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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    There was a rather serious situation a few days back with a shortage of power to the national grid. That was because the wind wasn't blowing.

    What's you're take on subsidies to the only real contender for zero carbon energy generation, nuclear?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Shameless Marxist fools spending hard earned taxpayers money on madness!

    Bring down the government!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There was a rather serious situation a few days back with a shortage of power to the national grid. That was because the wind wasn't blowing.

    What's you're take on subsidies to the only real contender for zero carbon energy generation, nuclear?
    Shouldn't need to subsidize nuclear. As a source of energy it's about the cheapest there is (for mass generation) coming in at between 80 – 105 £/MWh. Compare that with offshore wind at 150 – 210 £/MWh and solar farms at 125 – 180 £/MWh and you can see what taxpayers money is really subsidizing.

    Plus of course, come rain, wind, or shine, nuclear works 24:7. As you remarked above, a week or two ago Britain nearly blacked out because the wind stopped blowing. What kind of an energy policy is that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Shouldn't need to subsidize nuclear. As a source of energy it's about the cheapest there is (for mass generation) coming in at between 80 – 105 £/MWh. Compare that with offshore wind at 150 – 210 £/MWh and solar farms at 125 – 180 £/MWh and you can see what taxpayers money is really subsidizing.

    Plus of course, come rain, wind, or shine, nuclear works 24:7. As you remarked above, a week or two ago Britain nearly blacked out because the wind stopped blowing. What kind of an energy policy is that?
    Nuclear needs a degree of subsidy due to the initial capital investment.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Given that I'm coming to the conclusion that nuclear is far too expensive and Germany has not yet hit a decent annual amount i'm entirely fine with going for cheap fossil fuels.

    The reality is that Thorium and mass renewable are still a decade away.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Nuclear needs a degree of subsidy due to the initial capital investment.
    Well, yes. Nukes are extremely expensive to build and are usually built with some combination of public and private investment to start with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, yes. Nukes are extremely expensive to build and are usually built with some combination of public and private investment to start with.
    If you get a chance, watch this docufilm. Well worth it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Given that I'm coming to the conclusion that nuclear is far too expensive and Germany has not yet hit a decent annual amount i'm entirely fine with going for cheap fossil fuels.

    The reality is that Thorium and mass renewable are still a decade away.
    Nuclear isn't expensive to operate. If delivers amongst the cheapest and most reliable energy sources around. The problem is the cost and time involved in building a nuclear plant.

    I worked building energy plants for Siemens for quite a few years. I've built gas and steam plants; simple cycle (1 gas turbine) and combined cycles (2 gas and 1 steam turbine). These are practically cookie cutter projects. Quick to throw up. Run on gas or oil - both of which are obviously cheap right now.

    I also worked in the wind industry and put up about 1000 turbines all over the US. Great when the wind blows or as peaker plants but I wouldn't base my energy policy on them as the UK seems hell bent on doing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Nuclear isn't expensive to operate. If delivers amongst the cheapest and most reliable energy sources around. The problem is the cost and time involved in building a nuclear plant.

    I worked building energy plants for Siemens for quite a few years. I've built gas and steam plants; simple cycle (1 gas turbine) and combined cycles (2 gas and 1 steam turbine). These are practically cookie cutter projects. Quick to throw up. Run on gas or oil - both of which are obviously cheap right now.

    I also worked in the wind industry and put up about 1000 turbines all over the US. Great when the wind blows or as peaker plants but I wouldn't base my energy policy on them as the UK seems hell bent on doing.
    The problems I have with nuclear are 3 fold..

    1) The cost of decommissioning is often forgotten

    2) The initial capital cost instantly reduces the level of competition that can occur. There's little point having the private sector do it if competition does not exist.

    3) The minimum price government has guaranteed is 3 times the current market rate. Even by 2050 (around the end of the new plants working life) I doubt that the market rate for energy will have increased by 300%.

    3)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The problems I have with nuclear are 3 fold..

    1) The cost of decommissioning is often forgotten

    2) The initial capital cost instantly reduces the level of competition that can occur. There's little point having the private sector do it if competition does not exist.

    3) The minimum price government has guaranteed is 3 times the current market rate. Even by 2050 (around the end of the new plants working life) I doubt that the market rate for energy will have increased by 300%.

    3)
    Agree with point 1.

