Happier diner Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Just now, Andy Onchan said: The cheapest has to be the interconnector running into tens of millions rather than hundreds of millions for any of the other options, with the gas turbine as emergency backup? Running a gas powered power station just as back up. That's no cheap option. Have you seen how much they spend maintaining it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, cissolt said: You are just repeating the government mantra. The choices are easy, it's the will to do it in government that's tough. Revoke the netzero and ESG nonsense we've been sold by KPMG. Save 50+ million immediately https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4158087/tennessee-sues-blackrock-esg-misrepresentations Do we NEED a 2nd interconnecter to import burnt forests via Drax to ? No £1.2 billion saved. No new turbines or solar = no national grid upgrade required £50 million saved. Turbines pay for themselves in 3-4 years and cut costs thereafter, and is effectively independent of choice to keep gas turbines / change for two interconnectors / biowhatever. Existing interconnector is coming up to end of life (& same with CCGTs). Not a question of 'do nothing' for next 20 years, even if want to keep the same energy mix still have to invest £10s of millions. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 2 hours ago, CallMeCurious said: 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: It's fine to mock, but what is the answer in your learned opinion? There are some tough choices ahead and non of them are cheap. Do nothing as errrrr apart from spend money on long lasting mitigation such as interconnector cable, flood defenses and a new reservoir than this virtue signalling nonsense. That's not nothing is it? What's the reservoir for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 4 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Running a gas powered power station just as back up. That's no cheap option. Have you seen how much they spend maintaining it? That's insurance and insurance doesn't come cheap either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 ....but Mrs Happy Diners' soggy veg purchases from Robbos will keep the 'Energy from Waste' going for years!!! ( cross thread reference there Happy!!! ). Touchy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: What will you do with the power station? You mean the power station that put is in this situation? Run it until at least 2035 which is when it's due to be retired. Lest we forget. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/jun/30/11 Anyone advocating spending 1.5 billion of tax payers money when reserves are running dry is detached from reality. We can't recruit staff due to the high cost of living, average rent is over £1000 per month. We need affordable housing now, not a wind turbine to satisfy a spreadsheet in Brussels. The crunch will come when govt realise we can't staff the two new nursing homes, recruit any Gaps and have chronic shortages in manxcare..oh wait, we already do. £500 million on affordable housing solves the population problem, health care staffing problems and puts more money into the economy due to lower rents. Wind turbines provide a bit of power, if it's windy but not too windy. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sign in Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 All this talk about requiring more electricity and the need to spend money, but why do we need to do so in the first place? Watt and how much electricity do we actually need currently? Those with facts/figures positively appreciated 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Just now, Sign in said: All this talk about requiring more electricity and the need to spend money, but why do we need to do so in the first place? Watt and how much electricity do we actually need currently? Those with facts/figures positively appreciated 👍 I see what you did there! Nice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 20 minutes ago, Sign in said: All this talk about requiring more electricity and the need to spend money, but why do we need to do so in the first place? Watt and how much electricity do we actually need currently? Those with facts/figures positively appreciated 👍 We need a 2nd interconnecter so we can import 'green' energy and export our excess. Some semantic figure wrangling about c02 at point of production, by importing burnt wood pellet energy the provider would be the liable for the emissions not the consumer. Hard to find an viable data on why we actually need it when our current one serves more than we need and we export energy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Diversifying our supply is a good idea. Relying on the UK maybe not a good idea. Cutting emissions a good idea so long as its not at massive expense to the public. Someone who knows a fair amount about it did tell me why we needed a new interconnector but I can't remember the details, will ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, slinkydevil said: I see what you did there! Nice. Did they 'mean' that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 55 minutes ago, HeliX said: Relying on the UK maybe not a good idea Especially if our interconnect is to an English 'grid' that is not particularly 'Green'! Not6 my particular preference but would give credence to the 'Pro CO2 brigade', OK, no green energy from the UK, carry on with our gas turbine to the 70's!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, HeliX said: Diversifying our supply is a good idea. Relying on the UK maybe not a good idea. Cutting emissions a good idea so long as its not at massive expense to the public. Someone who knows a fair amount about it did tell me why we needed a new interconnector but I can't remember the details, will ask. Why would relying on the UK be a bad idea? Really don't get it, other than perpetuating this 'proud little nation in the Irish Sea' hubris. We already rely on the UK for the majority of our food, raw materials and manufactured goods. ETA and a substantial part of our healthcare. Edited January 30 by Gladys 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 6 minutes ago, Gladys said: Why would relying on the UK be a bad idea? Really don't get it, other than perpetuating this 'proud little nation in the Irish Sea' hubris. We already rely on the UK for the majority of our food, raw materials and manufactured goods. ETA and a substantial part of our healthcare. We're beholden to issues in their supply chain and fluctuations in their prices way out of our control. Having natural generation on island offsets that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Our generation on the Island may not be truly 'green' but until we can be assured of such from the inter connector, should we carry on until the dying days of gas generation? Probably a compromise is requied but not so much as to add credence to the 'climate deniers'? As a prt of the 'World' we have to do 'our' bit, however small!!! 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.