Jim K wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:26:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip
would you call this a manic or depressive epsiode?
Both :-)
Just because you feel mad and depressed, doesn't mean the world isn't
mad and depressed.
And doesn't make you wrong either.
When a leading light of the global warming policy foundation no less,
gets to utter this
"In a speech to a group of prominent business leaders, the previous
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave an extended
soliloquy on his vision of greener growth for the UK €“ Huhne (2011).
Nothing could better illustrate the gap between do-it-yourself economics
and the realities highlighted by concrete economic analysis as presented
in this paper. In Mr. Huhnes world all investment that comes under the
category of greener growth is a good thing, irrespective of whether it
generates adequate returns on capital that has to be diverted from other
uses, or whether it reduces emissions of CO2 in practice.
The casual assumption that expenditures on green technology represent an
efficient and economic use of scarce resources is little more than a
convenient fairy tale for troubled times."
(
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf)
it doesn't make me feel less depressed, but its does slightly make me
feel justified...
more
"The total consumer bill for wind subsidies by 2030 is estimated to
amount to a staggering £130 billion"
That is enough to build enough nuclear power for ALL our electricity
needs bar a few top up gas CCGT that we have already.And enough left
over to sort out sellafield and the grid as well.
Not a flaky 30% of generation by 'renewables' That Huhges reckons will
knock about 5% off our CO2 emissions in electrical generation ONLY IIRC.
"In fact, the full consequences of promoting wind generation are yet
more complicated and self-defeating. By reducing revenues for base load
and mid-merit generation when wind is available, wind generation reduces
the incentive to invest in other sources of base load generation €“
particularly nuclear power or coal with carbon capture & storage (CCS).
Thus, investment in wind power will tend, in the main, to displace
investment in nuclear power rather than gas plants. Indeed, with more
intermittent wind power and less dispatchable nuclear power it will be
necessary to rely more upon either coal or - more likely - gas plants to
supply both base load power when wind is not available plus mid-merit
and peak generation at all times. The irony is that the promotion of
intermittent types of renewable generation may increase rather than
decrease total CO2 emissions relative to what they would have been if
markets had been encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions in the most
cost-effective manner €“ see section 6 below."
and so on.
Or the AF Mercator report
"Without carbon dioxide reduction targets there would be no
renewable or new nuclear. This
illustrates the obvious point
that carbon credits or other government policies are
required to achieve power generation that is less carbon
intensive.
If our only policy driver is to reduce carbon emissions, then
the lowest cost way of meeting our
emissions targets requires a mixture of gas and nuclear new build. Coal
has no place in this least cost scenario €“ because of its emissions. Nor
has wind, either onshore or offshore €“ because of its additional cost.
To meet the UK's targets
does require some offsetting by carbon capture and storage. This is a
technology that is still in its infancy and is unproven.
It is only when we require renewables *for their own sake* €“ and not
only to reduce carbon emissions €“ that wind, both offshore and onshore,
becomes part of the generation mix.
Even in this scenario solar power has no role because of its additional
cost.
These are interesting conclusions. If we are concerned about cost, then
renewables have no part to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
80% before 2050.Rather it is gas and nuclear alone that creates the cost
mix."
(
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Powerful_Targets.pdf)
In other words there is no economic or carbon reduction reason to have
any renewable energy whatsoever. It is there for entirely political reasons.
I agree 95% with both thee reports. My biggest beef is with the Mercator
report which is frankly too mild in its criticism of this political
inanity and economic suicide, also I think their cost for nuclear are
too high, and for the non nuclear and especially the renewable energy
elements, far too low. The hughes report sets out the reasons why the
more wind you have the less you can use all of it and the more expensive
it gets. And when its seen for the total disaster it is, thats going to
make gas and coal go through the roof..
Meanwhile the PM has popped down to B & Q to buy a 1000 mile extension
cable to plug into geothermal plants in iceland that dont exist and we
wouldn't own or control anyway.
Whilst Samantha's dad keeps himself in caviar and vintage champagne the
serfs and peasants on his estate stay awake at might to the sound of
monstrous money-spinners profiting off the backs of poor electricity
consumers.
I am not mad. I am ****ING FURIOUS.
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.