Err, Ms. Lucas?

Because not only would more unabated gas be incompatible with our carbon targets, more exposure to volatile gas prices would be bad news for those already struggling to pay their energy bills.

But if we drill for shale then gas prices will come down alleviating the pain of those bills.

Also, please do note that \”volatile\” is not a synonym for \”ever higher\”. Volatile means sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

8 thoughts on “Err, Ms. Lucas?”

  1. ……..volatile gas prices would be bad news for those already struggling to pay their energy bills……..

    That would be volatility between 20% and 40% of the price of renewable electricity.

  2. Even the windies have to admit, gas is the best backup option for wind power.

    ” Our wind turbines produce electricity 70-85% of the time,”

    And the other 30-15% comes from ….? And is this 70-85% for any single period, or on average (because you can reach 85% over a year even if you generate zero power, which isn’t much use really).

    ” A single turbine generates enough power to cover more than 1,000 homes in a year.”

    Doesn’t that contradict what has just been said in the previous paragraph? This statement can only be true if the turbine is 100% operational, which they never are.

  3. It’s the entire stubbornness of people like Lucus who want to make me post twice.

    She admits wind is only 70-85% available, doesn’t she see why this is a show stopper?

    The wind doesn’t blow all the time, that’s an observable fact, it isn’t even “always blowing somewhere (in the UK)”, so there will be a possibility of zero or minuscule power at any time – consequently we need a backup.

    If we’ve gone to the trouble of building backup power stations to cover a possible 100% shortfall, why not ditch the windfarms and go for the backup alone, we save from not building turbines and save again from having 100% operational power stations which would be more fuel efficient.

    Lets stop this addiction to foreign rare earth metals before it starts.

  4. RB @ 3:

    “She admits wind is only 70-85% available, doesn’t she see why this is a show stopper?”

    Probably because she has some fantasy in the back of her tiny mind about a pan-European grid, in which surplus renewable electricity is shunted about the continent…

  5. I usually ask the greenie sitting opposite me in the pub who he/she thinks is going to clean up the post wind detritus in the oceans. They look at me as if I’m mad; ‘but we’ll never be post wind-power’, is one hilarious response.

  6. I’m afraid that I’d take Dr Lucas’s statements about wind power about as seriously as I’d take a (male) Fellow of the Institute of Electrical Engineers opinions on the feminist viewpoint of Elizabethan love poetry.

  7. But am I right in thinking that a pan-European grid of (largely) renewables is pie-in-the-sky? Does anyone have any figures, please?

    This pan-European grid option appears increasingly on eco-leftist blogs. All rational refutations gladly received here!

  8. Does she mean the kind of volatility that’s seen gas prices in the US drop by about 75% in three years?

    Or some other kind?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *