And now the forecasters are saying the price cap could hit £6000

Section62

MattMattMattUK said:

Forget planning for solar and wind, have you seen how much the planning for nuclear gets dragged out? Yes planning should probably be simplified, but generally it is the NIMBYs that cause the problem, rather than the process itself.

...

Winter is our greatest demand by some way, wind can help there but solar generation falls off a cliff. Tidal can provide some regular capacity, but the places to build it also cause a large environmental impact (Severn Tidal as an example). Nuclear is the only viable solution for security of supply all year round, we also already have enough uranium to power our entire energy requirements for nearly a thousand years and that is before we used plutonium or reprocessed spent fuel.

An example of one of the many hurdles the planning of Sizewell C has had to deal with were objections due to the possibility that during the construction period there might be an impact on birds on the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. (things like lights, noise, cranes etc)

Yet people regularly put forward the idea of tidal barage schemes as 'green' solutions, when in reality they will have a permanent impact on the ecology of the impounded areas, to a far greater extent than anything that might occur at Sizewell.

new_owner

MattMattMattUK said:

Actually we should, many people keep their homes too hot, and why put an additional burden on energy imports when one could simply wear a jumper?

Sorry. No. We need more energy and my point was why are importing any. We should have been energy independent long ago. However, we are not. Let's work on a plan to get there as fast as humanly possible. No one on here has all the answers and the government certainly does not but telling people to put on a jumper is not the answer.

MattMattMattUK said:

Forget planning for solar and wind, have you seen how much the planning for nuclear gets dragged out? Yes planning should probably be simplified, but generally it is the NIMBYs that cause the problem, rather than the process itself.

All the planning needs to be massively simplified. When local planning can object and try and impose limits on the maximum output of renewables (No idea about nuclear) then something is fundamentally broken.

MattMattMattUK said:

New houses are not built to a better standard because it costs more and most of the public are not willing to accept the cost increases. 

People will pay what the cost of a house is - the builders would bring down the cost of the building because of the scale it's being built. No one is being given a choice. This is about companies maximizing profits regardless of the long-term cost or environmental sides.

MattMattMattUK said:

Batteries are expensive and the overall savings are marginal, they also require large daily or weekly variations in production and demand to make them worthwhile, something which generally in the UK we do not have.

Batteries are expensive. However, they are fundamental for renewables. Other countries are moving fast into making sure this technology is homegrown and we are.....

MattMattMattUK said:

Winter is our greatest demand by some way, wind can help there but solar generation falls off a cliff. Tidal can provide some regular capacity, but the places to build it also cause a large environmental impact (Severn Tidal as an example). Nuclear is the only viable solution for security of supply all year round, we also already have enough uranium to power our entire energy requirements for nearly a thousand years and that is before we used plutonium or reprocessed spent fuel.

Winter currently is our greatest demand. With summers increasing in temperature, I can see that leveling out.

We are on a small island. You have tidal rivers and a whole lot of ocean around us. This is something that should be explored and everything we do has an environmental impact. Waste from a nuclear site is put where? The current issues around nuclear should highlight some of the unknowns and risks of going down this route. Why are other countries moving away from nuclear and we have no idea what to do so choose nuclear as our main investment? We still have no plan... We have something that is 10 years away and for the rest, we will hope for the best.

Why are we not covering our reservoirs with floating solar? helps reduce evaporation and produces electricity. We need batteries to store this vast amount of energy we could produce and when the yearly sun is correct.

Reading about Scotland's new offshore wind going live.... we need to double the size

MattMattMattUK said:

Those who are buying EVs are unlikely to be struggling with their energy bills, on top of that EVs are still considerably cheaper per mile than IC vehicles so they will be better off overall per mile. An ASHP will be more expensive than gas, but not hugely if it is used right, a GSHP is going to cost around the same as gas overall, but both should also be installed with considerable insulation upgrades which will further reduce the overall heat demand.