    Point 2 - I'll give you an example; the Vogtle 3&4 project (the only nuke project running in the US) in Georgia is estimated to have a capital cost of $6.1 billion. That's a 2430MW plant so the capital costs are $2,510,000/MW

    Sounds a lot but I can tell you that Siemens sell their 2.3MW turbines (supply, install, and commission) for about $1.5 million a piece. That doesn't include the infrastructure for which you might add another $500k so you're at $2 million so about $869,000/MW

    So, on this basis nuclear is about 3 times as expensive as wind in terms of capital cost. Realistically though, mega projects in the billions of dollars often hit massive delays and cost impacts so this $6.1 billion could easily turn into $8.1 billion or even more!

    However, in terms operating costs, efficiency, and plant longevity, nuclear wins hands down. It's the difference between a Lada and Jaguar. The Lada is cheaper but in terms of performance you get what you pay for. Nuclear will work, rain, shine, 24:7. Wind will only generate when the wind is blowing.

    Not sure what you mean by saying the private sector won't get involved without competition. PFI (private finance initiatives) or similar are very common arrangements in mega projects of this nature.

    Point 3 - I don't understand what you're saying.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There was a rather serious situation a few days back with a shortage of power to the national grid. That was because the wind wasn't blowing.

    What's you're take on subsidies to the only real contender for zero carbon energy generation, nuclear?
    Indeed, but having said that, I checked earlier today and we were at ~24% generation from wind, the second largest source behind CC Gas Turbine at 29%.

    As I type this, early in the morning I admit, but wind is meeting 31% of demand, just above our nuclear output of 30.6%
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Indeed, but having said that, I checked earlier today and we were at ~24% generation from wind, the second largest source behind CC Gas Turbine at 29%.

    As I type this, early in the morning I admit, but wind is meeting 31% of demand, just above our nuclear output of 30.6%
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I see this "what about China/USA/whatever" argument all the time. Since when is that an excuse for us to be part of the problem rather than the solution?

    If other countries start abiding by that "logic" then there'll be absolutely no progress on renewables and CO2 emissions.

    And renewable energy isn't responsible for fuel poverty or rising prices. Green taxes for renewables are quite a small % of the overall bill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny, those on the right often go on about how we need to make huge cuts so we don't 'saddle the next generation' with debt...
    Yet they're perfectly willing to saddle the next generation by using up the remainder under of the fossil fuels, contributing hugely to destroying the planet and not putting any serious effort into moving towards renewable energies.

    So it's an outrage to saddle the next generation with debt but seemingly perfectly okay to saddle them with a planet being destroyed by global warming and depleted resources.

    Selective outrage. They do care about the next generation of course.... When it suits them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's funny, those on the right often go on about how we need to make huge cuts so we don't 'saddle the next generation' with debt...
    Yet they're perfectly willing to saddle the next generation by using up the remainder under of the fossil fuels, contributing hugely to destroying the planet and not putting any serious effort into moving towards renewable energies.

    So it's an outrage to saddle the next generation with debt but seemingly perfectly okay to saddle them with a planet being destroyed by global warming and depleted resources.

    Selective outrage. They do care about the next generation of course.... When it suits them.
    We are heading towards something of an energy crisis in this country. In the short term at least we need fossil fuels. This is thanks to consistent poor planning on behalf of every government for the past twenty years at least. Energy requires planning decades in advance and that simply has not happened, so we are stuck with relying on short term and dirty solutions. This is a failing of every stripe of government.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    We are heading towards something of an energy crisis in this country. In the short term at least we need fossil fuels. This is thanks to consistent poor planning on behalf of every government for the past twenty years at least. Energy requires planning decades in advance and that simply has not happened, so we are stuck with relying on short term and dirty solutions. This is a failing of every stripe of government.
    We should be looking at a long term shift to renewables, something every government has let us down on.

    My point is, that the excuse 'let's not saddle the next generation' is used very selectively when it suits the conservatives/ those on the right. If they really cared about future generations they'd be leading the case for a shift towards renewable energy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    +1 to the government! This part of the tories I love.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I see this "what about China/USA/whatever" argument all the time. Since when is that an excuse for us to be part of the problem rather than the solution?

    If other countries start abiding by that "logic" then there'll be absolutely no progress on renewables and CO2 emissions.

    And renewable energy isn't responsible for fuel poverty or rising prices. Green taxes for renewables are quite a small % of the overall bill.
    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.
 
 
 
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.