| The end of gas? 21:23 - May 18 with 7627 views | Catullus |
I'm not against the idea, we need to do everything we can to protect the planet but blooming heck look at the expected prices,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/sci
£6000 to £18000.....it has to be very heavily subsidised because most of us juts couldn't afford it, surely! |  |
| |  |
| The end of gas? on 08:08 - May 25 with 1167 views | felixstowe_jack |
EDF announced another 1700 jobs at hinckley point today to help it catch up with building delays caused by social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. | |
| |
| The end of gas? on 18:31 - May 25 with 1123 views | A_Fans_Dad |
It should never have been converted to Wood chip in the first place, it has increased CO2, pollution and the cost of it's electricity.
For another view read this version, especially the comments.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne | | | |
| The end of gas? on 18:56 - May 25 with 1113 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Even more bad news for the green brigade.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news
And more reality biting on Johnson's ridiculous carbon zero plans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne
See the comments, the general public have far more grasp of the problems than any politician.
I have looked at the requirements for replacing domestic gas completely and Petrol & Diesel cars.
The winter time demand for domestic gas is about 100GW, yes over twice the Electricity demand.
So to replace it all we need to double our current Electricity Generation which is creaking now.
Petrol & Diesel combined use about 66GW, but assuming that EVs are more efficient lets call it 22GW.
Which is 2/3rds of the current generation.
So to meet the net zero rubbish he needs to buils 2.33 times as much generation as we currently have.
As to replacing Natural Gas with Hydrogen it takes more electrical energy (20%) to create it than you get out and the process releases a lot of CO2, which kind of defeats the object. Add in that the Hydrogen has a 60% less calorific value by volume compared to to Natural gas, so you need 3 times as much, it is more dangerous and leaks much easier while embrittling metallic pipes and burns with a flame that is very hard to see.
It is negatives at every stage. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 14:12 - May 27 with 1041 views | Scotia |
Well it is written by the deceitfully titled, climate change denying and anti renewable organisation "the renewable energy foundation". Who were interestingly formed by Noel Edmonds, yes the Noel Edmunds who gave us Mr Blobby.
I would point out that in their cost calculation they include CAPEX costs, any new or updated power station will incur those, whether nuclear coal or renewable. How is our current power generation infrastructure looking? The answer is very dated and in need of upgrade. Those costs are unavoidable, whatever the power source.
That is hugely swaying the figures, not only that they state that renewable costs are not likely to fall for the next 5 - 10 years. These things will be needed for the next 50 - 100 years at least. Think how much cheaper tech has become over that length of time?
The entire article is also based on the assumption that people think that costs have fallen. I don't think that is the case, this is technology in it's infancy, people understand that. I expect costs to fall over the lifetime of the technology but it is very early days yet, there is plenty of time for innovation, and the appetite for it.
It's a case of not much to see here rather than anything to "suck up". | | | |
| The end of gas? on 18:27 - May 27 with 1018 views | Gwyn737 |
| The end of gas? on 14:12 - May 27 by Scotia |
Well it is written by the deceitfully titled, climate change denying and anti renewable organisation "the renewable energy foundation". Who were interestingly formed by Noel Edmonds, yes the Noel Edmunds who gave us Mr Blobby.
I would point out that in their cost calculation they include CAPEX costs, any new or updated power station will incur those, whether nuclear coal or renewable. How is our current power generation infrastructure looking? The answer is very dated and in need of upgrade. Those costs are unavoidable, whatever the power source.
That is hugely swaying the figures, not only that they state that renewable costs are not likely to fall for the next 5 - 10 years. These things will be needed for the next 50 - 100 years at least. Think how much cheaper tech has become over that length of time?
The entire article is also based on the assumption that people think that costs have fallen. I don't think that is the case, this is technology in it's infancy, people understand that. I expect costs to fall over the lifetime of the technology but it is very early days yet, there is plenty of time for innovation, and the appetite for it.
It's a case of not much to see here rather than anything to "suck up". |
That’s all very well, but I’ll wait to see what Mr. Blobby has to say about it all. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 18:37 - May 27 with 1012 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 14:12 - May 27 by Scotia |
Well it is written by the deceitfully titled, climate change denying and anti renewable organisation "the renewable energy foundation". Who were interestingly formed by Noel Edmonds, yes the Noel Edmunds who gave us Mr Blobby.
I would point out that in their cost calculation they include CAPEX costs, any new or updated power station will incur those, whether nuclear coal or renewable. How is our current power generation infrastructure looking? The answer is very dated and in need of upgrade. Those costs are unavoidable, whatever the power source.
That is hugely swaying the figures, not only that they state that renewable costs are not likely to fall for the next 5 - 10 years. These things will be needed for the next 50 - 100 years at least. Think how much cheaper tech has become over that length of time?
The entire article is also based on the assumption that people think that costs have fallen. I don't think that is the case, this is technology in it's infancy, people understand that. I expect costs to fall over the lifetime of the technology but it is very early days yet, there is plenty of time for innovation, and the appetite for it.
It's a case of not much to see here rather than anything to "suck up". |
Perfect, classic scotia.
Attack the source, because you can't attack the data.
Then make the mistake of forgetting what you said a week ago.
Quote "The cost of renewables are coming down and the sources? are being provided".
I am glad you mentioned the future, because those wonderful renewables will all need replacing in at most 20 years.
Give it up mate, you are totally out of your depth. [Post edited 27 May 2021 18:46]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The end of gas? on 19:34 - May 27 with 1004 views | Dr_Winston |
| The end of gas? on 18:37 - May 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Perfect, classic scotia.
Attack the source, because you can't attack the data.
Then make the mistake of forgetting what you said a week ago.
Quote "The cost of renewables are coming down and the sources? are being provided".
I am glad you mentioned the future, because those wonderful renewables will all need replacing in at most 20 years.
Give it up mate, you are totally out of your depth. [Post edited 27 May 2021 18:46]
|
Why would you trust data from a questionable source? Other than being totally cuckoo obvs. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The end of gas? on 19:40 - May 27 with 996 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 19:34 - May 27 by Dr_Winston |
Why would you trust data from a questionable source? Other than being totally cuckoo obvs. |
The source is only questionable to scotia and Climate activists, not to neutrals & Climate skeptics.
Why wouldn't you read it and make up your own mind as to it's worth, or better still provide a source that disproves it? [Post edited 27 May 2021 19:41]
| | | |
| The end of gas? on 21:03 - May 27 with 976 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 18:37 - May 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Perfect, classic scotia.
Attack the source, because you can't attack the data.
Then make the mistake of forgetting what you said a week ago.
Quote "The cost of renewables are coming down and the sources? are being provided".
I am glad you mentioned the future, because those wonderful renewables will all need replacing in at most 20 years.
Give it up mate, you are totally out of your depth. [Post edited 27 May 2021 18:46]
|
I've missed the part where I've "had a go at the source" I was a big fan of Noels House Party, he wore lovely jumpers and I had Mr Blobby's single and everything.
As I said they use a time frame of 5 years to just costs not decreasing, 5 years? Do you think that is reasonable? How long have fossil fuels been used? These expect a fair comparison in 5 years. Utter nonsense.
The cost of renewables are coming down, as I said these authors have included Capex costs and made an assumption regarding current opinion.
They may not be cheap, now or in the future. It doesn't matter, we need them
One other point. That article also points out that fossil fuel power stations need upgrading every 25 years ish. I'd rather be changing the blades of a wind turbine or a few solar panels than an entire gas plant.
There's not much point in me attacking data you don't read or understand. You are fooled by flashy headlines (or subtitles :)) | | | |
| The end of gas? on 21:52 - May 27 with 958 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 21:03 - May 27 by Scotia |
I've missed the part where I've "had a go at the source" I was a big fan of Noels House Party, he wore lovely jumpers and I had Mr Blobby's single and everything.
As I said they use a time frame of 5 years to just costs not decreasing, 5 years? Do you think that is reasonable? How long have fossil fuels been used? These expect a fair comparison in 5 years. Utter nonsense.
The cost of renewables are coming down, as I said these authors have included Capex costs and made an assumption regarding current opinion.
They may not be cheap, now or in the future. It doesn't matter, we need them
One other point. That article also points out that fossil fuel power stations need upgrading every 25 years ish. I'd rather be changing the blades of a wind turbine or a few solar panels than an entire gas plant.
There's not much point in me attacking data you don't read or understand. You are fooled by flashy headlines (or subtitles :)) |
No we don't need them, they will make not the slightest difference to anything, while costing the tax payers and consumers ever more money.
You may be prepared to pay the extra for nothing, but people on old age pensions can't afford to.
An overhaul of a gas plant is much cheaper than replacing all the wind turbines or solar panels on a farm and all the farms that have already been built., in fact you could buy new ones cheaper.
Some Capitol costs from Wiki for you
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight cost per watt. Estimated costs are:
gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW (2019)[9]
combustion turbine - $710/kW (2020)[9]
onshore wind - $1600/kW (2019)[9]
offshore wind - $6500/kW (2019)[9]
solar PV (fixed) - $1060/kW (utility),[10] $1800/kW (2019)[9]
solar PV (tracking)- $1130/kW (utility)[10] $2000/kW (2019)[9]
battery storage power - $1380/kW (2020)[9]
conventional hydropower - $2752/kW (2020)[9]
geothermal - $2800/kW (2019)[9]
coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500—3800/kW[11]
advanced nuclear - $6000/kW (2019)[9]
fuel cells - $7200/kW (2019)[9]
You only get wind generation of 30% of that nameplate capitol cost and 11% for solar.
And your wonderful renewables still need 90% backup | | | |
| The end of gas? on 22:03 - May 27 with 957 views | Catullus |
AFD, I am very wary of sources because there doesn't seem to be any such thing as neutral anymore. These "sources" are either for or against something and it usually comes down to profits.
You stick with the notion that the tech won't improve or get cheaper but history has proven that it always does. How much did Xboxes, laptops and mobile phones used to cost? How much was the first nuclear power plant, or the first coal fired one? | |
| |
| The end of gas? on 22:18 - May 27 with 955 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 21:52 - May 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
No we don't need them, they will make not the slightest difference to anything, while costing the tax payers and consumers ever more money.
You may be prepared to pay the extra for nothing, but people on old age pensions can't afford to.
An overhaul of a gas plant is much cheaper than replacing all the wind turbines or solar panels on a farm and all the farms that have already been built., in fact you could buy new ones cheaper.
Some Capitol costs from Wiki for you
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight cost per watt. Estimated costs are:
gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW (2019)[9]
combustion turbine - $710/kW (2020)[9]
onshore wind - $1600/kW (2019)[9]
offshore wind - $6500/kW (2019)[9]
solar PV (fixed) - $1060/kW (utility),[10] $1800/kW (2019)[9]
solar PV (tracking)- $1130/kW (utility)[10] $2000/kW (2019)[9]
battery storage power - $1380/kW (2020)[9]
conventional hydropower - $2752/kW (2020)[9]
geothermal - $2800/kW (2019)[9]
coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500—3800/kW[11]
advanced nuclear - $6000/kW (2019)[9]
fuel cells - $7200/kW (2019)[9]
You only get wind generation of 30% of that nameplate capitol cost and 11% for solar.
And your wonderful renewables still need 90% backup |
I don't think you understand what Capex costs are do you?
I'm out of my depth? OK total costs of replacing a turbine or solar array versus a gas plant refurbishment?
Even at present costs, there is no comparison. Why do you think no fossil fuel power stations are being built in the UK? | | | |
| The end of gas? on 14:05 - May 28 with 908 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 22:18 - May 27 by Scotia |
I don't think you understand what Capex costs are do you?
I'm out of my depth? OK total costs of replacing a turbine or solar array versus a gas plant refurbishment?
Even at present costs, there is no comparison. Why do you think no fossil fuel power stations are being built in the UK? |
I obviously understand Capital Investment, if you think I don't then prove it.
Again I have shown what you actually get in KW for said investment. So if you think it actually costs more to refurbish a Gas Plant per kw than it does to build it new then prove it. and show your workings.
Well it appears that DRAX want to build a new Gas Plant, but I am not sure why for the following reasons.
The Energy Industry is a Government controlled market and not a free market, which creates the following inequalities.
1. Wind & Solar both get first call on their production, while fossil fueled production have to wait in line and at the same time having to provide spinning reserve at extra cost, extra fuel and lower efficiency .
2. Wind & Solar both get Subsidies, although Solar has been stopped. So they are guaranteed to get paid more for all of their production.
3. Wind Farms do not have to pay for Grid Connection, for the backup needed, or grid destablisation.
4. Fossil fuel producers are further penalised for cost comparisons by the addition of a £18/Tonne of CO2 Carbon Tax.
5. Not knowing if the Government will decide to turn off your plant makes return on investment and amortisation calculations for Investors difficult.
So it makes you wonder why anyone would take the risks involved. [Post edited 28 May 2021 19:18]
| | | |
| The end of gas? on 20:45 - May 28 with 867 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 14:05 - May 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
I obviously understand Capital Investment, if you think I don't then prove it.
Again I have shown what you actually get in KW for said investment. So if you think it actually costs more to refurbish a Gas Plant per kw than it does to build it new then prove it. and show your workings.
Well it appears that DRAX want to build a new Gas Plant, but I am not sure why for the following reasons.
The Energy Industry is a Government controlled market and not a free market, which creates the following inequalities.
1. Wind & Solar both get first call on their production, while fossil fueled production have to wait in line and at the same time having to provide spinning reserve at extra cost, extra fuel and lower efficiency .
2. Wind & Solar both get Subsidies, although Solar has been stopped. So they are guaranteed to get paid more for all of their production.
3. Wind Farms do not have to pay for Grid Connection, for the backup needed, or grid destablisation.
4. Fossil fuel producers are further penalised for cost comparisons by the addition of a £18/Tonne of CO2 Carbon Tax.
5. Not knowing if the Government will decide to turn off your plant makes return on investment and amortisation calculations for Investors difficult.
So it makes you wonder why anyone would take the risks involved. [Post edited 28 May 2021 19:18]
|
So the Capex costs for fossil fuels should be disregarded then?
I agree in most instances, so why does that art consider them for renewables?
Cut the bluster. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 23:36 - May 28 with 850 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 20:45 - May 28 by Scotia |
So the Capex costs for fossil fuels should be disregarded then?
I agree in most instances, so why does that art consider them for renewables?
Cut the bluster. |
What utter rubbish, you have been unable to counter a single point raised.
They did not say they were excluding "capex" for coal & gas, because they were not discussing coal & gas, they were discussing renewables costs reduction.
Just give it up or give us some answers, first you say they are reducing, then you say nobody says they are, then you repeat that they are. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 11:30 - May 29 with 828 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Oh dear the Wind Turbine Army has gone AWOL again, 2 days of 0.5GW from a 23GW army.
Good old Gas comes to the rescue yet again.
It doesn't look good for rest of the week either with the high pressure sitting over Britain. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 22:06 - Jun 2 with 761 views | felixstowe_jack |
Interesting TV programme on the building of hinckley point c nuclear power station. | |
| |
| The end of gas? on 14:42 - Jun 7 with 727 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Some more reality for the green fantasists.
https://papundits.wordpress.co
and
https://blog.friendsofscience.
written in easy to understand language so that even thicko, moron me can understand it.
ps Wind has spent a whole fortnight in the doldrums below 5GWs and they want to rely on it for the future. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 15:04 - Jun 7 with 718 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 14:42 - Jun 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Some more reality for the green fantasists.
https://papundits.wordpress.co
and
https://blog.friendsofscience.
written in easy to understand language so that even thicko, moron me can understand it.
ps Wind has spent a whole fortnight in the doldrums below 5GWs and they want to rely on it for the future. |
The basis of Wojick's article isn't exactly startling. Renewables being able to provide all of the planets electricity requirements is a long way off, we are going to need storage and alternative sources. Nobody is going to argue that we won't.
Aside from that his article is largely opinion.
I do particularly like this critical quote from his blog:-
"Also funny is the great long list of peer reviewers of this so-called study. Almost all are promoters of renewables."
He is clearly highlighting potential bias, which he should do. It's clearly an attempt to cast considerable doubt over the accuracy of the study he is referring to.
So I would like to point out that Wojick himself has been an advisor to the Western Fuels Association of coal burning utility companies and works for the Heartland institute, who in turn are funded by oil companies.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
File under crank. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 16:27 - Jun 7 with 702 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 15:04 - Jun 7 by Scotia |
The basis of Wojick's article isn't exactly startling. Renewables being able to provide all of the planets electricity requirements is a long way off, we are going to need storage and alternative sources. Nobody is going to argue that we won't.
Aside from that his article is largely opinion.
I do particularly like this critical quote from his blog:-
"Also funny is the great long list of peer reviewers of this so-called study. Almost all are promoters of renewables."
He is clearly highlighting potential bias, which he should do. It's clearly an attempt to cast considerable doubt over the accuracy of the study he is referring to.
So I would like to point out that Wojick himself has been an advisor to the Western Fuels Association of coal burning utility companies and works for the Heartland institute, who in turn are funded by oil companies.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
File under crank. |
Didn't you bother to read the other one, it is written so that even you can understand it.
You say "Renewables being able to provide all of the planets electricity requirements is a long way off," and yet you advocate that the UK tries to do it now, knowing that is impossible and impossibly expensive.
You would realise just how expensive if you bothered to read the other link.
As I explained to you before the current massive investment in Green cannot even keep up with energy expansion requirements, let alone actually replace anything. [Post edited 7 Jun 2021 16:30]
| | | |
| The end of gas? on 11:35 - Jun 8 with 657 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 16:27 - Jun 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Didn't you bother to read the other one, it is written so that even you can understand it.
You say "Renewables being able to provide all of the planets electricity requirements is a long way off," and yet you advocate that the UK tries to do it now, knowing that is impossible and impossibly expensive.
You would realise just how expensive if you bothered to read the other link.
As I explained to you before the current massive investment in Green cannot even keep up with energy expansion requirements, let alone actually replace anything. [Post edited 7 Jun 2021 16:30]
|
I got as far as the title. It's clearly more nonsense propaganda. It's guesswork and opinion. Then I noticed it was written by "The friends of science" . Oh dear.
Anyway. I've never advocated that the UK tries to use renewable sources exclusively now. It's impossible. We need to works towards it. 2050 is very optimistic.
The "friends of science" are a climate change denial organisation, they claim to be "an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens that is celebrating its 18th year of offering climate science insights".
Except, as usual, they aren't. They may have celebrated their 18th year, but that's the only accurate part of that sentence.
The author of that report used to be an economist for an oil company. They are funded by the fossil fuel industry. They used to claim to be part of the University of Calgary, but they never were.
More pseudo-science BS. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 14:17]
| | | |
| The end of gas? on 17:39 - Jun 8 with 624 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| The end of gas? on 11:35 - Jun 8 by Scotia |
I got as far as the title. It's clearly more nonsense propaganda. It's guesswork and opinion. Then I noticed it was written by "The friends of science" . Oh dear.
Anyway. I've never advocated that the UK tries to use renewable sources exclusively now. It's impossible. We need to works towards it. 2050 is very optimistic.
The "friends of science" are a climate change denial organisation, they claim to be "an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens that is celebrating its 18th year of offering climate science insights".
Except, as usual, they aren't. They may have celebrated their 18th year, but that's the only accurate part of that sentence.
The author of that report used to be an economist for an oil company. They are funded by the fossil fuel industry. They used to claim to be part of the University of Calgary, but they never were.
More pseudo-science BS. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 14:17]
|
So, you cannot disprove a single thing they say then.
Just character assassination.
OK, I rest my case.
ps Now 16 days of less than 5GW of Wind production, less than 15% of Demand, many days have been below 3GW.
Let's see you cover that with a battery backup.
You know full well that you can't do away with gas, hence your peaker plant project for backup. | | | |
| The end of gas? on 20:36 - Jun 8 with 618 views | Scotia |
| The end of gas? on 17:39 - Jun 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
So, you cannot disprove a single thing they say then.
Just character assassination.
OK, I rest my case.
ps Now 16 days of less than 5GW of Wind production, less than 15% of Demand, many days have been below 3GW.
Let's see you cover that with a battery backup.
You know full well that you can't do away with gas, hence your peaker plant project for backup. |
It's relevant character assanation. They are charlatans.
I'm not necessarily disputing it. I don't see the relevance of the article, it's outdated now and will be irrelevant in future years.
The peaking plant that hasn't even started being built yet you mean because there is no demand? I've never said anything other than that we will need a back up for a considerable length of time.
I bet solar has had a good day. The tide has still ebbed and flooded and rivers still flow. [Post edited 8 Jun 2021 21:52]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.