Cost of reducing emssions

GreatApe

Cardew wrote: »

From today's meeting it is clear Trump has not changed his mind!
It raises, again the issue of the UK spending £multi-billions for What? and Why?

The UK should deploy offshore wind as it's economic enough (so long as tenders come in at £40/MWh or less). The 40GW offshore wind by 2030 is okay

The UK should build interconntors as they are economic and reduce CO2 as a side benefit

The UK should improve insulation levels as it's more comfortable

Beyond that it's all meh...... let the next generation figure it out its the height of arrogance to think we should and can solve all future problems today. Give the kids something to do :rotfl:

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

From today's meeting it is clear Trump has not changed his mind!


It raises, again the issue of the UK spending £multi-billions for What? and Why?

For a cleaner greener planet and to reduce as far as is now possible, the enormous environmental and financial costs of AGW, which will dwarf spending on mitigation.

Your apparent preference for spending less today, and therefore vastly more tomorrow seems not only contrary to 'green and ethical' but also 'money saving'.

BTW, not just the UK spending money, all countries are,including the US.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For a cleaner greener planet and to reduce as far as is now possible, the enormous environmental and financial costs of AGW, which will dwarf spending on mitigation.

Your apparent preference for spending less today, and therefore vastly more tomorrow seems not only contrary to 'green and ethical' but also 'money saving'.

BTW, not just the UK spending money, all countries are,including the US.

Totally agree Mart. The longer we wait to do something, the more it'll cost.

TBH, I don't see the science deniers, arguing against the implementation of renewable energy anymore, they also seem to be keen on energy conservation, insulation and even electric vehicles. I've not seen them urgently pushing for rain forests to be chopped down, so they just seem to be arguing about the minutia of it all.

In the end though, the discussion seems pointless really as this small forum does not have a direct line to UK or World governments, so a discussion like this just causes bad feeling and crowds out legitimate Green & Ethical Moneysaving threads.

If people want to have full-blown climate change discussions, why not post in Discussion Time? That'll open the discussion to a much wider audience than the 7 or 8 on here who all have entrenched views and that they impart each time this comes up. It's like Groundhog Day - same arguments put by the same people.

This forum is getting like that House Price forum where an even smaller number of people argue about the same thing, day in and day out. According to a post I read on the Pension board, it used to be a thriving area but the interminable arguments and resulting heavy handed moderation wrecked it until it's just a place where a handful of die-hards gnaw over old arguments.

Is that really the future we want for this board?

EDIT:
I just checked out the various boards and saw:

Debate house prices - 3 viewing
greenfingered money saving - 39 viewing
green and ethical 19 viewing
The moneysaving arms, including Discussion Time (113 Viewing)

Come on guys, you must be able to see the direction of travel. The closest 'Green' board to this one is the @greenfingered' gardening one and it has double the number of people reading it. The argument board (aka Debate House Price) has THREE people. No wonder GA and go have come over here for their arguments - they've ruined that board to the point that there is no one left to argue with.

Can we please stop letting their pathological need for argument ruin this board the same way?

incidently, the real discussion board (Moneysaving Arms) has 113 viewing. Why not post your amazing insights and cutting debate there to a wider audience?

Cardew

pile-o-stone wrote: »

T
Is that really the future we want for this board?


Can we please stop letting their pathological need for argument ruin this board the same way?

I take your point and it certainly is not the way this board was in the past when it started around 2005; or should be in the future.

Later the Board was largely taken over by RE enthusiasts - starting 3 or 4 years later by many interested in the soon to be introduced Feed in Tariffs in 2010. Unfortunately any criticism of the scheme – not the participants – led to arguments and this spread to attacking anyone who dared to have a counter view on the subject of RE - solar in particular- to that expressed by a dominant few.

Personally I find the scores of posts regurgitating Solar industry propaganda boring, others don’t, so I don’t read them any more.

