Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: River Don on May 16, 2022, 05:48:04 pm
-
So we supposedly have a free energy market in this country but now the regulator is bringing in anti competitive rules.
No wonder Martin Lewis lost his rag.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/16/energy-price-cap-ofgem-price-falls
It would be a joke but it's not funny.
-
Under the proposals, suppliers who win customers with cheaper deals would have to pay the old supplier 85% of the difference in tariffs. The regulator argues that it would protect companies from being destabilised but Lewis said it would deter competition.
This is clearly protectionist so why is a Tory government allowing it? What's the point of trying to create a free energy market if you're going to allow them to put a spanner in the works and prevent customers switching?
It seems this market idea is broken. Perhaps it is high time for re-nationalisation?
-
EDF are the National supplier in France, the French Govt have restricted their price rises, OFGEN have allowed massive increases here, UK EDF customers are subsidising French Customers
-
Yeah pylon the pressure for us.
-
The regulator is supposed to be a watchdog ensuring the consumer interest is protected.
This has been turned on its head to mean protecting the profits of the industry is the main objective.
Short video setting out the scam underway here;
https://twitter.com/KernowDamo/status/1526512498110865408
Wait for some non solution like windfall tax to come up as a temporary measure, to divert the discussion from the real solution of public ownership of the energy sector.
-
first they have to come up with a story to show they are not taking up a labour idea!
-
first they have to come up with a story to show they are not taking up a labour idea!
From memory, Margaret Thatcher was a great fan of the windfall tax, as a way of mitigating undesirable impacts from rampant privatisation.
It allows the business model to remain in place, while being seen to "do something" to ward off political pressure.
-
They could use the proceeds of a windfall tax to invest in a new insulation program for the country. Just a thought.
-
OFGEM have been asleep at the wheel.
Presided over a catastrophic failure of the retail market - what was it, nearly 30 providers?, went bust - leaving the consumer at the mercy of retail providers who were also participants in the oligopolistic wholesale market.
Didn't demand investment in gas storage to ensure that consumers had any protection against short term market volatility.
Thatcher always acknowledged that allowing a free market also required strong regulation to stop market participants taking the michael. As anyone in the US will tell you. Is OFGEM that strong regulator? Absolutely not.
Will anyone in this government initiate the essential overhaul that's required? Clue: Kwasi Kwarteng is the Minister responsible for OFGEM!
-
How many millions are the government raking in in vat with this ever increasing energy price increase.
The same applies to fuel and none of it coming back to the consumer.
-
Here's a thought. When the Govt finally do what Starmer has been asking them to do for weeks and impose a windfall tax to pay for alleviation of energy bills, who will be called Captain Hindsight then?
-
So if they take a windfall txt on energy companies and use it to subsidise consumer energy bills... Then won't that just maintain the demand for gas and so only feed the inflation?
Where as if the windfall tax were used to subsidise insulation and perhaps add to the UKs clean energy generation, that that would reduce the demand for gas and be disinflationary. It would remove the UKs need to import the low levels of Russian gas we do. And as a bonus lower Co2 emmisions.
-
RD.
There is a bare minimum demand for gas and electric already in the system. People have to eat and stay warm. Even if they cut back on usage, some of the poorest people in society are going to be tipped into penury by the basic rates of energy costs doubling.
This is an emergency. It needs treating like an immediate emergency.
We aren't going to insulate 20 million homes in 6 months. That is a decade-long task. We SHOULD have been doing it for the last decade but that bus has left the depot now. We do need to be massively upping the game on insulation but that has to come in addition to saving people from abject poverty NOW, not instead of it.
-
Fair point BST the urgency of the situation is clear.
But there is also an urgent need to reduce our dependency on gas. Anyway there's no sign of the Tories introducing any scheme to improve insulation levels in the country.
-
In 2008 approximately 21% of UK homes had adequate loft insulation.
In 2020 that figure had risen to 39%. The cost to retrofit a typical family home to net zero standard is estimated at about £26,000. This is based on an analysis of work by the Climate Change Committee – a body of experts that advises the UK government. Multiply those 26 million homes by £26,000 and the overall price tag is £676 billion.
-
In 2008 approximately 21% of UK homes had adequate loft insulation.
In 2020 that figure had risen to 39%. The cost to retrofit a typical family home to net zero standard is estimated at about £26,000. This is based on an analysis of work by the Climate Change Committee – a body of experts that advises the UK government. Multiply those 26 million homes by £26,000 and the overall price tag is £676 billion.
We will never reach that level of net zero homes. There are far too many older properties where it will never be practical.
That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of scope to improve matters a great deal though. Only 39% of UK homes with adequate loft insulation is a striking stat.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
-
RD, that 39% figure is up to 2020.
I don’t have a more up to date figure just yet.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
-
the issue is the need for a price cap.
Allowing prices to rise (now on a more frequent basis) amplifies fuel poverty as a part of the cost of living increase.
Taking a percentage of excess profit back (via a windfall tax for example) is better than nothing if that money is directed to those in need, but it normalises rising cost of energy in the wider economy.
This is undesirable, and does not change the way the energy economy operates.
The creation of profit to shareholders, and the inflation of stock equity to boost dividends, remains the goal of the sector.
I heard Truss on R4 saying that the energy problem was a failure to renew nuclear at an earlier date.
This is complete nonsense, as the unit cost of nuclear to consumers is way above the cost of renewable generation.
Anyone arguing for a windfall tax does not understand how the energy economy works, and what the relationship is between that business model and the relief of fuel poverty.
I have yet to hear anyone joining the dots to connect such a tax with a price cap.......until they do, they should be regarded with some skepticism.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
The energy savings and returns over time would have been a huge step in the right direction with a fairly low tech solution
-
the issue is the need for a price cap.
Allowing prices to rise (now on a more frequent basis) amplifies fuel poverty as a part of the cost of living increase.
Taking a percentage of excess profit back (via a windfall tax for example) is better than nothing if that money is directed to those in need, but it normalises rising cost of energy in the wider economy.
This is undesirable, and does not change the way the energy economy operates.
The creation of profit to shareholders, and the inflation of stock equity to boost dividends, remains the goal of the sector.
I heard Truss on R4 saying that the energy problem was a failure to renew nuclear at an earlier date.
This is complete nonsense, as the unit cost of nuclear to consumers is way above the cost of renewable generation.
Anyone arguing for a windfall tax does not understand how the energy economy works, and what the relationship is between that business model and the relief of fuel poverty.
I have yet to hear anyone joining the dots to connect such a tax with a price cap.......until they do, they should be regarded with some skepticism.
I wouldn't think those arguing for a windfall tax are suggesting it's the solution Albie but part of a mix of measures that need to be addressed. The government wringing it's hands and posting hutjob ideas shows that it cannot deal with more than a single issue at any one time. #10 led by johnson is acting as a drunk on a bender thrashing around without any long term well thought out permanent solutions to anything is not serving the country well.
Insulating homes.
Windfall tax on fossil fuel companies.
Expansion of heat pump subsidies.
Expansion of renewable energy solutions.
Overhaul of the retail energy supply.
All the above and more should have been well advanced by now and not just to solve the immediate crisis.
-
It amused me to hear Johnson proclaim, Labour failed to invest in nuclear!
... How long have the Tories been in power? And how expensive is nuclear energy?
I can tell you now this shining fleet of new nuclear power stations he's promising is about as likely to arrive as a new airport in the Thames or a road bridge to Northern Ireland.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
From the master of cheap shots lol!
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
From the master of cheap shots lol!
I am way behind you and him though.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
From the master of cheap shots lol!
It wasn't a cheap shot. It was an evidence based observation. Hound has somewhere picked up information which superficially implies that the Tories have done a fine job, when the truth is very different. It's not a cheap shot to point out that he seems to have been misled by that.
-
Interesting numbers there from Hound. They really make the point.
The Labour Govt made a big move towards encouraging insulation from 2007. That was hard wired in for the first few months of the Tory Govt. Between 2008 and 2012, the numbers if houses with adequate loft insulation rose from 21% to 34%. Then, under Austerity, the Tories cut the funding. Over the next 8 years, the rate of increase collapsed, so that it only hit 39% by 2020..
This is a regular con by the Tories. Choose the start date so they get credit for policies they opposed and then cut. It's obviously working on Hound.
If we'd carried on at the 2008-12 rate, there'd now be 85% of homes with adequate loft insulation. Yes it would have cost a lot. But it would also have put people to work during the worst decade of economic growth in 200 years. And we'd be in a far better position now, with the majority of homes using less energy on heating day in, day out.
Another cheap shot at me in that post by bst who has the nerve to call other posters out for doing the same thing. Hypocrite.
From the master of cheap shots lol!
It wasn't a cheap shot. It was an evidence based observation. Hound has somewhere picked up information which superficially implies that the Tories have done a fine job, when the truth is very different. It's not a cheap shot to point out that he seems to have been misled by that.
It’s only a cheap shot if you post it
-
By the way.
Chart G on page 19 of this report (page 22 of the pdf) is the Govt's own summary.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970064/Detailed_Release_-_HEE_stats_18_Mar_2021_FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiD0-7fmOv3AhWIQkEAHewIDNgQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw157XIT2I9M7QFulKJAuZC6
Absolutely shameful.
-
Back to the OP. We don’t have to re-nationalise but we can force the hand of the energy companies through OFGEM.
Example; why are we as individuals being offered loan facilities to pay bills? Get the energy companies to borrow from the government instead (cheaply and on soft terms) to fund energy costs so that consumer bills can be capped.
Ah, I hear you say, but then the energy companies won’t invest in the necessary infrastructure. Nonsense. And if they don’t then get the government to invest and lease the infrastructure to the energy companies.
If I were running an energy company, I’d be pleading with government to come up with a joint plan. Because, if not, then by Spring next year I’ll be facing the same reputational damage that the banks suffered in the banking crisis.
There are plenty of levers to pull here but the government, through OFGEM, seems intent on doing nothing and leaving it in the lap of the consumer.
-
It amused me to hear Johnson proclaim, Labour failed to invest in nuclear!
... How long have the Tories been in power? And how expensive is nuclear energy?
I can tell you now this shining fleet of new nuclear power stations he's promising is about as likely to arrive as a new airport in the Thames or a road bridge to Northern Ireland.
For all of his failings Johnson does have some merit in this statement, Labour did neglect to invest in new nuclear power, if it had done so we would now have new functioning power stations coming on line, the lead in time for a typical nuclear power station can be anything between 5 to 10 years or more, this additional boost to the energy baseline would of given us valuable breathing space now in an energy crisis. The fact you say its expensive fails to stand up when you factor in how much we are paying for our energy now and also any further energy inflation which could become horrendous if the market conditions continue to degrade.
The issue now is that the tories also failed to invest in nuclear, any semblance of an integrated energy policy is nowhere to be seen, action, even now will still not see us profit from it for another decade or so. All this lost time will and has come back to haunt us now, in future it will become even worse
Id of liked to have seen some movement from the government to sponsor the development of the RR type mini reactors, what they have agreed to do now is very little very late. Our kids and grand-kids will pay dearly for this lack of joined up thinking by governments of either nomination.
-
Nuclear energy, any type of energy cannot compete against renewables,
especially solar panels
''Solar costs have fallen 82% since 2010
The levelized cost of energy generated by large scale solar plants is around $0.068/kWh, compared to $0.378 ten years ago and the price fell 13.1% between 2018 and last year alone, according to figures released by the International Renewable Energy Agency''
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/#:~:text=The%20levelized%20cost%20of%20energy,the%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency.
-
It amused me to hear Johnson proclaim, Labour failed to invest in nuclear!
... How long have the Tories been in power? And how expensive is nuclear energy?
I can tell you now this shining fleet of new nuclear power stations he's promising is about as likely to arrive as a new airport in the Thames or a road bridge to Northern Ireland.
For all of his failings Johnson does have some merit in this statement, Labour did neglect to invest in new nuclear power, if it had done so we would now have new functioning power stations coming on line, the lead in time for a typical nuclear power station can be anything between 5 to 10 years or more, this additional boost to the energy baseline would of given us valuable breathing space now in an energy crisis. The fact you say its expensive fails to stand up when you factor in how much we are paying for our energy now and also any further energy inflation which could become horrendous if the market conditions continue to degrade.
The issue now is that the tories also failed to invest in nuclear, any semblance of an integrated energy policy is nowhere to be seen, action, even now will still not see us profit from it for another decade or so. All this lost time will and has come back to haunt us now, in future it will become even worse
Id of liked to have seen some movement from the government to sponsor the development of the RR type mini reactors, what they have agreed to do now is very little very late. Our kids and grand-kids will pay dearly for this lack of joined up thinking by governments of either nomination.
Labour did fail to invest in nuclear but after a decade and more so have the Tories. So it is a bit rich of Johnson to call Labour out on this.
Particularly when the one nuclear project they have got off the ground after promising 8, is turning out to be so expensive.
-
Is that Johnson playing at being Captain Hindsight?
-
Nuclear energy, any type of energy cannot compete against renewables,
especially solar panels
''Solar costs have fallen 82% since 2010
The levelized cost of energy generated by large scale solar plants is around $0.068/kWh, compared to $0.378 ten years ago and the price fell 13.1% between 2018 and last year alone, according to figures released by the International Renewable Energy Agency''
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/#:~:text=The%20levelized%20cost%20of%20energy,the%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency.
More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.
Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.
-
From someone that doesn't know where it rains, I'll take your criticism with a pinch of salt DD
PS I hope you have the fully costed the disposal for your radioactive waste in your junior high math.
-
From someone that doesn't know where it rains, I'll take your criticism with a pinch of salt DD
PS I hope you have the fully costed the disposal for your radioactive waste in your junior high math.
Would that be the same costings you have allowed for the renewal of the generating panels and turbines over the same life cycle of a nuclear reactor, something like 4 to 1 I'd say at a conservative estimate.
Or are you also working off your primary school math?
-
Ah, there you are I though you'd like to expand on the mining and refining of uranium but you may have to take off your shoes and socks.
Any rime you want to publish the two sets of costs and factor in the time in take to build a nuclear power station I'll be ready to receive your argument
Nuclear against solar, off you go little fella
-
From someone that doesn't know where it rains, I'll take your criticism with a pinch of salt DD
PS I hope you have the fully costed the disposal for your radioactive waste in your junior high math.
My junior high math also tells me that the new reactors that will come online will be able to recycle the majority of the spent fuel.Did you factor that into your calculation?
-
The challenge is posted above, add in what you wish please ensure it's all there.
-
Here you go, have a read while I make a cuppa
''Solar Power VS Nuclear Power -Which is better?''
https://gienergy.com.au/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power-which-is-better/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A%20Nuclear%20Power%20is%20nearly,a%20cost%20per%20KW%20basis.
-
The challenge is posted above, add in what you wish please ensure it's all there.
No government in the world that has any semblance of competence would ever plan an integrated energy policy that relied on renewables as its primary baseline energy source. Not in our lifetime.
For somebody that professors to know the price of everything but the cost of nothing you don't do answers do you?
-
Is this gunner DD I wuz genner go to Australia but ........... but ...........
Keep your childish insults and stick to the costsings
-
Is this gunner DD I wuz genner go to Australia but ........... but ...........
Keep your childish insults and stick to the costsings
Take the kid out of Donny but you can't take Donny out of the kid.
Poor.
-
Here you go, have a read while I make a cuppa
''Solar Power VS Nuclear Power -Which is better?''
https://gienergy.com.au/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power-which-is-better/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A%20Nuclear%20Power%20is%20nearly,a%20cost%20per%20KW%20basis.
when you've read it let me know where you would put your money
-
Here you go, have a read while I make a cuppa
''Solar Power VS Nuclear Power -Which is better?''
https://gienergy.com.au/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power-which-is-better/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A%20Nuclear%20Power%20is%20nearly,a%20cost%20per%20KW%20basis.
when you've read it let me know where you would put your money
The text is nearly as blinkered as you, in all its conclusions its comparing apples with pears, it hasn't told me, and nether have you , what you are going to use as your primary base load when this system is not able to.More importantly how much is the backup system going to coast to be on standby for this system that is inefficient for a good part of a day and will become even more inefficient as the panels start to decay?
-
Here you go, have a read while I make a cuppa
''Solar Power VS Nuclear Power -Which is better?''
https://gienergy.com.au/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power-which-is-better/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A%20Nuclear%20Power%20is%20nearly,a%20cost%20per%20KW%20basis.
when you've read it let me know where you would put your money
The text is nearly as blinkered as you, in all its conclusions its comparing apples with pears, it hasn't told me, and nether have you , what you are going to use as your primary base load when this system is not able to.More importantly how much is the backup system going to coast to be on standby for this system that is inefficient for a good part of a day and will become even more inefficient as the panels start to decay?
Point by point, list your argument and explain why. If you want to back up what you said earlier I want to your argument and some supporting data, do you think you're the first person to debate this?
-
Here you go, have a read while I make a cuppa
''Solar Power VS Nuclear Power -Which is better?''
https://gienergy.com.au/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power-which-is-better/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A%20Nuclear%20Power%20is%20nearly,a%20cost%20per%20KW%20basis.
when you've read it let me know where you would put your money
The text is nearly as blinkered as you, in all its conclusions its comparing apples with pears, it hasn't told me, and nether have you , what you are going to use as your primary base load when this system is not able to.More importantly how much is the backup system going to coast to be on standby for this system that is inefficient for a good part of a day and will become even more inefficient as the panels start to decay?
Point by point, list your argument and explain why. If you want to back up what you said earlier I want to your argument and some supporting data, do you think you're the first person to debate this?
So you wish me to back up and explain my points for you to reply to me but you don't offer me the courtesy to answer any of the points i have made be it because you don't want to or it doesn't suit your narrative?
Do one fella.
-
Nuclear energy, any type of energy cannot compete against renewables,
especially solar panels
''Solar costs have fallen 82% since 2010
The levelized cost of energy generated by large scale solar plants is around $0.068/kWh, compared to $0.378 ten years ago and the price fell 13.1% between 2018 and last year alone, according to figures released by the International Renewable Energy Agency''
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/#:~:text=The%20levelized%20cost%20of%20energy,the%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency.
More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.
Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.
All I want you to do is explain and prove your argument with supporting data, nothing more.
-
The windfall tax proposal does not commit to HOW that money would be spent.
This is crucial, because it is not just low income families in the firing line.
Take manufacturers for whom energy is a high proportion of business costs.
If prices continue to rise, then they will be at a serious disadvantage to producers in a country like France, where a 4% price cap is in place.
This mistake has a multiplier effect within the wider economy. Other cost of living increases come on the back of this competitive disadvantage, so the unaffordability gap is widened.
The idea that prices will be allowed to increase without a ceiling limit comparable to European neighbours is simply economically illiterate. Neither the Tories nor Labour have shown any understanding of this, and Ofgem have not taken this into account.
Syd/DD,
The issue of future energy sources is likely to follow the declining cost curve profile of the renewables.
This is not really a matter of opinion any more, as we have good data to inform the debate.
Other options, such as nuclear, are only able to secure project finance from state agencies. Very difficult to see private investment choosing nuclear without a guarantee of return on investment, which means much higher prices to consumers per unit.
Labour are supporting Sizewell C, which is very expensive and will displace other options (like heat pumps and insulation) as a result.
Bringing in a one off windfall tax, while leaving the National Grid in the private sector is ignorant nonsense.
There is little understanding of the distinction between infrastructure provision and energy supply services.
Best general summary with graphics is here, for those who like more detail;
https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1493906926907924481
-
R4 last night. A Tory minister was being quizzed on why they won't back a Windfall Tax.
He said that of course Labour support a the tax because they always want to take away money from people and companies that have worked hard to make it.
Which is an odd argument if you think about it. BP isn't making obscene profits this year because they have worked really, really hard. It is because there is a global shortfall of their product because of a war. So, without doing anything, the price that they can charge to consumers has gone through the roof.
The logic is so, so simple. But once again, as so many times before, we get a Tory assuming that the population is so thick, they won't notice when he ignores that and talks utter b*llocks to make a party political point.
-
I think solar has been improving in efficiency at an average of around at 0.5% per year for quite a while with the price drop massive, totally agree with the finance bit for nuclear Albie.
-
I listened to johnson the dispatch box from yesterday and that's all he had, labour want to increase tax, wash rinse repeat.
-
And this for nuclear waste
''The UK government is working with technical specialists, local communities and regulators to find a safe disposal route for HLW. The preferred option for managing HLW is ‘geological disposal’. This involves placing packaged radioactive waste in an engineered, underground facility or ‘repository’. The geology (rock structure) provides a barrier against the escape of radioactivity. There is no intention to retrieve the waste once the facility is closed. Radioactive Waste Management Limited (a subsidiary of the NDA) is responsible for implementing the long-term solution for managing Higher Activity Wastes in England and Wales. The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Scottish Government are responsible for developing policies for managing these wastes safely''
It has not yet been worked out!!!
https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/about-radioactive-waste/how-do-we-manage-radioactive-waste/#:~:text=Most%20Low%20Level%20Waste%20(LLW,concrete%20lined%2C%20highly%20engineered%20vaults.
I have my suspicions that the libs in Oz have manufactured a fight with china so they can go with the nuclear option subs, big mining here want and the right want to exploit the uranium mining and expand the industry for waste too. I'm betting some time in the future (atm we only have a rough sketch of a sub to wave at china) they will want to process the waste from the subs here.
-
Which again shows you the DoubleSpeak world we now inhabit.
Claim: The Tories are the party of low taxation
Fact: Our national tax bill as a % of GDP is higher than it ever was under Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown.
-
Which again shows you the DoubleSpeak world we now inhabit.
Claim: The Tories are the party of low taxation
Fact: Our national tax bill as a % of GDP is higher than it ever was under Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown.
Yep, Starmer couldn't go down the rabbit hole and say all that because that's what johnson would have wanted, to stop chewing out over the cost of living.
-
The windfall tax proposal does not commit to HOW that money would be spent.
This is crucial, because it is not just low income families in the firing line.
Take manufacturers for whom energy is a high proportion of business costs.
If prices continue to rise, then they will be at a serious disadvantage to producers in a country like France, where a 4% price cap is in place.
This mistake has a multiplier effect within the wider economy. Other cost of living increases come on the back of this competitive disadvantage, so the unaffordability gap is widened.
The idea that prices will be allowed to increase without a ceiling limit comparable to European neighbours is simply economically illiterate. Neither the Tories nor Labour have shown any understanding of this, and Ofgem have not taken this into account.
Syd/DD,
The issue of future energy sources is likely to follow the declining cost curve profile of the renewables.
This is not really a matter of opinion any more, as we have good data to inform the debate.
Other options, such as nuclear, are only able to secure project finance from state agencies. Very difficult to see private investment choosing nuclear without a guarantee of return on investment, which means much higher prices to consumers per unit.
Labour are supporting Sizewell C, which is very expensive and will displace other options (like heat pumps and insulation) as a result.
Bringing in a one off windfall tax, while leaving the National Grid in the private sector is ignorant nonsense.
There is little understanding of the distinction between infrastructure provision and energy supply services.
Best general summary with graphics is here, for those who like more detail;
https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1493906926907924481
I agree with your point that the way this government is hoping to lighten the load is going to be ineffective at best.Some targeted help is not out of the question here, it needs to be thought through and implemented, it looks like a sizable percentage could suffer quite badly this next winter.
With regards to the nuclear issue, i appreciate that the way is now being created for renewables to take on the bulk of our future energy requirements and that zero emission alternatives will be required in the future.
The point i was trying to make was that renewables will require a zero emission backup until such a time exists that we don't need it, this cannot be any carbon based alternative so at this time it can only be nuclear power?
-
dd-
''The point i was trying to make was that renewables will require a zero emission backup until such a time exists that we don't need it, this cannot be any carbon based alternative so at this time it can only be nuclear power?''
well maybe you should have said that instead of this and stop being a complete dick.
''More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.
Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.
-
dd-
''The point i was trying to make was that renewables will require a zero emission backup until such a time exists that we don't need it, this cannot be any carbon based alternative so at this time it can only be nuclear power?''
well maybe you should have said that instead of this and stop being a complete dick.
''More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.
Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.
Cry me a river,
Now do one, again.
-
What is it about Alliterative Argumentative Arses in here?
-
You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.
It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.
-
:thumbsup:
You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.
It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.
So this is what it comes down to if anyone challenges your comment and is correct you revert back to foetus status and sling mud cos you're wrong, what a waste education was for you. You cannot have a debate with someone that has different values.
-
And right on cue
''UK nuclear power stations’ decommissioning cost soars to £23.5bn
Failures in government’s investment strategy mean taxpayer has contributed £10.7bn in just two years''
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/20/uk-nuclear-power-stations-decommissioning-cost
-
:thumbsup:You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.
It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.
So this is what it comes down to if anyone challenges your comment and is correct you revert back to foetus status and sling mud cos you're wrong, what a waste education was for you. You cannot have a debate with someone that has different values.
Jeez Syd, that statement could have been written by plenty of others about you cobber.
Glass houses etc.
-
But facts are facts irrespective of whether or not some folk can't see objective truth.
BobG
-
Hinckley Point falls another year behind schedule, and costs rise again way beyond the initial forecast.
https://www.egi.co.uk/news/hinckley-point-c-costs-rise-by-another-3bn/
Nuclear is a fool's investment that is high on cost and always subject to delays in delivery.
Which makes the position of Labour beyond all understanding.
In favour of a one off windfall tax, despite knowing that a further increase in prices is due in October, on the grounds of helping the vulnerable with the cost of living emergency.
At the same time, in favour of Sizewell C, which will repeat the Hinckley fiasco, cost at least 4x as much as a renewable solution (and that cost difference will increase).
The nuclear option will hard wire high energy costs into consumer bills, because of the new RAB funding mechanism passing those costs to consumers. Under the strike price for nuclear at Hinckley, the "contracts for difference" finance auction left EDF France with the infrastructure bill.
So against high bills for consumers, but no price cap to prevent them, and support for the most ruinous expensive electricity supply option.........it makes no sense at all, Rachel Reeves!
-
As i understand it EDF pick up the bill for the overspend
-
RR,
Yes, that's correct for Hinckley.
That is why the Tories have changed the rules so that consumers will pick up the bill in future for Sizewell C and others.
This is about liability for the infrastructure cost.
There is a second consideration in the cost of electricity per unit produced by the facility.
High prices for nuclear leccy are required to give return on investment for private capital.
The same unit of leccy produced from renewables is way cheaper, so that can be reflected in bills.
Why Labour can't understand this is a mystery!
-
But facts are facts irrespective of whether or not some folk can't see objective truth.
BobG
Bob,
Can you tell me where in the quote below i have offended facts or objective truth?
Quote from: SydneyRover on May 19, 2022, 02:22:36 pm
dd-
''The point i was trying to make was that renewables will require a zero emission backup until such a time exists that we don't need it, this cannot be any carbon based alternative so at this time it can only be nuclear power?''
well maybe you should have said that instead of this and stop being a complete dick.
''More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.
Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.