Old power stations closing = Higher prices?

Pincher

Cornwall is naturally a bit radioactive anyway, I hear.
Build the nuclear plants there.


Scotland seems to be raining non-stop this year.
They were talking about canals to bring water from the North, when there's a drought in England. It's 400 miles from Edinburgh to London. Maybe we can get some hydroelectric going along the way? They are called the HIGHlands, after all.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Smiley_Dan wrote: »

Haha! Right click, open image in new browser. Oh, what's this? http://joanpyeproject.org/

- look at my back posts I'm an evangelistic supporter of nuclear
- the Joan Pye project """strives to demonstrate the enormous contribution which nuclear energy can make"""
- so thanks for highlighting that we are as one on the subject of nuclear versus carbon
- I'm for nuclear and against green swindle-mills roof panel subsidies and other green subsidies

What is this global warming any way ? I mean what is it really, is it really CO2 or is it water vapour ? [reproduced below to save you a click]

IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2″ Posted on January 25, 2014 by stevengoddard

Mike Sanicola says:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (colour temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapour and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats !!!! about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOUR STUPID and not the CO2.

January 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm

This is exactly what I have been reporting from running the radiative transfer model used by NCAR. The people writing these models know that global warming is BS.

sheffield_lad

There are easy solutions to pluck out of the air until you start to cost these implementation wise.

80% of households heat their homes with gas, 60% of all energy costs is space/water heating. Suggesting we as a nation change this is a nonsense as the costs would be astronomical.

Lets not forget that 80% of the housing stock in 2050 is the housing we have today.

There is currently enough gas to see the planet through the next 150yrs, it's a clean fossil fuel and we can control it.

I am tired of hearing how poor our housing stock is. 10yrs ago this may have been the case but over the last 10yrs we have reduced our usage by 25%. Condensing boilers, Part L tightening, CFSB have all played a part. Just look at the amount of EWI taking place across the country.

There is not one solution to our energy issues but building nuclear and gas fired power stations in needed. Add to this securing our own gas via fracking which may not lower bills but will put tax in to the country (hospitals, pensions, NHS etc), which maybe necessary especially if we wave bye bye to Scotland.

Martyn1981

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

The real[ish] costs of green / nuclear / coal / gas ..... are here:

I'm a bit confused.

Why does your chart state that nuclear costs 2.3p/kWh, when the proposed CfD for nuclear in 2023 (assuming a reactor comes on line by then) is 9.3p/kWh (£93/MWh).

There seems to be a large difference between what you are claiming and what is actually happening.

And just for comparison purposes the CfD's for on-shore wind and PV are to be £90 and £100 respectively in 2019. So that means both should be comfortably less than nuclear by 2023.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263937/Final_Document_-_Investing_in_renewable_technologies_-_CfD_contract_terms_and_strike_prices_UPDATED_6_DEC.pdf

Is it also worth pointing out that the wind and PV CfD's are for 15 years, compared to the 35 years for nuclear.

Is it also worth pointing out that nuclear has already received 50 years of vastly costly subsidy support in order to enable it to be more costly than wind and PV .... Hhhmm!

Mart.

C_Mababejive

There is certainly a growing energy crisis in this country and it was spawned by privatisation.

Prior to this we had a fully integrated gas and electricity supply industry which owned and managed all the energy assets. We had The British Gas Corporation looking after all things gas, the CEGB running power plants and local electricity boards such as Norweb/Manweb etc.

So where are we now?

Well we have National Grid who dont generate,own or make any gas or electricity so dont blame them !

They simply own the infrastructure through which it all flows and charge for transporting it.

They also have the tricky job of balancing day to day supply and demand.


Other companies own the electrical generating plant.

They will only bring them on line/build new plant if there is a reasonable return on investment.

The situation isnt helped by the Labour Government scare mongering and saying they will bring in controls on gas /electric prices.

You cant do that.

You may as well say lets control the price of all motor cars.

The tru answer for all is for them to use less energy and what they have to use, use it efficiently. Its as simple as that.