But we can see it's already happening.
"Just stop oil"
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
But we can see it's already happening.
From that article..Ah, Tice and The Express. The go tos for informed opinion
This obsession with green virtue-signalling is crippling our economy, driving up energy costs, and pushing hardworking families further into poverty.
Let’s look at the numbers. So far, £22 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent on carbon capture initiatives, and an additional £11.6 billion has been sent abroad in foreign aid for green projects.
Meanwhile, our countryside has been scarred by vast solar and wind farms, and our reliable coal and gas-fired power stations have been systematically shut down. As a result, Britain has become increasingly dependent on importing energy from the EU — at an eye-watering cost.
Here’s the kicker, the UK contributes just 1% to global carbon emissions. Even if we were to hit Net Zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be negligible. In fact, by deindustrialising and shutting down domestic production of essentials like gas, steel, and other key resources, we’ve simply offshored our emissions.
This self-inflicted wound has driven energy prices to crippling highs for British households and businesses. At times, UK electricity has been 71% more expensive than in France, while gas prices have soared at times by a staggering 100% in recent years.
Worse still, the policies driving us toward net zero are actively harming our energy security. By prioritising unreliable renewables like wind and solar over dependable sources like coal and gas, we’ve left ourselves vulnerable to volatile international markets. Every time the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, Britain pays the price.
The financial burden of this green obsession is staggering. The average Brit is paying more for energy, food, and goods — all thanks to misguided policies that prioritise environmental posturing over economic common sense. Businesses that could be thriving are either shutting down or moving abroad, taking jobs and investment with them.
The result? A weaker economy, higher unemployment, and a cost-of-living crisis that shows no sign of abating. So why does the government persist with this madness? The answer is simple: virtue signalling.
Ed Miliband and his Labour colleagues are more concerned with their image on the world stage than the real-world consequences for British families.
They parade their green credentials at international summits while ignoring the suffering their policies cause at home.
The irony is glaring. By pursuing Net Zero at breakneck speed, we’re not just impoverishing our own people — we’re also driving up global emissions. Britain’s deindustrialisation means we’re outsourcing carbon-heavy industries to countries like China and India, where emissions are far higher.
Which of the above is incorrect? (apart from it saying that £22 billion has been spent, as opposed to could be over 25 years).
Genuine question.
The entire premise that green energy is the reason for our high energy bills...
The real risk is in the new accelerated time frame and actually keeping us bent over the gas barrel when the wind isn't blowing.
Last edited:
Soldato
Gas will be required for a generation at least to heat our houses and support key industries. We will just need to import it.
Last edited:
To notion that CCS is a ‘green initiative’ is also complete nonsense.
Hats off to the oil and gas industry for continuing to convince people that it can actually work. It’s not worked in any prototype so far and even if it did, it’s ant best a temporary measure and inevitably the CO2 stored leaches back into the atmosphere anyway.
As for the £22b, it’s been allocated in the budget but it has not actually been spent yet so even that point isn’t correct.
Hats off to the oil and gas industry for continuing to convince people that it can actually work. It’s not worked in any prototype so far and even if it did, it’s ant best a temporary measure and inevitably the CO2 stored leaches back into the atmosphere anyway.
As for the £22b, it’s been allocated in the budget but it has not actually been spent yet so even that point isn’t correct.
Yes, which is why I said this new accelerated time is the risk. It will be leaving us exposed with less gas capacity and more demand. But people are wrong to be pointing at renewables and saying that is the reason for our high power prices, its simply not true.
No one (sensible) is denying that it will be for many years to come.
It’s a transition, no one (sensible) is suggesting gas will be turned off any time soon.
Ultimately the biggest uses of gas have viable non-fossil fuel based alternatives, it’s just going to take a long time to move over.
Even when the grid is mostly renewables, it will still be burning a lot of gas and no doubt to meet that 2030 target will require a lot of offsetting and greenwashing. Remember it’s net zero, not zero. The ‘net’ part of that phrase is key.
Its amazing you have no idea how the UK energy system works yet believe anything negative you read by grifters about renewables.
Answer my question please.
Marginal pricing. Power prices are set by the most expensive source per megawatt and that is usually gas.
Soldato
I do realise that, however I fail to see the sudden need for masses of wind turbines scattered around the countryside where they are least efficient and require more hardware to hook up. Solar similarly. It should be the most marginal land that is utilised first but preferably offshore where the wind does blow with far more reliability and urgency.
I assume that Miliband would be able to place a higher spot price to win a few more offshore fields.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,954
In order to get investors for wind farms they had to be tempted with contracts for difference which means no downside and all upside, so they have a minimum floor price and if the price is above that they get the higher price. All supported by every flavour of politician imaginable over the last 30 years.
As the proportion of wind and solar has increased the demand for the gas and coal stations dropped. But their fixed costs didn't, in some respects they increased per MWh because the plants are getting older and there is no incentive to build new. SO the gas and coal stations only got called when the prices were high and they needed a higher income per MWh to recover their costs. Early on this wasn't an issue because wind capacity was low and fossil fuel capacity was high. But wind grew and ate more of the pie and thermal shrank. So they have to earn more from less generation which is a double whammy because that increases the prices paid in contracts for difference.
This was obviously getting worse and the state had to step in and offer the thermal plant subsidies to hang around the Capacity Market because otherwise the real market would have closed stations and put up prices. So now every single entrant in the market is getting a direct subsidy, except for nuclear who get the implicit subsidy of their decommissioning costs being picked up by the state.
We are paying for two generating systems the one we coo over that saves polar bears but doesn't keep the lights on when we need it and the one we hate but gives us thing we want when we need it.
Ignoring the real world requirement to keep the lights on then yes renewables are cheaper because there is no fuel to pay for. But having to subsidise thermal plant to ensure supply drives up the cost because you are not using your asset cost effectively. Added to which about 30% of the cost of gas electricity is the CO2 tax which is an artificial and arbitrary cost which thanks to Contracts for Difference also pushes up renewable costs.
It is a charlie foxtrot of impressive proportions, with blame for everyone.
As the proportion of wind and solar has increased the demand for the gas and coal stations dropped. But their fixed costs didn't, in some respects they increased per MWh because the plants are getting older and there is no incentive to build new. SO the gas and coal stations only got called when the prices were high and they needed a higher income per MWh to recover their costs. Early on this wasn't an issue because wind capacity was low and fossil fuel capacity was high. But wind grew and ate more of the pie and thermal shrank. So they have to earn more from less generation which is a double whammy because that increases the prices paid in contracts for difference.
This was obviously getting worse and the state had to step in and offer the thermal plant subsidies to hang around the Capacity Market because otherwise the real market would have closed stations and put up prices. So now every single entrant in the market is getting a direct subsidy, except for nuclear who get the implicit subsidy of their decommissioning costs being picked up by the state.
We are paying for two generating systems the one we coo over that saves polar bears but doesn't keep the lights on when we need it and the one we hate but gives us thing we want when we need it.
Ignoring the real world requirement to keep the lights on then yes renewables are cheaper because there is no fuel to pay for. But having to subsidise thermal plant to ensure supply drives up the cost because you are not using your asset cost effectively. Added to which about 30% of the cost of gas electricity is the CO2 tax which is an artificial and arbitrary cost which thanks to Contracts for Difference also pushes up renewable costs.
It is a charlie foxtrot of impressive proportions, with blame for everyone.
Last edited:
On shore wind is cheaper per mwh produced, materially so, it can connect up into the local grid and is primarily used in the same area it’s produced.
This is unlike offshore wind which only comes onshore at a single point and connect into the national grid which then needs distributing out to the point of consumption via pylons.
Scotland has huge numbers of onshore wind and there certainly are not ‘turbines scattered all over the countryside’. The cons only banned it for ideological reasons, not because it made sense.
Solar is ground mount solar is generally fine, if anything it would be better if this was more distributed rather than hundreds of acres being covered in one blob (e.g. more sites but on a smaller scale). That said, it should be mandatory that all new buildings are entirely covered in panels and far less of it would be needed.
and those emissions in other countries will be a lot worse than they would be if the energy was generated here with higher standards
we will all be poor but our global c02 emissions might reduce by 0.001%
The only thing pushing all this on us is GR££D.
Imagine if we devoted these 10s of billions to something other than short sighted vanity projects like carbon capture... we could be the world leaders of some industry like we used to be
We don't build the turbines, I doubt we build the solar panels either....
imagine what rolls royce could have done with modular reactors if our government fully backed them, I'm guessing no foreign billionaires would make money from that one
Last edited:
Absolutely, and as someone who is possibly facing the prospect of over a 100 acres of 100'000 solar panels, inverters and 2 substations being plonked directly outside or close to my house (whilst covering grade 2 agricultural land), It'd make more sense to stick them on industrial roofing and new builds.
Still, I guess it's better than the housing estate the local farmer was hoping to sell his soul and land for, it got denied permission, and rightly so, mainly because we have a solid neighbourhood plan and have a KC who specialises in the fields of planning, environmental and related administrative law who lives in the village.
I'll wait for the "waaaaah, you're a nimby, waaaaah" comments.
Covering productive farmland with concrete, miles and miles of fencing, solar panels and god knows what else is beyond retarded.
The whole "green economy" is being artificially propped up by governments. For the consumer anything green costs more. That isn't going to last long-term.
The entire world economy and maybe even civilization itself needs to change. In the same way we went through the industrial revolution. That won't happen this generation, maybe not even over the next two. We need new scientific breakthroughs actually being put in to practice, but in modern times it's very rare.
The entire world economy and maybe even civilization itself needs to change. In the same way we went through the industrial revolution. That won't happen this generation, maybe not even over the next two. We need new scientific breakthroughs actually being put in to practice, but in modern times it's very rare.
Last edited: