FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Greene energy
Greene energy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s " Everything ok ?  | |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s Everything ok ? "Absolutely fantastic. Just don't like people attempting to have last words on threads like a child whilst lying. | |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s Everything ok ?
Absolutely fantastic.
Just don't like people attempting to have last words on threads like a child whilst lying.
"Maybe they think you’re lying, not worth getting upset about | |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s Everything ok ?
Absolutely fantastic.
Just don't like people attempting to have last words on threads like a child whilst lying.
Maybe they think you’re lying, not worth getting upset about "It was an assertion on what they believed to be my thoughts ona subject. Thoughts I had previously clarified I'm the reply before hand. And thus a lie. If grown adults wish to lie on these forums I will call them out as such. | |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s " Still non the wiser what point you're trying to make. | |||
"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. For some reason people think they can lie as a last word on threads. As stated. We moved to green without anybolanning for when the wind doesn't blow. As stated I believe moving tog reen is correct but the plan wasn't thought through and thus our high energy prices. People consistently purposefully mis represent what you type on thread here and for some reason pathetically Tey and get some sort of last word in while perpetuating what they knkw to be a lie. Grown adults acting like children. I'll call you outnon your b.s " Could you point me in the direction of the thread, I have been through them all and I can't see any indication of child like responses or behaviour. Much appreciated. | |||
| |||
"This thread. I posted on several occasions I am in favour of green energy but phased in at a slower rate as we have left ourselves open to not having a secure energy supply without market volatility ( gas prices) Johnny for some reason kept re iterating the lie I was against greenenergy as above. I shall continue tk highlight intentional lies. And if you think having last posts in threads will get allow such behaviour I'll call that out too. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1444664#last " Blimey. I tried to clarify your points because you continually contradicted yourself. That's all that happened. I'm now at the point where I don't care what your point is. Because any attempt to understand what you're trying to say was met with you making up bollocks about me. Now you started a new thread to call me a liar. Pretty low. | |||
| |||
"This thread. I posted on several occasions I am in favour of green energy but phased in at a slower rate as we have left ourselves open to not having a secure energy supply without market volatility ( gas prices) Johnny for some reason kept re iterating the lie I was against greenenergy as above. I shall continue tk highlight intentional lies. And if you think having last posts in threads will get allow such behaviour I'll call that out too. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1444664#last " Don't take it out of me. Points a finger at mr Johnny rotten twonotes. if i want to have the last post in the thread I will if that's bad behaviour So what, neh neh neh neh nehhh.  | |||
"This thread. I posted on several occasions I am in favour of green energy but phased in at a slower rate as we have left ourselves open to not having a secure energy supply without market volatility ( gas prices) Johnny for some reason kept re iterating the lie I was against greenenergy as above. I shall continue tk highlight intentional lies. And if you think having last posts in threads will get allow such behaviour I'll call that out too. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1444664#last Don't take it out of me. Points a finger at mr Johnny rotten twonotes. if i want to have the last post in the thread I will if that's bad behaviour So what, neh neh neh neh nehhh. "I'm sorry that was childish behaviour. | |||
 | |||
"This thread. I posted on several occasions I am in favour of green energy but phased in at a slower rate as we have left ourselves open to not having a secure energy supply without market volatility ( gas prices) Johnny for some reason kept re iterating the lie I was against greenenergy as above. I shall continue tk highlight intentional lies. And if you think having last posts in threads will get allow such behaviour I'll call that out too. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1444664#last Blimey. I tried to clarify your points because you continually contradicted yourself. That's all that happened. I'm now at the point where I don't care what your point is. Because any attempt to understand what you're trying to say was met with you making up bollocks about me. Now you started a new thread to call me a liar. Pretty low. " No you continually made up statements I didn't say and then said "we agreed" when we certainly did not. And I won't allow you to continue to do it. You lied. I called you out for your lie. As I clarified my stance and you Continued to infer something I clarified I had not said. That's what a lie is. Repeating soemthing you know to be wrong. | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. " No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt | |||
| |||
"Came here for a civil debate with adults on green energy….is all a little too childish for me." Happy to have a discussion on green energy. If people wish. | |||
"Came here for a civil debate with adults on green energy….is all a little too childish for me. Happy to have a discussion on green energy. If people wish." Going off this thread I’ll politely decline. | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt " Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. | |||
| |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers." It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify. | |||
"Increased renewable energy use would reduce our costs and increase our energy security. We are suffering particularly from energy inflation due to our reliance on gas. 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" How would it reduce costs. 25% of green energy is currently subsidised. So the generation of green energy prices needs tk increase 25% How do we account for days when the wind isn't blowing as wind typically generates the vast majority of our green energy? If the total capacity for green energy at peak consumption sits around 35% But then on days wind doesnt blow say providing 15%. we are importing gas. That gas comes at a cost to green policies because we could have used other means e.g coal biomass or nuclear. How many wind turbines will be necessary to ensure that green supplies 100% of out electricity requirements every day? And solar panels? | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify. "You need to understand the difference between asking a question (what I did), and making up bullshit (what you did). The rules are clear, you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. This is pathetic behaviour, and negates any points you're trying to make. | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify.
You need to understand the difference between asking a question (what I did), and making up bullshit (what you did).
The rules are clear, you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names.
This is pathetic behaviour, and negates any points you're trying to make.
"Where was the question sorry? By _orleyman OP Find posts by _orleyman Man 21 hours ago Leeds 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. | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify.
You need to understand the difference between asking a question (what I did), and making up bullshit (what you did).
The rules are clear, you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names.
This is pathetic behaviour, and negates any points you're trying to make.
Where was the question sorry?
By _orleyman OP Find posts by _orleyman Man
21 hours ago
Leeds
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."In the other posts, where up confused questions with statements. Any chance you can stop making threads and posts specifically to make personal attacks, calling people names etc? | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify.
You need to understand the difference between asking a question (what I did), and making up bullshit (what you did).
The rules are clear, you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names.
This is pathetic behaviour, and negates any points you're trying to make.
Where was the question sorry?
By _orleyman OP Find posts by _orleyman Man
21 hours ago
Leeds
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.
In the other posts, where up confused questions with statements.
Any chance you can stop making threads and posts specifically to make personal attacks, calling people names etc?"Stop making threads. You mean make 1 thread clarifying you lied in your final sentence about my stance on green energy in thebither thread and clarifying what I actually said. I shouldn't have had to. But sadly. There was a complete lie in what was said. | |||
"Just checked the rules. Pretty sure you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names. Any chance you can delete this? Ta. No. I started the thread to clarify my point. As you tried to infer I had said something i didnt Any chance you can stop this absolute nonsense. Definitely against the rules to start a thread specifically to call someone names and make up bullshit about them. Cheers. It is. I started this thread because I needed to clarify my position from the last thread. As you had lied about what I'd said and needed to clarify.
You need to understand the difference between asking a question (what I did), and making up bullshit (what you did).
The rules are clear, you cannot start a thread just to have a go at someone else and make up a load of bullshit about them, call them names.
This is pathetic behaviour, and negates any points you're trying to make.
Where was the question sorry?
By _orleyman OP Find posts by _orleyman Man
21 hours ago
Leeds
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.
In the other posts, where up confused questions with statements.
Any chance you can stop making threads and posts specifically to make personal attacks, calling people names etc?
Stop making threads.
You mean make 1 thread clarifying you lied in your final sentence about my stance on green energy in thebither thread and clarifying what I actually said.
I shouldn't have had to. But sadly. There was a complete lie in what was said."Any chance you can stop making threads and posts specifically to make personal attacks, calling people names etc? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent." I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. | |||
"Increased renewable energy use would reduce our costs and increase our energy security. We are suffering particularly from energy inflation due to our reliance on gas. 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 How would it reduce costs. 25% of green energy is currently subsidised. So the generation of green energy prices needs tk increase 25% How do we account for days when the wind isn't blowing as wind typically generates the vast majority of our green energy? If the total capacity for green energy at peak consumption sits around 35% But then on days wind doesnt blow say providing 15%. we are importing gas. That gas comes at a cost to green policies because we could have used other means e.g coal biomass or nuclear. How many wind turbines will be necessary to ensure that green supplies 100% of out electricity requirements every day? And solar panels? " 25% is "subsidised"? By how much? In what way? Where's the data? Even thoughts you claim that the benefits offered to the fossil fuel industry are not "technically" subsidies, the effect is the same. How much is that worth? Shall we add the cost of climate change to the price of fossil fuels too? There's a £ value that can be assigned since we started burning at industrial scale. On the days the wind doesn't blow we have the interconnects which we were building anyway because we have been progressively more desperate for power regardless of renewables. Now that renewables are scaling up the market is being created for storage. It wasn't viable at a grid scale before now although it was known to be needed. It could also have been filled with nuclear if we had addressed the problem when it was first raised. As you are well aware. The gas is expensive isn't it? The gas is creating CO2 emissions which is adding to the current and future costs of climate change, isn't it? The gas is out of our geopolitical control, isn't it? The marginal cost of renewables is cheaper than gas, isn't it? Why you cannot accept that many of these things are true demonstrates your motivated thinking. We absolutely do need fossil fuels right now as a transition. The faster we move to renewables with grid storage the faster we can generate low cost energy free of external price shocks. Ramping up renewables further will also allow for hydrogen production as a fuel to decarbonise heavy industry. Even though it is perfectly possible to create enough excess storage capacity to act as baseload it would also make sense to have some nuclear generation capacity and even mothballed gas plants. Bring your data that shows that the transition to renewables is wrong or not being carried out properly rather than complaining about what is being done and all of the data that you are being provided. Give us the YouTube clip if that's the best you can manage. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. " You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's." I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. | |||
"Increased renewable energy use would reduce our costs and increase our energy security. We are suffering particularly from energy inflation due to our reliance on gas. 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 How would it reduce costs. 25% of green energy is currently subsidised. So the generation of green energy prices needs tk increase 25% How do we account for days when the wind isn't blowing as wind typically generates the vast majority of our green energy? If the total capacity for green energy at peak consumption sits around 35% But then on days wind doesnt blow say providing 15%. we are importing gas. That gas comes at a cost to green policies because we could have used other means e.g coal biomass or nuclear. How many wind turbines will be necessary to ensure that green supplies 100% of out electricity requirements every day? And solar panels? 25% is "subsidised"? By how much? In what way? Where's the data? Even thoughts you claim that the benefits offered to the fossil fuel industry are not "technically" subsidies, the effect is the same. How much is that worth? Shall we add the cost of climate change to the price of fossil fuels too? There's a £ value that can be assigned since we started burning at industrial scale. On the days the wind doesn't blow we have the interconnects which we were building anyway because we have been progressively more desperate for power regardless of renewables. Now that renewables are scaling up the market is being created for storage. It wasn't viable at a grid scale before now although it was known to be needed. It could also have been filled with nuclear if we had addressed the problem when it was first raised. As you are well aware. The gas is expensive isn't it? The gas is creating CO2 emissions which is adding to the current and future costs of climate change, isn't it? The gas is out of our geopolitical control, isn't it? The marginal cost of renewables is cheaper than gas, isn't it? Why you cannot accept that many of these things are true demonstrates your motivated thinking. We absolutely do need fossil fuels right now as a transition. The faster we move to renewables with grid storage the faster we can generate low cost energy free of external price shocks. Ramping up renewables further will also allow for hydrogen production as a fuel to decarbonise heavy industry. Even though it is perfectly possible to create enough excess storage capacity to act as baseload it would also make sense to have some nuclear generation capacity and even mothballed gas plants. Bring your data that shows that the transition to renewables is wrong or not being carried out properly rather than complaining about what is being done and all of the data that you are being provided. Give us the YouTube clip if that's the best you can manage." .. interconnectors cost around 2 bn and they also require gas and nuclear. So you are happy fkr the uk to move to green. But when green isn't working import nuclear and gas energy from abroad rather than self generate? The 25% was broken down by full fact. They have been attempting hydrogen production for 50 years as an energy source. You think this is miraculously one or 2 years away? How do we go green faster? Because currently wind is our generation? And we would requite around 80k turbines to guarantee supply | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. " Where is your made up data from? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from?" National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. | |||
"Increased renewable energy use would reduce our costs and increase our energy security. We are suffering particularly from energy inflation due to our reliance on gas. 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 How would it reduce costs. 25% of green energy is currently subsidised. So the generation of green energy prices needs tk increase 25% How do we account for days when the wind isn't blowing as wind typically generates the vast majority of our green energy? If the total capacity for green energy at peak consumption sits around 35% But then on days wind doesnt blow say providing 15%. we are importing gas. That gas comes at a cost to green policies because we could have used other means e.g coal biomass or nuclear. How many wind turbines will be necessary to ensure that green supplies 100% of out electricity requirements every day? And solar panels? 25% is "subsidised"? By how much? In what way? Where's the data? Even thoughts you claim that the benefits offered to the fossil fuel industry are not "technically" subsidies, the effect is the same. How much is that worth? Shall we add the cost of climate change to the price of fossil fuels too? There's a £ value that can be assigned since we started burning at industrial scale. On the days the wind doesn't blow we have the interconnects which we were building anyway because we have been progressively more desperate for power regardless of renewables. Now that renewables are scaling up the market is being created for storage. It wasn't viable at a grid scale before now although it was known to be needed. It could also have been filled with nuclear if we had addressed the problem when it was first raised. As you are well aware. The gas is expensive isn't it? The gas is creating CO2 emissions which is adding to the current and future costs of climate change, isn't it? The gas is out of our geopolitical control, isn't it? The marginal cost of renewables is cheaper than gas, isn't it? Why you cannot accept that many of these things are true demonstrates your motivated thinking. We absolutely do need fossil fuels right now as a transition. The faster we move to renewables with grid storage the faster we can generate low cost energy free of external price shocks. Ramping up renewables further will also allow for hydrogen production as a fuel to decarbonise heavy industry. Even though it is perfectly possible to create enough excess storage capacity to act as baseload it would also make sense to have some nuclear generation capacity and even mothballed gas plants. Bring your data that shows that the transition to renewables is wrong or not being carried out properly rather than complaining about what is being done and all of the data that you are being provided. Give us the YouTube clip if that's the best you can manage... interconnectors cost around 2 bn and they also require gas and nuclear. So you are happy fkr the uk to move to green. But when green isn't working import nuclear and gas energy from abroad rather than self generate? The 25% was broken down by full fact. They have been attempting hydrogen production for 50 years as an energy source. You think this is miraculously one or 2 years away? How do we go green faster? Because currently wind is our generation? And we would requite around 80k turbines to guarantee supply " So? Everything costs money. The UK imported £19.6bn of gas in 2021. How much was maintenance of pipelines rigs and power stations? How much did new prospecting cost globally to locate and extract new sources? How much is it costing to rectify the results of increasingly extreme weather events resulting from climate change? Every country in the EU is increasing its renewable generation. Particularly Spain. We have not been realistically"attempting" Hydrogen conversion for fifty years. It's been discussed for that long. Who said anything will be one of two years away? Why does this have to happen instantly because you say it does? It won't it will take time, but the more the cost of fossil fuel are paid for by fossil fuel companies the faster that transition will be. Trying to couch it as having to be an instant change that must immediately function perfectly at a sudden high price in a short period of time is intended to make renewables transition as unattractive as possible. That's not how the rise of fossil fuels happened. So why should this, other the fact that fossil fuels have a high and rising collateral cost because we delayed for so long. Well done you it hitting all of the pro-fossil fuel talking points whilst pretending that you think that we should shift to renewables. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying." There we go. The generalised answer. Does the National Grid support your position on this topic? Are they involved in some sort of a conspiracy that you have seen through? Again, where are the reports that make your case? It's worrying that someone as talented as you is lost to the world and just posting on here. Why aren't more important people listening to you? Why are scientists, engineers, industries, finance, governments and international organisations all so thick and myopic? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. There we go. The generalised answer. Does the National Grid support your position on this topic? Are they involved in some sort of a conspiracy that you have seen through? Again, where are the reports that make your case? It's worrying that someone as talented as you is lost to the world and just posting on here. Why aren't more important people listening to you? Why are scientists, engineers, industries, finance, governments and international organisations all so thick and myopic?" The atonal grid doesn't give support or admonishment. They simply supply data. Feel free to try and rebuttal it. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying." You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. There we go. The generalised answer. Does the National Grid support your position on this topic? Are they involved in some sort of a conspiracy that you have seen through? Again, where are the reports that make your case? It's worrying that someone as talented as you is lost to the world and just posting on here. Why aren't more important people listening to you? Why are scientists, engineers, industries, finance, governments and international organisations all so thick and myopic? The atonal grid doesn't give support or admonishment. They simply supply data. Feel free to try and rebuttal it." ...and it all falls down 
Any reports that support your position that transition is not possible. From any source... | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms?" Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? | |||
| |||
| |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn" In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies " Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? " I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. " This is going to sound radical! I think the government should pay a company to build the plants, and another to run them, but the country owns them. Recent events should be a wake up call that our energy should not be supplied and delivered by a 3rd party to whom we become reliant upon | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. This is going to sound radical! I think the government should pay a company to build the plants, and another to run them, but the country owns them. Recent events should be a wake up call that our energy should not be supplied and delivered by a 3rd party to whom we become reliant upon " Don't disagree with this | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn" Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. " 25% is made up, but you keep repeating it. Interesting. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research." Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. 25% is made up, but you keep repeating it. Interesting." It's not. Read the article. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed." Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? " Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? " The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. 25% is made up, but you keep repeating it. Interesting. It's not. Read the article." There is not a 25% subsidy for renewable energy is there? Read the article. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing."The levy is a subsidy. It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
| |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers." Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn In my opinion we need to get on and start the nuclear expansion now. Once we are at a point of stability with our energy supply output to supply need, we can then begin the task of concentrating on renewables and other sources of energy with the aim of decommissioning nuclear as new energy sources start to deliver. This is not a quick win, I don't think there are any until we have regained control of our energy supplies Agreed. We don't have energy security atm. Especially worrying that we know Russia is currently collecting data on our interconnectors and their routes. We should have started when the tories came to power. But ideally never turned them off without replacements. I am happy to move into renewables at a pace that doesn't see the true cost hidden. After 30 odd years.cwhen you're still subsidising the bill by 25% its a disaster. 25% is made up, but you keep repeating it. Interesting. It's not. Read the article. There is not a 25% subsidy for renewable energy is there? Read the article." There is can you not read? | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error " Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
"Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah. Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study... | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories." So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study..."Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost. The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost. Hs2 is a disaster. Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods. I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile." I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
"You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations. Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded. A study or report supporting your position. Just one. | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one."I gave you the sources full fact and national grid. I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements. You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind?" You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. | |||
| |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one.
