Energy Prices

[s_dog]

9 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I’m sure there are some great ideas there but, in the short to medium term we need fossil fuels plus a ramping up of nuclear. SNP says no on that one!

Its no good telling everyone that Scotland produces 100% of its energy from renewables when , if you have  a high pressure cold snap with no wind, you need to import from elsewhere.

A secure base load is essential.

 

It's already been agreed that we need to cut back on fossil fuels so ramping up isn't just a no from the SNP.

As for nuclear, considering it takes 5-10 years to build a nuclear plant it's barely even a medium term option. Especially as Hinkley Point slips further and further behind it's planned start date every time they report anything, and it's now double it's original planned cost.

It's not even just the UK being hopeless. There was a new nuclear plant in Finland that was supposed to be completed in 5 years, but was only ready at the start of this year (about 11 years later than planned and 16 years after they started building it, at 3 times the original cost). In France, their new one was supposed to be ready in 2012, but 10 years later they hope to start it working in 2023, at 4 times the original cost. 

[Bert Raccoon]

[Florentine_Pogen]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/12/uk-fracking-and-oil-drilling-good-for-environment-says-climate-minister-graham-stuart

"Fracking and drilling for new oil and gas in the North Sea is green and good for the environment, Liz Truss’s new climate minister said on Wednesday.

Graham Stuart insisted that awarding more than 100 licences to companies for North Sea drilling, covering almost 900 locations, and rolling out fracking across the countryside, were green policies. He told MPs on the environmental audit committee that drilling for new fossil fuels would help the UK reach net zero by 2050.

“It’s good for jobs and good for the economy and it is good for the environment,” said Stuart. He argued that as UK oil and gas production was on a declining trajectory, at a faster pace than required by the International Energy Agency, opening up new fields was green because they would have a lower carbon impact than importing oil and gas which was extracted in a less sustainable way. He called the fossil fuel extraction pioneered by Shell and BP in the North Sea “world-leading”.

But haud oan a minute............................

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/11/us-fracking-climate-fossil-fuel-gases

"The fate of the vast quantities of oil and gas lodged under the shale, mud and sandstone of American drilling fields will in large part determine whether the world retains a liveable climate. And the US, the world’s largest extractor of oil, is poised to unleash these fossil fuels in spectacular volumes.

Planned drilling projects across US land and waters will release 140bn metric tons of planet-heating gases if fully realised, an analysis shared with the Guardian has found.

The study, to be published in the Energy Policy journal this month, found emissions from these oil and gas “carbon bomb” projects were four times larger than all of the planet-heating gases expelled globally each year, placing the world on track for disastrous climate change."

[beefybake]

44 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/12/uk-fracking-and-oil-drilling-good-for-environment-says-climate-minister-graham-stuart

"Fracking and drilling for new oil and gas in the North Sea is green and good for the environment, Liz Truss’s new climate minister said on Wednesday.

Graham Stuart insisted that awarding more than 100 licences to companies for North Sea drilling, covering almost 900 locations, and rolling out fracking across the countryside, were green policies. He told MPs on the environmental audit committee that drilling for new fossil fuels would help the UK reach net zero by 2050.

 

“It’s good for jobs and good for the economy and it is good for the environment,” said Stuart. He argued that as UK oil and gas production was on a declining trajectory, at a faster pace than required by the International Energy Agency, opening up new fields was green because they would have a lower carbon impact than importing oil and gas which was extracted in a less sustainable way. He called the fossil fuel extraction pioneered by Shell and BP in the North Sea “world-leading”.

But haud oan a minute............................

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/11/us-fracking-climate-fossil-fuel-gases

"The fate of the vast quantities of oil and gas lodged under the shale, mud and sandstone of American drilling fields will in large part determine whether the world retains a liveable climate. And the US, the world’s largest extractor of oil, is poised to unleash these fossil fuels in spectacular volumes.

Planned drilling projects across US land and waters will release 140bn metric tons of planet-heating gases if fully realised, an analysis shared with the Guardian has found.

 

The study, to be published in the Energy Policy journal this month, found emissions from these oil and gas “carbon bomb” projects were four times larger than all of the planet-heating gases expelled globally each year, placing the world on track for disastrous climate change."

George Orwell must be turning in his grave at the amount of Newspeak coming from the Westminster government.

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It's astonishing and quite frankly criminal that the government are not leading the way on a prolonged national campaign about everyone cutting their energy usage by a certain percentage.

Between the cost-of-living crisis, the bill the government will have to pay energy firms to compensate for the price cap and the environmental crisis, this should be a no-brainer.

My energy use is already below average. Why should I cut it back even further and sit in the cold?

Edited October 12, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[BFTD]

Ooft, punch-up at the libertorian corral incoming...

[Detournement]

Putin said today that the EU demanding spot pricing rather than long term fixed contracts has cost the EU the equivalent of 2% total GDP this year. 

The EU Commission are as inept as they are unaccountable. 

 

[Todd_is_God]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I literally gave two answers for that question in the post I made.

And here's another answer you won't like. If people continue to waste energy, the government could quite easily force smart meter usage in all households by pricing those who don't comply into accepting one through much higher unite prices. Then they can ratchet up the price beyond a certain usage to whatever they like to achieve whatever goal they like. Just like the head of the Environmental Agency is trying to force through for water usage.

 

I have a smart meter.

They could ratchet up the price using a non-smart meter as well.

If we really want to save energy maybe we could start by rationing how often people can use energy guzzling appliances. Like electric cars.

I'm not going to turn my thermostat down or sit in the dark so someone across the road can be assured of being able to fire the equivalent of 2 weeks worth of my electricity into their Tesla in just a few hours.

[DA Baracus]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I have a smart meter.

They could ratchet up the price using a non-smart meter as well.

If we really want to save energy maybe we could start by rationing how often people can use energy guzzling appliances. Like electric cars.

I'm not going to turn my thermostat down or sit in the dark so someone across the road can be assured of being able to fire the equivalent of 2 weeks worth of my electricity into their Tesla in just a few hours.

What an odd way to cry about electric cars.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

What an odd way to cry about electric cars.

^^^ Missing the point spectacularly

[BFTD]

Aye, it's more crying about having to do anything at all that isn't of immediate personal benefit.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, BFTD said:

Aye, it's more crying about having to do anything at all that isn't of immediate personal benefit.

If oaky was really concerned about us running out of electricity, then limiting use of things that use, on average, just under four times the average household usage of electricity per day would be the obvious place to start.

Focusing instead on castigating someone for doing an extra washing or using the tumble dryer shows he's not actually that concerned about that prospect at all.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

^^^ Missing the point spectacularly

I think you are missing the point.  Why rail against electric cars when the alternative is fossil fuels.

[BFTD]

26 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

If oaky was really concerned about us running out of electricity, then limiting use of things that use, on average, just under four times the average household usage of electricity per day would be the obvious place to start.

Focusing instead on castigating someone for doing an extra washing or using the tumble dryer shows he's not actually that concerned about that prospect at all.

Oaksoft virtue signalling?

Huge if true.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

I think you are missing the point.  Why rail against electric cars when the alternative is fossil fuels.

Oaksoft is claiming to be worried about running out of electricity, not on any impact burning fossil fuels may have on the environment. Electric cars use a decent amount of electricity (at an average of 0.3kW per mile, the average EV would use 6kWh per day - or 75% of the average daily usage for a house). A Tesla battery is 75-100kWh from empty to full. In the event of an actual energy shortage, they're not that helpful in tackling the problem.

Yet he seems more concerned by those using a tumble dryer to dry their clothes or putting the heating on to keep warm.

If he suggested something like a hot tub ban instead then I could understand that to a point, but instead he's gone down a bit of a green crusade recently and is expecting everyone to cut back because he has.

[Bairnardo]

Get the diesel trains back immediately

[vikingTON]

Quote

 

Ofgem’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, is expected to announce the regulator’s public information campaign on Thursday, when he will tell the Energy UK conference “this isn’t the time for complacency” as energy costs continue to rise.

He is expected to say that reducing energy consumption is “not only the most direct way of reducing our bills [but] it directly helps with security of supply, contributes to decarbonisation, and saves money for the public finances,” according to the Financial Times.

 

'Don't turn your heating on because otherwise Putin wins!!11!! and we can't afford more tax cuts for the rich' will make for an interesting public information campaign.

The only significant reason why most individuals would go out of their way to cut energy consumption - cost - has had its signal effectively muzzled by state intervention this winter. Many people either haven't realised this yet, or the ongoing 'cost of living' media frenzy is primed to terrify them into not heating their homes regardless of the actual price they would pay. That's where public information is warranted - not this cut consumption drivel for a problem entirely of the government and regulators' making. 

Perhaps instead of hectoring the public for having the temerity to act like it's still a first world country, Ofgem can turn its attention to the scores of cowboy energy firms that folded under its watch. 

[scottsdad]

12 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

Oaksoft is claiming to be worried about running out of electricity, not on any impact burning fossil fuels may have on the environment. Electric cars use a decent amount of electricity (at an average of 0.3kW per mile, the average EV would use 6kWh per day - or 75% of the average daily usage for a house). A Tesla battery is 75-100kWh from empty to full. In the event of an actual energy shortage, they're not that helpful in tackling the problem.

Yet he seems more concerned by those using a tumble dryer to dry their clothes or putting the heating on to keep warm.

If he suggested something like a hot tub ban instead then I could understand that to a point, but instead he's gone down a bit of a green crusade recently and is expecting everyone to cut back because he has.

I don't think comparing electric cars to houses is a good comparison. Best to compare electric cars with petrol ones as this is the energy that will be replaced if people switch.

Take something a bit more bog standard. The Renault Zoe has a battery capacity of 52 kWh and uses ~0.25 kWh per mile.

To charge this from completely empty to completely full would cost around £18 in electricity, and give you driving for about 200 miles.

A gallon of petrol costs ~£7.25. A car doing 40 mpg will cost around £36 for 5 gallons, and give you driving for about 200 miles. Around double the  financial cost.

In terms of generating these kWh, a gallon of petroleum liquids (not regular unleaded) generates around 13 kWh in power stations.  To charge the Renault Zoe would take around 4 gallons of these.

In short, an electric vehicle uses marginally less fuel than a petrol equivalent, but costs much less to run.

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

I don't think comparing electric cars to houses is a good comparison. Best to compare electric cars with petrol ones as this is the energy that will be replaced if people switch

Well, yes, but we don't use petrol to generate our electricity.

I'm not making an environmental argument, rather pointing out the obvious flaw in Oaksoft's plan to save electricity.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

19 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well, yes, but we don't use petrol to generate our electricity.

I'm not making an environmental argument, rather pointing out the obvious flaw in Oaksoft's plan to save electricity.

Yep, I may be wrong but i don't think there are any oil fired generations in operation in the UK any more, at least not at scale. As mentioned already, scotland is already almost completely away from fossil fuels for power generation, only gas fired peterhead remains. the rest of the UK is still a bit to go tho