By this ridiculous metric Apple are 'subsidised' because they are left with disproportionally high average profis vs other similar industries with similair risks!
in the context, of a company, exploiting UK sovereign resources, and still being privately owned - yes the profits versus other industries should be considered,
(exploiting public resources shouldn't be a license to print money ) it's similar to the private/contract ownership of trains
----
new carbon tax high carbon intensity offenders importing into EU - china's not there CBAM will cover five sectors: aluminum, cement, electricity, fertilizers, and iron and steel. However, retaliatory trade measures will not necessarily be limited to these five sectors. They could instead target European interest groups that European policymakers are thought to be dependent upon
Countries with a high share of CBAM-applicable exports to the EU and with high carbon intensity of GDP include Ukraine, Iran, Bahrain, Belarus, and Serbia (see Fig. 2). Countries such as Kazakhstan, Pakistan, South Africa, and Vietnam have a low share of exports to the EU but high carbon intensity.
if a few gas turbines needed to be fired up for a few weeks to top up what storage we do have and cover renewable shortage. Perhaps this isnt realistic and wont work......
For illustrative purposes only say peak winter demand is 50GW we have phased out all nuclear but Hinkley C and Sizewell B and we have 100% solar and wind with an overcapacity of 50%. 50GW - 5GW (nuclear) is 45GW times 1.5 is 70GW (rounded up for ease). You have 70 GW of wind and solar about 3 times the current installed capacity. Their are regular days each winter when their output could drop to 10% or less of nameplate capacity. So cold winters day 4pm 7GW wind and solar contribution plus the 5GW of reliable nukes against a demand of 50GW. You need 38 GW of reliable thermal generation and storage. That's more than we currently have of CCGT's, open cycle GT's, gas engines and diesels. Honestly that's a lot. You will be building £billions of new stations to sit their with staff run and maintain them. If you are trying to make that thermal generation "clean" with hydrogen or CCS you can add £billions more for the CO2 scrubbers or the hydrogen generation and storage.
All of that is without electrification where domestic, heating, hot water and cooking goes electric. Also that is without battery powered cars and other transport.
Rail subsidies since the beginning of the COVID pandemic will have cost £42 billion by March 2023, according to new research by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
www.taxpayersalliance.com
Estimated total rail subsidy for 2022-23 will be £11 billion, down from the first two years of COVID (£17.6 billion and £13.3 billion for 2020-21, 2021-22 respectively) but up from before the pandemic (£4.7 billion and £6.8 billion for 2018-19 and 2019-20)
No matter how you try to spin it reduced taxes on companies extracting mineral wealth are not the same as payouts, from the goverment, to companies to keep running or to keep the prices of their product lower to the end consumer.
For illustrative purposes only say peak winter demand is 50GW we have phased out all nuclear but Hinkley C and Sizewell B and we have 100% solar and wind with an overcapacity of 50%. 50GW - 5GW (nuclear) is 45GW times 1.5 is 70GW (rounded up for ease). You have 70 GW of wind and solar about 3 times the current installed capacity. Their are regular days each winter when their output could drop to 10% or less of nameplate capacity. So cold winters day 4pm 7GW wind and solar contribution plus the 5GW of reliable nukes against a demand of 50GW. You need 38 GW of reliable thermal generation and storage. That's more than we currently have of CCGT's, open cycle GT's, gas engines and diesels. Honestly that's a lot. You will be building £billions of new stations to sit their with staff run and maintain them. If you are trying to make that thermal generation "clean" with hydrogen or CCS you can add £billions more for the CO2 scrubbers or the hydrogen generation and storage.
All of that is without electrification where domestic, heating, hot water and cooking goes electric. Also that is without battery powered cars and other transport.
i guess it is easy to forget the mammoth task in hand!. it is why we need nuclear. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons why, but i do find it hard to accept that Hinkley C has to cost as much to build as it is costing, or take as long. If i had to bet i would say corruption and ineptitude is playing a role somewhere in the cost / delays
but i am not an engineer or a nuclear expert...............
At some point i think EVs have to be part of the solution and not looked at as part of the problem..... they all have huge batteries in and battery tech is apparently close to another revolution now. if it meant i got free / or heavily discounted charging in off peak hrs i would happily let 20% of my battery be used for grid load balancing and storage when there is an over abundance (so long as it didnt void my warranty). it clearly needs infrastructure putting in. on this point, maybe China have it right with Chademo. after the nuclear disaster nissan leafs and mitsy outlanders were used as emergency energy providers. sadly we cant do that at the moment with CCS.
i only drive into the office 2 days a week. my car is sat at home doing nothing for at least 4 days a week. that is 1 car but add in a few million uniformly distributed accross the country flattening the demand curve surely it would help?
over production on windy / sunny days (and you cant easily spin up or shut down nuclear as i understand it) is also a logistical nightmare i imagine. i guess once batteries are filled, all the water is pumped / heated or what ever, then if you have an over abundance, that would be where making green H2 would come in. whilst i am not convinced it is viable for small vehicle use, there is a great deal of demand for hydrogen, almost all of it which is currently not green.
