Planet Rugby Forum

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:Spain has received subsidy-free grid applications over the past 6 months equalling 5 times the country's annual grid requirement. Naturally, only a fraction of these can and will be built. But the business case for subsidy-free renewable energy is now well established. The winning bid in the Portugese auction of 150MW or so last year was around €0.015 per kW/h. The grid sells that at around €0.05. Portugal and Spain share the same grid and conversations are ongoing about connecting with France.

Solar power in Spain ? Who’d a thought it.

Wind power in Ireland and Scotland? Who'd a thought it? Tidal power in Norway? Who'd a thought it? Geothermal in Iceland? Who'd a thought it? Biomass in Finland? Who'd a thought it?

Have a good look at wind power in the UK and tell me if we should build nuclear or natural gas backup.

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:Spain has received subsidy-free grid applications over the past 6 months equalling 5 times the country's annual grid requirement. Naturally, only a fraction of these can and will be built. But the business case for subsidy-free renewable energy is now well established. The winning bid in the Portugese auction of 150MW or so last year was around €0.015 per kW/h. The grid sells that at around €0.05. Portugal and Spain share the same grid and conversations are ongoing about connecting with France.

Solar power in Spain ? Who’d a thought it.

Wind power in Ireland and Scotland? Who'd a thought it? Tidal power in Norway? Who'd a thought it? Geothermal in Iceland? Who'd a thought it? Biomass in Finland? Who'd a thought it?

Have a good look at wind power in the UK and tell me if we should build nuclear or natural gas backup.

Why don't you import your backup? Then you don't have to build all that expensive infrastructure.

eldanielfire wrote:Fake Greta gets the informationw e all wnat out:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... a-thunberg

The UK's electricity generation from renewable sources surpassed generation from gas for the first time since records began during the third quarter of 2019, the latest Government figures have shown.
In its latest renewables update, covering July-September 2019, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) reveals that renewable electricity generation during the period was 28.8TWh, compared to 28.6TWh for gas.
The update states that 28.8TWh was equivalent to 38.9% of generation during the quarter – the highest generation proportion secured by renewables on record. Wind alone comprised 19% of generation during the quarter.

New guy wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Fake Greta gets the informationw e all wnat out:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... a-thunberg

Harry is so thick it's unbelievable.

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:


Solar power in Spain ? Who’d a thought it.

Wind power in Ireland and Scotland? Who'd a thought it? Tidal power in Norway? Who'd a thought it? Geothermal in Iceland? Who'd a thought it? Biomass in Finland? Who'd a thought it?

Have a good look at wind power in the UK and tell me if we should build nuclear or natural gas backup.

Why don't you import your backup? Then you don't have to build all that expensive infrastructure.

Because the French hate us.

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:Wind power in Ireland and Scotland? Who'd a thought it? Tidal power in Norway? Who'd a thought it? Geothermal in Iceland? Who'd a thought it? Biomass in Finland? Who'd a thought it?

Have a good look at wind power in the UK and tell me if we should build nuclear or natural gas backup.

Why don't you import your backup? Then you don't have to build all that expensive infrastructure.

Because the French hate us.

That's true, but so do the Russians, and you rely on their gas.

dantedelew wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Have a good look at wind power in the UK and tell me if we should build nuclear or natural gas backup.

Why don't you import your backup? Then you don't have to build all that expensive infrastructure.

Because the French hate us.

That's true, but so do the Russians, and you rely on their gas.

We don't in the UK. Less than 1% of UK gas imports (est.).
But we do get a lot of French (nuclear) electricity across the interconnector.

6.Jones wrote:

dantedelew wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote: Why don't you import your backup? Then you don't have to build all that expensive infrastructure.

Because the French hate us.

That's true, but so do the Russians, and you rely on their gas.

We don't in the UK. Less than 1% of UK gas imports (est.).
But we do get a lot of French (nuclear) electricity across the interconnector.