Sorry, this is very presumptuous. You have no idea what the state of someone's financial state is based on the car they drive.

We need to hit Net Zero as fast as possible. Taxes are the only way to make this happen. Geen levies should not be part of an electricity bill. It should be part of taxation. In fact, scrap the Green Levies. It is a cost that needs to be paid just allocate part of the funding to renewables.

You're forgetting the upfront cost of buying ASHP/GSHP/EV - Yes we need to move away from gas. We need to move to renewable, cheap, and plentiful electricity when the big outlay is making the switch from gas/petrol/oil to the electric equivalent.

Energy is a massive driver in any country. We need lots of it and it needs to be cheap. This country would thrive much better if this was the case.

Merciful

What I find interesting about this thread (amongst others on this particular forum) is the amount of people advocating going back to the 70s ( or even 50s! in some cases) viz "suffering to be righteous" as if it is a good thing, and their ability to accept the status quo when it is patently obvious the status quo is not sustainable for a wide section of the population, in our current (societal) predicament.

Taken in isolation the energy prices rises possibly(!) would be bearable by a wide section of society (put a jumper on (or two), or alternatively harden up if you didn't grow up in a bedroom which didn't have ice on the windowsill then you're a snowflake etc.) - but with the compounded effects of the interest rises and the cost of food and fuel whose increases do not seem to intrude into some people's comments; is this really sustainable without further assistance above the £400 currently planned?

Also I note (without prejudice) that those who call loudly for no further support in the forthcoming months are those whom are somewhat insulated from the forthcoming rises being somewhat informed and able to post on this forum it seems throughout the day - a luxury again not afforded to the majority of the working population.

sienew

new_owner said:

Winter currently is our greatest demand. With summers increasing in temperature, I can see that leveling out.

We are on a small island. You have tidal rivers and a whole lot of ocean around us. This is something that should be explored and everything we do has an environmental impact. Waste from a nuclear site is put where? The current issues around nuclear should highlight some of the unknowns and risks of going down this route. Why are other countries moving away from nuclear and we have no idea what to do so choose nuclear as our main investment? We still have no plan... We have something that is 10 years away and for the rest, we will hope for the best.

Why are we not covering our reservoirs with floating solar? helps reduce evaporation and produces electricity. We need batteries to store this vast amount of energy we could produce and when the yearly sun is correct.

Reading about Scotland's new offshore wind going live.... we need to double the size

Nuclear is the main solution to our energy problems. The reason other countries are shutting them down is because they are politically unpopular, not because they don't work. France for example have had great success with Nuclear. Other countries have already come up with plans on how to deal with the waste, such as the Onkalo nuclear repository in Finland. Lots of people smarter than us have come up with some amazing ideas for nuclear.

Solar which you seem to recommend is the worst option for our country. It works on a small scale (a small % of individual houses feeding back to the grid) but producing electric when it's sunny doesn't really work for our use. By far the vast majority of our energy is used during winter when solar isn't particularly effective. You mention storage but storing enough electric to provide for our houses in winter would require a storage system far greater than has ever been attempted and would cost incredible amounts of money. Solar also isn't without terrible environmental impacts.

sienew

Merciful said:

What I find interesting about this thread (amongst others on this particular forum) is the amount of people advocating going back to the 70s ( or even 50s! in some cases) viz "suffering to be righteous" as if it is a good thing, and their ability to accept the status quo when it is patently obvious the status quo is not sustainable for a wide section of the population, in our current (societal) predicament.

Taken in isolation the energy prices rises possibly(!) would be bearable by a wide section of society (put a jumper on (or two), or alternatively harden up if you didn't grow up in a bedroom which didn't have ice on the windowsill then you're a snowflake etc.) - but with the compounded effects of the interest rises and the cost of food and fuel whose increases do not seem to intrude into some people's comments; is this really sustainable without further assistance above the £400 currently planned?

Also I note (without prejudice) that those who call loudly for no further support in the forthcoming months are those whom are somewhat insulated from the forthcoming rises being somewhat informed and able to post on this forum it seems throughout the day - a luxury again not afforded to the majority of the working population.

How do you repay that money though? I think most would love to help people more but the question is how can we afford it? Some proposals in other threads have been to keep the price cap as it is now for the next 6 months and have people repay the cost over the next 10-15 years. I think most people would rather have a rough 6 months than essentially having a debt or 15 years to repay day to day living costs. 

Unless you have a magic money tree...

tghe-retford

Merciful said:

What I find interesting about this thread (amongst others on this particular forum) is the amount of people advocating going back to the 70s ( or even 50s! in some cases) viz "suffering to be righteous" as if it is a good thing, and their ability to accept the status quo when it is patently obvious the status quo is not sustainable for a wide section of the population, in our current (societal) predicament.

Taken in isolation the energy prices rises possibly(!) would be bearable by a wide section of society (put a jumper on (or two), or alternatively harden up if you didn't grow up in a bedroom which didn't have ice on the windowsill then you're a snowflake etc.) - but with the compounded effects of the interest rises and the cost of food and fuel whose increases do not seem to intrude into some people's comments; is this really sustainable without further assistance above the £400 currently planned?

Also I note (without prejudice) that those who call loudly for no further support in the forthcoming months are those whom are somewhat insulated from the forthcoming rises being somewhat informed and able to post on this forum it seems throughout the day - a luxury again not afforded to the majority of the working population.

I do agree and have also shared my concerns on here in the last day. It does sound like the very thing of "suffering to be righteous" or if you're being more uncharitable, "virtue signalling".

Malnutrition is not money saving. Physical and mental health issues is not money saving. Regression of society is not money saving. People need to be made aware of those facts.

new_owner

sienew said:

Nuclear is the main solution to our energy problems. The reason other countries are shutting them down is because they are politically unpopular, not because they don't work. France for example have had great success with Nuclear. Other countries have already come up with plans on how to deal with the waste, such as the Onkalo nuclear repository in Finland. Lots of people smarter than us have come up with some amazing ideas for nuclear.

Solar which you seem to recommend is the worst option for our country. It works on a small scale (a small % of individual houses feeding back to the grid) but producing electric when it's sunny doesn't really work for our use. By far the vast majority of our energy is used during winter when solar isn't particularly effective. You mention storage but storing enough electric to provide for our houses in winter would require a storage system far greater than has ever been attempted and would cost incredible amounts of money. Solar also isn't without terrible environmental impacts.

I have never said solar is the only solution, however, for local power, this is extremely effective and a low-tech, low-cost solution. Solar does have drawbacks however for 6-9 months of the year would mostly meet self-generation and consumption when combined with a battery and for 3-5 months of the year would produce more electricity than a single home could consume. Now I realise that flats or buildings which are unable to house solar would not be covered however how many rooftops of warehouses, supermarkets, and housing blocks could be producing local power supplying properties nearby or supplying batteries farms that then supply the neighborhood?

This cannot be looked at as a single solution. Solar farms and wind farms (on and offshore) must be increased to provide more cheap power - sure we might end up with a glut in the summer and a shortage at other points, but this is where planning is critical.

It should never take 12 years to start to put in the first of the offshore wind turbines - this is planning going nuts adding to the costs and putting off investment.

Wind was producing 22% of the U.K.'s electricity at points this year - why was this not 44%+

Tidal produced ?? - Why?

As energy shifts from gas to electricity then power consumption will drastically increase in winter. I suspect that summer/winter electrical usages are not that much different at this moment in time for a majority of people.

Why is it that locally produced electricity is the same cost as a unit bought from France (I know why) - but why is this still the case? Our incompetent government needs to address this.

At the end of the day, we have a crises of our own making.

Those who can afford it will add solar and batteries and heat pumps and air con and EVs and still pay less for the electricity despite using 3x the amount.

I want to see numbers to say what the shortfall of planned renewables will be based on factors will be. Then a discussion around addressing these would see if nuclear is part of that solution.

The current solution is if you can afford it - you will be okay. The rise over winter will be offset by the solar/batteries/FIT/EV/low-cost-summer/etc for everyone else. tough, have a few quid and go away.

Funkydrummer44

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

MattMattMattUK

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Actually we should, many people keep their homes too hot, and why put an additional burden on energy imports when one could simply wear a jumper?

Sorry. No. We need more energy and my point was why are importing any. We should have been energy independent long ago. However, we are not. Let's work on a plan to get there as fast as humanly possible. No one on here has all the answers and the government certainly does not but telling people to put on a jumper is not the answer.

Energy independence would require investment, I am in favour of that, but it will require increases in taxes in the short and medium term and unfortunately somewhere north of 90% of people are not willing to pay more taxes and will not vote for parties who will put their taxes up. I would prefer that the UK government funded and built nuclear to cover the vast majority of our energy requirements, that should be funded in the short term by specific borrowing, but funded by raising taxes for everyone.

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Forget planning for solar and wind, have you seen how much the planning for nuclear gets dragged out? Yes planning should probably be simplified, but generally it is the NIMBYs that cause the problem, rather than the process itself.

All the planning needs to be massively simplified. When local planning can object and try and impose limits on the maximum output of renewables (No idea about nuclear) then something is fundamentally broken.

I agree planning should be simplified, but again many of the electorate do not want that, they like being able to block development.

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

New houses are not built to a better standard because it costs more and most of the public are not willing to accept the cost increases. 

People will pay what the cost of a house is - the builders would bring down the cost of the building because of the scale it's being built. No one is being given a choice. This is about companies maximizing profits regardless of the long-term cost or environmental sides.

They will not vote for political parties that push housing costs up, that is why all the proposals for new build houses to compulsorily have solar were blocked, why heat pumps are not already mandatory etc.

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Batteries are expensive and the overall savings are marginal, they also require large daily or weekly variations in production and demand to make them worthwhile, something which generally in the UK we do not have.

Batteries are expensive. However, they are fundamental for renewables. Other countries are moving fast into making sure this technology is homegrown and we are.....

Batteries have a place, but ultimately a small one, they are expensive, with fairly short lives in energy production terms. Ultimately it depends how we use renewables, the ideal would be all renewable energy always goes into the grid, with nuclear over-provisioned so it can cover maximum demand, with a buffer for downtime, however when renewables are generating at full capacity the surplus nuclear power can either be exported as a revenue source for the government, or it can be used to split sea-water for hydrogen production. 

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Winter is our greatest demand by some way, wind can help there but solar generation falls off a cliff. Tidal can provide some regular capacity, but the places to build it also cause a large environmental impact (Severn Tidal as an example). Nuclear is the only viable solution for security of supply all year round, we also already have enough uranium to power our entire energy requirements for nearly a thousand years and that is before we used plutonium or reprocessed spent fuel.

Winter currently is our greatest demand. With summers increasing in temperature, I can see that leveling out.

We are on a small island. You have tidal rivers and a whole lot of ocean around us. This is something that should be explored and everything we do has an environmental impact. Waste from a nuclear site is put where? The current issues around nuclear should highlight some of the unknowns and risks of going down this route. Why are other countries moving away from nuclear and we have no idea what to do so choose nuclear as our main investment? We still have no plan... We have something that is 10 years away and for the rest, we will hope for the best.

It might level out in the long term, but we are probably several decades away from the large scale deployment of air con in UK domestic settings. Tidal is known to have huge negative impacts on the environment and bio-diversity, there are places where it can work well, but those are generally bays and coves rather than rivers. The vast majority of high level nuclear waste can be reprocessed, the waste that cannot can be stored in deep geological repositories. Some other countries are moving away from nuclear, largely because much of the public has an irrational fear of nuclear power, it is a political decision, not a rational one.

new_owner said:

Why are we not covering our reservoirs with floating solar? helps reduce evaporation and produces electricity. We need batteries to store this vast amount of energy we could produce and when the yearly sun is correct.

Cost firstly greater cost install them floating, lower efficiency or even greater cost when installing on water vs on land. It would be cheaper to cover the reservoirs in plastic sheeting and deploy the panels on land. Seasonal battery storage is insane, the battery requirements would cost several orders of magnitude more than building capacity in any other way.

new_owner said:

Reading about Scotland's new offshore wind going live.... we need to double the size

Offshore wind is being heavily invested in across the UK, it is not a case that they will build it then stop, capacity is constantly being increased. 

new_owner said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Those who are buying EVs are unlikely to be struggling with their energy bills, on top of that EVs are still considerably cheaper per mile than IC vehicles so they will be better off overall per mile. An ASHP will be more expensive than gas, but not hugely if it is used right, a GSHP is going to cost around the same as gas overall, but both should also be installed with considerable insulation upgrades which will further reduce the overall heat demand.

Sorry, this is very presumptuous. You have no idea what the state of someone's financial state is based on the car they drive.

It is presumptive, based on the evidence that most EVs are bought by middle and higher earners, very few "poor" people are going to buy or least a £50k+ car, most will be buying on the second hand market where EVs still carry a significant price premium.

new_owner said:

We need to hit Net Zero as fast as possible. Taxes are the only way to make this happen. Geen levies should not be part of an electricity bill. It should be part of taxation. In fact, scrap the Green Levies. It is a cost that needs to be paid just allocate part of the funding to renewables.

We need to reach net zero in a reasonable amount of time, as fast as possible would destroy the economy, but with 2-3 decades will be fine overall. Taxes are the driver, the issue is that the public do not want to pay the taxes and will not vote for a party which proposes to raise taxes. Green levies are part of the process, they are taxation, just not called taxation. Increase the green levies (essentially an eco tax on energy), increase VAT (already one of the lowest in the EU), decrease the personal allowance (already the largest in the EU), increase the rate of income taxation (the bottom two thirds of earners already pay the lowest level of income taxation in the EU), I would sign up for all those, even though they would involve me paying more tax, the problem is that less than 10% of the electorate would, so no party proposing the level of tax increases will win power. 

new_owner said:

You're forgetting the upfront cost of buying ASHP/GSHP/EV - Yes we need to move away from gas. We need to move to renewable, cheap, and plentiful electricity when the big outlay is making the switch from gas/petrol/oil to the electric equivalent.

I am not forgetting about the upfront cost, I am not proposing we rip out all gas boilers and ban all IC vehicles immediately, but at the end of live of existing systems they should be replaced, that way the additional cost is minimal. Electricity could be cheap and plentiful at the point of supply, but that would require vast investment upfront by the government, which requires... tax rises.

new_owner said:

Energy is a massive driver in any country. We need lots of it and it needs to be cheap. This country would thrive much better if this was the case.

I agree energy is a massive driver, it is a primary input cost for almost every business and service and is a cost for households. We need enough rather than lots and it does not need to be cheap, it needs to be reasonably priced to reflect the costs as well as maintaining competitiveness in a global market place. There is no point in making energy cheap and subsidising that from general taxation, there is a lot of point in using taxation to fund investment in energy production and infrastructure which brings down costs to a reasonable level in the medium to long term. In general taxing for subsidy is an incredibly bad idea economically, taxing to invest, provided the revenue is invested wisely almost always results in a positive return for the taxpayer.

pochase

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

All money the government spends comes from taxes. Where do you think the government can get money that does not come from the British public? If they borrow the money, they need to pay it back from taxes raised from the British public.