Large solar array in Somerset

[The Natural Philosopher]

That will have been written by some renewable energy lobby of course.

You might think so, but sometimes I wonder

No, German politicians are even more incompetent than ours are, or duplicitous.

A statement like "They probably have a better idea of supply and demand than you." is disingenuous. I certainly have a better idea of German supply and demand that German politicians do, because I've researched it and looked at the data. I don't have as good a view as German grid engineers do, because they aren't telling what no one wants to hear.

I certainly have a better idea of UK demand than almost anyone in the country, because I study it daily.

[The Other Mike]

700km Norway to UK link, 1.4GW, 2019/20 completion, no UK storage needed, decision next year.

Norwegian site because the UK one is borked.

But to put things in perspective The Norwegian to UK gas pipeline is effectively a 30GW ish lnk

[The Natural Philosopher]

"The interconnector projects comprise an investment volume of approximately EUR 1.5 - 2 billion each. "

so probably with inevitable cost overruns about a £1bn per GW.,

That's well above the cost of a gas power station.

Add in the offshore wind at £3bn a GW, and the cost of Norwegian hydro power and that's £4nn a GW plus 'non green' backup O & M costs as well.

Comfortably above nuclear prices for similar reliable power flow.

Presumably skads of EU money is being tipped at it as its the sort of 'lets have total EU integration of everything' that they like.

[dennis]

The small number of people that understand electricity supply or the (German)greens that don't?

[Timothy Murphy]

It has evidently escaped your notice that the German Greens have not been in government for 10 years. "They" are the German federal government under Angela Merkel.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Then two points:

1/. Then "They" certainly do *not* have a better idea etc...

2/. He said 'greens' not 'Greens'. I .e. generic eco loons and those using them for voting fodder and political lobbying, not the party itself.

Its in anyway very confusing with German.

Grünkohl is of course a green kale, and they get that confused with Braunkohle, which is of course the filthy dirty tarry excuse for coal they are burning in Germany to keep the green dream alive.

"In the former East German state of Lusatia, a power plant owned by the utility Vattenfall is the second-largest single source of CO2 emissions in Germany and the third largest in the entire European Union. The European Environment Agency says it's also the third-most damaging industrial facility in the EU, responsible for between $1.5 and $2.6 billion a year in damage to human health and the environment."

"The long-term negative impacts of mining are substantial. In order to reach buried lignite, mining companies have to wall off vast areas of minable terrain from the flow of groundwater. When the groundwater returns to formerly mined areas, it leaches heavy metals into streams and rivers. Some tracts of land near strip mines face problems with land subsidence, as well as dust and noise from ongoing mining. And the gently rolling terrain that's left after mining companies have restored the land is alarmingly subject to landslides."

And this looks a nice place to punt down the river. Not!

German energy policy is founded on two basic principles. Cheap filtgy CO2 remitting lignite to replace clean eco-friendly nuclear to actually do the real job of power generation, and a massive investment in cosmetic 'renewable' technology that doesn't actually work, to keep the German public happy that they are 'doing something' about climate change.

It is absolutely a world leader total utter hypocrisy and green fraud, is Germany.

[Nick]

Can you explain the above please. It is not meaningful in the slightest. Were I not a polite person, I would say it looks a load of balls. Capital B should you wish. Nick.

[The Natural Philosopher]

well its perfectly clear from the article I quoted what it means.

The EEA has, using whatever it decrees to be criteria for assessing such matters, declared that that lignite power station is the third most damaging emitter of pollution in Europe. Whether you agree with their criteria or not, is not my problem. I neither wrote the article nor determined the terms of reference for the EEA.

It (teh EEA) is howver a terribly GREEN organisation and the bit I quoted was from a 'green' source,. so the point stands that Germany's own energy policies are by Green standards, totally un-Green.

I.e. they are two faced scum playing politics

Which is all I wanted to demonstrate.

[The Other Mike]

There is no reason why the cost should be anything but on budget. This is not some short term knee jerk government reaction but something analysed and planned for well over a decade from way before wind came onto the agenda. A sea bed route survey was performed last year. It might not even go ahead.

So it should be expected to be, it's a 50+ year transmission asset requiring no fuel, It's both source and sink and capable of 2.8GW of very fast load change from full export to full import.

Norway is not in the EU, nor can nuclear reactors nor indeed any other conventional generation absorb 1.4GW and return say 1.2GW a few hours later for a peak. It will also reduce the requirement for thermal spinning reserve and improve UK system stability to cope with sudden loss of larger blocks of large generation such as the new nukes. As for funding, it's a FTSE Listed UK plc + Norwegian Government funded. No EU funding to either entity.

An alternative is flooding Scotland and I'll admit this may be a better option. Alex, have a seat old chum, oh you say your ankles are now trapped and your feet are getting wet? Deep breaths, and mouth open wide, not that the latter has ever been much of a problem.