I gave you the sources full fact and national grid.
I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements.
You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies."You give nothing. One Fullfact article that does not even support your point. Copy the paragraph if your so confident. The (unspecified) National Grid data reflects what? Who knows( At best some selected information about what's happening today. You're the one claiming that everyone is wrong. The technology is there as are the strategies and the public and private sector funding. The renewables generation prices are already below fossil fuels and the security is far better. You cannot even acknowledge that. In addition there have been and continue to be huge subsidies which you try to ignore in a technicality trying to use an IEA definition based only on consumption which would also mean that renewables are not subsidised at all. You cannot even acknowledge that there is a cost to climate changed caused by fossil fuels. Prove it with more that you "not seeing it". | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter." Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one.
I gave you the sources full fact and national grid.
I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements.
You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies.
You give nothing.
One Fullfact article that does not even support your point. Copy the paragraph if your so confident.
The (unspecified) National Grid data reflects what? Who knows( At best some selected information about what's happening today.
You're the one claiming that everyone is wrong.
The technology is there as are the strategies and the public and private sector funding. The renewables generation prices are already below fossil fuels and the security is far better.
You cannot even acknowledge that.
In addition there have been and continue to be huge subsidies which you try to ignore in a technicality trying to use an IEA definition based only on consumption which would also mean that renewables are not subsidised at all.
You cannot even acknowledge that there is a cost to climate changed caused by fossil fuels.
Prove it with more that you "not seeing it".""After facing criticism on social media for his claim, Mr Halfon clarified that green levies comprised 25% of electricity bills. This is correct according to a 2021 Ofgem breakdown of electricity bill costs which showed that environmental and social obligation costs accounted for 25% of an average electricity bill." Above is from full fact and corroborated by ofgem. The national grid data is the required total of turbines and electricity generated by those turbines. Tax isn't a subsidy. I am sorry you disagree with what this is. but the rest of the world does not. | |||
"Gwynt y mor with 160 pylons cost around £1.5bn ( being kind) I have given you the calculation for minimum requirement for total turbines to supply all of uk electricity needs about 55k That's about half a trillion pounds to supply the required 55k wind turbines. Simply to supply the uk electricity requirements at its peak in full. " Why does it matter if public and private spending of £1.5bn takes place in the UK? Why does it have to be made up only of offshore wind? Why can't we have nuclear power or solar or tidal or anything else? Why wouldn't stored electricity reduce that peak demand? Why wouldn't we import energy as we do now? | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information "You asked for a source. You got 1. Now dismantle it. If you can | |||
| |||
"Gwynt y mor with 160 pylons cost around £1.5bn ( being kind) I have given you the calculation for minimum requirement for total turbines to supply all of uk electricity needs about 55k That's about half a trillion pounds to supply the required 55k wind turbines. Simply to supply the uk electricity requirements at its peak in full. Why does it matter if public and private spending of £1.5bn takes place in the UK? Why does it have to be made up only of offshore wind? Why can't we have nuclear power or solar or tidal or anything else? Why wouldn't stored electricity reduce that peak demand? Why wouldn't we import energy as we do now?" Tidal isn't efficient for generation as wind. Solar isn't as efficient I thought you knew all this I was being kind giving you the moat efficient means. But you want the least efficient renewables? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one.
I gave you the sources full fact and national grid.
I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements.
You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies.
You give nothing.
One Fullfact article that does not even support your point. Copy the paragraph if your so confident.
The (unspecified) National Grid data reflects what? Who knows( At best some selected information about what's happening today.
You're the one claiming that everyone is wrong.
The technology is there as are the strategies and the public and private sector funding. The renewables generation prices are already below fossil fuels and the security is far better.
You cannot even acknowledge that.
In addition there have been and continue to be huge subsidies which you try to ignore in a technicality trying to use an IEA definition based only on consumption which would also mean that renewables are not subsidised at all.
You cannot even acknowledge that there is a cost to climate changed caused by fossil fuels.
Prove it with more that you "not seeing it".
"After facing criticism on social media for his claim, Mr Halfon clarified that green levies comprised 25% of electricity bills. This is correct according to a 2021 Ofgem breakdown of electricity bill costs which showed that environmental and social obligation costs accounted for 25% of an average electricity bill."
Above is from full fact and corroborated by ofgem.
The national grid data is the required total of turbines and electricity generated by those turbines.
Tax isn't a subsidy. I am sorry you disagree with what this is. but the rest of the world does not.
"Fullfact: "While it is true that some of the money from these costs goes towards large-scale renewable energy projects, they are also used to fund a range of other environmental policies, including improvements to the energy efficiency of homes and business and Feed in Tariffs paid to households for surplus energy generated from renewable sources (like solar panels). So the money isn’t just spent on building wind and solar farms as UKIP claimed." All for your ego. Again, National Grid data from where? Pulled out of your Briefings for Britain report? Again, why is only today's status used? What are average generation rates? Government figures: Energy Trends UK, October to December 2022 and 2022 In 2022 "As a proportion of total generation, renewables accounted for 41.4 per cent" As it stands today. It was 2% in 1991 and 14.6% in 2013 according to National Grid. We are in transition. Things are changing. Many, many different storage methods are being evaluated and the most economical will be installed based on data and economics and market capitalism. | |||
| |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information
You asked for a source. You got 1.
Now dismantle it. If you can"I did and I won't ask for anymore. Your only source for this as is your only source for everything tells me enough
Really, no. I'm not wasting my time on "dismantling" this. Just like their economic arguments (not yours as you try to pass them off as) it's based on motivated reasoning and is in a minority of one.
Same group who supported Liz Truss' economic "plan" which tanked the economy.
We've discussed that. This is more of the same... | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one.
I gave you the sources full fact and national grid.
I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements.
You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies.
You give nothing.
One Fullfact article that does not even support your point. Copy the paragraph if your so confident.
The (unspecified) National Grid data reflects what? Who knows( At best some selected information about what's happening today.
You're the one claiming that everyone is wrong.
The technology is there as are the strategies and the public and private sector funding. The renewables generation prices are already below fossil fuels and the security is far better.
You cannot even acknowledge that.
In addition there have been and continue to be huge subsidies which you try to ignore in a technicality trying to use an IEA definition based only on consumption which would also mean that renewables are not subsidised at all.
You cannot even acknowledge that there is a cost to climate changed caused by fossil fuels.
Prove it with more that you "not seeing it".
"After facing criticism on social media for his claim, Mr Halfon clarified that green levies comprised 25% of electricity bills. This is correct according to a 2021 Ofgem breakdown of electricity bill costs which showed that environmental and social obligation costs accounted for 25% of an average electricity bill."
Above is from full fact and corroborated by ofgem.
The national grid data is the required total of turbines and electricity generated by those turbines.
Tax isn't a subsidy. I am sorry you disagree with what this is. but the rest of the world does not.
Fullfact:
"While it is true that some of the money from these costs goes towards large-scale renewable energy projects, they are also used to fund a range of other environmental policies, including improvements to the energy efficiency of homes and business and Feed in Tariffs paid to households for surplus energy generated from renewable sources (like solar panels).
So the money isn’t just spent on building wind and solar farms as UKIP claimed."
All for your ego.
Again, National Grid data from where? Pulled out of your Briefings for Britain report? Again, why is only today's status used? What are average generation rates?
Government figures: Energy Trends
UK, October to December 2022 and 2022
In 2022 "As a proportion of total generation, renewables accounted for 41.4 per cent"
As it stands today. It was 2% in 1991 and 14.6% in 2013 according to National Grid.
We are in transition. Things are changing. Many, many different storage methods are being evaluated and the most economical will be installed based on data and economics and market capitalism."So now you have been shown up on the 25% you want to move the goalposts on what they support. You can see the breakdown of where the totals go in an obr report for 90% or more goes towards renewables each year. Nice attempt to try and swing the discussion without admitting you were wrong though. Your energy trends bit. Feel free to make a point On this. You say about storage and evaluation. This is exactly the problem..we don't have time to wait we are exposed. Hence the huge rise in electricity costs because we sat around and did nothing. You want to maintain that exposure while the uk assesses. | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information
You asked for a source. You got 1.
