FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK Energy Costs hit New High
UK Energy Costs hit New High
Jump to: Newest in thread
Another record set as we rely massively on imported energy from Europe to avoid power cuts.
French nuclear power keeping our lights on.
Wind and solar making negligible contributions at the moment.
A disaster for consumers and industry but worse to come with Millivolt's mad net zero policies.
Will this be the issue that the Government falls over, or will Sir Kier change course before its too late ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds."
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
"
I blame Thatcher.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
"
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Decades of under investment and shareholder dividends.
Reap what we sow. "
But if you don't sow there is nothing to REEP. and so meany don't want to see new gas fields to supply UK power stations but we are 60% reliant on gas for electricity..
EV cars and heat pumps are pointless without Electricity.
Don't think I would be being hind going as far as mining coal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is a few comments on here about going back to coal but that would be massively unaffordable. Opening the pits, training staff, tooling, processing. The investment just isn’t there. And with the high salaries in this country it is cheaper to import it.
And that’s before we even get into the environmental damage! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a few comments on here about going back to coal but that would be massively unaffordable. Opening the pits, training staff, tooling, processing. The investment just isn’t there. And with the high salaries in this country it is cheaper to import it.
And that’s before we even get into the environmental damage!"
Am with you coal has had its time that said, we burn it well, smoke less fuel in the muilty fuel stove to heat part of the house.
I pay £700 a tone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that."
It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
I blame Thatcher.."
I would expect nothing less 
However, we have moved on from Wilson and the dark days of labour led unions that brought the county to its knees (I hope you would have expected nothing less )
In all seriousness, we need a plan, we have not had a government with a plan, noise yes, plan no. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that.
It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets."
Fantastic revenue generation for the UK.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets."
Private companies that pay 75% tax on their profits. The more they extract and sell, the more foreign money comes in to the UK government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"At the time of writing, all of the hundreds of wind turbines and thousands of solar panels in this country are producing no electricity whatsoever.
Gridwatch.co.uk"
That’s a very partisan looking site. I just checked and found that at this time, 3% being produced by renewables, and 18% from nuclear/biomass, which seems more plausible.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"At the time of writing, all of the hundreds of wind turbines and thousands of solar panels in this country are producing no electricity whatsoever.
Gridwatch.co.uk
That’s a very partisan looking site. I just checked and found that at this time, 3% being produced by renewables, and 18% from nuclear/biomass, which seems more plausible.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
"
If you take a moment to read your own source, you will note that the 3% renewable energy is hydro-electric, not wind or solar. Which is in accord with my original statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"At the time of writing, all of the hundreds of wind turbines and thousands of solar panels in this country are producing no electricity whatsoever.
Gridwatch.co.uk
That’s a very partisan looking site. I just checked and found that at this time, 3% being produced by renewables, and 18% from nuclear/biomass, which seems more plausible.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
If you take a moment to read your own source, you will note that the 3% renewable energy is hydro-electric, not wind or solar. Which is in accord with my original statement."
Wind power (a small amount, accepting) is being produced right now.
A sensible person would argue that we should be using all the renewables possible, should we not? Tidal and hydro-electric should actually be our go-to given our place on the globe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"At the time of writing, all of the hundreds of wind turbines and thousands of solar panels in this country are producing no electricity whatsoever.
Gridwatch.co.uk
That’s a very partisan looking site. I just checked and found that at this time, 3% being produced by renewables, and 18% from nuclear/biomass, which seems more plausible.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
If you take a moment to read your own source, you will note that the 3% renewable energy is hydro-electric, not wind or solar. Which is in accord with my original statement.
Wind power (a small amount, accepting) is being produced right now.
A sensible person would argue that we should be using all the renewables possible, should we not? Tidal and hydro-electric should actually be our go-to given our place on the globe. "
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
We are spending billions in grants to companies building wind turbines which, as you now accept, are producing no electricity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
"
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there. "
Possibly engineering is not your strength? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength? "
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
"
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done "
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
And you’re quite right to say the world isn’t going to end - Random musings. I regularly drive past what was once a car park but is now being turned into flats. Well, they bought the land and closed the car park shortly before Covid - the project was immediately scrapped.
