With respect Robert that sounds like the sort of thing we were told about how strong the economy was in 2005-2007 and how successful the banks in particular were.
Now perhaps things are as rosy as you say about LNG. But if so why doesn't anyone want to build gas fired power stations in the UK ? Why does the government instead have to promise massive subsidies for nuclear and diesel generator farms ?
I don't understand your analogy. But here's some hard data:
The world LNG market in 2014 was around 240 million tonnes.
In the next three years, we will see
Australia: Gorgon LNG Wheatstone Gladstone and some smaller projects
from the US: Sabine Hackberry Freeport Cove Point Corpus Christi
It is quite possible we see projects out of Canada (Kitimat, Canaport others). There is also floating LNG coming courtesy of Golar LNG, and Shell's Prelude.
In total, total LNG supply is going to move from 240mtpa to 400 mtpa between now and 2022.
And most of it is coming from friendly countries.
LNG is currently being landed in the UK at under $8/mmbtu. Coal simply cannot compete.
The UK coal fired power fleet was built to supply cheap baseload, while gas supplied expensive peaking demand. But gas is now so cheap relative to coal that coal is being driven out the market.
If you want to try and make coal competitive by subsidising it (as we're doing with nuclear), then that's possible. But the cost of subsidy will mean higher electricity prices. And that means that other businesses - ones that buy electricity - will be paying more. (Which will have other knock on effects.)
The globe is warming folks and alarmingly so - let's hope we as a species can take action to mitigate some of the impacts we continue to make on the environment.
Shame the Neanderthals that run this country are going in the opposite direction. Sighs!
America is a big place, and often sunny. Easy to get around NIMBYism there.
I don't think that this is about NIMBYism, it's more Not On My Roof Because No Subsidies. Distributed power generation via rooftop solar panels lessens the load on our big power stations, as does improved house insulation.
Mr. Charles, be fair. Germany does have a history of tsunamis and earthquakes. Ahem.
That decision by Merkel was nearly as idiotic as the policy of taking 1.5 million migrants....From what I understand, Germany is also failing to invest in internet and their famed autobahn system is in much need of heavy investment.
It's an interesting character flaw.
She seems to be very rational most of the time, but then occasionally indulges in disastrous emotion-based gesture politics
And doesn't have the wisdom to change her mind and admit she was wrong before putting the gesture politics into practice.
Merkel must have some very submissive cabinet ministers or the willingness of Germans to obey orders, however mad, still runs true.
The globe is warming folks and alarmingly so - let's hope we as a species can take action to mitigate some of the impacts we continue to make on the environment.
Shame the Neanderthals that run this country are going in the opposite direction. Sighs!
America is a big place, and often sunny. Easy to get around NIMBYism there.
I don't think that this is about NIMBYism, it's more Not On My Roof Because No Subsidies. Distributed power generation via rooftop solar panels lessens the load on our big power stations, as does improved house insulation.
Here's a prediction for you: blown cavity-wall insulation will be a massively expensive scandal within 15 years. Having said that, I hope I'm wrong, as it it could cost people an arm and a leg.
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
At this moment, of the 32.6GW of total UK power demand, just 4.5GW is being supplied by coal - which around a quarter of total (theoretical) maximum UK coal power production. This is certainly being sold an all-in loss by the power generators, and may even be supplied at a "gross profit" loss. (Why would you supply at a loss? Because if you regularly cycle down your power station during the day, to bring it up again for peak demand this evening, you cause significant long-term maintenance issues. Those power plants were built to supply power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with maybe a week of bi-annual maintenance.)
Because we do not have cheap domestic coal (like the Australians, the Germans or the Americans), it is simply not economic to generate power using it. Coal power plants require systems of conveyer belts to get coal to the furnace; and they need to be regularly cleaned. They are also relatively ineffecient: perhaps 35% of the calories in coal are turned into electricity.
Natural gas can be piped in (no maintenance required), needs no cleaning, produces no ash, can be turned on and off at will, and turns up to 61% of the calories in gas into electricity.
And buying gas is now cheaper - on a straight per calorie basis - than coal. (This isn't true everywhere. If you are in Germany, you can buy a tonne of lignite just for €8. We probably pay $65-90 for a tonne of coal at the power station.)
With respect Robert that sounds like the sort of thing we were told about how strong the economy was in 2005-2007 and how successful the banks in particular were.
Now perhaps things are as rosy as you say about LNG. But if so why doesn't anyone want to build gas fired power stations in the UK ? Why does the government instead have to promise massive subsidies for nuclear and diesel generator farms ?
I don't understand your analogy. But here's some hard data:
The world LNG market in 2014 was around 240 million tonnes.
In the next three years, we will see
Australia: Gorgon LNG Wheatstone Gladstone and some smaller projects
from the US: Sabine Hackberry Freeport Cove Point Corpus Christi
It is quite possible we see projects out of Canada (Kitimat, Canaport others). There is also floating LNG coming courtesy of Golar LNG, and Shell's Prelude.
In total, total LNG supply is going to move from 240mtpa to 400 mtpa between now and 2022.
And most of it is coming from friendly countries.
LNG is currently being landed in the UK at under $8/mmbtu. Coal simply cannot compete.
The UK coal fired power fleet was built to supply cheap baseload, while gas supplied expensive peaking demand. But gas is now so cheap relative to coal that coal is being driven out the market.
If you want to try and make coal competitive by subsidising it (as we're doing with nuclear), then that's possible. But the cost of subsidy will mean higher electricity prices. And that means that other businesses - ones that buy electricity - will be paying more. (Which will have other knock on effects.)
The analogy is simply that in 2005-2007 the 'experts' were saying how strong the economy was and what a great asset to the UK the banks were.
Whereas I, merely an 'interested amateur', was increasingly uneasy.
I sense the same difference between what I'm told and 'gut instinct' now re energy.
Now I certainly don't doubt anything you say but if there's so much and such cheap LNG becoming available why aren't new gas fired power stations being built in the UK ? ** And why the government thinks it necessary to have such huge subsidies for new nuclear stations and diesel generator farms. Not to mention continuing with the farce of UK fracking plans.
** Perhaps there is and I've not seen the relevant media reports - do you know how many gas fired power stations opened from 2010 onwards and how many are currently being built ?
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
Cavity walls serve two purposes in a wet country like the UK: although they do offer a little insulation, they prevent damp by stopping moisture (e.g. from wind-driven rain) from going through the wall. The inner and outer walls are separated by metal ties (looking a little like bow ties) with a spiral bit pointing downwards. Any moisture on the inside of the outer wall travels down the tie to the vertical bit, and then drips down. They generally work very well in preventing damp, unless the cavity gets blocked.
The government has been keen for householders to save energy by filling up the cavities. One common technique is for holes to be drilled in the outside wall, and soft insulations particles to be blown in. The holes are then resealed.
Unfortunately, this means the cavity is blocked. As time progresses the insulation also compacts under gravity, which is made worse if a little damp gets in. I expect most (and I mean most) of the houses that have had blown insulation to have damp problems within a couple of decades, especially in wetter parts of the country.
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
Cavity walls serve two purposes in a wet country like the UK: although they do offer a little insulation, they prevent damp by stopping moisture (e.g. from wind-driven rain) from going through the wall. The inner and outer walls are separated by metal ties (looking a little like bow ties) with a spiral bit pointing downwards. Any moisture on the inside of the outer wall travels down the tie to the vertical bit, and then drips down. They generally work very well in preventing damp, unless the cavity gets blocked.
The government has been keen for householders to save energy by filling up the cavities. One common technique is for holes to be drilled in the outside wall, and soft insulations particles to be blown in. The holes are then resealed.
Unfortunately, this means the cavity is blocked. As time progresses the insulation also compacts under gravity, which is made worse if a little damp gets in. I expect most (and I mean most) of the houses that have had blown insulation to have damp problems within a couple of decades, especially in wetter parts of the country.
It's a mad idea.
Would a better solution be to have two cavities, with the outer one as you describe with the metal tie to drip water, and the inner one filled with insulation?
Amused at the Chinese claiming the US flying a plane over international waters is militarising a situation which involves the Chinese creating seven islands, three of which have runways...
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
Cavity walls serve two purposes in a wet country like the UK: although they do offer a little insulation, they prevent damp by stopping moisture (e.g. from wind-driven rain) from going through the wall. The inner and outer walls are separated by metal ties (looking a little like bow ties) with a spiral bit pointing downwards. Any moisture on the inside of the outer wall travels down the tie to the vertical bit, and then drips down. They generally work very well in preventing damp, unless the cavity gets blocked.
The government has been keen for householders to save energy by filling up the cavities. One common technique is for holes to be drilled in the outside wall, and soft insulations particles to be blown in. The holes are then resealed.
Unfortunately, this means the cavity is blocked. As time progresses the insulation also compacts under gravity, which is made worse if a little damp gets in. I expect most (and I mean most) of the houses that have had blown insulation to have damp problems within a couple of decades, especially in wetter parts of the country.
It's a mad idea.
Cavity wall lawyers for you.
