Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,945
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
This is an interesting chart - shows how vital correcting our energy system costs is.

52282527571_266c4f3117_c.jpg

Needs to be the same model as in Norway, publically owned and energy independant with excess energy sold on the open market. Use the profts generated to subsidise the cost for the British Public so that it never exceeds a set amount.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Apr 2010
Posts
5,288
Location
Ipswich
According to Google, total UK electricity consumption is 300,000 GWh. That is per year, so that would be 821 GWh per day or 34 GWh per hour (34 GW).

So at 20 GW of production from wind, that is 60% of our total energy needs.

(Correct my maths if its wrong.)

So surely we are close. It won't take much of a push now to get to full self reliance - then why should we be paying international rates.


There is plenty of space left - why isn't the Government just saying to everyone with capital - get on and build these damn things.


if we can go from 8 GW to 20 GW in 3 years, why can't we go to 30 GW, 40 GW in the same timeframe. Just get going! Like when the navvies built the canals.
NIMBY ********
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Posts
7,880
Does anyone here get their power from a CHP / district heating plant for their estate? Have the costs remained stable? I remember reading ~6 months ago that the costs were a lot higher than mains power but I wonder if that is reversed now?
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2006
Posts
12,456
Location
Sufferlandria
According to Google, total UK electricity consumption is 300,000 GWh. That is per year, so that would be 821 GWh per day or 34 GWh per hour (34 GW).

So at 20 GW of production from wind, that is 60% of our total energy needs.

(Correct my maths if its wrong.)

So surely we are close. It won't take much of a push now to get to full self reliance - then why should we be paying international rates.


There is plenty of space left - why isn't the Government just saying to everyone with capital - get on and build these damn things.


if we can go from 8 GW to 20 GW in 3 years, why can't we go to 30 GW, 40 GW in the same timeframe. Just get going! Like when the navvies built the canals.
I think your maths is correct.
The problem is that the 20GW of wind power is the potential maximum. If there's no wind, there's no power. Currently (12:46pm) there's 0.71GW of total wind power being generated across the entire UK, which is about the lowest it has been for the past week.

As you say, increasing the capacity would help. If we had 40GW of potential maximum generation then even at 50% capacity they'd still be producing 20GW.

A decent way of storing the power would also help. Scotland produces the equivalent to almost 100% of total electrical usage from it's wind power. Sometimes that means there's no wind and other sources are required, sometimes the generation from wind is much higher than usage and the surplus gets sent to other places. Over a year it averages out that total generation from wind is almost exactly the same as total usage. If we had a good way of storing energy then it wouldn't take much at all for Scotland to be completely powered by renewables.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,523
Location
Gloucestershire
There is plenty of space left - why isn't the Government just saying to everyone with capital - get on and build these damn things.
Ideology.

The Tory party, upon winning a majority in 2015, immediately cancelled all onshore wind, because the selfish old ***** who vote Tory don't like them and don't care about the environment*

* Except litter. That's the terms in which they think of environmental issues. Litter
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,945
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
Population density....

That just means its easier for them to achieve it, lower population, means lower demand, and less generation required to meet those demands.

It would just require scaling up for larger populations. I remember there was a project I backed years ago on indigogo for solar roadways and while the task would be monumental to achieve, it would result in the country (America) being entirely powered through solar energy, infact they'd produce 3-4 times what they would need.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
13,915
That just means its easier for them to achieve it, lower population, means lower demand, and less generation required to meet those demands.

It would just require scaling up for larger populations. I remember there was a project I backed years ago on indigogo for solar roadways and while the task would be monumental to achieve, it would result in the country (America) being entirely powered through solar energy, infact they'd produce 3-4 times what they would need.
Not saying it can't be done, just it is too costly and will take too long, nuclear power is a 'quick' fix
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,107
I think your maths is correct.
The problem is that the 20GW of wind power is the potential maximum. If there's no wind, there's no power. Currently (12:46pm) there's 0.71GW of total wind power being generated across the entire UK, which is about the lowest it has been for the past week.

