asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 But the government demand reduction strategy is to force prices higher through "green" taxes. If they were really interested in capping prices they would remove the taxes and stop subsidising windmills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 That's why I suggested that Parliament and the Political Class weren't fit for purpose Asp; they don't live in the same world as the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 And thats also why any dreams you may have of nationalising anything are just that - dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Asp The Czechs and the Germans subsidise their coal industry always have done, the UK government under a certain Prime Minister wanted ours to operate under a free market and they shut, to reopen the ones we could would be very expensive, so we won't be doing that, as that would cost us even more, we have to live with what we have now, Nuclear is the only way forward but I would prefer our nuclear power stations to be owned by the UK. Also the energy companies consider 5% profit margins acceptable, so we could easily knock 5% off our bill straight away! their is something fundamentally wrong when the Chinese who are not our greatest friends can own are power generation. For us to continue with coal we would have to import it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Of course Asp, it would be "dreaming", to believe that the current main political parties would develop policies that conform to majority public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 I blame Maggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Lt Kije the point I was making was not about the Poles and the Czechs having coal mines but rather that they have decided to ignore the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (as have the Germans) and use the coal for electic generation, whereas we are rolling over as usual and closing our coal fired plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 As someone who used to be sent out for 'a penny for the gas'; and remember all peoples problems could be solved by putting your head in a gas oven, I think you are all making a great fuss over something which perhaps cannot be fully brought under control. If things were as black and white as is being made out, surely OFGEm and/or this and the last government would have done something about it. The demand for power is growing world-wide and the problem will only get worse until we have more power stations, which many governments have flunked. Having got that off my chest, we seem to be spending too much on 'green' projects. Could our hot air not help? Happy days 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Hasn't George Osborne been in China this week ,with Boris, to drum up Chinese investment & expertise to build Nuclear power stations in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 The Czecks inherited most of their power stations from the old soviet regime, and Germany has nuclear power stations, both Country's subsidise their coal industry we do not, our coal would be more expensive, or are you suggesting we should subsidise our coal production, or our power stations, as this thread is about power costs using Countries that subsidise their power production was not a good idea, a better example for us would have been the USA, as they operate a free market Our coal plants are shutting as many have reached the end of their natural life, and would be to expensive to update, you could build newer cleaner coal fired power stations, but to put it simply governments over the last 30 years have not been building new power stations, and latterly as gas was cheap they built a lot of gas fired power stations, which are smaller than our coal fired power stations and cheaper, but as gas has gone up in price, gas powered power stations aren't looking as good, and we no longer trust Russia in providing the gas it looks even worse. We could build new coal fired power stations, but to say it's the EU shutting our power stations is wrong, take a look at the age of most of our coal fired power stations, they are reaching the end of their natural lives most have been running over what they were designed to do. We should have been building power stations years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 I think you are suggesting we subsidise our coal fired stations Lt Kije. After all thats what nationalisation is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Just putting a bit if fact on your fiction Asp, are coal fired power stations are shutting because they are old and becoming uneconomic, and not because of the EU, and it was you that mentioned the subsidised coal fields in Germany . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 I didn't mention subsidised coal fields in Germany, stop making things up. Our coal fired stations may well be closing because they are old and economic, but the energy companies aren't going to build new ones while the government is set on faithfully obeying the EU directives, something other member states are choosing not to do. Germany decided to shut their nuclear stations and go back to coal. Poland and the Czech republic, probably mindful of their recent release from totaltarian control, have decided to do what is in their own interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Listening to a radio prog last night whilst driving to Bristol, the chaps were putting some figures to these Chinky power stations and what costs are likely to be... Currently, the energy companies are charged about £55.00 per megawatt for their electricity..... In order for the Chinese to make a good return on their kind offer to fund the building of nice shiny new nuclear power stations, they would look to charge something in the region of £70-£80 a megawatt... which will up prices to the consumer by a good few hundred quid a year so they reckon By Comparison; one megawatt of power generated by windmills costs in excess of £125 a megawatt Do the maths and you will see that green energy is a pile of crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 When the wind is blowing at the right speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 Green is indeed the new gold for these energy companies ,especially when harnessing nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 More reasons to nationalise energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 What I cannot understand is the keenness to put up wind-farms. After all it is just a wind powered generator that turns rotational energy into electrical energy via a generator. not overly efficient and can only operate within a narrow band when the wind is right, not too strong and not too weak. Given the number of rivers and streams in this country surely the same generators attached to water wheels would produce more electricity having the advantage of being able to produce it twenty four hours a day seven days a week except on the rare occasions that we have a drought. couple that with the fact that they would be easier to maintain as you would not need to climb huge towers to get at any user serviceable parts and you could have them a lot closer together and they would be less unsightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 Agree Sid; there are a multitude of "green" energy options without these propellers, which, if taken together, could make a difference. Problem is, the powers that be aren't doing it and the NIMBY's hold everything up in any case. We are awash with water and waste, all of which can be converted into energy production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 Water generation needs fast flowing streams and rivers, the Frensh do have one tidel system in operation, but it does not produce the power that was expected, more work needs doing, it also had the effect of polluting the river mouth. Easy for Obs to come out with these ideas many have been tried already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 We've got "fast flowing" water sources, plus tidal bores, plus wave power, plus fracked gas, plus bio-mass and incineration from waste etc etc. Just a matter of getting on with it before the lights go out !Mind you, if they leave it until 13th April 2036, they may not need to bother at all ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 Hydro is actually not that good, no where round here you can have it, and the technology is not there to properlly harness tidal as the French have found out, a bit like wind really, the government went with wind as it's cheaper. Why don't you google some of these alternatives you have mentioned just to see how far the technology is actually in place to do it in the levels we need, I think you will be disappointed. In the short and medium term it has to be Nuclear. I just wish it was British owned nuclear. Ps by hydro I mean river hydro not hydro from dams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 Like Obs mentioned earlier ,there must be plenty of scope for waste of all kinds to be burned to produce power & that would stop the objections to landfill as well. Otherwise it has to be coal or nuclear because the other green alternatives are not viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 There are various trials of tidal generators underway around the coast but so far none of them have proved to be practical or economically viable, even with the massive subsidies available for so called renewable energy. The Russians are building floating nuclear power stations which would get around a lot of the NIMBY objections, although the Lib Dims would no doubt object to them on principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2013 Report Share Posted October 19, 2013 What Asp said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.