Transition to low carbon energy - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15045664
Sivad wrote:Another good one is how the Brits are getting killed on wholesale energy prices because the coal phase out created enormous demand for natural gas and drove the price right through the fucking roof.

It's just all retarded all the time with the net zero clowns.
I've already shown that the phase out of coal didn't change energy prices over the period. That you have to go to pre financial crash to a time when the pound was significantly stronger just shows how disingenuous you are being.
#15045665
Sivad wrote:Nationwide, energy companies plan to add at least 150 new gas plants and thousands of miles of pipelines in the years ahead.

A rush to build gas-fired plants, even though they emit only half as much carbon pollution as coal, has the potential to lock in decades of new fossil-fuel use

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/clim ... fight.html
I'll just quote the very first post on this thread.

'US transition from coal to gas and renewables is accelerating. Now lowest in 42 years despite Trump's efforts to revive it.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/10/busi ... index.html '

The thread is rubbish but you've just repeated the very first point made.

It's almost as if you are attacking without actually reading what was posted.
#15045673
Sivad wrote:New York’s Plan to Kill Coal Is Already Boosting Power Prices

But there probably will be an effect, said Ignacia Mercadal, assistant professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

“As the coal generators would shut down, prices are expected to increase because demand will need to be covered by new sources of electricity, which are typically more expensive,’’ Mercadal said in an email.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... wer-prices


Prices haven't increased, they've gone down slightly in the last 12 months.

As for futures, I'll wait to see the actual bids before judging by speculators.

'Erica Ringewald, an agency spokeswoman, said in an email. Coal accounts for less than 1 percent of New York’s power, and the agency “does not anticipate a material impact on electricity prices.'

I haven't checked the truth of this but if we are really just talking about sub 1% then this futures speculation seems highly unlikely. I suspect the legislation mentioned to close 12 gas fired power stations early are what's giving the market jitters.

There is a factor not mentioned in this story that highlights why globally the preference is to keep power stations going on reduced capacity rather than close them. Most of these stations are built by borrowing against future revenue. It makes shutting them down a costly exercise as the remaining debt has to be covered but the flip side is investors and insurers are actively walking away from coal.
#15045833
Air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills 1.7 million people each year but let's ignore that cost and whine about spending money on things that improve our lives.
#15045850
This article explains the cliff face that coal has come up against.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... costs-drop

'In Australia, the world’s second-largest coal exporter after Indonesia, similar trends are afoot. The pipeline of new renewables projects, led by solar farms, now stands at 133 gigawatts, according to research group Rystad Energy. Coupled with a flood of energy-storage projects coming online by 2025, that means that coal-fired generation could be extinct by 2040'
#15045990
UK faced one of the largest jumps in the cost of electricity in Europe last year

The state of play has become so drastic in Britain in recent years that even the usually laissez-faire energy ombudsman Ofgem has been forced to back a new energy price cap as of 1 January 2019

Britain’s high electricity prices risk a ‘gilets jaunes’ backlash

It is unwise to bet on public willingness to pay whatever it takes to tackle climate change

Why is this happening? Well, let’s start by deconstructing that cap a bit. About £521 relates to wholesale fuel costs, mainly gas. These move up and down and have recently been rising. Fair enough, you might say. The next big chunk is network charges, which is in effect the cost of operating all the wires that carry power from generator to consumer. Then we come to so-called “policy” costs, which account for £151 — or 12.5 per cent — of that £1,254 dual-fuel bill, or near 20 per cent if you strip out gas and just look at electricity. These are the consequence of the environmental policies the government has introduced to support decarbonisation, and are tacked stealthily on to customer bills.

They are much stickier. Many relate to contracts struck with low carbon energy generators stretching far into the future, which guarantee fixed sums indexed to inflation, or pay an increment over the prevailing wholesale price. What’s more they are still growing as a proportion of customer bills. In 2015, the environmental bill was just £91 per household, according to Ofgem data.

As a recent paper from the energy economist Dieter Helm points out, that upward march will continue as more low carbon capacity comes on at relatively high fixed prices in substitution for gas and coal baseload generation. True, the latest offshore wind contracts are actually slightly below current wholesale rates. But they aren’t due to come on stream until the mid 2020s. Meanwhile, earlier pricier cohorts of legacy deals still need to be paid.

