451–460 of 784 posts
This article is plain wrong. It ignores that the largest amount of housing ever built in Britain was council housing post war through to Thatcher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt everyone agrees on anything. If you have contrary numbers please just save all of us the time and share them.
Ugghh. I meant everyone in bird conservation. The ABC article explains why the official numbers are a heavy underestimate. But this was in 2021 - it has gotten worse since then. This is not unique to the US - my personal experience of this was in India. https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.
It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.
Open cycles gas turbines are extremely cheap to build and expensive to run. For a green future these can be run on biofuels, hydrogen or hydrogen derivatives.
Therefore they perfectly complement renewables.
Nuclear power on the other hand is an awful companion due to having extremely large fixed costs and acceptable marginal running costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capacity factor is calculated into lcoe, what's your point? Moreover, downtime for wind turbines is much less of an issue for a grid than large power plants (even with a significantly higher capacity factor), because you run into much bigger issues if your GW plant is down, compared to a couple of MW (and no the probabilities of all your renewables mix going down at the same time is very low, unless you're Luxemburg)…
Capacity factor is calculated in. But intermittency is not. The issue is that once demand is saturated during periods of peak production, the excess energy is wasted so the effective capacity factor drops as adoption grows. E.g. once you saturate daytime energy demand, further investment in solar energy yields no more useable energy. Intermittent sources are a good way to supplement dispatchable sources of energy lik…
Intermittent sources are baseload, your argument applies to any baseload system, I.e. you always need some additional dispatchable energy source (unless you over build by large amounts). Again if your main energy would be e.g. nuclear you need even higher amount of dispatchable power because if your nuclear plant goes down (planned or unplanned) you need to compensate for a lot of power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you think the north and Scotland would be better off together. The south east would only get richer under such a scenario. Taxes-too-high is a common refrain but income tax + national insurance takes 26% of my 95th-percentile income. Is that so bad?
I'm in the 45-49 age bracket this year. In BC (Canada), a 95th percentile income for that age is $126,000 (2021 Census). Before any deductions (specifically retirement investments that reduce taxable income) I'd be looking at a 26.85% tax rate, with a marginal rate of 38%. So pretty much the same rate here. Not to say that Canada's overall economy is particularly any better than the UK's, and especially Trump's tarif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.
I often wonder how many people would accept automatic black outs when buying green energy. A process that "happens" here. You can buy for example purely wind powered electricity. But somehow that does not stop being delivered when there is no wind. Instead there would be electric relay connected to mains in your home and when there is less supply than demand you would get blackout. That would be similar comparison to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Netherlands still produces 64% more CO2 per capita compared to France, despite having only 45% higher GDP per capita. And France has way more dirty industry, if we looked purely at power generation they would look even better. This is what significant investment in nuclear does. Even the countries that invested the most in renewables can't beat it, yet. I'm very curious to see how long it will take the renewable-…
Many great points. Thank you to reply. I have read a few times calling the UK the "Saudi Arabia of Wind". I must say: They have a metric-ton of great sites, both onshore and offshore for wind. That said, great sites don't automatically become energy production sites unless they get funded, approved, and built. > France has way more dirty industry I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? I know, this one is very…
Unfortunately no, and maybe I should have phrased that with a little more doubt. Still, I think it's very likely true, given the sheer size difference between the two (geographically), and the fact that France has a massive auto industry, while the Netherlands does not.
It is also pleagued with high taxes, something the tory party did nothing to address. And labour seems to think the solution is more taxes, and oh surprise, this hurts the economy further.
> something the tory party did nothing to address When PM Liz Truss tried, it ended with disaster.
The plan Liz Truss proposed was to scrap the top rate of income tax, i.e. giving a tax break to the rich.
And the markets, understanding that it was exactly what the economy needed, reacted accordingly. By crashing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot employers NI (for the unfamiliar - the employER has to pay 15% from April - not a typo - of part of your salary in taxes to the government and this is hidden from your payroll taxes as an employee) What's the % if you include those deductions? In my case my tax rate is 29% but employers NI is 13% so 42%, going up to 44/45% in April
I didn't forget it, it's not a deduction from my salary. You don't pay 42% of your salary. Employee NI went down by 2pts last year, employer NI is going up by 1.2pts this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As we can see down thread, people have got into a terrible mess of duelling propaganda and gone mad about wind power. We can have cheap clean energy, it requires a small amount of change, oh no, let's destroy everything instead. I'm going to start suggesting that planning should have a local referendum: approve this set of projects and you'll get cheaper electricity. Disapprove and your bill goes up. Democratic choic…
That would not work. Just include a few million in your budget to convince the population of SmallVille and you can start building your coal-fired power station.
They went a full month with zero coal electricity generation back in 2020 and 2025 will be entirely coal free.
Even natural gas is in decline.