Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-less-radioactive dept.

Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.

Nuclear firms said the UK still needed a mix of low-carbon energy, especially for when wind power was not available.

Both nuclear and wind receive subsidies, but for the first time wind is coming to market with less, so providing the same electricity with less cost to the public than nuclear.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:31PM (8 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:31PM (#566864) Journal

    From TFS: "Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

    This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

    It's handily there, for your reference, in the summary. The source is the BBC; of course, they are fake news so take that with a grain of salt. Fortunately, you saw right through them and their fake news and have now corrected the record.

    Sadly, you cannot shame me because I have no shame. Just ask my wife when I wear wife-beater t-shirts in public.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:09PM (4 children)

    by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:09PM (#566918)

    Perhaps part of the problem is - yet again - that you insist on writing:

    Phoenix666 writes: <quote>[Some snippet that happens to include a link to the actual source of itself]</quote>

    rather than one of the many simple and unambiguous quotation formats that have been suggested to you, repeatedly. Such as:

    Phoenix666 writes: Found at [source]: <quote>[An actual quote from the source, without any added or removed links]</quote>

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05PM (3 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05PM (#566984) Journal

      OK. You get what you get, so don't get upset.

      You're welcome to jump right in and show us all how it's done.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by tfried on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:27AM (2 children)

        by tfried (5534) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:27AM (#567099)

        Sorry for my tone, I guess, it's just that I am having difficulty understanding why you - insist (there, I said it, again) - on your buggy submission format.

        Yes, I do appreciate your submissions. A lot. I am definitely not asking you to stop them, I am not asking you to do creative writing on them, I am not trying to accuse you of plagiarism, I'm pointing out a plain but easy-to-fix bug in your quotation format. Also, yes, I am a leecher wrt SN, I know I am, that is not likely to change, but frankly, I don't see what that has to do with anything. When a user reports a plain bug in my software, "I don't care" may be sometimes make for a valid answer. "Provide a patch" is a valid answer too, where applicable. But "so go write your own software" is ...?

        Ok, why is it a bug? I'll try to explain in baby-steps:
        1. You are starting your submissions with "Phoenix666 writes:", as is relatively standard on SN. The colon indicates that the "what" you write is to follow in a separate sentence, immediately following the colon.
        2. Often this "what" starts with a literal quote, immediately. Which quite simply reads as if it was you writing those words. Consider a plain English example to understand the problem:

        Tfried writes: I am confused!

        Who is confused, here? Tfried, obviously.
        3. Adding quotation marks or quote-markup does not help at all, unfortunately:

        Tfried writes: "I am confused!"

        Tfried writes:

        I am confused!

        Both are totally standard, common place notations for a literal speech authored by Tfried, with no indication that this could be a third-party quote.
        4. Believe it or not, I was honestly mislead by that several times, until I gradually came to learn that in the context of SN, and submissions by Phoenix666, an initial quote should generally by attributed to a third party, and that further the first link inside that quote is not actually part of the quote, but a link to the source. Totally. Not. Obvious. Proper quoting just does not work that way.
        5. Others have pointed out the same problem, repeatedly. But eventually they usually give up on it, just like they give up on telling Arik not to misuse the <code> markup, or on Ethanol to stop trolling.

        A large variety of simple, concise, and unambiguous quotation formats are available. Please don't insist on a plain wrong format just because it's what you've been doing for so long.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:01PM (1 child)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:01PM (#567223) Journal

          The "Phoenix666 writes:" is not something the submitter actually writes. It's hard-coded in the slashcode. Submit it as a change request to TMB and the SN guys who work on the code.

          If it bothers you enough, volunteer to code it and submit it to TMB and the guys who maintain the repository; they're always happy to have help. If others are bothered by it, too, then that's more reason for you to step up and be the change you want to see. It shouldn't be too hard, technically.

          FWIW, the quoting and linking conventions are congruent with what was standard practice at Slashdot (as in, the link to the source was used to emphasize a point or the thrust of the article by using the text of the excerpt itself), which Soylent grew out of, so it's been done this way more or less for 20 years. It may conflict with editorial practice elsewhere and annoy those used to those conventions, but in online terms it's venerable.

          And since Slashdot held such an influential place in online communities, who's to say it's not the new standard? It annoys the crap out of me that people use "impact" as a transitive verb in any context other than, "to strike something physically and leave a mark, as in, 'the meteor impacted the earth and left a crater,'" and that illiterates cannot, cannot spell 'lose' correctly, as in, 'lose your lunch,' choosing instead the utterly, comically incorrect, 'loose,' but I have to at some level accept that people that know how to do things right are vastly outnumbered by people who don't, and that trying to fight that is a fool's errand. Times change.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:50PM

            by tfried (5534) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:50PM (#567236)

            Look, it is not the "Phoenix666 writes:" that is bothering me. I don't think that's a particularly elegant solution, and in fact, it is the relevant difference that breaking the "green site quotation format", for good. Worst of both worlds, in combination. However it is entirely straight-forward to avoid ambiguous quotes under the constraint of starting with a hard-coded "Submitter writes:". Most (not all) of your co-submitters do.

            The most obvious solution is to simply put something - anything - before the quote, since that makes it clear that yet another level of speech is starting, i.e. it removes the ambiguity that the quote could be attributed to you, directly. If you do not want to think up some introductory words, each time, the easiest solution is to make that something the source info. I.e.:

            Phoenix666 writes:
            From http://where.did.you/find/this [did.you]:

            Whatever you want to quote

            This very simple format is a no-brainer to both the submitter, and the reader. It further avoids making non-obvious modifications to the quote, such as inserting a link. A gazillion variants of this format are possible. Pick the one that you like best.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:15PM (2 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:15PM (#566921) Journal

    No, it doesn't say that. What it says now (and at the time I posted earlier) is:

    Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:03PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:03PM (#566983) Journal

      Well I copied & pasted from the article in question. I don't alter copy in any way except to occasionally replace paragraphs with an ellipsis.

      It seems the BBC went back and edited the article in place. It's a web page, not a print edition, so they can do that.

      Please aim your slings and arrows at the Beeb.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:23AM (#567173)

        Adding links is an alteration.