A big element being missed in this conversation is energy efficiency. I'll repeat it again. Danfoss estimates that energy efficiency could cut global CO2 emissions by 40%. This doesn't cost money; it actively saves money.
Unfortunately, the government mindset is not to reduce energy consumption but instead to not rock the boat, and let everyone go on acting like we have infinite energy to play with.
A big element being missed in this conversation is energy efficiency. I'll repeat it again. Danfoss estimates that energy efficiency could cut global CO2 emissions by 40%. This doesn't cost money; it actively saves money.
Unfortunately, the government mindset is not to reduce energy consumption but instead to not rock the boat, and let everyone go on acting like we have infinite energy to play with.
i read somewhere recently (no link sorry) that peak demand on the grid has dropped 12% from its highest due to exactly that... and indeed it is that slack why people who know more about this stuff than i do are not worried about EVs suddenly making the national grid collapse. i wish i could find where i read that but i cant.
De-industrialisation from the 90's through the noughties has also had a really big impact. It's more than 12%, it's more like 20%. The grid used to regularly hit 60GW demand in the last 20 years and is now more like 50GW.
Not sure how the use case of the batteries in a plane is bad for the usage of batteries in other applications.
The chances are the aircraft batteries are a very specific set of requirements, most of which won't be an issue for stationary use, for example for an aircraft you must have the lightest, smallest batteries possible with a high capacity, for ground use you don't need to worry about weight much at all, and size is relatively irrelevant as warehouse style facilities actually get cheaper per cubic meter as you get bigger.
I remember when portable rechargeable batteries were lucky to have the capacity of a zinc carbon battery of the same size, and had a recharge life of maybe 100-200 if you were very careful, then you got batteries that hit the capacity of alkaline batteries but had a nasty memory effect, then you got batteries that had higher capacities and something like a thousand charge cycles.
Lithium batteries have been through a similar development cycle, and are still improving a lot with longer lives, lighter versions and higher capacities hitting the market on a fairly regular basis, thanks to the likes of mobile phones (lighter/more power being at a premium), and EV's (more endurance/charge cycles).
De-industrialisation from the 90's through the noughties has also had a really big impact. It's more than 12%, it's more like 20%. The grid used to regularly hit 60GW demand in the last 20 years and is now more like 50GW.
either way, unless the over all capacity of the grid has fallen, it shows that people who claim EVs will fail because the grid cant cope are surely wrong...... you reply reinforces the point i was trying to make so no need to apologise.
as for electric planes...... IF they work for short haul that would be fantastic, but i dont think they can ever work for long haul. (edit ever is a long time.... but not in the short to medium timeframe perhaps)
if its true the batteries just cant cope then fair enough, maybe battery planes wont be a thing any time soon..... maybe hydrogen would be a better use for planes (i know it does not have the energy density of fossil fuel so may have the same range issues as batteries?.
i have no issue with H2 as a fuel where it makes sense... i just dont think it makes sense for cars at the moment
For illustrative purposes only say peak winter demand is 50GW we have phased out all nuclear but Hinkley C and Sizewell B and we have 100% solar and wind with an overcapacity of 50%. 50GW - 5GW (nuclear) is 45GW times 1.5 is 70GW (rounded up for ease). You have 70 GW of wind and solar about 3 times the current installed capacity. Their are regular days each winter when their output could drop to 10% or less of nameplate capacity. So cold winters day 4pm 7GW wind and solar contribution plus the 5GW of reliable nukes against a demand of 50GW. You need 38 GW of reliable thermal generation and storage. That's more than we currently have of CCGT's, open cycle GT's, gas engines and diesels. Honestly that's a lot. You will be building £billions of new stations to sit their with staff run and maintain them. If you are trying to make that thermal generation "clean" with hydrogen or CCS you can add £billions more for the CO2 scrubbers or the hydrogen generation and storage.
All of that is without electrification where domestic, heating, hot water and cooking goes electric. Also that is without battery powered cars and other transport.
Your 10% number is pulled from your backside. As more wind is installed over the whole country then the overall variance is reduced and they better sample the mean wind field. Wind is not strongly spatially correlated, so when production is low at one end of the country it is likely high elsewhere .
Secondly you are completely ignoring energy imports and exports, demand smoothing, dynamic pricing, efficiency improvements, storage and a host of other variables.
You keep doing this, putting out random numbers to claim some point without providing evidence. In the meantime actual studies where detailed modelling is conducted by actual experts using real empirical models in peer reviewed journals all paint a very different picture
Your 10% number is pulled from your backside. As more wind is installed over the whole country then the overall variance is reduced and they better sample the mean wind field. Wind is not strongly spatially correlated, so when production is low at one end of the country it is likely high elsewhere .
Secondly you are completely ignoring energy imports and exports, demand smoothing, dynamic pricing, efficiency improvements, storage and a host of other variables.
You keep doing this, putting out random numbers to claim some point without providing evidence. In the meantime actual studies where detailed modelling is conducted by actual experts using real empirical models in peer reviewed journals all paint a very different picture
The John Muir Trust did an extensive survey about a number of years on wind patterns across the UK which from memory showed that statistically we can expect three 3+ day periods every winter where wind speed drops low enough that wind power drops to less than 10% of it's rated output. Now it's an old study and wind generation is substantially more prevalent but we still see events in line with it's analysis.
The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
1. “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
2. “The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
3. “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
4. “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
5. “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.” This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
If you read any of my post in the UK Power Industry thread in Sneering Corner I highlighted some of the days when events like this actually happened. Like 3rd November 2022.
Another little update on the state of the power industry.
Yesterday the UK wind output was 16GW which is the highest I've ever seen it 100% load factor I assume. 16 hours later it is at 1.6 GW so 10% load factor, a 90% drop in output in less than 24 hours. So the interconnectors, gas and nuclear are doing all the heavy lifting. If the interconnectors were flowing the other way as they were all summer when the French nukes were down we'd be in a very sticky position. Pumped storage is producing as much as wind as I write this. We have a long way to go before we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
So thank you for your commentary but the number of 10% wasn't pulled from my backside, but instead actual real world behaviour of a highly distributed 16 GW of wind and 5GW of solar system, the UK system. I apologise I don't have any models or peer reviewed journals to confirm the behaviour of the actual system, I can only rely on the observed actual behaviour.
I'll accept I didn't mention interconnectors or load shaping but ultimately you have to find that 38GW from somewhere.
As to number from my ass whilst I have simplified them to keep the illustration neat they are all reasonable examples. Current winter peak demand is around 55GW. Hinkley and Sizewell have an actual name plate capacity of 4,485MW so I did soup it up a bit to 5GW. All of the remaining AGR's of which there are now only 4 are expected to close the late 2020's so discounting them was reasonable.
So as an illustration I used entirely reasonable numbers that reflect current demand and future nuclear. The one true guess was the 1.5 times wind and solar capacity to reliably meet the 45GW peak demand but given wind typically makes 30% load factor over the year it was an engineers guess.
I stand behind my assertion that a predominantly wind and solar grid is going to need a lot reliable thermal generation to back it up for a very long time and the industry agrees with me because they are starting to build more gas fired combined cylce power stations.
Edit: at 8am 16th June 2023 - reliable wind producing less than 900MW from 16,000MW approx installed capacity this morning. Gas 14,000MW, Nukes 4,000MW, Coal 450MW, Interconnectors 6,000MW. Solar is ramping nicely and will hit something like 9GW by lunchtime. Honestly I don't know where I get these stupid ideas that wind is going to require a lot of thermal generation to back it up.
Edit: at 1pm 22nd June 2023 - reliable wind producing about 900MW from 28GW installed capacity ( Now I've confirmed this number), Gas 15,000MW, Nukes 4,000MW, Coal 285MW, Interconnectors 4,000MW, Solar 8,000MW, Biomass 770MW.
TBH, i stopped reading at the John Muir Trust, because that is not a reliable source at all. They regularly publish anti-wind propaganda based on flawed analysis.
I will respond to the rest of your post later but i got to prepare for my annual review with the boss
You must have misunderstood me. Provide 1 single piece of peer reviewed scientific literature from a respected medical journal. Not wikipedia, not a website, not some pop-book.
Another exercise for you. Find a correct scientific definition of autism and a review the scientific opinion on its reality.
i have a PhD and BSC in Artificial Intelligence and 15 years experience applying machine learning to some of the toughest real world problems. I work with experts on state of the art machine learning, regulalry review papers on artificial intelligence and attend many conferences keeping up to date with the state of the art. i have been learning about AI for the last 20 years.I have many papers in good peer-reviewed journals, co-authored dozens more, won prizes. I have an extentive professional network of friends and acquaintances within AI from industry to academia. I have met and discussed with some of the most influential academic experts of our own time.i have discussed and pitched ideas and bussiness to head researchers in many of thr worlds largest IT firms. Therr is a reason i command a 6 figure salary for working on state of the art machine learning.
Despite his real world achievements being that he previously worked for a now bankrupt traffic light company and now works for a tax dodging multinational computer firm in Switzerland.
To then saying that Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source to use and thoose that would reject it are 'tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists'
Wikipedia isn't allowed to be used by students in some universities because the professors wants the student to go through the process of reading and summarizing peer-reviewed academic journals and conference proceedings. It has nothing to do with the reliability of Wikipedia itslef, which is actually very reliable.
You can use Wikipedia as a citation in a peer-reviewed publication though. I have seen it frequently, and as a review of hundred of scientific papers I will never reject a citation form Wikipedia. The biggest issue is the content might change, so as a reference for an important detail it may not be valid in X years time etc. For giving an overview of some information/background/mathematical theory etc then it is valid enough...
And that is pretty irrelevant because Wikipedia provides the citations and warns you when they are missing or something is contentious.
Within a forum debate it is perfectly valid to use Wikipedia as a reference, and the inquisitive can follow the links to the source references.
Those who really don;t trust Wikipedia tend to be tin-foil hat weary conspiracy theorists who don't like the real life events and insist on some imaginary alternative universe. Flat-earthers and creationists no doubt hate it.
But then when the same sort of information doesn't align with his prejudices peer review suddenly becomes nothing more than a perfunctory spelling a grammar check with only a check for the most obvious of howlers in articles...
Indeed, it baffles me why people think this is some how shocking while the same thing happens all the time even in the hard sciences. There was a famous case of some physicists who were just copying older articles and were caught out years later, a comp sci paper that was generated artificially. In a more broader context there is a massive repeatability problem in experiments due to the fact that negative findings are viewed poorly and hard to publish so natural selection means that false positives have a higher publication rate, before you get to human nature to be selective with results or twist data.
Peer-review is a minimal part of the scientific process in fact the trend now is to do away with it all together. It serves mostly as the lowest level of proof reading paper. Ensuring there is a good English and logical structure/messages about its most important function, along with a rough analysis of methodology or results to check for glaringly obvious errors.
But then logic never was D.P's strong point, for example in the post below where he wanted 'academic articles' to 'prove' a negative thereby displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work and invoking the same sort of nonsensical 'argument' employed by cultists/ the religious for millenia
Good to see some real world sources as well where a review of the facts does show that the 3rd of November 2022 from around 16:00 onwards that solar was of course a no show and wind was producing a measely 1.6GW to no more than 2.3GW for five and half hours up until 21:30 hours with pumped storage and gas had to be brought on line/ ramped up to cover the shortfall.
More renewables would see us with much more frequent power cuts with the tech we currently have. The evidence on this is clear but the zealots continue to push on regardless.
Interestingly the national grid also seen to have 'forgotten' to tweet the figures for the 3rd of November 2022, like they regularly do for other days...
One of thoose 'tin foil hat' conspiracy theorists might think they were trying to obscure bad news?
Because they were happy to talk about wind generation for the day before.
Is it any wonder we are in such trouble when we persist in subsidising fossil fuels and intensive farming with trillions of dollars each year? They are some of the most profitable and destructive companies on earth:
Is it any wonder we are in such trouble when we persist in subsidising fossil fuels and intensive farming with trillions of dollars each year? They are some of the most profitable and destructive companies on earth:
So we have moved onto lying now by reclassfying all sorts or 'costs' that aren't actually subsidies as 'implicit subsidies' now are we?
The “toxic” subsidies total at least $7.25tn a year, according to a major new report from the bank. The explicit subsidies – money spent by governments – account for about $1.25tn a year, or more than $2m a minute. Most of these are harmful, the bank says.
There are also implicit subsidies such as waived taxes and the cost of the damage caused by worsenening global heating and air pollution. These total $6tn a year, according to the World Bank
This isn't ignorance it's plain flat our lying at this point.
Anyone that wants to bundle in supposed 'costs' of things like increased average global temperatures and pollution from intensive farming and use of fossil fuels without acknowledging the benefits they bring on the other side of the ledger is being highly disengenious.
This isn't just about higher bills and blackouts now. These zealots are pushing for policies that will lead to human engineered famines if taken to their logical conclusions.
Malthus predicted over 200 years ago that there would be mass worldwide starvation due to the population growing but his predictions haven't materialised due to the implementation of new methods that have increased farming yields massively.
Of course we must look again at ways to adapt these methods because we can't keep on using a finite resource like oil to feed billions for much longer anyway. But to characterise this sort of activity as being 'subsidied' to the public is a deliberate perversion of what's going actually going on.
As I was reading the thread title I was watching the new Cool Worlds video, and Dr Kipping AT THAT EXACT MOMENT that I was reading the title and read "net zero", Kipping spoke out "to reach net zero".
I think this video was meant for this thread, so here it is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
