Economics to screw 'Low carbon' advances?

johntheexpat

Interesting article here about the Airbus 320 NEO (New Engine Option) and the risks that Airbus are taking by introducing an new engine option that apparently will reduce the fuel consumption by up to 15%.

It seems so counter-intuitive at first, but if I read it right, if Airbus bring in a new option, it will reduce the second hand value of current Airbus 320's and if Airbus do a total re-design of the A320 within the next 10 years, the NEO option will also have a lower re-sale value.  Well according to the finance sector that is.  Seems blooming daft to me.  Once again the finance sector are looking at the most pessimistic option and trying to drag down seriously impressive advances because progress doesn't suit their own particular view of the world or the seemingly cock-eyed way they do things.

I would have thought that a 15% saving, that is achievable here and now is way more valuable to an aircraft manufacturer and their clients that the possibility that at some stage in the future a more efficient design will roll off the production line.  Look at the mess both Airbus and Boeing have got themselves into over their latest aircraft, the Dreamliner and the A380.  Both way over budget and huge delays.

I say go for the 15% saving and nuts to the bankers.




And while I'm here.......

another bit of 'economic nonsense' which is currently bugging me is solar panels and the massive subsidies they get for generating electricity.

Well, they aren't generating much now are they?  Where is all the 'Green Energy' when we actually need it?  They are paid to produce electricity at times when we don't really need it.  France is expected to break consumption records tonight due to the cold and the contribution form solar panels will be zero.  So that means that no generating capacity at all is going to be replaced, ever, by solar panel generated electricity because they need to be able to produce as much power as is required all the time.  OK so you may be able to reduce the output of a few nuclear stations a little bit during the height of summer, but realistically, how green is that?

The green answer is not to waste 40 centimes per KWh producing electricity at times of low demand, but to subsidise the price of insulation, low energy lights and electronics and other products that will actually reduce the peak demand.  Once you have reduced the peak demand, then you can close power generating facilities and call yourself green.  This current nonsense is just a joke and an excuse for a few people to pretend they are eco-warriors.


And then there is bio fuel...............

hamthekam

more welfare for the rich innit

BISHI

I am getting solar panels in a couple of weeks, they will still generate electricity during all daylight hours, obviously not as much as during summer , but some nevertheless. The way I look at it is that if I plan to use my electricity during daylight hours where possible - washing/drying and fridge use etc - I will effectively be running on self generated energy.
Also demand for energy is still quite high in summer - air conditioning units are becoming much more numerous at home and work - water chillers, fans etc. Surely any carbon free contribution will make some difference and the more people who have it the less carbon a nation will produce. If you look at Germany ( upon which the FI Tariff is being modelled) they produce a significant amount of energy by microgeneration and have the lowest carbon footprint per capita of any European nation.
Finally it make financial sense, I will be guaranteed to generate just short of £1000 a year in savings and FIT income that is index linked and tax free - it makes much more sense than an ISA. The more people that do this the better IMO

johntheexpat

But that's the cornerstone of my problem.  Why do I have to pay you 40C/KWh for something that I buy for 9c/KWh?  You can afford the relatively expensive kit, but I'm the one paying for you to make money from it.  Why doesn't someone come up to me and say, here are your last five years of electric consumption, for every KWh less you use per year, we will pay you 40centimes?  That way everybody can afford to join in and the money gained would go towards paying for ways to further reduce my consumption.  And it would result in a tangible drop in consumption, which is better than producing green electricity because it will be 365 days per year.

Solar panels can't possibly result in any reduction in generating capacity, because on freezing cold winter nights, they produce nothing but the demand is still there.

I would argue that the only 'green' way is to encourage/pay people to install kit that results in a permanent reduction in consumption (which would result in possible reductions in capacity)

BISHI

TBH we are all being ripped off by energy suppliers anyway, this way I am at least getting something back. I know that the FIT cash comes from a tiny increase in everyones bills, but 13 million tiny increases adds up to a lot of FIT cash for those that invest in microgeneration - National carbon footprints go down, fines are avoided, I'm happy, supplier is happy and the regular consumer doesn't notice the fraction of a % in is bill to cover the costs cos the suppliers are imposing 8% rises anyway even though wholesale costs have gone down !!!!

johntheexpat

Fortunately it seems the real world are happy to ignore the pathetic protestations of the finance industry and their ultimately self-serving attitude to the planet,  and do what every knows to be the right thing!

[url=/proxy.php?link=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12169785&hash=ea3800154b4f4bc388caeb10e11b6bb3][/url]