• 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:
So what is the maximum percentage of UK electricity can be generated by renewables?

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

Depending on your definition we are probably near saturation now. At maximum demand renewables are likely irrelevant or reliant on STOR as a plaster.
 
So we wont see a quarter where renewables top the 25% we've already seen?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Depending on your definition we are probably near saturation now.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to decide whether this is insanely bullish or just dismissively naive.

Renewables are only going to increase now the price keeps dropping.
 
Renewables, over the last ten years, have been defined by two things; their usage has increased exponentially, and their cost has dropped in a similar manner.

The notion that we're now at 'peak renewables' and we'll suddenly go 'Nope, we're not going to use any more of this increasingly cheap, increasingly plentiful energy, that is non polluting and reduces our energy dependence on the Middle East and Russia' is just bizarre.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
We need to address baseload which with established provision can be as low as <£50/MWh.

How do you tip toe around the fact that wind can only ever supply a small fraction of energy supply?
Click to expand...

not sure what you are on about - pointing out your errors, or correcting vis' calculation - is not tiptoeing about anything.

not everyone thinks in black and white like you on this issue. decc itself had many many pathways for potential energy mix - high nuclear, low nuclear, high renewables ... it's all feasible, regardless of what you think, it's simply a matter of choice and cost. and where are your corresponding posts against hinkley you've now changed your mind on - i said i'd reserve judgement on whether you meant it or not and here you are again, banging on about cheaper renewable tech instead of the most subsidised energy deal out there.

note a couple years back i put an article up where the head of GE suggested ccgt/wind mix was the most viable solution - you of course ignored it because it mentioned wind and you were pushing nuclear at the time.

and which are the nonsensical bits about biomass again? the fact that it's baseload and cheaper than nuclear or do you simply want to criticise it on the green issues you don't believe in and don't apply to any fossil fuel plant, like your friends at the daily mail?

we are short of baseload, not because of renewables, but because you cannot force private companies to invest in new ccgt. they've built nowhere near enough for years - if it was an economic no brainer don't you think they'd have been queuing up? when as a nation did we lose our ability to build for ourselves and so protect our critical infrastructure and which idiots created that environment? perhaps you should start thinking holistically about this yourself rather than believing everything a succession of oil and gas lobbyists tell you
 
The Bear said:
I'm struggling to decide whether this is insanely bullish or just dismissively naive.

Renewables are only going to increase now the price keeps dropping.
Click to expand...

Tell me about any technology other than that established that can meet industrial capable baseload in all conditions.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Didn't happen without pretend biomass.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the PDF I linked to? Specifically page 10?

Yes, biomass had a big jump - it went up by about 26% due to the work at Drax. But biomass on the whole only supplies a third of renewable energy.

So without the 'pretend biomass' we'd have lost a quarter of a third of the 25% renewable energy i.e we'd still be at approx 23% of energy suplpied by renewables.

So, I ask again. Are you saying we wont see a quarter where renewables top the 25% we've already seen?
 
nimrod said:
not sure what you are on about - pointing out your errors, or correcting vis' calculation - is not tiptoeing about anything.

not everyone thinks in black and white like you on this issue. decc itself had many many pathways for potential energy mix - high nuclear, low nuclear, high renewables ... it's all feasible, regardless of what you think, it's simply a matter of choice and cost. and where are your corresponding posts against hinkley you've now changed your mind on - i said i'd reserve judgement on whether you meant it or not and here you are again, banging on about cheaper renewable tech instead of the most subsidised energy deal out there.

note a couple years back i put an article up where the head of GE suggested ccgt/wind mix was the most viable solution - you of course ignored it because it mentioned wind and you were pushing nuclear at the time.

and which are the nonsensical bits about biomass again? the fact that it's baseload and cheaper than nuclear or do you simply want to criticise it on the green issues you don't believe in and don't apply to any fossil fuel plant, like your friends at the daily mail?

we are short of baseload, not because of renewables, but because you cannot force private companies to invest in new ccgt. they've built nowhere near enough for years - if it was an economic no brainer don't you think they'd have been queuing up? when as a nation did we lose our ability to build for ourselves and so protect our critical infrastructure and which idiots created that environment? perhaps you should start thinking holistically about this yourself rather than believing everything a succession of oil and gas lobbyists tell you
Click to expand...

