• 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:
Nothing wrong with looking at both sides and the edge of a coin. On that subject even the english lit graduate FOE Climate Change Act architect has some double think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34191713

CCS should never happen anyway IMHO.
Click to expand...

unless that's a disguised acknowledgement that you've "changed your mind" about the large nuclear subsidy proposed by the chancellor you've championed and the government policy you voted for, which will enrich the French and Chinese Communist states, i'm not sure why you're quoting me. i didn't say anything about fracking.
 
nimrod said:
unless that's a disguised acknowledgement that you've "changed your mind" about the large nuclear subsidy proposed by the chancellor you've championed and the government policy you voted for, which will enrich the French and Chinese Communist states, i'm not sure why you're quoting me. i didn't say anything about fracking.
Click to expand...

Maybe I just agree with you on confused political/civil service thinking?
 
Visage said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34306997

If nuclear is economically viable, why does the UK government need to underwrite billions of pounds of foreign investment?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

wouldn't you have expected one of the people who voted for this to step in to defend this deal?

for me it's a shit deal on so many levels. just to point out - the article says the project will get guaranteed revenue of £89.50/mwh. that's only if they go ahead with a second project. it's £92.50 without that. PR management no doubt. as is the £2bn "guarantee" - even peston notes in the article "Today's manifestation of the China bet is confirmation of a long-trailed loan guarantee - initially worth £2bn but likely to rise substantially". According to the NAO review of the Guarantee scheme carried out in January, the level of guarantee provided on this deal is up to a max £17bn!!!

clearly a project needing in excess of twice the current wholesale electricity price guaranteed for 35 years as well as HM Treasury guaranteeing debt repayment obligations before anyone will lend to it means it is a million miles away from ever being commercially viable in its own right. it also puts the UK state/taxpayer at substantial risk for little gain compared to building and owning the plant itself. regardless of anyone's politics, this just looks crazy.
 
Visage said:
Apparently a technology that is unsacelable has overtaken coal:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-09/25/uk-coal-power-renewables

And yet *still* the rest of Europe is doing better, suggesting there is still scope to raise that even higher. Have they not spoken to HGW in order for him to tell them its impossible?
Click to expand...

Clearly cobblers.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Incidently a vast proportion of biomass is wood chip import for Drax which is a frig to satisfy regulatory requirements.

As for France:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

Hydro (which is effective) is a big factor elsewhere and only possible in the UK on a relatively small scale with pumped storage for example. Germany continues to replace nuclear with coal.
 
nimrod said:
wouldn't you have expected one of the people who voted for this to step in to defend this deal?

for me it's a shit deal on so many levels. just to point out - the article says the project will get guaranteed revenue of £89.50/mwh. that's only if they go ahead with a second project. it's £92.50 without that. PR management no doubt. as is the £2bn "guarantee" - even peston notes in the article "Today's manifestation of the China bet is confirmation of a long-trailed loan guarantee - initially worth £2bn but likely to rise substantially". According to the NAO review of the Guarantee scheme carried out in January, the level of guarantee provided on this deal is up to a max £17bn!!!

clearly a project needing in excess of twice the current wholesale electricity price guaranteed for 35 years as well as HM Treasury guaranteeing debt repayment obligations before anyone will lend to it means it is a million miles away from ever being commercially viable in its own right. it also puts the UK state/taxpayer at substantial risk for little gain compared to building and owning the plant itself. regardless of anyone's politics, this just looks crazy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to defend it, we are where we are because of 30 years of failed cross party policy.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I wouldn't want to defend it, we are where we are because of 30 years of failed cross party policy.
Click to expand...

just to be clear, my post wasn't particularly directed at you, as we've already been through the anomalies of your position which I thought you had acknowledged you had now shifted.

in response to above post, however, you make it sound as if there is no option other than to do hinkley and in the manner negotiated. in fact, "we are where we are" on hinkley at the choice of the current government and on the basis of the chancellor choosing to use public money both to subsidise the project and provide guarantees. you already know for instance it could be delivered more cheaply if the nation owned the project directly itself. that's a choice of today.
 
nimrod said:
just to be clear, my post wasn't particularly directed at you, as we've already been through the anomalies of your position which I thought you had acknowledged you had now shifted.

in response to above post, however, you make it sound as if there is no option other than to do hinkley and in the manner negotiated. in fact, "we are where we are" on hinkley at the choice of the current government and on the basis of the chancellor choosing to use public money both to subsidise the project and provide guarantees. you already know for instance it could be delivered more cheaply if the nation owned the project directly itself. that's a choice of today.
Click to expand...

I think as a nation we lost the ability to own the project(s) a couple of decades ago. Time to get back on the horse.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I think as a nation we lost the ability to own the project(s) a couple of decades ago. Time to get back on the horse.
Click to expand...

absolute nonsense. you probably mean lost the ability to operate the plant which is completely different to ownership.
 
nimrod said:
absolute nonsense. you probably mean lost the ability to operate the plant which is completely different to ownership.
Click to expand...

I stand by the wider definition of ownership in terms of the technology and the development there of. I'm not sure I should take seriously someone who can't be arsed with necessary capital letters. ;-)
 
8bb882919d09d6c58a42d483efdfc0c1.jpg
 
'Thereof' is one word, if we're resorting to that level of debate.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I stand by the wider definition of ownership in terms of the technology and the development there of. I'm not sure I should take seriously someone who can't be arsed with necessary capital letters. ;-)
Click to expand...

you can stand by what you like, but as a response to my post on project ownership it remains complete nonsense. had you simply posted a point about the travesty of the UK not developing proprietary tech in nuclear, then it wouldn't have been.

"can't be arsed" isn't really the case as often i write posts and automatically capitalise, especially the "i's" which i then have to go back and decapitalise.
 
nimrod said:
you can stand by what you like, but as a response to my post on project ownership it remains complete nonsense. had you simply posted a point about the travesty of the UK not developing proprietary tech in nuclear, then it wouldn't have been.

"can't be arsed" isn't really the case as often i write posts and automatically capitalise, especially the "i's" which i then have to go back and decapitalise.
Click to expand...

It seems that a obvious leg pull upsets a few, my apologies, I was not using it to prop up my arguement, that is clear.
I note that there is plenty of issue expressed from across the political spectrum with regard to current policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11893698/Hinkley-a-truly-major-national-scandal.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top