GB energy

Lost Seasider said:
Tidal doesn't exist at any meaningful scale anywhere on the planet, it's just a buzz-word for people who don't know what they're talking about.

Solar only works for about 6 months of the year, when demand is low anyway, and then only during daylight hours.

Wind can have weeks of very low output, often in the depths of winter, when we need the power the most.

Nobody has said that renewables can't add power to the grid, what they can't do is supply reliable, dispatchable power, which is what you need to run a modern economy, and which means we need 100% backup that can only be supplied by fossil fuels.

Which of course means that renewables become very expensive.

I suggest you challenge yourself to think more clearly.
Click to expand...
Tidal energy generation is in use around the world. The initial set-up costs are high, which is why many projects are concerned with reducing these costs to facilitate greater deployment for, what is accepted to be, a potentially significant source of energy generation. Ignoring its future worth because of the initial layout costs would be criminally neglectful.

It is widely accepted that in addition to being responsible for increasing CO2 levels, fossil fuels are depleting at a rapid rate. many studies suggest that they may be fully worked-out by the end of this century. It is not, therefore, a debate as to which is the more economical or effective fuel source. Rather it is important to accept that renewables will have to play a big part in the future of energy generation.

Finally, technological R&D is vital in this field. The development of massive energy capture and storage technologies will be a game changer for renewables. This is why investment in these industries is vital. An attitude that says the Earth is flat or that passenger rail is pointless because it requires a man to walk in front of the engine with a red flag would condemn us to a pitiful future.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Tidal energy generation is in use around the world. The initial set-up costs are high, which is why many projects are concerned with reducing these costs to facilitate greater deployment for, what is accepted to be, a potentially significant source of energy generation. Ignoring its future worth because of the initial layout costs would be criminally neglectful.
Click to expand...
The world's largest tidal power station is Sihwa Lake in South Korea, it has a 254 MW nameplate capacity, but produces 63 MW on average, this is not electricity generation on any meaningful scale.

Also note that tidal is geography limited, there's only one or two sites in the UK where it might be possible.


1966_and_all_that said:
It is widely accepted that in addition to being responsible for increasing CO2 levels, fossil fuels are depleting at a rapid rate. many studies suggest that they may be fully worked-out by the end of this century. It is not, therefore, a debate as to which is the more economical or effective fuel source. Rather it is important to accept that renewables will have to play a big part in the future of energy generation.
Click to expand...
Why not nuclear?


1966_and_all_that said:
Finally, technological R&D is vital in this field. The development of massive energy capture and storage technologies will be a game changer for renewables. This is why investment in these industries is vital. An attitude that says the Earth is flat or that passenger rail is pointless because it requires a man to walk in front of the engine with a red flag would condemn us to a pitiful future.
Click to expand...
Okay, but until these magic new technologies appear, can we stick with tried and tested technologies instead of rushing headlong into intermittent power sources that can only work if they're 100% backed up by gas?
 
Tidal is no good.

Grand, how much has been spent researching it?

Oh, very little because it would upset the fossil fuel industry. If we had spent a tiny fraction of the monies used to research carbon capture, or Nuclear, we would already be self sufficient.

The tidal flows at the north end of Scotland, between it and the Orkneys, contain massively more energy than the UK requires, is predictable, won't run out. I remember seeing a scheme in Brittany when I was a kid on an Estuary.

Like much of renewables, and nuclear, high initial capital and low running costs.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The world's largest tidal power station is Sihwa Lake in South Korea, it has a 254 MW nameplate capacity, but produces 63 MW on average, this is not electricity generation on any meaningful scale.

Also note that tidal is geography limited, there's only one or two sites in the UK where it might be possible.



Why not nuclear?



Okay, but until these magic new technologies appear, can we stick with tried and tested technologies instead of rushing headlong into intermittent power sources that can only work if they're 100% backed up by gas?
Click to expand...
Tidal need not be intermittent.

I think the description of your strategy is Luddite
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Tidal is no good.

Grand, how much has been spent researching it?

Oh, very little because it would upset the fossil fuel industry. If we had spent a tiny fraction of the monies used to research carbon capture, or Nuclear, we would already be self sufficient.

The tidal flows at the north end of Scotland, between it and the Orkneys, contain massively more energy than the UK requires, is predictable, won't run out. I remember seeing a scheme in Brittany when I was a kid on an Estuary.

Like much of renewables, and nuclear, high initial capital and low running costs.
Click to expand...
We have some of the largest tidal ranges in the world, ideal for developing tidal energy. We've been talking about it since I was a student though.

There was serious talk about a Morecambe Bay barrage, plus a Ribble Estuary one which would have included a causeway from St Annes to Southport. That was scuppered by the cargo going into Preston docks, which, of course, is no longer an issue.

Anyone who has seen the River Severn in full flow can appreciate the potential.

It would be good to at least take one experimental scheme through to production.
 
Wizaard said:
We have some of the largest tidal ranges in the world, ideal for developing tidal energy. We've been talking about it since I was a student though.

There was serious talk about a Morecambe Bay barrage, plus a Ribble Estuary one which would have included a causeway from St Annes to Southport. That was scuppered by the cargo going into Preston docks, which, of course, is no longer an issue.

Anyone who has seen the River Severn in full flow can appreciate the potential.

It would be good to at least take one experimental scheme through to production.
Click to expand...
To repeat, the largest project in the world generates 63 MW on average, that's 0.2% of the UK's average annual demand.

After 25 years of pushing for renewable of any sort, if there was a viable project out there, it would've been done.
 
Lost Seasider said:
To repeat, the largest project in the world generates 63 MW on average, that's 0.2% of the UK's average annual demand.

After 25 years of pushing for renewable of any sort, if there was a viable project out there, it would've been done.
Click to expand...
To also repeat, it's not THE solution, it's part of a suite of solutions that should be invested in for the long term.

Far better than your coal solution.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The world's largest tidal power station is Sihwa Lake in South Korea, it has a 254 MW nameplate capacity, but produces 63 MW on average, this is not electricity generation on any meaningful scale.

Also note that tidal is geography limited, there's only one or two sites in the UK where it might be possible.



Why not nuclear?



Okay, but until these magic new technologies appear, can we stick with tried and tested technologies instead of rushing headlong into intermittent power sources that can only work if they're 100% backed up by gas?
Click to expand...
I wasn't posting about nuclear. Yes, that should be in the mix too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Lost Seasider said:
Fossil fuel industry? Is that a joke?

We haven't started a new thermal plant for over 15 years now.
Click to expand...
Bizarre question.

You do know the energy companies sell oil and gas to power stations, don't you?

They'd hate to have that reduced, particularly in light of their massive profiteering following the Ukraine invasion, too much of a good thing

As for your other comment about viable, vested interests have ensured a lack of research funds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Wizaard said:
To also repeat, it's not THE solution, it's part of a suite of solutions that should be invested in for the long term.

Far better than your coal solution.
Click to expand...
It's not even part of a suite of solutions, it's part of a suite of virtue signalling non-solutions that cannot possibly work without 100% gas backup.

As to "my coal solution", can you point to any post where I said this is what we should do?
 
Lost Seasider said:
It's not even part of a suite of solutions, it's part of a suite of virtue signalling non-solutions that cannot possibly work without 100% gas backup.

As to "my coal solution", can you point to any post where I said this is what we should do?
Click to expand...
I'm probably thinking of those posts where you said coal could be imported if it wasn't for Virtue signalling or words to that effect.

Post 62 is an example
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Bizarre question.

You do know the energy companies sell oil and gas to power stations, don't you?

They'd hate to have that reduced, particularly in light of their massive profiteering following the Ukraine invasion, too much of a good thing

As for your other comment about viable, vested interests have ensured a lack of research funds.
Click to expand...
You just can't help yourself with the petty insults, can you?

Oil and gas are internationally traded commodities, the "energy companies" couldn't give a flying f*** about whether we buy them or not, we're not going to change the world price, and there are plenty of other customers if we're not interested in buying them.

As to your final paragraph, do you have any evidence for this? Can you explain why tidal alone cannot access research funds, whilst there seems to be an unlimited supply of such for wind/solar and any other "greentech" no matter how implausible the product?

