Gas and electricity pricing

macman

lstar337 wrote: »

I don't think the current system is difficult to understand, but I think it helps the Energy Co's reduce competition.

I would welcome seeing exactly what the money on my bill is paying for.

Comparison sites are not the answer to everything, they have their own agenda. And why should we even need them in the first place? I don't need a comparison site to help me put fuel in my car, I just look at the price/litre of my local garages, and decide which is the best value.

I'm not suggesting switching via a comp site, just using their free database.

DragonQ

lstar337 wrote: »

Best idea yet, show exactly how much of each bill is being spent on crappy windmills.

I'm sure more people would be against them if they reallised how much they were being charged to fund them. But I guess it would defeat the point of the stealth tax.

Investment in renewal energy is vital and someone has to pay for it. Whether it's via energy bills or general taxation, that's us. Not much can be done about that.

lstar337

DragonQ wrote: »

Investment in renewal energy is vital and someone has to pay for it. Whether it's via energy bills or general taxation, that's us. Not much can be done about that.

I'm not say 'stop investing in renewables', I'm saying 'stop wasting my money on windmills'.

They aren't even green !!!!!!!

Their manufacture massively dissplaces any carbon they might reduce in their lifespan.

sheffield_lad

I have a feeling the Conservatives need to politically step up with the energy debate (despite Labour's plan being unworkable)

I have the answer for them,

Scrap or delay the smart metering programme.

This would save £11b which will be passed on to the customers.

DragonQ

lstar337 wrote: »

I'm not say 'stop investing in renewables', I'm saying 'stop wasting my money on windmills'.

They aren't even green !!!!!!!

Their manufacture massively dissplaces any carbon they might reduce in their lifespan.

Well that's just nonsense, anyone that can google can find figures demonstrating this. Maybe you could come to that conclusion if you include the CO2 used in the manufacture of wind turbines but don't include the CO2 used in the manufacture of other power plants, and of course that's not a fair comparison.

It is certainly true that the fact that their power generation is so variable is a problem - needing backup sources does diminish some of the benefit of wind turbines. If those backup sources are also renewable or nuclear though, it's still better than using goal, gas or oil.

lstar337

DragonQ wrote: »

Well that's just nonsense, anyone that can google can find figures demonstrating this.

Why don't you use google to research the process of manufacturing neodymium magnets (for turbines) done in China, specifically the details on large scale rare earth metal extraction.

Nobody says coal, gas, oil, or nuclear are green, but anybody would think turbines are hand woven by fairies at the bottom of the garden if you go by the green propaganda!

At least coal, gas, oil, and nuclear actually produce sensible amounts of electricity, reliably!

DragonQ

lstar337 wrote: »

Why don't you use google to research the process of manufacturing neodymium magnets (for turbines) done in China, specifically the details on large scale rare earth metal extraction.

A google search for "neodymium magnets turbines" leads straight to the Daily Mail and no other news sources, so that's obviously a load of rubbish.

A newspaper doesn't decide whether there is "controversy" in areas like this, scientists do.

lstar337 wrote: »

Nobody says coal, gas, oil, or nuclear are green, but anybody would think turbines are hand woven by fairies at the bottom of the garden if you go by the green propaganda!

Obviously.

lstar337 wrote: »

At least coal, gas, oil, and nuclear actually produce sensible amounts of electricity, reliably!

It doesn't really matter how much energy they produce, it matters more that they make more energy than they cost to build and maintain (which wind turbines easily do, and is the next big step for fusion reactors before they actually become useful) and how much energy they can produce per square km of land they take up. Of course, if they're in an area that isn't being used and can't be used for much else (e.g. rocky areas or out at sea), then that isn't a big deal anyway.

It's all about maximising our energy production capabilities and reliability whilst minimising environmental impact. It's all very well saying coal power plants are more reliable but when the coal runs out they won't be! Diversification is very useful in this regard - a year with relatively quiet winds would be a problem is a large proportion of our energy generation was from wind turbines, but if it was 10% solar, 10% wind, 10% wave/hydro, 10% geothermal, 10% biofuel, and 50% nuclear (for example) there'd be sufficient robustness.

lstar337

DragonQ wrote: »

A google search for "neodymium magnets turbines" leads straight to the Daily Mail and no other news sources, so that's obviously a load of rubbish.

Wow, way to research.

Open google, type criteria, hit search, see Daily Mail, quit.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html

http://www.china.org.cn/video/2012-04/26/content_25242652.htm

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/big-pollution-risk-seen-in-rare-earth-mining/article_c604dd80-7a8d-5ab5-8342-0f9b8dbb35fb.html

http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/pollution/?2400/Spoils-of-the-earth

http://www.mining.com/rare-earth-mining-in-china-low-tech-dirty-and-devastating/

But yeah, the Daily Mail wrote something about it, so it must not be happening.

That's the last I am saying because this thread is not about wind turbines and their merits or lack of.