Energy news in general

QrizB

JKenH said:

mmmmikey said:

So here's a question for others to ponder:

If you had to choose between what we have now (which for most people is very few power cuts) at the prices we pay now, or losing power for a few hours a couple of times a year but at half the price, what would you choose?

Why in a first world country should this ever be considered an option? We have had reliable electricity generation for decades. Do we really want the electricity grid of a third world country? 

That's the question mmmikey is asking. Would you, personally, be happy to have a less reliable electricity grid if it saved you, personally, a significant amount of money?

I guess he can put you down as a "no"?

mmmmikey

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

mmmmikey said:

So here's a question for others to ponder:

If you had to choose between what we have now (which for most people is very few power cuts) at the prices we pay now, or losing power for a few hours a couple of times a year but at half the price, what would you choose?

Why in a first world country should this ever be considered an option? We have had reliable electricity generation for decades. Do we really want the electricity grid of a third world country? 

That's the question mmmikey is asking. Would you, personally, be happy to have a less reliable electricity grid if it saved you, personally, a significant amount of money?

I guess he can put you down as a "no"?

Hi, yes, exactly that thanks.

I'm very much in the same camp as @MikeJXE and @Chrysalis and would much prefer to pay less for a reduced level of service. At the same time I can certainly understand why others would prefer to pay more for a better service (essentially maintaining the status quo).

@JKenH in answer to your questions, I'd consider this as an option because of the potential to save money which I would prefer spend on other things. It's not a question of wanting the grid of a third world country per se, it's the money I'd save in the process.

(To put this discussion back in the context of the news, this is in response to a headline which was essentially bemoaning the cost of providing back up power at peak times)

Scot_39

We pay Rolls Royce prices but all to often get 2CV performance.

Like last nights 1/2 hourly low of 0.98 GW from 30 GW+ installed capacity - that's around 3%.

Imaging buying a top end Rolls with the now expected 600 bhp +/-  and only getting 3% from it say 20 bhp from the engine.

In fact thats not even 2CV performance - the more modern 2CV6 600CC engine iirc produced over 50% more - 33 bhp in initial tune - then still 29 iirc. 

(Sorry my boss and a younger colleague for several years were major 2CV fans - some conversations over lunch stuck).

 

We pay over normal market rates when generating (£30 excess for CFD rates last summer, £27 Oct for 2700kWh in the DF DD cap - over 1p/kWh)

We then also pay them compensation when they cannot - via load balancing / grid thermal constraints. 

NG ESO figures for 23/24 over £40 per household.  That before curtailment "doubled" year on year again by late Nov / Dec 24 to reach the headlines of £1bn (just curtailment).

The financing for £10s bn being spent to connect them up - and transmit their power - remember the kick off when Ofgem doubled the electric SC (well most of that now related to network costs - SoLR hopefully long since gone - over £100 - iirc £103 ?? more of which moved into electric SC between 2022/24)

Scot_39

Possible shift on using N Sea resources

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/19/ed-miliband-open-door-to-north-sea-drilling/

Another U turn ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/29/miliband-north-sea-oil-fields-greenpeace/

mmmmikey

Scot_39 said:

We pay Rolls Royce prices but all to often get 2CV performance.

Like last nights 1/2 hourly low of 0.98 GW from 30 GW+ installed capacity - that's around 3%.

Imaging buying a top end Rolls with the now expected 600 bhp +/-  and only getting 3% from it say 20 bhp from the engine.

In fact thats not even 2CV performance - the more modern 2CV6 600CC engine iirc produced over 50% more - 33 bhp in initial tune - then still 29 iirc. 

(Sorry my boss and a younger colleague for several years were major 2CV fans - some conversations over lunch stuck).

 

We pay over normal market rates when generating (£30 excess for CFD rates last summer, £27 Oct for 2700kWh in the DF DD cap - over 1p/kWh)

We then also pay them compensation when they cannot - via load balancing / grid thermal constraints. 

NG ESO figures for 23/24 over £40 per household.  That before curtailment "doubled" year on year again by late Nov / Dec 24 to reach the headlines of £1bn (just curtailment).

The financing for £10s bn being spent to connect them up - and transmit their power - remember the kick off when Ofgem doubled the electric SC (well most of that now related to network costs - SoLR hopefully long since gone - over £100 - iirc £103 ?? more of which moved into electric SC between 2022/24)

So in answer to the question is that a yes or a no?

Scot_39

If the question is Rolls Royce or Mini - neither

Id rather pay sensible family hatchback money for something that works.

Works that is - as value for money energy system.

Not pay for two energy systems - because we have invested so heavily in renewables without storage - as another cheap quick fix option.

Between net zero and other govt policy costs - the share of our bills is getting truly frightening.

And govt policy - gets taken from people in a very non progressive basis - in terms of many's just above whatever random threshold the govt of the day decides on for help - struggle to pay.

debitcardmayhem

More of a case of taking money from Peter to pay Peter….Adding more people to WHD , add that on to the SC , and therefore those people won’t get the full benefit of £150.
Smoke and mirrors again. Talking of smoke they still class burning wood as renewable and net zero, plus paying them extra to pollute …daft

debitcardmayhem

Oh and don’t get me started on carbon credits trading, nor carbon capture.

Scot_39

debitcardmayhem said:

More of a case of taking money from Peter to pay Peter….Adding more people to WHD , add that on to the SC , and therefore those people won’t get the full benefit of £150.
Smoke and mirrors again. Talking of smoke they still class burning wood as renewable and net zero, plus paying them extra to pollute …daft

Because the environmental penalties go to the nations cutting down the trees.

So dont get counted against us when we burn.

Laughable when you think per MWh of energy its worse for key emissions than "black" coal we used to burn.

(Our rush to banish coal - in direct contrast with Germany's response to Russian gas crisis - they upped coal production - and that using far dirtier per MWh produced brown coal / lignite.  Pragmatism over dogma.  And their plan to exit coal fired generation - by 2038 - yes THIRTY 8 - 14 years after Ratcliffe closed.

Yet we are now applying a different standard to oil and gas from North Sea developments - where we do have to count the emissions as we burn - and not just as we produce - so likely not tenable.

But of course we can quite happily import others dirtier oil - poorer production standards / emissions (NOx, toxics etc) - like in Africa (or in past from Russia - but plenty to suggest we still imported refined products from it from Asia and India etc ) from some frankly morally questionable govts in Middle east and Africa in past if not still - rather than try to keep skilled jobs and oil taxes in UK.

  

Anything to keep the N Sea sector job losses rolling - 250,000 plus in last decade. A further upto 10,000 pa estimated in next 5+ years - halfing the workforce to by some estimates c50,000 (from 350,000+ in 2015) in early 2030s.

As our oil and gas mix turns increasingly to imports - like processed LNG shipped 1000s of miles - if lucky burning off the otherwise vented LPG for propulsion - rather than just flaring it off or direct raw venting and burning diesel as it travels.

Green logic - to drive an agenda - where huge costs are ignored or written off as somehow inevitable. Which many working poor and businesses/so their employees and so their families - struggle with / businesses fail - people and jobs sacrificed to the great god "net zero".

mmmmikey

Scot_39 said:

debitcardmayhem said:

More of a case of taking money from Peter to pay Peter….Adding more people to WHD , add that on to the SC , and therefore those people won’t get the full benefit of £150.
Smoke and mirrors again. Talking of smoke they still class burning wood as renewable and net zero, plus paying them extra to pollute …daft

Because the environmental penalties go to the nations cutting down the trees.

So dont get counted against us when we burn.

Laughable when you think per MWh of energy its worse for key emissions than "black" coal we used to burn.

(Our rush to banish coal - in direct contrast with Germany's response to Russian gas crisis - they upped coal production - and that using far dirtier per MWh produced brown coal / lignite.  Pragmatism over dogma.  And their plan to exit coal fired generation - by 2038 - yes THIRTY 8 - 14 years after Ratcliffe closed.

Yet we are now applying a different standard to oil and gas from North Sea developments - where we do have to count the emissions as we burn - and not just as we produce - so likely not tenable.

But of course we can quite happily import others dirtier oil - poorer production standards / emissions (NOx, toxics etc) - like in Africa (or in past from Russia - but plenty to suggest we still imported refined products from it from Asia and India etc ) from some frankly morally questionable govts in Middle east and Africa in past if not still - rather than try to keep skilled jobs and oil taxes in UK.

  

Anything to keep the N Sea sector job losses rolling - 250,000 plus in last decade. A further upto 10,000 pa estimated in next 5+ years - halfing the workforce to by some estimates c50,000 (from 350,000+ in 2015) in early 2030s.

As our oil and gas mix turns increasingly to imports - like processed LNG shipped 1000s of miles - if lucky burning off the otherwise vented LPG for propulsion - rather than just flaring it off or direct raw venting and burning diesel as it travels.

Green logic - to drive an agenda - where huge costs are ignored or written off as somehow inevitable. Which many working poor and businesses/so their employees and so their families - struggle with / businesses fail - people and jobs sacrificed to the great god "net zero".

Some of the points you make are interesting but academic. The die is well and truly cast as far as coal mines and wind & solar farms are concerned and there's very little to be gained by constantly complaining about it. What we need to do now, IMHO, is to finish the job by going full steam ahead with the network upgrades and market changes that we need to start reaping the full benefits. 

There are always going to be people who struggle with change and enjoy nothing more than a goal old moan, but it comes to a point where you just have to ignore that distraction and do what needs to be done.

Coming back down to earth and considering the practical world of money saving, those of us (at all levels of income & technical understanding) who have taken & followed advice, embraced & adapted to the new world of renewable energy and the rapidly changing 21st century energy market are making huge savings on our energy bills, whilst those that sit in their armchairs doing nothing but complain are paying more and more. A real shame in my view, but each to their own.