Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Scouse]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182

But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was to be placed.

So, idiot politicians put wind turbine in wrong place against advice?

 

[Raven]

Yes.

 

[Chilly]

I've been reading some *really* cool stuff about smart grids. Also, I have been reading a tremendous amount of THB* screeching about how smart grids are some kind of global conspiracy. Anyone care to comment?
*Tinfoil Hat Brigade

The ideal "smart grid" is one where some central agency (the national grid, probably) can turn your appliances off or reduce their run rate. This is generally applied to air-con in the US, where this stuff is being tried out. With aircon, you can turn it down a bit to reduce draw and still have a relatively effective cooler, while avoiding brownouts. In the UK, though, what is there to turn down? You're giving central authority who is wed to interests probably not your own control over various key bits of aparratus in your home. I'd be more interested in variable electricity rates and letting people sort it out themselves. Washing machines that know when to run most cheaply and electrical heaters that heat up water over night to soak up surplus supply and then pump it round the house during the day when it's too expensive to do so. Most people are too thick/lazy/poor to make the most of such a system, but I'd fucking love it.

 

[rynnor]

I worked briefly after Uni for one of the big energy companies and they had a number of large commercial customers on special reduced tarriffs on the basis that they would have no power supply on a certain number of days a year.

At short notice they can be told to move onto their backup generators for up to around 14 days per contract year - in return they had huge discounts to their per unit rates.

So when things get tight this is one way the energy companies can eke things out.

 

[Wij]

http://goo.gl/J10SGb

 

[Wij]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/11/15/stayin-alive-gene-pool-p3/

Cancer risk from radiation.

 

[Wij]

Germany's energy revolution!

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/e...-fired-power-rises-above-50-in-first-26089429

(To coal)

 

[rynnor]

Germany's energy revolution!

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/e...-fired-power-rises-above-50-in-first-26089429

(To coal)

On a similar note Japan today dropped its plan to reduce CO2 emissions due to the switch away from nuclear power - from 25% reduction from 1990 levels to 3% increase - quite a turnaround.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155

Not that I care since CO2 as the main driver of climate is a crock of shit anyway but the cleaner air and lack of acid rain eating everything is nice with nuclear.

Edit - the way coal burning is increasing we could actually see a pronounced cooling effect - who said massive chemical intervention couldn't stop global warming?

 

[rynnor]

On a similar note Japan today dropped its plan to reduce CO2 emissions due to the switch away from nuclear power - from 25% reduction from 1990 levels to 3% increase - quite a turnaround.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155

Not that I care since CO2 as the main driver of climate is a crock of shit anyway but the cleaner air and lack of acid rain eating everything is nice with nuclear.

Edit - the way coal burning is increasing we could actually see a pronounced cooling effect - who said massive chemical intervention couldn't stop global warming?

Oh and apparently coal production is the highest it has ever been on this planet despite a coal powered industrial revolution and increases every year - if we had a big volcano blow we could do a mini ice age in the northern hemisphere

 

[Raven]

So the greens have won? We will be pumping out more shit for them to moan about and thus earn a wage.

 

[rynnor]

So the greens have won? We will be pumping out more shit for them to moan about and thus earn a wage.

They will always have something to moan about unless we abandon all technology and die in droves as nature intended

 

[Wij]

Why wind and solar solve nothing and inevitably cost more despite the headline figures Scouse and chums trot out

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable Energy Limitations.pdf

(Ignore the GWPF bollocks in the middle. The maths and generation know-how are sound.)

 

[soze]

I think self reliance needs to come into it as well. Coal and Gas are in decline in the UK and we already import more than we produce. If we rely on Gas as a backup to renewable we rely on another country not deciding to hike up the prices or cut of supply because they need it.

 

[rynnor]

I think self reliance needs to come into it as well. Coal and Gas are in decline in the UK and we already import more than we produce. If we rely on Gas as a backup to renewable we rely on another country not deciding to hike up the prices or cut of supply because they need it.

Eh? We have massive coal stocks - its just cheaper to import it from China because they have no planning issues and no health and safety.

If the nimbys let shale gas development take off in the UK we could have hundreds of years worth of supply from within the country.

 

[soze]

Eh? We have massive coal stocks - its just cheaper to import it from China because they have no planning issues and no health and safety.

If the nimbys let shale gas development take off in the UK we could have hundreds of years worth of supply from within the country.

Nuclear is a 20-30? year life cycle we do not have a stock pile that can cover that when mining is dropping and dropping. And the green impact of fracking is much worse than nuclear.

From EDF

Coal stockpile

Fulfilling 78% of UK demand for coal through imports and 38% through domestic production, as in 2009, creates a 16% surplus, which can be stockpiled as a short-term fix in case of an unexpected reduction in supply. Current UK stocks provide an estimated three months’ worth of electricity supply security. With coal-fired generation potentially becoming more expensive, because of the possible introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, coal's share of the energy mix looks likely to decrease, reducing the effect of coal on the overall security of the UK's energy suppl

 

[rynnor]

And the green impact of fracking is much worse than nuclear.

Nah that's all crap thrown at it by greenies who have invested heavily in renewables - they don't want to see a massive cheap low carbon fossil fuel on the market - it would destroy all financial viability of renewables.

Edit - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24880452

 

[rynnor]

Coal stockpile

Fulfilling 78% of UK demand for coal through imports and 38% through domestic production, as in 2009, creates a 16% surplus, which can be stockpiled as a short-term fix in case of an unexpected reduction in supply. Current UK stocks provide an estimated three months’ worth of electricity supply security. With coal-fired generation potentially becoming more expensive, because of the possible introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, coal's share of the energy mix looks likely to decrease, reducing the effect of coal on the overall security of the UK's energy suppl

The thing about open cast coal is that we could have new sites producing within months if we wanted - its just the planning and the nimbys and the cheap Chinese coal that is causing our industry to disappear but its quite reversible. We are sitting on huge stocks of coal thanks to our geology.

 

[soze]

The problem with just one link if there are 20 that dispute it. It is like the nuclear vs no nuclear. I have seen a documentary where the house had to have the windows open when the taps were running as there was so much gas in it.

 

[rynnor]

The problem with just one link if there are 20 that dispute it. It is like the nuclear vs no nuclear. I have seen a documentary where the house had to have the windows open when the taps were running as there was so much gas in it.

That one is ancient and widely debunked though - are you going to believe greenies with an agenda or a report by the Water board responsible for water quality?

 

[soze]

That one is ancient and widely debunked though - are you going to believe greenies with an agenda or a report by the Water board responsible for water quality?

Neither tbh more likely the Water Board but they could also have an agenda.

 

[rynnor]

Neither tbh more likely the Water Board but they could also have an agenda.

But its a scientific body set up for research by all the UK water companies who have spent months producing a report analysing the risks of fracking.

They have nothing to gain from shale gas - if you rank that the same as a youtube video something is badly wrong...

 

[Calaen]

That one is ancient and widely debunked though - are you going to believe greenies with an agenda or a report by the Water board responsible for water quality?

Personally I don't believe anything they say about it. Any risk to our water supplies is not one worth taking.

 

[Scouse]

But its a scientific body set up for research by all the UK water companies who have spent months producing a report analysing the risks of fracking.

Oh the irony, considering how much of a pasting the IPCC is given and how little stock is put by "green" science which supports global warming - even if it's falsifiable and well conducted science.

The reason to not frack, aside from the small risks (which though small are still real risks), is that it adds another carbon-emitting fuel source into the equation - and if we're going to avoid the IPCC's "dangerous" levels of greenhouse gas emissions we can't even burn all the available oil that we already know we can get.

Shale gas production is, therefore, blatant profiteering for profit's sake. If we mean what we say on global warming we can't use it anyway.

 

[fettoken]

Should change the thread name tbh.

 

[Poag]

Ineed @Deebs can we change the title to "The energy debate" or something

 

[Wij]

Oh the irony, considering how much of a pasting the IPCC is given and how little stock is put by "green" science which supports global warming - even if it's falsifiable and well conducted science.

The reason to not frack, aside from the small risks (which though small are still real risks), is that it adds another carbon-emitting fuel source into the equation - and if we're going to avoid the IPCC's "dangerous" levels of greenhouse gas emissions we can't even burn all the available oil that we already know we can get.

Shale gas production is, therefore, blatant profiteering for profit's sake. If we mean what we say on global warming we can't use it anyway.

It doesn't add anything. It will replace something. If it replaces coal then it will lead to less CO2 being emitted as it has in the US. Hard fact.

Also it will help keep our domestic gas prices down.

Nobody is suggesting that we burn all the fossil fuel under Britain or any timeline for when we expect it to run out. It's a red herring. What we have is electricity demand a range of options to meet that demand. Assuming that we're going to burn all our coal anyway and then all our traditionally sourced gas too and that then we will add shale gas on top is bollocks. Nobody's even suggesting that.

 

[rynnor]

Oh the irony, considering how much of a pasting the IPCC is given and how little stock is put by "green" science which supports global warming - even if it's falsifiable and well conducted science.

The IPCC is politicised science though - it has to run everything past dozens of governments - the body the water companies set up has nothing to gain from fracking.

The reason to not frack, aside from the small risks (which though small are still real risks), is that it adds another carbon-emitting fuel source into the equation - and if we're going to avoid the IPCC's "dangerous" levels of greenhouse gas emissions we can't even burn all the available oil that we already know we can get.

Aside from CO2 not driving the climate even if you are a believer Shale Gas makes sense because it could offer a cheap alternative to horribly polluting coal - you can achieve big global cuts to CO2 if you got people to switch.

Not sure how profiteering comes into it - its a valuable energy resource and has the potential to lower energy bills for real people rather than all this hypothetical bollocks.

Edit - Damn Wij posted the same arguments as I was typing

 

[rynnor]

It doesn't add anything. It will replace something. If it replaces coal then it will lead to less CO2 being emitted as it has in the US. Hard fact.

Additionally beyond the CO2 debate coal pollutes on many levels from acid rain to radioactive waste products to deadly smogs - anything that can reduce our use of coal is a blessing for the environment and us humans.

 

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25095868

A bit of good news!

 

[Wij]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25095868

A bit of good news!

Indeed, even a hint that the subsidy taps might get turned down discourages the developers.