Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,436
Probably put them in the English Channel to create a bigger barrier between us and Europe
Reverse the flow to get them creating wind to push the migrant boats back. I bet Priti Patel has asked if it will work.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
The reason for the facepalm @Bodhi, being that Bojo's actually going to deliver 100% windpower for the whole country by 2030 and you didn't like me doing him down?

Or is he going to be able to do it? And if that's the case - your constant ridiculing of the tech may need revisiting, no?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,436
Every home is also a low bar. What about industrial, retail, logistics, datacentres and transport?
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,071
The reason for the facepalm @Bodhi, being that Bojo's actually going to deliver 100% windpower for the whole country by 2030 and you didn't like me doing him down?

Or is he going to be able to do it? And if that's the case - your constant ridiculing of the tech may need revisiting, no?
Nope, it's still 17th Century technology completely inadequate to power a modern economy - and that's before you start adding more to the grid, like posh golf buggies and ground source heat pumps.

For instance going by G. B. National Grid status , on the day that was announced Wind Power was producing 6.5GW, out of a total installed capacity of 24GW, meaning the slack had to be picked up by Gas, Nuclear and Biomass - on a fairly typical autumn day. Fast forward to winter, when an area of High Pressure settles in for days on end, resulting in fuck all wind - how do you propose we live then? Batteries can pick up the slack for hours at a time - there can be days on end with very little wind in the UK in winter - what do we do then? Fire up the generators? Live off the land?

No problem with moving away from Fossil Fuel generation as long as we move to something better, but wind turbines ain't it. In fact add in the challenge of recyling the turbine blades (We're working on it, which automatically makes the problem go away) and the damage they do to local wildlife, I'm struggling to see massive steel leviathons as the ecological answer to anything in particular.

Great for subsidy farmers, fucking wank for everybody else.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,703
Nope, it's still 17th Century technology completely inadequate to power a modern economy - and that's before you start adding more to the grid, like posh golf buggies and ground source heat pumps.

For instance going by G. B. National Grid status , on the day that was announced Wind Power was producing 6.5GW, out of a total installed capacity of 24GW, meaning the slack had to be picked up by Gas, Nuclear and Biomass - on a fairly typical autumn day. Fast forward to winter, when an area of High Pressure settles in for days on end, resulting in fuck all wind - how do you propose we live then? Batteries can pick up the slack for hours at a time - there can be days on end with very little wind in the UK in winter - what do we do then? Fire up the generators? Live off the land?

No problem with moving away from Fossil Fuel generation as long as we move to something better, but wind turbines ain't it. In fact add in the challenge of recyling the turbine blades (We're working on it, which automatically makes the problem go away) and the damage they do to local wildlife, I'm struggling to see massive steel leviathons as the ecological answer to anything in particular.

Great for subsidy farmers, fucking wank for everybody else.
Isn't it already established that getting 'batteries' is -waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy- more important than 'green' energy anyway?

I dread to think what the first battery site explosion is going to be like :|
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,071
Isn't it already established that getting 'batteries' is -waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy- more important than 'green' energy anyway?

I dread to think what the first battery site explosion is going to be like :|
Absolutely, but Elon's got stock targets to hit so we are where we are.

I'm a bit more concerned about how the hell we're going to recycle all these batteries that will power the world - it's another "we're thinking about it so it's OK".
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
Nope, it's still 17th Century technology completely inadequate to power a modern economy - and that's before you start adding more to the grid, like posh golf buggies and ground source heat pumps.

For instance going by G. B. National Grid status , on the day that was announced Wind Power was producing 6.5GW, out of a total installed capacity of 24GW, meaning the slack had to be picked up by Gas, Nuclear and Biomass - on a fairly typical autumn day. Fast forward to winter, when an area of High Pressure settles in for days on end, resulting in fuck all wind - how do you propose we live then? Batteries can pick up the slack for hours at a time - there can be days on end with very little wind in the UK in winter - what do we do then? Fire up the generators? Live off the land?

No problem with moving away from Fossil Fuel generation as long as we move to something better, but wind turbines ain't it. In fact add in the challenge of recyling the turbine blades (We're working on it, which automatically makes the problem go away) and the damage they do to local wildlife, I'm struggling to see massive steel leviathons as the ecological answer to anything in particular.

Great for subsidy farmers, fucking wank for everybody else.
So, the reason for the facepalm is you think Bojo's a fucking tool then? Right?

At least we agree on something.



As for your other stuff - well, you're a brexiter and probably don't think that pan-european energy distribution solutions are a thing. But it's been on the cards for ages - and brexit or no, we'll be partaking in the european super grid project (we'll have to pay a higher cost to be part of it though) - because we'll be selling our excess wind-power to them. (The Saudia Arabia of wind).

You've once again brought up the "challenge of recycling the turbine blades" - which has been clearly pointed out is not a challenge at all. We've robust mechanisms to recycle turbine blades using existing technologies into useful reusable substances.

