April 22nd TV Debate

[squirrel42]

I'm going along to be in the audience this Thursday for the Sky News TV Debate - it's being filmed in the South West, although it seems we're not supposed to say exactly where for security reasons.

Would people like an official MN behind-the-scenes report afterwards?

Should I break the rules and heckle/cheer loudly at a strategic moment, and if so then when?

If I'm allowed to ask a question should I go "off-script" and ask about biscuits?

Is there anything else I should think about?

Something funny happening with this thread - Apr 22nd April TV Debate - it seems to be invisible on the Home Page and the Active lists !! Surely not .... Censorship ?!??

it's not true that the technology doesn't currently exist for us to use renewables exclusively! we are now a net exporter of wind power in scotland and if wind power were more heavily exploited in england (conservative councils are notoriously nimby about this) and our considerable wave generated electricity capability, plus the already existent photovoltaic really pushed for domestic use we'd be nearly there.

it is absolutely not true that we don't have the renewable technology, it is just that thus far there has not been the political will to push it.

nevermind the hugely hopeful concept of a european/north african supergrid.

snowlady - you may want to read this article in the Telegraph about the exagerated clams being made by companies selling solar heating.

Sophable IMO that's spot on - and if we had a 'Marshall Plan for energy' mindset with all hands on deck for engineering maximum self-sufficiency in renewables, energy storage, carbon-capture, the Super-Grid, we could give two-fingers Électricité de France ..

(darn it - there seems to be a gremlin in my computah - have to repost this, sorry): Sophable IMO that's spot on - and if we had a 'Marshall Plan for energy' mindset with all hands on deck for engineering maximum self-sufficiency in renewables, energy storage, carbon-capture, the Super-Grid, we could give two-fingers to Électricité de France ..

What I said was "but they are not proven to market technologies. So they are not CURRENTLY feasible options. "

In order for an alternative source of energy to exist it needs to:
1- Work (i.e. technology exists)
AND
2- have a viable market (i.e. is financially viable)

I don't know of any other source which exists today. They all seem to have environmental, political, or financial obstacles.

What is it you say exists without these obstacles?

so what you're saying is they are not viable because there is a lack of political will...essentially.

which is why this election is so important isn't it?

it's not the same as these technologies not being available!

I don't think I did say that. What do you mean by "political will"?

Also, Gordon Brown awarded a series of Wind Farm contracts in January. He has big plans for wind power. BUT... this development is very expensive and the project (or parts of it -- don't really know the details) are already rumoured to be in financial trouble.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8448203.stm

The largest of these awards sits in the middle of the dogger bank (cue conservationsists undivided attention). Also in the middle of the dogger bank is one of the largest ever UK gas discoveries. This field is called Cygnus and you can google for more info there. It will be intereting to see if these project really do get the go ahead and are affordable.

I am all for both of these developments. They will go well together. The Dogger Bank is forecast to have some 2500 (two thousand five hundred) turbines, which could of course be powered from the gas from Cygnus. This is a step forward, but of course we must keep in mind that even a wind farm is not fossil fuel free. And it creates all kinds of noise which disturbs the wildlife and of course there are those who have a fit because they think it spoils their pretty landscape. I personally think the people arguing for thei right to a pretty landscape are being silly. But, hey ho, they too have a voice to be heard.

things like a radical move to renewables require the kind of political will that 4 year terms don't really engender.

it is expensive, it pisses off the main players in the energy field (never politically expedient to piss big business off) and it pisses off some of your electorate (who don't want wind farms, who don't want to be penalised for using non renewable sources of energy for example).

does that make any more sense?

cleggblonde is right in that big moves like this rarely happen outside of the aftermath or during hugely turbulent times vis marshall plan in aftermath of WW2.

or maybe, maybe, maybe, when a huge tranche of your electorate that have been feeling totally disenfranchised, get a sniff of a new politics? and come out and vote? naive and hopeful maybe...

Not really, Sophable. I still don't understand what you mean by "political will". Do you mean funding, even against the will of the electorate if necessary? Do you want to raise taxes for this? And where do you want to spend this revenue? Research? Construction of existing technology / projects? How much money do you think people are willing to pay for their energy?

Strix - that is the bit about 'politcal will' I never get either. I used to work in the energy indsutry and the plain fact is that renewable energy is an extremely expensive form of energy. The captal costs are huge in wind power, tidal power, solar power and even hydro electric. There is virtually no renewable energy project would have been built anywhere in the world in the last 10 years without some kind of public subsidy, special tax break, or guaranteed off take price imposed on consumers.

The political will can only go as far as the public is prepared to pay the extra cost. Nuclear power is the same. All the recent proposals for building new nuclear in this country involve fraught negotiations behind the scenes about how much public subsidy or guarantee will have to be handed over to make the projects viable.

Meanwile gas fired power stations are being built without any public subsidy because they make economic sense. They emit less CO2 and other pollutants than old coal fired plants so good for the environemnt too.

The whole renewable energy issue is a scandalous waste of money in which a few well connected firms and individuals are makig a very nice living at tax payer (or consumers) expense. Politicans of all colours have no idea what thet are talking about on energy. They just like the sound of 'renewables' because it makes them sound good.

Funny how none of the party leaders when asked at the latest debate seemed to have very good answers as to what they were personlly doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Oh sure, Beta, just come along and kill the thread with common sense why don't ya?

yes, such sense, because our reliance on fossil fuels shouldn't be expensive should it? it's not like it's costing us anything much...just the planet.

Girls, I'd like to contribute to the thread, all of you so thoughtful, but I've just got some red-hot poop from a friend of a gf who's an entertainer based in Paris; rumour is she'd been away for a week in the Bahamas in the company of a high up from some French engineering co. (nuclear ?) and after the curtains came down on Act V and they were chilling out watching the drama of the oil-rig burn on Fox on the in-room cinerama the exec said - presumably in his best Gallic villain voice - 'Success - it's worked perfectly'. What can the generous Froggie been referring to ??

Strix - what IS salient (and you make the point but somehow leave us with a vaguely pro-nuke aftertaste) is that Nuke is actually the most expensive mooted form of power, in pennies or cents per kWh ...

This is a link to a detailed analysis of the economics of newbuild Nuke by Craig A.Severance CPA; examines the economic case in the US, but the US context is at least as stringent as the UK ... < climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf >

... But expensive too environmentally - currently EDF are shipping out nuclear waste to Seversk in the Tomsk region of Russia. It's going under the guise of re-processing, but actually only token amounts returned -- acres of radioactive waste now in yet ANOTHER blighted part of the planet

Strix - what IS salient (and you make the point but somehow leave us with a vaguely pro-nuke aftertaste) is that Nuke is actually the most expensive mooted form of power, in pennies or cents per kWh ...

This is a link to a detailed analysis of the economics of newbuild Nuke by Craig A.Severance CPA; examines the economic case in the US, but the US context is at least as stringent as the UK ... < climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf >

... But expensive too environmentally - currently EDF are shipping out nuclear waste to Seversk in the Tomsk region of Russia. It's going under the guise of re-processing, but actually only token amounts returned -- acres of radioactive waste now in yet ANOTHER blighted part of the planet

sorry - again didn't mean to post twice; gremlin in the Computah

Blonde, I'm not suggesting for a minute that nuclear is perfect. The waste is a problem. The resources are limited. But, it does help with the emissions problem.

But, what I really want to get across here is that Clegg is making offers he can not possibly deliver on. He is promising technologies which are not currently viable in the market. AND... he is presenting them as if they are not already underway. But, as I pointed out early, these very expensive project are already in question due to their cost and a variety of environmental and conservation issues.

I totally support the idea of funding research so that we have more options -- the sooner the better. But, until we do, we must move forward with the options we have now.

And Clegg should stop promising things that don't exist.

Strix, much as I don't object to you having the last word, , and yr post has as usual much sense, I just cannot let one assertion in yr last post remain uncommented, for you say:

"...But, as I pointed out early, these very expensive project are already in question due to their cost and a variety of environmental and conservation issues."

one might conclude that would refer to Newbuild Nuke with, IMHO, a far greater fit than the multiple and versatile, flexible, efficient, de-centralised and secure modes of renewable energy generation whose currency (or near immediate achievability) you dismiss.

Pl. see the following energy blueprint and Global Subsidies Initiative