how much does renewable energy cost?

[Nick]

Highlighted bit is missing, Nick.

Not according to Nat Geo. 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-gas

[Barry]

"A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon-containing material formed naturally in the Earth's crust [highlight]from the remains of dead plants and animals that is extracted and burned as a fuel."[/highlight]

Natural Gas is a hydrocarbon that is formed naturally in the Earth's crust!!

According to every link I've seen it is, do you have an explanation as to why it isn't?

Highlighted bit is missing, Nick.

[Nick]

It was a modern state of the art colliery opened in 1960, and closed in 1990 because coal was going out of fashion and it looked good for the government to say look at us, we're closing coal mines how environmentally aware we are.

Coal mining ended because the Government (of the day) decided they were sick and tired of unions holding the country to ransom, the environment was just an excuse.
I thought I read somewhere at that time we started getting coal in from Brasil??

[Nick]

^^
@Red Rackham
Agree with all except that gas is not a fossil fuel.

"A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon-containing material formed naturally in the Earth's crust from the remains of dead plants and animals that is extracted and burned as a fuel."

Natural Gas is a hydrocarbon that is formed naturally in the Earth's crust!!

According to every link I've seen it is, do you have an explanation as to why it isn't?

[Red Rackham]

Er, we don't have to import them from dodgy regimes?

Don't say Er, it makes you sound indecisive, as if you're unsure.

I'll tell you what we don't have to import from dodgy regimes, North Sea oil & gas, and shale gas. But I'll tell you what we did import from dodgy regimes. Coal. Yes, mad isn't it. The power station I worked at was supplied with coal from the colliery next door (Before I worked there) via conveyor, no transport involved. It was a modern state of the art colliery opened in 1960, and closed in 1990 because coal was going out of fashion and it looked good for the government to say look at us, we're closing coal mines how environmentally aware we are.

But the power station still needed coal. So, from 1990 to 2016 when it closed that power station burned 9000t a day of foreign coal. Mainly Russian and Columbian, occasionally Indonesian, in these countries miners died on a daily basis and environmental concerns were, indeed are, laughed at. But in this country that didn't matter. As long as we weren't burning British coal all was well.

Consider that for a moment, rather than being supplied with coal from a pit next door, for 26 years we imported coal from the other side of the world! And we were just one of dozens of power stations doing exactly the same. Energy policy in this country is now and has been for some decades, utterly economically incompetent.

[Baff]

Cobblers,in light of what is happening now not one Tory has been able to demonstrate  on here why privatising the utilities was a great idea.

Let me put it to you this way, we'd be part of the Soviet Union.
Not Russia's rival but it's satellite.

The Marxists tried to take over the country by controlling the means of production.
But we'd seen this tactic too many times before. We knew the counter.
Thatcher opened the country up to the international market and to private ownership. To suppliers beyond their ability to control.

[Baff]

Apparently the price of electricity charged to customers is set by the gas price on the international market, so it doesn't really reflect the actual cost of generation by any particular method.

Some commentators say offshore wind is now the cheapest way to feed the National Grid. They used to say building big offshore wind farms was much more expensive than using existing nuclear power stations, which might have been true a few years ago. But change three words in that sentence to reflect the situation now - so it reads "Building big offshore wind farms is much less expensive than building new nuclear power stations".

Onshore wind is cheaper than off shore wind.
Less cabling, easier to build and maintain.

The problem with solar and wind generated electricity is that reliably there are going to be periods when there is neither.
And because of this we still need to build ye olde power stations for those days and nights.
Which means the capital investment required to build wind and solar is additional. Not instead.

Buy two means of generating electricity, use one.


For myself the benefits of renewable are mostly to be found in terms of energy security.
I don't give a monkey's about CO2 and I don't like the price.
I do like energy security. And that is something I am willing to pay for.

[Barry]

^^
@Red Rackham
Agree with all except that gas is not a fossil fuel.

[srb7677]

What possible advantages to energy security do wind & solar provide?

Er, we don't have to import them from dodgy regimes?

[Red Rackham]

I have no figures to hand and no time to research any this morning as work beckons.

But with the high cost of fossil fuels right now renewables must be becoming more cost effective, having for a long while been more costly.

But Streetwalker has provided evidence that these costs are coming down even as the costs of fossil fuels keep going up.

Renewables also have huge advantages in terms of energy security as we can produce our own energy with them and not be dependent upon others. We tend to be a very windy island, .

The key to reliable wind power though is surplus combined with storage, ie producing much more than we need when the wind is blowing and storing the excess for when it isn't. But we would need many more wind farms for that so wind alone is unlikely to be sufficient.

It is similar re solar power, where we could harness much more in the summer than in the winter but the winter sees the highest energy demands. Again storage of summer surplusses is key.

As an island surrounded by the sea with numerous tidal estuaries, I think we should be making far more use of tidal power which we are geographically exceptionally well placed to exploit. And unlike wind or sunshine, the tides are wholly predictable.

I have come round to the idea that we need also to invest in nuclear power.

LOL, hilarious. What possible advantages to energy security do wind & solar provide? This is nonsense. California are supposed to be world leaders in renewable energy, they also experience regular power outages. Even in sunny California renewables cannot keep the lights on. Things may be different when renewable energy can be stored, in 50 year's time, maybe 100 year's time, but certainly not now.

Wind power is incredibly damaging to the environment. One wind turbine requires hundreds of tonnes of concrete and rare earth minerals, they have a life span of ten years and are then buried because they cant be recycled. But it's even worse than that, you know perfectly well that wind turbines are 30% efficient, rising to 50% efficient if it's windy.

You will I'm sure be aware that although the EU have spent €billions on windmills, they are now faced with the prospect of power cuts this winter, which is why Germany are firing up coal fired power stations, because they're reliable, and the EU have decreed that gas, a fossil fuel, is green, .

[srb7677]

We'll make a Thatcherite out of you yet!!

You'd be more likely to make an astronaut out of me.

[johnofgwent]

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/fossil-gas-uk-electricity-prices/

The costs as exploited by a cardigan wearing tree hugger are laid out here

Note that this is written from the perspective of a tree hugger who wishes to have babies with every politician responsible for screwing us over in the way they have to make non renewables so f**king expensive. Where we should be looking at this the way china is, f**k the planet and keep warm and have a GDP

[T00ts]

And you'd be right,it doesn't take a political genius to the possible consequences,the woman was Truss with a few more brain cells.
MacMillan told her not to sell the family silver.
You mean like now but then we were still paying off the WW2 debt.And unanticipated? Yeah by poor thought and political nouse.
Which wasn't all strictly true,often the nationalised industries were subject to political idealism and not what was good for that industry and country.
They were also far too often denied the funds to modernise a purpose.
Yeah and partly privatised already and in no small part damaged by political interference by people like our present chancellor.
Yeah go ahead and privatise that too and it doesn't take much thought to see it will go the same way of the utilities.Didn't expect? You mean from the woman whose mentor Keith Joseph worshipped the free market open to anyone.Well I do,a flawed politician driven by an even more flawed ideology and the only vision has all too often turned in to a nightmare.

And Brummer is an unashamed thatcher apologist.

 Like I said I didn't expect you to agree.

[cromwell]

Ok I'll have a go. I don't expect for a moment that you will agree since Thatcher is a bit like marmite.

And you'd be right,it doesn't take a political genius to the possible consequences,the woman was Truss with a few more brain cells.
MacMillan told her not to sell the family silver.

Political decisions are always subject to unanticipated consequences and if you remember we weren't doing so well at the time.

You mean like now but then we were still paying off the WW2 debt.And unanticipated? Yeah by poor thought and political nouse.

Utilities as well as other businesses all needed a massive shakeup from outdated practices, overmanning, and restrictive government interference. She thought that giving it some competition in the open markets would force it to modernise, invest and generally improve rather than being cushioned constantly with public money.

Which wasn't all strictly true,often the nationalised industries were subject to political idealism and not what was good for that industry and country.
They were also far too often denied the funds to modernise a purpose.

The NHS is in a similar state now.

Yeah and partly privatised already and in no small part damaged by political interference by people like our present chancellor.
Yeah go ahead and privatise that too and it doesn't take much thought to see it will go the same way of the utilities.

What she didn't expect was for those private companies to be taken over by foreign entities and that was ok for a while but now that we are no longer the best of friends with Europe it has backfired.

Didn't expect? You mean from the woman whose mentor Keith Joseph worshipped the free market open to anyone.

I don't think Thatcher can be blamed for what at the time was a vision of potential.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-11022571/ALEX-BRUMMER-Margaret-Thatchers-privatisation-vision-betrayed.html

Well I do,a flawed politician driven by an even more flawed ideology and the only vision has all too often turned in to a nightmare.

And Brummer is an unashamed thatcher apologist.

[HDQQ]

But we can't rely on wind alone , a combination of different types of energy production is the best way forward . As renewables become more efficient we can move away from fossils but we are not in a position to dump them yet

That's taken as read but the bigger the contribution by renewables, combined with energy storage, the less fossil fuels we use, with a consequent reduction in CO2 emissions. We're heading for a day when combined cycle gas power stations just exist as a back-up, for the days when renewables don't meet demand. That's already happened with coal-fired power stations, whose contribution these days ranges from small to zero. I know some have been converted to biomass, which is at least sustainable, if not clean.