I am sure he is already well aware of that when he made the offer
- Thread starter Morrisman
- Start date
- Status
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,074
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
If you say so…I am sure he is already well aware of that when he made the offer
“The price cap provides consumers in France with guaranteed tariffs and it is the State that pays the difference between market rates, which have obviously risen considerably in France and in other European countries,” France’s prime minister’s office stated.
It’s been estimated by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel that France will spend €38billion in measures designed to counter rising prices.
Who are they giving this 38 billion to then? As they don't buy much gas where is it going?
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,074
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
It’s going somewhere (presumably into the pooled European energy market - its a complicated arrangement so it wouldn’t surprise me) as there’s loads of sources that say it’s going to cost the french government this amount, as well as a 5th of edf share value being wiped off when they announced it - maybe all those economic think tanks and journos are wrong and you are right
The fact EDFs shares have dropped surely indicates it is coming out of their profits?It’s going somewhere (presumably into the pooled European energy market - its a complicated arrangement so it wouldn’t surprise me) as there’s loads of sources that say it’s going to cost the french government this amount, as well as a 5th of edf share value being wiped off when they announced it - maybe all those economic think tanks and journos are wrong and you are right
But as you said there are very complex energy arrangements in Europe.
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,074
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
As edf are already massively in financial trouble (and are probably going to be fully nationalised due to this) then it stands to reason it’s going on your countries debt then? Whichever way you try to spin it it’s costing France…as every economic report suggests.
OK I will keep quiet better than locking the threadI can’t believe we’ve got to 48 pages of this drivel. it just keeps going round and round in circles.
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,074
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
I can’t believe we’ve got to 48 pages of this drivel. it just keeps going round and round in circles.
DAPPH
as dyslexik as I'm daft
- Messages
- 7,035
- Location
- Near to Cross Hands Llanelli SouthWales GB
No we didn't adopt early , it was a 17.5 p FIT when we installed , we saved up and paid on the nail so didn't have any loans & groans to contend with .You adopted early and benefited from the higher FIT levels I'm guessing?
But without the handsome taxpayer subsidy of your FIT - would the system have stood up anything like as well? Of course not.
Perhaps it's fairer to say that you've benefited well from other Taxpayers subsidising your system - rather than the system doing so on its own performance merit
So yes, you're right - I don't approve of the method.
I hear your bleat about others paying .. the diametrically opposite truth is that I invested my own money , so in fact I've been subsidizing your electricity costs & have provided cheap skates with lower cost power as well as helping reduce the carbon foot print by using my own generated power whenever it was available . a fair chunk of the UK 's power is solar & turbine generated without that I'm 100 % certain you'd be paying 68 p or more per KW .HR . these days.
When we got married ( 34 years ago next month) I got crippled for the second time , we had to rethink things and plan very carefully because we saw the way things were heading as we moved into official retirement so we decided to do something about protecting ourselves as best as we could ... and you now criticise us for that .. what a strange world you must inhabit .
What we did all those years ago has given us options for the now and in the future , do you really expect me to have my heart on my sleeve for those who whilst capable but lazy didn't plan ?
DAPPH
as dyslexik as I'm daft
- Messages
- 7,035
- Location
- Near to Cross Hands Llanelli SouthWales GB
Saw on the TV news yesterday ( Friday ) that Russia has been & burnt 4.3 million cubic metres of gas close to the Finnish border.
Is that a one off or is it happening every 24 hours of late ?
I wonder how high the thermals from it went and if it will change the jet streams enough to alter the weather patterns into a very serious cold even this coming winter ?
DAPPH
as dyslexik as I'm daft
- Messages
- 7,035
- Location
- Near to Cross Hands Llanelli SouthWales GB
Same with " He who pays the pipe calls the tune " for all these reports surveys and investigations etc etc. very few will be unbiased in all aspects.It's generally the way of things, that those with a vested interest in something - have a viewpoint that very much supports that something
Funny that
They have been doing it for weeks now. Trying to blackmail Europe into stopping sanctions. Never mind the environment. Such a disgraceful waste
premmington
Member
- Messages
- 5,665
- Location
- Norfolk
They have been doing it for weeks now. Trying to blackmail Europe into stopping sanctions. Never mind the environment. Such a disgraceful waste
There are other reasons for "flaring" - over pressure in the liquid knock out section of the plant - or high methane content.
Sadly "flaring" has been going on from the beginning of oil production (over 160 years ago).
"Flaring" is done for market and economic reasons as well (I think this could be the reason that is being reported?).
If demand for oil is high and demand for gas is low - "flaring" is unavoidable a times.
The real issue with "Flaring" is in countries like South America/Iran - that do not have a very developed/networked marketplace (less pipelines). So they have very little choice but to flare. And flare they do!
Flaring and the thermal effects - have been loosely reported to change the "jet streams" and affect the weather.
-------------------
Quote ex Google. "There are 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world as of 2016. The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."
Take the environmental question out of the equation - as oil runs out - Derv will get more expensive.
500e
Always buy fire insurance a flood is a hard start
- Messages
- 8,929
- Location
- South West
Well that comment did not come over like I intended
addjunkie
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 12,468
- Location
- Northumberland. Reet oot in the sticks
Nothing quite like being stood under a raging flare, or lighting one on start up for that matter. In Angola on an asset designed to zero flare, there were days we would flare enough to heat London for a year, the radiated heat was so great you couldnt work on top of the gas plant as the handrails were 65degrees c. We were doing about 250000 bbls / day, but the LNG plant wasnt finished.
When the oil runs low Methane Hydrates will be where the investments in oil and gas technology will head.
Not if the "side" doesn't have a vested interest it doesn't.Of course, it works that way for every side of the argument.
There are people still left in the world without an agenda, and who form opinions based upon their own thoughts and observations.
As @DAPPH points out though - the chief difficulty now is in getting any unbiased / skewed / plain fabricated data or information.
Often the only ones with a strong idea of the reality - are those involved at a senior level in whatever it is..... and the last thing they'll do is provide unbiased, truly accurate, complete answers.
It's a bit like the info supplied earlier (sorry forget who posted) - that on the day in question Solar was providing 13.5% of the UK Energy needs.
In isolation that doesn't sound too bad... but it ought to be qualified by the fact that its only doing so when taken in a "Snapshot" of time, and that over a 24-hr period, at a UK annual average of about 10-hrs or so of Daylight - that the average contribution of Solar is very, very much less than 13.5%.
Before someone points it out - yes the Solar is active during the "busiest" period of the 24-hrs - so the impact of Solar isn't linear, so it's harder to estimate its true contribution..... but it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that the 13.5% snapshot probably translates to an average annual contribution of perhaps 5%???
Maybe someone has figures on annual Solar contribution (though of course we can question the veracity of the data - see above
)Edit: a quick Google suggests the consensus of annual UK Solar contribution is 4% - so it seems I wasn't far out, even 20% generous in my guesstimate
.Proves the point about cherry-picking data to "prove" an argument though (as the 13.5% figure unqualified - is very misleading)
- Status