There’s also the fact that the whole market has mutated. The government is increasingly the central buyer through state-backed contracts, a process that steadily ousts market-based competition. All this means prices are likely to ossify, or even go up.

https://www.ft.com/content/503bbdf0-2bc ... 2129756dd8
#15045992
BeesKnee5 wrote:I've already shown that the phase out of coal didn't change energy prices over the period.


:knife:

Energy bills across the UK are rising at their fastest rate in more than three years, dealing a sharp blow to savers as wages remain stagnant, new data reveals.

Figures published on Thursday by consumer website MoneySavingExpert.com show that average energy costs have increased by 5.3 per cent over the last year, which marks their steepest rise since February 2014. The cost of electricity alone, the data shows, has risen by 9 per cent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 57971.html



That you have to go to pre financial crash to a time when the pound was significantly stronger just shows how disingenuous you are being.


:knife: I didn't "go to pre financial crash to a time", electricity prices have more than doubled over the last 15 years and that's just insane no matter how you dice it.
#15045994
Rancid wrote:@Sivad,

I suggest you invest your life savings in coal.


I don't give a fuck about coal or the coal industry. I went through energy poverty growing up, we went weeks sometimes with no heat or lights taking cold showers. If these fuckers have their way their gonna hurt a lot of people, they've already hurt a lot of people with their crazy fucking lies.

For every 1% increase in the cost of energy something like 50,000 people are forced into energy poverty. Think about that the next time you see one of these idiots spewing their bullshit, their lies are literally killing people.
#15045997
Sivad wrote:
I don't give a fuck about coal or the coal industry. I went through energy poverty growing up, we went weeks sometimes with no heat or lights taking cold showers. If these fuckers have their way their gonna hurt a lot of people, they've already hurt a lot of people with their crazy fucking lies.

For every 1% increase in the cost of energy something like 50,000 people are forced into energy poverty. Think about that the next time you see one of these idiots spewing their bullshit, their lies are literally killing people.



I'm thinking of getting solar panels for my house. What do you think?
#15046004
Sivad wrote:UK faced one of the largest jumps in the cost of electricity in Europe last year

The state of play has become so drastic in Britain in recent years that even the usually laissez-faire energy ombudsman Ofgem has been forced to back a new energy price cap as of 1 January 2019

Britain’s high electricity prices risk a ‘gilets jaunes’ backlash

It is unwise to bet on public willingness to pay whatever it takes to tackle climate change

Why is this happening? Well, let’s start by deconstructing that cap a bit. About £521 relates to wholesale fuel costs, mainly gas. These move up and down and have recently been rising. Fair enough, you might say. The next big chunk is network charges, which is in effect the cost of operating all the wires that carry power from generator to consumer. Then we come to so-called “policy” costs, which account for £151 — or 12.5 per cent — of that £1,254 dual-fuel bill, or near 20 per cent if you strip out gas and just look at electricity. These are the consequence of the environmental policies the government has introduced to support decarbonisation, and are tacked stealthily on to customer bills.

They are much stickier. Many relate to contracts struck with low carbon energy generators stretching far into the future, which guarantee fixed sums indexed to inflation, or pay an increment over the prevailing wholesale price. What’s more they are still growing as a proportion of customer bills. In 2015, the environmental bill was just £91 per household, according to Ofgem data.

As a recent paper from the energy economist Dieter Helm points out, that upward march will continue as more low carbon capacity comes on at relatively high fixed prices in substitution for gas and coal baseload generation. True, the latest offshore wind contracts are actually slightly below current wholesale rates. But they aren’t due to come on stream until the mid 2020s. Meanwhile, earlier pricier cohorts of legacy deals still need to be paid.

There’s also the fact that the whole market has mutated. The government is increasingly the central buyer through state-backed contracts, a process that steadily ousts market-based competition. All this means prices are likely to ossify, or even go up.

https://www.ft.com/content/503bbdf0-2bc ... 2129756dd8


This information was in an earlier chart I shared from ofgem.
Image

The Cap has been a long time coming and has finally begun to prevent private companies from fleecing consumers. First proposed over 10 years ago and finally introduced in 2017.
Dieter Helms view:
'customers who have not switched, and were paying the £1.4 billion in excess prices as identified by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).'

My electricity is from a supplier who sources 100% renewables and my bill is lower than those who are still with the big six. So the fact remains that customers bills have not risen significantly since the coal phase out began and choosing new renewables is cheaper than Coal ( I fully accept they could have if the major suppliers had been able to get away with it).

As for Dieter Helms report. He is scathing of the delay to reducing coal and blames it for keeping prices higher than they should otherwise be.

'Since 2015, a number of reforms have begun to reverse some of the more grossly inefficient dimensions of current policies. The greater use of auctions has begun to bear down on excessive costs, but there is a long way to go. The decision to exit coal by 2025 is a belated but welcome step to recognise that switching away from coal is the cheapest way to decarbonise. It should have been the first option.'

He is also absolutely right that legacy costs are a burden and that we are only just starting to see the transition.

'Nobody can switch from say first generation offshore wind at over £180 mwh. Prices don’t reflect the competitive costs; they reflect past costs.'

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/ener ... s-falling/

So the point still stands that new renewables are now cheaper than coal and that the industry see this as the way forwards. New coal is dead and energy suppliers are choosing gas and renewables in preference across the globe simply because it is cheaper. You even mention in your linked article that the latest offshore wind round produced contacts cheaper than current wholesale rates, something thought impossible only 2-3 years ago.
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 02 Nov 2019 00:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15046005
Sivad wrote:
I don't give a fuck about coal or the coal industry. I went through energy poverty growing up, we went weeks sometimes with no heat or lights taking cold showers. If these fuckers have their way their gonna hurt a lot of people, they've already hurt a lot of people with their crazy fucking lies.

For every 1% increase in the cost of energy something like 50,000 people are forced into energy poverty. Think about that the next time you see one of these idiots spewing their bullshit, their lies are literally killing people.



The transition is happening regardless of your upbringing.

Whether or not you think it's for better or worse.

My own view on this is that we urgently need universal basic services so that no one has energy poverty. Your argument is more about ensuring government works for all the people it represents than an argument against moving to low carbon sources.
#15046008
BeesKnee5 wrote:The transition is happening regardless of your upbringing.

Whether or not you think it's for better or worse.


:lol: you can get away with ramming this shit down people's throats for a while but all you're really doing is building up a massive backlash. The truth is I don't even have to bother with your bullshit because you and your ilk are guaranteed to lose. You're gonna take it too far, you're gonna piss people off, and you're gonna get tossed out on your ass.
#15046009
Sivad wrote:
you can get away with ramming this shit down people's throats for a while but all you're really doing is building up a massive backlash. The truth is I don't even have to bother with your bullshit because you and your ilk are guaranteed to lose. You're gonna take it too far, you're gonna piss people off, and you're gonna get tossed out on your ass.


You still think it's personal don't you.

I'll just repeat that I am an observer in this and not an instigator.

I won't be tossed anywhere.
#15046587
Sivad wrote:Renewable Energy Mandates Are Costly Climate Policies

Many U.S. states have renewable portfolio standards that require a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources, mostly wind and solar power. These mandates are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while they do, a recent study found that they are a very costly means to do so. Researchers at the University of Chicago found, among other things, that the effective price per ton of carbon dioxide emissions reduced ranges between $130 and $460. Researchers at the University of Chicago found, among other things, that the effective price per ton of carbon dioxide emissions reduced ranges between $130 and $460, dwarfing even the harshest of carbon tax proposals. The study also showed that consumers have paid $125 billion more for electricity as a result of renewable mandates seven years after passage of the policy.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

A renewable portfolio standard is a regulation that requires the increased production of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. Another name for the concept is Renewable Electricity Standard. The mandate places an obligation on electricity supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Renewable portfolio standards have been enacted by 29 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico recently passed a 100 percent renewable mandate.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... -policies/


So they rig the game and then try to pretend like renewables are outcompeting coal. :knife: That's how fucking stupid this thread is.


You are quoting a free market think tank.

The best way if verifying their claims is to read the study they mention.

Please provide a link to the study.

I've always admired Ayn Rand for one thing above […]

Will protesting resume after the corona virus thre[…]

Seasonality of viruses is discussed a few times i[…]

@late You should know that appeal to authority i[…]