Energy news in general

Scot_39

MattMattMattUK said:

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out. 

Just to be clear yet again - this is an energy forum - on a money saving site - not an environmental forum.

Your beliefs are not those of others.  And just to be clear, your 90% rant was completely undeserved.

So before launching unfounded allegations about your fellow man. Think for a minute did you actually look at the facts behind the 10% figure I quoted -  before assuming that meant 90% of people were anything.  As it was a change in the level holding an expressed view - not an absolute - and a particularly finessed view not in the absolute direction of climate change - but that it was perhaps being exagerated -  and the change reported in the polls was actually c70% to c60%.  Hence the comment about it risks becoming a majority viewpoint.

If you want to vent on environmental issues - find a more appropriate platform. Go and tell say the German nation they are being "stupid", they are climate change deniers" etc say for planning to eradicate coal by 2038 - 14 years later than UK last plant closed. Or any other nations not crippling many of their households and businesses with high energy bills based on that very same science you hold dear - all with same common environmental concerns and oftrn signatories to same internationally agreed targets like Paris accord


But getting back on topic for this forum.

Many in the industry agree that renewables energy is increasing our standard rate bills right now over those from fossil generation - including as it turns out the govts own DESNZ in written and verbal (but minuted of course so now written) reports to the PAC.

Ofgem have just announced what reportedly amounts to yet another £15 of additional network costs in the cap network cost letter split due to renewables - £15 of the total £24  6% of that section of the price make up - some of the rest to do with gas not electric netorks of course - but bring that section rise 3x the rate of inflation target.

Just as the WFD policy cost £17 - raising that section 9%.

Luckily the £15 reduction in wholesale and its overheads offset some of those - so df dd cap only up 2%, but pc2 electric as thats were renewables network costs impact - up a higher 3%  - govt policy induced price rises in a core housrhold cost at or over annual inflation target in just 1 quarter.

And thats just a hint of what is to come in next few years before balancing and grid thermal curtailment reach the official govt as now NESO - £8bn in balancing. And the former NGESOs £3bn for grid thermal curtailment (both by 2030 figures) for renewables licensed without transmission network capability to match.  That £3bn an almost completely avoidable cost.  So who were making those decisions - thsts right -  those arguably somewhat  blindly following the green is good mantra.

That is now widely predicted in reputable media sources to add an extra £100 plus to Ofgem headline cap by GE in 2029  - and like Oct cap 2% vs 3%  - that likely to adversely impact all electric homes by significantly more ss a prpottion of bills.

If adds £100 to £1755; thats c5.7% but if adds £100 to the £1179 PC2 - thats 8.5% - and it could be more as thats for 3900 vs 2700kWh if split into units not SC

As the proverb goes "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" - and right now millions of ordinary households are suffering the high and for millions actually unaffordable energy bills because of those green and other govt policies - as reflected in increasing energy supplier debt and arrears figures - now over £4bn.

So no you dont have to be a climate change denier to challange UK energy plans, the accelerated rate of transition vs other nations and the eye watering costs inn£bns per annum, that are being added as result.

mmmmikey

debitcardmayhem said:

mmmmikey said:

debitcardmayhem said:

mmmmikey said:

victor2 said:

MSE_ForumTeam5 said:

We've removed some posts from this thread. A gentle reminder, please, to keep to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics.

Above is from last June. 

Politics does inevitably come into this thread, but once again the MoneySaving aspects are being replaced by a discussion not really suited to this environment. Just my opinion of course.

Hi - I've been outside in the "offline" world for a bit. As an Ambassador, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how successful we're being at keeping to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics?

Sadly most news is not Money saving per se, a lot is driving it in the opposite of saving. Mind you Mandelson was an ambassador 😂

Errr - so are you suggesting @victor2 has links to Jeffrey Epstein?

Not at all Donald told me he doesn’t know the fellow😎

Oops is that politics ??

Hi - would you mind seeing if you can slow this down, I'm just popping out for some popcorn and don't want to miss anything?

Yarrows

Phones4Chris said:

So there's absolutely not one expert or scientist that isn't certain that it's man made?

I'd be really surprised if there was one (among scientists and experts in relevant fields - those in other fields are just laypeople like the rest of us). The science is pretty settled, in that no matter what else is going on, the influence of human-produced emissions is the dominant force driving the current (abnormally fast) level of climate change. The general effect of gases like CO2 is well-known, the fact that we have massively increased levels of those gases in the atmosphere particularly through the 20th and 21st centuries is undeniable, and the rest is just tinkering about the edges.

It's a bit of a false dichotomy anyway. There are other sources of greenhouse gases, it's just that they're dwarfed by human activity. Scientists might be arguing about exactly how much they're dwarfed by human activity I guess.

stripling

@Scot_39
Just to be clear yet again - this is an energy forum - on a money saving site - not an environmental forum.

Having just returned from a European conference on decarbonisation at both the technical and policy level, I can say that unfortunately, separating these things from money saving is not possible. [To be clear, I do not work for any environmental organisations]. 

It is the harsh realities of human-imposed climate change that necessitates decarbonisation and a shift in how we produce and consume energy. The planning, organisation, investment and technical innovation for this is probably quite a bit further along than is discussed in general media. Energy security is, of course, another factor. 

What is referred to as a 'just transition' is about leaving no one behind in terms of the economics of it all.  Not only because of values about equity and fairness but for hard, cold pragmatism in terms of political support. It is necessary for successful decarbonisation that no one is left behind.

It is also fundamental in terms of business investment and planning, contracts and rationality that politicians don't start stupid fossil fuel-funded 'anti' campaigns. (I don't wish to discuss this btw.) But planning is very long term and believe me, it's a huge, multi-billion business. You'd be shocked at the complexities of manufacturing supply chains that go into these things. Those countries that grab the metal and focus on it with long term investment and strategies are the countries that will lead in the future economically. 

Thus it is fundamental that instead of arguing over whether or not 'climate change makes decarbonisation urgent' (clue: it does) we may better use our energies for how to identify how to make decarbonisation inclusive and affordable for low income groups.  

How do those without access to batteries and solar manage the shift towards time-of-use price spiking? For example. What about tenants in private rentals?  How do low income car-owners - a car being a necessity in rural Britain - manage the shift to EVs? For just a few examples of important questions. We have to answer these questions and this forum is a great place to understand them and help. 

I am looking at how numerous other countries manage these things (literally boots on the ground) and it's very interesting. Most countries have a lot more state intervention than the UK - not just financially but in terms of public information or product labelling regulations, or energy tariffs that are consumption or income dependent. And a lot more which I will write about elsewhere.

Sweden pioneered (and funded) research into heat pump tumble dryers, piloted them on the public then outright banned selling new condensing dryers the very next year. They invested  into product label design for energy efficiency, tested them then ran public information campaigns and beefed up consumer law to back it.  This is how you do things successfully....  Very clear strategies. 

North Sea oil and gas is long past its sell-by date. It has been dramatically declining for more than 20 years, it isn't being extracted by 'British companies' and employment numbers have been plummeting for 20 years too. What tiny bit is left - 14% I believe - is too complicated and too expensive to exploit for much longer.  Complaints from most oil workers aren't about decarbonisation but about the slow pace of re-skilling in new tech skills. The big business opportunities now lie in decommissioning. 

But either way, like it or not, it's necessary and it's happening. Britain can choose whether to make the best of decarbonisation AND the most of it in terms of technical innovations and thus business opportunities, or be an utter dinosaur, left behind, back water state. 

We need to be patient with people who aren't convinced. Calling smart meter objectors 'conspiracy theorists' is unhelpful imo. These are symptoms of distrust in institutions and authority. Our absurdly marketised energy system is actually part of the problem (this is Europe-wide btw as we are definitely, totally interdependent) and shouldn't be accepted as that's the 'only way' but rather as an economic standpoint that came to dominate. This ultimately needs modifying if not changing for decarbonisation to fully succeed. But that's a whole other bunch of bananas...

Last year, I explained in this forum how our gas prices were being artificially inflated by American speculators on the Dutch TTF market. Talk that blamed 'Russia' or 'European storage levels' was just that, talk. Decarbonisation will help put distance between our energy prices and such esoteric, unregulated and down right dodgy behaviour that relies on something analysts call 'sentiment' - in other words, not 'realities' but what people think those realities are. That has to be good. 

Lower energy prices are good for businesses and everyone else too - don't let talk of decarbonisation be the excuse for a any lack of 'energy justice' both are mutually dependent. 

Scot_39

stripling said:

@Scot_39
Just to be clear yet again - this is an energy forum - on a money saving site - not an environmental forum.

What is referred to as a 'just transition' is about leaving no one behind in terms of the economics of it all.  Not only because of values about equity and fairness but for hard, cold pragmatism in terms of political support. It is necessary for successful decarbonisation that no one is left behind.

Lower energy prices are good for businesses and everyone else too - don't let talk of decarbonisation be the excuse for a any lack of 'energy justice' both are mutually dependent. 

Low energy prices are good - so by definition our higher energy prices are bad.

And the UK - faces some of the highest costs amongst comparable nations.

And domestically of course thats not just net zero - as it continues to rise at pace - faster than target inflation - as the aver regional £35 increase in Oct - despite a £16 drop in wholesale prices - the £51 jigsaw piece (3%) - a combination of additional net zero, social policy and other costs.

But net zero and the UKs poor choices to deliver it - or even control the delivery of those choices to control costs - are a large and fast growing part of the problem.

The classic being the forecast £3bn 2030 in grid thermal constraints - £8.2m per day-  fanciful - no.

Yesterday we collectively paid £4m in curtailment according to Octopus's wasted wind site.  2 days before over £5m.

As the DESNZ have said - renewables are failing to deliver cheaper energy than fossil fuel - and cutting to the chase basically said too much focus on the wholesale price - and not the system price - to blame.

All as we rush vs most of our international neighbours.

Whilst we kill off our N Sea industry - Norway invests.

Whilst we killed of our coal generation- others pragmatically phase out over 15 years.

The trust has gone with millions of ordinary voters. When people were told their prices would be lower - they were expecting that meant vs current prices - they were at best misled.

And the same continues - the concept of Sizewell C at c£135 MWh 2025 indexed - being cheaper than gas - last years aver £77 - well that kind of needs explaining doesn't it ?  

More of the same loaded promises made for wind since the get go ?

Just the other day - another broadsheet article - predicting an extra £100 plus per annum - by 2029/2030.  Small numbers for some - but put into the context of last years WFP cut - and it's potentially seismic politically.

And the populists you fear turning the discussion against net zero policy in the UK - I guess we know who you might have been hinting at.

(And I am not sure its just populism amongst their supporters - but genuine fear and concerns and for millions genuine affordability ).

Well they are out there - and judging by the recent polls - winning - with them now at 34/35% in a recent series.

The current UK renewables strategy as we know it - may therefore be dead post 2029 - unless something radical is done now.

- Like taking some of the other costs out of the cap linked bills. Like the social policy costs - Mar 24 - £157 Oct 25 - £215. £58 extra - ironically also paid by those the govt grants the proceeds in form of WHD to help them meet benefits shortfalls and pay bills.(*)

- Like stopping curtailment payments.

- Like stopping throwing licenses for connection around to earn them - including those licensed byut yet to be installed - before infrastructure planned and ready - they should be explicitly linked.  And pay each other penalties where needed if plans fail.

And I don't hear many of our leaders going out and countering their message - actually backing the current strategy. Telling us what they are actually doing.

I used to follow NGESO reports - they were making good inroads into some of the balancing issues - so the c£40 in bills they estimated dropped off a bit c2023 iirc - but bounced back quickly as more wind came on stream and more curtailment dominated the mix.

And as to social justice - those on WHD £150 last year - will now also pay their bit (depending on use) of the £35 extra on average cap - rather than saving with the £16 wholesale drop - a £51 difference. 

So c3.4m whos benefits too low to pay bills without it on WHD paying an extra (share of if not all on SC) £17 additional cost - for 2.7m newly deemed too poor.  Progressive taxation - helping the poor - well NOT really (and I use taxation deliberately).

[* And I back the move to tax - despite paying low bills - lower than median TDCV anyway - and pay tax - so likely to lose.]

JKenH

Greg Jackson, boss of Octopus, came out with strong words about energy policy in the UK.

Households hit with higher bills in £1bn ‘racket’ that sees wind farms paid to turn off power

Greg Jackson – founder and CEO of Octopus Energy – tells The Independent that wind farm companies are the winners from government policy, while consumers pay the price

Regulator Ofgem has ordered energy projects to speed up electricity grid connections, but Mr Jackson said: “The regulation said ‘if you build the wind farm, until you get the connection we'll still pay you for the electricity you could have generated’,” he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/octopus-energy-greg-jackson-wind-farms-climate-b2828421.html

debitcardmayhem

JKenH said:

Greg Jackson, boss of Octopus, came out with strong words about energy policy in the UK.….snipped 

He is probably right, as for zonal pricing a good idea if the curtailment payments are added to the zonal price only 

Scot_39

The problem with Zonal pricing the boss of Octopus wants is the system - particularly renewables placement - has never been properly matched to grid or population distribution for most of the last decade or so.

But thats no reason to keep making the same mistakes.  But rather than pause and rethink - we have 95% by 2030.

We wouldnt be spending £bns on the EGLs - EGL1 / EGL2 already authorised - £6bn (and thats ignoring all the other pylons / HVDC links etc - to get that sort of power to their conversion stations) - EGL3 and EGL4 in planning.

And paying Scottish windfarms some of the £100s millions in curtailment - if the system had been properly designed on a geographical loading / "zone" basis.  

By the time EGL2 on line in 2029 - as of last Aug - there was another 6GW wind to go online - and that could be added to by AR7 in progress / AR8 etc ....

And I'd love to see how long the great green defense - the predicted higher load factor - is going to take to pay back / recover all the £100s millions wasted on curtailment / balancing etc in the interim - and the £bns in  infrastructure cost of the networks to finally connect them.

Edit - dont even think they even get a seperate lower CfD than other more local farms to do so - so relies on renewables cheaper than gas ?.  They weren't last summer,  when gas gen dipped to £20/MWh.
Why afaik last Ofgem figure £27 added to our wholesale costs to pay the higher than market CfD rates for tge mix currently connected.

Chrysalis

I see a news article on the BBC that energy debt without a repayment plan is still soaring.  Looks like a new stealth SC tax coming to write that debt off.  A tax to cover the perils of fixed DD?

Chrysalis

Scot_39 said:

The problem with Zonal pricing the boss of Octopus wants is the system - particularly renewables placement - has never been properly matched to grid or population distribution for most of the last decade or so.

But thats no reason to keep making the same mistakes.  But rather than pause and rethink - we have 95% by 2030.

We wouldnt be spending £bns on the EGLs - EGL1 / EGL2 already authorised - £6bn (and thats ignoring all the other pylons / HVDC links etc - to get that sort of power to their conversion stations) - EGL3 and EGL4 in planning.

And paying Scottish windfarms some of the £100s millions in curtailment - if the system had been properly designed on a geographical loading / "zone" basis.  

By the time EGL2 on line in 2029 - as of last Aug - there was another 6GW wind to go online - and that could be added to by AR7 in progress / AR8 etc ....

And I'd love to see how long the great green defense - the predicted higher load factor - is going to take to pay back / recover all the £100s millions wasted on curtailment / balancing etc in the interim - and the £bns in  infrastructure cost of the networks to finally connect them.

Edit - dont even think they even get a seperate lower CfD than other more local farms to do so - so relies on renewables cheaper than gas ?.  They weren't last summer,  when gas gen dipped to £20/MWh.
Why afaik last Ofgem figure £27 added to our wholesale costs to pay the higher than market CfD rates for tge mix currently connected.

Is the Grid expansion even happening at the moment?  Look at the speed BT are rolling out FTTP, and the Grid situation is just embarrassing as a comparison.