Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

Alex_6n2 said:
. We rely on them making smart choices, but nobody in the West can do anything about that.
Click to expand...
it wont be popular but yes we can..... (as in the whole of the western world). we had our massively polluting industrial revolution. The likes of india etc deserve to have theirs too but they cant..... not like we did so ultimately the countries who can clean up need to clean up, and then if need be we have to support poorer countries as well by helping them as well, even if it costs us money.
no one (sensible) is saying shut down gas generators tomorrow........ what they are saying is that the improvements to the grid needs to accelerate massively and NIMBYs need to be ignored. i would love it if the hill in the town i lived in had a wind turbine built on it, esp if that local generation helped local energy bills. if i could plug my car in with a bi directional charger and share 20% of my car battery when needed but then have the energy put back - and some credit on my account as well when there was spare i would. Not everyone can, but if those who can did then it would help smooth the grid.

I dont blame the likes of india , or africa etc. i do blame the united states, the EU and us for not doing more.... With the right investment i am convinced if done properly we can have our cake and eat it but too many people with invested interests are muddying the water and deliberatly trying to hold us back imo (just follow the money and look at where the majority of the media and the likes of reform who are anti renewables get their funding from)

as for china... i am no expert but am sure i read the point of the coal power is because they can easily start up and shut down and their argument is they will barely be used long term. proof in the pudding etc but no one can say they are not massively ramping up on renewables.
 
Last edited:
At it's peak, our 'massively polluting industrial revolution' does not lead to today's higher CO2 levels. It is the rest of the world taking over. We may have been ultra inventive with coal and steam technology and exported it to Europe and the US however we are small geographically and our industrial towns and cities even smaller. The likes of Pittsburg and Detroit, the American rust belt and the Ruhr valley in Germany outstripping Manchester, Bradford hugely etc. Germany still burns coal as do the US. The UK does not.

We may have discovered and realised the methods of efficient industrialisation before others and before the effects of pollution were fully realised however the numbers of people in the world who have benefitted far outweigh those who have lost and it is largely down to the UK.

Britain just had an efficient science base not leaving it to religion or nobility as in Europe

Mea culpa, mea culpa etc., etc.
 
Hagar said:
At it's peak, our 'massively polluting industrial revolution' does not lead to today's higher CO2 levels. It is the rest of the world taking over. We may have been ultra inventive with coal and steam technology and exported it to Europe and the US however we are small geographically and our industrial towns and cities even smaller. The likes of Pittsburg and Detroit, the American rust belt and the Ruhr valley in Germany outstripping Manchester, Bradford hugely etc. Germany still burns coal as do the US. The UK does not.

We may have discovered and realised the methods of efficient industrialisation before others and before the effects of pollution were fully realised however the numbers of people in the world who have benefitted far outweigh those who have lost and it is largely down to the UK.

Britain just had an efficient science base not leaving it to religion or nobility as in Europe

Mea culpa, mea culpa etc., etc.
Click to expand...
maybe I didn't explain myself well . yes we are a small island and percentage wise our effect may have been small. but it's a bit rich for us to judge others (who may be much larger and thus having a bigger effect) for doing similar to what we did.

per country our pollution may be lower ... but averaged out per person? I suspect even the so called high polluters are less per head than we were at our worst .
we lead the industrial revolution. why shouldn't we lead the clean energy revolution as well (and maybe even profit from it).
like I said I am actually more angry at the likes of Germany than I am poorer countries. Germany should not be closing nuclear whilst burning coal.
 
Last edited:
I somewhat agree in part however we should not be going for the lowest common denominator of acres of solar and wind but be more discriminative on developing tidal islands and barrages for example whilst also keeping a base load of fossil fuels. We are in danger of diminishing our landscape and our ability to produce food in the chase for the cheapest solution and not the most effective one. We are an island, we are marine engineers we have thousands of miles of coast and many inlets. We are building solutions which will last 25 to 40 years then requiring replacement.
In this instance offshoring our energy production has a new meaning and a good one.
 
