Dermot McArdle
Member
I know there has been several posts on the general topic of energy costs and production but maybe someone can enlighten me on my thoughts on renewable energy as applied to the UK.
I agree that renewable energy is very beneficial to the overall mix of energy production but everyone agrees that because of it's unpredictability, the UK must have a backup source of production for a potential period when no renewable power is available.
This could easily occur in the dark winter months and stretch on for several weeks.
So, we would need to have a generating capacity to supply almost 100% of the UK energy needs available on standby.
Currently this is reliant on gas plants, some nuclear and interconnectors.
Whilst there is now an ambition to increase the nuclear capacity, I don't believe it would replace the production available from gas.
There are also some musings that battery storage will become available. That technology is not yet available and current capacity would only keep the lights on for a few hours.
Given all those stated parameters, I'm struggling to understand Ed Miliband's 'mission' to de-carbonize our electricity production, decouple it from international supplies and so reduce the cost to the consumer.
Take costs; renewable wind and solar energy is incredibly cheap to produce, but that cost is only enjoyed by the producers because they are paid the same price as is paid to the gas plants for their electricity.
Hence the enthusiasm for companies to invest in wind farms.
If the strike price for electricity was reduced to reflect the cheaper renewable costs, then who would invest in having and running gas plants which require a much higher price to be profitable. And remember we need that gas capacity to run all of the UK network as backup.
What if we replaced all the gas plants with small nuclear? That would be a lot of nuclear but at least they could be put where they're needed and all you have to do is switch them on and they work.
Some might argue that that will be a lot of waste to deal with. But not anywhere near to the vast quantities of landfill most people are happy accommodate near their towns and cities.
But if we did go for a large nuclear capacity, that is still expensive and on a par with fossil fuel.
Hence I cannot understand how Miliband's 'mission' will reduce our energy costs.
Meanwhile public opinion is too virtuous to consider fracking the huge potential quantities of UK gas available and are instead happy to let the Americans frack for it and then buy it for use in our homes and generating plants.
If we are going to grow anywhere near our ambitions, we need vast quantities of cheap energy. Should we not use the best of what we've already got and instead to all this speculative investment in windmills, double down on research into fusion or some other as yet unavailable source of energy.
I agree that renewable energy is very beneficial to the overall mix of energy production but everyone agrees that because of it's unpredictability, the UK must have a backup source of production for a potential period when no renewable power is available.
This could easily occur in the dark winter months and stretch on for several weeks.
So, we would need to have a generating capacity to supply almost 100% of the UK energy needs available on standby.
Currently this is reliant on gas plants, some nuclear and interconnectors.
Whilst there is now an ambition to increase the nuclear capacity, I don't believe it would replace the production available from gas.
There are also some musings that battery storage will become available. That technology is not yet available and current capacity would only keep the lights on for a few hours.
Given all those stated parameters, I'm struggling to understand Ed Miliband's 'mission' to de-carbonize our electricity production, decouple it from international supplies and so reduce the cost to the consumer.
Take costs; renewable wind and solar energy is incredibly cheap to produce, but that cost is only enjoyed by the producers because they are paid the same price as is paid to the gas plants for their electricity.
Hence the enthusiasm for companies to invest in wind farms.
If the strike price for electricity was reduced to reflect the cheaper renewable costs, then who would invest in having and running gas plants which require a much higher price to be profitable. And remember we need that gas capacity to run all of the UK network as backup.
What if we replaced all the gas plants with small nuclear? That would be a lot of nuclear but at least they could be put where they're needed and all you have to do is switch them on and they work.
Some might argue that that will be a lot of waste to deal with. But not anywhere near to the vast quantities of landfill most people are happy accommodate near their towns and cities.
But if we did go for a large nuclear capacity, that is still expensive and on a par with fossil fuel.
Hence I cannot understand how Miliband's 'mission' will reduce our energy costs.
Meanwhile public opinion is too virtuous to consider fracking the huge potential quantities of UK gas available and are instead happy to let the Americans frack for it and then buy it for use in our homes and generating plants.
If we are going to grow anywhere near our ambitions, we need vast quantities of cheap energy. Should we not use the best of what we've already got and instead to all this speculative investment in windmills, double down on research into fusion or some other as yet unavailable source of energy.