Unfortunately, you do. It's a bit like Coronavirus. You rely in a system that relies on Russian gas. You import about 50% of your gas from the European pool, 75% of which comes from Russia. So whether you buy it directly from Russia or not, you're reliant on Russian gas.

There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow from Norway (our biggest source of imports) or via shipped Liquefied Natural Gas (which comes mainly from Qatar). Some gas of Russian origin may enter via pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands. However Belgium has reported virtually no Russian gas imports over the past 3 years. The Netherlands does report some Russian imports, but we estimate Russian gas via this route would account for less than 1 per cent of the UK’s gas imports, and therefore much less than 1 per cent of our total gas supply.

dantedelew wrote:Not quite right.
Much of our imported gas comes from Europe - correct. But the bulk of that is from Norway, which is not hooked up to the Russian supply. The stuff from Belgium will have some Russian in it but the 1% figure is the gov response to a parliamentary question. I'm not denying that Russian supply levels won't influence price etc, but don't get that much directly or indirectly from Russia. We'll have more LNG come in from Qatar for example.

dantedelew wrote:

There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow from Norway (our biggest source of imports) or via shipped Liquefied Natural Gas (which comes mainly from Qatar). Some gas of Russian origin may enter via pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands. However Belgium has reported virtually no Russian gas imports over the past 3 years. The Netherlands does report some Russian imports, but we estimate Russian gas via this route would account for less than 1 per cent of the UK’s gas imports, and therefore much less than 1 per cent of our total gas supply.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 07/HL1673/

6.Jones wrote:

dantedelew wrote:

There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow from Norway (our biggest source of imports) or via shipped Liquefied Natural Gas (which comes mainly from Qatar). Some gas of Russian origin may enter via pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands. However Belgium has reported virtually no Russian gas imports over the past 3 years. The Netherlands does report some Russian imports, but we estimate Russian gas via this route would account for less than 1 per cent of the UK’s gas imports, and therefore much less than 1 per cent of our total gas supply.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 07/HL1673/

Seriously now, the idea that Russia's gas customers get actual Russian gas molecules though the pipeline network is preposterous! Russia pumps gas in one end and their customer takes whatever gas comes out the other.

6.Jones wrote:

dantedelew wrote:Not quite right.
Much of our imported gas comes from Europe - correct. But the bulk of that is from Norway, which is not hooked up to the Russian supply. The stuff from Belgium will have some Russian in it but the 1% figure is the gov response to a parliamentary question. I'm not denying that Russian supply levels won't influence price etc, but don't get that much directly or indirectly from Russia. We'll have more LNG come in from Qatar for example.

I agree you don't buy directly from Russia. Like I said, you buy from a system that depends on Russia. The gas supply is like a big gas container. When you take gas out you rely on who puts gas in, even if you don't contract directly with that person. If Russia turns off the taps then both your European and Norwegian supply is impacted, because Europe imports 20% of its gas from Norway, and so Norway comes under pressure from its other European customers. Energy supply chains are so interconnected that it doesn't matter who signs the invoice, everyone is reliant equally on the producers. Cutting off 36% of Europe's gas means you don't get gas fro Europe, and that's just in the event year. You then have to compete with Europe for Norwegian gas in future years.

dantedelew wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

dantedelew wrote:

There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow from Norway (our biggest source of imports) or via shipped Liquefied Natural Gas (which comes mainly from Qatar). Some gas of Russian origin may enter via pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands. However Belgium has reported virtually no Russian gas imports over the past 3 years. The Netherlands does report some Russian imports, but we estimate Russian gas via this route would account for less than 1 per cent of the UK’s gas imports, and therefore much less than 1 per cent of our total gas supply.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 07/HL1673/

Seriously now, the idea that Russia's gas customers get actual Russian gas molecules though the pipeline network is preposterous! Russia pumps gas in one end and their customer takes whatever gas comes out the other.

Agreed. I assume they're not actually trying to estimate molecules just share.
You often hear a related discussion for renewable electricity supplying the grid. You can choose to buy from a 100% renewable supplier, but its quite common to hear people say "well how can consumers be sure its the renewable elec they're getting through their plugs!".

sockwithaticket wrote:

Floppykid wrote:The amount of animal extinctions is pretty depressing tbf.

While animal extinctions are deeply, deeply upsetting (I'm a regular donor to pangolin preservation projects and they so rarely have good news for us ), it's not arresting the insect armageddon that will truly fudge us.

New guy wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Fake Greta gets the informationw e all wnat out:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... a-thunberg

Harry is so thick it's unbelievable.

Los Angeles OKs a deal for record-cheap solar power and battery storage

For a long time, there were two big knocks against solar power: It’s expensive, and it can’t keep the lights on after sundown.

A contract approved Tuesday by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power shows how much that reality has changed.

Under the 25-year deal with developer 8minute Solar Energy, the city would buy electricity from a sprawling complex of solar panels and lithium-ion batteries in the Mojave Desert of eastern Kern County, about two hours north of Los Angeles. The Eland project would meet 6% to 7% of L.A.'s annual electricity needs and would be capable of pumping clean energy into the grid for four hours each night.

The combined solar power and energy storage is priced at 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour — a record low for this type of contract, city officials and independent experts say, and cheaper than electricity from natural gas.

6.Jones wrote:Los Angeles OKs a deal for record-cheap solar power and battery storage

Los Angeles OKs a deal for record-cheap solar power and battery storage

For a long time, there were two big knocks against solar power: It’s expensive, and it can’t keep the lights on after sundown.

A contract approved Tuesday by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power shows how much that reality has changed.

Under the 25-year deal with developer 8minute Solar Energy, the city would buy electricity from a sprawling complex of solar panels and lithium-ion batteries in the Mojave Desert of eastern Kern County, about two hours north of Los Angeles. The Eland project would meet 6% to 7% of L.A.'s annual electricity needs and would be capable of pumping clean energy into the grid for four hours each night.

The combined solar power and energy storage is priced at 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour — a record low for this type of contract, city officials and independent experts say, and cheaper than electricity from natural gas.

This is obvious fake news. Bimbo absolutely assured me that my assertion solar plus storage solutions would be the norm in 5-8 years were baseless.

bimboman wrote:

This is obvious fake news. Bimbo absolutely assured me that my assertion solar plus storage solutions would be the norm in 5-8 years were baseless.

It hasn’t been built yet. Even if it’s built in 8 years it will supply 5% of one city in America’s power it will be an outlier not the “norm” . Thanks for confirming I’m right.

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

This is obvious fake news. Bimbo absolutely assured me that my assertion solar plus storage solutions would be the norm in 5-8 years were baseless.

It hasn’t been built yet. Even if it’s built in 8 years it will supply 5% of one city in America’s power it will be an outlier not the “norm” . Thanks for confirming I’m right.

An outlier, at 3.3c /kWh. Mkay. You haven't a farkin rashers. If it has FPP it can be built in months. I know this because I build solar systems.

bimboman wrote:

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

This is obvious fake news. Bimbo absolutely assured me that my assertion solar plus storage solutions would be the norm in 5-8 years were baseless.

It hasn’t been built yet. Even if it’s built in 8 years it will supply 5% of one city in America’s power it will be an outlier not the “norm” . Thanks for confirming I’m right.

An outlier, at 3.3c /kWh. Mkay. You haven't a farkin rashers. If it has FPP it can be built in months. I know this because I build solar systems.

An outlier being One city and only 5% of that place.

It's not an outlier. Thats a concept from statistics. The cost of manufacturing something isn't statistical. It's simply the latest price. That's what it costs now to ship electricity from new solar capacity.

jezzer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

This is obvious fake news. Bimbo absolutely assured me that my assertion solar plus storage solutions would be the norm in 5-8 years were baseless.

It hasn’t been built yet. Even if it’s built in 8 years it will supply 5% of one city in America’s power it will be an outlier not the “norm” . Thanks for confirming I’m right.

