UK finding wind power unaffordable and unreliable

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Serial Thread Killer
Seems wind power that has been heavily pushed in the UK, particularly offshore wind, is an economic disaster unfolding there.

In the latest round of bids for offshore wind plants, not a single bidder showed up, just as happened with Joke's open bidding on Gulf offshore wind. Nobody that knows the economics and engineering is willing to put money into this porker of a loser energy source.

Electricity from wind isn’t cheap and it never will be
Politicians should stop endorsing an energy source that isn’t particularly clean or secure, and won’t bring down prices
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/10/electricity-from-wind-isnt-cheap-and-it-never-will-be/

What happens when wind energy isn't so cheap?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...d96c96-4fd4-11ee-accf-88c266213aac_story.html

The Left in academia continue to tell us wind and solar are cheap and getting cheaper, just as the businessmen and engineers that have to make it work are telling us the exact opposite. Who do you believe, the academics and their theories, or the businessmen and engineers and their reality?
 
Bigdog said:
Same line they've been feeding us about nuke energy for 60 years. The corporate subsidies are only temporary. :palm:
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is relatively cheap, and the numbers from operating plants prove that, just as the numbers from operating wind and solar plants prove what losers they are. Subsidies are perpetually necessary for wind and solar. Nuclear needs government to underwrite the project because of its immense upfront cost. Once a nuclear plant is running, subsidies are no longer necessary.
 
Nuclear is easily the best source of energy on the planet. It generates the most power it is the cheapest and is the cleanest and safest.
 
The entire industry is deep into the shits, which is why there are very large calls that government subsidies must be increased again. I was reading yesterday that the developer of multiple large American offshore wind farms is threatening to walk away from the projects if the government does not throw in more money.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The entire industry is deep into the shits, which is why there are very large calls that government subsidies must be increased again. I was reading yesterday that the developer of multiple large American offshore wind farms is threatening to walk away from the projects if the government does not throw in more money.
Click to expand...

Bribem can't even buy bidders for offshore wind in the Gulf of Mexico...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Nuclear power is relatively cheap, and the numbers from operating plants prove that, just as the numbers from operating wind and solar plants prove what losers they are. Subsidies are perpetually necessary for wind and solar. Nuclear needs government to underwrite the project because of its immense upfront cost. Once a nuclear plant is running, subsidies are no longer necessary.
Click to expand...
It could be cheaper if we settled on a couple designed and just replicate them. Reinventing the wheel each time you build a nuke isn't the way to go.
 
ExpressLane said:
It could be cheaper if we settled on a couple designed and just replicate them. Reinventing the wheel each time you build a nuke isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

Most of the cost is in the bureaucratic regulatory nonsense that goes into these projects today.

For example, in California their high speed fail... err, rail, lines have shelled out over $600 million for regulatory studies and such slowing the project by as much as a decade while driving the overall cost from something like $35 billion to about $130 billion.

Repairing a couple of failed sections of the Oakland Bay bridge after an earthquake took longer and cost nearly three times what the entire bridge did to be built to begin with.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Most of the cost is in the bureaucratic regulatory nonsense that goes into these projects today.

For example, in California their high speed fail... err, rail, lines have shelled out over $600 million for regulatory studies and such slowing the project by as much as a decade while driving the overall cost from something like $35 billion to about $130 billion.

Repairing a couple of failed sections of the Oakland Bay bridge after an earthquake took longer and cost nearly three times what the entire bridge did to be built to begin with.
Click to expand...

True but you might remember that our military gear is super expensive and often not very good because the military industrial complex has as its main goal sucking up money, not producing quality products at a good price.

This is a cancer that runs all through America, being expensive is a feature not a bug.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Nuclear power is relatively cheap, and the numbers from operating plants prove that, just as the numbers from operating wind and solar plants prove what losers they are. Subsidies are perpetually necessary for wind and solar. Nuclear needs government to underwrite the project because of its immense upfront cost. Once a nuclear plant is running, subsidies are no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

Generally, yes.

And they have one of the Highest levelized costs per megawatt hour produced.

In 1974, high interest rates stopped everyone from investing in nuclear.
 
Bigdog said:
Generally, yes.

And they have one of the Highest levelized costs per megawatt hour produced.

In 1974, high interest rates stopped everyone from investing in nuclear.
Click to expand...

I stopped looking at "levelized costs" because they're a bullshit measure.

I look at the cost of the plant in terms of construction, the power produced annually, nameplate power production, the capacity factor, and the cost of operation from actual output. Nuclear plants absolutely demolish solar and wind in terms of that. When you start adding in storage capacity and the need for redundant systems, solar and wind are so cost ineffective as to be insanely stupid to build.
 
I bet London really misses those occasional mass die-offs due to air pollution/smog from burning coal.

The Great Smog of London woke the world to the dangers of coal

And

"Throughout that period there were a number of major fog disasters in London. In December 1873 a fog lasting three days killed over 700 people; in 1880 another fog disaster resulted in approximately 1000 excess deaths; and a fog in 1892 resulted again in approximately the same number of deaths."
 
About six months back I was reading that the UK plan that everyone should get heat pumps is simply insane, not only are they super expensive , but they dont work very well given the UK climate either. The argument is that this idea/mandate was developed by people who either cant or wont think.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
About six months back I was reading that the UK plan that everyone should get heat pumps is simply insane, not only are they super expensive , but they dont work very well given the UK climate either. The argument is that this idea/mandate was developed by people who either cant or wont think.
Click to expand...

There is going to be a major rethink on Net Zero, it is unachievable even by 2050 and incredibly expensive to boot.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I bet London really misses those occasional mass die-offs due to air pollution/smog from burning coal.

The Great Smog of London woke the world to the dangers of coal

And

"Throughout that period there were a number of major fog disasters in London. In December 1873 a fog lasting three days killed over 700 people; in 1880 another fog disaster resulted in approximately 1000 excess deaths; and a fog in 1892 resulted again in approximately the same number of deaths."
Click to expand...

Who's talking about coal ffs? The obvious answer is gas, preferably fracked, and nuclear.
 
serendipity said:
There is going to be a major rethink on Net Zero, it is unachievable even by 2050 and incredibly expensive to boot.
Click to expand...

Well spending 30-50K Euro per heat pump, which barely work, and will make practically zero difference in carbon emissions....and that they were to be nearly mandatory....certainly collapses the credibility of power.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Well spending 30-50K Euro per heat pump, which barely work, and will make practically zero difference in carbon emissions....and that they were to be nearly mandatory....certainly collapses the credibility of power.
Click to expand...

It's what happens when ignorant politicians take control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top