"Green" policies are destroying this country

If we are interconnected with the European grid, then we are also using Nuclear, geothermal, Hydro etc as sources of electricity

There's no "if", its a European Regulation applicable from next year.

We are only net exporters of energy if (a) the market prices plus the losses (which will be at least 5%) is cheaper than the other country and (b) it is technically feasible to export without any binding system constraints. Look at the Netherlands for the past few weeks. Cheap power that no one wants and they can't export it all due to system instability. They're well interconnected in the Central European synchronous area. Our pissy little island is not synchronously connected to it so instability binds much faster.

Worse still, on top of paying RES for transmission constraints, they'll also be paid for oversupply/curtailed energy that isn't wanted. A 5.5GW peak system in Ireland with more than 10GW of RES will all be paid €85ish per MWh regardless of us not using it. I fail to see how that's cheaper than just paying a couple of conventional plant the system marginal price for just the energy that actually generated/used?

The imbalance price does not set the wholesale price.

There will be no CBAM on GB electricity imports.

It's a kinda magic magic! Maggiccc!

I suppose all technology is magic to people who don't understand any of it

The backup in case the sun stops shining and the atmosphere loses all its gasses, and all the continents geothermal, hydro, nuclear, biomass and hydrogen all stop working at the same time?

I think we'll have bigger fish to fry in that scenario.

Here's a question for you. What's the backup for fossil fuels if there's a sustained continental scale heatwave and drought? All fossil fuel power generators and Nuclear require boiling vast amounts of water and turning it into steam.

Every generator built to date has been built based on a number of cost recovery factors - Capacity payments, energy payments and system service payments. The system marginal price means very little to peaking plant as they'll generally only get the cost of producing their energy back but it matters a lot to CCGTs. Depending on whether they are settled on Complex Prices (their production costs) or Simple Prices (their unique offer costs), they can make significant inframarginal rents - they get to keep the difference between their costs and the system price. It hasn't stopped any gas plant from building previously and it's not stopping Kilroot from building now.

They wouldn't build if all they were getting was capacity payments and system service payments. There's already so many suppliers delivering the services that gas plants can (except for inertia) but the energy prices are what gives them a chance of large profits. They just have to be more efficient than the generation setting the price.

Not only that, the Earth would not have seen as much of the recent greening, especially in the tropics. Together with the slight rise in temperature (caused by the sun/oceans , the latter pushing up Co2 in the atmosphere plus our own through emissions) this has benefited the length and strength of the overall crop season with better yields, actually using less fertilizer. The plants stomata have been calibrated to higher Co2 levels and now have to use less water to get the same output.There has been an overall net positive of higher Co2 levels. But of course if you consider a small element like Co2 to be responsible for all the supposedly bad stuff you will find the models to support that. You will ignore counter factual data and even erase data from the record (NOAH) or simply manipulate data and put full trust in the models even if they are not supported by the data or only use data from the source that agrees with the model. Plus, give a Nobel price to the guy with the worst climate model, the furthest away from observations to hammer down the opposition. It's ironic that the only models that seem to agree w actual recorded data are the Russians and the Chinese. Coincidence?

And to get back to Co2 and the greenhouse effect: that is a constant and has bandwidth limits. Even if you ignore all the positives of higher Co2 levels (crop yields, plant growth), all the Co2 in the air on a base level already has done its job in the initial greenhouse effect which is steady .Putting more in leads to Co2 saturation rather quickly and can no longer force energy through its linkage w H2o (water vapour) to raise temperature in the atmosphere. Again, the net benefit outweighs the stated (unproven) negatives. It is clear that the oceans release more Co2 (and water vapour) with higher temperatures. That's just pure physics. The obscene focus on Co2 as the 'smoking gun' of temperature is such an extraordinary claim it has to be substantiated by extraordinary evidence and guess what? The evidence is not even ordinary and is ALL related to a proposed unproven high sensitivity level of temperature to Co2. Some other percentages (like (energy) in and outputs, absorbtion and emitting levels are also doubtful or at least questionable.

The fact remains that the stated certainty of current (western) climate models can be rejected out of hand as they are not supported by the data underpinning it, especially the role of Co2 in temperature.Furthermore, they know the uncertainties, hence their insistance and belligerence. Theirs are politically motivated (IPCC etc) and religiously adhered to. It is also painful to see the biggest financial institutions, NGOs, asset management companies using this (via the WEF, WHO etc) in ESG rules to empower them and cut out the small players. It's a power grab and affects all western countries. It is no longer a conspiracy theory, they are bragging about it and seem very proud to see things going their way. We will all suffer the consequences..

All of which have nothing to do with the post I replied to and which you jumped in to defend.

@[Deleted User] replied to a post that said we were putting our eggs in one basket when it comes to energy generation with "There is nobody, anywhere, proposing a grid of 1-2 sources" and then proposed exactly that with wind and solar.

In fact the only difference I see with your proposals is the inclusion of a begging bowl with that 2 egg basket and the hope that there is excess energy available when we need it. Difficult to see how that could be any way looked on as an energy security plan.

What are you blabbering on about? I've reversed nothing. You made a stupid assumption that no one would invest in a gas plant based on the system marginal price and I corrected you. OCGTs have always been built against the cost of best new entrant. They typically set the price. CCGTs make their profits based on being more efficient than an OCGT then keeping the difference between their production cost vs the imbalance settlement price as profits (on simple pricing). That has been the basis of development since deregulation. It was simpler in the old SEM than the current one but the fundamentals are similar.

I have no clue what your statement "that fossil generators always charge far more than just the system marginal price" is about? I never said that, because it's not true. They submit bids and offers for Inc's and Dec's which contribute to set the prices in the electricity market.

If you are going to contribute, I'd suggest reading the Trading and Settlement code first rather than posting random incorrect statements.

...deniers are just fcuking weird!

...you know exactly what i mean....

...again, how exactly are the greens destroying the country? the greens have only played a minor role in forming governments, this means theyve played minor roles in our current outcomes, the two big boyos have been ruling the roast, since the year dot, you can be damn sure theyve played much bigger parts in our current outcomes!

...yes the greens are partly to blame, but.....

...we re all feeling it from the widescale privatization of our energy markets, its been well known, particularly within the fossil fuel industries themselves, and for decades, but what did we do, ah shur the market knows best....me bollcoks!

...again, yes the greens have fallen to this bullsh1t also, but has it been entirely their fault....i think not!

Still resorting to this strawman and mysterious loop of bluster every time it is pointed out to you how silly one of your posts are I see..

Oh well

‘I fail to see how that's cheaper than just paying a couple of conventional plant the system marginal price for just the energy that actually generated/used?’

Was that not you?