An outlier, at 3.3c /kWh. Mkay. You haven't a farkin rashers. If it has FPP it can be built in months. I know this because I build solar systems.

bimboman wrote:

It's not an outlier. Thats a concept from statistics. The cost of manufacturing something isn't statistical. It's simply the latest price. That's what it costs now to ship electricity from new solar capacity.

Where as “norm” isn’t I know.


Either way 8 years one city, 5% of power. I’m sure it’ll work eventually but it’s decades off yet.

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

It's not an outlier. Thats a concept from statistics. The cost of manufacturing something isn't statistical. It's simply the latest price. That's what it costs now to ship electricity from new solar capacity.

Where as “norm” isn’t I know.


Either way 8 years one city, 5% of power. I’m sure it’ll work eventually but it’s decades off yet.

There is no "norm". Manufacturing isn't statistical. That's the latest price. Labor costs will vary but everything else costs what it costs. The next one will be cheaper, because the trendline is down. We're headed inexorably towards 1c / kw/h for grid connected solar by 2050 and could beat that by two decades. You can bet on it, if you're interested in actual information.

Have you looked at the UK contract prices?

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

It's not an outlier. Thats a concept from statistics. The cost of manufacturing something isn't statistical. It's simply the latest price. That's what it costs now to ship electricity from new solar capacity.

Where as “norm” isn’t I know.


Either way 8 years one city, 5% of power. I’m sure it’ll work eventually but it’s decades off yet.

There is no "norm". Manufacturing isn't statistical. That's the latest price. Labor costs will vary but everything else costs what it costs. The next one will be cheaper, because the trendline is down. We're headed inexorably towards 1c / kw/h for grid connected solar by 2050 and could beat that by two decades. You can bet on it, if you're interested in actual information.

Have you looked at the UK contract prices?

It’s the latest price of something that hasn’t been built yet.

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

It's not an outlier. Thats a concept from statistics. The cost of manufacturing something isn't statistical. It's simply the latest price. That's what it costs now to ship electricity from new solar capacity.

Where as “norm” isn’t I know.


Either way 8 years one city, 5% of power. I’m sure it’ll work eventually but it’s decades off yet.

There is no "norm". Manufacturing isn't statistical. That's the latest price. Labor costs will vary but everything else costs what it costs. The next one will be cheaper, because the trendline is down. We're headed inexorably towards 1c / kw/h for grid connected solar by 2050 and could beat that by two decades. You can bet on it, if you're interested in actual information.

Have you looked at the UK contract prices?

It’s the latest price of something that hasn’t been built yet.

Yes, but they've contracted to sell the electricity at that price, having costed it out. You're exasperating sometimes Bimbo. You're in finance. You know how futures contracts work. Manufacturers contract to sell because they can ship at the that price and want to lock the price in.

Yes, but they've contracted to sell the electricity at that price, having costed it out. You're exasperating sometimes Bimbo. You're in finance. You know how futures contracts work. Manufacturers contract to sell because they can ship at the that price and want to lock the price in.

mightyreds wrote:I've been wondering how Greta and other 'global warming' alarmists would explain the last couple of months of unseasonally cold weather with continuous rain (in Australia, anyhow). I've noticed her bunch tend to totally disappear during such times, only to leap back into rabid indignation at the next hot weather event.

mightyreds wrote:I've been wondering how Greta and other 'global warming' alarmists would explain the last couple of months of unseasonally cold weather with continuous rain (in Australia, anyhow). I've noticed her bunch tend to totally disappear during such times, only to leap back into rabid indignation at the next hot weather event.

DrSnow wrote:On a different note, the world will <Picks number out of the air> be using about 60% less fossil fuels for their vehicles over the next 6 months or so. Will that make much of a difference to the potential change in climate?

6.Jones wrote:

DrSnow wrote:On a different note, the world will <Picks number out of the air> be using about 60% less fossil fuels for their vehicles over the next 6 months or so. Will that make much of a difference to the potential change in climate?

It'll pause the clock by about that amount.