I mean, we're investing £22bn in CCS, despite the fact that it comes close to violating the first law of thermodynamics, why is tidal so uniquely disadvantaged?
 
Chunkylad said:
www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk

Ofgem says current National Grid regime ‘not fit for purpose’

Ofgem's chief executive Jonathan Brearley will denounce the decade-long delays by National Grid PLC (LSE:NG.) in connecting low-carbon projects to the...
www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk

Back in 2023 stating that the National Grid was not fit for purpose (hardly a glowing support of a privatised company)
Click to expand...
It's a fairly standard new CEO tactic, say that your predecessor has made a complete hash of the job, and then if things go worse than expected, it's his fault, and if things go better, that's down to your genius.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You just can't help yourself with the petty insults, can you?

Oil and gas are internationally traded commodities, the "energy companies" couldn't give a flying f*** about whether we buy them or not, we're not going to change the world price, and there are plenty of other customers if we're not interested in buying them.

As to your final paragraph, do you have any evidence for this? Can you explain why tidal alone cannot access research funds, whilst there seems to be an unlimited supply of such for wind/solar and any other "greentech" no matter how implausible the product?

I mean, we're investing £22bn in CCS, despite the fact that it comes close to violating the first law of thermodynamics, why is tidal so uniquely disadvantaged?
Click to expand...
Stop trying to be a clever dick when you know sod all.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Stop trying to be a clever dick when you know sod all.
Click to expand...
You're so clueless that you can't even recognize that you're clueless, and simply jump into threads, trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about, whenever you see someone you think vaguely knows what they're talking about is having a go at another poster.

Seriously unimpressive.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You're so clueless that you can't even recognize that you're clueless, and simply jump into threads, trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about, whenever you see someone you think vaguely knows what they're talking about is having a go at another poster.

Seriously unimpressive.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your undeniable expertise.
PS. Well, nothing really. You're just,
Well, nothing.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
You just can't help yourself with the petty insults, can you?

Oil and gas are internationally traded commodities, the "energy companies" couldn't give a flying f*** about whether we buy them or not, we're not going to change the world price, and there are plenty of other customers if we're not interested in buying them.

As to your final paragraph, do you have any evidence for this? Can you explain why tidal alone cannot access research funds, whilst there seems to be an unlimited supply of such for wind/solar and any other "greentech" no matter how implausible the product?

I mean, we're investing £22bn in CCS, despite the fact that it comes close to violating the first law of thermodynamics, why is tidal so uniquely disadvantaged?
Click to expand...
No insult intended, just cannot understand your logic. Why have the profits of UK connected oil and gas giants have been so high across the last 3 years if prices are the same across the world?

Solar and wind are existing technologies, need little further research, both have been used in crude forms for centuries.

Your last sentence almost answers itself. Carbon capture would theoretically allow continued reliance on carbon fuels in the unlikely event that they can ever get it to work. The comment about 1st law of thermodynamics ? The CH4 has burnt to CO2, so it is in a different state, what is your point?

Edited to add, just read your last few comments. And you call me out for insults?? Hilarious
 
Last edited:
1751617919742.png

Yet another chart showing how well our nations energy policy has gone since we made the decision to privatise the National Grid.

Being an island would affect our ability to share resources to a minor degree - distance from us to France wouldn't be as large as some of the larger countries have from north to south.
Also the other island of Ireland is almost half our average energy cost for the consumer.

We've been stitched up a treat - even North Sea oil extraction didn't save us.
 
Chunkylad said:
View attachment 25110

Yet another chart showing how well our nations energy policy has gone since we made the decision to privatise the National Grid.

Being an island would affect our ability to share resources to a minor degree - distance from us to France wouldn't be as large as some of the larger countries have from north to south.
Also the other island of Ireland is almost half our average energy cost for the consumer.

