|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 13, 2023 21:34:58 GMT
Whoa there, the technology for gas generators is being improved all the time as part of ongoing development. Wind has been around for thousands of years with the same basic principles. All that was required was efficient development of locations, gearing, design, transmission and maintenance. These are costs that should be included in the cost of generating. I visited a wind development company back in the early 80s near Southampton, they were bearing the cost at that time. If a new drug comes on the market it is priced to include all the development costs. I am saying we are not comparing like with like and of course there is always the issue of consistency of supply. When was the last time we replaced a gas power station. But I'm happy for you to count it if you wish. It strengthens the case for wind. in this case for wind are you including the costs of an alternative generating system when wind fails to work? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 13, 2023 22:14:44 GMT
Solar park and wind farms' typical operating costs are 2p/kWh. 8p/kWh - 2p/kWh = an average saving of about 6p/kWhp/kWh generated. The average residential retail electricity price, based on BEIS's projections (2021-2040) is about 20p/kWh. rippleenergy.com/referencesEnough now. please stop citing renewable energy companies as evidence - of course they are going to say that renewables are cheaper..  Did you miss the highlighted bit? - offshore wind is uneconomic I didn't miss it. It didn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 13, 2023 22:25:16 GMT
When was the last time we replaced a gas power station. But I'm happy for you to count it if you wish. It strengthens the case for wind. in this case for wind are you including the costs of an alternative generating system when wind fails to work? They already exist and will last far longer as they will get used much less. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 13, 2023 22:38:12 GMT
Whoa there, the technology for gas generators is being improved all the time as part of ongoing development. Wind has been around for thousands of years with the same basic principles. All that was required was efficient development of locations, gearing, design, transmission and maintenance. These are costs that should be included in the cost of generating. I visited a wind development company back in the early 80s near Southampton, they were bearing the cost at that time. If a new drug comes on the market it is priced to include all the development costs. I am saying we are not comparing like with like and of course there is always the issue of consistency of supply. When was the last time we replaced a gas power station. But I'm happy for you to count it if you wish. It strengthens the case for wind. I have no idea when but it must have been not too long ago as coal was king certainly within living memory for most. It certainly does not as the costs of windpower are not realistic and there is still the issue of wind failure from naturally occurring calm periods, often when electricity demand is high, Is that a cost of windpower (it is a consequence of a failure to meet the contract). The 4.3 billion was the taxpayer costs for offshore wind, I have no idea what the overall subsidy was. Try it another way a man has a van, he bought through borrowing, insured, maintained, modified his van and is bidding for contracts, He has to factor in all the costs to make a living. Another man was given a van by the taxpayer which was bought for him, and modified for him, he is bidding for the same contracts and wants to make the same level of living as the other. Do you see any inequity in the situation? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 13, 2023 22:41:24 GMT
in this case for wind are you including the costs of an alternative generating system when wind fails to work? They already exist and will last far longer as they will get used much less. However the consumer will have to pay the market rate for that alternative supply when the wind fails. Should not the wind companies pay that as they contract to supply electricity. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2023 6:51:23 GMT
They already exist and will last far longer as they will get used much less. However the consumer will have to pay the market rate for that alternative supply when the wind fails. Should not the wind companies pay that as they contract to supply electricity. The consumer will actually have to pay more. The expansion of renewables means that alternative energy production ends up costing more when its needed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 14, 2023 9:07:53 GMT
When was the last time we replaced a gas power station. But I'm happy for you to count it if you wish. It strengthens the case for wind. I have no idea when but it must have been not too long ago as coal was king certainly within living memory for most. It certainly does not as the costs of windpower are not realistic and there is still the issue of wind failure from naturally occurring calm periods, often when electricity demand is high, Is that a cost of windpower (it is a consequence of a failure to meet the contract). The 4.3 billion was the taxpayer costs for offshore wind, I have no idea what the overall subsidy was. Try it another way a man has a van, he bought through borrowing, insured, maintained, modified his van and is bidding for contracts, He has to factor in all the costs to make a living. Another man was given a van by the taxpayer which was bought for him, and modified for him, he is bidding for the same contracts and wants to make the same level of living as the other. Do you see any inequity in the situation? Why is the 4.3Bn investment in renewable energy to be counted in its short term cost and yet the 6Bn invested in broadband is not. Governments are always invested in long term improvements to the country. Should the government not invest in technology to improve treatment and shorten waiting lists in the NHS, because of the short term cost? As for your two van analogy. The man who got his van from the government has to offer lower prices for his services or start paying the government back. In the meantime )despite Pacifico's distractions) everyone is saying wind power is considerably cheaper than gas powered electricity. What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 14, 2023 9:13:43 GMT
I have no idea when but it must have been not too long ago as coal was king certainly within living memory for most. It certainly does not as the costs of windpower are not realistic and there is still the issue of wind failure from naturally occurring calm periods, often when electricity demand is high, Is that a cost of windpower (it is a consequence of a failure to meet the contract). The 4.3 billion was the taxpayer costs for offshore wind, I have no idea what the overall subsidy was. Try it another way a man has a van, he bought through borrowing, insured, maintained, modified his van and is bidding for contracts, He has to factor in all the costs to make a living. Another man was given a van by the taxpayer which was bought for him, and modified for him, he is bidding for the same contracts and wants to make the same level of living as the other. Do you see any inequity in the situation? Why is the 4.3Bn investment in renewable energy to be counted in its short term cost and yet the 6Bn invested in broadband is not. Governments are always invested in long term improvements to the country. Should the government not invest in technology to improve treatment and shorten waiting lists in the NHS, because of the short term cost? As for your two van analogy. The man who got his van from the government has to offer lower prices for his services or start paying the government back. In the meantime )despite Pacifico's distractions) everyone is saying wind power is considerably cheaper than gas powered electricity. What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. Something you are missing out, it doesn't matter what the price is if the wind doesn't blow. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 14, 2023 9:22:40 GMT
I have no idea when but it must have been not too long ago as coal was king certainly within living memory for most. It certainly does not as the costs of windpower are not realistic and there is still the issue of wind failure from naturally occurring calm periods, often when electricity demand is high, Is that a cost of windpower (it is a consequence of a failure to meet the contract). The 4.3 billion was the taxpayer costs for offshore wind, I have no idea what the overall subsidy was. Try it another way a man has a van, he bought through borrowing, insured, maintained, modified his van and is bidding for contracts, He has to factor in all the costs to make a living. Another man was given a van by the taxpayer which was bought for him, and modified for him, he is bidding for the same contracts and wants to make the same level of living as the other. Do you see any inequity in the situation? Why is the 4.3Bn investment in renewable energy to be counted in its short term cost and yet the 6Bn invested in broadband is not. Governments are always invested in long term improvements to the country. Should the government not invest in technology to improve treatment and shorten waiting lists in the NHS, because of the short term cost? As for your two van analogy. The man who got his van from the government has to offer lower prices for his services or start paying the government back. In the meantime )despite Pacifico's distractions) everyone is saying wind power is considerably cheaper than gas powered electricity. What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. I have not discounted it. The point about the van analogy was that the 'competition' was unequal. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 14, 2023 9:49:59 GMT
Why is the 4.3Bn investment in renewable energy to be counted in its short term cost and yet the 6Bn invested in broadband is not. Governments are always invested in long term improvements to the country. Should the government not invest in technology to improve treatment and shorten waiting lists in the NHS, because of the short term cost? As for your two van analogy. The man who got his van from the government has to offer lower prices for his services or start paying the government back. In the meantime )despite Pacifico's distractions) everyone is saying wind power is considerably cheaper than gas powered electricity. What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. Something you are missing out, it doesn't matter what the price is if the wind doesn't blow. Not really missing it, we've discussed it on here several times in the past. There are a number of ways this is being mitigated. Sharing renewable supply with our neighbours, interconnectors from nuclear in Europe, pumping water back up into reservoirs using wind power at night. From a price point of view. We will always need a back up from Gas, but the gas powered power stations already exist so that cost is nominal. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2023 10:47:56 GMT
What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. I have already explained why gas is not £110 MWh |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 14, 2023 12:13:27 GMT
What Pacifico keeps dodging is that even if wind power is not £48 per MWh its nowhere near the £110 per MWh that gas is. I have already explained why gas is not £110 MWh Funny you can give the price of gas but refuse to give a price on renewable . I'm not convinced by you at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2023 17:04:14 GMT
I have already explained why gas is not £110 MWh Funny you can give the price of gas but refuse to give a price on renewable . I'm not convinced by you at all. I did give you a price - £75 MWh. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 14, 2023 17:09:25 GMT
Funny you can give the price of gas but refuse to give a price on renewable . I'm not convinced by you at all. I did give you a price - £75 MWh. A price for each? For the generation of electricity per MWh put together in the same post. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 23, 2023 6:22:45 GMT
Here we go again - so on top of being forced to install a heat pump that costs more to run, yet another levy will be added to Bills. ...and they think we believe them when they claim bills will cheaper...
He believes Britain will still need gas to keep the lights on as far out as 2040.
“I actually think we’ll be moving more gas but we’ll be moving gas to power stations to make electricity rather than to homes.”
The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), headed by Sir John Armitt, last week called for the UK’s domestic gas network to be decommissioned at a cost of £70bn to encourage people to switch to heat pumps and help the country meet its net zero targets.
The cost of decommissioning would most likely be added to consumer bills but the NIC argues the policy would help halve domestic energy costs by 2050.
|
|