As you say, increasing the capacity would help. If we had 40GW of potential maximum generation then even at 50% capacity they'd still be producing 20GW.

A decent way of storing the power would also help. Scotland produces the equivalent to almost 100% of total electrical usage from it's wind power. Sometimes that means there's no wind and other sources are required, sometimes the generation from wind is much higher than usage and the surplus gets sent to other places. Over a year it averages out that total generation from wind is almost exactly the same as total usage. If we had a good way of storing energy then it wouldn't take much at all for Scotland to be completely powered by renewables.

it’s much like my home solar - without batteries I’m reliant on the energy being there when I need it. If a cloud goes over (wind stops blowing) I’m pulling from the grid (reliant on gas).
With a battery all the excess solar/wind/green energy can be stored and deployed when required.
Obviously batteries on large scale is expensive, but storing as hydrogen is another option.

Cost is relative though - if the Government are handing out £20-50bn in energy support, just this year, that buys a lot of battery storage, solar & wind farms.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2013
Posts
399
What is interesting is how much of this is self inflicted. I can remember this point being predicited 20 years ago. Under investment/bad planning/poor foresight all play a part as well as the way energy is bought and sold like any commodity. Any system fails at the edge case and capitialism is no different. I'm not saying we should now throw out our economic system but it certainly seems we need to change it regarding energy. I'm not going to pretend I understand how to effect those changes.

I will say this though. For years we've been held in hoc to a tiny minority of green zealots. It has always seemed sensible (and quite frankly, been obvious) that as we transition to a lower carbon economy, energy production via wind, solar and backed up by nuclear was the only practicable way to go in order to power a modern industrial economy. The fact we have'nt done this can be laid at the door of the tiny minority of aforementioned zealots as well as successive governments to scared to stand up to them. We need nuclear now - we should have been building it for the last 20 years.

Its also worth pointing out that there is potentially enough natural gas available via fracking in the U.K. to power the whole of Europe for the next 100 years. We'll never know for sure as we're not even allowed to do proper surveys to find out thanks to the green lobby. (Inital exploratory surveys indicate vast natural gas reservoirs)
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,738
Location
Llaneirwg
As someone who is very keen on green I fully support nuclear.

1. Its waaay better than carbon
2. Our current green technology isn't enough 24/7, 365 days a year solutions.
3. It gives us control of our energy. We can buy the fuel relatively cheaply from our peers like the USA and Australia.
4. 3 also stops us paying counties like Russia and other opecs.

All these are good things.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,523
Location
Gloucestershire
I will say this though. For years we've been held in hoc to a tiny minority of green zealots. It has always seemed sensible (and quite frankly, been obvious) that as we transition to a lower carbon economy, energy production via wind, solar and backed up by nuclear was the only practicable way to go in order to power a modern industrial economy. The fact we have'nt done this can be laid at the door of the tiny minority of aforementioned zealots as well as successive governments to scared to stand up to them. We need nuclear now - we should have been building it for the last 20 years.
Nuclear failed because the cost was too high and all the suppliers pulled out. The French, then the Japanese, and finally we even went to the Chinese for our energy security, but they too pulled the plug.

It's nothing to do with 'green zealots'.

Now if you're talking Germany, who are switching back to coal (FFS!), then you'd be right: except it's an entire political party rather than a minority group.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
17,998
Location
London
I agree with @esmozz on everything he's said. The Green Zealots will have blood on their hands come winter when everyone is dying of the cold because they cowtoud the government into 'saving the plant', Greeta Thumbug can go **** herself

You can go back years on my posts, i've been saying it for almost a decade here, we need to be building Nuclear power stations, lots of them and **** the NIMBYs

EDF wanted to put my DD to £452 every month, that's just stealing money frankly. I just called them to refuse the increase threatening to cancel the DD if they raised it. They agreed to and are keeping it the same. I'm also going to a little aside just in case as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom