cissolt Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: It will only be cheaper once the capital cost of the wind farm is paid off. Once it is then there is no reason why it shouldn't be cheaper. The project isn't designed to reduce costs to the consumer, it's an arbitrary netzero pledge which ensures more of the population have to rely on the MUA for power thus winding down the debt. We still need a 2nd interconnector, and a new power station. 1.4 billion spending required. If Ralph peaked and the green idiots get there way we will be spending 100s of millions on battery tech for storage 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 minute ago, Happier diner said: Yes. Not applicable in this situation. The MUA are wholly owned by government and would not be able to get away with it even if it was making cash. Bow Orsted - Thats a different kettle of fish So you're telling me that the game plan isn't for the taxpayer to fund windmills so the MUA can generate cheaply and then sell it to those who are funding it at a premium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 42 minutes ago, cissolt said: The project isn't designed to reduce costs to the consumer, it's an arbitrary netzero pledge which ensures more of the population have to rely on the MUA for power thus winding down the debt. We still need a 2nd interconnector, and a new power station. 1.4 billion spending required. If Ralph peaked and the green idiots get there way we will be spending 100s of millions on battery tech for storage I agree with everything apart from the new power station. Why would we need that if we have the new interconnector? It's not in the plan so why are you making it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 42 minutes ago, finlo said: So you're telling me that the game plan isn't for the taxpayer to fund windmills so the MUA can generate cheaply and then sell it to those who are funding it at a premium? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 On 7/17/2024 at 9:37 AM, Happier diner said: I agree with everything apart from the new power station. Why would we need that if we have the new interconnector? It's not in the plan so why are you making it up? The power station is end of life and needs to be replaced, it's in every single future energy scenario.....if you've read them. I assume you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 51 minutes ago, cissolt said: The power station is end of life and needs to be replaced, it's in every single future energy scenario.....if you've read them. I assume you have? I have saved you the trouble of reading it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 5 minutes ago, cissolt said: I have saved you the trouble of reading it But that's not the current (CGT) power station, that's the remnants of the previous power station. The one that was supposed to 'need replacing' according to Mr Proffitt. So they've survived, working regularly[1], decades after their "notional end-of-life". And even now, if you read that very careful wording ("rarely considered"), there's nothing to say that they couldn't go on much longer or that it will actually be more expensive to maintain them. [1] When selling power to the UK grid, they tended to be used in preference to the gas turbines as they're quicker to start up and so better at dealing with peaks and producing electricity that can be sold at a higher premium. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, cissolt said: The power station is approaching the end of life and will need to be replaced if its going to be used long term (post 2030), it's in every single future energy scenario.....if you've read them. I assume you have? Corrected above. I have read them and there are scenarios where it is replaced. However in the current chosen plan its not replaced and that's why there is a second interconnector. You wouldn't do both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 48 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: But that's not the current (CGT) power station, that's the remnants of the previous power station. The one that was supposed to 'need replacing' according to Mr Proffitt. So they've survived, working regularly[1], decades after their "notional end-of-life". And even now, if you read that very careful wording ("rarely considered"), there's nothing to say that they couldn't go on much longer or that it will actually be more expensive to maintain them. [1] When selling power to the UK grid, they tended to be used in preference to the gas turbines as they're quicker to start up and so better at dealing with peaks and producing electricity that can be sold at a higher premium. Not quite exactly right as it was explained to me. The diesels are used to fill the gap between having one GT running and starting a second. So you would have something like; GT1 GT1 + Diesel 1 GT1 + Diesel 2 GT1 + Diesel 3 GT1 + GT2 For most efficient use, as I understand it, you could just start a second GT as GT1 approaches capacity but its not as efficient. There would be a lag if you let GT1 reach capacity and then tried to start GT2 (as you rightly say) - and that would be a disaster leading to reduced frequency in the system. That's how it was explained to me when I went to the open visits. But the man could have been bullshitting me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Of course climate change is a fraud , that MHK blokey type says it is so it’s a fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatRoundMiddle Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 14 minutes ago, Anyone said: Of course climate change is a fraud , that MHK blokey type says it is so it’s a fraud. He's a fraud, so an expert in this field Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted Friday at 11:48 AM Share Posted Friday at 11:48 AM Is our Green Bond money going to Churches now? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/three-manx-churches-given-green-grants/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted Friday at 11:50 AM Share Posted Friday at 11:50 AM Just now, The Phantom said: Is our Green Bond money going to Churches now? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/three-manx-churches-given-green-grants/ Being funded by the Church of England it says, unless the Green Bond is providing the funds to march. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted Friday at 11:55 AM Share Posted Friday at 11:55 AM 5 minutes ago, Gladys said: Being funded by the Church of England it says, unless the Green Bond is providing the funds to march. Aha. Even for us, I thought this was a massive joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted Friday at 12:00 PM Share Posted Friday at 12:00 PM 8 minutes ago, Gladys said: Being funded by the Church of England it says, unless the Green Bond is providing the funds to march. Onward Christian Soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.