BBC on Oil - are low prices here to stay

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

Because governments are paying some 3-4x what its actual worth (in the UK at least) an investor gets a positive return.

But this is just accounting tricks again. By ignoring the true cost of our energy, such as the CO2 impacts of FF's, the health costs of coal burning on the NHS, the nuclear subsidies paid via general taxation, we have an artificially low value for the cost of electricity ~ £50/MWh or 5p/kWh.

[Edit: Just to be clear, in case you don't understand the above, we are talking real costs today (not future), paid by us, that aren't reflected in current supply prices. M.]

cells wrote: »

If fully installed PV farms fall to 1/3rd to 1/4th the current price they work on their own merits but this price point looks difficult to achieve

I'm guessing you haven't kept up with the falling prices of PV generation So, you say the cost of solar farms have to fall to 1/3rd to 1/4th the current price ....... have you seen the results of the recent CfD auction ....... some of the successful PV bids were at £50/MWh!

Mart.

Generali

The Saudis who don't lack a cheap source of fossil fuel are building a solar powered desalination plant. The energy cost is under 6c/kWh.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/saudis-build-worlds-first-large-scale-solar-powered-desalination-plant-82903

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

Also why waste your and my time with this fake trash carbon pricing just tell me what it will cost over and beyond keeping what we got ...to run the UK on solar wind

You can then tell me how much you intend to put up income taxes and cut the NHS budget to pay for it all. And then we can also discuss how much healthier and wealthier we are as a result of those cuts and taxes

More false accounting tricks from you.

Just because you don't receive a carbon tax bill through the post, doesn't mean we aren't already paying it. Or didn't you know that?

Transport - annual VED payments reflect CO2 emissions. EV's receive a subsidy support from the government, where does that money come from?

Food - any negative impacts on agriculture would affect the price of our food, or the cost of food imports.

Energy bills - the green taxes, for low/zero carbon generation, and energy efficiency measures are a carbon tax. Whether they appear on our bills, or are moved to general taxation, we still have to pay it.

Land drainage and flood defence costs - as these costs rise they have to be paid by somebody, so back to general taxation ..... us.

All expenditure to meet EU targets will avoid carbon tax penalties.

So your assumption that we don't pay carbon taxes already, and aren't facing more / trying to mitigate against increases, is false accounting, misrepresenting the current, real position.

Mart.

PS. You may claim that carbon pricing is "fake trash carbon pricing", but this is based on your opinion, not fact. At the very least you have to admit that your opinion differs from that of the vast scientific community, and the slowly growing actions of almost every country on this planet to address the problem. M.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But this is just accounting tricks again. By ignoring the true cost of our energy, such as the CO2 impacts of FF's, the health costs of coal burning on the NHS, the nuclear subsidies paid via general taxation, we have an artificially low value for the cost of electricity ~ £50/MWh or 5p/kWh.

[Edit: Just to be clear, in case you don't understand the above, we are talking real costs today (not future), paid by us, that aren't reflected in current supply prices. M.]




I'm guessing you haven't kept up with the falling prices of PV generation So, you say the cost of solar farms have to fall to 1/3rd to 1/4th the current price ....... have you seen the results of the recent CfD auction ....... some of the successful PV bids were at £50/MWh!

Mart.

Carbon cost to society is trash arguments see my previous posts why.

also if x kills a person how does it cost the NHS anythig more or less. If a smoker dies from lung cancer he dies. If he doesn't die from lung cancer does he live for ever and never need heathcare again? Also I simply dont buyuthe trash arguments of the nunber of people killed from coal use or burning.

PS biomass is far far worse so why is it being subsidised?


As for the £50/MWh solar contracts that double what its worth and it hasnt been built yet so I don't see how it is you feel the right to claim solar is £50/mwh from someones yet unbuilt farm


also you keep flipping from solar PV is fanrastic best thig since sliced ham just get out the way and let me build it! To, well if we inclide an imaginary price on carbon and make some fake arguments about mothers dieing from seeig a lump of coal then its clearly better to have PV.

cells

Generali wrote: »

The Saudis who don't lack a cheap source of fossil fuelaccounts lding a solar powered desalination plant. The energy cost is under 6c/kWh.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/saudis-build-worlds-first-large-scale-solar-powered-desalination-plant-82903

Should we move to saudi?

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

More false accounting tricks from you.

Just because you don't receive a carbon tax bill through the post, doesn't mean we aren't already paying it. Or didn't you know that?

Transport - annual VED payments reflect CO2 emissions. EV's receive a subsidy support from the government, where does that money come from?

