Climate Change Debate

[nimrod]

Why has privitisation failed? It was the last Labour government that gave monopolies to the power companies for certain areas of generation, that is not privitisation at all but a mess that is neither productive or providing a solution to the consumers.

There need to be better government policy on this and I agree the current mess is politically driven from all parties.

when you say 'mess', do you mean there's been a failure somewhere?

and the current mess being what? lack of generation? ie you cannot force private companies to build energy needs for the country when prevailing market forces do not support it. their responsibilities are to shareholders not to national needs.

who's building our nuclear capacity? a private company or a public company?

the government has already conceded the nation has to take ownership to force generation. take the Drax project HGW refers to above. who owns the risk of debt default on that project? is it a private company or is it taxpayers money? if its taxpayers money at risk, how is that a private project?

 

[Alan]

Geothermal power has faced a lot of challenges here because of fears it affects tectonic something-somethings in a way that makes earthquakes more common.

 

[Johnny75]

when you say 'mess', do you mean there's been a failure somewhere?

and the current mess being what? lack of generation? ie you cannot force private companies to build energy needs for the country when prevailing market forces do not support it. their responsibilities are to shareholders not to national needs.

who's building our nuclear capacity? a private company or a public company?

the government has already conceded the nation has to take ownership to force generation. take the Drax project HGW refers to above. who owns the risk of debt default on that project? is it a private company or is it taxpayers money? if its taxpayers money at risk, how is that a private project?

Both this government and the last have shafted the consumer by providing a framework which benefits nobody, not least the consumer. It has shafted the people that vote for it (government) royally because it wanted to get into bed with power generating companies as they saw it as guaranteed money. I agree it is all the tax payers risk (although the company will fold if it goes south). Successive governments have pandered to companies rather than foster a competitive and diverse power generation strategy. Handing the keys to them was one of the stupidest things I've seen a government do and that is firmly on the doorstep of the last labour shambles.

The generation I don't know enough about.

 

[visage]

The whole process is predicated on risk. Risk that could be mitigated if the government had the balls to take it in house.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

http://www.r-e-a.net/news/deep-geot...to-20-of-uk-electricity-and-heat-for-millions



that’s an import, what’s it got to do with what we’re exporting?

My point was that the Drax imports are significant and just plain stupid.
You posted a link to a website that promotes geothermal but thus far it plays in the same space as tidal for example. I emphasise that I am all for research in to new means of energy generation. However to gain access to the grid or transport it needs to stand up for itself in the medium term, say 20 years.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

The whole process is predicated on risk. Risk that could be mitigated if the government had the balls to take it in house.

Have you ever had any dealings with Whitehall (broader sense)?
There is risk in any human pursuit I trust people who have made mistakes and recognise it, those people trend to future success.

 

[nimrod]

Both this government and the last have shafted the consumer by providing a framework which benefits nobody, not least the consumer. It has shafted the people that vote for it (government) royally because it wanted to get into bed with power generating companies as they saw it as guaranteed money. I agree it is all the tax payers risk (although the company will fold if it goes south). Successive governments have pandered to companies rather than foster a competitive and diverse power generation strategy. Handing the keys to them was one of the stupidest things I've seen a government do and that is firmly on the doorstep of the last labour shambles.

The generation I don't know enough about.

based on above, I've no idea if you're agreeing with me or nor Johnny tbh.

as I said, privatisation has failed to deliver generation needs of the nation. energy companies actually benefit from that failure. if demand exceeds supply, the energy price goes up, they benefit. and when the Gvt gets desperate for new generation, it has to throw public money at the issue. that's evidential in the space now. you don't have to believe me, look at the examples - the nuclear deal with EDF, the guaranteeing of debt for companies projects, throwing money at Scottish Power to keep a mothballed plant available in case an operating plant goes down. taxpayers money at risk, for little reward. no 'private company' would do that without taking substantial ownership rewards.

whichever gvt you choose to throw more blame at is not the issue in my view, the concept was flawed from the start. i'm sure in the back of some free marketer's mind there's a utopian world where the market always encourages investment and there's plentiful cash around. not in the real world today.

 

[nimrod]

My point was that the Drax imports are significant and just plain stupid.
You posted a link to a website that promotes geothermal but thus far it plays in the same space as tidal for example. I emphasise that I am all for research in to new means of energy generation. However to gain access to the grid or transport it needs to stand up for itself in the medium term, say 20 years.

on your drax reference, my original point was that we are exporting waste and biomass to Europe that we could use ourselves. on that point you raising drax's imports is an irrelevance. if you want to raise stuff, fine, I have no problem. but don't use non-sequitors to muddy someone else's point. that's annoying.

what do you think is 'plain wrong' on drax anyway. it has your government's full backing.

on the geothermal point, here's how it goes. it's raised on here as an potential alternative source of renewable fuel, baseload, as something worth looking at, not as the answer to all our needs. you very quickly dismiss it as too small, saying we need 10 Gws of power and I post a link showing in the US it can meet 10% of their energy needs. you say the UK is different, and I post a link showing the potential capability in the UK can get to 9.5GW (which is a claim, I don't necessarily believe that myself). you then dismiss it on transmission, a solvable issue, but no doubt there'd then be something else you'd move onto.

it doesn't sound to me like you have an open mind on this so I see little benefit in discussing it with you. interesting that, as Alan points out, there is a genuine concern about ground issues which you don't raise, presumably because you realise that shale gas fracking, which you seem to support, may pose an even greater risk.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

on your drax reference, my original point was that we are exporting waste and biomass to Europe that we could use ourselves. on that point you raising drax's imports is an irrelevance. if you want to raise stuff, fine, I have no problem. but don't use non-sequitors to muddy someone else's point. that's annoying.

