UK CO2 Tax Catastrophe - Electricity To Nearly Double By 2030 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 08:39:05 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I warn you the below article is from the Telegraph, so those of you who feel that they should ignore facts from this source, probably should forego this particular article. Likewise, for those that demand that articles on Energy Policy, that they disagree with, be written by Electrical Engineers.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9575598/George-Osbornes-CO2-tax-will-double-UK-electricity-bills.html"Using the latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), our power plants burnt 40 million tonnes of coal in 2011, emitting 116 million tonnes of CO2. They also generated 175,000 gigawatt hours from gas, at just over half a tonne of CO2 per gigawatt. At £16 a tonne, this CO2 would cost £3.5 billion – on top of our total current wholesale electricity cost of some £19 billion. Thus the new impost would represent nearly 20 per cent added to our electricity bills next year, and would almost double them by 2030."--But, it is worth doubling the Electricity Bills of hard working people who pay taxes and who pay for all the people on the dole, whom the government will not permit to suffer by any of this, as long as we pretend we are reducing the carbon footprint, right?"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."Benjamin Franklin 1706 - 1790Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 09:00:50 am
content: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions?CMP=twt_gu

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 03:37:40 pm
content: Current capacity is around 8 GW, and it generated on average power for 6 hours a day. 25% utilisation, at best.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 03:43:11 pm
content: Inflation in this country is at ~2.7% per year. That means by 2030 (in 18 years time) the price will be 161% what it was, which could account for a significant portion of that doubling figure.Automatic nay-saying of anything related to climate change appears to be the Telegraph's policy. I especially don't trust Mr. Delingpole.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 07:28:40 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The article provided by Pop is worth reading, but I do note, that it apparently has no author, never a good sign. Also it cherry picks its data, using data only from the most favorable times, I.E. Jun 20 to Sep 20. We are left to speculate on what the figures would be for a year or multi-year, (since wind varies from year to year) assessment. It is as if I decided to base my analysis of World Food Prices on November to March of 1916. Instead of stating a direct cause and effect it notes a strong correlation, not quite the same. And, it says that exact figures can be derived from the data, but does not bother to do so. So it is an interesting article from the Pro Windmill side of things. Above all it does not refute the notion that the UK is building Gas Fired Backup for Wind, and, per usual it does not address the below quote which I repeat below."Using the latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), our power plants burnt 40 million tonnes of coal in 2011, emitting 116 million tonnes of CO2. They also generated 175,000 gigawatt hours from gas, at just over half a tonne of CO2 per gigawatt. At £16 a tonne, this CO2 would cost £3.5 billion – on top of our total current wholesale electricity cost of some £19 billion. Thus the new impost would represent nearly 20 per cent added to our electricity bills next year, and would almost double them by 2030."--Perhaps Pop would like to confront that one head on.--Now, Tom66 has opined that "Automatic nay-saying of anything related to climate change appears to be the Telegraph's policy." which also does not address the facts of the quote, which come from the DECC. Tom also says "I especially don't trust Mr. Delingpole." Which is fine, to each his own. But, of course, the article I cited is not by James Delingpole, it is rather by Christopher Booker. I provide below a link to an article that is actually written by JD.--The above quotation, using figures from the DECC, is not trying to slip inflation into the mix, in a dishonest way as Tom66 implies, it merely deals with the amount added by the "inpost" in percentages, and so whether you consider it in 2012 Pounds or Constant Pounds, makes no difference to the argument whatsoever. Stating that one does or does not trust this or that author or publication is all very fine, but where is the declaratory statement that the figures from the DECC are false?--Actual James Delingpole article.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100181851/wind-industry-big-lies-no-2-your-property-values-will-not-be-affected/"È finita la cuccagna!" Translation "No more free lunch"Fiorello La Guardia 1882 1921

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 07:33:27 pm
content: Simple: with wind energy providing an average of 20% (and there's no reason to doubt it, we have that working just fine here in Texas) that 20% is essentially "free" save for maintenance and repaying investment - which will be done well before 2030.All this handwaving about fluciating capacity ignores the fact that the grid is already designed to deal with rapidly and grossly fluctuating demand (same thing) as well as the fact that the engineering has largley been done and proven in other places. Or are we to believe the UK has such incompetent engineers? Well, perhaps they should import some from Germany or Texas.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 08:04:34 pm
