Justin thinks he didn't say that.
What I said was correct. I didn't say I believed it.
"There's a significant number of people saying Boris would be a great PM again. " is true.
It's not me agreeing with it. Those are different concepts.
You are pathetically trying to say otherwise. F off.
Even you could manage to understand that if you got yer head out of where you keep it.
But no, you'd prefer to be the forum dummy. Find it entertaining do you?
You're just wrong on this. And you're ignoring all evidence that disagrees. See CfD.
PS. Wind and Solar were cheaper than Gas before the pre war price rises.
As I said and you didn't read or understand, it's nowhere near all about the CfDs. What you're claiming as the evidence, is a small and manipulated part of the scene.
Just for one eg :If someone else has paid your installation costs by giving you grants and other payments, then you can sell the product back to them at a low price and both sides can claim it's cheap. But that would be bull$hit, would it not.
The wholesale price of electricity isn’t connected to cost of renewable production.
Either you don’t understand that or making a false argument.
which is it
Neither - it's you making things up. You're posting crap. Nobody said that.
If you make something up you can't then pretend it's what I wrote. You're lying. Got it?
Renewables are contributing to the electricity which is being paid for on the leccy bill, so they sure as hell affect the price of that electricity. So if you increase the proportion which is cheap, what should happen to the bill? Did that happen?
You literally used that as your argument:
, “because, unless you hadn't noticed, electricity prices did not fall with the increased use of wind”
No, what I wrote did not support your backwards claim.
Yes. Have a look for yourself.
Are you feeling all right, dear?
I'm OK but you appear to be inebriated by power, time and again. You can get away with jerk-off responses so you indulge. Disgraceful.
It is incredibly difficult to get to the truth of the matter, almost everyone is lying through their teeth.
When you look into the FACTS as they are represented by the FIGURES then the economics of these wind farms simply do not add up. The profits of your average wind farm is basically equivalent to the subsidies.
There are plenty of articles which go that way. It is difficult to take pro or anti apart, because you have to dig into their references and there are many factors.
I'm not saying, before some pathetic troll says otherwise, that they're all right or all wrong , but they exist and need scrutiny. You can - if you could be bothered to look, find all extremes.
You've gone full Ellal/Gas111 here.
Nope. I'm saying look around. It's not as straightforward as eg HMG or the green lobby or specific politicians trying to look good, would like us to believe. These aren't random nutters of the type gas112 quotes claiming they're "the other side of the coin".
Google 'cost of offshore wind' - you get pages of it.
If you really want to, put up the first couple of dozen and go through them. I'm not here to argue their cases. I'm on to other things. Which the trolls will claim implies they aren't there.
Most are biased, but they aren't like some tit saying he's still alive despite not having a jab and therefore blah blah blah,..... etc.
The bias is not by any means all one way.
---
What rubbish is this? There are plenty of early Wind Turbines that have lasted that long.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Built in 1991, still in operation now.
en.m.wikipedia.org
An offshore wind farm, built in 1991 and closed after 25 years
There is no reason to expect that, after 40 years of experience, wind turbine manufacturers have suddenly lost the ability to build long lasting systems.
Those would be about the most unreliable, dishonest sources you can quote. How much was sent to keep them going? One was funded by grants to a pro green group, the other was the manufacturer of the equipment FFS.
I recently sold a Model T Ford (pic showed some time ago).
So that proves cars last 100 years.
Look at some of the US case studies.
It appears we don't know yet, how long the current version of an offshore turbine will "last". That's a variable too; some quote the efficiency drops 3% per annum. That's down a lot in 15 years. Looks like Hornsea planned on 15 years.
---
As I said, the whole thing's further distorted because, for example, the gas price isn't the same as the gas cost. The cost of getting the stuff out of the well to the power station, hasn't changed much because of the war. The price has. It just means we have to put more money in the producers' pockets and pay through the nose. You can also play with carbon credits.
If you're looking at costs and prices, you have to be aware of that too, and be careful how you use the term "cheaper".
Then look at the quality of the supply and realise you aren't even comparing the same apples.
Here's just a few to look at:
www.theguardian.com
www.netzerowatch.com
www.opendemocracy.net
www.desmog.com