what do you think is 'plain wrong' on drax anyway. it has your government's full backing.

on the geothermal point, here's how it goes. it's raised on here as an potential alternative source of renewable fuel, baseload, as something worth looking at, not as the answer to all our needs. you very quickly dismiss it as too small, saying we need 10 Gws of power and I post a link showing in the US it can meet 10% of their energy needs. you say the UK is different, and I post a link showing the potential capability in the UK can get to 9.5GW (which is a claim, I don't necessarily believe that myself). you then dismiss it on transmission, a solvable issue, but no doubt there'd then be something else you'd move onto.

it doesn't sound to me like you have an open mind on this so I see little benefit in discussing it with you. interesting that, as Alan points out, there is a genuine concern about ground issues which you don't raise, presumably because you realise that shale gas fracking, which you seem to support, may pose an even greater risk.

1) You didn't clarify your definition of biomass.
2) Whether the government approves of the Drax biomass fiddle doesn't make it right.
3) I don't have a problem with geothermal if it can be made to work on an industrial scale which afterall is what the debate is about. As for transmission I was refering to the US not the UK (not withstanding the Scotland-England interconnection shortfall to support wind).
4) I don't have an issue with any well engineered extraction of fuel or heat directly. Yes, you guessed correctly that I am in principle in favour of shale gas extraction.

 

[nimrod]

1) You didn't clarify your definition of biomass. since when do I write the definition of biomass? look it up on DECC's website if you need to, they set the legislation. and it's another irrelevance to the point that was being made: that we have fuel we could be using (biomass & waste derived) that is being exported for combustion overseas when we have generating capacity risk. where are the facilities capable of using them? oh yeah, the private companies we relied on to build them haven't done it
2) Whether the government approves of the Drax biomass fiddle doesn't make it right. true, but clearly the project's gone through a significant HM Treasury due diligence. so where's your criteria for dismissing it as 'plain wrong'?
3) I don't have a problem with geothermal if it can be made to work on an industrial scale which afterall is what the debate is about. As for transmission I was refering to the US not the UK (not withstanding the Scotland-England interconnection shortfall to support wind).
4) I don't have an issue with any well engineered extraction of fuel or heat directly. Yes, you guessed correctly that I am in principle in favour of shale gas extraction.no surprise. your views on alternates does not appear to be objective.

.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

.

You seem very trusting of the Whitehall mandarins.
I have no problem with new technologies, tiz how I make money. Objectivity tells me when something needs challenging.
Maybe biomass doesn't cut the mustard in meaningful potential contribution. An example would be fuel adjuncts derived from crops.

 

[nimrod]

You seem very trusting of the Whitehall mandarins. not at all. simply pointing out their detailed process to support their argument (right or wrong) versus your one liner 'it's plain wrong'. presumably you do have some rationale to support that
I have no problem with new technologies, tiz how I make money. Objectivity tells me when something needs challenging.as per my observation on your geo assessment, you're hardly being objective. similar on the cost of nuclear last year - you knocked wind on the basis of cost and needing a subsidy, but ignored the even heavier support required for nuclear.
Maybe biomass doesn't cut the mustard in meaningful potential contribution. An example would be fuel adjuncts derived from crops. is this another objective assessment or are you just speculating? note it was biomass (i'm not talking about energy crops btw, you'll be pleased to know) and waste derived fuels I referred which are already contributing. green investment bank has forecast there'd be 7.7 mtpa of residual waste by 2020, with no infrastructure to use it. their figures, but that's a significant number

.

 

[Alan]

Something I don't quite understand is why, if climate change is not human-affected, would someone argue that it is? What is there to gain from such a false argument?

 

[nimrod]

Something I don't quite understand is why, if climate change is not human-affected, would someone argue that it is? What is there to gain from such a false argument?

imagine if you manufactured wind turbines......
or had land with planning consents for wind turbines......

so you leave it to the body of science, taking into account who may be paying them

it usually helps to have a healthy dose of cynicism in anything business related

 

[Alan]

Well obviously anyone with a vested interest should be taken with a grain of salt. I was speaking more from an independent scientist's perspective.

 

[t3ch]

fracking has caused a ton of problems here

the energy companies have enough money to keep policy makers pocket's lined however, so towns suffer for it

 

[Lord Knows]

fracking has caused a ton of problems here

the energy companies have enough money to keep policy makers pocket's lined however, so towns suffer for it

Scotland and Wales have now put a stop to potential fracking while further evidence is gathered. Germany have a fracking ban in place.

 

[Alan]

Fracking permits are being prepared to be issued in North Carolina so I'm sure I'll have more to input on that subject quite soon.

 

[visage]

Well obviously anyone with a vested interest should be taken with a grain of salt. I was speaking more from an independent scientist's perspective.

imagine if you manufactured wind turbines......
or had land with planning consents for wind turbines......

so you leave it to the body of science, taking into account who may be paying them

it usually helps to have a healthy dose of cynicism in anything business related

We're lucky to have the plucky upstarts of shell, ExxonMobil, Texaco etc fighting for the truth [emoji1]

 

[nimrod]

We're lucky to have the plucky upstarts of shell, ExxonMobil, Texaco etc fighting for the truth [emoji1]

obviously they helped me develop my cynical side.