Poll: General election voting poll round 3

[PlacidCasual]

The capital cost per kW of onshore wind compared to coal on a simplistic like for like basis is less but when practically achieveable load factor is taken into account it closes right down. When you account for the back up generation required for when the wind doesn't blow it's more expensive.
On a £/MWh to £/MWh comparison coal is much cheaper because it doesn't require huge subsidies in the form of ROC's. With FGD, Low Nox burners and SnCR for sulphur and Nox abatement respetively the pollution from coal is quite tolerable.

Oh and it makes electricity when you want it not when chance prevails.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Coal is not more expensive than most renewable sources, even with carbon capture. Also, coal is reliable, unlike the wind and sun.

Germany still mines and burns lignite(brown coal) which is messier than UK coal because it gives jobs to Germans. The UK is ideologically opposed to coal because coal means miners and unions. So we would rather build massively expensive nukes via EDF with negotiated electricity rates that are eye wateringly expensive(for the consumer) for the next 35 years. Not sure who is responsible for the clean-up afterwards although I suspect the we will get stuffed with it. Last I heard the nuclear depository was £120Bn - although they have not even got around to picking the site yet. Delays and the usual objections, appeals, environmental assessments, appeals, reviews, appeals etc, etc, etc.

 

[Trifid]

Is the UK building any massive wind farms (see first point)

Does the worlds biggest offshore wind farm count as massive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Array and would have been even bigger without protest from bird lovers...

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Germany still mines and burns lignite(brown coal) which is messier than UK coal because it gives jobs to Germans. The UK is ideologically opposed to coal because coal means miners and unions. So we would rather build massively expensive nukes via EDF with negotiated electricity rates that are eye wateringly expensive(for the consumer) for the next 35 years. Not sure who is responsible for the clean-up afterwards although I suspect the we will get stuffed with it. Last I heard the nuclear depository was £120Bn - although they have not even got around to picking the site yet. Delays and the usual objections, appeals, environmental assessments, appeals, reviews, appeals etc, etc, etc.

I don't think its ideological at all. Thatchers moves against domestic mining was far more to do with free-market economics than a swipe at the Unions. That isn't to say that crushing the Unions wasn't a happy corollary of the issue of course,

 

[Cooper]

I don't think its ideological at all. Thatchers moves against domestic mining was far more to do with free-market economics than a swipe at the Unions.

It was very much to do with crushing the unions, right up until the 1980's the UK was dependant on coal for power, Tory governments had been toppled by miners strikes, Thatcher had instructed the coal board to stockpile coal for at least 2yrs before she made her move against Scargill, hence the fact that the lights never went out during the strikes.

Finishing off the miners union cleared the way for all the union legislation in place today as regards ballots before strikes etc..

 

[D.P.]

Coal is not more expensive than most renewable sources, even with carbon capture. Also, coal is reliable, unlike the wind and sun.

Rubbish.

Clean coal with carbon storage has a total system leveling cost of 147.4.Geothermal is 47, wind is 80, Hydro is 84, Solar PV is 130 and rapidly dropping.

Clean coal is extremely expensive.


Renewable energy is also extremely reliable when widely installed.

 

[Mr Jack]

Coal is not more expensive than most renewable sources, even with carbon capture. Also, coal is reliable, unlike the wind and sun.

Coal is only cheaper if you ignore the wider environmental costs of using coal.

 

[D.P.]

Does the worlds biggest offshore wind farm count as massive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Array and would have been even bigger without protest from bird lovers...

The world's biggest, but I certainly wouldn't call it massive. And it only the worlds largest offshore.


Britain is a long way behind renewable energy production compared to our neighbors, we need to build many more wind farms and also soon some Solar PV farms along the south coast.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

Surprised at the number of Conservative voters in here.

I'm angling towards them atm but purely because me and the mrs both work and they have pledged 30 hours free childcare.

 

[D.P.]

The capital cost per kW of onshore wind compared to coal on a simplistic like for like basis is less but when practically achieveable load factor is taken into account it closes right down. When you account for the back up generation required for when the wind doesn't blow it's more expensive.
On a £/MWh to £/MWh comparison coal is much cheaper because it doesn't require huge subsidies in the form of ROC's. With FGD, Low Nox burners and SnCR for sulphur and Nox abatement respetively the pollution from coal is quite tolerable.

Oh and it makes electricity when you want it not when chance prevails.

And as soon as you want try to make coal as clean as wind then the cost per unit is 75% more than onshore wind.


So yeah, if you don;t give a damn about the environment, public health and the world our children will grow up then sure, conventional coal is a little cheaper than wind at current prices.

 

[eatcustard]

Build more Nuke powered stations, job done.

 

[Mr Jack]

Thinking about your rubbish link a bit more something occurred to me, according to your source:

http://thesovereigninvestor.com/economic-collapse-2/raise-minimum-wage-raise-cost-living/

The $10.10 that Mr. Obama and the labor sycophants in the Democratic Party are proposing – a 39% jump from current levels – would be the second-largest minimum-wage increase in U.S. history. And it would come more than five years after the last wage hike. Over the last 76 years of minimum-wage increases, parameters of that sort have led to inflation that runs at a hotter pace one and two years out than it ran the year before the wage hike took effect.

...

I’ve come to the conclusion that if the minimum-wage in America shoots up to $10.10 an hour, we will see reported inflation of 2.7% to 3.2% 12 months later … and within 24 months inflation will approach 4.5%.

Again, that’s average. I could make a case that by year two we’ll see an inflation rate north of 6%, possibly as high as 7.5%.​

Inflation in the US is currently -0.1%, so he's talking about at absolute most a rise of 7.6% resulting from a 39% increase. Or, to put it other words, this increase in minimum wage would result in "only" a one third rise in the income of those on the minimum wage! So even if we accepted the unsupported word of your source over actual peer reviewed economic research it'd still be the case that the proposed rise gives people a third more real income!

 

[scorza]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sed-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals

Our friend Michael Green Grant Schapps possibly up to general dishonesty again

 

[Trifid]

The world's biggest, but I certainly wouldn't call it massive. And it only the worlds largest offshore.

I agree... Unfortunately onshore is blocked by NIMBY's, which is a shame as I really like a country view that is scattered by wind turbnes.

 

[arknor]

got my ballots for postal vote.
voted and sent away

went with labour for local council and parliament seat

probably the only party that really gives a damn about the north

 

[D.P.]

Thinking about your rubbish link a bit more something occurred to me, according to your source:

The $10.10 that Mr. Obama and the labor sycophants in the Democratic Party are proposing – a 39% jump from current levels – would be the second-largest minimum-wage increase in U.S. history. And it would come more than five years after the last wage hike. Over the last 76 years of minimum-wage increases, parameters of that sort have led to inflation that runs at a hotter pace one and two years out than it ran the year before the wage hike took effect.

...

I’ve come to the conclusion that if the minimum-wage in America shoots up to $10.10 an hour, we will see reported inflation of 2.7% to 3.2% 12 months later … and within 24 months inflation will approach 4.5%.

Again, that’s average. I could make a case that by year two we’ll see an inflation rate north of 6%, possibly as high as 7.5%.​

Inflation in the US is currently -0.1%, so he's talking about at absolute most a rise of 7.6% resulting from a 39% increase. Or, to put it other words, this increase in minimum wage would result in "only" a one third rise in the income of those on the minimum wage! So even if we accepted the unsupported word of your source over actual peer reviewed economic research it'd still be the case that the proposed rise gives people a third more real income!

The US is actually a great example show how min wage does not have a strong effect on inflation or employment.

The Federal min wage is around $7 an but many progressive states have state min wages at $910, and some cities have local minimum wages above $11 an hour. There is no evidence at all that the minimum wage is having a negative effect in any of these states.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Sorry to anyone with an unfinished conversation but the next thread is available here so please continue any discussion there. If I'm a bit more on the ball to close down that one after the seven days there should be time for this plus one more thread before the Election itself.