We've been stitched up a treat - even North Sea oil extraction didn't save us.
Click to expand...
Your post from another thread:
https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/lotus.62663/#post-1620734

Chunkylad said:
View attachment 25062

Looking at above info I'm not sure if being a privatised has led to higher bills here in the UK?
Click to expand...
Privatization was at some point in the 1990s IIRC, why was it working fine for ~25 years or so, only to break down now?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Why have the profits of UK connected oil and gas giants have been so high across the last 3 years if prices are the same across the world?
Click to expand...
You've answered your own question, their revenues and thus profits are down to the global price of oil and gas, the UK is too small to have any significant impact on that.


Tangerinemoss said:
Edited to add, just read your last few comments. And you call me out for insults?? Hilarious
Click to expand...
If people are going to start chucking insults at me, don't be surprised if I start throwing them back.

Anyway, 66, Wiz, and you, thanks for reminding me why you're on my ignore list.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Your post from another thread:
https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/lotus.62663/#post-1620734


Privatization was at some point in the 1990s IIRC, why was it working fine for ~25 years or so, only to break down now?
Click to expand...
Darn good question.

Your suggestion is that Covid and Ukraine alone made our energy costs spiral out of control and not the running of the Grid?

Therefore I propose that our grid was not fit for purpose, as there was no contingency in place for such events and no capability or capacity to adapt to the shift from carbon to carbon-less technologies.

Just like our water industry who did not plan for population increase or change in weather patterns.
 
Chunkylad said:
View attachment 25110

Yet another chart showing how well our nations energy policy has gone since we made the decision to privatise the National Grid.

Being an island would affect our ability to share resources to a minor degree - distance from us to France wouldn't be as large as some of the larger countries have from north to south.
Also the other island of Ireland is almost half our average energy cost for the consumer.

We've been stitched up a treat - even North Sea oil extraction didn't save us.
Click to expand...
The oil profits have been wasted on mitigating the cost of some barmy economic experiments, periods of high inflation and the Thatcherite rush to de-industrialise in the 1980s. Thankfully, the £350m per week flowing into the country since we left the EU, continues to cushion us from the worst excesses of Johnson, Sunak and the lettuce botherer.
 
Chunkylad said:
Therefore I propose that our grid was not fit for purpose, as there was no contingency in place for such events and no capability or capacity to adapt to the shift from carbon to carbon-less technologies.
Click to expand...
The lights still come on and off when you want them to, don't they? I'd say the grid is mostly fit for purpose.

Such "contingencies" cost money, if you want to be ready for every possible eventuality, you're going to have even more expensive electricity than you do now.

In any event, it's not the grid that's driving the cost of electricity, it's the move to intermittent supplies that have to be backed up 100% by fossil fuels that's driving the price.

The Germans are in much the same boat.


Chunkylad said:
Just like our water industry who did not plan for population increase or change in weather patterns.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason to think that a nationalized water/electricity grid would've done any better.
 
Is there any reason to believe it could be much worse? I can only look at mainland Europe and wonder at their energy decisions versus ours.

Even before 2020 we were more expensive
 
Lost Seasider said:
You've answered your own question, their revenues and thus profits are down to the global price of oil and gas, the UK is too small to have any significant impact on that.



If people are going to start chucking insults at me, don't be surprised if I start throwing them back.

Anyway, 66, Wiz, and you, thanks for reminding me why you're on my ignore list.
Click to expand...
First rule when you have lost the argument, deflect and ignore the facts posted.

Chunky has shown you the facts about energy prices, I have shown you why your comment about 1st law of thermodynamics was wrong.

And if you seriously believe there is nothing wrong with the National Grid, I suggest steering well clear of Industry Media and Government reports.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You've answered your own question, their revenues and thus profits are down to the global price of oil and gas, the UK is too small to have any significant impact on that.



If people are going to start chucking insults at me, don't be surprised if I start throwing them back.

Anyway, 66, Wiz, and you, thanks for reminding me why you're on my ignore list.
Click to expand...
In which case, how are you reading the posts?
 
What we are lacking is a common sense approach to balancing climate change/our energy needs and costs to the consumer. Unfortunately bacon sandwich Ed follows an ideological path.
 
Sven said:
According to the table Chunks provided, Sweden has the lowest energy bills in Europe. Sweden also has the highest share of renewables in Europe.

Seems like it’s possible to use renewables and keep prices down.
Click to expand...
What sort of renewables?

Hydro works, but it is limited by geography.
 
Lost Seasider said:
What sort of renewables?

Hydro works, but it is limited by geography.
Click to expand...
All info from Google and that says it’s a mix of Hydro, Wind and Biopower with more solar in the South. There’s also Nuclear too.

From what I can see, it looks like the top three users of renewables are also the top three for lowest bills and are all Nordic countries.
 
Sven said:
All info from Google and that says it’s a mix of Hydro, Wind and Biopower with more solar in the South. There’s also Nuclear too.

From what I can see, it looks like the top three users of renewables are also the top three for lowest bills and are all Nordic countries.
Click to expand...
What's the mix?

Edit:
What's the mix at 8pm in winter when there's no wind?
 
Sven said:
All info from Google and that says it’s a mix of Hydro, Wind and Biopower with more solar in the South. There’s also Nuclear too.

From what I can see, it looks like the top three users of renewables are also the top three for lowest bills and are all Nordic countries.
Click to expand...
How much is state owned?
 
Lost Seasider said:
What's the mix?

Edit:
What's the mix at 8pm in winter when there's no wind?
Click to expand...
Haha well you’d think they’d rely more on Nuclear and Hydro rather than wind and solar in that scenario, which I’m guessing is the answer you wanted.

I’m no expert in Nordic energy policy but from the brief research I’ve done it seems like the countries have different mixes to suit their needs but they all have a focus on moving away from fossil fuels and towards a mix of renewables. Denmark have no nuclear and have a big focus on wind, Sweden seems to be mainly Hydro and Nuclear with a growing wind sector. It’s all googlable if you’re interested in it, that’s what I did.

They also have the lowest bills which was the point that interested me. You seem to know a lot more about this than I do, how do you think they’ve pulled it off?
 
Delfino said:
How much is state owned?
Click to expand...
Couldn’t find a definitive answer but the grid is state owned as is the energy company Vattenfall which is a major player in the market and also operates some of the UK’s offshore wind farms.

Some of the other energy providers are majority owned by other states, Germany and Finland to name a couple.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Again, it's the decision to abandon coal, and to a lesser extent gas, in favour of wind/solar.
Click to expand...
Is it heck.

The wholesale price of energy in the UK is determined by the "highest" price required to satisfy demand. The biggest challenge we have in the UK, particularly in comparison to mainland Europe, is that our current generation mix nearly always (starting to happen a bit more now) has to include gas - therefore the entirety of the generation gets paid at that level. It's not a great system, but it's the fundamentals that our entire market has been built around.

The push for additional windfarms and solar etc. is ultimately beneficial for energy prices, as the sooner we can detach our generation mix from the global gas markets the better - particularly when global powers like Russia and the U.S. dictate foreign policy around oil and gas markets.

The privatised parts of the system in the National Grid element is a tiny overall part of the consumers bill. It's also having to transform it's network from one that transported centralised, inland power stations serving major cities in the South to one where there is significantly more distributed energy generation offshore - where historically the network has only had to service a fairly sparse population. Essentially the network is going from being design in to out, to now being out to in.

Mainland Europe also has the distinct additional advantage of now being in a singular energy market, with much more integrated systems which allow trading of excess energy across Europe to where it is required.

Net zero is rationale from an environmental basis - but fundamentally it's an economic one as well, just the sales pitch on that side of things has been pathetic.
 
Sven said:
Couldn’t find a definitive answer but the grid is state owned as is the energy company Vattenfall which is a major player in the market and also operates some of the UK’s offshore wind farms.

Some of the other energy providers are majority owned by other states, Germany and Finland to name a couple.
Click to expand...
Lots of state owned players.

EDF is France, Orsted is Danish, Vattenfall is Swedish, Equinor is Norwegian etc. etc. Collectively they are the major players in offshore wind in the UK (and globally).
 
Threepeaksphil said:
What we are lacking is a common sense approach to balancing climate change/our energy needs and costs to the consumer. Unfortunately bacon sandwich Ed follows an ideological path.
Click to expand...
Whilst your description of Ed Miliband as, 'bacon sandwich Ed', means that we must treat your posts with the utmost respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top