Pension lawyers for you will be doing a nice trade in a few years as well.
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
Cavity walls serve two purposes in a wet country like the UK: although they do offer a little insulation, they prevent damp by stopping moisture (e.g. from wind-driven rain) from going through the wall. The inner and outer walls are separated by metal ties (looking a little like bow ties) with a spiral bit pointing downwards. Any moisture on the inside of the outer wall travels down the tie to the vertical bit, and then drips down. They generally work very well in preventing damp, unless the cavity gets blocked.
The government has been keen for householders to save energy by filling up the cavities. One common technique is for holes to be drilled in the outside wall, and soft insulations particles to be blown in. The holes are then resealed.
Unfortunately, this means the cavity is blocked. As time progresses the insulation also compacts under gravity, which is made worse if a little damp gets in. I expect most (and I mean most) of the houses that have had blown insulation to have damp problems within a couple of decades, especially in wetter parts of the country.
It's a mad idea.
Would a better solution be to have two cavities, with the outer one as you describe with the metal tie to drip water, and the inner one filled with insulation?
That's a way it can be done on new build: a standard cavity wall to prevent damp, with the insulation (preferably with a high fireproof rating) on the inside of the interior wall.
It's also an alternative method of retrofitting insulation, but is much harder to do, requires redecoration afterwards and reduces the room size (good insulation can be quite thick). You also need to consider windows and other openings as well.
Another brewing scandal is that many new-build homes are not exactly meeting the required insulation and other standards ...
The globe is warming folks and alarmingly so - let's hope we as a species can take action to mitigate some of the impacts we continue to make on the environment.
Err, assuming that the temperature variation from year to year is one degree or more then one year's temperatures being one degree above average only means that this year was a bit warmer than the average, that is as warm as it has been before. I am not sure than it demonstrates that the globe is warming let alone alarmingly so.
Amused at the Chinese claiming the US flying a plane over international waters is militarising a situation which involves the Chinese creating seven islands, three of which have runways...
and none of which belong to China.... or so my evening news regularly tells me
Another brewing scandal is that many new-build homes are not exactly meeting the required insulation and other standards ...
(Note, IANAE. But I believe the above is right).
I am not surer how that is possible unless the building inspectors are incompetent or have been bribed. I would also think that it is very unlikely that any of the big home builders would dare cut corners as putting right any deficiency would cost them dearly and they are liable for ten years after completion.
Another brewing scandal is that many new-build homes are not exactly meeting the required insulation and other standards ...
(Note, IANAE. But I believe the above is right).
I am not surer how that is possible unless the building inspectors are incompetent or have been bribed. I would also think that it is very unlikely that any of the big home builders would dare cut corners as putting right any deficiency would cost them dearly and they are liable for ten years after completion.
Perhaps I am being naive.
I fear you may be. Many of these problems would occur over ten years after completion. And even when they appear before that the housebuilders will do anything to prevent paying out.
As an example: the house we used to rent has been lived in by the owners from when it was newly-built. The flying lounge got very cold compared to the rest of the house in winter, so they contacted the builders who said everything was fine. The same thing happened the next winter, so they got an independent surveyor who pointed out there was no insulation in that room. Armed with that surveyor's report, they went back to the builder via the NHBC and still got rebuffed. It was a few winters before the builders finally admitted they'd made a 'mistake' and insulation was retrofitted at their cost.
It's very, very common. And yes, it'll be a mixture of incompetence, overworked inspectors and backhanders.
The reason: housebuilders just want to sell houses: there's no-one to love the house whilst it's being built. To build something well you really need a caring client.
In 1975 we were a failing economic state and many people wanted to stick with the recent successful group than go back to our failing past.
Interestingly, you can still detect traces of the defeatist attitude of the 70s in some of the posts on here by eg Richard N who is obviously of that generation.
Indeed.
The irony is that those same people accuse UKIP supporters of 'wanting to return to the 1950s' when their own pro-EU mentalities were developed in the 1970s.
So the kippers are 65 years behind the times and the inners 35 years behind. We win again
You can trace the formation of the EU project back to the 1920s and 1930s so not quite sure how you win anything.
Hitler's Germany?
No Monnet and Salter who started writing about the idea of a federal Europe and a United States of Europe.
Comments
RIP.
The world LNG market in 2014 was around 240 million tonnes.
In the next three years, we will see
Australia:
Gorgon LNG
Wheatstone
Gladstone
and some smaller projects
from the US:
Sabine
Hackberry
Freeport
Cove Point
Corpus Christi
It is quite possible we see projects out of Canada (Kitimat, Canaport others).
