The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Technology
  4. EoN a con?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

EoN a con?

  • 125 Replies
  • 13726 Views
  • 2 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Petrochemicals

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2524
  • Activity:
    32%
  • Thanked: 94 times
  • forum overlord
    • View Profile
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #120 on: 07/12/2021 00:53:21 »
Quote from: wolfekeeper on 06/12/2021 22:05:30
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/09/2021 03:20:43
Quote from: alancalverd on 07/09/2021 22:51:54
You can forget hydro. Practically all the useable sites in Scotland are either already developed or too precious to flood, and the rest of the UK is too flat.

For solar panels, an average for the UK over a year is about 1 - 2 W/sq ft, so to meet 40 GW you need 20 - 40,000,000 000 square ft of panels, say 1,000,000 acres, about 2% of the total land area. That's only skimming the surface of the problem since you get no solar power at night, so you need at least 500 GWh of battery and 40 GW of inverter capacity to keep the grid running.

And of course if we get rid of domestic gas heating and fossil-fuelled cars, we will need about 4 times the current grid capacity. By the time we have moved to all-electric traction and industry we will have about 15% of the country covered in solar cells. That will have quite an ecological impact.
2 percent or 4000 sq km is that is for 1/10th of the uk energy usage.
You're falsely comparing secondary energy with primary energy. Secondary energy is far, FAR more useful. More importantly, it would be about 1/2 of the exergy (usable energy) of the UK.  And we already have about a couple of percent of the UK covered with buildings. Sticking solar panels on a lot of them would be a big start. And we have other sources of power such as wind, much of it off-shore. So what's the big deal???

And this isn't remotely a worldwide representative figure, the UK is EXTREMELY heavily populated. Most countries would need a much smaller fraction of their land area.

Also this is a strawman- nobody is trying to power the UK off only solar power anyway. But if we did, so what anyway?? 2% is nothing. 70% of England is farmland for example. Why is 2% somehow magically an impossibly big number???
Non follow
Logged
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
To ignore someone too, go to your profile settings>modifyprofie>ignore!
 



Offline chris

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7985
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #121 on: 07/12/2021 10:07:16 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 09/05/2021 23:46:14
I think "science journalism" is an oxymoron, like "military intelligence".

Ouch! I actually regard myself as a reasonably good science journalist! I certainly put the facts front and centre and check them very carefully, and I think we do quite well on the communications front!
Logged
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/
 

Offline alancalverd (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 14525
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 1100 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #122 on: 07/12/2021 15:41:10 »
Scientists who write for the meeja are one thing, journalists who write about science are often another!

It's very unpredictable: the most accurate reports of any of my work have been in the Sun and the Daily Mirror, and some of the most mickeymouse  reportage I have read was in the New Scientist! 

I was impressed some years ago by a Swedish radio interviewer who had clearly done her homework. I asked if I could hear the final edit. She said it would just be a "de-ummed" 10 minute slot at midday in a lightweight Swedish-language  news and popular music program  and "we always do the interview in English because people will only believe it if the scientists speak for themselves".
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline nukapop92

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #123 on: 16/12/2021 11:26:00 »
Eon scored a good four stars out of five for bill accuracy and a respectable three stars out of five in three other categories in our survey. That's not bad, but customers of the highest-scoring brands achieved four stars or more
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 14525
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 1100 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #124 on: 16/12/2021 12:56:20 »
Since I have never received an actual meter reading from EoN in the last 10 years, I wonder how they estimate accuracy?
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



Offline Iannguyen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 17
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: EoN a con?
« Reply #125 on: 20/01/2022 14:14:40 »
In 2020, E.ON launched a new brand called E.ON Next for homes and small businesses, which supplies 100% renewable electricity. New customers now start as E.ON Next by default, and all existing Npower and E.ON contracts will eventually be moved over to it.
This was the cheapest tariff we were quoted for on the E.ON Next website for someone using a “medium” amount of energy (2,900kWh of electricity and 12,000kWh of gas per year). It was also the cheapest quote among the three traditional big suppliers in our survey: British Gas, EDF Energy and E.ON.
The rates you’re charged for the energy you use are fixed for a year and you have to manage your account online. You must agree to have a smart meter fitted if you don’t have one already. There are no exit fees, either, so you are free to switch to another deal whenever you like. As well as 100% renewable electricity, all the gas you use is carbon offset with the Carbon Positive v3 tariff. E.ON will also plant five trees on your behalf, which will offset your carbon footprint even more. This deal is also fixed for a year, online only and with no exit fees, and you must agree to have a smart meter installed.
Different Tariffs by E.ON:
·       Next Flex
This is a variable tariff, so the rates you’re charged for your electricity and gas could go up or down, and there’s no end date or any exit fees.
·       Next 2 Year v4
Next 2 Year v4 is a two-year fixed deal with no exit fees. You must also agree to have a smart meter fitted to take out this tariff, which send your meter readings to your suppliers automatically and let you monitor your energy use and costs in real time.
·       Next 1 Year v4
This is the one-year version of the deal above and has the same monthly cost. As with all of E.ON Next’s tariffs, it comes with 100% renewable electricity and no exit fees.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: renewable energy  / green energy 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 48 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.