Lots of excellent contributors over the years have been hounded off the board by unpleasantness and the group tactic of reporting posts for the flimsiest reason – I had a post removed for using the word ‘Cartel’ about this group. The latest victim appears to be ‘Great Ape’* whose lengthy and IMO thought provoking posts, are often met with mockery and derision. Just read the vitriol used on this Board to describe ‘denier’ or ‘Nuclear enthusiast’.

Many advocate the use of the 'ignore' button but few appear to use it.

This Board potentially could be the most interesting and important, on the forum. There are potentially many contributors with technical knowledge and insight here - not always the case if other discussion Boards on MSE! So I don’t agree a board with dozens of threads should be moved to ‘discussion’. If there was more tolerance perhaps there would be more than the 7 or 8 regulars.

pile-o-stone

Cardew wrote: »

I take your point and it certainly is not the way this board was in the past when it started around 2005; or should be in the future.

Later the Board was largely taken over by RE enthusiasts - starting 3 or 4 years later by many interested in the soon to be introduced Feed in Tariffs in 2010. Unfortunately any criticism of the scheme – not the participants – led to arguments and this spread to attacking anyone who dared to have a counter view on the subject of RE - solar in particular- to that expressed by a dominant few.

Well the FIT payments have ended and so has that particular argument, so let's all just drop any bad feeling that was generated during those arguments and move on.

Cardew wrote: »

The latest victim appears to be ‘Great Ape’* whose lengthy and IMO thought provoking posts, are often met with mockery and derision. Just read the vitriol used on this Board to describe ‘denier’ or ‘Nuclear enthusiast’.

Most of those 'thought provoking posts' are completely off topic and so are better suited to Discussion Time. They provide no usable information - while nuclear may or may not be Green or Moneysaving, very few of us have the money to install a nuclear reactor to power our electricity. or heat our homes.

Cardew wrote: »

Many advocate the use of the 'ignore' button but few appear to use it.

The 'Ignore' button has a flaw where, for some strange reason, it has to tell you that "someone you have on ignore has posted, but you can't see it because you have the poster on ignore" (well, durr...)

Knowing this, GreatApe posts a series of posts one after the other in the same thread so that it fills people's screens with Ignore notifications. The most I have seen are 6 posts one after the other, the average is 3 sequential posts. It's the forum equivalent of a toddler shouting for attention.

Cardew wrote: »

This Board potentially could be the most interesting and important, on the forum. There are potentially many contributors with technical knowledge and insight here - not always the case if other discussion Boards on MSE! So I don’t agree a board with dozens of threads should be moved to ‘discussion’. If there was more tolerance perhaps there would be more than the 7 or 8 regulars.

If you're referring to technical knowledge on Electric cars, solar panels, heat pumps, batteries, solar thermal, etc. then this is definitely the place to seek those. I'd argue that very few, if any forum members come here for technical knowledge on nuclear power or underground tunnels for cars and so when newbies come here they see all this 'noise' they leave the forum to the 7 or 8 regulars.

EricMears

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Well the FIT payments have ended and so has that particular argument, so let's all just drop any bad feeling that was generated during those arguments and move on.

FIT payments haven't ended ! It's just that the scheme is now closed to new applicants.

Really don't understand why it should ever have caused bad feelings though - it was a well publicised scheme designed to 'prime the pump' and it and similar schemes around the world have resulted in huge cost reductions such that anyone who 'missed the boat' can now afford to install panels without needing a subsidy.

Cardew

pile-o-stone wrote: »

incidently, the real discussion board (Moneysaving Arms) has 113 viewing. Why not post your amazing insights and cutting debate there to a wider audience?

Just a further point on your suggestion of moving discussions to another Board on this Forum. In 2017 weary of the repetitious attacks from ‘enthusiasts’ on this Board I did as you suggest with a post quoting a Guardian Article about the effect of Green Subsidies on Energy Bills in Money Saving Arms . You may care to read it:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5726460/green-subsidies&highlight=


Within the hour at post #3 one of the regulars from Green and Ethical posted:

Haven't we been through all this before? And many times? I wonder how many tax payers realise how much government money is to be wasted on Hinckley Point?

Now the standard ‘defence’ by proponents of FIT is to raise the cost of Nuclear, despite that subsidy being paid by taxpayers and FIT paid directly by electricity consumers.


This was followed by such constructive comments as:

instead of rinsing and repeating on here. Oh gawd.....here we go again.

Then came a prolific poster on this Board(guess who?) with no less than 50 (fifty) lengthy posts in 10 days. Any attempt by new posters to contribute were subjected to the same diversionary tactics(read them)and concentrated on nothing to do with the Guardian article.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

pile-o-stone

Cardew wrote: »

Just a further point on your suggestion of moving discussions to another Board on this Forum. In 2017 weary of the repetitious attacks from ‘enthusiasts’ on this Board I did as you suggest with a post quoting a Guardian Article about the effect of Green Subsidies on Energy Bills in Money Saving Arms.

When I read this first bit of your post I honestly thought you were going to say that you'd tried posting on Money Saving Arms but that no one replied because no one on there was interested. It would have been a reasonable response to my suggestion that general discussions be put onto the discussion boards.

However, you seem to be moaning that you got the same responses from the same people on a subject you had previously posted in here. It's a fair point but it isn't an argument against posting in the Arms or DT.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Now the standard ‘defence’ by proponents of FIT is to raise the cost of Nuclear, despite that subsidy being paid by taxpayers and FIT paid directly by electricity consumers.

Not true. The FiT, ROC's, CfD's etc are all paid from the green levy on energy bills.

So Hinkley Point C's subsidy of approx £50bn will be paid by all UK electricity consumers, but unlike the FiTs which is paid out to UK leccy consumers, the HPC subsidies will be paid to the nuclear powerstation owners (French and Chinese Governments).

Edit - Actually you have a point. Because nuclear is so expensive, unpopular and expensive (again) to decommission, the UK govt (us) is helping with some financial costs by underwriting investments, and will pay towards the clean up afterwards if the owners don't put enough money aside (from the CfD subsidy receipts) to cover the eventual decommissioning costs if they turn out to be more than expected.

And of course, as nuclear can't be insured, the UK government will also be doing that ....... but let's be positive and hope nothing goes wrong, certainly not a $200bn clean up bill like Fukushima.

Cardew

pile-o-stone wrote: »

When I read this first bit of your post I honestly thought you were going to say that you'd tried posting on Money Saving Arms but that no one replied because no one on there was interested. It would have been a reasonable response to my suggestion that general discussions be put onto the discussion boards.

However, you seem to be moaning that you got the same responses from the same people on a subject you had previously posted in here. It's a fair point but it isn't an argument against posting in the Arms or DT.

Surely the point I am making is that where any ‘RE’ subject is posted – I have tried on the Gas and Electricity board - it appears to be a ‘red rag’ to some posters and a ‘filibuster’ ensues.


There was some initial interest in the MoneySavers Arms thread from new contributors – e.g. post #19 -, but clearly that was not an acceptable line to take – George Monbiot is the devil incarnate.


Despite again pointing out the subject of the Guardian article(FIT subsidy),the purpose of the thread and a request not to divert the thread again to Nuclear costs, the situation is neatly summed up by this exchange in post #21

Incidentally this is a thread about Green subsidies and it is really not necessary to use diversionary tactics attempting to move the discussion to nuclear power


Actually I think it is essential to discuss nuclear since otherwise it just becomes 'renewables bashing'.

It is that attitude that has largely contributes to only the 7 or 8 regulars, that you point out, contribute on this Board and the object seems to be glorification of all things RE and slamming any other opinion
.
Surely on an internet forum different views should be encouraged.