Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UK is the only G7 country to be increasing state subsidies to fossil fuel watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonny360)
    It is an excuse to be a part of the problem when we are spending BILLIONS on renewables when our contribution to the atmosphere is next to zero.

    Renewables are extremely expensive compared to fossile fuels. If we switch to them THAT is what'll put so many in fuel poverty.
    Various renewables are becoming more efficient all the time, bringing costs down for things like wind and solar. In the long term, fossil fuel prices are only going to go one way and that's up. Spending money on encouraging renewables is a much more sensible thing to do that continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

    Our contribution is around 2%. Bear in mind we are part of the EU at the moment (which is where some of our renewables policy originates from), and the EU as a whole will account for considerably more than 2%. China and the USA are also spending money on renewables, even if China in particular has been a bit slow.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The UK is the only G7 country to be increasing state subsidies to fossil fuel companies.
    The same fossil fuel companies that have provided us with hundreds of billions of pounds worth of tax revenue over the past few decades?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree. The UK should invest more in green technology and subsidise people's own energy needs rather than subsidising energy companies.

    Green technology is what this country needs to reduce harm on the environment, lower fuel costs and become less dependent on energy imports.

    (Original post by Jonny360)
    Good, we have enough people in fuel poverty without increasing the costs of energy by wasting money on expensive renewables when our CO2 contributions means jack **** compared to the USA and China.
    Which is why we have the European Union.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Various renewables are becoming more efficient all the time, bringing costs down for things like wind and solar. In the long term, fossil fuel prices are only going to go one way and that's up. Spending money on encouraging renewables is a much more sensible thing to do that continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

    Our contribution is around 2%. Bear in mind we are part of the EU at the moment (which is where some of our renewables policy originates from), and the EU as a whole will account for considerably more than 2%. China and the USA are also spending money on renewables, even if China in particular has been a bit slow.
    Then we switch to renewables when they are economically sustainable. But not before
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    Shameless Marxist fools spending hard earned taxpayers money on madness!

    Bring down the government!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonny360)
    Then we switch to renewables when they are economically sustainable. But not before
    The more money we put into renewables and into research, the quicker that will be. Stop funding to renewables and it will take longer for them to become more economically sustainable. Kind of the whole point of grants and subsides really, to encourage and speed up that process.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    http://www.odi.org/publications/1005...roken-promises

    The UK is the only G7 country to be increasing state subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

    Not only that but we are full of "neoliberal when they want to be" cry babies that cut funding for green energy.

    The computer you are using now is would not be here if the American state had not propped up Bell Laboratories which developed the transistor.

    We are lead by incompetent idiots that are fine with stifling technological innovation for the sake of economic dogma, which they ignore when it comes to nuclear and oil energy sources.
    In which ways does the British state subsidise fossil fuel companies?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The more money we put into renewables and into research, the quicker that will be. Stop funding to renewables and it will take longer for them to become more economically sustainable. Kind of the whole point of grants and subsides really, to encourage and speed up that process.
    And doing that at a time when there is a huge amount of government debt and economic hardships, when many people are struggling? What a good idea...

    Leave it a decade, or let other countries research it if they wish. 10 years isn't going to make a difference. In fact, nothing the UK does will make a difference.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The UK is the only G7 country to be increasing state subsidies to fossil fuel companies.
    By subsidies, do you mean tax cuts? The government isn't giving money to the energy companies, they're just cutting taxes by a small amount. A decrease in taxes much smaller than the recent hike in taxes over the past decade. The energy companies will still be paying more after these cuts, than 5 or so years ago.
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The more money we put into renewables and into research, the quicker that will be. Stop funding to renewables and it will take longer for them to become more economically sustainable. Kind of the whole point of grants and subsides really, to encourage and speed up that process.
    Read what I've said above. The government aren't subsidising fossil fuels. They are instead mindlessly subsidising green energy. The government will pay around 30% more for solar energy than it's market value. That has little effect on the development of solar panels. What we need to be doing is investing in solar panels and more importantly, battery technology, through grants and universities.




    And have any of you wondered why they are cutting taxes for the energy companies? The national grid is being crippled by green energy (solar and wind) because, although it can supply the base load, it cannot match the peak load. People take the national grid for granted. If you need energy, it's always there, without fail, 99.99% of the time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Various renewables are becoming more efficient all the time, bringing costs down for things like wind and solar. In the long term, fossil fuel prices are only going to go one way and that's up. Spending money on encouraging renewables is a much more sensible thing to do that continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

    Our contribution is around 2%. Bear in mind we are part of the EU at the moment (which is where some of our renewables policy originates from), and the EU as a whole will account for considerably more than 2%. China and the USA are also spending money on renewables, even if China in particular has been a bit slow.
    It's just a pity that renewables are still unreliable.

    If you want a minimum carbon power generation programme then feel free to invest in renewables but nuclear and gas are still needed to meet base line power generation and peak energy demand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Check your figure on that. 24% would mean that wind farms are producing more than they can as they only ever average 15%.

    When we're talking about energy supply it's helpful to understand about base load and peak load.

    You can never flick a switch and turn on a wind farm.
    Not all windfarms are metered (goodness knows why, when you're trying to promote an energy source you don't forget to show its maximum potential)

    So whatever figure you see, add 50% to it and you approach the true wind generated capacity.

    That extra 50% of the metered 100% is 'unseen energy' as it artificially lowers total demand. whether or not that skews the propotion provided by wind of total actual demand, I don't know.

    Yeah, you will need a stable base load, which in the UK consists of coal, closed cycle gas turbine and nuclear. Nuclear always runs at 100%, so that's fine. The good part is, for every MWh generated by wind, you don't need to burn that in coal, saving Co2 from entry to the atmosphere.

    You can also use your spare wind capacity to pump water to refil reservoirs at night.

    England is one of the best places in the world for wind power, so we shouden't ignore it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 15, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.