17 ms·

Meanwhile the UK is dragging its heels by cutting the renewable subsidies -- a move which at this point can really only be ideologically motivated.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Yes, so much for the greenest government ever [1]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-wants-greenest-government-ever http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-w...
toyg 10y ago
If by ideology you mean "backhands from old-money oil companies", yeah totally.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  And on nuclear too: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-17/u-k-china-poised-for-deal-on-world-s-costliest-nuclear-plant http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-17/u-k-china-... The cost doesn't even include the implicit subsidy from the liability cap the government gives them. Fukushima-style cleanup costs falling on the taxpayer = free insurance.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
andyjohnson0 10y ago
Real-time(-ish) UK consumption details can be found here [1]. At the time of posting (late morning) wind is generating 7.9%, coal 4.1% and nuclear 22.1% of total demand. Unsurprisingly there appear to be no figures for solar. [1] http://gridwatch.co.uk/ http://gridwatch.co.uk/
- jsingleton 10y ago
  This is explained at: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk "As no solar PV to date is metered centrally, we cannot show real time figures on solar PV power yet. It appears only as a mid-day dip in overall demand, on the demand graph." The French data does include solar: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france
  - redcalx 10y ago
    Domestic solar isn't metered at all. The power can go out to your neighbours on the same substation, but how much of it does so is not metered - payments are based on an assumption that 50% of the power generated is 'exported' (i.e. not used by your home).
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Are you sure? Where? The most popular approach is to use a household meter to keep track of the energy that is fed back to the grid (sometimes the meter will just run usage down, other times there will be 2 counts, 1 for usage and 1 for power sent to the grid). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    Here is the same (real time) data for the Nordic and Baltic regions: http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-the-power-system/Nordic-power-balance/ http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-th...
gaius 10y ago
The ideology of looking out of the window and seeing neither solar nor wind will work today?
- phaemon 10y ago
  Is it not a bit foolish to claim "neither solar nor wind will work today" when there are already 2 links in this thread showing how much energy wind is producing right now? It really makes no sense to say that something can't happen, as it's happening.
  - mason240 10y ago
    If that's true then there is then there is not even no need for subsidies, but no need to any debate all. If wind and solar are so much better for generating electricity, then the energy companies would be using wind and solar. The idea that energy companies are going to just not use them out of spite is silly.
  - bubuga 10y ago
    > when there are already 2 links in this thread showing how much energy wind is producing right now? You should also see the links that show the premium that energy users are forced to pay as a consequence of the government's investment in wind and hydro. If you care about the economy and competitiveness, paying a premium for something whose alternative is currently in a historically-low cost is something that does matter. Warm feelings don't power farms and factories.
- 7952 10y ago
  I am in England right now and have just looked out of the window. It is quite windy.
jsingleton 10y ago
These cuts have been really damaging and I don't think people realized how "the greenest government ever" was actually all the work of the Lib Dems. The current treasury led agenda is very short term thinking and pandering to NIMBY voters. There's been a lot of fuss about solar, but the UK isn't really that sunny, especially when we use the most energy. The real tragedy is Carbon Capture and Storage combined with biomass. That was looking really promising before it was scrapped, as it can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
- toyg 10y ago
  The Lib Dems were complete suckers and were treated as such by the electorate -- and that's the charitable version.
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    They were between a rock and a hard place, the electorate blamed Labour for the financial crisis (even though it was probably just as likely if the Tories had been in power) so they took what was the only option. Other than not making that promise on tuition fees I'm not sure what they could have done anything differently.
    - toyg 10y ago
      They could have conditioned a minority Lab government, which would have been much closer to their positions than the Con manifesto ever was. Or they could have left government when it became clear that they were being played on all sides. One or two years could have been forgiven, not five. They were never likely to get a majority government on their own; even solidifying support after carrying out massive cuts on social programs would have been impossible for anyone left of Cameron. So what were they holding on for? They were used as cannon fodder for five years, and for what? They could have done many things differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter at this point.
      - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
7952 10y ago
The government behave in a very cynical way, although it isn't entirely ideological. About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally. To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway. This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow. The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.
- jdcarr 10y ago
  Do you happen to know anything about offshore wind?
  - 7952 10y ago
    The government are more directly involved in offshore wind. * The Government own the sea bed (via Crown Estates) and are effectively the landlord of the wind farm. * The secretary of state has the final say on planning permission and can "act in the national interest". They can also reject the scheme based on politics or ideology. * The subsidy for new schemes is based on a shadowy auction process (CfD) where the Government choose which schemes get money. In a practical sense the Government are aggressively pushing offshore wind. The economic effect is to restrict subsidy payments to very large producers and cut out smaller suppliers who could produce energy more cheaply. Of course offshore wind will be more predictable and much less contentious. It also has the potential to fund development of support services and port facilities.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

