help us by a power station !!

[Adam W.]

We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.

More of a Doh! than anything else.

 

[Jacob]

No company is going to build new nuclear plants for free - it is simply a matter of who pays - consumers of electricity, taxpayers through higher taxes, or the magic money tree.

Despite the superficial attractiveness of the last option, I suspect the first has a degree of logic to it - those who use most pay most.

A lot more logic in making those who own most also pay most

 

[Woody2Shoes]

We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.

Fracking in the UK was never going to make any sense, geologically, economically or environmentally. Thankfully, that ship has sailed never to return.
We have access to world class wind and tidal resources, which we should have been much more actively exploiting before now.
We are maxed out on hydro, through lack of geography - much of our existing hydro is used as a form of energy storage 'pumped hydro'.
Successive governments have failed to plan properly, and OFGEM the regulator is not fit for purpose.
While electricity is only a part of our energy mix, there is cause for optimism - current demand just short of 39GW:

Wind

12400 MW

(32.0%)

Gas

10400 MW

(26.9%)

Nuclear

5200 MW

(13.5%)

Biomass

2900 MW

(17.5%)

France

1700 MW

(4.4%)

Netherlands

1100 MW

(2.7%)

Coal

980 MW

(2.5%)

Belgium

970 MW

(25%)

Storage

850 MW

(2.2%)

Hydro

730 MW

(1.9%)

Norway

690 MW

(1.8%)

Solar

510 MW

(1,3%)

Other

270 MW

(0.7%)

N. Ireland

14 MW

(00%)

Ireland

0 MW

(0.0%)

Oil

0 MW

(0.0%)

Updated 04/02/2022 09:05

 

[RobinBHM]

Fracking in the UK was never going to make any sense, geologically, economically or environmentally.

Does that depend on what we compare it to?

the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns

Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option

 

[clogs]

a little bit of everything is the way to go...
ie wind , solar etc.....
we def need to get away from PUTINS gas supply tho....make him snort the stuff....
anything that makes elec wholesale should be VAT free and also domestic solar panels.....
esp RESEARCH into/on that subject.....

bit a bit less money for cake a coissonts at number 10 tho....
or is it Moet and olives.....

Actually having somebody at the helm that actually knows about the subject would be a great help.....
not some no nothing silly person in a suit taking bribes....
we've got the brains (men in sheds) but not the inclination from industry, thats because they are happy with what they have...
Large bills and inflation don't afect them.....
what we really need is for 50%of the pop go out and buy their own solar elec system and go off grid....
that might wake a few up.....
cos I'm giving it more thought everyday.....

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Does that depend on what we compare it to?

the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns

Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option

Compared to importing it from countries that can produce it in much greater volumes than we ever could, with expenditure of much less resource overall, with much less additional environmental damage.

The marginal cost of production of Saudi oil is around $5 per barrel - the onshore southern UK equivalent marginal cost of production (from "tight oil" deposits - got by "fracking" - just like the oil Bakken in the US, but orders of magnitude smaller!) is probably around $70-90 per barrel. Even if we were to go all out for it, with massive investment, the production volumes would not make any significant contribution to overall UK supply and we would be swimming against the tide in any event.

Saying we should use a lot of (imported, for the most part) diesel/steel/gas to get a trivially small amount of (certainly in the south of England) oil not gas - rather than importing it from somewhere it can be produced much more economically - is a bit like saying that just because we technically can grow bananas in the UK, we should do that in preference to importing them from countries with a more appropriate climate (for the time being!). Sheik Yamani said something along the same lines as "let the lowest cost producers do just that".

We are very far from being self-sufficient in food, and yet nobody's making any serious argument that we should bulldoze the place to grow significantly more of our own food (bananas or anything else)...

The truth is that we can and must wean ourselves off fossil fuels as soon as possible, and that takes political will which is sadly lacking (partly because the vested interests have such powerful lobbying capabilities - have you noticed the publicity campaigns [funded by middle eastern interests] trying to convince us all of the merits of "blue" hydrogen?).

We have most of the technology already - we should have upgraded our existing housing stock already, for example - it is quite possible to engineer housing that doesn't need heating/cooling (certainly not to the painful extent as currently) - again, powerful lobby groups have averted government action for too long.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Does that depend on what we compare it to?

the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns

Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option

It doesn't make sense geologically, because in the Sussex weald, what there is is mostly oil (the geology is not sufficiently 'thermally mature' to have produced much gas) - this is something that was conveniently glossed over by the would-be frackers, because gas sounds slightly better than oil environmentally speaking. The truth is that they were after oil, because it's much more profitable, and at the time oil prices were about $100 per barrel.

The largest producing well in Sussex, from a 'conventional' reservoir, produces a couple of tanker-loads of oil a day - any associated gas is flared off 24/7 (probably wasting enough energy to heat the nearby village of Singleton) because they can't see any incentive to do other wise - bottom left in GE picture below:

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There seem to be (to me anyway) some abundantly clear "truths" in respect of fossil fuels:

• gas, oil, coal are a limited declining resource
• global energy demand is increasing
• only increasing prices will make ever more marginal reserves economic
• neither climate change nor environmental pollution are attractive side effects
• declining North Sea reserves are compromising UK energy security

There is no good case, other than short term expediency, for developing new sources of fossil fuels.

Rapid transition to domestically sustainable green sources is needed. Growth in solar and wind have been good, tidal energy largely forgotten (Severn barrage etc), nuclear woefully slow. Technical issues (energy storage) should be regarded as challenges, not insuperable barriers.

