Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Elixir

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

Recommended Posts

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

Coal is not the cheapest way to generate electricity. If you believe otherwise, then I would be interested to see the source of the data.

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 Hinkley 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?

Areshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal is not the cheapest way to generate electricity. If you believe otherwise, then I would be interested to see the source of the data.

It is. By far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the strike price on wind falling to?

£90

It is. By far

Source?

Government provides £17.6bln of funding to EDF un-necessarily. Link

EDF is offered an investment contract for Hinkley Point C that establishes a strike price of £92.50 – roughly twice the current wholesale price of power. In nominal terms, this rises to £279 per MWh in 2058, the last year of the scheme.

The level of support under the CFD could be as much as £17.6bn, which is greater than the expected £16bn cost of building the plant. This provides EDF with roughly a 10 per cent rate of return. The commission questions the appropriateness of the discount rates used in the model to predict cash flows.

...

Mr Almunia writes that at this point he cannot see why the project is fundamentally different from plants in Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland “which have been undertaken without any support”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£90

Source?

Government provides £17.6bln of funding to EDF un-necessarily. Link

Its £95 actually. And thats only for onshore.

Whats solar?

Hinckley will be 92.50 and this drops under 90 once sizewell goes ahead.

Unlucky as they say.

Did you find out that coals the cheapest way to generate electricity yet as you frantically howked through google? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Its £95 actually. And thats only for onshore.

2. Whats solar?

3. Hinckley will be 92.50 and this drops under 90 once sizewell goes ahead.

Unlucky as they say.

4. Did you find out that coals the cheapest way to generate electricity yet as you frantically howked through google? <_<

1. It will be £90 in 2017/2018.

2. why is this relevant to wind vs nuclear?

3. If Sizewell goes ahead, and it is indexed linked and loan guaranteed. Anyone that thinks this nuclear deal that has been agreed with EDF is good for consumers needs their head examined. Did you actually read the article that i posted/

4. I know that coal isn't the cheapest. You made the claim, perhaps you have scrambled around tryng to find evidence and failed. So as the one that made the claim, where is your evidence?

Unlucky you say, Ignorance on your part.

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nuclear strike price was set based on 2012 prices and is linked to CPI. The actual point in 2012 is not specified, so best case is 31/12/2012 and that would equate to the strike price now being over £95. Worst case it would be over £98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nuclear strike price was set based on 2012 prices and is linked to CPI. The actual point in 2012 is not specified, so best case is 31/12/2012 and that would equate to the strike price now being over £95. Worst case it would be over £98

So we've established that nuclear is insanely expensive. That doesn't include the colossal expense of cleaning all the shite up from the various nuclear sites across the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It will be £90 in 2017/2018.

2. why is this relevant to wind vs nuclear?

3. If Sizewell goes ahead, and it is indexed linked and loan guaranteed. Anyone that thinks this nuclear deal that has been agreed with EDF is good for consumers needs their head examined. Did you actually read the article that i posted/

4. I know that coal isn't the cheapest. You made the claim, perhaps you have scrambled around tring to find evidence and failed. So as the one that made the claim, where is your evidence?

Unlucky you say, Ignorance on your part.

hmmmmm. :rolleyes: Amazingly still waiting.

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.

My word that's stupid. You say Gas is really cheap. Why go nuclear?

Edited by HaikuHibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My word that's stupid. You say Gas is really cheap. Why go nuclear?

No, he says coal is the cheapest. He is wrong but your point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe when he decides to stand at the council elections, Reynard could explain to his potential voters what we'll do for energy when the coal, gas, oil and nuclear resources all run out.

He seems strangely quiet on that.

Perhaps he's happy to saddle future generations with that problem?

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the f**k motivates climate change deniers? You can understand greed as a motivation for energy companies etc. but what does the average person have to gain from denying clear scientific fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the f**k motivates climate change deniers? You can understand greed as a motivation for energy companies etc. but what does the average person have to gain from denying clear scientific fact?

Well for those on the right who deny climate change (and it's still largely a right wing sport, at least in the states) do so because of basic suspicion of 'big government' which they see as trying to tie down the essential entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry by getting in the way of money generation through increased taxes on emissions, etc - and also a basic mistrust of those dastardly scientists who've been going around telling everyone the earth isn't just 6,000 years old.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the f**k motivates climate change deniers? You can understand greed as a motivation for energy companies etc. but what does the average person have to gain from denying clear scientific fact?

Because they are being asked to change what they do.

Nobody likes change. Especially when it comes with a price tag.

Combine that with paranoia about big business and a lack of trust in anything or anyone in authority and you have your answer.

Ultimately these people, like Reynard, can tell you about the price of everything today but they can't tell you what we do for energy supply when the coal, gas, oil and nuclear resources run out.

I'd love to hear just one of them explain what we'd do if that happened in the next 50 years.

I'd even settle for Reynard explaining why we should condemn further generations to the expense and hassle of solving our problems if it takes 200 years for coal etc to run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the f**k motivates climate change deniers? You can understand greed as a motivation for energy companies etc. but what does the average person have to gain from denying clear scientific fact?

For many of them its a vicarious sense of being as intelligent as a research scientist. You memorize a few lines ("climate has changed before", "the hockeystick has broken", "no warming since 1998") and you just shout that when someone produces a really complex piece of analysis that took a team 3 years to work out. There is a name for the phenomena the DK Effect

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...