content: Demand is predictable from both historical data ( people go to work and come home same time each day and use power roughly the same) so you can schedule the plants to be on line and delivering at the anticipated peak even if they take 4 hours to bring up to full power.Wind may be constant in some cases, but it does not always match demand. Currently by me it is near the evening peak, but there is no wind. Wind turbines are not efficient, even if the input energy that they convert is essentially free. Hydro is better, but the USA has for some reason been actively destroying hydro installations. The only way that you have Las Vegas is because of hydro power, which provides water and power to a desert town.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 08:07:56 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Now, Pop has said "Simple: with wind energy providing an average of 20% (and there's no reason to doubt it, we have that working just fine here in Texas) that 20% is essentially "free" save for maintenance and repaying investment - which will be done well before 2030.All this handwaving about fluciating capacity ignores the fact that the grid is already designed to deal with rapidly and grossly fluctuating demand (same thing) as well as the fact that the engineering has largley been done and proven in other places. Or are we to believe the UK has such incompetent engineers? Well, perhaps they should import some from Germany or Texas."--All very well and good, but I am unable to decern whether or not Pop thinks the DECC figures are true or false. Direct answers to direct questions, are not his cup of tea, apparently. Also I cannot quite figure out if he is saying that Electrictiy bills will be going down despite the "inpost" and the fact that the UK is building Gas Fired Wind Backup (which is a fact that has not been disputed), obviously the UK Engineers must know something Pop does not. Saying that something is essentially free, when is is subsidised by increasing the Electrity Bills of Rate Payers, is directly from the Free Lunch school of economics. Now, I do not know for sure whether the investment will be covered by 2030 or not (I doubt it), but I am willing to bet that if and when this occurs, Electricity Bills will not go down. True, many working people will be in the Power Poor House, and the CO2 savings may be marginal at best, look at the bright side, it allows the Government to confiscate more and more money, and grow fatter and fatter."Evabody gotta be some place."Jackie Mason 1936 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 08:13:51 pm
content: Many of the windmills in Texas have already paid for themselves (look it up).And no, I don't believe the engineers in the UK are so stupid they cannot design a power grid to work with wind and solar energy. Whether or not their energy will increase by whatever I have no idea as I am not living in the UK I live in America, and in America this stuff seems to be working just fine.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 08:47:27 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--At Pop's behest if found the following:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce--Just a few small pull quotes for your perusal:"Texas has 10,135 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, which is nearly three times as much as any other state. And yet, on Wednesday, all of the state’s wind turbines mustered just 880 megawatts of power when electricity was needed the most. Put another way, even though wind turbines account for about 10 percent of Texas’s 103,000 megawatts of summer electricity-generation capacity, wind energy was able to provide just 1.3 percent of the juice the state needed on Wednesday afternoon to keep the lights on and the air conditioners humming.None of this should be surprising. For years, ERCOT has counted just 8.7 percent of the state’s installed wind-generation capacity as “dependable capacity at peak.” What happened on Wednesday? Just 880 megawatts out of 10,135 megawatts of wind capacity — 8.68 percent — was actually moving electrons when consumers needed those electrons the most.""Galbraith reports that “the cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.” What will that mean for the state’s ratepayers? Higher electricity bills. Before the end of the year, the companies building the transmission lines are expected to begin applying for “rate recovery.” The result, writes Galbraith, will be charges that “could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years.” [And that is just this year, apparently the wires are extra]"Imagine what the state’s grid might look like if Texas, which produces about 30 percent of America’s gas, had spent its money on natural-gas-fired electricity instead of wind. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows that wind-generated electricity costs about 50 percent more than that produced by natural-gas-fired generators. Thus, not only would Texas consumers be saving money on their electric bills, the state government would be earning more royalties from gas produced and consumed in the state."Please pay particular attention to the Graph of data from the Electric Reliability Council Of Texas."Don't believe a word I say. Check! Do not trust the opinions of Scientists. Trust the data."Christopher Monckton 1952 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 09:19:57 pm
content: I found the graph to be a little misleading at first, as I knew wind power did not have GW capability. Noticed the scales are about a factor of 10 different.Regarding inflation I only mentioned this as I did not know whether or not the report accounted for it. If it did, the report would be misleading in my opinion. I merely provided a data point; calling what I said misleading is, well, misleading.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2012, 10:06:49 pm
