Piddles wrote: »
For that to happen the government would have to announce a rolling date for the closure of the gas network...[SNIP] That may change the calculation now for people changing clapped out gas boilers..
The government will set out plans to resuscitate the UK’s struggling nuclear ambitions with a new scheme which would leave taxpayers liable for rising costs or delays.
The funding model, expected this week, could help bankroll the multibillion pound plans for a follow-on to EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, which ministers aim to build at the Sizewell site in Suffolk.
It could also resurrect the dormant plans for a £16bn new nuclear reactor at the Wylfa project in North Wales, which fell apart last year due to the high costs of nuclear construction.
EDF Energy has claimed the risk to taxpayers of funding its Sizewell B project would be far lower – almost by a fifth – because it is a copy of the same design for build Hinkley Point C.
The panel of experts proposes a price of between 25 and 50 euros per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Environment minister Svenja Schulze is in favor of 35 euros as a good place to begin. This would raise the price of gasoline and diesel fuel by about 10 cents per gallon. The lower the initial tariff, however, the sharper the future increases would have to be to make sure Germany reaches its carbon reduction goals on time.
The bottom line is that fossil fuel companies must be assessed a fee to offset the damage they do to people and the environment, and that fee will make their products less competitive. So be it. If we have any hope of crafting an effective response to the challenge of climate change, such a fee must be part of the plan. But words matter.
Calling such a fee a tax is guaranteed to generate opposition, so stop calling it that! No one needs to apologize for asking fossil fuel companies to shoulder their fair share, even if it comes 100 years too late.
ed110220 wrote: »
Wow, that would be epic! And definitely put more than a crimp in the argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night") as between Europe and China the sun would be shining most of the time.
At the current rates of growth there will be four Chinas, four Indias and four Africa by 2040
Martyn1981 wrote: »
Renewable Energy Now Accounts for a Third of Global Power Capacity
[Note - that's capacity not generation.]
Martyn1981 wrote: »
Germany Stares Into The Abyss & Sees A Price On Carbon As Inevitable
The bottom line is that fossil fuel companies must be assessed a fee to offset the damage they do to people and the environment, and that fee will make their products less competitive. So be it.
Intervention in the price could exacerbate social problems in society. Low income people spend more of their income on mobility and energy. A higher fuel or fuel price will hit them hard.
Piddles wrote: »
Dieter Helm, Professor of energy policy at the University of Oxford, and author of a major government report on to how reduce energy costs whilst reducing emissions:
36% of new capacity is from non renewables.
Global emissions grew at the fastest rate last year since 2011.
It seems like we need a truly global solution rather quickly.
Africa could use solar from the deserts of Somalia, Pakistan or Western India. India from Australia. But China, South Korea and Japan? There's the whopping great nothingness of the Pacific Ocean in the way until the deserts of North America 10,000 plus kilometres away. That would make for some interesting geo-politics....
Martyn1981 wrote: »
Here's a weird question. And I'm not nuclear bashing, I'm trying to support RE.
An argument for nuclear is that much RE generation is variable, and we need predictable reliable baseload generation. Without this, this country, any country can't get to 100% low carbon, or it would be much, much harder.
But, something troubles me. If the nuclear gen is 100% reliable, and operates 24/7, then doesn't it just reduce the nations demand (effectively) by that nuclear gen. For instance, the UK's demand is around 40GW average, varying from about 20GW (early hours Summer), to about 50-55GW evening Winter peak.
Let's say we build out 10GW of nuclear, then don't we then move from being a 40GW average, 20-55GW country with nuclear, and effectively become a 30GW average, 10-45GW non nuclear country?
But the nuclear argument says that a 30GW (10-45GW) country can't go 100% low carbon without nuclear ...... so we have to rollout nuclear ........ see where I'm going with this?
Doesn't inflexible nuclear, simply change the 'size of the country'? How come the UK with nuclear is fine, but a smaller nation without, isn't?
[Edit & note - I appreciate that more variable generation means more storage, but the large and growing cost differential between RE gen and nuclear, means that less nuclear equals more savings for storage deployment. So it becomes a circular issue, I think?]
I wish the government would be more open and start producing papers on nuclear options, and non-nuclear options, and start costing and predicting storage (of all types), otherwise we just get the same ole arguments, over and over explaining how we can't do it without nuclear, but not explaining why not, nor why the 100+ nations that won't be deploying nuclear can (or can't) achieve 100% low carbon.
markin wrote: »
New nuclear can load follow a lot better, And France has coped perfectly well with matching summer/winter demand.
Just look at what happened in the "beast from the east" 2, And then imagine it, if we had batteries instead of gas, The was low wind all over Europe, No solar, And if bad seas had meant the LNG tankers could not get the gas to us we would have had power cuts or cold homes, So yes a smaller grid means its easier to build that 7 day battery, or you burn less gas when the wind is low.
A lot of what ive read and the numbers seem to back it up is that Gas has replaced Coal, not wind or solar, so until we can store that wind and solar we are stuck with Gas.
When we do get that 7-14 days of storage i think it will be Flow battery's, Ammonia, Compressed Air, Some sort of synth Gas, or thermal with molten salt.
20 Lloyds & 8 Halifax outlets affected
Show us a pic, go on
Norm £31.78. Excludes Northern Ireland