Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B342 - Carbon Free Energy Bill

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    In addition, I'm concerned that the energy companies may use this as a reason to add significant amounts to already high fuel bills.
    Quite.

    Apologies here, I forgot to mention why such a market intervention was bad in my post above. It is because it pushes the cost of producing energy up hugely and thus will add a huge amount to energy bills which are already a significant cost.

    This either needs funding through government helping people out, or through accepting that government created fuel poverty is something to be proud of.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    The Bill has no sections, no short title and semantically is very poor - that's the delivery side of it.

    The content is that its based upon the fact that government knows best for the planning of power stations when the market is not one that fails here. The price of certain inputs (oil, coal and gas) will rise as the supply runs out. Companies that run power stations appreciate this, and will invest in the one that is cheapest (since the power they sell isn't differentiated whether produced by water or coal). As things run out, they become more expensive and so will stop being the cheapest. No problems there, no need for this intervention and what's needed it to stop the interventions we have currently. That deals with the energy side of things.

    On climate, it's far, far more effective to tax the pollution in terms of a carbon tax, both allowing you to reduce other taxes and to price in the pollution and still find the best solution with that priced into the market.
    This whole post is essentially libertarian dogma that is easily proven to be utter rubbish in the real world. May I remind you that it is the market that has failed to prevent power cuts in 2016 when a large amount of current power stations will be decommissioned, and it is the market that is failing to adequately develop renewables and other sustainable energy systems.

    I have yet to hear a single professional in the energy industry who would agree with much in that post, and being a member of the Energy Institute and having access to their magazine I have a reasonable idea of what they think.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    I actually quite like this, and certainly support the principle behind it. I'm still a bit wary about the scrapping of funding for carbon capture though,[ are you sure that enough research has been done on the technology to rule it out completely
    I explain why we must scrap funding for carbon capture in my reply to toronto.

    If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

    In addition, I'm concerned that the energy companies may use this as a reason to add significant amounts to already high fuel bills.
    Energy companies will charge more for fuel bills even when the prices of the fuel used to produce this energy goes down. There's an excellent piece on that in this month's Energy, and I'll post in in here if you'd like.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    B342 - Carbon Free Energy Bill, TSR Centre PartyEnergy is vital to us all. Imagine a world where you can't just flick a switch for light and for warmth. That is reality for many people in the world, and in the West we've taken this for granted for too long. So far we've relied almost solely on burning things to produce our energy but that isn't sustainable as coal, oil and gas are not infinite. This bill will recognise that our current means of obtaining energy are unsustainable and will thus revolutionise the way in which it is produced, which will also have a positive effect on climate change.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

    1) No new power stations using oil, natural gas or coal shall be constructed.

    2) Current oil, gas and coal plants shall be phased out and replaced with either renewables or nuclear plants.

    3) The timeframe for this is estimated to take between 30 and 50 years in order for a comfortable transition to occur.

    4) The government is to stop funding carbon capture schemes.
    1) okay, that sounds fair enough assuming you have a clear plan for what to do instead

    2) sure, then how and when and how much is this going to cost?

    3) 30 to 50 years? so a nice 20 year magin of error??? also that sounds pretty limp, I thought that the RL targets were like 2020 or something...

    4) um, I dont know what those are, so you might want to elaborate...
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I explain why we must scrap funding for carbon capture in my reply to toronto.

    If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
    Yes, but isn't it possible that the process could be improved by the very research that you're cutting?

    Energy companies will charge more for fuel bills even when the prices of the fuel used to produce this energy goes down. There's an excellent piece on that in this month's Energy, and I'll post in in here if you'd like.
    Yes, that would be interesting.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    This whole post is essentially libertarian dogma that is easily proven to be utter rubbish in the real world. May I remind you that it is the market that has failed to prevent power cuts in 2016 when a large amount of current power stations will be decommissioned, and it is the market that is failing to adequately develop renewables and other sustainable energy systems.

    I have yet to hear a single professional in the energy industry who would agree with much in that post, and being a member of the Energy Institute and having access to their magazine I have a reasonable idea of what they think.
    How's that time machine working - please do tell me more about those power cuts that the market most definitely has failed to prevent.

    The fact that plants are decommissioned with no replacement is because of the huge restrictions in place by government, what with its planning of power stations, restrictions on nuclear power plants and so forth. Energy companies have every incentive to produce power if they wish to make money, there are hurdles in the way, we shouldn't be putting more there.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    When the bill is *fixed* I could well vote yes.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What is the cost estimate?
    How will it all be paid for?
    How much of the budget per year will be put towards this?
    Who will undertake this task?

    Who will be in charge?

    These are all questions that perhaps should be answered.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    How's that time machine working - please do tell me more about those power cuts that the market most definitely has failed to prevent.
    If a pile of plants are set to be decommissioned and there are none currently being constructed to go on-line to take over, there'll be a drop in energy output. Which means blackouts. Remember, it takes years to build a new power station from scratch, so even if they were to have started yesterday, it's still too late.

    The fact that plants are decommissioned with no replacement is because of the huge restrictions in place by government, what with its planning of power stations, restrictions on nuclear power plants and so forth. Energy companies have every incentive to produce power if they wish to make money, there are hurdles in the way, we shouldn't be putting more there.
    If we remove restrictions now, we're prolonging the inevitable. The free market has woefully failed to invest adequately in new, sustainable energy technologies and if we are to prevent chaos in the future time when we quite literally have run out of oil and gas, then state intervention in a time when we can always fall back on fossil fuels, and will still be using fossil fuels for some time in the future, state intervention is a must. That is a view strongly held by most in the Energy Institute, if you're interested in a real world, non-academic perspective.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    When the bill is *fixed* I could well vote yes.
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    What is the cost estimate?
    How will it all be paid for?
    How much of the budget per year will be put towards this?
    Who will undertake this task?

    Who will be in charge?

    These are all questions that perhaps should be answered.
    These will all be answered in the next version, thanks for your feedback.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Although this is only the first reading, due to the feedback in the next reading I'll go a bit more in depth.
    Good, I'm clearly not the only one who thinks it does need to go into more depth.
    I'm pretty sure 2) says exactly how they will be replaced.
    It may well say they'll be replaces by renewable and nuclear plants, but you and I both know that the technology behind renewable energy isn't very efficient and to replace all the fossil fuel plants with nuclear ones is going to be extremely expensive.
    Changes all the time, so can't really say.

    Although I'd like to think that the cost of keeping people's lights and heaters on was worth paying regardless.
    Wouldn't be worth an estimate to say it may cost this much over this period.
    The bill doesn't say that they are being shut down. They are being phased out, and what that means is that they when they come to the end of their operational life cycle they won't be replaced. Well, they will be replaced, but by nuclear ones, if needed.
    They're being phased out but not shut down? A contradiction no?
    It'll experience blackouts in 2016. We're already too late.
    So lets stop any future fossil fuel plants in the future to bring those blackouts forward.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It is vague as others have pointed out but I very much agree with the principle etc...

    There's no reason in my mind, why we shouldn't be using more nuclear power.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    It may well say they'll be replaces by renewable and nuclear plants, but you and I both know that the technology behind renewable energy isn't very efficient
    I disagree. On a purely technical basis it doesn't matter how efficient they are because their fuel source is infinite. On a practical basis, regarding wind turbines, they could be made 90% efficient (as in, they'd convert 90% of the kinetic wind energy they receive into electrical energy) but that's not cost efficient (as in the price of the blade versus the price of the generator). Currently it's most cost effective to make them 30% efficient, but that might change in the future. And even if it doesn't, then it's only 1% less than the average efficiency of a coal power station. So I'd say they're plenty efficient.

    and to replace all the fossil fuel plants with nuclear ones is going to be extremely expensive.
    Nuclear power is expensive to construct but it's actually quite cheap to produce. It only requires a tiny amount of fuel in comparison to a coal or gas power station, which needs a constant stream of trains brining coal to it, or its own gas pipeline that can be hundreds of miles long. And this fuel also comes from friendly countries like Canada and Australia, whereas with gas we'd have to rely on Russia.

    Wouldn't be worth an estimate to say it may cost this much over this period.
    It'll be astronomical. I'll try to quantify it for the next version.

    They're being phased out but not shut down? A contradiction no?
    No, because when such plants come to their operational end, they won't be replaced with other coal plants. We'll be building nuclear ones to match the demand, and increasing the output of renewables too. I don't know the date for when the last currently operating fossil fuels plant is set to go off-line, but that'll be the date that we're still using fossil fuels until.

    So lets stop any future fossil fuel plants in the future to bring those blackouts forward.
    No, this certainly won't bring the blackouts of 2016 forward.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    It is vague as others have pointed out but I very much agree with the principle etc...

    There's no reason in my mind, why we shouldn't be using more nuclear power.
    Well nuclear power isn't sustainable either. Nor is it environmentally friendly. So it's not ideal. But modern societies have an insatiable demand for energy, so short of telling people to live in the dark and cold, we have to turn to the least worst option. And nuclear power is generated carbon freely, the volume of fuel and waste are extremely low, and there's enough fuel to last for a long time still. Essentially, it'll "buy us time".
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I will refrain from debate until there actually something to debate. What it wants to do is fine in theory, its just a matter of whether or not its actually possible, technically, and financially.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I like the principle. Please be aware for the next reading that there will be shortfalls in energy production which need to be addressed in the medium term though.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I do not believe that this bill is practical, and even more so considering the population of the UK is set to hit the 70m mark soon.
    Nice idea in theory, but just not practical..

    And to all saying its vague, it may be so..but at least he/she has come up with something :P
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    I will refrain from debate until there actually something to debate. What it wants to do is fine in theory, its just a matter of whether or not its actually possible, technically, and financially.
    It' definitely technically possible. Financially ... if our financial masters cannot make it possible then people will have to deal with blackouts or mass fuel poverty when we're still dependent on oil and gas for our energy in a time when reserves are close to running out.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    It' definitely technically possible. Financially ... if our financial masters cannot make it possible then people will have to deal with blackouts or mass fuel poverty when we're still dependent on oil and gas for our energy in a time when reserves are close to running out.
    How much money do you propose to commit to this project?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)


    If we remove restrictions now, we're prolonging the inevitable. The free market has woefully failed to invest adequately in new, sustainable energy technologies and if we are to prevent chaos in the future time when we quite literally have run out of oil and gas, then state intervention in a time when we can always fall back on fossil fuels, and will still be using fossil fuels for some time in the future, state intervention is a must. That is a view strongly held by most in the Energy Institute, if you're interested in a real world, non-academic perspective.
    You're effectively saying that because there has not been in your view enough investment in these fuels that you should instead use state coercion to get your way. Firstly, this seems abhorrent.

    We're saying that the reason there has been less investment in these fuels, and in renewable energy is because of state intervention. It is because of massive planning restrictions, regulations and huge taxes that firms find it difficult to invest in, for instance, nuclear power. You fail to realise that the market will ensure a natural transition away from fossil fuels - as they become increasingly scarce their price will rise, and alternative sources of energy will become more viable and firms will thus invest in them. If I run an energy firm, I will avoid any time when I will be unable to provide energy to my customers.
Updated: December 27, 2010
New on TSR
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.