[CurlyBen]

(Original post by zara55)
The coalition don't seem to be much more environment-minded than the previous Labour government (and they did a lot less than they claimed), despite initial enthusiasm and Cameron's Green Tour of the Arctic. They are doing some good things like pushing for more renewables, but this was radically undermined by breaking the promises to maintain feed-in-tariffs at their original level.

It'd be interesting to know what the effect of cutting FITs long term is. The short term effect seems to have been a massive fall in the cost of installing solar power (my parents are considering it and the quote now is less than half the quote under the old tariff) so the investment required and the period for return on investment are substantially reduced - making it more attractive.

[zara55]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
It'd be interesting to know what the effect of cutting FITs long term is. The short term effect seems to have been a massive fall in the cost of installing solar power (my parents are considering it and the quote now is less than half the quote under the old tariff) so the investment required and the period for return on investment are substantially reduced - making it more attractive.

Well, yes, because the economics of installing just got much worse, so fewer people want it.

I'm not actually that big on solar power as it stands, because the UK is too far north for it to be optimal (esp. north of the Humber-Trent line) but the technology of solar cells is improving so presumably it will become more and more viable over time.

Offshore wind for the UK is good but better still would be very large tidal barrages and wave power schemes. I thought it was sad that the Severn Barrage scheme got vetoed by this government, because although there undoubtedly would have been local environmental effects, the overall reduction in greenhouse gases and the increase in our energy security would have been very large.

[Curzon]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Plaid Cymru

No Plaid or SNP on the poll? The SNP is the biggest party in Scotland you know...

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by zara55)
Well, yes, because the economics of installing just got much worse, so fewer people want it.

I'm not actually that big on solar power as it stands, because the UK is too far north for it to be optimal (esp. north of the Humber-Trent line) but the technology of solar cells is improving so presumably it will become more and more viable over time.

Offshore wind for the UK is good but better still would be very large tidal barrages and wave power schemes. I thought it was sad that the Severn Barrage scheme got vetoed by this government, because although there undoubtedly would have been local environmental effects, the overall reduction in greenhouse gases and the increase in our energy security would have been very large.

The point I was going for is that the main losers from the drop in FITs would appear to be the installers/suppliers. Given how far installation prices have dropped it seems while the FITs were high the cost of installation was inflated so the installers got their share of the FIT. I admit it may not universally be the case, I haven't done a lot of research on the matter, but it seems the main effect of dropping the FIT is to make solar more affordable and cheaper for the government. It may not have been the intention but looks like a win-win situation to me.

Massively disagree with you on wind power, especially the horrifically expensive offshore farms, but that's for another topic. Nuclear's the way ahead (one of my pro-renewables friends came to that conclusion after studying a module on alternative energy - he was looking for a job in that sector originally but is now a nuclear engineer).

[zara55]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
The point I was going for is that the main losers from the drop in FITs would appear to be the installers/suppliers. Given how far installation prices have dropped it seems while the FITs were high the cost of installation was inflated so the installers got their share of the FIT. I admit it may not universally be the case, I haven't done a lot of research on the matter, but it seems the main effect of dropping the FIT is to make solar more affordable and cheaper for the government. It may not have been the intention but looks like a win-win situation to me.

Massively disagree with you on wind power, especially the horrifically expensive offshore farms, but that's for another topic. Nuclear's the way ahead (one of my pro-renewables friends came to that conclusion after studying a module on alternative energy - he was looking for a job in that sector originally but is now a nuclear engineer).

I guess there may be something in your first point, because supplier prices often escalate to meet a demand where that demand is at an artificially maintained price. However, as the basic driver is the long term cost/benefit, I would suggest that the temporary nature of artificial pricing is a marginal issue.

I have to disagree with you on nuclear, I would speculate that is not being taught about or communicated about in an objective or comprehensive way. The vast cost of decommissioning is for example often excluded from discussions as though it will somehow just be "taken care of". The newer generations of nuclear stations still have built into their pricing models that the taxpayer will somehow meet these costs.

There have also been numerous studies that show that nuclear power is not substantially better in CO2 emissions than other fuels because of the large CO2 output in processes like uranium mining and in the construction and decommission of the stations. I am not opposed to nuclear power on safety or radiation criteria, as those have both clearly been overstated, but on cost and CO2 grounds.

What would really it appears be worth having would be fusion power and many people have said there should be a new Marshall Plan for Fusion, which doesn't seem to be happening.

In the meantime even natural gas has a better CO2 profile than nuclear.

[Venomilys]

green party. I like the colour green and I eat my veggies cheaper veggies everyone! xoxo

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by zara55)
I guess there may be something in your first point, because supplier prices often escalate to meet a demand where that demand is at an artificially maintained price. However, as the basic driver is the long term cost/benefit, I would suggest that the temporary nature of artificial pricing is a marginal issue.

I have to disagree with you on nuclear, I would speculate that is not being taught about or communicated about in an objective or comprehensive way. The vast cost of decommissioning is for example often excluded from discussions as though it will somehow just be "taken care of". The newer generations of nuclear stations still have built into their pricing models that the taxpayer will somehow meet these costs.

There have also been numerous studies that show that nuclear power is not substantially better in CO2 emissions than other fuels because of the large CO2 output in processes like uranium mining and in the construction and decommission of the stations. I am not opposed to nuclear power on safety or radiation criteria, as those have both clearly been overstated, but on cost and CO2 grounds.

What would really it appears be worth having would be fusion power and many people have said there should be a new Marshall Plan for Fusion, which doesn't seem to be happening.

In the meantime even natural gas has a better CO2 profile than nuclear.

If you want to start a thread on this topic I'd quite happily counter this points (for example in one source I read recently nuclear power, including decomm costs, came out at less than half the cost of offshore windfarms per kwh) but I'm not trying to derail this thread. One point you may wish to think about though - what's the long term effect of removing all that energy from the wind/sea? 200 years ago no one thought releasing CO2 was a problem. It's already been shown that wind farms cause significant local warming!

My attitude is the climate will warm no matter how hard we try (it was always a matter of time, no matter what) so the emphasis should be on coping with that change rather than trying to prevent it.

[zara55]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
If you want to start a thread on this topic I'd quite happily counter this points (for example in one source I read recently nuclear power, including decomm costs, came out at less than half the cost of offshore windfarms per kwh) but I'm not trying to derail this thread. One point you may wish to think about though - what's the long term effect of removing all that energy from the wind/sea? 200 years ago no one thought releasing CO2 was a problem. It's already been shown that wind farms cause significant local warming!

My attitude is the climate will warm no matter how hard we try (it was always a matter of time, no matter what) so the emphasis should be on coping with that change rather than trying to prevent it.

New Scientist have been running some articles about things like the effect on wind of wind power and shown the effects to be insignificant.

I would like to see the article you mention on relative costs per kwh of nuclear-vs-other sources factoring in decomm. Most articles I've read on the subject including in the Economist and New Scientist described deeply flawed studies that simply did not factor in all the true costs of decomm.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Curzon)
No Plaid or SNP on the poll? The SNP is the biggest party in Scotland you know...

*Never made the poll*

[aeterno]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
"I never vote. The government always gets in."

What point are you trying to make here?

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by aeterno)
What point are you trying to make here?

I like the quote and your post reminded me of it.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by zara55)
New Scientist have been running some articles about things like the effect on wind of wind power and shown the effects to be insignificant.

I would like to see the article you mention on relative costs per kwh of nuclear-vs-other sources factoring in decomm. Most articles I've read on the subject including in the Economist and New Scientist described deeply flawed studies that simply did not factor in all the true costs of decomm.

40 years ago (so about 200 years after the Industrial Revolution and the rapid increase in CO2 emissions) the big worry was global cooling. Now it's global warming. The long term effects of wind power can't be known yet, there's just too many variables.

There's two estimates here (US DoE and UK) and another from the RAEng here showing nuclear about half the price of offshore wind. It'd be interesting to know if the wind estimates included the costs of a failed disc brake which could destroy several turbines at once, worst case scenario!

[zara55]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
40 years ago (so about 200 years after the Industrial Revolution and the rapid increase in CO2 emissions) the big worry was global cooling. Now it's global warming. The long term effects of wind power can't be known yet, there's just too many variables.

There's two estimates here (US DoE and UK) and another from the RAEng here showing nuclear about half the price of offshore wind. It'd be interesting to know if the wind estimates included the costs of a failed disc brake which could destroy several turbines at once, worst case scenario!

"Global cooling" was a panic about dislocation of the Atlantic Conveyor leading to ice age and also about the discovery of long-term deep cycles in post-ice age time - the latter is now regarded by most climate scientists as having been overwhelmed by human-made global warming - the former is still actually a threat to Northern Europe, since at the local level, climate change could have bizarre consequences. Note for example our weather patterns of the last few years which have hardly been normal.

Note in the RAeng report, the phrase "The capital cost estimate for nuclear plant includes an allowance for the costs of decommissioning." It's these estimates that need a close look. The New Scientist article I read recently showed that the nuclear industry has significantly underestimated this cost at every stage in its history. The cost of decommissioning UK nuclear power plants has been nearly 100 times the original estimates.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by zara55)
"Global cooling" was a panic about dislocation of the Atlantic Conveyor leading to ice age and also about the discovery of long-term deep cycles in post-ice age time - the latter is now regarded by most climate scientists as having been overwhelmed by human-made global warming - the former is still actually a threat to Northern Europe, since at the local level, climate change could have bizarre consequences. Note for example our weather patterns of the last few years which have hardly been normal.

You're missing the point. The environment is so complicated it's almost impossible to predict with a high level of certainty - the point in mentioning global cooling was to show how understanding and attitudes change. There's no way we can predict the long term consequences of wind farms with a high degree of certainty at this point.

Note in the RAeng report, the phrase "The capital cost estimate for nuclear plant includes an allowance for the costs of decommissioning." It's these estimates that need a close look. The New Scientist article I read recently showed that the nuclear industry has significantly underestimated this cost at every stage in its history. The cost of decommissioning UK nuclear power plants has been nearly 100 times the original estimates.

It's very difficult to refute an article you can't see so I won't try. Anyway, I'm not going to keep replying in this thread - feel free to start another and I'll more than happily debate this subject.

[Acerbic]

TUSC

[Curzon]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
*Never made the poll*

I know, I was quoting you because I was saying Plaid Cymru too

[Cannotbelieveit]

UKIP.

The three major parties should pretty much morph into one their policies are so similar.

[Fynch101]

These options have nothing to do with demographics.

[I found a penny!]

I'd choose 'None'. Not even 'None of the above', just 'None'

[goape]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
UKIP.

The three major parties should pretty much morph into one their policies are so similar.

median voter, innit