The typical UK’s citizens carbon output dwarfs that of your typical Chinese or Indian.

This is before you consider all the carbon intensive consumption we do which we have offshored to China and others which is then shipped back to us on massive polluting container ships. None of this counts against the UKs emissions.


There is no ‘but China’ argument, it’s completely disingenuous and dishonest to even suggest it when we are driving the problem in reality.

The Yanks then dwarf us again which is a bit of an eye opener. So if you want to use whataboutary, the USA is the country you want to insert in that sentence.
 
Last edited:
thats why, both for the eu & uk, carbon border taxes need to be imposed (partial nod in the rules of origin for ev batteries etc)
jpaul said:
51676827124_a81d15500c_o_d.jpg


looks liked the eu have a

On 14 July 2021, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism which will put a carbon price on imports of a targeted selection of products so that ambitious climate action in Europe does not lead to ‘carbon leakage’

initially doesn't seem to apply to iphones , just CEMENT IRON & STEEL ALUMINIUM FERTILISER *ELECTRICITY*
Click to expand...

hadn't appreciated until yesterday r4today interview with ecotricity boss, that even greg jackson (nearly as proliferant as martin lewis) said drill baby drill - carbon mileage


but
One of Britain’s leading green industrialists has called on the government to offer subsidies to North Sea oil companies to help support a “just transition” to renewables.

Dale Vince, a Labour donor, urged ministers to “optimise” the remaining resources of the declining oil basin as the UK reduces its reliance on fossil fuels. The party has promised to ban new North Sea oil and gas projects.

The founder of Ecotricity spoke out a week after fellow green entrepreneur Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy and a Cabinet Office adviser, backed calls to restart North Sea drilling.

Vince said the government should scrap the windfall tax on the North Sea and offer subsidies to oil companies that guarantee a minimum price for the barrels of oil and gas they produce.

“Our North Sea is in decline, let’s protect it during the transition and optimise our use of the resources that are left,” he told the Daily Telegraph. “We should scrap the windfall tax and protect the industry and its workers – we need to avoid the destruction of the industry or we will see a repeat of what happened to our coalminers.”

Jackson said last week that relying on North Sea oil and gas would have a smaller climate impact than relying on costly imports from the US and the Middle East, which release more emissions during production and transportation than homegrown fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
 
Bluecube said:
Boarder or Border?
Click to expand...

Offset by rubber dinghy imports.

I still think that Milliband is off on the wrong tangent. We don't have hundreds of square miles of spare land to place renewable wind and solar. We do have thousands of miles of coastline more than most European countries. With the know how for heavy civil engineering. Wind and solar does not really suit our geography..
 
Bluecube said:
Boarder or Border?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter?

Hagar said:
Offset by rubber dinghy imports.

I still think that Milliband is off on the wrong tangent. We don't have hundreds of square miles of spare land to place renewable wind and solar. We do have thousands of miles of coastline more than most European countries. With the know how for heavy civil engineering. Wind and solar does not really suit our geography..
Click to expand...
The irony here is that is actually does suit our geography and weather patterns. In reality we are one of the best suited places in Europe for wind power.

It’s never been about geography, it’s only ever been about NIMBYism. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a wind turbine, a nuclear power station or fossil fuelled or waste based station.

We have every method for producing power out my way and people don’t want any of it.

What they want is magic fairy dust electricity or perhaps the more honest answer is for other people to have the infrastructure near them instead, it doesn’t matter what method is being used.

Case in point, the Green Party literally opposes renewable energy projects in my area. They should really be called the NIMBY party where I live because that ultimately reflective of their actions.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Does it really matter?


The irony here is that is actually does suit our geography and weather patterns. In reality we are one of the best suited places in Europe for wind power.

It’s never been about geography, it’s only ever been about NIMBYism. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a wind turbine, a nuclear power station or fossil fuelled or waste based station.

We have every method for producing power out my way and people don’t want any of it.

What they want is magic fairy dust electricity or perhaps the more honest answer is for other people to have the infrastructure near them instead, it doesn’t matter what method is being used.

Case in point, the Green Party literally opposes renewable energy projects in my area. They should really be called the NIMBY party where I live because that ultimately reflective of their actions.
Click to expand...

Coasts are windy, inland less so.

Nuclear gets my vote, and wind power in the right locations, gas turbines in the right locations, hydro and tidal also but solar hardly ever.
 
It was just a typo.

It’s the name for the carbon tax when you import a specific commodity, hence carbon ‘border’ adjustment so in this case it’s actually a noun
 
Hagar said:
Coasts are windy, inland less so.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, elevation increases wind speed. Hence, shed loads of turbines in the Scottish highlands as well as around the coast.
Hagar said:
Nuclear gets my vote, and wind power in the right locations, gas turbines in the right locations, hydro and tidal also but solar hardly ever.
Click to expand...

Define ‘the right locations’?

Not sure why you wouldn’t use solar it’s the easiest, cheapest of any option to produce electricity. While generation is variable, it’s highly predictable.

For example, next Thursday my solar array is projected to produce around 31kwh, the margin of error is pretty small these days and the accuracy goes up over the course of the week.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Not necessarily, elevation increases wind speed. Hence, shed loads of turbines in the Scottish highlands as well as around the coast.


Define ‘the right locations’?

Not sure why you wouldn’t use solar it’s the easiest, cheapest of any option to produce electricity. While generation is variable, it’s highly predictable.

For example, next Thursday my solar array is projected to produce around 31kwh, the margin of error is pretty small these days and the accuracy goes up over the course of the week.
Click to expand...

Right locations for nuclear have ready cooling water supply which is drought resistant. Area of low population but with enough skilled workforce. Likely coastal.
Obviously tidal would be coastal or estuarial.
Hydro requires swift flowing water probably with a steep gradient.
As you have noted wind is better on mountain tops but good on the coast or offshore.
Solar at the moment seems to be attracting the better flatter land near to existing roads for access. This tends to be equally suitable for arable agriculture and in my opinion is extremely lazy thinking. Poor grazing land on south facing slopes would at least be more justifiable or using brownfield sites however solar is extremely ugly as it is so spread out and obscures the countryside to all other activities. At least with turbines you can walk amidst. Whole villages are surrounded by this eyesore. I have no objection to your roof or anybody else's as it is generally out of sight in a built up area.
 
Well I'm pleased with Home Energy so far, other than them not being able to read my gas smart meter yet - nothing manual readings from myself can't fix.

Better still, I received an email this morning telling me that they aren't increasing their prices this October. Below is a part of that email:
Home Energy is consistently the cheapest variable energy supplier on the market.

You may have seen in the news that Ofgem is raising the price cap from 1st October 2025 including a +14% rise in gas standing charges. That’s tough news for households already facing cost of living pressures, especially heading into winter.

At Home Energy, we’re taking a different approach.

We’ve consistently offered a standard variable tariff that is 12.9% cheaper than the Ofgem cap throughout 2025* and from 1st October we’re not changing a thing.

To put that in perspective, Ofgem’s new energy price cap is £1,755 for a typical household which means Home Energy customers are paying £263 less on average.*

No increases to your unit rates.

No increases to your standing charges.

Unlike most suppliers, Home Energy consistently undercuts the price cap so you always know you're on the best deal.

Good to know: Your choice to pay by Direct Debit means you may save about 7% compared with paying on receipt of bill (on average*).
We’re proud to offer the UK’s cheapest variable energy tariff, so there is no need to fix! (And there are no exit fees too!)

So on average our customers will see a lower total cost – just for staying with the UK's best-value variable supplier.
Click to expand...

I worked out that if I'd stayed on EDF's Ensure Tracker tariff, I'd be paying around 20% more, taking into account October's price increase. So it's safe to say that I think I've made the right move choosing Home Energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom