%since March 2022 Gas 129% That's what's currently driving inflation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
"Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead. I think we're on the same page. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page. "That investment would have cost vast vast sums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
"Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet. Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that. It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though? The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent statistics suggest U.K. inflation is 10.1%. No other Western European country is experiencing anything like this. Spain is 3.1%, France is 6.6% and Germany is 8.8%. Do you think it is because we are leading the world in being honest about how we measure our statistics? Or is because we might have done something a bit stupid a few years ago?" Simply "brexit" effect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours? "Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s. I didn't say that. The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies. I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s."Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous". Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated. Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course."In terms of fuel cost yes but terms of build and grid costs no as you have to build more of it due to load factors plus you have to build more cables and storage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course."I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?"The UN website has an article explaining why it's cheaper. The IRENA has a report detailing the costs of renewables in G20 countries Vs Coal The Natural History Museum has an article explaining why renewables are cheaper than using fossil fuels. UCL has a report which specifically looks at energy bills in the UK. And why our reliance on gas prices of which the wholesale prices are not set by the UK. I'm sure there are many many more out there you can find if you're interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
In terms of fuel cost yes but terms of build and grid costs no as you have to build more of it due to load factors plus you have to build more cables and storage."Yes, it's a new industry. What has the build cost of rigs, oil tankers, has transmission pipes, road tankers, oil refineries and petrol stations been? The difference being that the marginal cost of renewables goes to zero once installed and the environmental damage is substantially reduced and we are no longer dependent on foreign supply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?"You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself? From the IEA: The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022 Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022 Our World in Data: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast? Statista: The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy McKinsey: Global Energy Perspective 2022 “Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.” The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course." It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is." Or use nuclear as the stopgap. Sorted. Of course the $$$$ from the fossil fuels industry will never allow it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is." Scroll up to my last post and look at the level of fossil fuel subsidies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16822359513025&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com "Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit. Nobody is saying that everything stops now. We are in transition and large scale grid connections are being built and storage is being trialled and installed. It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK unemployment rate for Q4 2022 was 3.7%. The average unemployment rate across the Eurozone for that period was 6.7%. That would (very) strongly suggest that the UK economy had the highest inflation because it has no spare capacity - it is at full pelt. The Eurozone economies have a lot more slack." Inflation isn't being driven by demand though, is it? Wage rises are far lower than inflation so there is not more money to spend in people's pockets as a consequence of low labour supply, is there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK unemployment rate for Q4 2022 was 3.7%. The average unemployment rate across the Eurozone for that period was 6.7%. That would (very) strongly suggest that the UK economy had the highest inflation because it has no spare capacity - it is at full pelt. The Eurozone economies have a lot more slack. Inflation isn't being driven by demand though, is it? Wage rises are far lower than inflation so there is not more money to spend in people's pockets as a consequence of low labour supply, is there?" I didn’t say it was wages - I said the economy was at full pelt. There is no capacity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price."Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Scroll up to my last post and look at the level of fossil fuel subsidies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16822359513025&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com "Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit. Nobody is saying that everything stops now. We are in transition and large scale grid connections are being built and storage is being trialled and installed. It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason." Cool. It should be hard for you to point t out which oil and gas is subsidised then from that bbc article. And how. Please describe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is." Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK unemployment rate for Q4 2022 was 3.7%. The average unemployment rate across the Eurozone for that period was 6.7%. That would (very) strongly suggest that the UK economy had the highest inflation because it has no spare capacity - it is at full pelt. The Eurozone economies have a lot more slack. Inflation isn't being driven by demand though, is it? Wage rises are far lower than inflation so there is not more money to spend in people's pockets as a consequence of low labour supply, is there? I didn’t say it was wages - I said the economy was at full pelt. There is no capacity." How is that causing inflation? What demand is not being met in the UK causing prices to rise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?"Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know. You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Scroll up to my last post and look at the level of fossil fuel subsidies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16822359513025&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com "Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit. Nobody is saying that everything stops now. We are in transition and large scale grid connections are being built and storage is being trialled and installed. It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason. Cool. It should be hard for you to point t out which oil and gas is subsidised then from that bbc article. And how. Please describe." The BBC link is a simplified bonus. You find the graphs tricky to read? Most of the data is in the IEA data that I pointed him and you to. Enjoy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. " It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In December 2021, the UK Government stated that the country did not give any subsidies to fossil fuels: The UK does not give any subsidies to fossil fuels, and follows the approach of the International Energy Agency, which defines fossil fuel subsidies as measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices. However, some have argued that the UK does support the industry in other related ways. For example, analysing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures, Politico has claimed that “Britain currently supports the fossil fuel industry through tax breaks and subsidies for exploration and research and development”. It estimated this at around £10 billion a year So they dont give subsidies to the industry. They get tax break as part kf research and development. That isn't a subsidy." Why wouldn't you credit the House of Lords for the quote you posted? Sounds like arguing a technicality. Not like you at all. A highly profitable industry with huge economies of scale receiving a tax break to do its job. More of a tax break than the renewables industry. Fossil fuel companies are global, so their subsidies effect all of their activities, as you are aware. A subsidy on R&D in the US improves the product in the UK. Keep thinking it all the way through... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly."Cant supply an answer then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now." Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In December 2021, the UK Government stated that the country did not give any subsidies to fossil fuels: The UK does not give any subsidies to fossil fuels, and follows the approach of the International Energy Agency, which defines fossil fuel subsidies as measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices. However, some have argued that the UK does support the industry in other related ways. For example, analysing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures, Politico has claimed that “Britain currently supports the fossil fuel industry through tax breaks and subsidies for exploration and research and development”. It estimated this at around £10 billion a year So they dont give subsidies to the industry. They get tax break as part kf research and development. That isn't a subsidy. Why wouldn't you credit the House of Lords for the quote you posted? Sounds like arguing a technicality. Not like you at all. A highly profitable industry with huge economies of scale receiving a tax break to do its job. More of a tax break than the renewables industry. Fossil fuel companies are global, so their subsidies effect all of their activities, as you are aware. A subsidy on R&D in the US improves the product in the UK. Keep thinking it all the way through..." Because you can search the quote and find it? Needless to say it puts paid yo your idea the uk government funds pil and gas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?"I have. Here it is again: Statista: The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph. If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices." You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts."So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy. Please do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument." But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do."You asked for the information. It's there. You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it. Alternatively you can't read a graph. Say what you mean, or say nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do.
You asked for the information. It's there.
You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it.
Alternatively you can't read a graph.
Say what you mean, or say nothing."So please provide the info. What the price of generating 1kw/h of greene nervy in the uk say from wind. Vs gas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost." There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nice attempt at using the exception to prove the rule btw. 1 connector made in 1986. The rest all post 2000" When was the last gas interconnector completed? Where would the fossil fuel to power non-imported power have come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do.
You asked for the information. It's there.
You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it.
Alternatively you can't read a graph.
Say what you mean, or say nothing.
So please provide the info.
What the price of generating 1kw/h of greene nervy in the uk say from wind.
Vs gas.
"The record turns. Are you unable to find the information yourself? Is it too difficult? If not, then you're trying to make a point, so make it. If it's not a point worth making then I'm not inclined to indulge your games. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite." Yes...it was there for 14 years by itself then when the uk began transition toward green in 2000 the uk has had to build several more tha also have another 7 or so in the pipeline. All because wind doesn'tbow sometimes. So we must include these costs I am afraid. We must also include costs of gas when wind doesn'tbow and ge erase at least 30% of our energy. As that's the capacity of wind.( I am being kind here too) Not sure what oil has to do with gas and green policy. The uk absolutely dismantled gas storage due to green policies. The person who decommissioned it said so at the time. We would diversify( go green) on our sources of energy. We had coal a d nuclear and went green. This was a direct result of green policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do.
You asked for the information. It's there.
You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it.
Alternatively you can't read a graph.
Say what you mean, or say nothing.
So please provide the info.
What the price of generating 1kw/h of greene nervy in the uk say from wind.
Vs gas.
The record turns.
Are you unable to find the information yourself? Is it too difficult?
If not, then you're trying to make a point, so make it. If it's not a point worth making then I'm not inclined to indulge your games."Yes I am. So please provide the detail report on the cost inputs on price generation of wind vs gas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite." There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year." Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit." It's not meaningless at all, it's very accurate. If we are to phase out fossil fuels, we will need to have some sort of grid storage, and the cost of that storage is part of the cost of 'renewable' energy. At the moment 'renewables' are operating without that storage, because we have gas and coal to back them up when they aren't generating enough. This means that 'renewables' generators don't have to pay for their storage, so they get to generate power cheaply. That's a subsidy. "It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason." I'd love to see fossil fuels phased out, and non-polluting energy used for the whole of the UK. It isn't impossible, and I sincerely hope to see it happen in my lifetime. The problem I have is with people that think we already have all the solutions, and that it's just money and political will holding us back. That's why we have the idiots in Just Stop Oil disrupting sports events, because they think that it's possible to switch to 'renewables' tomorrow, if we just pay a bit more. I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit. It's not meaningless at all, it's very accurate. If we are to phase out fossil fuels, we will need to have some sort of grid storage, and the cost of that storage is part of the cost of 'renewable' energy. At the moment 'renewables' are operating without that storage, because we have gas and coal to back them up when they aren't generating enough. This means that 'renewables' generators don't have to pay for their storage, so they get to generate power cheaply. That's a subsidy. It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason. I'd love to see fossil fuels phased out, and non-polluting energy used for the whole of the UK. It isn't impossible, and I sincerely hope to see it happen in my lifetime. The problem I have is with people that think we already have all the solutions, and that it's just money and political will holding us back. That's why we have the idiots in Just Stop Oil disrupting sports events, because they think that it's possible to switch to 'renewables' tomorrow, if we just pay a bit more. I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They get tax break as part of research and development. That isn't a subsidy." You forgot to mention that all UK companies get the same tax break on capital investment used for R&D, not just fossil fuel companies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. Yes...it was there for 14 years by itself then when the uk began transition toward green in 2000 the uk has had to build several more tha also have another 7 or so in the pipeline. All because wind doesn'tbow sometimes. So we must include these costs I am afraid. We must also include costs of gas when wind doesn'tbow and ge erase at least 30% of our energy. As that's the capacity of wind.( I am being kind here too) Not sure what oil has to do with gas and green policy. The uk absolutely dismantled gas storage due to green policies. The person who decommissioned it said so at the time. We would diversify( go green) on our sources of energy. We had coal a d nuclear and went green. This was a direct result of green policy. " Coal?
When were the majority coal mines shut in the UK? They were shut down because they were not price competitive with the rest of the world and still aren't.
Gas and coal are no longer competitive with renewables, but you won't believe it because you apparently need someone else to read the numbers for you.
You laughably keep trying to say that electricity interconnectors are a cost for renewables but cannot acknowledge that transportation, pumping and distribution are a cost for fossil fuels.
Rough storage was closed because it required massive investment to maintain safety standards that Centrica could not justify as it was, at the time, so cheap to import gas from Quatar (a foreign country far away) and the Government didn't want to pay. Nothing to do with renewables, however desperately you want it to be the case. It just highlights another vulnerability of fossil fuel dependency.
You also seem unable to get a grip on the fact that a transition to electric vehicles removes the requirement for much of the use of oil.
I haven't argued against nuclear. It's not opposed by UK green policy or pretty much anywhere except specifically in Germany.
As the entire grid greens the interconnects will transmit that as necessary, including nuclear power and the other forms of energy storage that will come online.
You do understand what "transition" means, don't you?
Also you seem unable to understand the entire purpose of the exercise of transition to renewables to reduce the financial and geopolitical impacts of climate change, but I'm sure you have a theory on that being a conspiracy due to bad data. Please do start a different post on that.
You seem completely submersed in detail and now and unable to take any sort of wider or longer term view. All you do is deny that there is any sort of problem because of this line in this report or because that calculation could be interpreted slightly and because Professor Graham Gudgin and you know everything and everyone else is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do.
You asked for the information. It's there.
You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it.
Alternatively you can't read a graph.
Say what you mean, or say nothing.
So please provide the info.
What the price of generating 1kw/h of greene nervy in the uk say from wind.
Vs gas.
The record turns.
Are you unable to find the information yourself? Is it too difficult?
If not, then you're trying to make a point, so make it. If it's not a point worth making then I'm not inclined to indulge your games.
Yes I am.
So please provide the detail report on the cost inputs on price generation of wind vs gas."Then make your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Subsidised by fossil fuels" is a meaningless phrase for a country with a budget deficit. It's not meaningless at all, it's very accurate. If we are to phase out fossil fuels, we will need to have some sort of grid storage, and the cost of that storage is part of the cost of 'renewable' energy. At the moment 'renewables' are operating without that storage, because we have gas and coal to back them up when they aren't generating enough. This means that 'renewables' generators don't have to pay for their storage, so they get to generate power cheaply. That's a subsidy. It's not "impossible". If it were no technology would ever develop. You just don't seem to like it for some reason. I'd love to see fossil fuels phased out, and non-polluting energy used for the whole of the UK. It isn't impossible, and I sincerely hope to see it happen in my lifetime. The problem I have is with people that think we already have all the solutions, and that it's just money and political will holding us back. That's why we have the idiots in Just Stop Oil disrupting sports events, because they think that it's possible to switch to 'renewables' tomorrow, if we just pay a bit more. I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities." What "dishonesty"? Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. Are fossil fuels being turned off now? What's the cost racking up of delaying the switch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Probably more down to needing to import more then we export. We manufacture very little for export. And inport most of the food we eat and still expect to eat the same things all year round. Saw a food bank on TV tonight giving out raspberrys must be expensive as imported. We need to get back to healthy basics first. Mmmm… I recall Jacob Rees Mogg and other Brexit luminaries saying that BECAUSE we were primarily food importers, that food would be much cheaper if we left the EU. Was he lying or just too ignorant to know better? " People will deny starting for our politicians , but the true never was and never will be told and we paying a big price for leaving EU . Is not difficult to see or is no need yo be an expert to realize simple things like while EU countries they have the freedom to travel , living , make business etc etc in 28 countries including easy access to Switzerland and Andorra . Meanwhile we choosed to isolate ourselves based in lies . Have we improved immigration after leaving EU? Have we improved as a country ? Is NHS improved? Have our standards of living improved? Have our politicians become less corrup? Have our banks become less corrupt ? In my sincerely opinion i must say no , the country haven't moved fowards at all . Can we compete with EU states when comes to production of goods ? No defenitly not , because geographically is impossible. Is EU better than UK ? No , but also UK is no better than EU . Nevertheless we become more fragil and more isolated standing alone. Maybe there's some politicians who think convid19 will cover the true and a war is the way fowards to go as we can come out as winners and take that in our advantage. Is difficult to accept but we are no more the powerful economy and we only were a powerful economy due to the colonialism and after colonialism relationship that we kept , but these relationships are expired. The only thing have improved was the millions and millions of profit that some greedy people have and are winning while the country is on his knees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. Yes...it was there for 14 years by itself then when the uk began transition toward green in 2000 the uk has had to build several more tha also have another 7 or so in the pipeline. All because wind doesn'tbow sometimes. So we must include these costs I am afraid. We must also include costs of gas when wind doesn'tbow and ge erase at least 30% of our energy. As that's the capacity of wind.( I am being kind here too) Not sure what oil has to do with gas and green policy. The uk absolutely dismantled gas storage due to green policies. The person who decommissioned it said so at the time. We would diversify( go green) on our sources of energy. We had coal a d nuclear and went green. This was a direct result of green policy. Coal?
When were the majority coal mines shut in the UK? They were shut down because they were not price competitive with the rest of the world and still aren't.
Gas and coal are no longer competitive with renewables, but you won't believe it because you apparently need someone else to read the numbers for you.
You laughably keep trying to say that electricity interconnectors are a cost for renewables but cannot acknowledge that transportation, pumping and distribution are a cost for fossil fuels.
Rough storage was closed because it required massive investment to maintain safety standards that Centrica could not justify as it was, at the time, so cheap to import gas from Quatar (a foreign country far away) and the Government didn't want to pay. Nothing to do with renewables, however desperately you want it to be the case. It just highlights another vulnerability of fossil fuel dependency.
You also seem unable to get a grip on the fact that a transition to electric vehicles removes the requirement for much of the use of oil.
I haven't argued against nuclear. It's not opposed by UK green policy or pretty much anywhere except specifically in Germany.
As the entire grid greens the interconnects will transmit that as necessary, including nuclear power and the other forms of energy storage that will come online.
You do understand what "transition" means, don't you?
Also you seem unable to understand the entire purpose of the exercise of transition to renewables to reduce the financial and geopolitical impacts of climate change, but I'm sure you have a theory on that being a conspiracy due to bad data. Please do start a different post on that.
You seem completely submersed in detail and now and unable to take any sort of wider or longer term view. All you do is deny that there is any sort of problem because of this line in this report or because that calculation could be interpreted slightly and because Professor Graham Gudgin and you know everything and everyone else is wrong."You realise coal is still burned today when wind doesn't blow right. I am.usong coal as an example. Coal mines have what to do with the cost of coal? Your realise the uk can and does import coal? Imagine not knowing that and thinking thenuk only supplies it own coal. You keep asserting that gas and coal are more expensive. Yet you haven't produced any breakdown of the numbers I ask again for your evidence.(8th time now?) The storage was closed because of the move to green. The minister at the time said so. I'll believe them. I am all for moving to renewables. Just at a pace that doesn't leave us exposed to gas prices(which it has). You seem to have ignored that point throughout.( nothing new there) For some reason you've brought gudgin up. No idea why. Now please. Cite the source of your data and the breakdown of costs for renewables vs fossil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple answer ,really bad government for the last few years, since Blair/Cameron really fucking bad. The main cause of the inflation is energy. Which is more of a long term policy so think back 10-20 years. And see who's to blame. Labour?
90s Conservatives under Major . Labour under Blair brown. And to some point Cameron.
Actually. I took a moment and agree.
This is when we should have started the transition to renewables. By now we'd be flying.
We did the transition to renewables when it was sleas costly. Sadly renewables haven't solved the issue.
Nuclear and keeping some coal on regularly would have greatly reduced costs.
The last nuclear power plant was commissioned in 87.
We have 3 plants left for coal and biomass is t as effective as originally conceived for green energy as we regularly put in wood when we don't have enough mass.
As of right now for example uk wind can only supply 16% of our energy needs.
Let's not get started on the disaster of solar panels not getting anywhere near their advertised output.
Sadly all these decisions over the years have led to the inflation you see today
Nuclear should have been the stopgap while we transitioned.
If we'd have started when we should. We'd be in a much better position now. Very cheap energy, much less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, no dependency on externally set prices for fossil fuels.
Solar panels. Cameron was told they are but a small part of the solution, and he didn't listen. Then scrapped all his promises anyway.
As you correctly pointed out, we are woefully behind where we could be on energy generated by wind.
I believe we are on of the furthest along in green energy?
Remember back in the 90s the tech was extremely expensive.
And remember people are bow suing green firms because their tech didn't deliver whatbit said it could
I am for green output but I don't think the tech was ready in the 80s 90s and even today still solar panels are not really green.
I think you misunderstood my point on wind.
It's capacity is about 50% of uk energy.
On a lot of days it regularly supplies less than 20%
Yes, imagine if we had been investing in the tech since the 80/90s. We'd be so much further ahead.
I think we're on the same page.
That investment would have cost vast vast sums.
Investment in fossil fuels did cost vast vast sums of money. And look where it got us, and the planet.
Apologies, what did I say that you're not saying? I don't quite understand that.
It feels like we're a gnats pube away from agreement though?
The over reliance on fossil fuels with prices being set externally has left us where we are now. If we'd have had the foresight to begin the transition to renewables when the science suggested we needed to. We'd be in a much better position, by my reckoning. But a worse position in yours?
Investing in the tech in the 80s and 90s.
I didn't say that.
The research of that tech cost humongous amounts and the cost of.implemetations would have been huge and negligible since the wind tech even now needs government subsidies.
I was not saying the uk should have invested in the 80s and 90s.
Research on fossil fuel extraction and transportation and refining has also been "humongous".
Both renewables and fossil fuels receive Government subsidies. Fossil fuels for many, many years longer as well as create an exceptionally high cost in environmental damage which will have to be mitigated.
Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course.
I have asked for the vidence green is cheaper. Please can SOME 1 finally provide it?
You've been told several times. I thought you were all about the research and the data. You've never found the data yourself?
From the IEA:
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022
Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
Our World in Data:
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
McKinsey:
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“Technological developments and supply chain optimisation have collectively halved the cost of solar, while wind costs have also fallen by almost one-third,” the report adds. “As a result, 61% of new renewable capacity installation is already priced lower than fossil fuel alternatives. Battery costs have also fallen by nearly half in the past four years.”
The Energy Dashboard website is interesting to have a look at on generation rather than price.
Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?
Do your reading and look at the graphs. Then you will know.
You like that part because you can argue about the details of the calculation endlessly.
Cant supply an answer then?
I have.
Here it is again:
Statista:
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy
There's a nice, beautifully easy to read graph.
If there is some other point that you would like to make, then please make it rather than using up posts.
So then you shouldn't find it hard to actually post the price per killowatt h of uk energy.
Please do.
You asked for the information. It's there.
You and anybody else can see it and I'm disinclined to jump through hoops for you. You're clearly trying to make a point, but won't say what. If you've got a big "gotcha" to try and spring then just do it.
Alternatively you can't read a graph.
Say what you mean, or say nothing.
So please provide the info.
What the price of generating 1kw/h of greene nervy in the uk say from wind.
Vs gas.
The record turns.
Are you unable to find the information yourself? Is it too difficult?
If not, then you're trying to make a point, so make it. If it's not a point worth making then I'm not inclined to indulge your games.
Yes I am.
So please provide the detail report on the cost inputs on price generation of wind vs gas.
Then make your point."Please provide your breakdown of costs on your claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil. 9th time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports?" It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. " Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy?" Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost." There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cost comparison is complex and a lot of data excludes stuff such as fact fossil fuels would be cheaper without carbon taxes and the fact location is far more important for renewables than fossil fuel plants with a well run fossil plant can run at around 80% load just about anywhere while in this country offshore wind in the best areas is 40 to 50% . Onshore wind tends to around 30 to 35% and new solar around 15%." And that globally fossil fuels industry receives a lot of wedge in subsides. IE over 1 trillion USD in 2022. Without which the fuels would be prohibitively expensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Energy accounts for most of it." And they just made record profits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities." "What "dishonesty"?" The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. "Spell it out and explain what "transition" means." We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper." What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. " Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop." 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Energy accounts for most of it. And they just made record profits." Globally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? " The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cost comparison is complex and a lot of data excludes stuff such as fact fossil fuels would be cheaper without carbon taxes and the fact location is far more important for renewables than fossil fuel plants with a well run fossil plant can run at around 80% load just about anywhere while in this country offshore wind in the best areas is 40 to 50% . Onshore wind tends to around 30 to 35% and new solar around 15%. And that globally fossil fuels industry receives a lot of wedge in subsides. IE over 1 trillion USD in 2022. Without which the fuels would be prohibitively expensive. " A lot of subsidies are stuff like reduced vat on heating fuel or winter fuel payments also fossil fuel pay a lot in tax which will have to be replaced if we are to move on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. " Who's said that we have to immediately provide 100% renewable energy instantly? It's very easy to comprehend that it isn't expected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried." Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy." I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop" Ah, not the cost anymore. The "breakdown" of the cost now? Arbitrary demands. If you don't get all of the information that you require, then inadmissible. Equally, no way for you to provide any equivalent data for fossil fuels. Correct? You're demanding something that you cannot provide. Perhaps you should go and look at the data from the silly people from Lazar's who don't know much about much. Perhaps you should get a job there and tell them, and every other major organisation that you're arguing against, how to do it properly. You're the one making the counter argument so you provide the data to support not transitioning to renewables and argue the benefits to energy security and prices of going more slowly. You can provide the data showing that fossil fuel energy provision is overall cheaper, right? I'm sure there are many, many studies to support your position. A report. A nice graph. A table. Something. Anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from?" When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free." You think if we could store the excess it would be free? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of subsidies are stuff like reduced vat on heating fuel ..." That was removed in April 2022, when the rules about who could use 'red' diesel were changed. Commercial properties can no longer use reduced-duty diesel for heating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of subsidies are stuff like reduced vat on heating fuel ... That was removed in April 2022, when the rules about who could use 'red' diesel were changed. Commercial properties can no longer use reduced-duty diesel for heating." You still pay 5% on gas and households do not pay climate change levy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls." But to fix that we have to get rid of gas, and as you've already said, that isn't going to happen any time soon. "What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? " My point, since you seem to be incapable of seeing it, is that we can't add much more 'renewables' capacity without increasing energy costs. Without grid storage, every unit of 'renewable' energy added to the grid, is a unit not produced by gas. The gas generating companies have overheads. If they generate less, their overheads are still there, so they'll have to increase the price per unit to cover their costs. Since the price per unit is based on the most expensive generator, which is gas, we'll all be paying higher energy bills. If we had grid storage, we could storm ahead with 'renewables', but we don't, so we can't. All of that means that we have no idea how much 'renewable' energy will cost in a no-carbon future, because it needs grid storage, and we have no idea how much that will cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop Ah, not the cost anymore. The "breakdown" of the cost now? Arbitrary demands. If you don't get all of the information that you require, then inadmissible. Equally, no way for you to provide any equivalent data for fossil fuels. Correct? You're demanding something that you cannot provide. Perhaps you should go and look at the data from the silly people from Lazar's who don't know much about much. Perhaps you should get a job there and tell them, and every other major organisation that you're arguing against, how to do it properly. You're the one making the counter argument so you provide the data to support not transitioning to renewables and argue the benefits to energy security and prices of going more slowly. You can provide the data showing that fossil fuel energy provision is overall cheaper, right? I'm sure there are many, many studies to support your position. A report. A nice graph. A table. Something. Anything?" It was always the cost. I jsut want the speicfic breakdown. As I always mentioned subsidies it's cost to produce. "You am demanding something you can not provide" It's not for me to provide it. You made the claim. Is this your ditties g you can't provide the necessary data to prove it's cheaper? I've never said fossil fuels were cheaper or more expensive. You said renewables were cheaper to provide. Please provide the backing data. 12th time of asking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free?" Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. But to fix that we have to get rid of gas, and as you've already said, that isn't going to happen any time soon. What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? My point, since you seem to be incapable of seeing it, is that we can't add much more 'renewables' capacity without increasing energy costs. Without grid storage, every unit of 'renewable' energy added to the grid, is a unit not produced by gas. The gas generating companies have overheads. If they generate less, their overheads are still there, so they'll have to increase the price per unit to cover their costs. Since the price per unit is based on the most expensive generator, which is gas, we'll all be paying higher energy bills. If we had grid storage, we could storm ahead with 'renewables', but we don't, so we can't. All of that means that we have no idea how much 'renewable' energy will cost in a no-carbon future, because it needs grid storage, and we have no idea how much that will cost." Yes, we do. We know what the cost would be now and can model the reduction in cost with economies of scale. How do you think anyone works out how to manufacture and sell anything new? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power." You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop Ah, not the cost anymore. The "breakdown" of the cost now? Arbitrary demands. If you don't get all of the information that you require, then inadmissible. Equally, no way for you to provide any equivalent data for fossil fuels. Correct? You're demanding something that you cannot provide. Perhaps you should go and look at the data from the silly people from Lazar's who don't know much about much. Perhaps you should get a job there and tell them, and every other major organisation that you're arguing against, how to do it properly. You're the one making the counter argument so you provide the data to support not transitioning to renewables and argue the benefits to energy security and prices of going more slowly. You can provide the data showing that fossil fuel energy provision is overall cheaper, right? I'm sure there are many, many studies to support your position. A report. A nice graph. A table. Something. Anything? It was always the cost. I jsut want the speicfic breakdown. As I always mentioned subsidies it's cost to produce. "You am demanding something you can not provide" It's not for me to provide it. You made the claim. Is this your ditties g you can't provide the necessary data to prove it's cheaper? I've never said fossil fuels were cheaper or more expensive. You said renewables were cheaper to provide. Please provide the backing data. 12th time of asking? " No, not the 12th time of asking. Your question was: "I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil." You were shown it, immediately. You then spent several posts wanting it written down for you, although you'd apparently read the information and knew the answer. Now you want a breakdown of the data. Next you'll want some other arbitrary detail. I guess because you feel that this discredits the information somehow. You've tried to do the same thing before. It doesn't. It absolutely is for you to provide equivalent data if you want to perform a comparison and cannot find any information to back your position. The reality is that there are no organisations or companies that seem to believe you. If there were you'd be busy quoting the information. You are saying that the transition to renewable energy is not viable. Nobody else is. Tell us your secret knowledge. Like so many other topics you are so animated about, why has nobody else taken your view? Too stupid? I'm sure you'll find a YouTube clip in the end. All of this started with you claiming that the UK's higher inflation was due to energy prices and that was because of the cost of renewables. However, as you know, the cost of UK energy is defined by the highest cost source which is gas. Are you still claiming otherwise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity." Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0." Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes easy uk. It's just better to ad.it you added something up. I'll give up on asking you for your proof. As it's simply not coming is it. Have a good day. Hopefully you can chalk this one down to a learning experience." Oh bless. You were provided with a stack of data, all freely available, which apparently you have read in it's totality. You want more. You cannot provide any yourself when asked. I certainly haven't learned anything from you so sadly cannot say it's been very useful except to know that your "arguments" remain the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? " So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on." I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. " I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free. Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free. Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time." Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free. Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge." I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free. Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did."
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free? Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did.
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win."I explained what they mean in the context of the actual discussion. You chose to interpret it as something else. You even asked me for clarification and decided that the answer wasn't acceptable. For me, if electricity is being produced for free it is free electricity. I struggle to see it in a different way. If you can explain it differently then please do. I don't really know why you would feel that this was such a vitally important use of words having, apparently, observed the exchange for so long. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent statistics suggest U.K. inflation is 10.1%. No other Western European country is experiencing anything like this. Spain is 3.1%, France is 6.6% and Germany is 8.8%. Do you think it is because we are leading the world in being honest about how we measure our statistics? Or is because we might have done something a bit stupid a few years ago?" Over 7 trillion in debt! Inflation is another way of paying the interest and debt off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop Ah, not the cost anymore. The "breakdown" of the cost now? Arbitrary demands. If you don't get all of the information that you require, then inadmissible. Equally, no way for you to provide any equivalent data for fossil fuels. Correct? You're demanding something that you cannot provide. Perhaps you should go and look at the data from the silly people from Lazar's who don't know much about much. Perhaps you should get a job there and tell them, and every other major organisation that you're arguing against, how to do it properly. You're the one making the counter argument so you provide the data to support not transitioning to renewables and argue the benefits to energy security and prices of going more slowly. You can provide the data showing that fossil fuel energy provision is overall cheaper, right? I'm sure there are many, many studies to support your position. A report. A nice graph. A table. Something. Anything? It was always the cost. I jsut want the speicfic breakdown. As I always mentioned subsidies it's cost to produce. "You am demanding something you can not provide" It's not for me to provide it. You made the claim. Is this your ditties g you can't provide the necessary data to prove it's cheaper? I've never said fossil fuels were cheaper or more expensive. You said renewables were cheaper to provide. Please provide the backing data. 12th time of asking? No, not the 12th time of asking. Your question was: "I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil." You were shown it, immediately. You then spent several posts wanting it written down for you, although you'd apparently read the information and knew the answer. Now you want a breakdown of the data. Next you'll want some other arbitrary detail. I guess because you feel that this discredits the information somehow. You've tried to do the same thing before. It doesn't. It absolutely is for you to provide equivalent data if you want to perform a comparison and cannot find any information to back your position. The reality is that there are no organisations or companies that seem to believe you. If there were you'd be busy quoting the information. You are saying that the transition to renewable energy is not viable. Nobody else is. Tell us your secret knowledge. Like so many other topics you are so animated about, why has nobody else taken your view? Too stupid? I'm sure you'll find a YouTube clip in the end. All of this started with you claiming that the UK's higher inflation was due to energy prices and that was because of the cost of renewables. However, as you know, the cost of UK energy is defined by the highest cost source which is gas. Are you still claiming otherwise?" I asked exactly that the cost of generating a kw/h of renewables and you haven't shown me it. Just continually made a claim. No breakdown of costs involved and how they arrive at a total cost. Nothing Zilch Nada I've grown bored. So will let other toy with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Renewable power generation is cheaper than that of fossil fuels. That you know, of course. It's only cheaper right now, while it's being subsidised by fossil fuels. If we are to stop using gas to fill in all the gaps from 'renewables' generation, then we'll have to find some sort of storage system to save up electricity for when the wind isn't blowing. That infrastructure is an important part of the cost of green power generation. Since such large scale grid storage systems don't yet exist, it's impossible to say how expensive 'renewable' power is. Sort of the point i am making. If you still have to build interconnectors to frnce and Norway and Belgium for when the wind doesn't blow. Thay should be entered intlt he cost of remewables as you've built an entire system as a backup to renewables for supply. I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil. It's not a backup. It's the system. Like the drilling, shipping, pumping, refining and road transport system for fossil fuels. Think harder. You're being lazy now. Not it's the backup. Because we need the energy from the continent when the wind doesnt blow. Hence the higher prices. You are talking about interconnects, not grid infrastructure. We were also importing electricity from France long before renewables were even a blip. We are always dependent on fossil fuels from abroad and subject to global pricing and arbitrary supply changes, so you aren't really making any kind of an argument. But they are built because the uk can not always ge erase electricity from green. Having got rid of coal , nuclear production and gas storage. The interconnectors are a direct result of green policy. So they need to be costed. Yes we are dependent on energy from abroad and we can measure that cost. There was an interconnect to France for electricity before renewables were of any significance. There are gas pipelines to France and Norway too. The UK did not dismantle its gas storage due to renewable policies. They are, in fact, being re. There is massive oil storage. A direct result of fossil fuel policy. Along with oil tankers, road transport, refining and a reliance on foreign supply and production decisions. Keep up with your "buts". They aren't making your position any stronger. Quite the opposite. There are 3 cables to France and one each to Belgium and Netherlands which means if live the southeast or London your electricity can be up 90% imported .There is also two small interconnecters to Ireland with one more just starting construction. On top of this there is a cable to Norway plus one under construction to Denmark and another to Germany which should start been built this year. Hes in a pickle here. Because he has asserted something he has bi backing of. Why. Because there's never been ANY research into the cost of total renewable generation. You have to include govenrment subsidies for renewables per annum rwhich is £10bn roughly. Then tbe generation. The capital expenditures of replacing the wind farms every 20 years. The court cases fkr the failing of solar to generate what was promised. The cost of the it erconnectors for days whe wind isnt blowing The cost of Gas for days when wind is t blowing. None of this has EVER been costed into the price of green energy. You get a tarriff that isn't split. Simply because it can't be. As the national grid has no way of splitting gthe generation cost. There are lots of studies on the total cost of transition as well as the total cost of climate change with the accompanying geopolitical consequences. Have you not bothered to loon those up either, or do they just not give you the answers that you want? Do you need me to write them out for you word for word? If you really want to go into total cost, let's price in all of the externalities of fossil fuel costs. Human health and environmental damage from pollution and spills and accidents. The costs of geopolitical instability and conflicts and wars. The ongoing cost of climate change and global state subsidies for fossil fuels. How about the on-going cost of prospecting, building new extraction and transportation. Service, maintenance and replacement of the existing extraction, transport and refining infrastructure? Tot up a bill. No "pickle". I've already explained why electricity interconnectors are no different to oil tankers or gas pipelines, which you keep ignoring as a cost of fossil fuels. Electricity "can" also be 0% imported. What is the price difference that you believe this creates? Any idea? Any data? The tariff is based on billing charged at the highest cost producer - that of fossil fuels. As you know. Every topic, you complain about the data being provided not meeting your arbitrary standards but provide nothing yourself. Your turn now. Provide the data showing that the total cost of the use of fossil fuels including it's environmental and geopolitical consequences will be lower than transitioning to renewables. Off you pop. 10th time of asking...what study gives that breakdown..off you pop Ah, not the cost anymore. The "breakdown" of the cost now? Arbitrary demands. If you don't get all of the information that you require, then inadmissible. Equally, no way for you to provide any equivalent data for fossil fuels. Correct? You're demanding something that you cannot provide. Perhaps you should go and look at the data from the silly people from Lazar's who don't know much about much. Perhaps you should get a job there and tell them, and every other major organisation that you're arguing against, how to do it properly. You're the one making the counter argument so you provide the data to support not transitioning to renewables and argue the benefits to energy security and prices of going more slowly. You can provide the data showing that fossil fuel energy provision is overall cheaper, right? I'm sure there are many, many studies to support your position. A report. A nice graph. A table. Something. Anything? It was always the cost. I jsut want the speicfic breakdown. As I always mentioned subsidies it's cost to produce. "You am demanding something you can not provide" It's not for me to provide it. You made the claim. Is this your ditties g you can't provide the necessary data to prove it's cheaper? I've never said fossil fuels were cheaper or more expensive. You said renewables were cheaper to provide. Please provide the backing data. 12th time of asking? No, not the 12th time of asking. Your question was: "I am yet to see the cost of generating a kw/h or tw/h from green vs fossil." You were shown it, immediately. You then spent several posts wanting it written down for you, although you'd apparently read the information and knew the answer. Now you want a breakdown of the data. Next you'll want some other arbitrary detail. I guess because you feel that this discredits the information somehow. You've tried to do the same thing before. It doesn't. It absolutely is for you to provide equivalent data if you want to perform a comparison and cannot find any information to back your position. The reality is that there are no organisations or companies that seem to believe you. If there were you'd be busy quoting the information. You are saying that the transition to renewable energy is not viable. Nobody else is. Tell us your secret knowledge. Like so many other topics you are so animated about, why has nobody else taken your view? Too stupid? I'm sure you'll find a YouTube clip in the end. All of this started with you claiming that the UK's higher inflation was due to energy prices and that was because of the cost of renewables. However, as you know, the cost of UK energy is defined by the highest cost source which is gas. Are you still claiming otherwise? I asked exactly that the cost of generating a kw/h of renewables and you haven't shown me it. Just continually made a claim. No breakdown of costs involved and how they arrive at a total cost. Nothing Zilch Nada I've grown bored. So will let other toy with you." Genuinely not as bored as me. You were given the data you asked for. You didn't like it or you cannot read it. You're asking for more detail. You keep saying your done but keep coming back because you're desperate to goad me. You think that have some big "gotcha" which you desperately need to spring, but you can't unless I bite. Shame. No big climax for you. You cannot provide any data for your position at all either, it seems. No Government policies, studies, reports, graphs, tables YouTube clips, nothing, but you keep demanding information as if you are in a position to judge it. How can renewable energy be creating our exceptionally high inflation if the price is set by fossil fuel costs? That still remains a conundrum for you to answer... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free? Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did.
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win.
I explained what they mean in the context of the actual discussion.
You chose to interpret it as something else. You even asked me for clarification and decided that the answer wasn't acceptable.
For me, if electricity is being produced for free it is free electricity. I struggle to see it in a different way. If you can explain it differently then please do.
I don't really know why you would feel that this was such a vitally important use of words having, apparently, observed the exchange for so long."You didn't explain what they mean in the context of anything, you chose to change your words without admitting you'd got it wrong in the first place. You are aware that the electricity wouldn't be produced for free though (becauee its not possible), you just choose to double down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free? Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did.
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win.
I explained what they mean in the context of the actual discussion.
You chose to interpret it as something else. You even asked me for clarification and decided that the answer wasn't acceptable.
For me, if electricity is being produced for free it is free electricity. I struggle to see it in a different way. If you can explain it differently then please do.
I don't really know why you would feel that this was such a vitally important use of words having, apparently, observed the exchange for so long.
You didn't explain what they mean in the context of anything, you chose to change your words without admitting you'd got it wrong in the first place.
You are aware that the electricity wouldn't be produced for free though (becauee its not possible), you just choose to double down.
"Back again then. Never mind. Read what you choose to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free? Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did.
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win.
I explained what they mean in the context of the actual discussion.
You chose to interpret it as something else. You even asked me for clarification and decided that the answer wasn't acceptable.
For me, if electricity is being produced for free it is free electricity. I struggle to see it in a different way. If you can explain it differently then please do.
I don't really know why you would feel that this was such a vitally important use of words having, apparently, observed the exchange for so long.
You didn't explain what they mean in the context of anything, you chose to change your words without admitting you'd got it wrong in the first place.
You are aware that the electricity wouldn't be produced for free though (becauee its not possible), you just choose to double down.
Back again then.
Never mind. Read what you choose to."Nothing to say other than 'I must get the last word in'
I won't respond anymore so feel free to... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We would be able to make use of it if we had appropriate storage capacity and that would reduce the overall energy cost on average. That should not have needed to be written if you had any purpose in intervening other than to try to prove me wrong which you so desperately want to do on any thread which I write on. I don't have to be desperate to prove you wrong. You said FREE ELECTRICITY. Your words. Only there is no such thing. Why do you keep talking about me having some sort of problem with you? I have a problem with you not acknowledging you got something wrong and doubling down, not you as a person. It's not just me though, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a 'problem' with you. I didn't say that it would be provided for free. It is generated for free, so it exists. Perhaps you're now saying zero marginal cost is not free? Very confusing. Upper case letters don't change that. You're right, it isn't just you, it's those who don't like being questioned or who more accurately, don't like questioning themselves once they have made up their minds. You carry on if you feel that I'm worth so much of your time. Why do you try all that reverse psychology bullshit? It's ridiculous. You may think it's generated for free (it isn't) but I'll say it again, that's not what you said. Do I really need to quote your exact words? Here you go: 'We are paying to not receive free electricity' So yes you did imply it would be provided free of charge. I didn't "imply" anything of the sort. We the country/system/customer are paying to not have something that is being produced for nothing. That is what is actually happening. You chose to pick an argument about a detail, so you did.
I quoted tour own words and you still can't accept it. We'll doen mate, you win.
I explained what they mean in the context of the actual discussion.
You chose to interpret it as something else. You even asked me for clarification and decided that the answer wasn't acceptable.
For me, if electricity is being produced for free it is free electricity. I struggle to see it in a different way. If you can explain it differently then please do.
I don't really know why you would feel that this was such a vitally important use of words having, apparently, observed the exchange for so long.
You didn't explain what they mean in the context of anything, you chose to change your words without admitting you'd got it wrong in the first place.
You are aware that the electricity wouldn't be produced for free though (becauee its not possible), you just choose to double down.
Back again then.
Never mind. Read what you choose to.
Nothing to say other than 'I must get the last word in'
I won't respond anymore so feel free to..."I honestly feel this is how he replies at times. Desperate for the last word after embarrassment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. " I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s Brexit. The world’s stupidest ever idea" Not for UK domiciled billionaires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. " The uk is a leader i am afraid. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. " 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. " Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? " Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. " Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. " There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it." We can also make use of geothermal energy and solar energy via interconnects from other countries. This is something that we were increasing our ability to do regardless of renewables. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no problem with alternative energy sources, my problem is with people that are dishonest about 'renewables' capabilities. What "dishonesty"? The dishonesty of people that claim that all of the technical problems are solved, and that we can move to renewables whenever we want, and that energy will be cheaper at that point. The technical issues are well understood, and lots of solutions have been put forward, but none of them have actually been tried at grid level. They might work, but they might not. They might be built on budget, and they might not. No one knows whether any of the proposed grid storage systems will work well enough to sustain our energy needs. Likewise, no one knows what these systems will cost, so no one knows whether 'renewable' energy is cheaper than fossil fuels or not. Spell it out and explain what "transition" means. We all know what 'transition' means, and it's great to see more 'renewables' coming on-line. But we're close to the point of maximum 'renewable' capacity. Adding more will mean less gas usage, which means that the gas plants become more expensive to run, which pushes up energy prices. We can't get rid of gas until we have some grid storage, so there's not much more transitioning we can do. Pushing for more solar and more wind power right now will only make energy more expensive, not cheaper. What do you believe that "maximum renewable capacity" means? You're now making up terms. Where are you getting your information from? Energy prices are based on the fossil fuel price because that's what the current regulations dictate. That's the problem. Once that's fixed the overall price falls. If you understand what transition means then it is obvious that we cannot move faster than the rate that the required energy generation is possible. Who's asking for blackouts other than a few people who jump on snooker tables? What point are you making? That we cannot move faster than we can actually move? The uk is currently paying a large offshore wind farm in Scotland millions to be turned off as a lot of time there is no where for that power to go and the grid Is difficult to upgrade as people tend not to like living near 400kv cables even if they are buried. Do they not? Where are they causing this specific problem? They also don't like living near fossil fuel power stations. The fact that we are paying to not receive free electricity is rather telling, isn't it? So the "cost" of installing grid infrastructure and storage is the ability to use free energy. I've been watching you lot go back and forth but this is where I have to say your now being ridiculous. Free energy?? Where are we getting free energy from? When there is excess capacity, which is when we pay to disconnect wind turbines, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. Free. You think if we could store the excess it would be free? Marginal cost. The cost of each additional unit of power. You didn't say marginal cost you said free electricity. Pedantry again. What point are you trying to make? That of each additional unit of energy being produced costing nothing is not the same as being free? 0 does not equal 0. Not pedantry. You said 'free elctricity' Now you're talking about marginal costs, they aren't the same thing. If we could storage this additional energy, do you think we would be given it for free? So zero marginal cost is free? So the energy would be generated for nothing, correct? I didn't say that we would not pay anything for it. We are paying not to receive electricity that is being generated at zero marginal cost. We wo I honestly feel this is how he replies at times. Desperate for the last word after embarrassment." Your constant need to try to denigrate what I write ia indicative of how much you've actually added to the thread
You still cannot back up your original assertion that the UK has higher energy inflation due to higher energy bills as a consequence of renewables.
UK homes and power is generated by a higher proportion of gas (a fossil fuel) than other countries, so the increase effects us more due to our dependence on a fossil fuel and lack of control over its supply. On top of that, the lack of gas storage here means that we have been forced to pay short-term market rates without a buffer.
The electricity price for the consumer is set by the highest marginal energy price. That is usually Gas.
A high proportion of our electricity is also generated with gas. So even without the current pricing system we would experience particularly high electricity prices because of our dependence on fossil fuels.
That is what is actually happening and we are seeing in our bills.
Ofgem: What drives wholesale electricity prices in Britain?
EDF: Wholesale energy costs made simple
So all of your too and fro about wanting more data and a number is just a distraction. My fault for allowing you to do so. It is your normal approach.
See if you can actually respond to the real embarrassment. Yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it." I'm not against it. Again read my posts in this thread. I am against doing it at the expense of today taxpayers whoa re all baring the brunt financially because of the dumb policy of the quick move to green. A slower tenasition and more sensible policy would have seen out energy bills be much cheaper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it." Whay am I meant to be seeing I this report It's not very substantive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. Whay am I meant to be seeing I this report It's not very substantive." Indeed. But it answered your question. The point is. Instead of assuming and not knowing. A small amount of research will help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. I'm not against it. Again read my posts in this thread. I am against doing it at the expense of today taxpayers whoa re all baring the brunt financially because of the dumb policy of the quick move to green. A slower tenasition and more sensible policy would have seen out energy bills be much cheaper " It's already extremely slow. As you seemed to be agreeing with earlier. We're very behind, which you pointed out multiple times. The slower we go, the longer we are trapped on fossil fuels of which we have no control over the wholesale prices. That's why I am confused about you wanting to go even slower, and keep us burdened down on expensive energy generated by oil, gas and coal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. Whay am I meant to be seeing I this report It's not very substantive. Indeed. But it answered your question. The point is. Instead of assuming and not knowing. A small amount of research will help. "How? It simply describes what geothermal is. There's no cos tbenefit analysis etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. I'm not against it. Again read my posts in this thread. I am against doing it at the expense of today taxpayers whoa re all baring the brunt financially because of the dumb policy of the quick move to green. A slower tenasition and more sensible policy would have seen out energy bills be much cheaper It's already extremely slow. As you seemed to be agreeing with earlier. We're very behind, which you pointed out multiple times. The slower we go, the longer we are trapped on fossil fuels of which we have no control over the wholesale prices. That's why I am confused about you wanting to go even slower, and keep us burdened down on expensive energy generated by oil, gas and coal. " Again we are one of the world leaders in green energy. And the move has been extremely costly. ( see inflation) You seem to be finding it difficult to understand the relationship between our green policies and the rise in inflation for energy. Every though it's right in front of you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you give me the cost of production per kilowatt please from reports? It's amusing to me that you have very strong opinions on a subject that you have zero interest in learning about, so much so that you can't be arsed to read a few articles, reports and studies. Fair play to you for being honest about it though. Oh no I've read about it. I am wanting the breakdown. Do you have it two notes? Maybe you can help easy? Ah you read it. So you simply don't believe it, and still think fossil fuels are the answer? I have no interest in attempting to find whatever arbitrary figures you're looking for because: A. If they're available, you could find them. B. You seem extremely adept at sticking to the fossil fuels argument despite the overwhelming data and evidence. Which I do admire, same as in the brexit threads. You pick extremely difficult angles to argue. C. The breakdown presumably is different for different renewable energy sectors, in different countries, at different times of day, etc etc. So I suspect that the figures are not readily available or accurate. Which you will use as evidence that we should crack on with fossil fuels at full speed. Nope again. Why is it you can't read? Fossil fuels are still requirement atm. There is no debate in that. Even the uk as one of the single most developed green nations can't supply totally green energy from winnd and solar. Indont knkw why this is a struggle to.comprehend. I know you don't like it. But it feels like we agree. The UK is way behind where we should be on renewable energy. Couple of points. Wind and solar are only two of the vast array of renewable options. The UK is not really one of the most developed green nations. We're way way down the list. The uk is a leader i am afraid. 2 mins on Google would correct this misunderstanding. Which other renewables are suitable for the uk? Tidal, hyrdo electric, biogas, wave, geothermal. Again 2 mins on Google would have sorted this for you. Where are we going to get geothermal in the uk for example. There is a study published on the UK parliament website which details the current and potential for geothermal energy. Published Wednesday, 27 April, 2022. Why are you so obstinately against renewable energy. I genuinely don't get it. I'm not against it. Again read my posts in this thread. I am against doing it at the expense of today taxpayers whoa re all baring the brunt financially because of the dumb policy of the quick move to green. A slower tenasition and more sensible policy would have seen out energy bills be much cheaper It's already extremely slow. As you seemed to be agreeing with earlier. We're very behind, which you pointed out multiple times. The slower we go, the longer we are trapped on fossil fuels of which we have no control over the wholesale prices. That's why I am confused about you wanting to go even slower, and keep us burdened down on expensive energy generated by oil, gas and coal. Again we are one of the world leaders in green energy. And the move has been extremely costly. ( see inflation) You seem to be finding it difficult to understand the relationship between our green policies and the rise in inflation for energy. Every though it's right in front of you." Hmmmmm I guess you're just convinced that green energy is the enemy and no amount of information and real life data will help. Fair play to you. Glad this thread is coming to an end. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
