Posted by Peter Franks on April 6, 2011, 10:35 pm
On 4/6/2011 2:00 PM, Tom P wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 09:23 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>>> price?
>>>>
>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>
>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
>>> given a
>>> bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>
>>>> and doing
>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>>> prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
>>>> deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
>>>> tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never
>>>> pay
>>>> their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel
>>>> bills
>>>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>>>> increase.
>>>
>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why everyone
>>> else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has
>>>> said it
>>>> will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of savings
>>>> (around
>>>> 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess. Reducing
>>>> the
>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
>>>> completed by
>>>> the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012" but
>>>> add
>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>
>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>> amount to
>>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>>
>>> Good, could be more though!
>>
>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
>> one group by force and giving to another.
>>
>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it doesn't.
> Like nuclear power for example?
Yes, like nuclear power.
> Who pays for solving the problem of
> permanent waste storage?
The utility. Presumably a consortium.
> And who indemnifies the cost of an accident?
The insurer.
> A recent estimate of the cost of a major catastrophe like Fukushima,
> were it to happen in western Europe was of the order of trillions of
> dollars. The utilities are incapable of insuring this risk.
Then we stick with coal.
I'm not a proponent of conventional nuclear as an end, but a means to an
end. There are FEW choices: conventional nuclear, coal, LNG. You
choose, Irwin M. Fletcher, but that's the menu.
Of those three, coal/LNG are the most cost effective, nuclear is the
most beneficial in terms of furthering Gen IV/LFTR technology which is
the PREFERRED longer-term nuclear power source, until fusion (or
equivalent) is achieved. Renewables don't factor into this at all as a
baseload power supply, they are merely /supplemental/ to one of the
other three.
So, what is your choice?
Conventional nukes, coal, or LNG?
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 8:36 am
> On 04/06/2011 09:23 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>>> price?
>>>>
>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>
>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
>>> given a
>>> bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>
>>>> and doing
>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>>> prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
>>>> deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
>>>> tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never
>>>> pay
>>>> their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel
>>>> bills
>>>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>>>> increase.
>>>
>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why everyone
>>> else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has said
>>>> it
>>>> will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of savings
>>>> (around
>>>> 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess. Reducing
>>>> the
>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be completed
>>>> by
>>>> the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012" but
>>>> add
>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>
>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
>>>> to
>>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>>
>>> Good, could be more though!
>>
>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
>> one group by force and giving to another.
>>
>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it doesn't.
> Like nuclear power for example? Who pays for solving the problem of
> permanent waste storage? And who indemnifies the cost of an accident?
> A recent estimate of the cost of a major catastrophe like Fukushima, were
> it to happen in western Europe was of the order of trillions of dollars.
> The utilities are incapable of insuring this risk.
There are all sorts of subsidies, some more obvious than others. The fact
that nuclear doesn't need to pay for clean-up and compensation AFAIK, is
one.
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 8:33 am
>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount to
>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>
>> Good, could be more though!
> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
> one group by force and giving to another.
That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a community and we
all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are not
willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need various other
incentitives rather than a sense of community.
> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it doesn't.
Posted by Peter Franks on April 7, 2011, 1:34 pm
On 4/7/2011 1:33 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount to
>>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>>
>>> Good, could be more though!
>>
>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
>> one group by force and giving to another.
> That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a community and we
> all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are not
> willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need various other
> incentitives rather than a sense of community.
Force.
You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 7:12 pm
> On 4/7/2011 1:33 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
>>>>> to
>>>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>>>
>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>
>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
>>> one group by force and giving to another.
>>
>> That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a community and
>> we
>> all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are not
>> willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need various
>> other
>> incentitives rather than a sense of community.
> Force.
> You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.
Not at all. As long as they go quietly to court and to prison, (eventually
if they really are that obstinate), then no need for any force.
>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
>>>>>>> reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
>>>>> price?
>>>>
>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>
>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
>>> given a
>>> bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>
>>>> and doing
>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
>>>> prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
>>>> deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
>>>> tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never
>>>> pay
>>>> their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel
>>>> bills
>>>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>>>> increase.
>>>
>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why everyone
>>> else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has
>>>> said it
>>>> will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of savings
>>>> (around
>>>> 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess. Reducing
>>>> the
>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
>>>> completed by
>>>> the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012" but
>>>> add
>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>
>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>> amount to
>>>> around £5 billion in 2020
>>>
>>> Good, could be more though!
>>
>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
>> one group by force and giving to another.
>>
>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it doesn't.
> Like nuclear power for example?