Omg 18%

2nd_time_buyer

Deleted_User said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Finally, it was not long ago that the green lobby were saying cheap energy was the work of Mordor and energy needed to be much more expensive to save the planet.  Where are they today?  Pleading for bigger handouts to pay for energy.

Solar, onshore wind and offshore wind, were all cheaper to deploy than all fossil fuels even before the energy crisis, the gulf has only widened since.  

This government seems to be acting very un-Conservatively by not allowing market forces to dictate. Effectively they are standing in the way of allowing farmers and landowners to make big profits from building solar and wind farms.

“Big profits” result from government subsidies. Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/uk-to-offer-265m-in-subsidies-for-renewable-energy-developers

There is a limit on how much solar and wind power a grid can have and remain stable.  This is because weather varies from time to time and not necessarily in alignment with demand for electricity. The bulk of power has to come from base load generation, eg fossil, nuclear or hydro.

Where the government did go wrong (including the previous Labour government) was in poor planning for storage facilities, lack of guts to authorize nuclear and refusing to tackle some of the structural energy market problems in the UK.

The subsidies on offer have decreased significantly over time and are also offered for nuclear (at a higher rate). Solar farms and rooftop solar are now being developed subsidy free. 

You are right that the potential stability of the grid as the renewable share increases is a problem. Storage is part of the solution.

By the end of this decade renewables in the UK will roughly double. Effectively this will mean that renewables plus nuclear will cover us for probably around 75% of the time. By 2035 they could cover us for more than 95% of the time. When we have more than enough, excess can be stored.

There are number of options for storage, roughly divided into long-term (prolonged stagnant murk) and short term storage (one or two windless days).

Short-term: home batteries, electric-cars, pumped-storage, compressed air storage
Long term: hydrogen generation*, interconnects, oversupply, biomass

As excess energy increases, storage will become more valuable and they will get rolled out quite quickly. Electric cars will be charging over night when there is more likely to be an excess. The cars will act like big batteries and vehicle-to-grid export tariffs will become more widespread. Home batteries will also help to smooth out the peaks and troughs of intra-day demand. Time-of-use energy tarries (like Octopus Agile) will help on the demand side. My guess is these things will work themselves out as the value of storage increases.

The bigger head-scratcher is longer term storage. Interconnects exist between us and Europe and Scandinavia and there is an interconnect in the pipeline between the UK and Morocco. Effectively these mean renewable generation can be averaged over a much larger area reducing the number of periods of under supply. Solar and wind are fairy complementary in the UK – it is windier in the winter and sunnier in the summer, so increasing the proportion of solar will also help smooth things out. In some ways the simplest solution is to just build more renewables. Onshore wind, offshore wind and solar are significantly cheaper at current strike prices than fossil fuels and nuclear.

In the short to medium term we will be dipping into North sea gas to make up the numbers but as time progresses, this will be a fraction of what it is today. In the longer term, something like hydrogen storage might fill that diminishing role.

Electricity consumption has decreased over the last 20 years but expect this trend to reverse as more people adopt electric cars and heat pumps.

Finally, on a positive note, a lot of these changes are happening exponentially such as the adoption of battery electric cars and the shift to renewables. Things are changing quickly, it is akin to the industrial revolution.

Doglegger

Finally, on a positive note, a lot of these changes are happening exponentially such as the adoption of battery electric cars and the shift to renewables. Things are changing quickly, it is akin to the industrial revolution.

....but in reverse.......propelling us back into the Middle Ages! Can't wait.

zagfles

ComicGeek said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Finally, it was not long ago that the green lobby were saying cheap energy was the work of Mordor and energy needed to be much more expensive to save the planet.  Where are they today?  Pleading for bigger handouts to pay for energy.

I'm not sure how the failure of Government energy policies over the last few decades is the fault of the green lobby. It's not strange to have both lobbied for greater resources for insulation/boiler replacements etc over the years, and also want to financially support the most vulnerable in the short term now.

It's stuff like protests against fracking, against a new coal mine, new gas fields etc. The hypocrisy of trying to prevent us generating our own fossil fuel energy while (directly or indirectly) importing it from abroad.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/government-coal-mine-robert-jenrick-climate/

Silvertabby

Albermarle said:

 the media are happy to report cases without proper scrutiny.  There is a piece today about someone who can't afford the oven so only had ready meals in the microwave.  I understand that sentiment, but nothing in the journalistic article seems to have mentioned the high cost of ready meals...

I noticed that as well. The person involved also said she sat in the dark as she could not afford to turn a light on or the TV.

I am sure a lot of people are struggling ( nothing really new there ) but these stories just do not ring true, and there must be some significant facts missing.

Already running debts on pre-payment meters?  

Chickereeeee

Albermarle said:

Chickereeeee said:

I think that when people realise that a lot (most) of their final salary pensions are capped at 3 or 5% inflation increases, and that that they will be worth maybe 7-15% less (if inflation is 10-15% for just one year) probably for the rest of their lives, they may get a bit annoyed.

On the other hand if you are relying on a DC pension, you have inflation at 10% and a drop in value of the pot by between 5 and 15% . So a minus 20% , compared to someone with a DB with a minus 6 or 7% .

It's not (hopefully) permanent though. Equity investments can (and usually do) more than recover the losses. Whereas, absent negative inflation, a DB pension will be reduced in value forever.

sgx2000

Deleted_User said:

sevenhills said:

Deleted_User said:

Perhaps, but one did have to be very stupid to support Labour in 2017 and 2019. Regardless of education.

Since Labour did not get elected, we would not know the outcome if they did. Tony Blair was a successful PM, as can be evidenced from his long service. Our last two PMs have been very poor, rejected after a short time by their own colleagues.

Tony Blair did not stand for election in either 2017 or 2019.  The Labour PM candidate who did had a really long track record of atrocious, economically illiterate, vile and racist policies.  Thankfully, most voters did know the outcome of electing that to No.10. 

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..... moderate labour policies.
Corbyn was character assasinated by the Tory press......  

Boris... just lies an fills the pockets of the wealthy.... tories always have....always will....

Grumpy_chap

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

sgx2000

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

sheslookinhot

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Thatcher destroyed this country

Prism

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them.