• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

HAzelGroveWolf said:
I can't see anything to suggest the consumer price should be much more than £80-100/MWh+supplier margin. Take out the green fudge factors a cursory view of the following document should illustrate my point.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

The document is well sourced and referenced and broadly representative of my observations. Remember electricity is a third of our energy consumption. It seems daft to make the widespread adoption of electric/hybrid vehicles when the source to load energy efficiency is derisible. They are only adopted because of the tax regime and a few daft enough to not appreciate the total lifetime cost. It would be better to improve, there is plenty of scope to do so, internal combustion engine efficiency don't you think?
I've said before it is far easier to tackle the energy consumers, I spend a lot of time on this myself because the market requires a low power solution, no fans or less passive heat dissipation for example.
Click to expand...

This year various media have been reporting substantially higher costs expected from nuclear. See for example this article based on work carried out by Citigroup which was also reported in FT.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508?irpc=932

This article expresses a big concern that substantially higher prices and/or government/taxpayer taking construction cost risk will be needed to support new nuclear build. Whilst the country needs new base load facilities the potential cost impact is hard to ignore, which I'm sure you'd agree with. The “report” you’ve provided as the basis of your views uses Mott MacDonald cost estimates from 2009/10, so isn't representative of the current cost concerns.

Wholesale elec prices are currently less than £50/mwh, so if, as you suggest production costs will end up in a range £80-100/mwh ignoring supplier return this will already result in an impact on consumers. That’s before you factor in the risk of additional nuclear costs.

It’s incredible that in researching the cost of nuclear that you didn’t find reference to the cost concerns currently being widely reported which are prompting comments from the like of the head of GE, yet you were able to unearth a “report” entitled “the folly of wind power”. Do you use a climate change sceptical search engine or a specialist site?
 
nimrod said:
This year various media have been reporting substantially higher costs expected from nuclear. See for example this article based on work carried out by Citigroup which was also reported in FT.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508?irpc=932

This article expresses a big concern that substantially higher prices and/or government/taxpayer taking construction cost risk will be needed to support new nuclear build. Whilst the country needs new base load facilities the potential cost impact is hard to ignore, which I'm sure you'd agree with. The “report” you’ve provided as the basis of your views uses Mott MacDonald cost estimates from 2009/10, so isn't representative of the current cost concerns.

Wholesale elec prices are currently less than £50/mwh, so if, as you suggest production costs will end up in a range £80-100/mwh ignoring supplier return this will already result in an impact on consumers. That’s before you factor in the risk of additional nuclear costs.

It’s incredible that in researching the cost of nuclear that you didn’t find reference to the cost concerns currently being widely reported which are prompting comments from the like of the head of GE, yet you were able to unearth a “report” entitled “the folly of wind power”. Do you use a climate change sceptical search engine or a specialist site?
Click to expand...

I'll have a look, I picked a comparative study as it gave some kind of relative view of costs over lifetime of plant. I shall read the report you linked to.
 
Last edited:
The Bear said:
I just happened to stumble across this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I notice a few of HGW's are in there.
Click to expand...

Comment on there is seriously moderated, the articles are widely refuted elsewhere. I'm not alone in my sceptism, suprisingly though they were not completely dismissive of Watts today. We have a complex subject with poorly understood complex chaotic systems, bullet point assertion of fact is dishonest.
 
nimrod said:
This year various media have been reporting substantially higher costs expected from nuclear. See for example this article based on work carried out by Citigroup which was also reported in FT.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508?irpc=932

This article expresses a big concern that substantially higher prices and/or government/taxpayer taking construction cost risk will be needed to support new nuclear build. Whilst the country needs new base load facilities the potential cost impact is hard to ignore, which I'm sure you'd agree with. The “report” you’ve provided as the basis of your views uses Mott MacDonald cost estimates from 2009/10, so isn't representative of the current cost concerns.

Wholesale elec prices are currently less than £50/mwh, so if, as you suggest production costs will end up in a range £80-100/mwh ignoring supplier return this will already result in an impact on consumers. That’s before you factor in the risk of additional nuclear costs.

It’s incredible that in researching the cost of nuclear that you didn’t find reference to the cost concerns currently being widely reported which are prompting comments from the like of the head of GE, yet you were able to unearth a “report” entitled “the folly of wind power”. Do you use a climate change sceptical search engine or a specialist site?
Click to expand...