There is also floating LNG coming courtesy of Golar LNG, and Shell's Prelude.
In total, total LNG supply is going to move from 240mtpa to 400 mtpa between now and 2022.
And most of it is coming from friendly countries.
LNG is currently being landed in the UK at under $8/mmbtu. Coal simply cannot compete.
The UK coal fired power fleet was built to supply cheap baseload, while gas supplied expensive peaking demand. But gas is now so cheap relative to coal that coal is being driven out the market.
If you want to try and make coal competitive by subsidising it (as we're doing with nuclear), then that's possible. But the cost of subsidy will mean higher electricity prices. And that means that other businesses - ones that buy electricity - will be paying more. (Which will have other knock on effects.)
Distributed power generation via rooftop solar panels lessens the load on our big power stations, as does improved house insulation.
Merkel must have some very submissive cabinet ministers or the willingness of Germans to obey orders, however mad, still runs true.
Mr. Account, welcome to pb.com, though I fear your name is the least original since Central African Republic.
Mr. Richard, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, the difference between an error and a mistake is that an error is when you do something wrong, and a mistake is when you refuse to correct it.
Merkel's making substantial mistakes, not least with her deranged migration policy.
At this moment, of the 32.6GW of total UK power demand, just 4.5GW is being supplied by coal - which around a quarter of total (theoretical) maximum UK coal power production. This is certainly being sold an all-in loss by the power generators, and may even be supplied at a "gross profit" loss. (Why would you supply at a loss? Because if you regularly cycle down your power station during the day, to bring it up again for peak demand this evening, you cause significant long-term maintenance issues. Those power plants were built to supply power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with maybe a week of bi-annual maintenance.)
Because we do not have cheap domestic coal (like the Australians, the Germans or the Americans), it is simply not economic to generate power using it. Coal power plants require systems of conveyer belts to get coal to the furnace; and they need to be regularly cleaned. They are also relatively ineffecient: perhaps 35% of the calories in coal are turned into electricity.
Natural gas can be piped in (no maintenance required), needs no cleaning, produces no ash, can be turned on and off at will, and turns up to 61% of the calories in gas into electricity.
And buying gas is now cheaper - on a straight per calorie basis - than coal. (This isn't true everywhere. If you are in Germany, you can buy a tonne of lignite just for €8. We probably pay $65-90 for a tonne of coal at the power station.)
Whereas I, merely an 'interested amateur', was increasingly uneasy.
I sense the same difference between what I'm told and 'gut instinct' now re energy.
Now I certainly don't doubt anything you say but if there's so much and such cheap LNG becoming available why aren't new gas fired power stations being built in the UK ? ** And why the government thinks it necessary to have such huge subsidies for new nuclear stations and diesel generator farms. Not to mention continuing with the farce of UK fracking plans.
** Perhaps there is and I've not seen the relevant media reports - do you know how many gas fired power stations opened from 2010 onwards and how many are currently being built ?
The government has been keen for householders to save energy by filling up the cavities. One common technique is for holes to be drilled in the outside wall, and soft insulations particles to be blown in. The holes are then resealed.
Unfortunately, this means the cavity is blocked. As time progresses the insulation also compacts under gravity, which is made worse if a little damp gets in. I expect most (and I mean most) of the houses that have had blown insulation to have damp problems within a couple of decades, especially in wetter parts of the country.
It's a mad idea.
It does sound daft.
Amused at the Chinese claiming the US flying a plane over international waters is militarising a situation which involves the Chinese creating seven islands, three of which have runways...
Pension lawyers for you will be doing a nice trade in a few years as well.
It's also an alternative method of retrofitting insulation, but is much harder to do, requires redecoration afterwards and reduces the room size (good insulation can be quite thick). You also need to consider windows and other openings as well.
Another brewing scandal is that many new-build homes are not exactly meeting the required insulation and other standards ...
(Note, IANAE. But I believe the above is right).
Perhaps I am being naive.
As an example: the house we used to rent has been lived in by the owners from when it was newly-built. The flying lounge got very cold compared to the rest of the house in winter, so they contacted the builders who said everything was fine. The same thing happened the next winter, so they got an independent surveyor who pointed out there was no insulation in that room. Armed with that surveyor's report, they went back to the builder via the NHBC and still got rebuffed. It was a few winters before the builders finally admitted they'd made a 'mistake' and insulation was retrofitted at their cost.
It's very, very common. And yes, it'll be a mixture of incompetence, overworked inspectors and backhanders.
The reason: housebuilders just want to sell houses: there's no-one to love the house whilst it's being built. To build something well you really need a caring client.
BTW, what's your email again?