Now dismantle it. If you can
I did and I won't ask for anymore. Your only source for this as is your only source for everything tells me enough
Really, no. I'm not wasting my time on "dismantling" this. Just like their economic arguments (not yours as you try to pass them off as) it's based on motivated reasoning and is in a minority of one.
Same group who supported Liz Truss' economic "plan" which tanked the economy.
We've discussed that. This is more of the same..."So you ask for data you ask for sources.cyou are given 4 sources in total And none are good enough for you. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines?" He won't answer. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines?" There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then." So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? | |||
"The purpose of this thread and title are misleading. Green Energy and investment costs related to it would be interesting. Posters having a pop at each other less so. How about agree to disagree and move on? It is pretty easy to misunderstand posts or their intent. I clarified on several occasions my stance was that we moved to green to quickly and thatsbthe reason for the inflation as the wind isn't blowing and we need ti import more gas and never had coal and nuclear as backups. As mentioned I clarified this several times and was accused of "not wanting to go green" with the itnent of that being the final message. I won't operate people knowingly mis representing what I say I wasnhappy to continue discussing green energy hence my clarification. Sadly two notes has decided to spam the thread. You created the thread for your ego. I have posted something based on what you actually titled it. Start providing some information of your own rather than complaining about everyone else's. I asked about the capacity and generation. Youndont want to reply fine. The uk currently has 11500 wind turbines. These produced 26.8% of the total output of electeicityin 2022. The peak demand is about 61.9gw Currently wind can generate about 28gw Regularly like today it can only produce 15% of the current demand of 34.62 gw If we very optimistaically take that 22% of the requirement is generated now by 11500 turbines we will need an additional 46k turbines taking our total to just short of 55k to remove any need to gas coal and nuclear. Taking into account biomass and solar However we often see as gorementioned today and on many days the generation it only in the low to mid teens 15% currently. We would need an additional 80k to guarantee electricity for days like today. Remember though 25% of the cost of the electricity generation is funded by the tax payer and thus you save 25% of your green energy on your bill via government subsidies So what more can we do? We've moved away from solar because it simply never generated the returns it promised. Each turbine needs replacing every 20 years. So by 2043 all 11500 we currently have will have been replaced. I just dont see the feasibility of windfalls which are our most productive means of green. Some 1 linked to a report on thermal. Which actually gave bo numbers or costs. The last nuclear plant went live in 95? So that's been going 30 years and the others for around 40. These 4 30-40 year old nuclear stations still generate just shy of 10% of our electricity. So what's the feasibility of green energy and non nuclear? Because financially and viability wise. I dont see it. Where is your made up data from? National grid reports. And also you can follow brilliant t twitter accounts like @uk_windenergy that give daily updates. The fact you're asking me for where I got my numbers and you don't k ow them yourself is worrying. You "don't see it" because you don't want to look. You certainly don't want to look at the drawbacks of fossil fuel use. You will not even acknowledge that the current global inflation crisis had been driven by a reliance on fossil fuels and the spike in costs due to geopolitics. Nor will you acknowledge the costs of climate change. Your 25% subsidy data is not in National Hrid "reports", although I'm sure you could dig it up if it is. To be clear with adequate storage the overproduction means that a reduction in production on low wind days is partially made up for. Interconnects mean solar power generation at scale from Spain and North Africa also add to the grid. There is massive potential. Using current data to say that increased output is not possible is also a fairly normal route to discredit a new process. Wind turbine cycle lives are increasing as efficiencies are realised. Even then a gas turbine power plant also has a 20-25 year life and costs more to replace than the equivalent offshore wind turbines. Am I saying 100% renewable? Am I saying 100% renewable immediately? Why are you trying to make those the terms? Yes u clarified there full fact breakdown of the 25% subsidy. Indont get what you're complain is. Now remember if you want to store all that energy. You have to build the storage. That's another cost on top of the 25% subsidy not simply in the generationnlf the electricity. How much do you think you can store and for how long? Remember rather uk doesn't have this capability today. The interconnectors don't draw solar energy from Spain. You are aware of the diminishing returns due to resistance form itnterconnectors too. Though I do welcome them. But again the interconnector to morocco's is costing 16bn will the green subsidies from fossil fuels and tax payers cover that cost again? I "confirmed" nothing of the sort Fullfact: "This figure is inaccurate. Green levies represent a proportion of environmental and social obligation costs, which account for less than 8% of an average energy bill’s costs under the current price cap. They did make up 25% of the 2021 average electricity bill." I am well aware that the UK does not have this capability today. Hence your repeated attempts to imply it cannot be done because of what is available today. Energy can be stored for hours, days or months depending on the method chosen. Our interconnectors draw energy from mainland Europe and Norway who's grids are connected to other countries. You need that explaining? We are able to build new interconnectors and yes they cost money. So? So what if the interconnector to Morocco costs £16bn? Apparently they managed to raise £18bn from Abu Dhabi, do that's all fine. Alternatively do some research. Thank you for finding the full fact article and reading it. So what's the timeline at which you would like it done. Remember without subsidies. What's the cost of the storage? Completion time? I do need it explaining. So please tell me how solar energy from Spain makes it to the uk. This was your claim. What is the route taken? They managed to raise 18bn from abu dhabi? Please expand. You think a u dhabi is paying for Morocco to.supply energy to the uk? Thank you for understanding that a green levy is not a subsidy for renewable energy rollout or pricing. You will no doubt also want to acknowledge that the UK is using a technicality to claim that it does not subsidise fossil fuels: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/rishi-sunak-oil-fossil-fuel-tax-break-b2106851.html Will you be acknowledging the cost of climate change too, or will you continue to ignore that? I don't know what the cost of storage and completion time is. If you don't have any figures, let's say tomorrow for 3p. If it's in ten years for £50bn, so what? Some mix of subsidies and huge private investment like all large projects. You are, of course, trying to discredit a growing new system by claiming that what exists today cannot supply or transmit what is coming. You keep trying and it remains incorrect. European Investment Bank: "On Friday 20 February, RTE, a unit of French utility EDF, and Spanish power company Red Eléctrica de España (REE) will inaugurate the 1 400-megawatt (MW) cable that will double French-Spanish electricity exchange capacity to 2 800 MW, equivalent to the output of three nuclear plants." "France and Spain announced a breakthrough on Thursday (2 March) in a long-running impasse over what would be their first undersea electricity link, a move that will nearly double the power exchange capacity between the two countries – from 2,800 to 5,000 megawatts (MW)" https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-spain-announce-breakthrough-in-undersea-power-link/ No, of course £18bn in funding hasn't been raised for a £16bn project It is raising funding like any other infrastructure project.
However, your need to obtain every single detail for every item for anything you don't agree with is risible.
You have zero information to back your position except for Daily Telegraph opinion pieces.
Come on. Find a report or study from a credible or even fossil fuel funded source that says that the transition should not or cannot be done or even that we are being lied to in some way.
The fossil fuel industry could pay for it all with a few years of profits and earn money on it, but they aren't being made to pay for the costs of climate change. Again, a cost that you cannot even acknowledge as existing.
The levy is a subsidy.
It reduces the cost of green energy.
Nope I am sorry tax breaks aren't subsidies.
Directly going into the schemes and redu ing costs.
This doesn't happen with fossil fuels.
So you say we can expand our wind supply and store it. But don't knkw the cost and timeline of this.( let's chalk this up toa disaster for.you)
Yes France and Spain have an interocnnector. I await your proof Spain renewable energy is coming to the UK. That was your claim.
OK so you mentioned about 18bn for no reason than...thanks.
I have never read tbe daily telegraph.
Your bigotry is coming out now
Did you spot your mistake on the nuclear energy costs? I notice you didn't bring that up
I gave you the problem of green energy. In terms of the requirement of total number of turbines. Cost of.turbines. lack of storage.
All easily sorted by building nuclear reactors as we wait for the tech to improve
Blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, cannot acknowledge anything myself, blah, blah, cannot provide any reports myself, blah blah.
Easily?
Nuclear reactors at £33bn (starting price not delivered) without waste disposal. Seen HS2 lately?
Extremely high electricity price to be guaranteed. Correct?
Prove to me that you're correct. A report or study.
Any report or study...
Nuclear reactors don't start at that cost.
The EDF cost at Hinckley expansion is thay cost.
Hs2 is a disaster.
Another reason to let the free market deliver such goods.
I have given you the numbers that you cant refute.. What would you like me to find a report on.
You've given no numbers. No sources. You're making up a narrative not supported by anyone involved in industry, governments or international or national organisations.
Perhaps you need to get them to recruit you because they're so feeble minded.
A study or report supporting your position.
Just one.
I gave you the sources full fact and national grid.
I gave you the breakdown of the requirements based kn their data and costs of going further green in terms of total units needed to cover uk electrical requirements.
