coley
Well-Known Member
They most certainly are but but because the money can be made now from wind, thats where all the all the investment has gone.
Hating the police
- Thread starter Meltingpot
- Start date
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Not true. Investment has been since 2003 in wave and tidal power, and 'all' the investment hasn't gone into wind. Also you need to distinguish between onshore and offshore wind farms when you say 'wind', because they're two different things.
You could argue that money can be made now from clean coal, gas and nuclear too.
coley
Well-Known Member
So it's 30-40% shortfall, not an absolute 40%? Why didn't you just say that?
Sorry, forgot this is the place where everything said has be seen as demonstrable,accurate and proveable, so I will try again, recent articles suggest a major shortfall in energy over the next 190years with some predicting a worst case scenario of a 40% shortfall, better?
Anyway, should we ditch our unrealistic emissions targets in return for energy security?
i dont hate the police either, though there are some right arseholes in the force.
Sorry, forgot this is the place where everything said has be seen as demonstrable,accurate and proveable, so I will try again, recent articles suggest a major shortfall in energy over the next 190years with some predicting a worst case scenario of a 40% shortfall, better?
Anyway, should we ditch our unrealistic emissions targets in return for energy security?
i dont hate the police either, though there are some right arseholes in the force.
coley
Well-Known Member
Not on the scale that wind has recieved, as far as know, there are no large scale commercial wave or tidal power generators. Money is being made from coal, gas and nuclear. Whats the diff between onshore and offshore? apart from the offshore ones dont get so far up peoples noses?
disco_dave_2000
la la lapland
ACAB - end of of
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Unfortunately for electricity-users, no nukes or coal-burners will get built without significant govt backing. The tech-providers are bricking themselves, what with their (IIRC) French and German stations with the same model reactor experiencing operational difficulties.
Yep. Really needs to be done for liquid and gaseous fuels.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
We're "not sure" what the shortage is going to be (could be as little as 15%, could be as high as 40%), at the moment, because we don't know whether some of our nuclear clunkers will be given another operating extension. As for renewables, if investment hadn't been pruned when most of the technologies were being developed, we'd be in a much better palce with them by now, but the good old British govt, it hasn't looked to the long-term in at least 30 years. All the tossers worry about is the time between now and the next general election, and fuck those of us who have to live in the real world.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which is why the Scots keep laughing and pointing at us, while commissioning tidal.
coley
Well-Known Member
Any links to these 'operatinal difficulties' and we have ample amounts of gas stored in our native shale its about time the green lobby were faced with a bit reality
coley
Well-Known Member
I live not far from an aluiminum smelter and power station that are going to close because the PS cannot meet the emissions targets, 1000s of jobs down the swannee in an area desperate for jobs, how India, China and Brazil must be laughing at us
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Whereabouts is this, if you don't mind me asking?
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
As I 've pointed out before, shale gas production is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. There's the potential for earthquakes in non-active areas, pollution and water-table contamination. It's not about pushing 'reality' into the green lobby's face.
I assume you do like having clean, drinkable water, coley?
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
There's only three in the UK, so we could probably guess in about five minutes
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not until I can dig out the appropriate articles, but most of the difficulties are to do with the inherent problems of Pressurised Water Reactors - longer and more expensive maintenance cycles as the plant ages - which mean that the operators often won't run them at capacity.
I don't disagree, and if a method of extraction that isn't proven to taint groundwater (and hence your and my cuppas) is developed, then I'm all for it. I'm not as worried about spoiled scenery as I am about sick humans.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, why can't the power station meet the emissions targets - lack of will, lack of technology or a refusal to invest?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
coley
Well-Known Member
Alcan smelter lynemouth
coley
Well-Known Member
Rio Tinto, need i say more?
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Thanks, fair enough.
coley
Well-Known Member
Course I do, we have kielder, gallons of the stuff but most of what I have read suggests it is extracted from shale at enormous depths no danger of affecting our drinking water and the 'earthquakes' at morcamb were miniscule
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Um, I know there's no large-scale commercial wave or tidal power, I was the one that posted that. The technology is still being proven and there is expected to be a lot of consolidation in the sector with regards to design etc. So far there has been investment by Scottish Enterprise and companies like Alstom and Mitsubishi in SMEs in this sector. There is expected to be more over the next 5-7 years, which is when this technology should be in large-scale production.
Onshore wind technology is proven and has been around since the 1980s. It is considered a mature industry and therefore sustainable (fewer subsidies).
Offshore wind is not proven to the same extent, particularly with respect to reliability, maintenance and installation, so it is not as mature as onshore wind. The industry is being grown at the moment so there are higher levels of subsidy available. These are expected to decrease over the next 5-7 years as the industry becomes more mature.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
A lot of technology can be retrofitted, such as flue gas desulphurisation technology, which cleans the exhaust flue gases to some degree, but a lot of it is to with the design of the boiler/furnace and burning the coal so there are less NOx (nitrous oxides) and SOx (sulphurous oxides) in the flue gas to start with. Old technology was never designed to meet the emissions criteria in place 30/40/50 years later, so there's only so much that can be done.
Basically new power stations to replace baseload power need to be built.
It's a combination of all three really, VP.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
NIMBY, coley?
So long as 'you' have Kielder Water and it's clean, who gives a stuff about the rest of the UK?
coley
Well-Known Member
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/pid/9767;jsessionid=8B36419265DF38DD77AA473AF8231F73Bollocks, is what I say to that.
Don't suppose you could post some of these articles?
And I dont do 'nimbyism'
coley
Well-Known Member
A mix of all three, there are moves afoot to sell the power station and convert it to biofuel but they are after the renewable subsidy and it wont save the smelter
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
That's a single positive article.
What about the fact that shale gas is still a fossil fuel and burning it means the UK wouldn't meet the carbon emission targets? We're supposed to be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
And please stop talking about a renewables subsidy - it's Feed-In Tariff or Renewables Obligation Certificate. This is not farming in the 1970s.
coley
Well-Known Member
Bliddyell, how many do you want? i thought it would keep you happy, given its source.
What about it? whats more important, a secure, competitive energy supply or being seen as a goody two shoes by the enviroment lobby?
A subsidy is a subsidy whatever fancy name you seek to disguise it by.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
It is customary to give more than one source when making arguments. A single article, especially in a complex topic such as energy, doesn't adequately represent all the facts, particularly as the article you have quoted is from the Royal Geological Society's magazine and is an opinion piece, not a report of a scientific study.
Energy can be competitive and green, it's not a case of choosing between the two.
Energy can be competitive and green, it's not a case of choosing between the two.
coley
Well-Known Member
Renewables subsidies do not come from central taxation but as an addition to consumer energy bills.
Subsidies for offshore wind are likely to remain at their current levels at least until 2015 under the changes to be announced on Thursday, but after that date they will be gradually reduced. Subsidies for onshore wind will be cut sooner, because the price of onshore turbines has come down in recent years, and rising fossil fuel prices have made wind power more competitive.
Companies generating energy from biomass - such as wood and waste products - will receive clarification on the level of subsidy they are likely to receive, which a Whitehall source said would be enough to ensure that they are economically viable.
However, the review of the feed-in-tarrif - a mechanism for subsidising small solar installations -
Good enough for the guardian.....................
Similar threads
