Is it time to ditch green power generation?

[joe-90]

It's expected that oil will reach $150 dollars a barrel over the next year. Is it time to dig up our only natural resource - coal? Compared to the CO2 that China, USA, India and Brazil pump out, the UK puts out hardly anything in the way of World pollution.
If we want to keep the lights on and stop people from freezing - is there an alternative?

 

[Norcon]

Switch the lights out. Its gonna happen sooner or later.
Why not by mans hand instead of nature having the last say?
It would make us look intelligent to a far world extra terrestrerial species looking in.

 

[Inky Pete]

I wouldn't object to "green" generation methods if they had to compete on a level playing field rather than being subsidised to the hilt at massive expense to the normal energy consumer.

I thought the whole point of "renewables" was that the fuel was free. So how come it costs so much more to generate power when there's no fuel to pay for??? Someone has got to be making a simply HUGE pile of cash out of it all!!!

 

[joinerjohn]

There's always the nuclear option.
But seriously, green energy can't and won't ever compete with other generation methods.

 

[wotan]

Carbon tax the biggest con trick ever!
It's done nothing for this country, except lose our jobs to other countrys

Wotan

 

[Paul_C]

I wouldn't object to "green" generation methods if they had to compete on a level playing field rather than being subsidised to the hilt at massive expense to the normal energy consumer.

Definitely. The way the ridiculous feed-in tariff has been implemented is grossly unjust (even after the halving of the original figure for new installations).

There's always the nuclear option.

"Power too cheap to meter" was what people were told at one time. That's until governments decimated the nuclear power program, and for what?

 

[joinerjohn]

Definitely. The way the ridiculous feed-in tariff has been implemented is grossly unjust (even after the halving of the original figure for new installations).

There's always the nuclear option.

"Power too cheap to meter" was what people were told at one time. That's until governments decimated the nuclear power program, and for what?

The FIT's are paid for by us punters anyway, in the form of higher electricity bills, and the Green Brigade saw to it that nuclear wouldn't be considered. We're stuffed anyway,,, Friends of the Earth ( more like Enemies of the Planet), won't be happy until we're sitting in the dark ages once again.

 

[EddieM]

Nuclear, definitely the only viable short / medium term option.

 

[joe-90]

Too late to take the nuclear option as it takes 15 years to get online.

 

[EddieM]

Will have to buy it in until then. Start a "mass" nuclear power plant programme. The irony is that we in the UK do not have the capability to build nuclear power stations anymore. So we'll have to have them built by foreign firms.

 

[ellal]

As the chances of actually being able to reopen the mines is very slim, since they are flooded (chalk another one up to Thatcher), and nuclear is too far off....

Here's a novel one - we reduce our consumption by 50%!

Not hard to do really...In fact we need to reduce our consumption of everything!

However the 'powers that be' won't actually countenance that, because that means the end of the capitalist model..Hence why if we reduce our consumption by 50%, the cost of energy will at least double!

 

[ladylola]

Ellal is of course correct reduce consumption is the only logical way to go , but most don't want that as it will distrupt their lifestyles. I'd personally say we should go further and actually have some sort of rationing of energy. It'd be easy to implement too, with chip and pin everyone could have an "account" with for example 200 gallons of petrol or diesel credited to it per year and everytime you fill up the amount is reduced. If the account runs out or you've not got a card with you then you could buy petrol at twice the regular price thus making the scheme pay for itsself. Beauty of this is that the "account" can be revised to include other things from energy to sugar and fat at very little cost. Of course it will never happen
There was mention of a "level playing field" because of subsidies to renewables. This surely must apply to nuclear generation too as subsidies to that industry are far higher than to green energy. The taxpayer is forking out to help build the stations and paying for their decomissioning too.
Sure we could just burn our own coal , even if as has been pointed out Thatcher decimated that industry and left pits beyond economic recovery, but what happens after that? The chinese are in the forfront of developing green power now but we are talking about abandoning all that. The future will invole us buying foreign power or the machines to make that power from abroard.

 

[joe-90]

China green? Ya gotta be kiddin.

 

[ladylola]

Ok so they are also pumping out loads of CO2 but google their energy production and it does say they have a developing green technology industry.

 

[wobs]

Here's a novel one - we reduce our consumption by 50%!

Not hard to do really...In fact we need to reduce our consumption of everything!

However the 'powers that be' won't actually countenance that, because that means the end of the capitalist model..Hence why if we reduce our consumption by 50%, the cost of energy will at least double!

Energy conservation tends to acheive far less than one expects owing to Jevon's Paradox, which basically says that the more you conserve, the more energy you actually consume in the long run. This is partly down to the embedded energy in anything we buy. If we save energy by changing light bulbs, or driving more efficiently, we spend the savings elsewhere.

And if we have a clean energy source (eg wind turbine), we often feel less inclined to save the energy, as we have a clearer conscience.

But if we do cut our consumption by 50% (which we won't), it woud not increase our fuel bills, as demand falls, and the price should in theory drop. (assuming supply availability stays the same).