Energy Prices

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Shadow Play said:

I know the Scottish Government is against Trident but are they not also against all nuclear power? -  I genuinely don’t know.

Energy policy is set by the UK and not Scotland, but I doubt that an SNP/Green administration would have enacted the best all-round policies either. 

They might have added incentives for insulation but weaning the UK off its nonsensical domestic gas consumption is an issue that no political party is serious about dealing with. Until they do, we'll be paying the high rates on the open market that binning gas for electricity a few years ago would have produced in the short-term; but unlike making that switch, there'll be no reliable reduction in prices over the long-term.

[Shadow Play]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Energy policy is set by the UK and not Scotland, but I doubt that an SNP/Green administration would have enacted the best all-round policies either. 

They might have added incentives for insulation but weaning the UK off its nonsensical domestic gas consumption is an issue that no political party is serious about dealing with. Until they do, we'll be paying the high rates on the open market that binning gas for electricity a few years ago would have produced in the short-term; but unlike making that switch, there'll be no reliable reduction in prices over the long-term.

I posted the following just as you replied.  I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but I would be interested if you agree this is a major problem with Green energy:

“I’m not expert in the generation electricity but do renewables such as wind and solar not need to be backed up with nuclear or fossil fuels for the days where there are no wind and the evenings and nights where there is no light?  From what I can gather the storage of solar and wind energy is not yet possible on the significant scale required given the current limitations on battery storage.”

[Left Back]

9 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I posted the following just as you replied.  I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but I would be interested if you agree this is a major problem with Green energy:

 

“I’m not expert in the generation electricity but do renewables such as wind and solar not need to be backed up with nuclear or fossil fuels for the days where there are no wind and the evenings and nights where there is no light?  From what I can gather the storage of solar and wind energy is not yet possible on the significant scale required given the current limitations on battery storage.”

Tidal (if cracked and productionised) would be more predictable and reliable than solar/wind.  It still couldn’t guarantee energy though.  You have a period at low tide and high tide called slack water where there’s basically no movement so no generation.

You don’t have to fill the void with fossil/nuclear.  You could store energy to take up the slack.  Storing energy at the moment is not really cost effective, even on a large scale.

[Shadow Play]

2 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Tidal (if cracked and productionised) would be more predictable and reliable than solar/wind.  It still couldn’t guarantee energy though.  You have a period at low tide and high tide called slack water where there’s basically no movement so no generation.

You don’t have to fill the void with fossil/nuclear.  You could store energy to take up the slack.  Storing energy at the moment is not really cost effective, even on a large scale.

As far as I can gather, this really is the major problem with Green energy.  Not to mention the fact that the mining for the raw materials required for the batteries to store the energy cause considerable local environmental damage.  Also, the disposing of the batteries once they are past their useful lifespan is another problem being stored up (no pun intended) for the next generation to deal with.

 

 

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

As far as I can gather, this really is the major problem with Green energy.  Not to mention the fact that the mining for the raw materials required for the batteries to store the energy cause considerable local environmental damage.  Also, the disposing of the batteries once they are past their useful lifespan is another problem being stored up (no pun intended) for the next generation to deal with.

 

 

Storage does not automatically mean batteries.  Energy can be stored in many other ways.

[vikingTON]

22 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I posted the following just as you replied.  I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but I would be interested if you agree this is a major problem with Green energy:

 

“I’m not expert in the generation electricity but do renewables such as wind and solar not need to be backed up with nuclear or fossil fuels for the days where there are no wind and the evenings and nights where there is no light?  From what I can gather the storage of solar and wind energy is not yet possible on the significant scale required given the current limitations on battery storage.”

I'm not fully convinced by the backup argument in a Scottish context*, but there's absolutely a contradiction in the green lobby regarding nuclear power. Anything that isn't being 'organically'  harvested from Mother Earth is viewed by the eco-lobby as A Bad Thing; even though competent nuclear power and electrification of all domestic energy off the back of it would be objectively better in terms of trade-offs than the current shitshow. I suspect at least a large minority of the green movement are just opposed to any form of mass energy consumption. 

The nuclear power issue won't solve anything for the next decade though. The decisions that could have provided more clean and reliable energy were fucked a long time ago, and in Germany as well. Not all nukes should have been funded - EDF and co. are chancers if they can get away with it - but a general policy of decommissioning and phasing it out was hopelessly wrong. 

 

 

 

* A day that is calm inland at sea level is almost never calm at 100/200m elevation or out at sea in our latitude. 

[Shadow Play]

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Storage does not automatically mean batteries.  Energy can be stored in many other ways.

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'm not fully convinced by the backup argument in a Scottish context*, but there's absolutely a contradiction in the green lobby regarding nuclear power. Anything that isn't being 'organically'  harvested from Mother Earth is viewed by the eco-lobby as A Bad Thing; even though competent nuclear power and electrification of all domestic energy off the back of it would be objectively better in terms of trade-offs than the current shitshow. I suspect at least a large minority of the green movement are just opposed to any form of mass energy consumption. 

The nuclear power issue won't solve anything for the next decade though. The decisions that could have provided more clean and reliable energy were fucked a long time ago, and in Germany as well. Not all nukes should have been funded - EDF and co. are chancers if they can get away with it - but a general policy of decommissioning and phasing it out was hopelessly wrong. 

 

 

 

* A day that is calm inland at sea level is almost never calm at 100/200m elevation or out at sea in our latitude. 

I can certainly understand people being reluctant to use nuclear power given some of the events of the past.  It does appear though that the next generation nuclear power plants are far safer with far less nuclear waste (not sure if I’m just falling for the hype - and Public Enemy warned  me about that back in the ‘80s!).

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

I can certainly understand people being reluctant to use nuclear power given some of the events of the past.  It does appear though that the next generation nuclear power plants are far safer with far less nuclear waste (not sure if I’m just falling for the hype - and Public Enemy warned  me about that back in the ‘80s!).

Even the previous generations of nuclear power were far safer for everyone involved than gas or, above all, coal. Coal has killed thousands per year in direct industrial accidents alone in any significant producing country over 200-odd years. That's before you look at the long-term health effects on workers and the rest of the population in air pollution. 

Worrying about the safety of nuclear power because of a couple of high-profile accidents is as irrational as being feart of flying while choosing to drive every day. 

Fortunately we don't even need to rely on nuclear alone as a reliable power source, but it should definitely be part of that mix instead of the total nonsense that is domestic gas burning. 

[Todd_is_God]

The problem with Nuclear power is that there just isn't as much money to be made from installing the infrastructure to provide it. Wind farms, heat pumps etc all generate far more new money for the green lobby that simply generating perfectly good electricity in new nuclear power plants ever would.

[Clown Job]

 

[Clown Job]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The problem with Nuclear power is that there just isn't as much money to be made from installing the infrastructure to provide it. Wind farms, heat pumps etc all generate far more new money for the green lobby that simply generating perfectly good electricity in new nuclear power plants ever would.

Probably why privatising our energy wasn’t a good thing 

Not everything should be about making money from it 

[Left Back]

1 hour ago, Shadow Play said:

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

It isn’t really though.  Gravity is an option.  Pumped hydro and the like are just as viable.  Simple solutions like using large weights over deep mineshafts are producing results.

Nothing should be assumed or discounted while trying to resolve this problem.

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Despite virginton's assurances that it's all perfectly safe, all of that safety depends on humans. All we need is a series of mistakes or that technology to fall into the wrong hands and the result could be permanently catastrophic. 

Do you have this irrational meltdown about your safety depending entirely on highly qualified and trained humans every time that you travel by plane? If not, why not? 

The final point of your post is ridiculous hair-shirted drivel. Human civilisation and progress has been driven by the consumption of more energy over time: that's what the Industrial Revolution was. Billions of people are not going to sit in dark and squalid slums for the sake of your green agenda - they're going to rightfully stake their claim to development. 

The solution therefore involves finding more sustainable sources of energy than fossil fuels rather than insisting on entirely renewable sources alone. Nuclear is therefore a crucial transition technology to get to that next level of energy production. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by vikingTON

[superbigal]

Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.

[Bairnardo]

Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.

The ludicrous standing charges apaprently being heavily influenced by South also.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

1 hour ago, superbigal said:

Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.

 

The ludicrous standing charges apaprently being heavily influenced by South also.

What are they for? Infrastructure and maintenance thereof?

[superbigal]

What are they for? Infrastructure and maintenance thereof?

Sadly mostly now to pay for the companies that went out of business owing huge amounts.
Ovoid sorry ovo energy etc

[Todd_is_God]

Petrol down 5p near me. A long way to go, clearly, but it's a start.

[Jacksgranda]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Petrol down 5p near me. A long way to go, clearly, but it's a start.

Diesel down 5p/lt yesterday at my local filling station.

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Wish I hadn't put a whole tank of petrol in the car yesterday. 

Wish I could afford to fill the tank in one go.