Comments on: Switching to Renewables No More Expensive than Upgrading Fossil Power, Says UK Government’s Climate Change Scientific Adviser

By: Rav Casley Gera

Rav Casley Gera — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:34:00 +0000

There’s some evidence Helm is more optimistic about the future of fossil fuels than about nuclear, although he’s absolutely not a denier. For example, here’s an article from 2009 where he says we have to bet everything on carbon-capture and he’s quite dismissive of wind.

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/775

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:21:00 +0000

Suspicions are rising that natural gas will not stay cheap. Or plentiful. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.single.html

The futures market is predicting a 100% increase in natural gas price by 2020. That’s not a price increase based on inflation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:44:00 +0000

Both: “Helm says gas may turn out to be cheap and abundant, but also that technology advances in batteries, the electrification of transport, breathroughs in solar power – such as the harnessing of photosynthesis – and the use of smart grids could cut the costs of low-carbon energy too.”

Basically, the future is uncertain.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:22:00 +0000

Yeah, I agree. This calculator, again, doesn’t take these costs into account. It seems obvious, but people continue to leave out the health costs of coal for some odd reason.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:03:00 +0000

“Professor Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told The Guardian that the similarity in costs between low- and high-carbon approaches that MacKay predicts “is indeed the result you get if you take conventional wisdom on fossil fuel prices and assume no major technical progress.”

Prof Dieter is suggesting that we might see major technical progress with fossil fuels?

Or is he doing something less stupid and pointing out that renewable technology is likely to become even cheaper over time?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:55:00 +0000

I’ve seen no one challenge Epstein’s numbers with facts.

I didn’t dig through the calculator, is it the case that it uses only the meter price of energy and does not include externalities? If so, that’s pretty common. It’s very common for people to ignore the hidden costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy when discussing the cost of electricity.

By: Mark Redden

Mark Redden — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:38:00 +0000

I think I need some help here:

According to a Harvard Medical School study, the actual cost of coal power is 180% higher than the price per kwh paid by US consumer/taxpayers.

See this: http://plymouthdailynews.com/harvard-coal-adds-18-cents-kilowatt-hour-your-bill-13185

For the US consumer the average price paid per kwh is 10 cents, but the actual costs are 18 cents higher per kwh higher than this, giving a total of 28 cents per kwh.

Did Harvard get its math wrong?

If the same is true for UK coal power, and the costs of coal are almost 3 times higher than renewables, then the calculator is actually misinforming people?

Can anyone help?

By: Titia Thompson

Titia Thompson — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:28:00 +0000

Maynex patent-pending self-powered H2-Flex Hybrid kit will quickly, inexpensively, and effortlessly transform any vehicle into a super-efficient hybrid. The H2-Flex can also make any EV and Fuel Cell vehicle go over 1000 miles and still recharge or refuel in about 1 minute!