Yes, so much for the greenest government ever [1]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-wants-greenest-government-ever http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-w...

toyg 10y ago

If by ideology you mean "backhands from old-money oil companies", yeah totally.

crdoconnor 10y ago
And on nuclear too: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-17/u-k-china-poised-for-deal-on-world-s-costliest-nuclear-plant http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-17/u-k-china-... The cost doesn't even include the implicit subsidy from the liability cap the government gives them. Fukushima-style cleanup costs falling on the taxpayer = free insurance.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

andyjohnson0 10y ago

Real-time(-ish) UK consumption details can be found here [1]. At the time of posting (late morning) wind is generating 7.9%, coal 4.1% and nuclear 22.1% of total demand. Unsurprisingly there appear to be no figures for solar. [1] http://gridwatch.co.uk/ http://gridwatch.co.uk/

jsingleton 10y ago
This is explained at: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk "As no solar PV to date is metered centrally, we cannot show real time figures on solar PV power yet. It appears only as a mid-day dip in overall demand, on the demand graph." The French data does include solar: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france
- redcalx 10y ago
  Domestic solar isn't metered at all. The power can go out to your neighbours on the same substation, but how much of it does so is not metered - payments are based on an assumption that 50% of the power generated is 'exported' (i.e. not used by your home).
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Are you sure? Where? The most popular approach is to use a household meter to keep track of the energy that is fed back to the grid (sometimes the meter will just run usage down, other times there will be 2 counts, 1 for usage and 1 for power sent to the grid). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  Here is the same (real time) data for the Nordic and Baltic regions: http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-the-power-system/Nordic-power-balance/ http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-th...

gaius 10y ago

The ideology of looking out of the window and seeing neither solar nor wind will work today?

phaemon 10y ago
Is it not a bit foolish to claim "neither solar nor wind will work today" when there are already 2 links in this thread showing how much energy wind is producing right now? It really makes no sense to say that something can't happen, as it's happening.
- mason240 10y ago
  If that's true then there is then there is not even no need for subsidies, but no need to any debate all. If wind and solar are so much better for generating electricity, then the energy companies would be using wind and solar. The idea that energy companies are going to just not use them out of spite is silly.
- bubuga 10y ago
  > when there are already 2 links in this thread showing how much energy wind is producing right now? You should also see the links that show the premium that energy users are forced to pay as a consequence of the government's investment in wind and hydro. If you care about the economy and competitiveness, paying a premium for something whose alternative is currently in a historically-low cost is something that does matter. Warm feelings don't power farms and factories.
7952 10y ago
I am in England right now and have just looked out of the window. It is quite windy.

jsingleton 10y ago

These cuts have been really damaging and I don't think people realized how "the greenest government ever" was actually all the work of the Lib Dems. The current treasury led agenda is very short term thinking and pandering to NIMBY voters. There's been a lot of fuss about solar, but the UK isn't really that sunny, especially when we use the most energy. The real tragedy is Carbon Capture and Storage combined with biomass. That was looking really promising before it was scrapped, as it can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

toyg 10y ago
The Lib Dems were complete suckers and were treated as such by the electorate -- and that's the charitable version.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  They were between a rock and a hard place, the electorate blamed Labour for the financial crisis (even though it was probably just as likely if the Tories had been in power) so they took what was the only option. Other than not making that promise on tuition fees I'm not sure what they could have done anything differently.
  - toyg 10y ago
    They could have conditioned a minority Lab government, which would have been much closer to their positions than the Con manifesto ever was. Or they could have left government when it became clear that they were being played on all sides. One or two years could have been forgiven, not five. They were never likely to get a majority government on their own; even solidifying support after carrying out massive cuts on social programs would have been impossible for anyone left of Cameron. So what were they holding on for? They were used as cannon fodder for five years, and for what? They could have done many things differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter at this point.
    - tonyedgecombe 10y ago

7952 10y ago

The government behave in a very cynical way, although it isn't entirely ideological. About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally. To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway. This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow. The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.

jdcarr 10y ago
Do you happen to know anything about offshore wind?
- 7952 10y ago
  The government are more directly involved in offshore wind. * The Government own the sea bed (via Crown Estates) and are effectively the landlord of the wind farm. * The secretary of state has the final say on planning permission and can "act in the national interest". They can also reject the scheme based on politics or ideology. * The subsidy for new schemes is based on a shadowy auction process (CfD) where the Government choose which schemes get money. In a practical sense the Government are aggressively pushing offshore wind. The economic effect is to restrict subsidy payments to very large producers and cut out smaller suppliers who could produce energy more cheaply. Of course offshore wind will be more predictable and much less contentious. It also has the potential to fund development of support services and port facilities.