Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    • 3,764Posts
    • 4,659Thanks
    zeupater
    Solar ... In the news
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    Solar ... In the news 7th Jan 13 at 5:36 PM
    Hi All

    Thought it was about time we had a thread specifically to discuss relevant press articles relating to solar pv & thermal ..... so here goes ...

    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-01-2013 at 5:48 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Page 96
    • ed110220
    • By ed110220 6th Sep 17, 1:43 PM
    • 1,058 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    ed110220
    As a mechanism of preventing clean safe nuclear to help address global warming, solar is a useful albeit massively over used tool to the uninformed and, dare I say, the fossil fuel lobby, because certainly in the higher latitudes, solar without nuclear would be an effective fossil fuel supply.

    It is the "I" word that you should be addressing.
    I for insolation, intermittent and interseasonal.
    Originally posted by Nicolai Grenovski
    I'd say it was precisely the opposite. Nuclear is failing all on its own, simply because in most cases at least in the West it is too expensive, takes too long to build , the projects are too large and tend to be delayed and run over budget. Let's not forget that the latest debacle in South Carolina is far from the first in the USA, for example the public electricity board in Washington state bankrupted itself by trying to build five nuclear plants in the 1970s-80s, of which only one was completed.

    Perhaps China will be more successful because of their very different economy that is better able to build very large long term projects, because of its large state role. If they can, that's great.

    If any shilling for nuclear is taking place, it's more likely to be from the fossil fuel industry, given the likelihood the plans will eventually fall through and yield nothing, in the meantime delaying other low carbon sources of energy.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 2:30 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'
    Yes, as Professor David Mackay, author of 'Sustainability, Without hot air' said:
    ❝..if you ask what is the optimal amount of wind and solar to add in then the answer is going to be almost zero,” he said. “I love wind turbines – they are the cathedrals of the modern age – but they are a waste of money if you have a low carbon solution that gets you through the winter … because when the wind blows you are going to have to either turn them down or something else down that you have already paid for like nuclear or CCS.❞
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't have renewables (it's my sector!) but it does put the point in context for addressing climate change rather then the often confused idea of installing renewables for the sake of installing renewables.

    The ONLY objective is to cut emissions - each location/country has its own sociological, economic and environmental conditions to be met.
    France didn't put in 75% nuclear because it was cleanest and safest - they put it in because of a lack of fossil fuel reserves.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 2:33 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    I'd say it was precisely the opposite. Nuclear is failing all on its own, simply because in most cases at least in the West it is too expensive, takes too long to build , the projects are too large and tend to be delayed and run over budget. Let's not forget that the latest debacle in South Carolina is far from the first in the USA,
    Yes, that is nuclear cancelled because it costs so much more than fracked gas.

    That is not an environmental argument.
    I assume you accept the objective should be to cut emissions.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 2:40 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    If any shilling for nuclear is taking place, it's more likely to be from the fossil fuel industry, given the likelihood the plans will eventually fall through and yield nothing, in the meantime delaying other low carbon sources of energy.
    I had to look up the word 'shill'(ing) -

    Here in Germany we are phasing out nuclear and since we started we have opened 5 new lignite coal power stations and have just given permission for a sixth and gas imports (including US fracked gas!) are projected to rise through 2050

    I think the coal and gas industry is extremely happy with the outcome.

    I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
    Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?
    • lstar337
    • By lstar337 6th Sep 17, 3:20 PM
    • 3,263 Posts
    • 1,756 Thanks
    lstar337
    I had to look up the word 'shill'(ing) -

    Here in Germany we are phasing out nuclear and since we started we have opened 5 new lignite coal power stations and have just given permission for a sixth and gas imports (including US fracked gas!) are projected to rise through 2050

    I think the coal and gas industry is extremely happy with the outcome.

    I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
    Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?
    Originally posted by Nicolai Grenovski
    What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

    It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

    This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

    Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE!
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 4:58 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

    It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.
    I did not raise the subject.
    I responded to a post on nuclear - surely that is where you should direct your scorn?
    This is a solar news thread, not an anti-nuclear thread. The two are not exclusive.
    Do you agree?

    Why not ask the previous poster/s to refrain from raising nuclear - which I think we can agree has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with solar news.

    Does it..

    Hmmm?
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 6th Sep 17, 5:31 PM
    • 27,031 Posts
    • 13,157 Thanks
    Cardew
    What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

    It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

    This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

    Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE!
    Originally posted by lstar337
    Much as I appreciate your input on MSE, I think the above is unfair.

    It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.

    Look through all the threads in Green and Ethical to confirm.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 6th Sep 17, 5:38 PM
    • 3,764 Posts
    • 4,659 Thanks
    zeupater
    What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

    It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

    This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

    Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE!
    Originally posted by lstar337
    Hi

    Agree - but that's the corporate position for you ... no idea of how to stand back look at the big picture !

    Anyway, couldn't help but notice mention of 'shilling' & see the comment ... "I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies." ... .. a long time ago I learned that if I had a shilling pocket money I could spend it on a single chocolate bar or a bag of goodies such as mojos, bootlaces, black jacks & flying saucers ... but not both! ... any kind of analogy going on here ...

    I also seem to have at the back of my mind that a certain recently referenced report shows the rate of reduction which BEIS needed to apply to PV just between 2013 & 2016 ... odd really, let me think - isn't the reduction in alternative fuel source supplies exactly why the predicted cost of future energy has fallen and isn't the HinckleyC strike price mentioned just that - a corporate strike price, not a consumer supply price ... so maybe the cheaper other energy becomes, the more we'll all be subsidising a technology which has already been subsidised for as long as it's existed ? .... but we all knew that anyway - didn't we? ...

    That really leads to another issue ... the word 'delay' ... because of additional pressure on consumer bills, it's unlikely that the massive level of support which will be required by one energy sector would leave much for the others ... surely this would impact on and delay the uptake of other low carbon energy sources, which have much shorter delivery lead times, the logical conclusion being decades of additional generation by the carbon-intensive sources ... surely this carbon element should be added to balance sheet against the technology which caused the delay ...

    Anyway, we're currently using our generation ... the corporate view is that the energy is worth ~4p/kWh and therefore value & compare everything against that wholesale price ... yet, to us, in our house, it's displacing retail priced electricity at around 4x the price ... odd really, the difference between a corporate viewpoint & reality when considering microgeneration ....

    Corporate idiots ...
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 6th Sep 17, 5:53 PM
    • 6,080 Posts
    • 10,159 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    just for fun, i thought i'd post a statement that my guardian troll posted about 20 to 30 times throughout july, to try to mislead folk with out of date information:-

    This is the Gov't prediction for 2030.
    Onshore wind to be in the range £45-72/MWh
    Offshore wind will be in the range £85-109/MWh
    For solar they predict £59-73/MW,
    Nuclear will be £69-99/MWh.
    what's interesting is just how far we've come since that prediction for 2030. even the house of lords has pointed out how misleading it is, way, way back in february.

    Also we had Scottish Renewables 6 months ago say that they can install on-shore wind at £50/MWh now, German PV contracts (comparable to the UK) this year hit £50/MWh, and on-shore wind hit £40 and even our own government has stated that there will be an £85/MWh cap on off-shore CfD bids for 2026 commissioning.

    So looks like we are at or near the lowest end of those renewables estimates already, rather than the somewhat misleading appearance that we'll be within the range in 13yrs time, as my troll would like to suggest.

    in fact the only technology in that list not already pushing at the lowest estimate is nuclear, which at £97 in 2017 monies is instead pushing the upper limit of its range.

    And of course, always worth repeating that the £92.50/MWh for HPC (2012 pricing)is for 35yrs, whereas the wind and solar CfD's are only for 15yrs, and will most likely not need a subsidy when they need replacing.

    fun fact, since the cost of pv has fallen 30pounds in germany since the 80 pound contracts where issued there and in the uk, and we can now expect the 2030 intermittncy cost of pv to be minus £3.70, that suggests sub 50pounds for uk pv, which is roughly half the price of nuclear, something i've mentioned previously.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 6th Sep 17, 6:10 PM
    • 6,080 Posts
    • 10,159 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    and another fun fact, they just keep popping up today, again from my guardian troll.

    he constantly tries to bash renewables by pointint to prof mackay, but in his book, without hot air, prof m refers to 'typical' rooftop pv as being 10pc efficient, and high efficiency pv at 20pc. he then goes on to claim

    I am sure that photovoltaic panels will become ever cheaper; I’m also sure that solar panels will become ever less energy-intensive to manufacture, so their energy yield ratio will improve. But this chapter’s photo-voltaic estimates weren’t constrained by the economic cost of the panels, nor by the energy cost of their manufacture. This chapter was concerned with the maximum conceivable power delivered. Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s endnotes). I’ll be surprised if this chapter’s estimate for roof-based photo-voltaics ever needs a significant upward revision.
    which is a rather poor prediction, given that 'typical' rooftop pv is now about 18pc, high performance about 24pc, and perovskite/silicon around 26pc and heading for ~38pc.

    goes to show, you never can tell.


    maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a need by some to mislead others when it comes to renewables, often referring back to old and out of date information, perhaps it's ideological?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 6th Sep 17, 6:37 PM
    • 27,031 Posts
    • 13,157 Thanks
    Cardew
    perhaps it's ideological?
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Ideological? That is terrible!
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 7:11 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    the comment ...
    "I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
    Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?."
    ... .. a long time ago I learned that if I had a shilling pocket money I could spend it on a single chocolate bar or a bag of goodies such as mojos, bootlaces, black jacks & flying saucers ... but not both! ... any kind of analogy going on here
    Yes - if you go shopping for 100g of sweets (100% of your demand) you can have a mix.
    if you buy 20g of chocolate it does not in any way hinder buying 20g of "bootlaces".
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 7:38 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    German PV contracts (comparable to the UK{??}) this year hit £50/MWh
    I'm sorry but this is exactly not true - where are your data from?
    fun fact, since the cost of pv has fallen 30pounds in germany since the 80 pound contracts where issued there and in the uk, and we can now expect the 2030 intermittncy cost of pv to be minus £3.70, that suggests sub 50pounds for uk pv,
    I'm sorry but we cannot sell pv to the UK because we are priced in Euro's and since you decided to leave us the pound is worth nearly 30% less than it was against Euro.
    UK prices for imported HW like German pv could well go up on forex markets especially with 0.56 euro cents per watt now agreed in Tariff between EU and China.
    • lstar337
    • By lstar337 6th Sep 17, 8:10 PM
    • 3,263 Posts
    • 1,756 Thanks
    lstar337
    It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    I'm aware of what happens, hence why I want it out of this thread. No doubt it is a heated topic, but not one I'm interested in reading about. Which is why I would like to keep this thread for its intended purpose.

    By all means argue PV vs Nuclear in another thread where I don't have to read all the squabbling! 😉
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 6th Sep 17, 8:34 PM
    • 3,764 Posts
    • 4,659 Thanks
    zeupater
    Much as I appreciate your input on MSE, I think the above is unfair.

    It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.

    Look through all the threads in Green and Ethical to confirm.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    Cardew

    Why get upset with us? ... almost all of the people who post on the G&E section are concerned with Green & Ethical subjects. apart from those who bring along their own ramp to upset the apple cart for whatever reason floats their boat.

    The real issue you yourself don't really seem to grasp is that we as individuals can do something .. it may be growing our own fruit & veg (I do!), recycling (I do!), local sourcing (I do!) ... starting to get the picture yet!? .. insulating our homes (I do!), reducing carbon footprint (I do!) .. all the way through to some of us generating the vast proportion of the electricity we use (which I also do!) ... but then again, isn't it a scientific premise that "Those who adapt ..."

    Whether the subgroup is 'I' or everyone who regularly reads or contributes to this thread, we can only make a difference to our own lives and what we do ourselves ... if you or anyone else have an issue with the demise of an industry, that's any industry, you really need to take a serious look at that industry and discover the cause of the demise - it's normally related to some form of uncompetitiveness, usually at a product desirability or cost level.

    Now, with this in mind we should consider where focus should be and accept that the focus should be very narrow - on one hand you have groups (government, industry & consumers) whilst on the other there's policies based on ideology & economics and that's just about it in a nutshell .. . yet there's a rabid-fascination with what a group of people who have absolutely no impact on government, industry or the economics involved but do have an impact on their own lifestyles ...

    Now, nuclear - I don't know how many times this need to be repeated ... It seems like I've said it a billion times, but for those with little intent to take any notice, ... I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR AS A FORM OF GENERATION - I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE COST OF NUCLEAR !! --- CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?? ... seems pretty clear and concise to me & I would think that many others posting on this forum would copy & paste it into any answer they supply, they're certainly free to do so!. The thing is, I support, & will continue to support, alternative forms of generation which lead to reducing the carbon intensity of the UK grid mix as long as there's a strong probability that the technology involved will be able to both compete without subsidy on an open & fair marketplace within a reasonable period of time and place further downward pressure on energy prices. If there's a problem with this, then take it up with the nuclear industry and have them focus on their own efficiencies ... maybe, with a little pressure on the industry, instead of being the answer to the question "Where is the most expensive object on Earth ?" - a £24/MWh powerstation could be built there afterall !

    As to your comment made to 'Istar337' above ... no, that's wrong. Nuclear generation is under extreme commercial pressure all over the world ... if the press are reporting this as news is it to be ignored? ... Moreover, if there are news items which compare costs of Solar to any other form of generation, isn't that something which is of interest on a thread dedicated to 'Solar .. In the news' ? ... so we have a thread discussing what the thread is supposed to discuss, read by people who may be interested, yet every time that the news touches the interests of a form of generation which could potentially be disruptive to the current cosy industry structure, particularly when it involves glowing rods, then things change ... the swivel eyed anti-renewables yappy-dogs immediately parachute in and spin mayhem as if their livelihood depends on it ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 06-09-2017 at 8:42 PM. Reason: -r+t
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 11:09 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    Now, nuclear - I don't know how many times this need to be repeated ... It seems like I've said it a billion times, but for those with little intent to take any notice, ... I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR AS A FORM OF GENERATION - I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE COST OF NUCLEAR !! --- CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?? .
    Please take this to a nuclear thread.

    But as we're here....

    As Martyn posted

    UK costs by 2030
    Onshore wind: £45-72/MWh
    Solar £59-73/MWh
    Offshore wind £85-109/MWh
    Nuclear £69-99/MWh.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566567/BEIS_Electricity_Generation_Cost_Report.pdf

    What are your concerns on offshore wind?
    Of Scottish tidal at £305/MWh
    or the exciting Swansea Bay lagoon at £96.50/MWh for 90 years!

    Perhaps you could order them preferentially by cost - be sure to account for intermittent.
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 6th Sep 17, 11:26 PM
    • 27,031 Posts
    • 13,157 Thanks
    Cardew
    Zeupater,

    Your personal lifestyle is not up for discussion as far as I am aware.

    Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry.

    I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear. However virtually every time any poster who is not a member the self-congratulatory cartel makes any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised by one of the cartel - normally the self appointed leader; and is 'thanked' by the rest of the group. Surely you know that to be true; if not read back through the thread and see who are the culprits.

    So I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders.
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 7th Sep 17, 12:07 AM
    • 27,031 Posts
    • 13,157 Thanks
    Cardew
    I'm aware of what happens, hence why I want it out of this thread. No doubt it is a heated topic, but not one I'm interested in reading about. Which is why I would like to keep this thread for its intended purpose.

    By all means argue PV vs Nuclear in another thread where I don't have to read all the squabbling! ��
    Originally posted by lstar337
    My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion.

    As to your comment made to 'Istar337' above ... no, that's wrong. Nuclear generation is under extreme commercial pressure all over the world ... if the press are reporting this as news is it to be ignored? ... Moreover, if there are news items which compare costs of Solar to any other form of generation, isn't that something which is of interest on a thread dedicated to 'Solar .. In the news' ? ... so we have a thread discussing what the thread is supposed to discuss, read by people who may be interested,
    Is that your understanding?

    What a few posters in this section want is to be able to freely - and frequently - criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'.

    In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Sep 17, 12:39 AM
    • 3,764 Posts
    • 4,659 Thanks
    zeupater
    Zeupater,

    Your personal lifestyle is not up for discussion as far as I am aware.

    Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry.

    I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear. However virtually every time any poster who is not a member the self-congratulatory cartel makes any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised by one of the cartel - normally the self appointed leader; and is 'thanked' by the rest of the group. Surely you know that to be true; if not read back through the thread and see who are the culprits.

    So I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    Cardew

    Addressed in order ....

    ... "Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry." .. possibly a major clue to the news items being concerned with solar is in the thread title ... "Solar ... In the news', yet that seems to have been overlooked ...

    ... "I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear .." ..... if that's the case then maybe you could join others who orchestrate campaigns in all of the major news sources and have them boycott comparison of all forms of generation, particularly the ones which mention the uncompetitiveness of one form against another - then there'd be less PV vs Nuclear news items to report on this thread ...

    ... "... any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised ..." ... and unfortunately that's normally when the 'criticism or observation' you mention is made specifically against the temporary subsidy schemes which have been part of a global effort by the developed countries that can afford to support the growth of new low carbon technologies so that clean generation sources become both affordable and competitive with all other forms of generation within a compressed timescale ... however, when the counterpoint of 60 years of nuclear subsidy without even a possibility of being subsidy free is raised, the 'foul play' flare is shot into the air and claims of 'anti-nuclear' are megaphoned around the G&E board for weeks, as well you know! .. isn't that a classic case of spin, the aggressor feigning aggrieved?

    ... "I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders." .... the latest spat seems to have kicked off as a result of a nuclear power plant in the USA being cancelled due to being uncompetitive against solar pv and other forms of generation, with the company concerned announcing heavy investments in solar and associated projects ... 'Solar ... in the news' raised the news report, all goes quiet then a pair of anti-PV members turn up on a solar thread and waive the 'Support nuclear, you're all dumb idiots!' flag in everyone else's face ... do you therefore consider yourself fairly criticised? ... both the evidence and your own criteria suggests you should!

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-09-2017 at 12:51 AM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Sep 17, 1:45 AM
    • 3,764 Posts
    • 4,659 Thanks
    zeupater
    My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion.

    Is that your understanding?

    What a few posters in this section want is to be able to freely - and frequently - criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'.

    In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    Cardew

    ... "My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion ... Is that your understanding?" ... then, as normal on this solar thread, you are either mistaken or are intentionally spinning ... Zeupater's position is obviously that when there's a newsworthy article regarding PV then it's newsworthy ... if that article involves a decision made by a nuclear generation company to ditch new nuclear capacity due to cost competitive issues & build PV capacity instead, it's obviously more newsworthy than normal because of the context ...

    ... ".. criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'. " ... As covered in previous post, normally as a result of direct criticism of solar subsidy .. stop poking the stick at people & succeeding technologies and put it away, you may then find that the tendency to get yourself and an increasingly uncompetitive technology poked back at will subside ... it's actually pretty rare to see anything involving nuclear anywhere on this section without 'anti-pv' mention of subsidies being the catalyst ...

    ... "In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters." ... laughable, last time I looked every post ever made was on this one thread and most where he(?)'s popped up were pro-nuclear based, odd really for someone claiming to be in the solar industry, yet criticises the technology at every available opportunity, and posts from a country which is ditching nuclear! ... anyone would think that it was an alter-ego of one intending to protect their main profile against moderation sanction, or someone who having been involved in the nuclear industry being very bitter and targetting frustrations on their perceived causes - cheap coal, cheap gas, cheap offshore wind, cheap onshore wind, cheap solar, cheap hydro, cheapening storage .. effectively ignoring the obvious - if everything else is either currently, or will soon be, cheaper than nuclear, then it's nuclear uncompetitiveness which forms the problem, everything else is just excuses ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

293Posts Today

1,499Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @TfLTravelAlerts: Oxford Circus and Bond Street stations now both reopened and all trains are stopping normally.

  • RT @metpoliceuk: We have not located any trace of suspects, evidence of shots fired or casualties. Officers still on scene. If you are in a?

  • My hopes and prayers are that this turns out to be nothing. Stay safe.

  • Follow Martin