Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Thanks afew. I'll have to have a better read to understand the difference between the two consecutive graphs with the breakdown by country.

Two points though:

-They seem to have used a tiny multiplier. That's OK if we reckon that we'll soon be back to something approaching full employment. For te reality-based community however, I would expect a stronger one for a long, long while (this helps wind)

-For the UK, even today, yes there is a high domestic share, but gas is a world market. If UK gas is cheaper, then reducing consumption should simply increase the domestic share, not reduce UK gas production. If it's more expensive, why would the new plants use UK gas?
So I don't find this bit all that convincing, it feels like applying an average value to a marginal event. Plus, increasing UK gas consumption would speed up the depletion of the resource, which should carry a cost.

So my guess would be that the real situation is actually already favourable to wind even in the UK, and will be overwhelmingly so in the near future.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 07:31:11 AM EST
I don't buy the idea that burning gas in combined-cycle stations is far more beneficial to the national economy in the UK than in France (to reformulate what you said)

The gas burned to produce power is effectively imported (it would otherwise be reallocated to higher-value uses, lowering imports)

But, reading the report, I can see where the Tories get their anti-wind fantasy. But they need to execute a dash for shale gas, to establish a "lasting" advantage for gas over wind, even on these numbers. Otherwise wind becomes cheaper as domestic gas production declines.

I would like to see the same calculations for nuclear! I guess structurally it's similar to wind, high capital costs etc.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 09:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd expect nuclear to be similar to wind, yes.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 01:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't find a value for the multiplier in this summary.

Cyrille:

increasing UK gas consumption would speed up the depletion of the resource, which should carry a cost.

I take it that's what they're demonstrating in the last two charts. However, I agree with you and eurogreen that there's probably some deceptively simple reasoning there.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 12:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The flaw in their reasoning is that, absent the construction of wind farms, all the economic activity that their model assigns to wind would not take place. Against this, they are counting the economic value of gas production in the UK, as if the gas would stay under the sea if it wasn't burned in new power stations.

Unless the construction of wind farms was actually going to crowd out other economic activity (which would require an overheated economy), it's not a fair comparison.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 12:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but I can take a look at the relative size of induced and direct + indirect. That indicates a really low multiplier.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 01:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series