Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Announcements & News => Media Watch => Topic started by: stannn on October 09, 2017, 04:53:44 PM



Title: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: stannn on October 09, 2017, 04:53:44 PM
http://renews.biz/108738/uk-offshore-cost-claims-challenged/


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 09, 2017, 05:31:01 PM
Lol.  :hysteria


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: biff on October 09, 2017, 06:23:40 PM
  He looks so sincere as well, :o
                              Biff


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: todthedog on October 09, 2017, 07:28:58 PM
 fpig: ;D ;D


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: desperate on October 09, 2017, 08:01:39 PM
  GWPF,  Is that the Global  Plankers and Wonkers Forum??  I wonder if the swear filter is gonna freak out at that spoonerism??   whistle

Desp


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: oliver90owner on October 10, 2017, 05:22:27 AM
I'm not so sure that what they are complaing about is actually correct or otherwise. Lawyers are supposedly grouped with estate agents in the popularity ranking of the most hated professions, by some.

They are,  it seems,  complaining of the whole fleet, not the current cost of recent and forthcoming developments. 

In the words of a long dead writer, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  Cherry pick the correct wording and they may well be correct.

The word I noted was 'paid'.  Older off-shore units are still being paid at far higher rates than the upcoming units.

Doesn't make them any less wonkers and plankers, but their actual legal complaint may be correct in that what is currently being paid, for the whole fleet,  has not actually fallen by 50%.  (Probably works out as about only a 45% reduction!)  Their come-uppance will eventually be proven, I expect, but they may force some wording to be altererd.  They will then claim they won and were completely correct in their complaint and then put an entirely different spin on the outcome.  Yes, plankers and wonkers!!


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 10, 2017, 06:48:13 AM
If you really want to upset these folks then do what I did yesterday on the Guardian and compare capacity deployment of off-shore wind v's HPC based on the same amount of subsidy, it even shocked me.

Taking a future wholesale price from the NAO of about £50/MWh away from the relative CfD's of £57.50 & £92.50, and also taking the term lengths of 15yrs and 35yrs into account, then applying cf's of 50% and 92% and I got a shock:-

3.2GW x (0.92cf / 0.50cf) x (35yrs / 15yrs) x (£42.50/£7.50) = 77.9GW

That's a lot of wind! It almost seemed too cruel to post it ....... but I did.  whistle

[I should say that I've assumed that after the 15yr CfD and perhaps 20-25yr life of the wind farms, their replacements won't need a subsidy, and therefore the 35-60yr life of HPC will be matched.]


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: stannn on October 10, 2017, 07:25:15 AM
Don't think for a minute that Lawson was shy about being economical with the truth when he pretended to be some kind of expert. I can't see him owning to the environmental/health problems from fossil fuel plant.
Stan


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: brackwell on October 10, 2017, 08:34:04 AM
Mart,

Good morning,
 
What is NAO ?

You are becoming so knowledgeable in this area that i think there is a danger that many will be missing what you are correctly saying.

A statement like  "The subsidies for the 35yrs life of the now being built Hinckley Point C 3.2GW nuclear power station would be the same as for 78GW of offshore wind" might help.

This way newer readers to this topic could grasp your conclusion without understanding cfd  and CF etc.

I would like to read you Guardian response.

Ken


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: A.L. on October 10, 2017, 09:49:07 AM
Mart,

as brackwell (+1), took me a couple of minutes to work out what you could be saying and then to confirm it!  :cross


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 10, 2017, 11:46:07 AM
Mart,
 
What is NAO ?

A statement like  "The subsidies for the 35yrs life of the now being built Hinckley Point C 3.2GW nuclear power station would be the same as for 78GW of offshore wind" might help.

Ken

You are absolutely correct, sometimes when I've 'gone off on one' for days elsewhere, I forget that nobody knows what the hell I'm saying when I post a massively condensed version on here.

I think your statement nails it, when we take the CfD of £92.50/MWh (2012 monies, now about £97) and deduct what the NAO - National Audit Office suggest the wholesale price of leccy will be in the mid 20's onward, of about £50/MWh*, we see that the subsidy element is about £42.50 (£92.50 - £50/MWh).

From there, and taking all other aspects into account the total subsidy payment (not the cost of the leccy, just the subsidy part) you get about £50bn*, which is roughly the amount needed to pay the subsidy element on 78GW of off-shore wind generation at the latest £57.50/MWh CfD contract (also 2012 monies, so about £60/MWh today).

When I started working it out I was expecting to find something like 10x the capacity and 5x the generation, so I was very shocked to get to 78GW.

I'll find the posts and pop em on here, but the background argument was that nuclear generation is lower carbon than wind generation per MWh. But my point was that we aren't comparing 1MWh of nuclear gen to 1MWh of wind gen, if the same amount of subsidy gets you 13x more generation - at that point you are comparing CO2 displaced by RE.

I don't think these are petty arguments, they are mind blowing when you consider HPC didn't look 'too bad' back in 2012.

* The NAO estimates of future wholesale prices keep falling. As the price falls, the subsidy for HPC (and other RE too) increases as the subsidy element of the strike price gets bigger. HPC was originally estimated to get a subsidy of £6bn, that was revised up in 2016 to £30bn, but is now nearly £50bn as the latest NAO predictions of wholesale prices have been downgraded again, see page 39. Estimates of prices peaking in the low £80's (2012 prediction) are now peaking in the £50's before dropping towards £40 by 2035.

Hinkley Point C (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf)


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: pdf27 on October 10, 2017, 11:59:03 AM
One thing to be wary of here - are there suitable sites for 78GW of wind using current technology, and the infrastructure to build it in a reasonable timeframe? If not then you need to adjust the cost to allow for the non-optimal sites having higher costs and the additional infrastructure (jack-up ships, etc.) required.
Realistically most costs like this are on a hockey-stick type curve - the first X GW are really cheap, the next Y GW a bit more expensive then after that it gets painful. What the wind industry has been really good at is moving the whole curve downwards - but this does nothing to address the limit on how much they can build. At some point HPC will be cheaper than the next 4GW of wind - the interesting question is when this crossover occurs.


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 10, 2017, 12:00:58 PM
Here is the exchange, it's the usual waste of time sparring, but my intention is to show a counter argument against the nuclear hijacking of all renewable or storage news item. This item was - How green is Britain’s record on renewable energy supply? - looking at the growth in renewables over the years.

I jumped in as the poster OTF was using the usual 'abusive' terms that nuclear-at-any-cost advocates always do to try to suggest the other poster doesn't know what they are saying. I use the term nuclear-at-any-cost as they don't represent the more reasonable nuclear supporters who realise that HPC rates are not viable going forward.

His comment was:-

Quote
You lie about your own previous positions, and you lie about other people's positions.
It's your only form of argument. There's an unstoppable quality about it.

Checking back, and whilst I appreciate this isn't a popularity contest, it's nice to see that the attacked post has been recommended 15 times, whilst OTF's response has received 0 (zero) so perhaps the tide has turned now on the Guardian and RE fans are fighting back.

These are my posts which start with the quotes I'm replying to:-

Quote
OTF - We have the findings of the IPCC on one hand, and we have an article in the Ecologist on the other. The Guardian energy threads have their little band of conspiracist pseudoscience crackpots propping each other up.

Mazter (me!) -If that little tirade was supposed to make nuclear-at-any-cost advocates look reasonable and rational, then 'epic fail'.
As to you 'having' the findings of the IPCC on one hand, can you provide a link where they support nuclear rollout at twice the cost of RE? Or in 10yrs time 3x the cost of RE or 2x the cost of RE + storage?

You have used my phrase "nuclear-at-any-cost brigade", yet completely failed to understand it, there are still those that support the role of nuclear going forward, but it has to be economically viable v's the competition. Those that stick up for HPC or SC do not seem to understand that that nuclear option, is no longer a nuclear option, it's priced itself out of the game.

So by all means point to £60/MWh nuclear at 15yr CfDs, if you can, but stop suggesting current UK nuclear options have any future in the world.

The HPC subsidyfor 3.2GW of capacity would pay for about 78GW* of off-shore wind (assuming a 50% cf).

* £7.50/MWh for 15yrs v's £42.50/MWh for 35yrs x 2.94GW (3.2GW@92%cf)


Quote
OTF - No, I post scientifically accurate information. You're more likely to find it in the IPCC reports than in the Ecologist.

Mazter - As to you 'having' the findings of the IPCC on one hand, can you provide a link where they support nuclear rollout at twice the cost of RE?


Quote
OTF - You've misunderstood the point. There's an argument about the CO2 emissions of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear commenters prefer the Ecologist to the IPCC. It's just a stream of pseudoscience mixed in with paranoid conspiracism.

Mazter - Fine then, show me a link where the IPCC say that HPC will reduce CO2 emissions by more than 78GW of UK off-shore wind capacity?


Quote
OTF - The IPCC don't pick out individual projects - they state the CO2 emissions for each technology as a whole.

Mazter - So .... that's a no then?
How about you personally, do you think 3.2GW of HPC will displace more or less CO2 than 78GW of UK off-shore wind?

How about the amount of subsidy, is nearly £50bn of subsidies good value for HPC?


Quote
OTF - Well of course it's a "no". The IPCC doesn't analyse individual power stations.
Dear god do you think you've got a point there?

Yes, the point is simple, you want to hide behind the IPCC to argue that nuclear emits less CO2 than off-shore wind, but they don't seem to be a very good shield when cost is brought into the argument and instead of deploying 3.2GW of nuclear you could deploy 78GW of off-shore wind.

So, if the IPCC is not an answer for all your CO2 excuses, then why hide behind them in the first place.

PS, you didn't answer my questions


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 10, 2017, 12:08:42 PM
One thing to be wary of here - are there suitable sites for 78GW of wind using current technology, and the infrastructure to build it in a reasonable timeframe? If not then you need to adjust the cost to allow for the non-optimal sites having higher costs and the additional infrastructure (jack-up ships, etc.) required.
Realistically most costs like this are on a hockey-stick type curve - the first X GW are really cheap, the next Y GW a bit more expensive then after that it gets painful. What the wind industry has been really good at is moving the whole curve downwards - but this does nothing to address the limit on how much they can build. At some point HPC will be cheaper than the next 4GW of wind - the interesting question is when this crossover occurs.

True, but it's more a thought exercise. The subsidies would buy even more generation (vastly more capacity) from on-shore wind and PV, and costs will most likely fall even further, maybe subsidy free. Perhaps just match HPC with about 6GW of extra off-shore wind, at £10/MWh for 15yrs (using 2017 prices) that's about £4bn v's the near £50bn for HPC.

I suppose this is also a push back against other posters on the Guardian who say spending on nuclear doesn't impact renewables, but since all the subsidy is supposed to come from the levy, then how can £50bn to HPC, not effect the amount of subsidy available for RE. Of course the counter argument is that paying £500/MWh for early PV subsidies will reduce funding for nuclear, but hopefully the relatively small volume of subsidies for early PV and wind have been validated by the subsequent reduction(s) in cost for later deployments, whereas nuclear subsidies over the last 60yrs haven't exactly brought us cheap nuclear in the 2010's /20's.


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: pdf27 on October 10, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
True, but it's more a thought exercise. The subsidies would buy even more generation (vastly more capacity) from on-shore wind and PV, and costs will most likely fall even further, maybe subsidy free. Perhaps just match HPC with about 6GW of extra off-shore wind, at £10/MWh for 15yrs (using 2017 prices) that's about £4bn v's the near £50bn for HPC.
Agreed, and it's a useful exercise - just don't get too carried away. For what it's worth I'm a fan of nuclear but not of the EPR design nor of the way the contract is structured - essentially it's a giant wedge of money being given to the capital markets in exchange for hiding the cost of building it from the government balance sheets.

I suppose this is also a push back against other posters on the Guardian who say spending on nuclear doesn't impact renewables, but since all the subsidy is supposed to come from the levy, then how can £50bn to HPC, not effect the amount of subsidy available for RE. Of course the counter argument is that paying £500/MWh for early PV subsidies will reduce funding for nuclear, but hopefully the relatively small volume of subsidies for early PV and wind have been validated by the subsequent reduction(s) in cost for later deployments, whereas nuclear subsidies over the last 60yrs haven't exactly brought us cheap nuclear in the 2010's /20's.
Maybe they could have done, but the nuclear build programme has been monumentally fouled up - we appear to be managing negative levels of learning between projects. That's another discussion though.
I'm of the camp that thinks we need as much wind as we can build, as much PV as we can build (with a preference for building integrated over farms since that appears to reduce consumption rather than just increase generation), as much nuclear as we can build, etc.
People tend to focus on decarbonising the grid, but that's only a small fraction of total energy consumption and we're only just scratching the surface of the rest of it. Ultimately that really means addressing insulation, consumption, transport, etc. in an integrated package - maybe putting a capital value on a tonne of CO2 equivalent saved over the lifetime of a project to decide whether it gets funding? Unfortunately many of the schemes to deal with this like insulation, etc. don't lend themselves to a subsidy per MWh of generation.


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: splyn on October 10, 2017, 10:04:56 PM
I'd never heard of GWPF before, but having Lawson as a spokesperson is hardly going to help anyone take them seriously. However, a bit of searching found this which I assume is the basis of their claim:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/OffshoreStrikePrice.pdf (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/OffshoreStrikePrice.pdf)

linked from a letter to the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/949ff02c-a539-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2 (https://www.ft.com/content/949ff02c-a539-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2)

For those who don't have the time or interest, the nub of their argument is that they simply don't believe that costs have declined anywhere near that implied by, or that offshore wind is viable, at the prices (£57.5 and £74.75) bid in the latest auctions: [note, my bold]

Quote
Putting aside such special factors, there are three possible explanations for a large drop in the auction prices. These are:

•Bidders believe that investors will accept much lower real rates of return on the equity or debt required to fund the capital investment. For this to add up, the real cost of capital would have to be less than 2%, but even in current conditions this is exceptionally low and there is no evidence that investors are willing to accept such rates of return on investments that are still of relatively high risk.

•Bidders believe that the cost of building new offshore wind farms after 2020 will be less than 40% of the projected figures in our analysis discussed above. There is no public evidence of any kind to support this belief, and in fact our analysis is based on public statements made by developers themselves, which tend in any case to be optimistic.

•The companies bid low and uneconomic prices in order to make sure of obtaining the CfDs, which they see as low-cost, no-penalty ptions, gambling on future market circumstances and policies that will generate income over and above the CfD.

In our view this last possibility is the most probable explanation.
The media excitement around the auction has generated very useful pro-wind and anti-nuclear PR, which is doubtless welcome. However, it is not the main motivation, which is a commercial speculation on future policy and wholesale prices. The holder of the option, the CfD, has an established position in the market that inhibits competition, but is in fact not restricted by the contract.

If future wholesale prices seem very likely to rise above the strike price and remain there, then the wind farm may be built, and the contract quickly abrogated, which is neither difficult nor costly, leaving the wind farm able to take the higher prices that it actually needs. At present, of course, it does not appear that conventional energy prices are likely to rise sufficiently by the early 2020s to produce the high wholesale prices required, but the wind farm developers may entertain hopes of policy support, such as a carbon price. Without the likelihood of such higher prices, these options will be allowed to lapse. All this is a perfectly reasonable gamble for a large company.

However, the tactic has risks. In a revealing story published by Bloomberg on 20 September 2017, Irene Rummelhoff, executive vice president Statoil ASA’s New Energy Solutions unit, is reported as remarking:

The offshore wind industry needs to be careful... They’re taking on these options, and when you get to the delivery date, if they’re not able to build the projects, it will ruin the reputation of the industry

I've no idea if their argument stands up to serious scrutiny or not but ultimately only time will tell. There are plenty of numbers out their put out by the industry but I expect that 'real' costs are almost impossible to come by being commercialy highly sensitive - no-one wants their competitors to know how much they pay for anything, or profitability beyond what they are legally required to publish in accounts.

Still I'm sure there are some here who have a good enough handle on actual development costs to shed more light on how plausible or ludicrous their arguement. Personally I do find the dramatic drop in the CFD bids hard to believe given that quite a large number of fields have been, or are currently being built, such that economies of scale must already be quite a way down the curve.

Perhaps another explanation is that insufficient competition meant that previous/current pricing allowed huge margins for everyone involved (or serious price gouging by manufacturers with demand well in excess of supply) and that fierce bidding has now driven them down to the bone.

Does it look like Chinese manufacturers will become serious threats to the incumbents such as Siemens, Vestas etc. in the near future as they did with PV?


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 11, 2017, 07:06:03 AM

Still I'm sure there are some here who have a good enough handle on actual development costs to shed more light on how plausible or ludicrous their arguement. Personally I do find the dramatic drop in the CFD bids hard to believe given that quite a large number of fields have been, or are currently being built, such that economies of scale must already be quite a way down the curve.

I'd also appreciate the input from those who know better. The price drop is significant, but my first thoughts are that the £57.50 bid (about £60 in todays money) is for commissioning in 2023, so a few more years of WT development. Next the earlier schemes seem to have delivered a higher capacity factor than expected, this is partly why the levy control framework is short of cash, so that allows for lower bids. I also understand that the WT construction costs have fallen, installs are faster and cheaper with specialised shipping, larger turbines 'farm' higher and stronger winds, whilst requiring less WT's and bases for the same capacity. I think these points are facts, but not sure.


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 11, 2017, 07:16:23 AM
If you really want to upset these folks then do what I did yesterday on the Guardian and compare capacity deployment of off-shore wind v's HPC based on the same amount of subsidy, it even shocked me.

Taking a future wholesale price from the NAO of about £50/MWh away from the relative CfD's of £57.50 & £92.50, and also taking the term lengths of 15yrs and 35yrs into account, then applying cf's of 50% and 92% and I got a shock:-

3.2GW x (0.92cf / 0.50cf) x (35yrs / 15yrs) x (£42.50/£7.50) = 77.9GW


Been doing a bit of polishing, and replacing the 2012 costs with approx 2017 costs (HPC £97/MWh and 2023 off-shore wind £60/MWh) gives us:

3.2GW x (0.92cf / 0.50cf) x (35yrs / 15yrs) x (£47/£10) = 64.57GW

That's a hell of a lot of wind capacity.

And whilst this is only a thought exercise, we can go further and compare annual generation, with

HPC (at 92%) generating 25.79TWh's pa
64.57GW of off-shore wind (at 50%) generating 282.81TWh's


Clearly at that level they'd be wiping out each others margins by generating around the same time, but it's just to show what capacity the subsidy 'might' buy these days in other technologies, so even if PV and on-shore wind were also £60/MWh today, then HPC's generation could be matched by just off-shore wind (6GW), or PV (28GWp) or on-shore wind (12GW) for approx £4bn each v's the approx £46bn for HPC. Note the £46bn is based on the current price of £97/MWh, and the NAO predictions of prices dropping down to or below £45/MWh by the early 2030's.

So triple HPC's generation for £12bn, with £34bn left for tidal lagoon and storage investment ... perhaps?


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: brackwell on October 11, 2017, 08:38:36 AM
I think there are a no of factors.

All the detailed reports i have read on Levelised costs of leccy generation indicate how critical the Capacity Factor(CF) is.  There will be no doubt that improved design and optimisation will have improved the CF by a few % and this will have hugely improved the profitability out of all proportion.   The reports also indicate that the capital cost is less critical for wind particularly when spread over 35yrs unlike nuclear with its huge upfront cost

With experience will have come the confidence to reduce "the just in case" amount factored in.

By now the infrastructure is becoming established and the specialised ships etc have been built and perhaps even paid for themselves.

Investors, like pension cos, are willing to buy an asset for the income stream it produces as that is the way they work.

We have already moved into the era of non subsidy Onshore Wind so with the better CF offshore then we must be getting to the time of low subsidy offshore wind.

Who knows what is going to happen to leccy prices as we move into the EV era.

Ken



Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: pdf27 on October 11, 2017, 08:45:32 AM
The prices don't look unreasonable to me, but I've got no inside knowledge to be sure:
  • Costs will mostly scale with number of turbines installed, not with the number of megawatts installed - with turbines getting bigger very fast, this will have a huge impact on the cost base.
  • Installation infrastructure is also improving very fast - installers are having to compete less to get hold of the specialised installation vessels, and cable laying/route clearance techniques for the interconnects are getting much better.
  • Operational experience is growing fast, so maintenance costs are likely to have come down significantly.
  • They're installing a lot of turbines, so learning how to install them cheaper. This is the conventional reason for price drops, and is the only one Lawson's lot seem to be allowing for. The reality is that in this case it's probably the least significant of the lot - turbine growth being the most important since installing a big turbine and a small one should cost almost the same.


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: azps on October 11, 2017, 09:56:18 AM
The prices don't look unreasonable to me, but I've got no inside knowledge to be sure:
  • Costs will mostly scale with number of turbines installed, not with the number of megawatts installed - with turbines getting bigger very fast, this will have a huge impact on the cost base.
  • Installation infrastructure is also improving very fast - installers are having to compete less to get hold of the specialised installation vessels, and cable laying/route clearance techniques for the interconnects are getting much better.
  • Operational experience is growing fast, so maintenance costs are likely to have come down significantly.
  • They're installing a lot of turbines, so learning how to install them cheaper. This is the conventional reason for price drops, and is the only one Lawson's lot seem to be allowing for. The reality is that in this case it's probably the least significant of the lot - turbine growth being the most important since installing a big turbine and a small one should cost almost the same.

I agree with all of that. There's more too:
  • windfarm design has got much more sophisticated in the past few years, so more yield for the same investment.
  • Commodities (steel, in this case) are much cheaper now than they were a few years ago.
  • Vessel design is evolving, for faster, safer, lower-cost installations
  • Telemetry and condition monitoring is improving, increasing the scope for proactive maintenance
  • There's competition between market players throughout the supply chain


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: M on October 11, 2017, 12:17:26 PM
Is this just a case of the naysayers getting caught out. Rumours were rife of good contract prices in the 2017 CfD auction from late last year, not least from our own azps. The odd comment popped up in many articles, and this article could not have been more clear:

U.K. May Get Subsidy-Free Power From Offshore Wind Farms - June 8th 2017 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/u-k-seen-headed-for-subsidy-free-power-from-offshore-wind-farms)

Quote
“For it to be shockingly cheap in the way that Denmark and the German auction have been, a price in the 60s would be amazing,” said Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of RenewableUK. “My personal view is that a price in the 70s is not unlikley.”

Prices for offshore wind in Europe have fallen dramatically in the last half decade and plunged 22 percent in 2016 alone, according to BNEF.

So there have been a lot of clues, and I started to get way too excited by about July, with September seeming so far away back then. Ok, £60ish (£57.50 in 2012) is lower than I expected, but it's still in the ballpark (perhaps in the crowd, with a home run scored).


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: dhaslam on October 11, 2017, 05:49:04 PM
There is still a bit of scepticism about wind power.  The next stage  should be far offshore   wind farms that are in undisturbed wind and  have wind constantly one the area covered is large enough.    It will be more expensive, at least initially,  but  it is difficult to see any  large scale alternatives  when fossil fuels start to run out.   

http://newatlas.com/offshore-wind-farm-atlantic-whole-world/51700/


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: desperate on October 11, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
It's nothing to do with price, it's pure ideaology, even if renewables were producing electricity at a penny a MWh Lawson and his cronies would argue against it, hes just a lobbyist for his mates in the oil industry. He was cr*p as a chancellor too facepalm

Desp


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: stannn on October 11, 2017, 09:05:22 PM
If only he had used the North Sea oil bonanza to set up a UK sovereign wealth fund on Norwegian lines!
Stan


Title: Re: Who's a bad loser then?
Post by: Tiff on October 12, 2017, 08:53:39 AM
It's nothing to do with price, it's pure ideaology, even if renewables were producing electricity at a penny a MWh Lawson and his cronies would argue against it, hes just a lobbyist for his mates in the oil industry. He was cr*p as a chancellor too facepalm

Desp

Exactly and for every arguement you close down they then just find (or make up) something else.