Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Green energy and jobs will cripple the UK economy 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
Lecturer at work has PV cells at her place.
Made £8000 from them last year.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:35 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
PV is still not particularly efficient at sub 20% efficiency still but if you combine it with efficient appliances it becomes a better option.

Every power source becomes better with more efficient appliances. Including coal, which becomes environmentally friendlier in exactly the same degree that solar becomes economically less catastrophically awful.

Amnesia10 wrote:
I think that they use feed in tariffs for surplus power generated.
Industrial solar generation is not possible without feed in tariffs, home production is not cost effective either.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Longer term solar will always be a marginal player until efficiency improves. It will eventually.
So it is insane to spend billions on subsidising the manufacture of the current - utterly worthless - generation of PV panels. I have no objection to spending the money on research, but the sheer stupidity of declaring that by year X we will generate X% of power from this hopelessly inadequate source is depressing.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Wind is effective but relatively low density power generation so not so good for cities. Don't forget the huge subsidy that fossil fuels get in the form of they do not pay anywhere near the fuel environmental costs of their use.
Wind is always going to be bad, it stops working when the wind does. Solar has evident similar issues. So you can't generate any serious power from either without having a backup plan that works on windless days, and nights. A megawatt of solar/wind doesn't even replace a megawatt of coal/gas/nuclear, so it doesn't prevent their environmental impact, so it cannot be credited with lowering emissions, therefore it makes no sense to argue that those forms of generation have environmental costs which it does not.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:20 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
ProfessorF wrote:
Lecturer at work has PV cells at her place.
Made £8000 from them last year.

I hope you enjoyed subsidising her profit through your electricity bill.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:21 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
ProfessorF wrote:
Lecturer at work has PV cells at her place.
Made £8000 from them last year.


Tell me more. If we can bring the bills down, AND make a profit in a year, I’m interested. :)

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:43 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
It's true. What we ought to do is put PV panels on everybody's roof (no leaving out the poor). Then we can all have electricity in the day and shiver at night. Luckily we won't be able to watch the evening news, the economic statistics will be disheartening.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:52 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
It's true. What we ought to do is put PV panels on everybody's roof (no leaving out the poor). Then we can all have electricity in the day and shiver at night. Luckily we won't be able to watch the evening news, the economic statistics will be disheartening.

Yes but there will be other renewables. ;)

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:58 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
So, if we want to remove a megawatt of nuclear power, how many megawatts of renewables do we need to provision? 1 for solar, we can use that in the day (weather permitting), 1 for wind, we can use that in the night (weather permitting) and 1 for waves?

Why not use the only reliable source on that list instead? Nuclear.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:55 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
So, if we want to remove a megawatt of nuclear power, how many megawatts of renewables do we need to provision? 1 for solar, we can use that in the day (weather permitting), 1 for wind, we can use that in the night (weather permitting) and 1 for waves?

Why not use the only reliable source on that list instead? Nuclear.

Because that's the least attractive to those who want to be scared of the horrible icky nuclear thingy that will explode and kill almost everyone except for the mutant zombies that will roam the land eating the children of the survivors.

or something like that.

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:11 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
I have a magnificent new plan: We can solve all our energy problems by taking the money wasted on feed in tariffs and spending them instead on a PR campaign to make mutants more attractive to the opposite sex. We can highlight the probability of interesting new genital configurations. Then everyone will cross their fingers and hope nuclear armageddon will bring them a 7 breasted girlfriend with a sideways coochie.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:19 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
So, if we want to remove a megawatt of nuclear power, how many megawatts of renewables do we need to provision? 1 for solar, we can use that in the day (weather permitting), 1 for wind, we can use that in the night (weather permitting) and 1 for waves?

Why not use the only reliable source on that list instead? Nuclear.

Even Germany are abandoning Nuclear and switching to renewables. The nuclear industry's only viable long term option is Thorium reactors or fusion, but we are not there yet. Energy reduction measures are the cheapest and best solution. Making energy more expensive via a carbon tax and a nuclear levy for emergencies and decommissioning because as private companies they could simply collapse and leave the burden on the tax payer anyway. Then there would be little need for feed in tariffs for renewables.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:04 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Sometimes the Germans are wrong. This is one of those occasions. Nuclear power actually delivers volts and watts and stuff when required, in useful quantities. No renewable has that to be said in its favour except hydro, for which there is little prospect of new capacity within Europe.

Nuclear power is viable and affordable with actual technology that is available right now. No renewable has that to be said in its favour except hydro, for which there is little prospect of new capacity within Europe.

If thorium lives up to its potential, or fusion to its promise, then industrial scale solar, wind and wave power will all prove to have been an even greater waste of cash than is already apparent. Why should we follow Germany down that path? In what way is spunking piles of money on a [LIFTED] insane plan the kind of bandwagon we ought to pile into?

And in case I forgot to mention it already
me wrote:
A megawatt of solar/wind doesn't even replace a megawatt of coal/gas/nuclear, so it doesn't prevent their environmental impact

It also doesn't prevent you having to build proper power stations - even mighty Germany can't overcome this deficiency. They will end up having to invest in polluting power plants of equal capacity to the renewables, thereby compounding the waste.



Even further to this, if Germany spends vast sums on subsidising their renewables to the point that they significantly reduce their actual use of non renewables, this also constitutes an indirect subsidy on our use of the non renewables (well, coal and gas anyway, not oil). Simply put, they reduce demand, suppliers reduce the price, we get to do all the polluting that germany is eschewing. We get cheaper electricity and plenty of it, while they live in light free hovels congratulating themselves on their wise investment in third world power brownouts.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:02 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
If thorium lives up to its potential, or fusion to its promise, then industrial scale solar, wind and wave power will all prove to have been an even greater waste of cash than is already apparent. Why should we follow Germany down that path? In what way is spunking piles of money on a [LIFTED] insane plan the kind of bandwagon we ought to pile into?

Well what if they are right and we walk down that economic dead end? Even if Thorium and Fusion are a success then we still need some interim solution. What about remote regions? They would benefit by being self sufficient with renewables anyway. Places like the highlands and islands could benefit from wind and solar because it will give them a steady energy supply and even the option to sell surplus energy.

ShockWaffle wrote:
Even further to this, if Germany spends vast sums on subsidising their renewables to the point that they significantly reduce their actual use of non renewables, this also constitutes an indirect subsidy on our use of the non renewables (well, coal and gas anyway, not oil). Simply put, they reduce demand, suppliers reduce the price, we get to do all the polluting that germany is eschewing. We get cheaper electricity and plenty of it, while they live in light free hovels congratulating themselves on their wise investment in third world power brownouts.

A subsidy on renewables does not end up being a subsidy on fossil fuels. As the demand falls there is only so low that the fossil fuel can drop. It takes manpower to extract and move. Below a simple point it becomes uneconomic to bother extracting. Mines are simply mothballed till prices are higher. That is why the US rare earth mines are reopening. Prices have risen to the point it is economic again.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:09 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
Well what if they are right and we walk down that economic dead end? Even if Thorium and Fusion are a success then we still need some interim solution.

Yes... so which should it be?
Amnesia10 wrote:
Longer term solar will always be a marginal player until efficiency improves. It will eventually. Wind is effective but relatively low density power generation so not so good for cities.

Obviously not renewables then...

So Nuclear or gas it is.

Hurrah, we finally are in agreement.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:59 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
I like the idea of using magnifying glasses to superheat steam to make power.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:26 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Well what if they are right and we walk down that economic dead end? Even if Thorium and Fusion are a success then we still need some interim solution.

Yes... so which should it be?
Amnesia10 wrote:
Longer term solar will always be a marginal player until efficiency improves. It will eventually. Wind is effective but relatively low density power generation so not so good for cities.

Obviously not renewables then...

So Nuclear or gas it is.

Hurrah, we finally are in agreement.

Actually in southern Europe solar is now the cheapest form of energy and it will get even cheaper. So the economics of fossil fuels here are still questionable, though slightly cheaper compared to solar.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:44 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.