Bishop Hill How immoral?
Oct 20, 2011 Economics Energy: solar Energy: wind The government is apparently going to consider cuts in subsidies to solar panel installations. Apparently wind power is going to be targeted too.
Intense discussions are taking place about precisely how far to cut the small-scale solar “feed-in tariff” (FiT) which pays households and companies for energy produced.
Some officials in the Department of Energy and Climate Change are calling for a reduction in the subsidy by three-quarters, according to industry sources.
That would mean a fall from the current level of up to 43p per kilowatt hour generated, to as little as 9p per kWh – a move which the industry claims would be devastating. If the government follows past precedent, any change would not affect homeowners with existing solar panels.
So the lucky few wealthy people will continue to be subsidised by the poor. It's just a matter of how much immorality the government decides to retain in the system.
Reader Comments (67)
Scots Renewables: I stipulate to your observations but they don't speak to my suggestion which is an entirely different effect. If you throttle the flow of water from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, you will increase the period during which the higher mass is at a greater radius from the center of rotation of the earth,. thus slowing down the rotation through centripetal action.
A better argument against my theory might be that the increase in time during which this mass is at a higher elevation will be accompanied by a higher load over a longer period wherever the water is backed up and perhaps deflect the underlying geological strata enough to reduce, or distribute the change.
It's funny, but I thought this was much more obvious than the effects you speak of.
Scots Renewables
I'm a confirmed warmista. Read my other comments. Eg Discussion thread.
You think seafloor turbine arrays are going to work reliably - you're in la-la land. I'm not a luddite and you are not an engineer.
You either haven't read MacKay's analysis or did not understand it. 9 kWh/d/person is what might potentially be realisable. This is the only figure that matters. And the cost/benefit ratio is so poor that it automatically wipes this strategy off the blackboard.
I repeat: if you care about emissions abatement/consequences of doing it too slowly, you will abandon this dangerous nonsense and back nuclear. Unless of course you are an energy fantasist, in which case you will witter on about renewables while the ppmv keeps on rising.
Wake up, matey.
SR
What you are endorsing makes the NS play look like a child's construction set. Furthermore, most of what matters in a rig is above the waterline. Not just a false analogy, but a deliberately misleading one.
Let me make something clear to you: we don't have time for energy fantasists. What you are proposing will cost too much, take too long to develop and implement, and will not perform as claimed. Not only will the output fall short of the projections (goes for all renewables btw), but the maintenance nightmare will just grow and grow.
Meanwhile, ppmv rises. By promoting the fantasy of grid-scale renewables-based generation you are ensuring a high-emissions outcome. Nuclear will deliver capacity, 90% load factor 24/7/365, easy grid integration, scalability, and very low net emissions (and yes, I include the mining of uranium etc.)
There is no other feasible way of displacing coal, at speed from electricity generation. And that is all that matters. Renewables boosterism is dangerous and wrong. You are part of the problem you claim to be trying to solve.
You are an energy fantasist. Grow up, stop prattling ill-considered nonsense, and start thinking like an adult faced with adult-scale problems.
Listen 'matey'
If you think Scotland is going to build new nuclear power stations any time in the next twenty years it is you who is in lala land. It is not going to happen - although the recently expressed willingness to extend the life of Torness if necessary is probably a good thing.
As far as I am concerned it is pointless to argue over whether or not nuclear energy will save us. Worldwide the nuke building programme has pretty much ground to a halt. New safety concerns mean that there is no way they are going to be self-insuring and 'free market' governments have said they are no longer willing to subsidise them. These are the economic and political facts irrespective of any objective risk or cost/benefit assessment. Thre may be a couple started in the UK in the next three years, but 2 GW is a drop in the ocean and tidal could easily be producing more before they are even completed. The Severn barrage if built would itself equal the output of 7 nukes.
If anyone is being an 'energy fantasist' and needing to grow up it is you with your nuclear magic wand. Anyone who has to resort to playground insults is frankly not worth debating with.
So, you survey the results of four decades of dishonest anti-nuclear propagandising, and conclude that all is lost.
Only if this anti-science fear-mongering is allowed to stand. And I very much doubt that it will be. The question is whether or not by then it will effectively be too late. Nice one, matey.
But it isn't going to get built, is it?
Only in your dreams.
The mere fact that you say things like this shows that
- you are anti-nuclear
- you don't know what you are talking about
You haven't even started to debate me. What about the little matter of 9 kWh/d/person? Address that.
Stop huffing.
According to the World Bank the UK per capita annual electricity consumption was 6062 kWh. This equates to 16.61kwh per person per day.
So 9kwh per day per person is over half of that. I would say that might be worth pursuing.
Again with the misleading numbers.
European per cap is 125 kWh/d total energy. 16 kWh/d/p is current average electricity usage.
The game plan is to move heating, automotive, cooking etc to electricity. Baseload will rise, efficiencies notwithstanding.
You advocate spending untold billions on the possibility of realising 9 kWh/d/person in tandem with a large increase in baseload demand.
We don't have billions to risk on backing a totally unproven (non-existent) technology. We don't have decades to get the R&D right.
We don't have time to indulge the dreamers. We need to meet a p/c demand well above 16 kWh/d or the economy will collapse.
What you propose is too risky to merit consideration by energy planners. And you know it. Pushing this stuff is so dangerous it is immoral.
@BBD
I'm sure you'll not be amazed to learn that I don't share your concerns about the evils of "carbon". But at least almost all of your comments are worth reading and they are often informative.
There is even less chance of anyone being able to generate 7.5GW from Scottish tidal any time in my lifetime as I have of fixing up a steamy session with Scarlett Johannson.
As you say, Scottish Ruinables is not just a fantasist but a dangerous and immoral fantasist.
As far as trolls go, he is fractionally less irritating but possibly even more incompetent than Zed's Dead Head.
Just in case this little spat is confusing others, some background. This will also serve to explain why I accuse SR of using misleading numbers (a serious matter).
Per capita UK energy consumption is roughly 125 kWh/d (after MacKay).
This breaks down as:
- 18 kWh/d electricity
- 40 kWh/d heating
- 40 kWh/d transport
- 27 kWh/d lost in conversion to electricity
It is, or should be, obvious, that if heating and transport are substantially electrified, then current per cap of 18 kWh/d is going to rise dramatically.
From MacKay (link as above; emphasis added):
This requires a foundation of reliable baseload capacity based on tested, scalable technology that we can begin to build now. This technology exists. It is called 'nuclear'.
SR and many, many others would prefer that we bet the health and wealth of the nation on wishful thinking and untested technology backed by stupendous sums of your money.
This is a heavy responsibility. You are a rational energy planner. What would you do?
Emissions reductions must begin immediately and scale rapidly. Failure is the fast track to 3C warming by the end of the century (agreement not required - it's just for the thought experiment).
You are a rational energy planner. What would you do?
'Dangerous' 'immoral' 'fantasist' 'obscene' 'incompetent' 'malicious' 'idiots'
Honestly, your debating skills are at the level of a playground bully. This is the only forum I frequent where anyone who disagrees with the house consensus is automatically deemed a troll and hounded off by the braying, salivating pack. You seem to be quite scared of anyone who poses an alternative viewpoint.
Frankly the level of 'debate' on here is pathetic - you must all be quite an embarrassment to the Bishop. If you want to gain any support for your viewpoint you need to engage with people, not shout them down with a torrent of nursery insults. I'll be back to prod you with a stick at some point in the future when I'm at a loose end, but for now you are boring the pants off me, and for that reason I'm out.
SR
I sound scared of you? Really?
You make me very angry. Not the same thing.
No, the reason you are running away is because you are wrong. I have shown where and how, and you have not been able to formulate a counter-argument.
So you whine and huff. If you want to play in blog comments, you need to up your game.
S R,
Here is a history of offshre oil rigs:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/about-us/history-of-offshore.html
that is much more credible than you.
Not the year, "1947" as the start of the offshore drilling industry.
As to the environmental destruction you beleivers inflict, you can dodge it, and you can deny it, but it is still what it is: massive and ugly as sin.
As to 'ilk', it is a great tell one is dealing with a loser when they resort to 'ilk'.
You 'eccentric' people, in your delusions think that somehow the ocean environment is something you can ignore or manage at some low cost.
You keep screwing over the people of the UK and you keep smug with your position. Things change and they can do so in a hurry.
Could you please keep a lid on it gentlemen.
Yes, your eminence.
Please forgive me.
I will do penance with 3 HM and an OF.
BH
Crozier-tap deserved. I lost my rag and missed an opportunity.
SR
I'll be more civil next time.
Scottish Ruinables.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have about as much intention of "debating" with those of your "ilk" as I have of sticking needles in my eyes.
But when real people in the real world are plunged ever deeper into fuel poverty by incompetent and venal politicians basing their policies on true believer fantasists like you, you may expect people to get annoyed.
Whatever you think of our "debating skills", we are pussycats on here. But the time will come when you look out of the window of your self righteous ivory tower and see the assembled peasants, pitchforks and blazing torches a-ready.
Scots renewables:
7.5GW of tidal in Scotland ≡ 75 Rance Barrages (96MW out, 240MW installed)
Where are you going to put them all?