To read the article, you first must accept 4 million tracking cookies
This sounds promising. A sensible, cost effective method for going 100% renewable by 2050.
Their suggestion is to plan for The UK to be fully self sufficient with green renewable energy, notably wind, solar and hydroelectric, while also using an energy storage system to accommodate for natural dips in energy production.
I can’t fault it, I think this is the way to go about it. I think trying to aim to achieve this by 2035 or 2040 would be more ambitious than reaching it by 2050. This should be the way to go.
They’ve used the costs of Hinkley Point C as the basis for their calculations about the cost of nuclear energy, but Hinkley Point C is a terribly financed project, with two thirds of the cost of the project going to paying interest to private investors, and the National Audit Office concluded that if the government had financed Hinkley Point C itself, construction costs could’ve overrun by 400% to 600% before it equalled the current cost of the deal made for private construction (see https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf, page 22).
Save
SAVE
can’t you see the problem? That’s £120 Billion NOT going to donors. Are you all mad?
How much we would have to pay first, I mean ,,invest”, to have that sort of savings?
> That storage, according to the report, would involve Power-to-X storage in a chemical energy carrier, such as hydrogen or methane, methane being the most cost effective.
This is pretty much the first time I have ever seen one of these articles actually provide an explanation for how they intend to cover longer gaps in wind generation. Normally they just hand wave it away or say pumped storage without having done any of the maths to work out just how much we would need to cover just one week of low wind output.
This is the most sensible option since it means we keep a 100% backup supply of gas plants which is a perfect fallback option if the “green” gas runs out in a calm period.
Who will it save for? Not the consumer, surely they still get milked for all they’re worth, yes?
>Going 100% renewables would save the UK £120 billion
With the amount of renewables already on the grid being priced the same as gas and nuclear I highly doubt it would save £120 billion.
The problem for the UK is that £120Bn might not go to the Energy Companies. It could be an undermonetised transition to a Green Economy: because the benefits go to the “wrong people”. That is the General Population not the Shareholders. That is the real problem: the Shareholders are staring at a potentially historic collapse of income because they have spent decades bleeding the Consumer dry instead of investing in new technologies. There was a rush to gas – great big engineering projects – and now a rush to offshore wind – again great big engineering projects – while the actual transition might not need all of that. It might actually “need” the radical lowering of Energy Prices – which would save the Consumer far more than £120Bn.
“BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PENSION FUNDS WHO ONLY INVESTED IN OIL????? DO YOU HATE PENSIONERS????” – every right wing nutter
Going 100% renewables would save the UK £120 billion, report says
You mean it would save *the government* 120billion. Once I’ve paid the fucking 30 grand to have a poxy heat pump installed and my pipework done, i doubt I’ll be seeing any financial benefit somehow.
You need to keep nuclear in the mix. I think 30-40% should be nuclear with remaining as renewables
12 comments
To read the article, you first must accept 4 million tracking cookies
This sounds promising. A sensible, cost effective method for going 100% renewable by 2050.
Their suggestion is to plan for The UK to be fully self sufficient with green renewable energy, notably wind, solar and hydroelectric, while also using an energy storage system to accommodate for natural dips in energy production.
I can’t fault it, I think this is the way to go about it. I think trying to aim to achieve this by 2035 or 2040 would be more ambitious than reaching it by 2050. This should be the way to go.
They’ve used the costs of Hinkley Point C as the basis for their calculations about the cost of nuclear energy, but Hinkley Point C is a terribly financed project, with two thirds of the cost of the project going to paying interest to private investors, and the National Audit Office concluded that if the government had financed Hinkley Point C itself, construction costs could’ve overrun by 400% to 600% before it equalled the current cost of the deal made for private construction (see https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf, page 22).
Save
SAVE
can’t you see the problem? That’s £120 Billion NOT going to donors. Are you all mad?
How much we would have to pay first, I mean ,,invest”, to have that sort of savings?
> That storage, according to the report, would involve Power-to-X storage in a chemical energy carrier, such as hydrogen or methane, methane being the most cost effective.
This is pretty much the first time I have ever seen one of these articles actually provide an explanation for how they intend to cover longer gaps in wind generation. Normally they just hand wave it away or say pumped storage without having done any of the maths to work out just how much we would need to cover just one week of low wind output.
This is the most sensible option since it means we keep a 100% backup supply of gas plants which is a perfect fallback option if the “green” gas runs out in a calm period.
Who will it save for? Not the consumer, surely they still get milked for all they’re worth, yes?
>Going 100% renewables would save the UK £120 billion
With the amount of renewables already on the grid being priced the same as gas and nuclear I highly doubt it would save £120 billion.
The problem for the UK is that £120Bn might not go to the Energy Companies. It could be an undermonetised transition to a Green Economy: because the benefits go to the “wrong people”. That is the General Population not the Shareholders. That is the real problem: the Shareholders are staring at a potentially historic collapse of income because they have spent decades bleeding the Consumer dry instead of investing in new technologies. There was a rush to gas – great big engineering projects – and now a rush to offshore wind – again great big engineering projects – while the actual transition might not need all of that. It might actually “need” the radical lowering of Energy Prices – which would save the Consumer far more than £120Bn.
“BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PENSION FUNDS WHO ONLY INVESTED IN OIL????? DO YOU HATE PENSIONERS????” – every right wing nutter
Going 100% renewables would save the UK £120 billion, report says
You mean it would save *the government* 120billion. Once I’ve paid the fucking 30 grand to have a poxy heat pump installed and my pipework done, i doubt I’ll be seeing any financial benefit somehow.
You need to keep nuclear in the mix. I think 30-40% should be nuclear with remaining as renewables