• 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

Visage said:
http://www.theguardian.com/business...s-could-help-electric-cars-hit-the-mainstream

Innovation...HGW wont approve.
Click to expand...

I think I've made it pretty clear that I take on board technology. I make a living out of innovation. I have a problem with technologies that with all the best will in the world are shown to fail as market effective.
Undoutably we will find new technologies but they need to make sense commercially. The big problem is that electricity is a convenience fuel, generation and distribution are lossy. Storage processes are lossy. There are likely to be ever more efficiency gains in internal combustion engines for example.
 
But you dismiss new technology now, because it does t fit your worldview, regardless of potential.
 
You're completely risk averse in this area though.

With renewable technologies you spend money and research on making them work because we need to. It's no point sitting there saying nothing is commercially ready because if you take that attitude nothing would ever change.
 
the gvt is having to make 'out of market' payments to both existing plant and potential new build ccgt. never mind the hugely 'out of market' payments to nuclear. if you rely solely on commercial sense, in terms of the wholesale price today, we'd be back to burning candles in a few years time.
 
nimrod said:
the gvt is having to make 'out of market' payments to both existing plant and potential new build ccgt. never mind the hugely 'out of market' payments to nuclear. if you rely solely on commercial sense, in terms of the wholesale price today, we'd be back to burning candles in a few years time.
Click to expand...

That is largely down to back peddling from irrational energy policy of recent governments. I see it as a fuck up too.
 
The Bear said:
You're completely risk averse in this area though.

With renewable technologies you spend money and research on making them work because we need to. It's no point sitting there saying nothing is commercially ready because if you take that attitude nothing would ever change.
Click to expand...

There is a physical energy budget, you have to demonstrate an appropriate yield to meet effective demand.
I welcome research but real product has to demonstrate it's effectiveness.
For many, the developing countries, that will be coal (Germany seems to have returned to coal to boot).
You and others are welcome to bring any product to market that doesn't meet specification, is untested and falls short of customer expectation. Only in the publically managed energy sector can this nonsense pervade.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I think I've made it pretty clear that I take on board technology. I make a living out of innovation. I have a problem with technologies that with all the best will in the world are shown to fail as market effective.
Undoutably we will find new technologies but they need to make sense commercially. The big problem is that electricity is a convenience fuel, generation and distribution are lossy. Storage processes are lossy. There are likely to be ever more efficiency gains in internal combustion engines for example.
Click to expand...

HAzelGroveWolf said:
That is largely down to back peddling from irrational energy policy of recent governments. I see it as a $#@! up too.
Click to expand...

regardless of past fuck ups, such as the politically dogmatic privatisation of generation capability which has failed the country, the point is that nuclear and even new build ccgt are not commercially viable under current market conditions. they need to be subsidised in some way for them to be built. those are your words above, which you only seem to apply to selective tech, and continually so.

given the edf hinkley nuclear deal is the most subsidised of all, are you campaigning against this deal to the government that created it, you know the one you voted for?
 
nimrod said:
regardless of past fuck ups, such as the politically dogmatic privatisation of generation capability which has failed the country, the point is that nuclear and even new build ccgt are not commercially viable under current market conditions. they need to be subsidised in some way for them to be built. those are your words above, which you only seem to apply to selective tech, and continually so.

given the edf hinkley nuclear deal is the most subsidised of all, are you campaigning against this deal to the government that created it, you know the one you voted for?
Click to expand...

I'm uncomfortable with the Hinckley deal it is a product of failed energy policy over the past 30 years. I do think the UK needs to find a way back on to the Nuclear horse in due course.
With regard to capital costs in general (CCGT etc) cost effectiveness is key and should deliver the best value to consumers.
 
Nuclear will never be cheap, for the reasons you've already been given.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I'm uncomfortable with the Hinckley deal it is a product of failed energy policy over the past 30 years. I do think the UK needs to find a way back on to the Nuclear horse in due course.
With regard to capital costs in general (CCGT etc) cost effectiveness is key and should deliver the best value to consumers.
Click to expand...

what do you mean 'in due course'? hasn't the gvt already committed to what's been described as the most subsidised project in energy history? and after 48 pages of you banging on primarily about the "cost" of certain initiatives in fairly damning terms, this only leaves you feeling 'uncomfortable'? i thought pointing out the cost of nuclear 3 years ago to you would at least make you consider a more balanced approach, but i was clearly wrong. which is one reason why this thread has become a parody.

an additional thing to note about nuclear is that i doubt any private company could take an open ended commitment to nuclear clean up, because to do so could be essentially risking its own bankruptcy. neither would an insurance company in full. so it must surely be capped and if it's capped, the taxpayer is carrying the risk above the cap. let's hope the communists build it correctly and there's no fuck ups.
 
Visage said:
Nuclear will never be cheap, for the reasons you've already been given.
Click to expand...

The French seem to have gone along fine with excess to boot. The original UK nuclear industry was economic too, the UK lost it's way.
I can't see why an indigenous reboot cannot be acheived if R&D is invested in wisely.
That said we still need an appropriate investment in CCGT and it's supply.
 
nimrod said:
what do you mean 'in due course'? hasn't the gvt already committed to what's been described as the most subsidised project in energy history? and after 48 pages of you banging on primarily about the "cost" of certain initiatives in fairly damning terms, this only leaves you feeling 'uncomfortable'? i thought pointing out the cost of nuclear 3 years ago to you would at least make you consider a more balanced approach, but i was clearly wrong. which is one reason why this thread has become a parody.

an additional thing to note about nuclear is that i doubt any private company could take an open ended commitment to nuclear clean up, because to do so could be essentially risking its own bankruptcy. neither would an insurance company in full. so it must surely be capped and if it's capped, the taxpayer is carrying the risk above the cap. let's hope the communists build it correctly and there's no fuck ups.
Click to expand...

New technologies could solve that, Thorium being one. Fusion might not necessarily according to the joke thirty years from now.
 
I thought you only wanted things that were proven and market ready?

Or was that just a stick to beat renewables with?
 
Visage said:
I thought you only wanted things that were proven and market ready?

Or was that just a stick to beat renewables with?
Click to expand...

We are where we are, coal, CCGT and nuclear will continue to dominate in tbe UK and beyond for decades.
Can you realistically dent that with renewables? I suggest not.
Globally those three primary sources will continue to grow, dwarfing any misguided effort to distort the market in developed countries. I see that Japan has now started a programme to restart it's nuclear facilities.
 
Coal? Coal? Of all the non-renewables to endorse, picking coal is just stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top