I didn't use any specialist search engines. My search terms might have been different to yours, you also used a news agency's interpretation of a report. Recent developments mean that the UK is held to ransom on new nuclear because of the political mistakes in the past. France seems happy with its electricity generation, for example, with an indigenous expertise. Nuclear will in essence cost because the UK will have to take out a mortgage on new bulid at rates dictated by the supplier. We could easily have maintained our own technology to achieve 80% low cost nuclear as France did.
Energy policy in the UK seems to fail in all logic. In conclusion nuclear should not have become any more expensive than tradition.
A reminder, life cycle costs were the emphasis in the report I posted and not necessarily a reflection of market rates. If current generation is at £50/MWh then most of us are being ripped off!
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I didn't use any specialist search engines. My search terms might have been different to yours, you also used a news agency's interpretation of a report. Recent developments mean that the UK is held to ransom on new nuclear because of the political mistakes in the past. France seems happy with its electricity generation, for example, with an indigenous expertise. Nuclear will in essence cost because the UK will have to take out a mortgage on new bulid at rates dictated by the supplier. We could easily have maintained our own technology to achieve 80% low cost nuclear as France did.
Energy policy in the UK seems to fail in all logic. In conclusion nuclear should not have become any more expensive than tradition.
A reminder, life cycle costs were the emphasis in the report I posted and not necessarily a reflection of market rates. If current generation is at £50/MWh then most of us are being ripped off!
Click to expand...


I didn't "use" or search for anything. I posted a link that highlighted a cost increase in nuclear build. You seemed to ignore it, so I asked you how much you would spend on nuclear. You then post a link to a document entitled "the folly of wind" which uses data from 2009/10 and doesn't deal with the reported cost increase. My question about your search engine was a piss take given the report you chose.

In terms of the political mistakes, if you're referring to not having state ownership in infrastructure projects/utility companies than you'd be in agreement with me. It's ironic how much money European utilities must make from UK consumers as a result of the past privatisation policy. Further, our government has little control of what private companies will seek to build and when they'll do it without making it a sufficiently profitable and risk manageable exercise. Perhaps you should start a thread about it given your concerns of the impacts of gvt policies on the lower paid.

Having said that, the Reuters report, as also printed in the FT explains:
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to 7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year", in which case new French build would cost similar.
 
nimrod said:
I didn't "use" or search for anything. I posted a link that highlighted a cost increase in nuclear build. You seemed to ignore it, so I asked you how much you would spend on nuclear. You then post a link to a document entitled "the folly of wind" which uses data from 2009/10 and doesn't deal with the reported cost increase. My question about your search engine was a piss take given the report you chose.

In terms of the political mistakes, if you're referring to not having state ownership in infrastructure projects/utility companies than you'd be in agreement with me. It's ironic how much money European utilities must make from UK consumers as a result of the past privatisation policy. Further, our government has little control of what private companies will seek to build and when they'll do it without making it a sufficiently profitable and risk manageable exercise. Perhaps you should start a thread about it given your concerns of the impacts of gvt policies on the lower paid.

Having said that, the Reuters report, as also printed in the FT explains:
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to 7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year", in which case new French build would cost similar.
Click to expand...

We are probably broadly in agreement but the general populus is led down the garden path by politics that is convenient for the government supported by a dumb education system.
 
leedswolf said:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sxV1eVyHXVcR0XkxrBkdEvQ/view.m?id=15&gid=environment/2012/aug/11/arctic-sea-ice-vanishing&cat=environment
Click to expand...

Indicative but no indication of cause and effect, more a case of change the instrumentation get a different answer. There is nothing there to suggest that there isn't some natural muti-decadal oscillation at play, the data isn't available. Note the caution of the study. What was the Antarctic doing for example? Land ice is the big deal with regard to sea level and probably undetectable in cause.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Indicative but no indication of cause and effect, more a case of change the instrumentation get a different answer. There is nothing there to suggest that there isn't some natural muti-decadal oscillation at play, the data isn't available. Note the caution of the study. What was the Antarctic doing for example? Land ice is the big deal with regard to sea level and probably undetectable in cause.
Click to expand...

Rough translation - "I disagree"...............?
 
leedswolf said:
Rough translation - "I disagree"...............?
Click to expand...

No, the article represents quite well that no conclusions can be made.
Find me something with a physical basis to demonstrate a good understanding of the long term climate system.
 
Last edited:
I think his point is

businessman-banging-his-head-against-the-wall-ispc026073.jpg
 
leedswolf said:
I've met you a couple of times and I'm pretty certain that you used to be able to talk English back then?
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, all I'm asking for is your opinion. You posted one link at the 'we do not accept comments' Guardian website. I've probably read a dozen or so climate related articles since early yesterday. Please remember my key target is the lunatic UK energy policy. I respect you as an engineer but please respond like one. I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I'm going to ask questions of the none technologists and activists that have cooked up this farce or is it fraud.
 
Stan Hullis said:
Well according to Richard Branson climate change IS real and that's good enough for me...

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/climate-change-is-real

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

As posted earlier I think you will find that Burt Rutan the engineer responsible for Virgin Galactic
would disagree. I'd believe him first.
Muller has been widely trashed and was never a sceptic in the first place. Go search.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/#more-68702
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Sorry Phil, all I'm asking for is your opinion.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough I've no set opinion about climate change. I'm still open minded about it. I posted the link (purposely without comment) to stimulate the debate as opposed to setting foot in any particular camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top