Within 6 months of lockdown starting, I noticed bushes and brush growing in the vacant plot. Birds were flying around and foxes and other animals were living there. Thriving there.
The world won’t end after humanity has destroyed itself. It will thrive without us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that.
It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets."
And British governments rake in billions from selling the drilling licenses and taxing the production.
Those private company's that do the exploration, build the offshore rigs and the pipelines that bring it ashore.
Call it "our" oil as much as you want but there's a bit more to it than donning a wetsuit and swimming out with a Black & Decker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
"
The very same people who were wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And you’re quite right to say the world isn’t going to end - Random musings. I regularly drive past what was once a car park but is now being turned into flats. Well, they bought the land and closed the car park shortly before Covid - the project was immediately scrapped.
Within 6 months of lockdown starting, I noticed bushes and brush growing in the vacant plot. Birds were flying around and foxes and other animals were living there. Thriving there.
The world won’t end after humanity has destroyed itself. It will thrive without us. "
The book 'The World Without Us' describes just that - how the planet would explode into a new era of diversity and life if only we just pissed off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"
Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The very same people who were wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. "
Quite so. I'm beginning to identify a trend.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before"
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*"
No we haven't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't. "
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And you’re quite right to say the world isn’t going to end - Random musings. I regularly drive past what was once a car park but is now being turned into flats. Well, they bought the land and closed the car park shortly before Covid - the project was immediately scrapped.
Within 6 months of lockdown starting, I noticed bushes and brush growing in the vacant plot. Birds were flying around and foxes and other animals were living there. Thriving there.
The world won’t end after humanity has destroyed itself. It will thrive without us. "
I grew up near Basildon and its always been known for its wildlife. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 4 weeks ago
South East |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them? "
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them?
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument."
You’re fond of using isolated examples to attempt to prove a global phenomenon. Climate change is a complex issue.
I said that the climate has seen unheralded changed within the last century - you claimed it hasn’t.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/palaeoclimate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
Even the previoaily lost ardent climate change deniers have softened their stance in recent years from ‘it’s not happening’ to ‘it’s not that bad’ or ‘Earth will cope’
To find a real-life OG denier in the face of literally all evidence it quite astounding. I’m actually not sure what to say, such is my surprise at finding someone so incredibly wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Surely there is a compromise somewhere in all these arguments. I put solar panels on my roof and we have EV second car which saves us a lot of money on fuel and we even make money out of our battery now thanks to Octopus's recent tariff change.
It's good business for them and me and I commmend them for it as it means they are using my battery to store their energy in a useful way that benefits them and me.
What isn't good business is building hugr useless windfarms and solar farms. Personally I think this is more about control than business sense. The new government want to keep the means of production in their hands and this is why the Zealots are rushing down this path.
Surely all they need to do is incentivise private ownership more and make us all mini electricity sheiks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them?
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument.
You’re fond of using isolated examples to attempt to prove a global phenomenon. Climate change is a complex issue.
I said that the climate has seen unheralded changed within the last century - you claimed it hasn’t.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/palaeoclimate"
Have you ever taken the time to read what the other side says? There are many many qualified academics and researchers that go against the global warming orthodoxy but get cancelled, silenced, stripped of funding and get vilified by the global warming establishment.
If you were to have a listen to them then you may think twice before swallowing everything you see, read and hear from the global warming hi-priests. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them?
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument.
You’re fond of using isolated examples to attempt to prove a global phenomenon. Climate change is a complex issue.
I said that the climate has seen unheralded changed within the last century - you claimed it hasn’t.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/palaeoclimate
Have you ever taken the time to read what the other side says? There are many many qualified academics and researchers that go against the global warming orthodoxy but get cancelled, silenced, stripped of funding and get vilified by the global warming establishment.
If you were to have a listen to them then you may think twice before swallowing everything you see, read and hear from the global warming hi-priests. "
I see you’re an utterly unbiased view here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them?
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument."
I always laugh when I read "the science is settled"
It's a contradiction in terms. Science by its very nature is never settled. The whole point of science is to question everything and move forward. Not close the book and say all done.
The day science is settled is the end of science itself.
As for "we've seen" when it comes to climate change. What have "we" actually seen? We've been told a lot but with my own eyes I see very little.
We are told that wildfires in California are down to climate change but they've been having fires there for centuries if not millennia. Oh and no mention of the neglected scrubland that was actually the root cause of the devastation and the political ineptitude that helped it on its way.
Floods in Valencia? Oh it's all down to climate change we are told with very little evidence to back it up. Oh and no mention of the dams they destroyed that fuelled the destruction, or the floods in the same region in the early 70's (which I witnessed) that would have been as bad if not for, yep you guessed it, the dams.
Lastly there is a very small cove (naturist) beach close to us that we've been using for over 20 years. In the summer the amount of sand varies and in the winter the whole beach gets washed away by storms. Every year it recovers as it has done since the first year we used it. It would only need a very small rise in sea levels to wipe it out completely. I look forward to being on it again this summer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
On electricity the French and Danish governments plus others have made billions off the UK."
That’s the short sightedness of successive U.K. governments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely there is a compromise somewhere in all these arguments. I put solar panels on my roof and we have EV second car which saves us a lot of money on fuel and we even make money out of our battery now thanks to Octopus's recent tariff change.
It's good business for them and me and I commmend them for it as it means they are using my battery to store their energy in a useful way that benefits them and me.
What isn't good business is building hugr useless windfarms and solar farms. Personally I think this is more about control than business sense. The new government want to keep the means of production in their hands and this is why the Zealots are rushing down this path.
Surely all they need to do is incentivise private ownership more and make us all mini electricity sheiks."
But that is not posable for every property we had a servay done and it would take 15 years to brake even on this property. And that's still with heating it with gas and solid fule.
And with the battery only having an expected life of 7 years and now needing to be outside increasing the installation cost it's just not worth the investment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets.
Private companies that pay 75% tax on their profits. The more they extract and sell, the more foreign money comes in to the UK government."
Minus the 91% tax rebate on investments. OBR data shows estimates of tax relief to the tune of £18bilion between 2023 and 2026 compared to the £7.6 billion they were expected to receive before the energy crisis.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely there is a compromise somewhere in all these arguments. I put solar panels on my roof and we have EV second car which saves us a lot of money on fuel and we even make money out of our battery now thanks to Octopus's recent tariff change.
It's good business for them and me and I commmend them for it as it means they are using my battery to store their energy in a useful way that benefits them and me.
What isn't good business is building hugr useless windfarms and solar farms. Personally I think this is more about control than business sense. The new government want to keep the means of production in their hands and this is why the Zealots are rushing down this path.
Surely all they need to do is incentivise private ownership more and make us all mini electricity sheiks.
But that is not posable for every property we had a servay done and it would take 15 years to brake even on this property. And that's still with heating it with gas and solid fule.
And with the battery only having an expected life of 7 years and now needing to be outside increasing the installation cost it's just not worth the investment. "
I get that.
As I posted on another thread. We have solar in Spain and it works well for us. But we are in an area that averages 320 sunny days per year and even in the winter the sun has enough power to generate a decent amount.
That isn't the case in the UK especially the further north you go.
Some places get barely 5 hours of daylight in the winter and the sun is so low in the sky it does very little even when it does make an appearance.
I can fully understand why it would be 15 years to break even.
Our system is without battery's which reduced the installation costs. The excess we generate in the daytime goes to the grid and at night we draw it back. It's like having an electricity bank account, pay in and draw out.
We've calculated that we will break even in 5/6 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets.
Private companies that pay 75% tax on their profits. The more they extract and sell, the more foreign money comes in to the UK government.
Minus the 91% tax rebate on investments. OBR data shows estimates of tax relief to the tune of £18bilion between 2023 and 2026 compared to the £7.6 billion they were expected to receive before the energy crisis.
"
So you expect company's to invest but still pay tax on the money they invest.
