Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Elixir

Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC

Recommended Posts

Whereas you'd rather we handed over tens of billions to big companies like EDF for a new round of nuclear power plants.

I would, yes. Nuclear is actually carbon free and it actually works. Unlike wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would, yes. Nuclear is actually carbon free and it actually works. Unlike wind.

And costs an absolute fortune. How much will Sellafield cost to clean up ?

That's only one site.

Wind works fine in Scotland :)

Edited by AUFC90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And costs an absolute fortune. How much will Sellafield cost to clean up ?

That's only one site.

Wind works fine in Scotland :)

If part of the national grid and with back up from conventional energy (gas). As explained to you before, for every POTENTIAL GWh of capacity that wind is supposed to supply it needs backed up by the exact same in gas for when the wind doesnt blow, or for when the wind blows too much and they need to be shit down.

Nuclear is cheaper than wind.

How much will it cost to return the countryside to ts original state when the wind turbines are scrapped? Who's paying for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If part of the national grid and with back up from conventional energy (gas). As explained to you before, for every POTENTIAL GWh of capacity that wind is supposed to supply it needs backed up by the exact same in gas for when the wind doesnt blow, or for when the wind blows too much and they need to be shit down.

Nuclear is cheaper than wind.

How much will it cost to return the countryside to ts original state when the wind turbines are scrapped? Who's paying for that?

Given the price gaurantees that EDF have received from the government, it is nearly the equivalent of having 100% backup from fossil fuels anyway. £92.50/MWh.

Index-linked FFS, so absolutely nothing to do with the wholesale market price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If part of the national grid and with back up from conventional energy (gas). As explained to you before, for every POTENTIAL GWh of capacity that wind is supposed to supply it needs backed up by the exact same in gas for when the wind doesnt blow, or for when the wind blows too much and they need to be shit down.

Nuclear is cheaper than wind.

How much will it cost to return the countryside to ts original state when the wind turbines are scrapped? Who's paying for that?

Nuclear isn't cheaper than wind when you factor in the clean up costs. 100 billion to clean up Sellafield and that's just one site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear isn't cheaper than wind when you factor in the clean up costs. 100 billion to clean up Sellafield and that's just one site.

What are the clean up costs for restoring the countryside to its original condition once the wind turbines are dismantled? Bearing in mind they sit on massive concrete plinths.

Nuclear plants lifespans are also WAY longer than any windmill and once up and running the cost to produce energy is actually next to nothing. Whats the strike price on both land based and sea based wind turbines? I believe Ive provided this to you several times already so hopefully you'll remember. And whats the strike price on nuclear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the clean up costs for restoring the countryside to its original condition once the wind turbines are dismantled? Bearing in mind they sit on massive concrete plinths.

Nuclear plants lifespans are also WAY longer than any windmill and once up and running the cost to produce energy is actually next to nothing. Whats the strike price on both land based and sea based wind turbines? I believe Ive provided this to you several times already so hopefully you'll remember. And whats the strike price on nuclear?

Yeah coz wind is really expensive once the mills are built :lol:

A 100billion to clean up one nuclear power sit, one.

How much renewable capacity could the UK buy for 100 billion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah coz wind is really expensive once the mills are built :lol:

A 100billion to clean up one nuclear power sit, one.

How much renewable capacity could the UK buy for 100 billion ?

I,m afraid its colossally expensive as its subsidised to the hilt, far from being free, its actually the most expensive method of generating paltry amounts of electricity that we have got. Do you know how much is given to wind farm operators when they have to shut down operations due to it being a bit windy for example? Or do the puff pieces released by the wind lobby groups never give that information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I,m afraid its colossally expensive as its subsidised to the hilt, far from being free, its actually the most expensive method of generating paltry amounts of electricity that we have got. Do you know how much is given to wind farm operators when they have to shut down operations due to it being a bit windy for example? Or do the puff pieces released by the wind lobby groups never give that information?

100 billion for to clean up one site.

100 billion

100 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I,m afraid its colossally expensive as its subsidised to the hilt, far from being free, its actually the most expensive method of generating paltry amounts of electricity that we have got. Do you know how much is given to wind farm operators when they have to shut down operations due to it being a bit windy for example? Or do the puff pieces released by the wind lobby groups never give that information?

Subsidies for Nuclear will be higher than than wind

The new price for onshore wind is less than EDF, the French power giant, will receive for four decades for its new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, where it has agreed a strike price of £92.50.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I,m afraid its colossally expensive as its subsidised to the hilt, far from being free, its actually the most expensive method of generating paltry amounts of electricity that we have got. Do you know how much is given to wind farm operators when they have to shut down operations due to it being a bit windy for example? Or do the puff pieces released by the wind lobby groups never give that information?

What was that about "colossally expensive" and "subsidised to the hilt".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10525538/Subsidies-for-UK-nuclear-plant-could-reach-17bn-and-may-be-unnecessary.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/hinkley-point-european-commission-nuclear-power-station-somerset

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strike price on nuclear (when it becomes operational in a few years. Is still cheaper than the strike price currently set for onshore wind, and much less than the strike price for offshore.

THATS what I was saying you twat. And of course, the life expectancy of a nuclear power station is massively longer than a windwill. And the windmills oitput degrades basically as soon as it starts to operate.

And they don't provide energy as and when you need it.

Apart from that. You havent got a clue what youre talking about on this issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strike price on nuclear (when it becomes operational in a few years. Is still cheaper than the strike price currently set for onshore wind, and much less than the strike price for offshore.

That's as mis-leading a statement as you could make. The current strike price for wind is irrelevant when comparing to nuclear until the nuclear plants are up and running. At this point nuclear will be more heavily subsidised than onshore wind.

For someone on here telling us how cheap nuclear is, perhaps you can explain why EDF even need a guaranteed price. I would like to see someone as right wing as yourself tell us why market forces appear to not work in a de-regulated business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's as mis-leading a statement as you could make. The current strike price for wind is irrelevant when comparing to nuclear until the nuclear plants are up and running. At this point nuclear will be more heavily subsidised than onshore wind.

For someone on here telling us how cheap nuclear is, perhaps you can explain why EDF even need a guaranteed price. I would like to see someone as right wing as yourself tell us why market forces appear to not work in a de-regulated business.

Nuclear is cheaper than renewables.

Renewables are the most expensive and unreliable method we have of producing energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear is cheaper than renewables.

Renewables are the most expensive and unreliable method we have of producing energy.

Currently or in the future? Perhaps providing some figures......oops sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's as mis-leading a statement as you could make. The current strike price for wind is irrelevant when comparing to nuclear until the nuclear plants are up and running. At this point nuclear will be more heavily subsidised than onshore wind.

For someone on here telling us how cheap nuclear is, perhaps you can explain why EDF even need a guaranteed price. I would like to see someone as right wing as yourself tell us why market forces appear to not work in a de-regulated business.

Its not deregulated.

The government sets energy policy. The cheapest way to produce energy is to use coal. If it was a totally free market then we'd be using coal. Simple as that.

Why are we not using coal? Ask yourself that and once you come up with the answer you'll maybe begin to understand... then again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expensive energy fucks the economy over. We will see that low oil prices is a boost for the economy in the next year or so or however long it lasts.

We should be doing all we can to make electricity as cheap as possible. Bin the green targets completely. No need for them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently

OK. So do you dispute that nuclear will be more expensive than wind when the new Hinkley is operational?

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So do you dispute that nuclear will be more expensive than wind when the new Hinckley is operational?

Yep.

The strike price has already been agreed for Hinckley and its cheaper than Wind is NOW. Both on and offshore. Didn't you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...