The Lunatics have taken over the Asylum or WTF?

[Bladevane]

Good idea. Let's take all the subsidies off fossil fuel generation first, eh?

...And nuclear, wind, hydro, biomass.....

 

[ChrisMiller]

Good idea. Let's take all the subsidies off fossil fuel generation first, eh?

What subsidies would those be??? I can't speak for Oz, but in the UK, around 75% of the price of petrol at the pumps is tax. If that's a subsidy, I'm a Dutchman

Taxes on fuel used for generation are not quite so extreme, but are still substantial, which is why all the UK energy-intensive industries like steel production are moving overseas (where exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced plus a bit more for transporting the product back to the UK - still, it allows our idiot politicians to virtue signal at international conferences, so what does a few thousand people thrown out of work matter).

 

[jaapv]

You wish...

 

[greendwarf]

Good idea. Let's take all the subsidies off fossil fuel generation first, eh?

What subsidies would those be??? I can't speak for Oz, but in the UK, around 75% of the price of petrol at the pumps is tax. If that's a subsidy, I'm a Dutchman

Taxes on fuel used for generation are not quite so extreme, but are still substantial, which is why all the UK energy-intensive industries like steel production are moving overseas (where exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced plus a bit more for transporting the product back to the UK - still, it allows our idiot politicians to virtue signal at international conferences, so what does a few thousand people thrown out of work matter).

Assuming we are talking about electricity generation then it is indirectly subsidised by having government guaranteed prices well above the pool spot price. Otherwise the firms won't build the new generators we need to replace the ageing nuclear and dirty coal fired plant. This is what you get for privatisation and governments hell bent on keeping Public Expenditure down (or rather off-book)

 

[jaapv]

I don't know about the UK. In the Netherlands the subsidies on fossil fuel energy are 340 Euro a person a year.

The subsidies to fossil fuel electricity are more than four times as high as those to renewable electricity:
548 billion $ to 121 billion $ worldwide.

https://www.iisd.org/gsi/renewable-electricity-subsidies

The IEA comes to a similar figure:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/fossilfuelsubsidydatabase/

 

[ChrisMiller]

The subsidies to fossil fuel electricity are more than four times as high as those to renewable electricity:
548 billion $ to 121 billion $ worldwide.

But since renewables account for only one in every eight kWh of energy generated, even on your figures (from rather dubious sources dedicated to the promotion of 'sustainable' energy) renewables receive twice the subsidy per kWh.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/exec_summ.cfm
In reality, much of the 'renewable' figure will be due to hydro, and dams receive little by way of subsidy, so I suspect the real situation is even more unbalanced.

Calculating the true value of subsidies in a complex area like energy production is very difficult and even expert and scrupulously fair economists can reach widely differing figures. But estimates that fossil fuels receive huge subsidies (promoted by the likes of Greenpeace etc) are generally based on assuming that capital and other expense allowances that apply to every business are somehow 'subsidies' and ignoring the vast amounts governments collect through taxation of fossil fuels.

Assuming we are talking about electricity generation then it is indirectly subsidised by having government guaranteed prices well above the pool spot price. Otherwise the firms won't build the new generators we need to replace the ageing nuclear and dirty coal fired plant. This is what you get for privatisation and governments hell bent on keeping Public Expenditure down (or rather off-book)

I'm not sure what privatisation has to do with anything, but if you want to have a significant portion of your energy coming from intermittent renewables, you need something that can be switched on and off fairly quickly to provide energy when the wind isn't blowing and/or the sun sin't shining. That's best done by CCGT, with (ideally, if you want low carbon energy) nuclear providing the steady baseload. But the intermittent nature of the demand means that no-one will build such power stations unless they receive significant reassurance about how much money they can expect to earn in the form of price guarantees. Some people like to point at these numbers and call them fossil fuel subsidies, but it's more accurate to think of them as one of the many hidden costs of utilising intermittent energy sources.

 

[jaapv]

(from rather dubious sources dedicated to the promotion of 'sustainable' energyof utilising intermittent energy sources.

Really? It think you are twisting the truth a bit to fit your agenda here:

The International Energy Agency (IEA; French: Agence internationale de l'énergie) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization established in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

 

[ChrisMiller]

The IEA strapline says "Secure, Sustainable, Together". But, as I pointed out, even using their figures, renewables have 2 or more times the subsidy per kWh that traditional sources get.

 

[jaapv]

Yes. Shouldn't they? We have a planet to hand over to the coming generations in a hopefully decent state...I fail to see the dirty part of the word sustainable. But I do see the destructive implications of the opposite - unsustainable.

 

[greendwarf]

I'm not sure what privatisation has to do with anything.

Well before privatisation the UK's CEGB built a chain of nuclear stations in addition to all the other generating plant sold off for short-term gain. Now we are dependant on the French Government holding out for the biggest possible guaranteed price before they'll sign the contract to build one! - and all because of Gordon Brown economics.

 

[ChrisMiller]

Yes. Shouldn't they? We have a planet to hand over to the coming generations in a hopefully decent state...I fail to see the dirty part of the word sustainable. But I do see the destructive implications of the opposite - unsustainable.

'Sustainable' has become (in the hands of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and others) just a boo-word used to close down discussion. But at least we're all in agreement that PV and other renewables are being heavily subsidised. We can, if we wish, now move on to discuss whether this is a particularly effective way of "saving the planet", or if forcing poor people into fuel poverty in order to enrich the wealthy who can afford to cover their roof with PV cells is the right way to go.

Well before privatisation the UK's CEGB built a chain of nuclear stations in addition to all the other generating plant sold off for short-term gain. Now we are dependant on the French Government holding out for the biggest possible guaranteed price before they'll sign the contract to build one! - and all because of Gordon Brown economics.

The main reason why no nuclear plants were built was fanatical resistance from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and others (because they're not 'sustainable', see above), even though this would have been by far the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, if you believe this is necessary to "save the planet". Brown's idiotic dash for PFI certainly didn't help matters, though.

 

[jaapv]

I we do nothing and let the doom scenarios take over we will all be poor...
I don't think that covering roofs in solar cells is the most efficient way to achieve a decent energy balance, although it may help in a small way. There is much more to be gained by industrial-sized solar farms, wind parks and other non-polluting sources, but only in combination with efficient grid management and storage solutions. I do notice that the emphasis has shifted to the latter lately.
As I said before, Germany leads the way, other nations need to keep up in order not to miss out on future developments.
Just dragging one's heels because wthe perfect solution is not yet found or for ideological reasons is a very dangerous tactic.

 

[ChrisMiller]

Ah, the politician's syllogism:
Major Premiss: Something must be done.
Minor Premiss: This is something.
Conclusion: Therefore, it must be done.
I know nothing about the situation in the Netherlands, but in the UK the main effect of raising energy prices to fund renewables has been to further impoverish the poorest, enrich large land owners, and to drive energy intensive industries overseas. The result has been a slight reduction in national CO2 emissions (on the way to some arbitrary target chosen at random for a soundbite), but in reality the CO2 production has simply been exported to China, India and elsewhere and the overall effect on the planet is exactly the same (probably slightly worse).

And you surely can't be holding up Germany as a shining example of Green energy policy, when they're closing their carbon-free nuclear power stations (apparently because of concerns about a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 14m tsunami striking the Rhine - in which case, as I tell my German friends, they'll have bigger problems than a flooded reactor) and opening new ones fuelled by lignite, the second dirtiest fuel known to man (after burning cowpats in your living room). Bonkers doesn't do it justice.

 

[jaapv]

Well, we both know that Germany, with 18.000 WEA has by far the largest wind-power capacity of Europe, and at this very moment is generating 17.500 MW of wind and solar power

http://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_einspeiseleistung_wind_und_solar_energie

Of course the phasing out of nuclear installations is needed. They are far too slow to start up and shut down in the increasingly dynamic electricity supply. Scaremongering has nothing to do with it, despite your semi-funny interpretation.

Lignite is a relatively clean fuel in modern plants, not like the outdated ones you refer to.
:
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/de/495960/lignite-energy/kesselfeuerung/lignite-energy-compact/

You should read up on the Energiewende. It is a significant economic concept, even without considering the ecological advantages.

http://energytransition.de/

 

[ChrisMiller]

Lignite is a relatively clean fuel in modern plants

Brilliant, funniest thing I've read all week. I'm thinking the UK should really reopen all our coal-fired power stations, since they were about a dozen times cleaner than lignite (or peat as our Irish cousins refer to it). Do they capture all the carbon, too?

Utterly, utterly beyond bonkers, but that's what happens when you let Greens into government.

 

[jaapv]

Well, those British antiques would not be a good idea...

 

[greendwarf]

Is not the German building of new lignite plants more to do with strategic avoidance of relying on Russian gas?

 

[jaapv]

Possibly, now that Dutch gas is being phased out.