Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

GreatAuk said:
POWAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Click to expand...
I quite fnjoyed that video. What I can't understand though, is as an engineer why can't they just be "beefed up" to take stronger winds, is it just a case of there's only so much that be done?
In terms of energy I agree with some of the other posters, if you've got leds there's not much else you can do to save money. I don't think fitting a new boiler will be cheaper than using an old one (although that might change if there's any more increases:p). I've noticed my food bill going up by about 20% in the last month, but I don't want to live off own brand beans or lower my standard of living. We did have a group meeting about payrises, and were basically told to **** off and be happy that we got anything, now out middle manager can't understand why we're all ****** off and not working hard:rolleyes::cry:.
 
Nelly said:
I wonder how much difference it would be if the big energy firms were nationalised with minimal profit?
Click to expand...
The biggest advantage of nationalisation would be removal of the energy trading market, the churn and additional cost from trading and re-trading positions back and forth must be phenomenal. The generators don't make huge profits and the cost of making electricity (wages + Maintenenace) is generally only about 15% or less of the wholesale cost and has been squeezed relentlessly for decades. Most of the cost is tax and fuel. Likewise I think the energy companies (those you buy it from) aren't super profitable and as we've seen loads have gone out of business with the gas price volatility.

Nationalisation would also remove the need for subsidies from taxation, additionally rational long term investment decisions could be made instead of dozens upon dozens of companies fighting for contracts for difference or capacity payments a central planned transition could be undertaken. Resource development and training makes sense in a way that is impossible in the current balkanised energy market.
 
Nelly said:
I wonder how much difference it would be if the big energy firms were nationalised with minimal profit?
Click to expand...

I think the French have this effectively. Its a long argument but my summary would governments dont operate with a profit its all taxed to the population.
UK should make sure it has no requirement to import energy, we can fail that ideal slightly but not to an extent you empower such a dangerous country as Russia. This much was true this whole century, the only positive from the war might be to make it totally obvious
 
413x said:
It's going to be a catastrophe
I feel sorry for those not on a cap. Which is a lot of people!

We are really paying for our short term views over the past decade
Click to expand...

You mean like power generation, industry and businesses including food prep - all that will feed down to the person in the street at some point.
 
NickK said:
You mean like power generation, industry and businesses including food prep - all that will feed down to the person in the street at some point.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I harp on about it. But that 100bln for Hs2 is looking even more of a waste than it already was.

100bln covers putting solar panels on every single UK house

For free
 
413x said:
Yeah. I harp on about it. But that 100bln for Hs2 is looking even more of a waste than it already was.

100bln covers putting solar panels on every single UK house

For free
Click to expand...

Solar on the houses - that would be a good thing in my book.
 
PlacidCasual said:
The hair shirt brigade would rather Russian tanks parked on the Champs Elysee than fracking in the UK. Just imagine the performative demonstration that would ensue.
Click to expand...

If it's not the environmentalist brigade protesting about Fracking or Nuclear it's the middle class NIMBY's complaining about Wind Farms and Solar

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/campaigners-oppose-plans-develop-largest-6545641

Campaigners oppose plans to develop largest solar farm in UK in Lincolnshire
Click to expand...
 
But Solar is mostly useful in the Summer and we need heat in the Winter. In the UK where energy demand is driven by cold and dark solar is anti-cyclic putting more up beyond a certain amount will just cause more problems in balancing demand. If we were in Australia or Texas where peak demand is driven by air conditioning we would be wise to put Solar on every house. If you want to spend £100Bn spend it on exterior cladding every house. Approx 20 million houses are D or worse if memory serves. £100Bn divided by 20million = £5000 per house. Not really enough to properly externally clad a house more like £20,000 I'd guess.

If we want energy independence we need a heavy nuclear baseload in the 40-50% demand range it makes the problem of battery or other storage so much smaller and achievable and allows us to maintain an industrialised society.
 
PlacidCasual said:
But Solar is mostly useful in the Summer and we need heat in the Winter. In the UK where energy demand is driven by cold and dark solar is anti-cyclic putting more up beyond a certain amount will just cause more problems in balancing demand. If we were in Australia or Texas where peak demand is driven by air conditioning we would be wise to put Solar on every house. If you want to spend £100Bn spend it on exterior cladding every house. Approx 20 million houses are D or worse if memory serves. £100Bn divided by 20million = £5000 per house. Not really enough to properly externally clad a house more like £20,000 I'd guess.

If we want energy independence we need a heavy nuclear baseload in the 40-50% demand range it makes the problem of battery or other storage so much smaller and achievable and allows us to maintain an industrialised society.
Click to expand...

Lowering use would be a much better direction than simply generating more.
With the recent rises it will make the majority of us look more carefully at how we're using energy, insulating our homes and becoming more efficient, sadly the ones who would benefit the most will be the ones who can least afford it.
 
PlacidCasual said:
But Solar is mostly useful in the Summer and we need heat in the Winter. In the UK where energy demand is driven by cold and dark solar is anti-cyclic putting more up beyond a certain amount will just cause more problems in balancing demand. If we were in Australia or Texas where peak demand is driven by air conditioning we would be wise to put Solar on every house. If you want to spend £100Bn spend it on exterior cladding every house. Approx 20 million houses are D or worse if memory serves. £100Bn divided by 20million = £5000 per house. Not really enough to properly externally clad a house more like £20,000 I'd guess.

If we want energy independence we need a heavy nuclear baseload in the 40-50% demand range it makes the problem of battery or other storage so much smaller and achievable and allows us to maintain an industrialised society.
Click to expand...


I completely agree.
It's not even "in hind sight"

We've always known Russia is dangerous. But in stead of building nuclear and being somewhat self sufficient we continued to not only be reliant on Russia. But to also funnel cash to Russia.
Even worse most of the cash we could have invested has been wasted. It also helps our climate goals.

We are a big part in facilitating the Russian invasion. A lot of Russias dollar reserves are due to west paying Russia for its exports
 
Uther said:
I'd like to think this would be a wake up call for government to try and make us more self sufficient, but I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Me either.
Could actually be a vote winner this time though

Unfortunately it takes people to be directly impacted to make changes.

It's why I'm convinced climate change will h never be taken seriously. By time it really bites it will be too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom