|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 23, 2023 15:10:44 GMT
What do you understand to be the relative costs of On- shore wind Off- shore wind Solar Nuclear Gas Coal In what way ? Nuclear COULD be dirt cheap to set up if we went for Rolls Royce’s micro reactor farm, the costs are all tied up with fuel reorocessing and plant decommissioning Last time i checked OFFSHORE wind was 10-20 times more expensive to set up than onshore, my source for that being a public enquiry into a wind farm being set up near my over the horizon radar rig at Fylingdale. IIRC screwing with my system's ability to detect incoming commie bastards carried mire weight than pissing on the quality of life of yorkshiremen. Solar costs are largely to do with the VERY expensive rare earths in the collectors and of course the battery technology to capture the power. Gretas cultists will tell you EV batteries that are past their best can do this but that seems to be saying put the miserably small amount of juice you get into a storage system that is proven to be faulty …. Coal and Gas are cheap but the JSO freaks need to be culled first. Hopefully a more widespread adoption of e-scooters will assist in this cull, either as roadkill or through collateral combustion. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 15:16:30 GMT
We can have cheap energy, but it's blocked by the powers, and anyone who comes up with alternatives are either bought out or done away with, just ask Putin.
The stark reality there will be no real investment in energy saving projects, just Green taxes that are just a big fat con, too many people and businesses make money out of the oil industry, so why would they want to get rid of the Goose that lays the Golden eggs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 15:27:43 GMT
OSLO, Feb 14 (Reuters) - The global oil and gas industry's profits in 2022 jumped to some $4 trillion from an average of $1.5 trillion in recent years, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, said on Tuesday
No. 1 reason we will never have cheap alternative energy.^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 23, 2023 17:21:00 GMT
What do you understand to be the relative costs of On- shore wind Off- shore wind Solar Nuclear Gas Coal Cheapest to most expensive. Coal Gas Nuclear on-shore wind off-shore wind. First 2 do not need subsidising by the taxpayer the rest do. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2023 17:24:27 GMT
We can have cheap energy, but it's blocked by the powers, I don't think so. Harvesting useful energy from nature is just quite difficult |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 23, 2023 17:57:11 GMT
On shore wind lifetime costs are substantially cheaper than gas or coal
Off shore wind lifetime costs are comfortably cheaper but not as much as on shore
Nuclear is frighteningly expensive
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 23, 2023 18:03:13 GMT
You would struggle to prove that dapps old chap...
Somehow I dont think you are accounting for the costs of a complete alternative system for when wind is not producing...
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 23, 2023 18:11:34 GMT
The contract mentioned in the opening post referred to a price of £37 pMWH for this offshore wind field
Current market rates for power for next winter and summer 24 are around £100 pMWH
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 23, 2023 21:24:48 GMT
so still not competitive..
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 24, 2023 8:50:33 GMT
Maths not your strong point Pacifico?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 24, 2023 12:06:49 GMT
The OP is precisely about the fact that the bid of £37 pMWH for this offshore wind field is not competitive - that is why the project is on hold.
Anyone can put in a bid that is vastly lower than their costs - you dont need to be a wind farm to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 24, 2023 18:08:52 GMT
Indeed they pitched it too low in hindsight as costs - particularly financing costs - have increased.
Big gap between the price they were prepared to accept and still make a profit (£37) and the current power market price (over £100). Even if true cost should have been say £50 still way below other fuels costs and means for every MWH sold, the Government would be earning a significant cash negative subsidy
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 24, 2023 21:23:08 GMT
Wind Farm construction continues to go ahead on a vast scale in the North Sea, the Dogger Bank project when complete, will be the largest offshore wind farm in the world, and will be capable of supplying 6 million homes annualy. It is providing a huge boost for employment and investment on the Humber, the Tees and in Scotland If Labour come to power at the next election, the default answer to ONSHORE wind turbines will be Yes, unless there is good and valid reasons for objections, which will not include "visual impact". They are actually cheaper than coal, oil or gas. The only energy source cheaper than that is onshore wind farms, but the thing is the trend in cost is downwards, so they are likely to be even cheaper in the future. For non-renewables bar nuclear the future costs are inevitably going to rise as the resources become scarcer. We have already exhausted many of the good gas fields in the North Sea, so it comes down to deeper drilling. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 24, 2023 21:27:36 GMT
Indeed they pitched it too low in hindsight as costs - particularly financing costs - have increased. Big gap between the price they were prepared to accept and still make a profit (£37) and the current power market price (over £100). Even if true cost should have been say £50 still way below other fuels costs and means for every MWH sold, the Government would be earning a significant cash negative subsidy Your guess at what they should have charged is irrelevant. The market decides the true cost. And at the moment they are uncompetetive - otherwise they wouldnt be begging for subsidy from the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 24, 2023 21:53:55 GMT
It appears you don’t understand how CfD works Pacifico. You are making yourself look ridiculous as a result. Would you like me to explain it to you or would you prefer to try to understand it yourself?
|
|