So, other than the fact that wind (which is indeed a very old, very well-understood technology - which is why it's so frickin' cheap - despite coal, gas, oil and nuclear still receiving ridiculous levels of public subsidy) is unreliable on a local level I can't see a downside (other than Bojo said it - so we've no hope of him delivering).

If we have to burn gas for a month a year, that's still 11 months a year where we don't.

Win, fucking, win.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,071
So, the reason for the facepalm is you think Bojo's a fucking tool then? Right?

At least we agree on something.



As for your other stuff - well, you're a brexiter and probably don't think that pan-european energy distribution solutions are a thing. But it's been on the cards for ages - and brexit or no, we'll be partaking in the european super grid project (we'll have to pay a higher cost to be part of it though) - because we'll be selling our excess wind-power to them. (The Saudia Arabia of wind).

You've once again brought up the "challenge of recycling the turbine blades" - which has been clearly pointed out is not a challenge at all. We've robust mechanisms to recycle turbine blades using existing technologies into useful reusable substances.

So, other than the fact that wind (which is indeed a very old, very well-understood technology - which is why it's so frickin' cheap - despite coal, gas, oil and nuclear still receiving ridiculous levels of public subsidy) is unreliable on a local level I can't see a downside (other than Bojo said it - so we've no hope of him delivering).

If we have to burn gas for a month a year, that's still 11 months a year where we don't.

Win, fucking, win.
Aw bless. Can't believe someone can be so deluded as to think wind power is cheap, literally 3 posts after someone has pointed out the real investment needed to make it happen.

Plus taking a look at the accounts of a few of the big wind farms, you can see just how much of a lie this "cheap" power is - costs have been rising for 10 years and they aren't going down any time soon.


Also of note in there is that electricity prices have doubled since we brought in the Renewables pledge in 2002 - that's some cheap power right there!
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
There's a whole world of facepalm when you're posting shit from the director of bullshit denialist group "global warming policy foundation" - shame on the spectator for giving them a voice tbh.

Can't continue burn gas, period, nuclear is hella expensive (about triple the cost of offshore wind - if you don't include mythical waste disposal costs).
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,071
There's a whole world of facepalm when you're posting shit from the director of bullshit denialist group "global warming policy foundation" - shame on the spectator for giving them a voice tbh.

Can't continue burn gas, period, nuclear is hella expensive (about triple the cost of offshore wind - if you don't include mythical waste disposal costs).
Yes, shame on The Spectator for allowing someone to hold the latest Green psychopathy to account.

Given that you've gone staright for playing the man rather than the ball, I'll assume that means you are struggling to argue with any of the content itself?

What I also find intriguing, and which I expect you will bluster around and ignore - is that if Offshore Wind is so damned cheap, why do it's biggest users in Europe (Denmark, Germany, UK) also have the highest electricity prices - whereas France, with it's extensive nuclear fleet, doesn't?


Something doesn't add up.

Oh of course, it's "Green" Economics, it isn't supposed to.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
Something doesn't add up.
Yep - it's your grasp of timelines.

France built it's reactors in the 1980s - and is facing a MASSIVE bill for decomissioning them that it hasn't even started looking at paying yet.

That's why they produce electricity from their old nuclear at the current strike price for new offshore wind. However, if identical offshore wind capacity was built at todays prices adjusted for inflation back to the 1980's then France would be producing all it's electricity at effing 10 euros/MWh instead of the 40+ now. When/if it rebuilds it's aging nuclear fleet France (like everyone else) is looking at a strike price between 76 and 117 euros/MWh - which is more than double unsubsidised offshore wind).

Which is why they're going to reduce the amount of nuclear in their mix, dramatically.


So, what about today?

According to your own link France is charging consumers 0.1913 euros / kwh and the UK is charging 0.221 euros. Not a huge difference - and that's before France have to decomission their old fleet and rebuild.

Sacré bleu! :eek6:


Regardless - if France wants to shackle itself to expensive nuclear then that's fine. But gas and coal have to stop. Meanwhile - in blighty unsubsidised new offshore wind will be cheaper than already-existing gas by 2023.


Every passing day shows even more clearly you're on the wrong side of this @Bodhi. Although I daresay you'll be barking at turbines like an slightly unhinged mutt until your 70's. ;)
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,947
One a day till 2030, the entire coastline of the UK will be smothered in turbines, no storage on the horizon...they only work 1/3rd of the year.

Obviously those figures will increase if they are the only production and gridding plus plugged in ecars will help.
Quite clearly youre looking at smart meters limiting power to the house, maybe auto starting washing machines, allowing you to use your car battery etc.

But still how in Earth are they going to balance different wind speeds around the country and quite often in the winter days go by with no turbine output at all .
We'll need a full grid of backup nuclear and gas.

 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
Fucking lol! Nice symbol they have @Job.

Anyway - european grid balancing mr brexit. We'll sell excess to Europe and on slow days they'll sell excess to us.

But to humour you:

your lulzrofflez website said:
The Green Party also questioned how the 3,000 new turbines would be funded, suggesting the true cost could be £48billion.
Is that it?? Wow! Snap their hands off at less than half the price of a train line or twice Hinkley point C.

It's less than 100 times the cost of eat out to help out. My advice is to build it twice!!! :D
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,071
Yep - it's your grasp of timelines.

France built it's reactors in the 1980s - and is facing a MASSIVE bill for decomissioning them that it hasn't even started looking at paying yet.

That's why they produce electricity from their old nuclear at the current strike price for new offshore wind. However, if identical offshore wind capacity was built at todays prices adjusted for inflation back to the 1980's then France would be producing all it's electricity at effing 10 euros/MWh instead of the 40+ now. When/if it rebuilds it's aging nuclear fleet France (like everyone else) is looking at a strike price between 76 and 117 euros/MWh - which is more than double unsubsidised offshore wind).

Which is why they're going to reduce the amount of nuclear in their mix, dramatically.


So, what about today?

According to your own link France is charging consumers 0.1913 euros / kwh and the UK is charging 0.221 euros. Not a huge difference - and that's before France have to decomission their old fleet and rebuild.

Sacré bleu! :eek6:


Regardless - if France wants to shackle itself to expensive nuclear then that's fine. But gas and coal have to stop. Meanwhile - in blighty unsubsidised new offshore wind will be cheaper than already-existing gas by 2023.


Every passing day shows even more clearly you're on the wrong side of this @Bodhi. Although I daresay you'll be barking at turbines like an slightly unhinged mutt until your 70's. ;)
Your wind power based numberwang has been proven to be wrong multiple times - as stated in the article I posted, costs for the UK Offshore wind turbine fleet have been rising for 10 years now, with absolutely no sign of that changing.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,947
Scotlands wind power dropped to practically zero for two weeks in 2010 and they had to borrow Nuclear generated power off France.

 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
Scotlands wind power dropped to practically zero for two weeks in 2010 and they had to borrow Nuclear generated power off France.

Great.

System working as it should. When they produce too much (like the first six months of last year by which time Scotland's wind had produced twice their annual consumption) it goes the other way.

Win, fucking, win.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,947
Except its not so easy to share the excess power, France just turns a dial.
Scotland has to sacrifice a haggis to the wind gods
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
Except its not so easy to share the excess power, France just turns a dial.
Scotland has to sacrifice a haggis to the wind gods
Oh. So it's easy for the French, but hard for the UK?

We'd better rejoin the EU then hadn't we. Or we'll be up shit creek without any 'leccy.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,947
Yes.
But people dont always need it when the wind is blowing.

Thats,why we keep talking about storage and thats next to impossible.
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
38,442
If only we had some sort of device that stores energy.

...and on a more serious note. We need to change, it's not as simple as just switching power source.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
But people dont always need it when the wind is blowing.
You're really willfully failing to get this aren't you.

If the scottish don't need it, then someone somewhere else will.

Scotland clearly already has more capacity than they require, yet they're still building more. Why is that?

I'll answer - it's because they can provide clean energy elsewhere where needed. And if it's a slow wind day, other areas can provide energy to Scotland.

It's a tech that's old, mature, cheap, well understood. It doesn't come with mahoosive public spend decomissioning costs and a fuel so toxic to life that we still don't have a safe way of disposing of it. It doesn't come with air pollution and cancer, pulmonary disease or a measurable lowering of IQ that fossil fuel burning does.

It's drawbacks are solveable with current technologies and a little ingenuity. When we learn how to store energy cheaply and efficiently then it's a clean energy fait accompli.

If we have to keep on a few expensive nuclear plants, or some old gas plants for emergencies it's still a step-change in our quality of life - we'll be able to breathe clean air.

Of course, we've still got some crackpot denialists who think the world's going to fall over if we transition - but the fact is, we pretty much already have. We're just accelerating our capacity expansion programmes.

Face it Job. Wind's already walking the walk.

Now what we have to deal with is environmental destruction on an industrial scale and the collapse of ecosystems that we rely on to survive.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,947
The grids do help but are woefully short of a solution to anything but helping with home electricty use.

You said 'once we learn how to store energy '

Well theres the elephant in the room, there is no such tech on the horizon and the only answer would be to dam all the lakes, if this wasnt such an unsurmountable problem then turbines would be a no brainer.

Its very difficult to balance the grid, it takes high momentun generators that can smooth out the current and volts and providing high load bridges as we switch between generation.

 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,689
You're cherry picking @Job. But we have solutions for energy balancing.

In the link you desparately searched for they explicitly state in the abstract that we already do that across Europe - their grid is balanced across European countries.

Scotland sells to England and vice versa.

We're already done @Job. We know what to do. We're transitioning to wind and it's not reliant on battery tech. It's not a show-stopper. It's a "very nice to have".

You've lost. We don't need to keep gas or coal. This is yesterday's argument. Renewables aren't the future any more - they're the present.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,703
Job doesn't want alternatives to fossil fuels because hes told he doesn't want alternatives so he's accepted it.

Because he's a bootlicking sheep.

Bahhh
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom