Radio 4 Money Box interview with Dale Vince of Ecotricity

jamei305

Dale Vince will say what ever he thinks will retain the middle-class hippies that have signed on to his grossly overpriced "green" tariffs.

Anyone interested in investing in renewable energy should obtain a cheap renewable tariff from a major suppler and with the saving compared to the Ecotricity tariff invest the excess directly in an appropriate investment vehicle. It makes no sense to tie the amount you invest to the amount of power you use each month.

lesley2020

MWT said:

If you read my comment again you will see no sign of 'innocence' in my reference to the markets driving the price.

Fine, so to clarify your statement: "the price is driven by the international markets and the usual balance of supply vs demand plus any overt or covert speculation that might be happening, it isn't just cost to extract + profit margin. "

Far more accurate though possibly no less 'worrying'.

lesley2020

MattMattMattUK said:

If the government cared about energy supply, and I say if because it is obvious from their energy strategy that they do not, then over the last decade of Conservative rule they would have been investing in increased extraction from the north sea, a large scale nuclear power building project and hugely increased on and off shore wind production, as well as mandating all new builds are fitted with solar PV. 

Thanks for the analysis - the last para is definitely something I agree with. Preparing for the future of the country via independently based policy-making (as opposed to making it up as you go along) seems something that hasn't happened for years now.

As for supply going up and down, it seems that certain countries just turn the dial as they see fit - would be interesting to compare those countries who genuinely are at max output and those who could go to max output but don't due to financial or political concerns.

Some say that US is standing by with lots of spare LNG they are keen to sell to the UK. They were defiinitely keen to stop NordStream2 (announcing it wouldn't happen before the German Chancellor got round to saying so) - hopefully not yet another political decision driven by financial concerns. Has happened before.

MattMattMattUK

lesley2020 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

If the government cared about energy supply, and I say if because it is obvious from their energy strategy that they do not, then over the last decade of Conservative rule they would have been investing in increased extraction from the north sea, a large scale nuclear power building project and hugely increased on and off shore wind production, as well as mandating all new builds are fitted with solar PV. 

Thanks for the analysis - the last para is definitely something I agree with. Preparing for the future of the country via independently based policy-making (as opposed to making it up as you go along) seems something that hasn't happened for years now.

As for supply going up and down, it seems that certain countries just turn the dial as they see fit - would be interesting to compare those countries who genuinely are at max output and those who could go to max output but don't due to financial or political concerns.

No major producer is outputting at maximum capacity, most of the OPEC+ countries are running at around 70-80% of maximum capacity (although in many cases 100% capacity is based on a 90 day cycle, they cannot run at 100% for more than 90 says due to maintenance cycles). Russia is running at around 45% of maximum capacity for gas, around 60% of capacity for oil. Technically the USA is running at around 105% of capacity at the moment as it is releasing stocks from it's reserves.

In Europe Norway is the largest producer, UK the second and both are running at close to capacity without opening up new gas fields or in the case of the UK starting fracking. Norway is a net exporter, but the UK is a net importer and we import the majority from Norway. 

lesley2020 said:

Some say that US is standing by with lots of spare LNG they are keen to sell to the UK. They were defiinitely keen to stop NordStream2 (announcing it wouldn't happen before the German Chancellor got round to saying so) - hopefully not yet another political decision driven by financial concerns. Has happened before.

The USA is standing by with reserves and has already started to release them to market, but they are not easy to get to the UK or the EU as that has not been a traditional route, but that is more about market stabilisation and minimising the impact on the global economy than anything else, a recession in Europe is something to be avoided in far more than the USA being able to sell a bit of gas to the UK/EU. The policy of the USA for nearly two decades now is that Europe should not be reliant on Russian gas and it should be as close to energy independent as possible, something which the USA learned after the 1973 oil crisis, but a lesson which European countries forgot very quickly. 

lesley2020

MattMattMattUK said:

The USA is standing by with reserves and has already started to release them to market, but they are not easy to get to the UK or the EU as that has not been a traditional route, but that is more about market stabilisation and minimising the impact on the global economy than anything else, a recession in Europe is something to be avoided in far more than the USA being able to sell a bit of gas to the UK/EU. The policy of the USA for nearly two decades now is that Europe should not be reliant on Russian gas and it should be as close to energy independent as possible, something which the USA learned after the 1973 oil crisis, but a lesson which European countries forgot very quickly. 

Thanks, interesting.

Suspect USA have been rather lucky in being able to use fracking without the concerns we would have as a more densely populated country (not that they seem to be very concerned about environmental impacts anyway nowadays) - I believe it supplies 50+ of their natural oil and gas.

Which makes it easier for them to wag the finger at the rest of us (and flog surplus to us).

Whatever one's politcs, there's clearly a finite amount of fossil fuel in the ground (even if new deposits may be found from time to time) so switching to more supply via  renewables seems to be the sensible way to go. Sadly (as with the sugar lobby managing to put the blame on 'fat') there have been very well paid lobbyists for fossil fuels making sure we stick with the same energy supply we've been using for years.

Given Norway have clearly managed there natural gas dividend far better than we have, do you know whether they simply charge their own residents the global market rate or take advantage of ownership to provide a lower rate for domestic consumption? (Assuming they still have full control of the production and output).

MattMattMattUK

lesley2020 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The USA is standing by with reserves and has already started to release them to market, but they are not easy to get to the UK or the EU as that has not been a traditional route, but that is more about market stabilisation and minimising the impact on the global economy than anything else, a recession in Europe is something to be avoided in far more than the USA being able to sell a bit of gas to the UK/EU. The policy of the USA for nearly two decades now is that Europe should not be reliant on Russian gas and it should be as close to energy independent as possible, something which the USA learned after the 1973 oil crisis, but a lesson which European countries forgot very quickly. 

Thanks, interesting.

Suspect USA have been rather lucky in being able to use fracking without the concerns we would have as a more densely populated country (not that they seem to be very concerned about environmental impacts anyway nowadays) - I believe it supplies 50+ of their natural oil and gas.

Which makes it easier for them to wag the finger at the rest of us (and flog surplus to us).

Whatever one's politcs, there's clearly a finite amount of fossil fuel in the ground (even if new deposits may be found from time to time) so switching to more supply via  renewables seems to be the sensible way to go. Sadly (as with the sugar lobby managing to put the blame on 'fat') there have been very well paid lobbyists for fossil fuels making sure we stick with the same energy supply we've been using for years.

Given Norway have clearly managed there natural gas dividend far better than we have, do you know whether they simply charge their own residents the global market rate or take advantage of ownership to provide a lower rate for domestic consumption? (Assuming they still have full control of the production and output).

In an average year 98% of Norway's electricity production comes from hydro and the price is based on usage and supply costs, it is charged at cost and costs vary by year depending on snow and rainfall to provide water for the hydropower plants. The public are generally insulated from global prices, although they see seasonal fluctuations based on the source of energy from year to year and season to season. Generally Norway exports not only gas but also electricity from excess capacity as well. When Norway uses gas to produce energy then that is charged at market rates, but it makes such a small amount of their energy consumption that it does not have a noticeable impact. 

Norway has a split pricing, the first 2,500 kWh are charged at a higher rate to cover network costs, that rate is around £0.22 per kWh, with the rate over 2,500 kWh being around £0.11 per kWh. This is required as Norwegians use a lot more electricity per household, both because it is a lot colder and darker than most of Europe, as well as it's far higher EV takeup. 

Admiral_Barbarossa

So a multimillionaire influencer from the most expensive, uncapped energy company makes a comment. Today if I was with him, my cost would be £270 a month, well over £1,300 more expensive than April’s price cap! Based on 3,300 kWh elect and 12,000 kWh gas.

I just hope that he keeps his hipster customers and that w8r5 in Stroud remains viable!

doodling

Hi,

Norway is an interesting example. The recent opening of several interconnectors between Norway and the rest of Europe has coincided with the highest electricity prices Norwegians have seen for some time.

Whilst there may be non economic factors at work (e.g. Norway is predominantly hydro powered so rainfall is critical), it remains to be seen whether Norwegians are simply being outbid by others in Europe for the electricity being generated in Norway. 

Whether this is a bad thing depends on where you stand. For Norway as a country, it is probably a good thing, overall they are selling electricity to their neighbours at a higher price than it costs them. To the general population of Norway it is more of a mixed bag to put it politely.

The same applies to the UK gas market.

The key question is where the profits end up. I expect my pension has a fair bit invested in energy suppliers so I'm relatively unconcerned overall but others may take a different view.

MattMattMattUK

doodling said:

Hi,

Norway is an interesting example. The recent opening of several interconnectors between Norway and the rest of Europe has coincided with the highest electricity prices Norwegians have seen for some time.

Whilst there may be non economic factors at work (e.g. Norway is predominantly hydro powered so rainfall is critical), it remains to be seen whether Norwegians are simply being outbid by others in Europe for the electricity being generated in Norway. 

Whether this is a bad thing depends on where you stand. For Norway as a country, it is probably a good thing, overall they are selling electricity to their neighbours at a higher price than it costs them. To the general population of Norway it is more of a mixed bag to put it politely.

The same applies to the UK gas market.

The key question is where the profits end up. I expect my pension has a fair bit invested in energy suppliers so I'm relatively unconcerned overall but others may take a different view.

Any profits from the Norwegian energy system go into it's soverign wealth fund, which hugely benefits all of it's residents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

BUFF

MattMattMattUK said:

If the government cared about energy supply, and I say if because it is obvious from their energy strategy that they do not, then over the last decade of Conservative rule they would have been investing in increased extraction from the north sea, a large scale nuclear power building project and hugely increased on and off shore wind production, as well as mandating all new builds are fitted with solar PV. 

Perhaps they do but it isn't their only concern (e.g. global warming & the future of the environment)? They have certainly given major tax breaks for North Sea production, they have certainly been trying (but failing) to do large scale nuclear building & on & off shore wind production has hugely increased (as long as the wind blows - beyond their control).

Obviously the government not being prepared to contribute to the cost of maintaining/refurbing Rough was not a good idea strategically but you can't blame the operators for their decision to close it from an economic pov if the government wasn't willing to contribute.