content: There's your data from the EIA: in 2011 wind supplied nearly 50% of the energy as hydroelectric dams, a technology that dates to the 19th century. Oil, half of which must be imported, supplies over a third of our energy - a number that has to change if we are ever to remove ourselves from the tribal wars of the mideast. However, that the amount ofrenewableenergy used is now equal to the amount of energy supplied by oil we'reimporting, shows the potential of these technologies.Now, let's look at the potential for all that coal...Hmmm. Looks like Texas is just bursting at the seams with coal capacity. Might that be the reason for them NOT going forward with those coal plants? Seems a certain sgt neglected to mention this in some points attempted. Coal, and the transport of coal, accounts for a tremendous amount of waste in the atmosphere - a problem with which electrical lines would seem to share little, at least once one rises above the tips of those insulators.With an increasing demand for power those transmission lines are going to have to be built tosomewhereand Coal plants (which supply half the power in Texas and, according to that same EIA, has the highest energy cost IN THE WORLD even worse than China where labor is essentially free) need to be near a good supply of coal, a resource which seems to be rare as diamonds on the beach in Texas and which has left the mountaintops in Tennessee (where I once lived) and other states in the area permanently disfigured. Need I remind you that power lines, once installed, do not getconsumedwith their use? Maintenance is not consumption of anything but human resources - jobs - and largely resources which, again, unlike coal,arerecyclable.No matter what your feelings on windmills, you cannot sensibly argue that the above looks more acceptable than a wind farm. When I lived in Tennessee I would see mountaintops flattened by this process every night on the drive home from Knoxville. Natural gas does not share this problem - but again we are left with the fact that wealreadyare forced to import much of our natural gas. Fracking promises a wealth of new gas, butagainwe will one day be left with a shrinking supply of this resource and, onmce again, forced to develop new sources. This is not an all or nothing process - development needs to continue anallthese technologies... well, except perhaps for coal.If you want to look at conservative views, fine I'll play. Here's something I found on Bloomberg, one of the bibles of the businessman."The cost, including construction, to produce one megawatt hour of gas-fueled electricity was $62.37 an hour in the third quarter of 2011, which was less expensive than coal, wind and solar generators, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."That may be the truth according to Bloomberg, but according to that EIA source the sarge quoted, the cost of wind energy during that same period varied from roughlyone thirdthat price to a whopping $49. Who's lying here?With demand comes higher cost - not for wind, but for windmills. Surely you're familiar with the demand/price relationship of goods. Size of windmills has also increased, and there's evidence this is leading to HIGHER costs. So, perhaps the energy companies need to stop striving for ever larger turbines - although there is evidence the average performance is also increasing. Hmmm.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2012, 01:51:37 am
content: Dear EEVBees:--So, Pop has provided us with a picture of the worst looking strip mine that he could find, which to my mind does not look alot different from the surrounding territory, and and with time will look evem more like it. Pop is still not confronting the UK DECC facts, or the Texas ERCOT figures. He claims that "many windmills in Texas have paid for themselves (look it up)." Apparently this is a version of "I have spoken". Most people on this forum provide a link or a quotation, or something to indicate where they got their information. Aliens have landed (look it up), huh. That "some windmills ... have paid for themselves" seems to indicate that some have not. One wonders what the total picture would be. But we are left wondering as no information in support of this assertion, beyond "look it up" is provided. Also, please note that Texas Wind Power costs a premium of nearly 50% more than conventional power.--Pops answer to a quote that indicated Texans would be much better off with Gas Fired Plants, is to rail on about the Coal Fired Plants that they are beginning to replace, everywhere, go figure.--Keep in mind that none of this does very much to refute the notion that UK Electricity bills will nearly double by 2030, now does it.? Oh I know, how about some well illustrated articles about the effect of coal with respect to Camellia Sinensis futures on the Hangchow Index, that's the ticket."If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2012, 02:24:02 am
content: Also, please note that Texas Wind Power costs a premium of nearly 50% more than conventional power.I just gave numerous proofs that this is wrong. Who's that making assertions?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2012, 03:24:19 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Pop has said "I just gave numerous proofs that this is wrong. Who's that making assertions?"--I reread the entire thread. Pop has given no proofs, whatsoever that Wind Power does not show a nearly 50% premium in cost compared to Conventional (I should have said Gas), let alone numerous ones, unless you count the imperative "look it up". The nearly 50% premium on Wind Power, is not an assertion, but from the Federal Government via the Energy Information Administration (EIA). I post the link again and and the relavent quote.http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce"Imagine what the state’s grid might look like if Texas, which produces about 30 percent of America’s gas, had spent its money on natural-gas-fired electricity instead of wind. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows that wind-generated electricity costs about 50 percent more than that produced by natural-gas-fired generators. Thus, not only would Texas consumers be saving money on their electric bills, the state government would be earning more royalties from gas produced and consumed in the state."--Furthermore, let me point out that Gas Fired Plants can be built near populations centers, thus reducing the cost of transmission lines and, transmission loss. Something the Wind Power folks, never put in their equations.--Please see the below article, which make these point much better than I can.http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Texas-Wind-Power-Good-Money-After-Bad.html"The $800 per-household expenditure is merely the cost of building the transmission lines. Wind power is more expensive to produce than conventional power sources, so Texas consumers will also pay electricity premiums every year.Wind power can’t compete, so government rushed in to promote it. But government did not properly account for the fact that that the wind turbines will be built far away from where demand was. It’s like a nightmare version of Field of Dreams. Wind boosters built their turbines and counted on the fact that legislators would not let them be built in vain—sort of: If we build it, the wires will come – at other people’s expense.""There’s no question Texans would be paying less for energy and there would be more capacity if the state had spent the money instead on nuclear, coal-fired, or natural gas power plants. The main problem has been the federal subsidies. Without them we wouldn't be the leading generator of wind power. Also, without the federal subsidies no one would be building the transmission lines, because no one would be able to make a profit on wind power."--The entire argument would turn out quite differently if it could be said that Texas Electricity Bills have been going down since the attack of Windmills, but it cannot. Quite the reverse, they have been going up."I've found out so much about electricity that I've reached the point where I understand nothing and can explain nothing."Pieter van Musschenbroek 1692 -1761Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2012, 05:13:48 am
content: Wow, way to completely ignore the point. This will be my last post on this matter since it is obvious sgt is not interested in addressing the arguments made but only in repeating and parroting.Lines must be built. The power grid is twenty years behind. No, I'm not going to link to it, just ask the electric company or watch the frakking news. This is not a secret: the grid must be updated to meet new demands. So the lines are being built anyway.And if you think that pic of the strip mine is unusual then it is quite obvious you have not visited Appalachia in the last, oh I dunno, let's say three decades. "Topless mountains" are a very common site - along with muddy rivers, blood red creeks and valleys that are no longer valleys (all that extra dirt has to go somewhere - along with all the iron and other heavy metals dug up in the quest for coal... right into the groundwater supply).Those gas plants are only cheaper when they are the most inefficient and old technology, and even then they are onyl half the cost of wind, as illustrated by the data below taken directly from one of the sgts links.Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW)Conventional NGCC $978Advanced NGCC $1,003Advanced NGCC with CCS $2,060Conventional CT $974Advanced CT $665Fuel Cells $6,835NuclearNuclear $5,339RenewablesBiomass $3,860Geothermal $4,141MSW - Landfill Gas $8,232Conventional Hydropower $3,078Wind $2,438Land based wind is the cheapest renewable, even cheaper than a well mature, century old technology and cheaper than biomass - which, I will add, supplies more than 20% of Maine's power.Fracking is the only way to supply this cheaper gas. Once you remove fracking from the equation what happens? Fracking is a technology that, in it's current form, is barely more than a decade old. The risks of fracking are not completely known at this point in the game but many countries have banned the technology. I don't put myself in that camp - as I said, this is not an all or nothing venture (except to certain conservative like Bryce and, apparently, the sgt who's helmet, I believe, must be fitting a bit too tight). The technologies need to be allowed to mature -allof them.Sorry sarge, but one op-ed piece written by awingnutconservative, in a conservative rag, does not a proof make. All my data is easily traced simply by right clicking an image and following the url to the parent site. It comes from those same government agencies Bryce referenced, but doesn't pick and choose. Amazing what a little objectivity can do - somethingMr Bryce, who works for a right wingthink tankpropped up by Koch, conservative sponsors (the Olen Foundation alone gave Millions, probably as much as Koch) and the oil industry, is sadly lacking. My favorite line (so far, he seems to be a treasure trove of nonsense) is the line "even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it's not clear exactly what we should do about it."Hmmmm. I think even my 8 year old nephew (who flunked kindergarten, BTW) can answer that.Well, let's see.... it's bad, so we need more of it! Yeah that's the ticket! It's like Coca Cola and Reese's cups and cake!Even the antiscience Bush league was forced to admit the observations ofglobal warmingwere without refute, they simply chose to call it "climate change" and say gosh darnit, we really don't know what's causing it or how to slow it. But we do - and it starts with reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. I really don't evencareabout the climate change thing - what matters is that we're forced to import much of our energy, and that leaves us vulnerable. It's a national security issue which, for some baffling reason, a "sgt" even seems unwilling to address.