That's one for the "here we go loopy loo" awards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As I posted on another thread. We have solar in Spain and it works well for us. But we are in an area that averages 320 sunny days per year and even in the winter the sun has enough power to generate a decent amount.
That isn't the case in the UK especially the further north you go.
Some places get barely 5 hours of daylight in the winter and the sun is so low in the sky it does very little even when it does make an appearance.
I can fully understand why it would be 15 years to break even.
Our system is without battery's which reduced the installation costs. The excess we generate in the daytime goes to the grid and at night we draw it back. It's like having an electricity bank account, pay in and draw out.
We've calculated that we will break even in 5/6 years."
Agreed. I occasionally visit India and solar works really well there too. Houses which have rooftop solar end up having surplus. Obviously the climate plays a major role there. Even in the winters, the sun is available for longer. So overall, it makes sense for people in India to do it.
But investing in solar in UK is a dubious decision when it comes to return of investments. We should have invested in nuclear power long back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As I posted on another thread. We have solar in Spain and it works well for us. But we are in an area that averages 320 sunny days per year and even in the winter the sun has enough power to generate a decent amount.
That isn't the case in the UK especially the further north you go.
Some places get barely 5 hours of daylight in the winter and the sun is so low in the sky it does very little even when it does make an appearance.
I can fully understand why it would be 15 years to break even.
Our system is without battery's which reduced the installation costs. The excess we generate in the daytime goes to the grid and at night we draw it back. It's like having an electricity bank account, pay in and draw out.
We've calculated that we will break even in 5/6 years.
Agreed. I occasionally visit India and solar works really well there too. Houses which have rooftop solar end up having surplus. Obviously the climate plays a major role there. Even in the winters, the sun is available for longer. So overall, it makes sense for people in India to do it.
But investing in solar in UK is a dubious decision when it comes to return of investments. We should have invested in nuclear power long back. "
Fully agree on the nuclear. A golden opportunity wasted by inept politicians.
As a comparison we don't have solar on our house in Germany (Mrs is German BTW) but our neighbour has.
In Spain we do well with 8 panels, our neighbour in Germany has 22 on a similar sized house. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s private companies that extract gas/oil from “our “ oil fields who then sell it on the open market. They export approximately 80% of those products to overseas markets."
"Private companies that pay 75% tax on their profits. The more they extract and sell, the more foreign money comes in to the UK government."
"Minus the 91% tax rebate on investments. OBR data shows estimates of tax relief to the tune of £18bilion between 2023 and 2026 compared to the £7.6 billion they were expected to receive before the energy crisis."
That's true, fossil fuel companies only get 91% tax relief on capital investment, in contrast to the 100% (plus incentive schemes) that all other companies get.
Yes, that tax relief has gone up recently. They used to be able to claim approximately 10% for 10 successive years, but now they get 91% which they can only claim in one year. And the tax rules changed for all UK companies, not just the fossil fuel producers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just use less .... your bills will go down ... simples
You're so naive it's remarkable "
the brynteg bully boy is back look .... is it that you're doing too much steds that causes your outbursts of personal attacks when you get triggered? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just use less .... your bills will go down ... simples
You're so naive it's remarkable
the brynteg bully boy is back look .... is it that you're doing too much steds that causes your outbursts of personal attacks when you get triggered?"
No personal abuse please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Panic over, they turned the wind back on
What all 1% of it
49% at this moment
https://grid.iamkate.com/  "
50.3% when I looked but only 16GW so demand is very low. We would realy need 100 x what we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"Panic over, they turned the wind back on
What all 1% of it
49% at this moment
https://grid.iamkate.com/
50.3% when I looked but only 16GW so demand is very low. We would realy need 100 x what we have."
We do need more, an holistic approach is the answer to phasing out fossil fuels. Including nuclear, hydro, wind and anything else!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *end1Man 4 weeks ago
southend on sea |
"And you’re quite right to say the world isn’t going to end - Random musings. I regularly drive past what was once a car park but is now being turned into flats. Well, they bought the land and closed the car park shortly before Covid - the project was immediately scrapped.
Within 6 months of lockdown starting, I noticed bushes and brush growing in the vacant plot. Birds were flying around and foxes and other animals were living there. Thriving there.
The world won’t end after humanity has destroyed itself. It will thrive without us.
I grew up near Basildon and its always been known for its wildlife. "
don't talk about basildon women like that😂😂 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And you’re quite right to say the world isn’t going to end - Random musings. I regularly drive past what was once a car park but is now being turned into flats. Well, they bought the land and closed the car park shortly before Covid - the project was immediately scrapped.
Within 6 months of lockdown starting, I noticed bushes and brush growing in the vacant plot. Birds were flying around and foxes and other animals were living there. Thriving there.
The world won’t end after humanity has destroyed itself. It will thrive without us.
I grew up near Basildon and its always been known for its wildlife. don't talk about basildon women like that😂😂"
They are foxes ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Panic over, they turned the wind back on
What all 1% of it
49% at this moment
https://grid.iamkate.com/
50.3% when I looked but only 16GW so demand is very low. We would realy need 100 x what we have.
We do need more, an holistic approach is the answer to phasing out fossil fuels. Including nuclear, hydro, wind and anything else!!!"
60.3% of 29.6gWh demand at the moment.
Just to add some fact checking to this debate.
In the past year, the UK has generated more kWh's of electricity from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. If nuclear power and biomass are included in the calculation (although the inclusion of biomass as a "clean" energy source is debated), over two-thirds of the UK's electricity now comes from non-fossil fuel sources.
UK energy prices remain tied to the global price of gas. This is due to the UK’s marginal pricing system, where the cost of electricity is determined by the most expensive generator required to meet demand. Gas-fired power stations, often used during peak periods, frequently set this price. As a result, even when cheaper renewable energy sources like wind and solar contribute a significant share of electricity, the price paid by consumers reflects the high cost of gas-generated electricity.
When David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, his government pursued a policy of austerity and stated he wanted to "cut the green crap" cutting support for renewable energy initiatives. A new generation of nuclear power plants, announced under Gordon Brown's Labour government, failed to materialize. During the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, insisted that nuclear power plants could only be built without public subsidies, making it extremely difficult to secure private investment.
Had there been greater investment in nuclear power and renewable energy during this period, the UK "could" have significantly increased its capacity for low-carbon energy generation. This would have potentially lessened the impact of the energy crisis caused by soaring global gas prices in recent years.
Just as an example I would like to highlight that Germany's economy has suffered greatly due to a reliance on Russian gas and perhaps foolishly deactivating there nuclear power plants. France on the other hand with who had invested substantially in nuclear power provided them alot more resilience.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
To increase hydro output you would need to construct many new high level reservoirs. Where?
Tidal has yet to provide any meaningful contribution.
Our islands are roughly 4% urban, are they not? Where *don’t* you want to build reservoirs?
Do you accept that we have to move away from fossil fuels sooner or later?
The future is a mix of nuclear and renewables - we all know that. It’s just a case of how quickly we’re going to get there.
Possibly engineering is not your strength?
Well I haven’t claimed it is, but I happen to accept that a solution to fossil fuels *has* to be found if we wish to maintain any standard of living for us, and future generations, no?
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid. Fossil fuels are the only viable source of energy currently. Expansion of nuclear power in this country was blocked by the very same people who espouse wind turbines now. Driven by ideology and the religion of AGW.
The world is not going to end, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear.
The climate changes, it always has done
I’m in cloud cuckoo land even though my beliefs tally with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts?
Other than existing infrastructure creating ease, why are fossil fuels superior to renewables, long term?
When, over a period of many millennia, the climate change in Egypt gradually brought about the decline in the Egyptian dynasty, was that AGW? Of course not. Below is a link (I hope) to a Cambridge University article.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/climate-change-its-all-happened-before
Over a period of many millennia? You’ve just destroyed your own argument. We’ve seen unheralded change within a *century*
No we haven't.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have. Are you more knowledgable than them?
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated by by Roald Amundsen in 1905. It is not passable today. Even a cursory glance at the satellite records show that the reduction in sea ice in the North is limited and in the South is non-existent. There are many scientists would would disagree with your catchall 'most scientists agree/the science is settled' argument."
Again some fact checking.
Arctic sea ice has declined sharply due to rising global temperatures.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), summer sea ice cover has decreased by about 13% per decade since 1979.
Since the early 2000s, the passage has become seasonally navigable for certain types of vessels.
In 2007, the Northwest Passage became ice-free during the summer for the first time in recorded history.
In 2013, the MS Nordic Orion became the first commercial cargo ship to traverse the passage, marking a shift in its viability for shipping.
Part of the reason President Trump is so invested in Greenland is that Greenland other then it's strategic importance is that Greenland is rich in minerals like rare earth elements, uranium, iron ore, and gold, essential for advanced technologies such as electronics, renewable energy, and defense systems. The FACT that melting ice due to climate change is making these resources more accessible for potential exploitation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that."
In addition, the UK is one of the best locations for wind power in world. The combination of long coastlines, shallow water, and strong winds makes offshore wind particularly effective in the UK.
The Orkney Islands for example produce can produce more wind energy then they can use and the surplus is used to create Hydrogen which is used to power ferrys or other vehicles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The insatiable thirst for profit knows no bounds.
It truly is amazing how climate change enthusiasts want to allow the country be indebted to those who hold the essential resources in the palm of their hands. The sky is the limit when it comes to pricing, after all what are we going to do about it when we have thrown away our ability to supply ourselves.
We could and should be one of the most energy independent countries in the world. Oil, gas, coal, shale gas, used to have a good nuclear network. Its indicative of our awful political class (all parties) that we've thrown most of that.
In addition, the UK is one of the best locations for wind power in world. The combination of long coastlines, shallow water, and strong winds makes offshore wind particularly effective in the UK.
The Orkney Islands for example produce can produce more wind energy then they can use and the surplus is used to create Hydrogen which is used to power ferrys or other vehicles."
Regarding wind power, I’ve seen it mentioned that the UK and ROI should be energy powerhouses with the amount of wind we get. The science is proven, the tech works, it’s just not being utilised and connected properly to the Grid.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 3 weeks ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
“They are foxes”
Can’t help lightening the thread with the old joke:
How do you turn a dog into a fox?
Have another couple of beers.
With its corollary:
How do you turn a fox into an elephant?
Marry her.
I’d better hide this from the missus… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just use less .... your bills will go down ... simples
"
Absolute codswallop.
I am being charged so much more that I am forced to use less in order to stay solvent.
The suppliers, however, intend to take the same or better remuneration with the intention of supplying a reduction in the commodity, which further icreases their margin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another record set as we rely massively on imported energy from Europe to avoid power cuts.
French nuclear power keeping our lights on.
Wind and solar making negligible contributions at the moment.
A disaster for consumers and industry but worse to come with Millivolt's mad net zero policies.
Will this be the issue that the Government falls over, or will Sir Kier change course before its too late ?"
A lack of coherent energy policy is not a recent thing for the UK. Anyone who wants to pretend it is is just full of it.
Btw, why does the UK not have a sovereign wealth fund to rival that of Norway?
Obviously, it wouldn't go as far for a much larger population - but it wouldn't have hurt, would it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another record set as we rely massively on imported energy from Europe to avoid power cuts.
French nuclear power keeping our lights on.
Wind and solar making negligible contributions at the moment.
A disaster for consumers and industry but worse to come with Millivolt's mad net zero policies.
Will this be the issue that the Government falls over, or will Sir Kier change course before its too late ?"
We pay high prices due to Gas and the marginal pricing system our country operates where the final highest price bidder intro the market sets the price for everything (this is always Gas)
We have imported French nuclear power since 1966 and in similar volumes for many years (long before wind and solar)
Wind was the largest generation source for GB in 2024 beating Gas for the first time.
The challenges we face stem from history and geo politics (privatisation, our market structure, our inability to influence global fuel prices and a profound lack of investment in our grid). In the context of all of this Net Zero policies have actually had quite a small impact.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
