Energy costs

[Deafhead]

45 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

 

Nice prambulator, rubbing along tidy Now?

Still digging holes and felling conifers, my brother in law followed your line of work with Seer TV until Hepatitis knocked it on the head.

[coppice cutter]

3 hours ago, eggsarascal said:

Should we be fracking?

We are surrounded by never ending supplies of energy, energy which will never fail for as long as the sun shines.

 

Are we really collectively so gormless that instead of using it, in some form or another, that we have to wring every last finite resource out of the earth instead?

 

A requirement for fracking suggests that the answer is yes.

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

We are surrounded by never ending supplies of energy, energy which will never fail for as long as the sun shines.

 

Are we really collectively so gormless that instead of using it, in some form or another, that we have to wring every last finite resource out of the earth instead?

 

A requirement for fracking suggests that the answer is yes.

So it's nuclear then?

[coppice cutter]

29 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

It's expensive to set up, like wind and solar, it sounds good but for many months provides very little.

I believe a bigger issue with tidal is that you have slack water on average four times per day.

 

So while tides may be constant, it would take a series of them all along an area of coastline to provide anything approaching a practical supply.

[coppice cutter]

6 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

So it's nuclear then?

It does indeed seem to be the only way which will allow society to continue*with the sort of lifestyle which it desires.

 

* - long term that is, even shale gas would run out sometime.

Edited February 6, 2022 by coppice cutter

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

It does indeed seem to be the only way which will allow society to continue with the sort of lifestyle which it desires.

More chance of pissing in the Queens handbag imo, it's our own fossil fuel or we are fecked for the time being.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

More chance of pissing in the Queens handbag imo, it's our own fossil fuel or we are fecked for the time being.

And with an electoral system such as we enjoy - “short term” is all that has / will be considered. 
 

They've all played musical chairs with strategic energy policy over the decades and now the music is about to stop...

 

Pop another log on the fire treacle...

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

And with an electoral system such as we enjoy - “short term” is all that has / will be considered. 
 

They've all played musical chairs with strategic energy policy over the decades and now the music is about to stop...

 

Pop another log on the fire treacle...

Let's get down to the basics, I could go to the cafe with my brother and feed, water us for fifteen quid, it's now over £20, their bills are going up, so they are pushing it on to us. It can't last.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

Let's get down to the basics, I could go to the cafe with my brother and feed, water us for fifteen quid, it's now over £20, their bills are going up, so they are pushing it on to us. It can't last.

No, you’re absolutely right - it’s not just about domestic bills. 
 

EVERYTHING that draws energy in its process is going to be subject to increased cost. 
 

It’s gonna get ugly real quick. 
 

Sunnak’s 200squid off a bill to be repaid over 4 years (or what ever it is he’s conjured up) is poorly considered and a complete farce. 
 

As if energy bills aren’t “user unfriendly” enough already now he’s gone and added another layer of complexity. 
 

 

 

[agg221]

There is a lot of money backing the SMR programme at the moment. This is definitely seen as part of the solution - also because it will create an exportable design which will go some way to addressing the balance of trade deficit which is rising post-Brexit.

 

There is some hope for fusion. It is still a long way away in the scale of our lifetimes, but not in the context of longer-term stability. That's the case on a global basis - less likely to benefit the UK now unfortunately (the UK hosted JET and has played a major role in its successor ITER, but that ended with Brexit due to withdrawal from the Euratom treaty). UKAEA is having a lot of money pumped into it as a competitor to ITER, but that is the UK vs. the World and it isn't anywhere near the same scale.

 

The UK does not have any reliable sources of renewable energy. Wind and solar are unpredictable at best so a storage solution would have to be accepted alongside the generation costs, which is not likely to leave them financially viable. The demand which would be placed on the electricity network if transport goes electric as planned would be unsustainable. There is also a current government exercise underway considering the future of heat. The question being asked is whether in future you will heat your home with electricity or with hydrogen through the gas distribution network. The decision is due to be made in 2025. If the answer is electricity then again, the question will be where is that additional power coming from?

 

Insulation is a good solution in some cases but it leaves many people excluded. It's good because it reduces consumption, meaning there is less impact from increased price. Working from home I get a steady stream of cold calls offering to improve my insulation - 'thatched' and 'grade 2 listed' and they are suddenly not interested and hang up. It's no good coming up with a solution that upgrades most buildings and leaves some out, unless you are prepared to either subsidise energy costs for anyone in a building which cannot be upgraded, cover the costs of demolishing and rebuilding all such buildings (including loss of heritage in many listed buildings and conservation areas) or allow fuel poverty to start killing off pensioners again, as it used to before the introduction of the winter fuel allowance.

 

The UK is set for a period of substantial inflation. This is the quickest and cheapest way to pay for COVID - much like the way your mortgage stops hurting so much once you are some years in because your salary has gone up and the debt hasn't, even if that is just an inflationary rise, the same is true for the COVID debt. The problem becomes if you allow energy costs to rise faster than inflation then they become unaffordable. Small and steady moves over the long term is the best way to implement change, taking a ten to twenty year view, but what government is going to do that when they are looking to be re-elected in no more than five, and then looking to move on personally to lucrative non-exec director roles?

 

The technology is possible, and should be viable, but I fear that politics will delay or crash it - that is what is happening right now.

 

Alec

Edited February 6, 2022 by agg221