Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
wind and power

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34186
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 15 4:26 pm    Post subject: wind and power  Reply with quote    

green is the colour of money

vegplot



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21297
Location: Ynys Môn
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 15 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Dave Cambo is set against land based wind power but it seems only after his in-laws have got a firm footing on the subsidies ladder.

OtleyLad



Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2737
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 15 4:40 pm    Post subject: Re: wind and power Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
green is the colour of money


Sigh. How come none of my relatives are rich?
I'll just have to keep voting for the left (that is until I inherit my fortune).

Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 7:42 am    Post subject: Re: wind and power Reply with quote    

OtleyLad wrote:
dpack wrote:
green is the colour of money


Sigh. How come none of my relatives are rich?
I'll just have to keep voting for the left (that is until I inherit my fortune).


Blair seems to have doe all right out of that principle

It is horrific just how much those windmills everywhere cost us isn't it ?

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34186
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

at least the queen gets 15% of the seabed rental for the offshore ones

the onshore ones only seem to be profitable from the feed in subsidies.

better than the deals with nukes where the company gets the profits and we pay for the tidy up later(see the state of play at sellawinddriggscale etc)

Hairyloon



Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15030
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 12:19 pm    Post subject: Re: wind and power Reply with quote    

Falstaff wrote:
It is horrific just how much those windmills everywhere cost us isn't it ?

Look on it as a measure of how much electricity they are producing.

Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: wind and power Reply with quote    

Hairyloon wrote:
Falstaff wrote:
It is horrific just how much those windmills everywhere cost us isn't it ?

Look on it as a measure of how much electricity they are producing.


PLease do tell !

Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
at least the queen gets 15% of the seabed rental for the offshore ones

the onshore ones only seem to be profitable from the feed in subsidies.

better than the deals with nukes where the company gets the profits and we pay for the tidy up later(see the state of play at sellawinddriggscale etc)


Sorry I'm reading and re-reading, but getting nothing but Blurb ! - Please do rephrase your point !

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34186
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

iirc every megawatt is subsidized by about 40% added to the price of the leccy squirted into the grid.

but in the case of offshore ,the company involved (we cant ask is the shareholders also get rent on the seabed) often gets the electric price,the feed in subsidy for green energy and gov backed loans ,easy planning ,subsidized shipyard work to build and deliver the kit etc .

with no subsidies(rental aspect) off shore would be marginal and onshore would often be a loss maker or at best a very long term investment as onshore has a practical output of about a third of the rated capacity as the wind is often too slow or too fast or too variable in strength and direction.

moving water has a lot of potential but clean energy isnt the prime motivation of the peeps who invest in such things

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34186
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 15 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Falstaff wrote:
dpack wrote:
at least the queen gets 15% of the seabed rental for the offshore ones

the onshore ones only seem to be profitable from the feed in subsidies.

better than the deals with nukes where the company gets the profits and we pay for the tidy up later(see the state of play at sellawinddriggscale etc)


Sorry I'm reading and re-reading, but getting nothing but Blurb ! - Please do rephrase your point !


the crown estate gets the sea bed rentals in territorial waters .in exchange for giving up the civil list queenie asked for 15% of the crown estate revenues ,at the time it seemed a good deal for the public as most of the crown estate is gov buildings ,mod used stuff etc etc but the other party saw where the future lay.

the new batch of nukes are overtly owned by french and chinese companies,placed on old magnox sites and there are no gnts that the companies involved will clean up the sites,any unpleasantness or fuel production/disposal issues.
the sellafield site has been mismanaged by the commercial group earning billions and is being taken into public care for the foreseeable future to improve safety and reduce the waste of money .

ps the crown estate revenues also includes charging for licenses for fracking oil and gas (and i think ucg/methane extraction but the rules on messing in coal seems are a bit older than the new extreme energy stuff)

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com