On the box today. National Audit Office says energy prices are to rise for next seventeen years. I wonder where they get the seventeen years from? Why not eigthteen?
Better buy more celotex and LED light bulbs.
A moments thought would reveal to anyone who does mathematics (obviously you are excluded) that 17 years frnk 2013 takes us to 2030, which is probably the sort of cut-off date such a study would use.
You can congratulate yourself on being one of the people making this price rise inevitable.
Actually I think I'll buy a shotgun.
Plenty of solar panels to use as targets.
That is when the world ends, or, perhaps when they will be emigrating so don't care. Brian
In message , at 08:48:52 on Wed, 13 Nov
2013, harryagain remarked:That'll be the point to which they've done a costing of "investing in the infrastructure".
Of course, all that new infrastructure will be adequate for ever, and no further investment will be required after 2030.
Unfortunately that would just put buildings insurance costs up.
Isn't 2030 when they plan to finish the nukes by?
With a government so in thrall to the market, where are the "no steenking windmills" and "100% nooclear" energy tariffs and let the market decide?
JGH
In message , at
12:14:41 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, "dennis@home" remarked:
And they don't need distribution infrastructure and generation to top up their baseload supply?
ITYM uncomprehending arithmetic.
And that the timescale given is more likely 2 +/- 1 decades of rising prices. Economics isn't called the dismal science for nothing.
It always amuses me when they report the GDP figure for the latest quarter is up +0.2% and then revise the previous one by more than that.
Who knows if we frack the Home Counties to blazes gas prices might even come down, but I bet heating oil will go inexorably up in price :(
Don't do that. The way things are going we will need all the generating capacity we can muster. Even if the French manage to build us some nukes using money borrowed from the Chinese on time they will not come onstream soon enough to avoid some very tight supply margin problems.
Ah but consider. If the cost of insuring solar panels exceeds the FIT payments, the job is done.
no. by and large, they don't.
Most are already supplied with most of the backhaul they need so to speak. That's one reason to build them where the old nukes were.
Obviously doubling up from a typical 1-1.6GW plant now to the new 3.6GW will need some extension - but it will be the minimum to handle the peak load, and the average will be far higher than the massive grid extensions needed to accomodate renewables that are mostly underutilised.
we need all the generating capacity just after dark on a December or January evening when all the solar panels in the country produce precisely NOTHING.
WE could destroy them all with no effect whatsoever on our ability to handle peak demand.
In message , at 14:41:47 on Wed, 13 Nov
2013, The Natural Philosopher remarked:And that doesn't need any maintenance, ever?
February is usually the coldest month so if it is ever going to go crunch spectacularly it will most likely be then. Prof Ian Fells has been warning them about this scenario for as long as I can remember.
I fully expect him to be vindicated.
You need a protracted cold spell at -10C or thereabouts and a nice calm clear frosty night over the entire UK for maximum impact. Then all of the expensive renewables are rendered completely impotent.
OK hydro can run for a very short while but that is your lot.
I agree with you that solar PV at our high latitude is a waste of resources and it is utter madness to subsidise it. I am not convinced by some of the grant farming wind turbines either but they at least have a worthwhile lifetime net energy gain in suitably windy locations.
So *you* want to pay the insurance and the fits?
At which point I expect a full apology from Java Jive.
Peak demand does not occur after dark. Full of your usual drivel. Micro generation is the only hope. It's financed by individuals and can be installed in days not decades.
Most of the "green tariff" goes on free efficiency measures in the houses of dopey people like you who have sat on your arses and done nothing.
More drivel. Microgeneration needs no new infrastructure as it is used locally. Also makes it makes it more efficient as there is virtually no transmission losses.
We additionally need the Severn Barrage scheme plus every other suitable estuary. And of course the smart grid. (Smart meters are just the precursor)
Renewable energy is about fuel savings. A substitute for fossil fuel that will be ten times the cost (in real terms) it is now in twenty years.
Whatever fuel source we might turn to, it will cost megabucks for the energy converter(power station). At least with renewables, the fuel comes for nothing.
And just as important, no-one can take it from us. (Thinking about islamonut clothheads in the ME.) Only a matter of time before they take over and cut off our fuel supply.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.