Food - any negative impacts on agriculture would affect the price of our food, or the cost of food imports.

Energy bills - the green taxes, for low/zero carbon generation, and energy efficiency measures are a carbon tax. Whether they appear on our bills, or are moved to general taxation, we still have to pay it.

Land drainage and flood defence costs - as these costs rise they have to be paid by somebody, so back to general taxation ..... us.

All expenditure to meet EU targets will avoid carbon tax penalties.

So your assumption that we don't pay carbon taxes already, and aren't facing more / trying to mitigate against increases, is false accounting, misrepresenting the current, real position.

Mart.

PS. You may claim that carbon pricing is "fake trash carbon pricing", but this is based on your opinion, not fact. At the very least you have to admit that your opinion differs from that of the vast scientific community, and the slowly growing actions of almost every country on this planet to address the problem. M.

Protection money not carbon cost



Any harm carbon does is more than offset by its economic enabling effects.

It is simple to prove. Look at the life expectancy of nations that use 1/10th the fossil fuels we do VS nations that use fossil fuels lile we do. How can you argue against such clear cut real world reality.

a curse on the houses of all your scientific bandwagon jumpers that put a cost on carbon rather than the clear reality of its great contribution to wealth and wellbeing

cells

Its easy to prove the huge cost of co2 on heath and wealth

Just look at these great nations with little to no CO2 emissions


Congo
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Uganda
Rwanda
Niger
Nepal
Mozambique
Haiti
Bangladesh
Ghana
Sri Lanka
Paraguay


Nobody dies from coal use in those nations, fantastic, instead they die from the lack of coal use (and its enabling impacts of a grid and electricity. Effectively the true industrial revolution)

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

a curse on the houses of all your scientific bandwagon jumpers that put a cost on carbon rather than the clear reality of its great contribution to wealth and wellbeing

Why are you getting so upset?

Nobody is saying that coal and the industrial revolution didn't bring great gains to society. I wouldn't even say that actions were carried out in deliberate ignorance/malice, there was simply no way at the time to predict or understand the long-term externalities as FF use and populations grew.

But that doesn't mean, nor excuse you for simply ignoring or denying the externalities that it is now bringing.

Previously we could have continued on in ignorance. But the greater ignorance today would be to fail to act now that science has reached a conclusion (even if you don't agree, or feel comfortable posting comments that you believe that coal emissions are safe because you like the smell of raw coal).

Today, ignorance of externalities is no longer an acceptable excuse. Possibly the first form of cheap energy would have been slavery, but after an appreciation was gained of the true externalities, that lost popularity.

Clearly as I've said before we aren't going to reach an agreement. But my purpose in joining this discussion was to try to get you to recognise that your statements, put forward as fact, are in fact nothing more than personal opinions which are entirely at odds with the accepted facts.

If my responses to your posts (always following your lead and addressing your arguments) is getting you angry, then I'll happily withdraw. But hopefully you will, at the very least now have a much better appreciation of how far PV has already come, and it's still early days.

Best wishes.

Mart.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why are you getting so upset?

Nobody is saying that coal and the industrial revolution didn't bring great gains to society. I wouldn't even say that actions were carried out in deliberate ignorance/malice, there was simply no way at the time to predict or understand the long-term externalities as FF use and populations grew.

But that doesn't mean, nor excuse you for simply ignoring or denying the externalities that it is now bringing.

Previously we could have continued on in ignorance. But the greater ignorance today would be to fail to act now that science has reached a conclusion (even if you don't agree, or feel comfortable posting comments that you believe that coal emissions are safe because you like the smell of raw coal).

Today, ignorance of externalities is no longer an acceptable excuse. Possibly the first form of cheap energy would have been slavery, but after an appreciation was gained of the true externalities, that lost popularity.

Clearly as I've said before we aren't going to reach an agreement. But my purpose in joining this discussion was to try to get you to recognise that your statements, put forward as fact, are in fact nothing more than personal opinions which are entirely at odds with the accepted facts.

If my responses to your posts (always following your lead and addressing your arguments) is getting you angry, then I'll happily withdraw. But hopefully you will, at the very least now have a much better appreciation of how far PV has already come, and it's still early days.

Best wishes.

Mart.

Im not angry nor do i have such a nature

A final question, if coal is so bad for us all why play with accounting tricks and imaginary externalities. Why not just outright ban its use?

Lets say you made that happen. What would be the impact worldwide and how would that effect our health abd wealth?

padington

cells wrote: »

Im not angry nor do i have such a nature

Whats that smell ?