First oil and gas lobbyists tell me nothing.
Our energy mix is born of chaotic political processes dating many decades. CCGT works, coal works and nuclear works.
The different approaches of say Germany, France and Japan tells how political rather than expedient solutions are sought.
 
Visage said:
Did you even read the PDF I linked to? Specifically page 10?

Yes, biomass had a big jump - it went up by about 26% due to the work at Drax. But biomass on the whole only supplies a third of renewable energy.

So without the 'pretend biomass' we'd have lost a quarter of a third of the 25% renewable energy i.e we'd still be at approx 23% of energy suplpied by renewables.

So, I ask again. Are you saying we wont see a quarter where renewables top the 25% we've already seen?
Click to expand...

It didn't happen. Data here:

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

You still ignore the rest of the energy mix and rapid global expansion of hydrocarbon use.
 
You're saying the government lied?

Can you back that up?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
You're saying the government lied?

Can you back that up?

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

I have backed my assertion up. I monitor energy mix daily so I smell one when there is an assertion that a whole quarter is alledged to have utilised 25% renewable, biomass being the smelly fish.
There is good reason for the government now backtracking on support for 'renewables'. You still fail to offer a solution for baseload that might work, transport etc.
 
So wheres your evidence that it was less than 25%?

Come on - you claim to be big on objectivity, so lets see what you've got.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
First oil and gas lobbyists tell me nothing.
Our energy mix is born of chaotic political processes dating many decades. CCGT works, coal works and nuclear works.
The different approaches of say Germany, France and Japan tells how political rather than expedient solutions are sought.
Click to expand...

you're not telling me anything in response above.

as i said "it's all feasible, regardless of what you think, it's simply a matter of choice and cost". that obviously can include renewables in the mix.

in case you've forgotten, i'm pretty certain it was me that posted on here first (and we're talking years back) about the looming capacity shortfall as well as highlighting that it would almost certainly have to filled by ccgt. but what I don't do is blame renewables for baseload capacity shortfall which is down to lack of investment, which is the failure of the privatised sector in generation, which is down to UK political dogma that has sold the country short. has the daily mail written about that and acknowledged its own complicity in this failure?
 
nimrod said:
you're not telling me anything in response above.

as i said "it's all feasible, regardless of what you think, it's simply a matter of choice and cost". that obviously can include renewables in the mix.

in case you've forgotten, i'm pretty certain it was me that posted on here first (and we're talking years back) about the looming capacity shortfall as well as highlighting that it would almost certainly have to filled by ccgt. but what I don't do is blame renewables for baseload capacity shortfall which is down to lack of investment, which is the failure of the privatised sector in generation, which is down to UK political dogma that has sold the country short. has the daily mail written about that and acknowledged its own complicity in this failure?
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever suggested anything other than agreement that we need investment in CCGT and we need it now. I perhaps have to take my eye off the ball to counter Vis renewables utopia.
 
Well, no. Solar doesn't show up because it's use generally reduces load from other sources, rather than being contributed to the grid, and most wind power isn't connected to the main backbones either, instead being distributed locally.

You should always be aware of how data is sourced before you rely on it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
Well, no. Solar doesn't show up because it's use generally reduces load from other sources, rather than being contributed to the grid, and most wind power isn't connected to the main backbones either, instead being distributed locally.

You should always be aware of how data is sourced before you rely on it.

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

In other words it has little contribution in our ever more vaguely industrialised society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11933020/national-grid-blackout-risk-factories-paid-switch-off-keep-lights-on.html

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/gas-fired-power-stations-in-crisis/
 
No. Don't rewrite my point to suit your dogma.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top