Not a popular sentiment, but energy costs have been far too low and encourage profligacy - 1500kg vehicles for a 75kg occupant, long haul holidays, airfreighted food, replace not repair culture, turn the central heating up rather than wear a vest etc etc.

Consumption can be be materially reduced with minimal impact on quality of life. Regulation has been limited - eg: minimum standards for new developments need to be higher and rigorously enforced. Solutions have mainly been market driven - higher energy costs will drive innovation, behaviour changes and investment.

 

[joethedrummer]

@joethedrummer This is a much help as I can give you. you don't own a whole powerstation but you do own a bit of one

https://rippleenergy.com/how-it-works

,,thanks,, thinking a bit more,, didn,t we used to own the power stations,?,,

 

[clogs]

Woody 2 shoes....
Sheik Yamani....is that a bit like shake yer money....hahaha....
sorry my sence of humor is a bit weird...
Problem for most is old housing stock.....even the newer houses are pants really....
it's not like we can knock em down and build something better....
thats if u can find a decent builder with high standards.....the big three need not apply.....

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Woody 2 shoes....
Sheik Yamani....is that a bit like shake yer money....hahaha....
sorry my sence of humor is a bit weird...
Problem for most is old housing stock.....even the newer houses are pants really....
it's not like we can knock em down and build something better....
thats if u can find a decent builder with high standards.....the big three need not apply.....

Yes, the vast bulk of our housing stock was built pre-war, but it could still be made much more energy efficient, with a bit of imagination and leadership from those in power (I know, I know....). Think how many jobs could be/have been created.
For new builds, the only reason that building regs aren't tougher (and aren't enforced - remember Grenfell etc.) is because of lobbying by the powerful vested interests of the building industry, who value gross profit over everything else.

 

[Jameshow]

We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.

Not to mention coal and gas!
Which China, Germany, Romanian etc are still digging up by the dumper load!!

Thanks Maggie!!

 

[Spectric]

Yes, the vast bulk of our housing stock was built pre-war, but it could still be made much more energy efficient

And they are still building to outdated specs now, if they were serious they would have ensured all modern housing was built to standards fit for the future and not be bending over backwards to the property developers.

 

[doctor Bob]

A lot more logic in making those own most pay most

never works.

 

[woodieallen]

Cancel the build of just two nuclear power stations and invest in tidal energy generation, after all we are an island nation.

Until you posted this, I'd not really given tidal power much thought. But it doesn't take long for Miss Google to deliver the goods.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/uk-tidal-development/
It's a no-brainer apart from maybe upsetting vegans as the blades chomp up the marine life.

That and an inept Govt.

 

[woodieallen]

Suddenly a water turbine in my stream looks attractive.

 

[Morty]

To clarify, a water melon is green on the outside and red on the inside

 

[Jonm]

making the global economy unstable by provoking a big super power !

Presumably you are referring to Russia. Their gdp is 11th in the world at 1.6 trillion USD. Compared to USA at 19.5 and UK at 2.7.

Combined GDP of NATO 42.4 trillion USD.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

 

[Woody2Shoes]

To clarify, a water melon is green on the outside and red on the inside

What a valuable contribution to the discussion...

 

[Persephone]

We have lived in a flat in the city centre for almost 25 years. It's a warehouse conversion managed by a housing association - it was the only way we could live in the city back then - but it has appalling heat retention. It doesn't have a cavity wall or insulation. A few years ago they fitted secondary glazing in front of ill fitting windy sash windows. This stopped most of the draught but also seemed to make the place very damp and it's actually colder than it used to be. At several points on the external walls there is cold bridging and anything placed there becomes mouldy. Heating is from one storage heater and a convector heater. Rent is £600 a month for a small flat. Welcome to 21st century social housing!
Last year our electricity bill soared from an average of £200 a quarter to £450+. Now we pay monthly and provide meter readings. For months we have not had any heating on and make sure the water heater is on only at night (and take cold showers when we've forgotten to switch it on - the timer isn't reliable). Our bills over the past three months have remained around £450 for the quarter. I wonder how high they would have been had we put the heating on?!
We are not poor and have relatively well paid jobs. We also have substantial savings. We are fortunate that in two weeks we will have the keys to our new home (a nice 1939 semi in the suburbs). However, the flat illustrates the problem with much British housing stock - it requires a lot of heating to make it habitable.
The house we are moving to is not on a North-South axis so solar panels won't be particularly effective. It also has a hipped gable reducing usable roof area. But given my experience of the price hike in electricity over the past six months and now the raising of the energy price cap is set to raise prices further I wonder what the best option for the average homeowner would be? And my experience as a tenant demonstrates you need to be a homeowner to make any positive changes to your home.
It is clearly problematic to rely on power generation that's fed from the resources of another state. As most British housing stock isn't energy efficient prices need to be cheap enough for people to afford to heat them - without heat the houses will begin to deteriorate. I'm not advocating a state hand out. It's apparent that the UK needs to be self sufficient in energy production. Nuclear power is not a quick option and while I wish we had more nuclear power stations it will take too long for any new ones to impact the immediate crisis. However, we are sitting on around 100 years' worth of coal. Yes, I know it's a fossil fuel, but having looked at how efficient combi boilers have become I wonder if we can't make clean and efficient coal fired power station. This would put us on for a few years while we develop renewable sources such as water, wind, solar, ground heat, etc.
In the immediate future the government could scrap the green levy applied to energy bills.
Anyway, rant over!