You've given no rebuttal. Except we can store energy eventually( which we can do currently) I highlighted that would cost more in subsidies.
You give nothing.
One Fullfact article that does not even support your point. Copy the paragraph if your so confident.
The (unspecified) National Grid data reflects what? Who knows( At best some selected information about what's happening today.
You're the one claiming that everyone is wrong.
The technology is there as are the strategies and the public and private sector funding. The renewables generation prices are already below fossil fuels and the security is far better.
You cannot even acknowledge that.
In addition there have been and continue to be huge subsidies which you try to ignore in a technicality trying to use an IEA definition based only on consumption which would also mean that renewables are not subsidised at all.
You cannot even acknowledge that there is a cost to climate changed caused by fossil fuels.
Prove it with more that you "not seeing it".
"After facing criticism on social media for his claim, Mr Halfon clarified that green levies comprised 25% of electricity bills. This is correct according to a 2021 Ofgem breakdown of electricity bill costs which showed that environmental and social obligation costs accounted for 25% of an average electricity bill."
Above is from full fact and corroborated by ofgem.
The national grid data is the required total of turbines and electricity generated by those turbines.
Tax isn't a subsidy. I am sorry you disagree with what this is. but the rest of the world does not.
Fullfact:
"While it is true that some of the money from these costs goes towards large-scale renewable energy projects, they are also used to fund a range of other environmental policies, including improvements to the energy efficiency of homes and business and Feed in Tariffs paid to households for surplus energy generated from renewable sources (like solar panels).
So the money isn’t just spent on building wind and solar farms as UKIP claimed."
All for your ego.
Again, National Grid data from where? Pulled out of your Briefings for Britain report? Again, why is only today's status used? What are average generation rates?
Government figures: Energy Trends
UK, October to December 2022 and 2022
In 2022 "As a proportion of total generation, renewables accounted for 41.4 per cent"
As it stands today. It was 2% in 1991 and 14.6% in 2013 according to National Grid.
We are in transition. Things are changing. Many, many different storage methods are being evaluated and the most economical will be installed based on data and economics and market capitalism.
So now you have been shown up on the 25% you want to move the goalposts on what they support.
You can see the breakdown of where the totals go in an obr report for 90% or more goes towards renewables each year.
Nice attempt to try and swing the discussion without admitting you were wrong though.
Your energy trends bit.
Feel free to make a point
On this.
You say about storage and evaluation.
This is exactly the problem..we don't have time to wait we are exposed. Hence the huge rise in electricity costs because we sat around and did nothing.
You want to maintain that exposure while the uk assesses.
"No goalposts moved. No "attempt" to "swing the discussion". It says very clearly that the green levy is not all used to subsidise power generation. Even that definition is fuzzy as you claim that giving fossil fuel companies additional tax breaks (cost reductions) is not a subsidy because - "technicality". "An OBR" report (who's data you always question unless it suits you) doesn't state what you claim, but do share and you can get it wrong again. Nuclear reactors didn't cost £10bn in 2012 and 25% of electricity bills are not spent on subsidising renewables. The rise in electricity costs is because of gas prices. That is where we started. EDF: Wholesale energy costs made simple "What sets the price of power? The price you pay for your power is set by the marginal generation unit. By this we mean whatever type of power, from whatever source, met the peak demand. For example, the type of power may have been coal, which is more expensive, or gas, which is cheaper. Looking at the UK’s energy mix again, you can see that, most of the time, it’s going to be gas that’s the price setter. That’s why power prices follow the gas market so closely." | |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information
You asked for a source. You got 1.
Now dismantle it. If you can
I did and I won't ask for anymore. Your only source for this as is your only source for everything tells me enough
Really, no. I'm not wasting my time on "dismantling" this. Just like their economic arguments (not yours as you try to pass them off as) it's based on motivated reasoning and is in a minority of one.
Same group who supported Liz Truss' economic "plan" which tanked the economy.
We've discussed that. This is more of the same...
So you ask for data you ask for sources.cyou are given 4 sources in total
And none are good enough for you.
"No. You've not provided four sources supporting your position. You've provided three with some information, one of which contradicts you. You have one highly partisan source which is very telling, and no I am not going to read it rebut it and go into another deathloop of boredom with you. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050?" We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? He won't answer." I did. Can you acknowledge that there is a cost to climate change created by fossil fuels? Can you acknowledge that the increased cost of electricity is driven by gas prices? | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down." This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store? | |||
| |||
"To think We could have avoided all this simply building several nuclear plants a decade ago at a much much much lower cost at about 10 bn Funny. EDF was quoting £33bn for Hinckley C. That estimate will have risen and is just the quote. Doesn't include waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. Maybe you didn't comprehend what I typed? Go back and read? The 2012 price was £16bn, not including waste processing and storage and the high guaranteed price needed. I think we should have and still should build them, but you're the one wanting to use the real numbers. Still making a mistake. But atleast you spotted your original error Your games are genuinely juvenile. Only about semantics an micro-victories. So you being completely wrong on soemthing and out by 20bn is me being juvenile. I mildly misread one line and provided current data. That is making a mistake. You were out by £6bn and you wrote the original point and spent several posts taking a (micro) "victory lap". Got a study or report on the transition to renewables not being financially viable or not properly coated or a conspiracy of some kind? You were out by about 200% Glad you admitted you were wrong though. "The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight" A starter. Briefings for Britain, again
Your only source of everything. Just like Professor Gudgen, the only source of economics information
You asked for a source. You got 1.
Now dismantle it. If you can
I did and I won't ask for anymore. Your only source for this as is your only source for everything tells me enough
Really, no. I'm not wasting my time on "dismantling" this. Just like their economic arguments (not yours as you try to pass them off as) it's based on motivated reasoning and is in a minority of one.
Same group who supported Liz Truss' economic "plan" which tanked the economy.
We've discussed that. This is more of the same...
So you ask for data you ask for sources.cyou are given 4 sources in total
And none are good enough for you.
No. You've not provided four sources supporting your position.
You've provided three with some information, one of which contradicts you.
You have one highly partisan source which is very telling, and no I am not going to read it rebut it and go into another deathloop of boredom with you."I have given you 4 sources. You jave given none. | |||
| |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? He won't answer. I did. Can you acknowledge that there is a cost to climate change created by fossil fuels? Can you acknowledge that the increased cost of electricity is driven by gas prices?" I think climate change is natural. I have already said gas prices went up. I have said we imported more gas because renewables wasn't providing the required amounts of energy. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store?" As stated he cant answer. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store?" Peak demand is at particular times of day. If you look at a graph it is very spiky. However, we may not be generating lots of renewable energy at those times. It might happen to be during low demand. Not sure I understand the "how much can we consume" question. All of it because excess will be stored and used instead of gas or imports when generation is low and demand is high. We can store the capacity up to that we choose to build. There's quite a complex calculation in the background balancing when generation happens, how much to store and when it's needed. That's the case even with fossil fuels. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050?" Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store? Peak demand is at particular times of day. If you look at a graph it is very spiky. However, we may not be generating lots of renewable energy at those times. It might happen to be during low demand. Not sure I understand the "how much can we consume" question. All of it because excess will be stored and used instead of gas or imports when generation is low and demand is high. We can store the capacity up to that we choose to build. There's quite a complex calculation in the background balancing when generation happens, how much to store and when it's needed. That's the case even with fossil fuels." Obviously I'm aware that generation/demand may not happen at the same time, hence my question on storage. I mainly ask because the other day, you were not happy that we were turning off generation. To avoid turning off that generation, we need storage. The problem we have is there's no idea when we may get storage. You say its in process, but when will we get it. That's the main thing stopping us, isn't it? Personally, I couldn't care less about cost of infrastructure, if it eventually helps the pocket, and helps the environment then I'm for it. Caveat though, if it's not coming very soon, then we may aswell stop arguing about it. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. " See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. | |||
"No goalposts moved. No "attempt" to "swing the discussion". It says very clearly that the green levy is not all used to subsidise power generation. Even that definition is fuzzy as you claim that giving fossil fuel companies additional tax breaks (cost reductions) is not a subsidy because - "technicality". "An OBR" report (who's data you always question unless it suits you) doesn't state what you claim, but do share and you can get it wrong again. Nuclear reactors didn't cost £10bn in 2012 and 25% of electricity bills are not spent on subsidising renewables. The rise in electricity costs is because of gas prices. That is where we started. EDF: Wholesale energy costs made simple "What sets the price of power? The price you pay for your power is set by the marginal generation unit. By this we mean whatever type of power, from whatever source, met the peak demand. For example, the type of power may have been coal, which is more expensive, or gas, which is cheaper. Looking at the UK’s energy mix again, you can see that, most of the time, it’s going to be gas that’s the price setter. That’s why power prices follow the gas market so closely." Again full fact disagreed with you you asked for the direct quote. You were given it. The obr report has the full breakdown. The amount you're talking about is negligible. So 25% IS used. I question the OBR on its forecasts. I don't question actual realised data. Tax breaks aren't subsidies. As much as you wish they were. They simply aren't. Nuclear power plant budgeted costs were around 10bn in 2010 when the tories came into power. Yes the rise in electricity costs is because of gas prices...because we need more gas. Because wind is t providing the required power and we didn't build more nuclear plants and we decommissioned coal plants and we didn't frack out own gas. " ..and I gave you the rest of the Fullfact quote which you don't seem to like. Then keep claiming that there is an unspecified OBR report that says 90% something something which undoubtedly comes from your Briefings for Britain report that you claim is the font of all truth. So no 25% is not used "anyway" except by you. The £20bn is £16bn according to the actual company building the plant as per 2012 prices a decade ago.£10bn for your phyric victory still undefined. If we had fewer renewables we would be using more gas not less. We need would more fossil fuel capacity to make up for it. Also, due to our national pricing system the electricity price is driven by the most expensive source, which is gas. Gas which we would be using even more of without renewables and still subject to geopolitical instability. You still cannot even acknowledge the cost of climate change which renders all of your ramblings moot because it is financially and geopolitically so high. | |||
"You claim its a partisan source. I asked you to look at their material and form a rebuttal. I am still waiting." Keep waiting. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing." you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. " Enfield won't derail the move to EVs. They require renewable energy to generate the hydrogen and convert that hydrogen into a hydrocarbon to burn. iCE engines are not very efficient either. It is significantly less efficient than using the electricity directly. Burning also creates pollutants locally. The e-fuels will be viable for aircraft and very high end cars. The general point about rapid technology advancement is very true. Including for e-fuels. A broad mix of renewables and nuclear will cover what we need. We've chosen not to look at Thorium salt, but that is the better nuclear option than we are still pursuing. Fusion power may finally make its appearance, but still a long way out from even lab scale functionality. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store? Peak demand is at particular times of day. If you look at a graph it is very spiky. However, we may not be generating lots of renewable energy at those times. It might happen to be during low demand. Not sure I understand the "how much can we consume" question. All of it because excess will be stored and used instead of gas or imports when generation is low and demand is high. We can store the capacity up to that we choose to build. There's quite a complex calculation in the background balancing when generation happens, how much to store and when it's needed. That's the case even with fossil fuels. Obviously I'm aware that generation/demand may not happen at the same time, hence my question on storage. I mainly ask because the other day, you were not happy that we were turning off generation. To avoid turning off that generation, we need storage. The problem we have is there's no idea when we may get storage. You say its in process, but when will we get it. That's the main thing stopping us, isn't it? Personally, I couldn't care less about cost of infrastructure, if it eventually helps the pocket, and helps the environment then I'm for it. Caveat though, if it's not coming very soon, then we may aswell stop arguing about it." What do you mean by me not being "happy"? It's wasted energy which is being generated just having the turbine standing there. We do know when we will get storage. It is being built now. The rate needs to increase but that will only happen if we sort out the mess of our tariff system which has been exacerbating the current high electricity costs. 2024 for the strategy, apparently. There is investment piled up but no certainty to allow it to be spent. That's why we will probably trail the US. Unfortunately that means they benefit from the investment and technology lead and we will buy from them. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV"Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars. Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed. Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store? Peak demand is at particular times of day. If you look at a graph it is very spiky. However, we may not be generating lots of renewable energy at those times. It might happen to be during low demand. Not sure I understand the "how much can we consume" question. All of it because excess will be stored and used instead of gas or imports when generation is low and demand is high. We can store the capacity up to that we choose to build. There's quite a complex calculation in the background balancing when generation happens, how much to store and when it's needed. That's the case even with fossil fuels. Obviously I'm aware that generation/demand may not happen at the same time, hence my question on storage. I mainly ask because the other day, you were not happy that we were turning off generation. To avoid turning off that generation, we need storage. The problem we have is there's no idea when we may get storage. You say its in process, but when will we get it. That's the main thing stopping us, isn't it? Personally, I couldn't care less about cost of infrastructure, if it eventually helps the pocket, and helps the environment then I'm for it. Caveat though, if it's not coming very soon, then we may aswell stop arguing about it. What do you mean by me not being "happy"? It's wasted energy which is being generated just having the turbine standing there. We do know when we will get storage. It is being built now. The rate needs to increase but that will only happen if we sort out the mess of our tariff system which has been exacerbating the current high electricity costs. 2024 for the strategy, apparently. There is investment piled up but no certainty to allow it to be spent. That's why we will probably trail the US. Unfortunately that means they benefit from the investment and technology lead and we will buy from them." Some if the things you've said: "Things are changing. Many, many different storage methods are being evaluated and the most economical will be installed based on data and economics and market capitalism." "So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then." "We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades." "We do know when we will get storage. It is being built now. The rate needs to increase but that will only happen if we sort out the mess of our tariff system which has been exacerbating the current high electricity costs. 2024 for the strategy, apparently." These statements seem to contradict themselves in my brain. That's why I'm confused. Are you saying that were currently evaluating which storage options are best and then will move to strategy next year? | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running."I really don't know that much about the manufacture of the eFuel or synthetic to have a strong opinion. My main point is technological advancement can be so quick that the next best thing could be around the next corner and the talk of renewables could disappear in an instant. I think that is what FastandFeisty's point is too, are renewables something that can sustain us now or not, if not the future might not even be renewables. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running."I can assure you that Audi will not only be releasing EVs from 2026. Also, Porsche and Audi are one and the same. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? We probably will not. We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades. That's why we will realistically need to retain baseload generation (hence nuclear) for some time to come. We will consume as much power as we can generate from renewables. If we don't store for power we may well produce hydrogen for heavy industry with the excess. It depends on the economics. The permutations are fiendishly complicated. I suspect we will trail whatever the US does as that is where IRA will drive the market and show the best options push costs down. This is where I get confused. We don't have sufficient generating capacity yet we're turning off wind generation? What I'd like to know is say, by 2050. How much will we be able to consume should we have the storage capacity installed? I'm not arguing for or against fossil. I just want to know by '2050' (pick any other timescale if you prefer), will we still have to turn off wind generation or will we be able to store it, if we can store it, what capacity can we store? Peak demand is at particular times of day. If you look at a graph it is very spiky. However, we may not be generating lots of renewable energy at those times. It might happen to be during low demand. Not sure I understand the "how much can we consume" question. All of it because excess will be stored and used instead of gas or imports when generation is low and demand is high. We can store the capacity up to that we choose to build. There's quite a complex calculation in the background balancing when generation happens, how much to store and when it's needed. That's the case even with fossil fuels. Obviously I'm aware that generation/demand may not happen at the same time, hence my question on storage. I mainly ask because the other day, you were not happy that we were turning off generation. To avoid turning off that generation, we need storage. The problem we have is there's no idea when we may get storage. You say its in process, but when will we get it. That's the main thing stopping us, isn't it? Personally, I couldn't care less about cost of infrastructure, if it eventually helps the pocket, and helps the environment then I'm for it. Caveat though, if it's not coming very soon, then we may aswell stop arguing about it. What do you mean by me not being "happy"? It's wasted energy which is being generated just having the turbine standing there. We do know when we will get storage. It is being built now. The rate needs to increase but that will only happen if we sort out the mess of our tariff system which has been exacerbating the current high electricity costs. 2024 for the strategy, apparently. There is investment piled up but no certainty to allow it to be spent. That's why we will probably trail the US. Unfortunately that means they benefit from the investment and technology lead and we will buy from them. Some if the things you've said: "Things are changing. Many, many different storage methods are being evaluated and the most economical will be installed based on data and economics and market capitalism." "So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then." "We don't have sufficient generating capacity now and haven't for decades." "We do know when we will get storage. It is being built now. The rate needs to increase but that will only happen if we sort out the mess of our tariff system which has been exacerbating the current high electricity costs. 2024 for the strategy, apparently." These statements seem to contradict themselves in my brain. That's why I'm confused. Are you saying that were currently evaluating which storage options are best and then will move to strategy next year? " We aren't switching to renewables in isolation. The UK alone is not really evaluating options. The market is, globally. The storage options will be as diverse as the generating one. Short, medium and long-term storage with different forms of each. The UK is creating it's new strategy for energy pricing next year which will finally release the reluctance to invest in storage. The type of storage is not relevant to this. It's how the pricing works so that the business cases can be understood. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running.
I can assure you that Audi will not only be releasing EVs from 2026.
Also, Porsche and Audi are one and the same."By releasing, I meant new models. There may be variants of existing ones. If you think otherwise then fair enough. Volkswagen and Audi are very closely related with Skoda and Seat. These are the parts of the group which share platforms. Porsche functions pretty independently. As do Bentley and Lamborghini. Relatively little commonality. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running.
I can assure you that Audi will not only be releasing EVs from 2026.
Also, Porsche and Audi are one and the same.
By releasing, I meant new models. There may be variants of existing ones. If you think otherwise then fair enough.
Volkswagen and Audi are very closely related with Skoda and Seat. These are the parts of the group which share platforms.
Porsche functions pretty independently. As do Bentley and Lamborghini. Relatively little commonality."If you think they function independently then fair enough. I can assure you they share more than you think. Just take the macan and q5, 2 different brands, same chassis, same technology. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I don't 'think', I know, from a very reliable source. | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running.
I can assure you that Audi will not only be releasing EVs from 2026.
Also, Porsche and Audi are one and the same.
By releasing, I meant new models. There may be variants of existing ones. If you think otherwise then fair enough.
Volkswagen and Audi are very closely related with Skoda and Seat. These are the parts of the group which share platforms.
Porsche functions pretty independently. As do Bentley and Lamborghini. Relatively little commonality.
If you think they function independently then fair enough. I can assure you they share more than you think.
Just take the macan and q5, 2 different brands, same chassis, same technology.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I don't 'think', I know, from a very reliable source."I’m actually thinking about getting the new Macan, you sort of put me off now | |||
"I'm not gonna bother quoting but question for EasyUK: How long until we see sufficient storage installed so that we aren't turning off turbines? There is no doubt that storage is going to trail generation so likely to be turning them off for a long time after we are generating the power. So the reality is that we will still be wasting energy that we could be using in 2050 and we will still need other forms of generation, including fossil fuels, beyond then. So in 25 years time we still won't have sufficient storage for our needs as a country? Do we have any indication as to how much renewable we will be able to consume by say 2050? Not fully answering your question but sort of, with my own personal views.. Technologies are evolving and I hope in 25 years time we will see a shift away from what we have today to something far more reliable. An example of how quick technologies can become a game changer: eFuels and synthetic fuels have been developed that can be used in ICE vehicles, in theory they could derail the move to EV. I had never heard of these new fuel types until 3 weeks ago. The world with people is using more energy month on month, the population grows and food demands grow. Transport is not going away, consumables, clothes and everything we have today will need to keep growing with the population. Oil is running out meaning new energy sources are needed, I personally don't think renewables right now are anywhere near reliable enough to provide a country with their energy needs, this might change in the future with technical advancements, my gut feeling is something else will be developed as that is where the big money will be. See my post above re. thoughts on renewables, in short, if it's not happening soon we might aswell stop arguing. I knew of synthetic fuels last year, but only because my bro in law works for Audi. They seem to think they've cracked it and are onto a viable solution. Atm there's still a push towards EV but if governments start accepting synthetic then I can see EV almost disappearing. you are ahead of my curve!!
The EU have stepped away from saying no more ICE vehicles after 2035 if they run on carbon neutral fuels such as eFuels or synthetic fuels. If it is as good as they say it is, I can't see the need for EV
Porsche want synthetic fuels for performance cars.
Audi will only be releasing EVs from 2026. That means they have stopped any new combustion car designs now. The platforms and manufacturing is committed.
Again, the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly.
The EU directive is to keep the supercar manufacturers happy and allow biodiesel and methanol to keep running.
I can assure you that Audi will not only be releasing EVs from 2026.
Also, Porsche and Audi are one and the same.
By releasing, I meant new models. There may be variants of existing ones. If you think otherwise then fair enough.
Volkswagen and Audi are very closely related with Skoda and Seat. These are the parts of the group which share platforms.
Porsche functions pretty independently. As do Bentley and Lamborghini. Relatively little commonality.
If you think they function independently then fair enough. I can assure you they share more than you think.
Just take the macan and q5, 2 different brands, same chassis, same technology.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I don't 'think', I know, from a very reliable source.
I’m actually thinking about getting the new Macan, you sort of put me off now "The new Macan is beautiful. That's subjective though I suppose | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly." Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper." I have no idea where you're getting this from. Potsdam Institute: Current cost of synthetic fuel per litre €50, best cost after massive investment €1 over an unspecified period, current petrol cost €0.5 That massive infrastructure build would be better used to power EVs directly rather than producing an intermediate product to be used in a less efficient vehicle. You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Potsdam Institute: Current cost of synthetic fuel per litre €50, best cost after massive investment €1 over an unspecified period, current petrol cost €0.5 That massive infrastructure build would be better used to power EVs directly rather than producing an intermediate product to be used in a less efficient vehicle. You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles." Porsche are investing in eFuel manufacturing along with exxon Mobil and other big players, and are expected to ramp up their facilities to sell approx 145 million gallons by the end of the decade, obviously not enough for world consumption. Other players will come into the market, I think the Arab nations are looking at solar energy to produce the synthetic fuels making it completely carbon neutral and help cushion the drop in oil demands and its limited resource. Time will tell on this one, it could end up VHS v Betamax | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Potsdam Institute: Current cost of synthetic fuel per litre €50, best cost after massive investment €1 over an unspecified period, current petrol cost €0.5 That massive infrastructure build would be better used to power EVs directly rather than producing an intermediate product to be used in a less efficient vehicle. You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are investing in eFuel manufacturing along with exxon Mobil and other big players, and are expected to ramp up their facilities to sell approx 145 million gallons by the end of the decade, obviously not enough for world consumption. Other players will come into the market, I think the Arab nations are looking at solar energy to produce the synthetic fuels making it completely carbon neutral and help cushion the drop in oil demands and its limited resource. Time will tell on this one, it could end up VHS v Betamax " Well they need to come up with something. Pretty clear that EV's aren't the answer, they simply aren't fit for purpose unless your life involves going nowhere. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly." "Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper." "I have no idea where you're getting this from." Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". "You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles." Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants." With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge" I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology." I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble "So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so? Righto | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto "Good old easy When asked multiple times for his thoughts and reasoning and data yesterday provided nothing. Asks for people's backing and they provide them. Then doesn't critique them. Just assumes you're an idiot and your source is invalid. God forbid he had to search anything himself or provide evidence or critically think for once. Why I left the troll to it yesterday. I provided 4 sources. I gave background calculations on equirements. I gave how to search sources. I asked him to rebuttal the sources. I got " lol your source is a brexit organisation" And when asked about why he's so sure of electricity storage capacity and what that will be by 2050 A complete shoulder shrug and just " I believe it will happen" | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology." This says way way more about your debating skills than you could ever imagine. Is it really so hard to accept that people may, just sometimes, know a little more than you?? | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
Good old easy
When asked multiple times for his thoughts and reasoning and data yesterday provided nothing.
Asks for people's backing and they provide them.
Then doesn't critique them.
Just assumes you're an idiot and your source is invalid.
God forbid he had to search anything himself or provide evidence or critically think for once.
Why I left the troll to it yesterday.
I provided 4 sources.
I gave background calculations on equirements.
I gave how to search sources.
I asked him to rebuttal the sources.
I got " lol your source is a brexit organisation"
And when asked about why he's so sure of electricity storage capacity and what that will be by 2050
A complete shoulder shrug and just " I believe it will happen"
"It's really a waste of time trying to debate anything with Climate Cultists. It's like trying to discuss economic development with Pol Pot. | |||
| |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto "My post was a badly worded response, on reflection.. I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable. I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset. However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field? | |||
| |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
Good old easy
When asked multiple times for his thoughts and reasoning and data yesterday provided nothing.
Asks for people's backing and they provide them.
Then doesn't critique them.
Just assumes you're an idiot and your source is invalid.
God forbid he had to search anything himself or provide evidence or critically think for once.
Why I left the troll to it yesterday.
I provided 4 sources.
I gave background calculations on equirements.
I gave how to search sources.
I asked him to rebuttal the sources.
I got " lol your source is a brexit organisation"
And when asked about why he's so sure of electricity storage capacity and what that will be by 2050
A complete shoulder shrug and just " I believe it will happen"
"You just say the same thing again and again and all of your "knowledge" always leads to something from Briefings for Britain which you then demand to be rebutted, yet you cannot ever manage to do the same for anything else you're presented. Incessantly repeating the same thing doesn't make it true. It makes it boring. You cannot even acknowledge comments if they are awkward for you. You certainly cannot explain why the world is doing something despite your opinion. Why is billions being spent on this? Any idea? Any theory? Everyone is stupid except for you and Briefings for Britain, right? Surely they have given you the answer | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. This says way way more about your debating skills than you could ever imagine. Is it really so hard to accept that people may, just sometimes, know a little more than you??" Alternatively it says something about what I do for a living. You can decide that from what you actually know about me. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
My post was a badly worded response, on reflection..
I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable.
I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset.
However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field?"I might well do. I might not. It might find itself useful in aerospace at scale and incidentally, at great expense, in a few vehicles. Why have you chosen the most biased sources as the most reliable? | |||
"The sad thing is the UK could have had cheap renewables but in the rush to build we overpaid with Clyde wind farm been a good case study as it’s paid in the last 2 accounting years over 170 million in dividends plus over 30 million in interest to its 3 shareholders and it was able to do this thanks in a large part to the 126 million in subsidies plus 30 million in stop production payments it received." We have overpaid the entire power generation industry, fossil and non-fossil fuels due to the tariff structure that we have. Fix that and you could fix a great deal more. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
My post was a badly worded response, on reflection..
I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable.
I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset.
However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field?
I might well do. I might not.
It might find itself useful in aerospace at scale and incidentally, at great expense, in a few vehicles.
Why have you chosen the most biased sources as the most reliable?"They are the ones making it, using it and know about it, maybe? I’m sure they would not have turned the EU around with nonsense and they certainly wouldn’t be investing the money if it wasn’t viable. Now tell me why you don’t back this horse? | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
My post was a badly worded response, on reflection..
I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable.
I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset.
However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field?
I might well do. I might not.
It might find itself useful in aerospace at scale and incidentally, at great expense, in a few vehicles.
Why have you chosen the most biased sources as the most reliable?
They are the ones making it, using it and know about it, maybe?
I’m sure they would not have turned the EU around with nonsense and they certainly wouldn’t be investing the money if it wasn’t viable.
Now tell me why you don’t back this horse? "Really? Trying to create a new narrative to save the internal combustion engine half of the automotive industry isn't a motivator to provide a slightly biased narrative?
Do you think the industry has spent billions shifting to electric vehicles on a whim?
To produce synthetic fuel, you need to produce hydrogen from renewable energy. That requires more renewable energy to convert to a hydrocarbon. This requires more energy to transport to the point of use. It then goes into an inefficient internal combustion engine and drivetrain where it creates pollution at the tailpipe and carbon dioxide which needs to be offset with an as yet invented process or planting lots and lots of trees.
Alternatively you generate the renewable energy and put it into a car battery driving a massively more efficient drivetrain generating no pollution where it operates.
That, again, is why I don't "back this horse".
As a intermediate solution the aerospace sector will gobble up sustainable aviation fuel but the the final destination is hydrogen. Again, because it will be cheaper to produce than adding another step in the process. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
Good old easy
When asked multiple times for his thoughts and reasoning and data yesterday provided nothing.
Asks for people's backing and they provide them.
Then doesn't critique them.
Just assumes you're an idiot and your source is invalid.
God forbid he had to search anything himself or provide evidence or critically think for once.
Why I left the troll to it yesterday.
I provided 4 sources.
I gave background calculations on equirements.
I gave how to search sources.
I asked him to rebuttal the sources.
I got " lol your source is a brexit organisation"
And when asked about why he's so sure of electricity storage capacity and what that will be by 2050
A complete shoulder shrug and just " I believe it will happen"
It's really a waste of time trying to debate anything with Climate Cultists. It's like trying to discuss economic development with Pol Pot."Great contribution. Feeling better now? | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
Good old easy
When asked multiple times for his thoughts and reasoning and data yesterday provided nothing.
Asks for people's backing and they provide them.
Then doesn't critique them.
Just assumes you're an idiot and your source is invalid.
God forbid he had to search anything himself or provide evidence or critically think for once.
Why I left the troll to it yesterday.
I provided 4 sources.
I gave background calculations on equirements.
I gave how to search sources.
I asked him to rebuttal the sources.
I got " lol your source is a brexit organisation"
And when asked about why he's so sure of electricity storage capacity and what that will be by 2050
A complete shoulder shrug and just " I believe it will happen"
"I can beat that with a response of wait for it ,,,,, so. That's the day I stopped the debate. | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
My post was a badly worded response, on reflection..
I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable.
I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset.
However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field?
I might well do. I might not.
It might find itself useful in aerospace at scale and incidentally, at great expense, in a few vehicles.
Why have you chosen the most biased sources as the most reliable?
They are the ones making it, using it and know about it, maybe?
I’m sure they would not have turned the EU around with nonsense and they certainly wouldn’t be investing the money if it wasn’t viable.
Now tell me why you don’t back this horse?
Really? Trying to create a new narrative to save the internal combustion engine half of the automotive industry isn't a motivator to provide a slightly biased narrative?
Do you think the industry has spent billions shifting to electric vehicles on a whim?
To produce synthetic fuel, you need to produce hydrogen from renewable energy. That requires more renewable energy to convert to a hydrocarbon. This requires more energy to transport to the point of use. It then goes into an inefficient internal combustion engine and drivetrain where it creates pollution at the tailpipe and carbon dioxide which needs to be offset with an as yet invented process or planting lots and lots of trees.
Alternatively you generate the renewable energy and put it into a car battery driving a massively more efficient drivetrain generating no pollution where it operates.
That, again, is why I don't "back this horse".
As a intermediate solution the aerospace sector will gobble up sustainable aviation fuel but the the final destination is hydrogen. Again, because it will be cheaper to produce than adding another step in the process."Are you absolutely sure it creates emissions at the tail pipe? If it does what are those emissions and how do the compare to ICE today and the making of batteries? On the same point, what is the energy needed to produce synthetic fuels compared to the energy need to power EV’s. Let’s also consider the capabilities of producing the energy to power for EV’s too, what’s the requirement on fossil fuels? | |||
" ... the cost of producing synthetic fuels is monumentally high and will require more power than running EVs directly. Synthetic fuel is being produced today at a cost that's just pennies above the current pump price. However, pump prices include profit margins for all the companies involved, and a big wedge of tax. If the synthetic fuel had to cover those it would indeed be monumentally expensive. It should get cheaper when it's produced in volume, but we don't know how much cheaper. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Have a search for "porsche fuel $2" and you'll get plenty of results. Some of the reports claiming €50 per litre are old news, and some are using a 'current' production cost of €10, and then adding costs and taxes to get a notional "pump price". You can choose to believe what you wish, but not even Porsche is saying it expects to use the product in anything but it's high performance vehicles. Porsche are ramping their Haru Oni plant up to produce 550 million litres in 2026. That's only about 4% of the UK's annual needs, but it's not a trivial amount. If people start buying it, I'd expect Porsche to build new plants. With 1.8 billion cars on the road that can use eFuel without any conversion, the market is huge I'm sure you all know best with a deep understanding of the industry and the technology. I know nothing about this technology other than what I’ve read on the Porsche website and the eFuel alliance sites. It all sounds feasible to me, I will go positive on this until some experts come along and burst my bubble
So you nothing about it other than the information provided by two organisations advocating for it the most strongly and with the greatest financial incentives to do so?
Righto
My post was a badly worded response, on reflection..
I have read info on more than 2 sites, mainly from an auto perspective, but I chose to give you the 2 I thought were most reliable.
I won't pretend to know how the fuel be developed or its capabilities beyond what I have read. I will leave the clever stuff to the experts at Porsche and Exxon Mobil, but I will take note of their progress with a glass half full mindset.
However, I'm not really sure why you would want to argue the merits of eFuel or why you would have such a strong opinion on its future.. Do you have expertise in this field?
I might well do. I might not.
It might find itself useful in aerospace at scale and incidentally, at great expense, in a few vehicles.
Why have you chosen the most biased sources as the most reliable?
They are the ones making it, using it and know about it, maybe?
I’m sure they would not have turned the EU around with nonsense and they certainly wouldn’t be investing the money if it wasn’t viable.
Now tell me why you don’t back this horse?
Really? Trying to create a new narrative to save the internal combustion engine half of the automotive industry isn't a motivator to provide a slightly biased narrative?
Do you think the industry has spent billions shifting to electric vehicles on a whim?
To produce synthetic fuel, you need to produce hydrogen from renewable energy. That requires more renewable energy to convert to a hydrocarbon. This requires more energy to transport to the point of use. It then goes into an inefficient internal combustion engine and drivetrain where it creates pollution at the tailpipe and carbon dioxide which needs to be offset with an as yet invented process or planting lots and lots of trees.
Alternatively you generate the renewable energy and put it into a car battery driving a massively more efficient drivetrain generating no pollution where it operates.
That, again, is why I don't "back this horse".
As a intermediate solution the aerospace sector will gobble up sustainable aviation fuel but the the final destination is hydrogen. Again, because it will be cheaper to produce than adding another step in the process.
Are you absolutely sure it creates emissions at the tail pipe? If it does what are those emissions and how do the compare to ICE today and the making of batteries?
On the same point, what is the energy needed to produce synthetic fuels compared to the energy need to power EV’s.
Let’s also consider the capabilities of producing the energy to power for EV’s too, what’s the requirement on fossil fuels?"Am I sure? Synthetic fuel is a replacement for petrol. It is a hydrocarbon. It creates CO, CO2, NOx when it burns in exactly the same way as the thing it replaces. It is not magic. Synthetic fuels are 4-5 times less energy efficient in production than directly using the electricity. That is not including the 40% efficiency of an ICE car vs 70% of an EV. Your two reliable websites tell you this, right? Some high performance vehicles will use it. The aviation industry will use it during transition to hydrogen. May work for the armed forces. Aircraft and armoured vehicles. | |||
| |||
"Any chance you could take this to a private room?" Any. Chance you can just go up into the lounge and not debate. It's so easy not to get involved. But here you are. Let them have their say | |||
