Someone once said wind turbines are an eyesore. Now not all agree, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find multiple lanes of parallel roads scaring the countryside, that are harmful to biodiversity, unattractive, as is the monoculture that dominates much of it too.
The argument will be that these are necessary given the volume of traffic and need to feed folk. Similarly though, wind and solar farms are necessary to meet the demand for renewable energy. We need more housing too, and have so many huge distribution centers being built where I am, I've lost count.
All this may be good for the economy, but it comes at a cost in loss of biodiversity in the environment. We're one of the most nature depleted places on the planet. Still, a third runway at Heathrow will do wonders for it and our efforts to reduce emissions, so that's something to look forward to.
None of the above are nice to view.
All are bad for green space, and bad for the wildlife that once lived in those areas.
Roads, runways and additional housing lead to an increase in emissions.
All are the result of an ever increasing population and the need to support that population.
We are moving in ever decreasing circles and that will continue until the concrete jungle is complete.
Until such time that people come to their senses, and identify the core problem, quality of life in the UK will continue to decline for humans and animals alike.
Yes, but if maintaining the same standard of living involves us not changing our patterns of resource consumption, the climate change problems will worsen. We can't have our cake and eat it. Sacrifices must be made.
Even if the world's population was halved from current numbers, those remaining would need to be living closer to carbon neutral lifestyles to slow global warming. And we'd still need to find a way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere if it's concentration was nearing the 450 parts per million tipping point. By my very rough estimation, at current emission rates, that could happen as early as the first half of the 2030's
However, I've been banging the drum on the need for us to lead as individuals for a while now, and accept that it will only take us so far in the fight ahead. For me to carry on posting about it now makes me feel like a one legged duck, going around in circles, so I'll take that as my cue to duck out of it.
Someone once said wind turbines are an eyesore. Now not all agree, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find multiple lanes of parallel roads scaring the countryside, that are harmful to biodiversity, unattractive, as is the monoculture that dominates much of it too.
The argument will be that these are necessary given the volume of traffic and need to feed folk. Similarly though, wind and solar farms are necessary to meet the demand for renewable energy. We need more housing too, and have so many huge distribution centers being built where I am, I've lost count.
All this may be good for the economy, but it comes at a cost in loss of biodiversity in the environment. We're one of the most nature depleted places on the planet. Still, a third runway at Heathrow will do wonders for it and our efforts to reduce emissions, so that's something to look forward to.
None of the above are nice to view.
All are bad for green space, and bad for the wildlife that once lived in those areas.
Roads, runways and additional housing lead to an increase in emissions.
All are the result of an ever increasing population and the need to support that population.
We are moving in ever decreasing circles and that will continue until the concrete jungle is complete.
Until such time that people come to their senses, and identify the core problem, quality of life in the UK will continue to decline for humans and animals alike.
Yes, but if maintaining the same standard of living involves us not changing our patterns of resource consumption, the climate change problems will worsen. We can't have our cake and eat it. Sacrifices must be made.
Even if the world's population was halved from current numbers, those remaining would need to be living closer to carbon neutral lifestyles to slow global warming. And we'd still need to find a way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere if it's concentration was nearing the 450 parts per million tipping point. By my very rough estimation, at current emission rates, that could happen as early as the first half of the 2030's
However, I've been banging the drum on the need for us to lead as individuals for a while now, and accept that it will only take us so far in the fight ahead. For me to carry on posting about it now makes me feel like a one legged duck, going around in circles, so I'll take that as my cue to duck out of it.
That's a great shame. Thanks for engaging in respectful, meaningful debate and for the educational links posted, from which I for one, learned a lot.
This guy you mean? Bet Nige is a bit put out especially after the inauguration snub .
Donnys just playing with him mate as well you know. He wont forget what the lame pricks said about him. Or thats stupid over sized effigy that thick prick Khan did.
Khan didn't make the effigy ffs. He approved it to be flown (it was hilariously small) then approved one of himself to be flown due to some snowflakes getting their knickers in a twist about the Trump one.
What a time to be alive! 😵💫
How childish for a Mayor of London to be so disrespectful to the leader of a major ally.
Surely as a believer in free speech, you agree with the right to peaceful protest?
Sure he has the right. But it was a stupid childish thing to do. As has now been proved. Turns out that the majority of Americans came to that conclusion as well.
Good luck to the Mayor in any future negotiations with the USA !
It wasn’t his protest though, he just approved it. What’s the alternative, refuse it and limit free speech?
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
Fossil fuels are finite resources and will run out eventually. Those that remain will become harder to extract and therefore more expensive.
It therefore makes sense to move to cheaper renewables as quickly as we can.
Fossil fuels are not going to run out anytime soon; and most of the ‘renewables’ and probably all of the ones the UK can/is putting in place are not cheaper which is why moving to them as quickly as we can isn’t going to happen.
This guy you mean? Bet Nige is a bit put out especially after the inauguration snub .
Donnys just playing with him mate as well you know. He wont forget what the lame pricks said about him. Or thats stupid over sized effigy that thick prick Khan did.
Khan didn't make the effigy ffs. He approved it to be flown (it was hilariously small) then approved one of himself to be flown due to some snowflakes getting their knickers in a twist about the Trump one.
What a time to be alive! 😵💫
How childish for a Mayor of London to be so disrespectful to the leader of a major ally.
Surely as a believer in free speech, you agree with the right to peaceful protest?
Sure he has the right. But it was a stupid childish thing to do. As has now been proved. Turns out that the majority of Americans came to that conclusion as well.
Good luck to the Mayor in any future negotiations with the USA !
It wasn’t his protest though, he just approved it. What’s the alternative, refuse it and limit free speech?
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
I hope your 'ducking out' is only temporary @swordfish. You've consistently posted interesting and informative posts here. Your contribution will be well missed.
I think it's also important that there are people like you who are trying their best the walk the walk as an inspiration to those of use who just yackety yak.
Fossil fuels are finite resources and will run out eventually. Those that remain will become harder to extract and therefore more expensive.
It therefore makes sense to move to cheaper renewables as quickly as we can.
Fossil fuels are not going to run out anytime soon; and most of the ‘renewables’ and probably all of the ones the UK can/is putting in place are not cheaper which is why moving to them as quickly as we can isn’t going to happen.
It depends on what you regard as "soon".
Coal is predicted to last: ~100–150 years. Coal has the largest reserves and may last into the 22nd century, depending on demand and technological developments. So coal is likely to be depleted within 4-6 generations. Or, roughly as far into the future as Charlton's existence stretched back to the past.
Natural Gas is predicted to last: ~50–60 years. Reserves could run out by the 2080s, assuming no major increases in usage or discoveries. So, for anyone for whom Derek Hales remains sharp in the memory, that's how long Natural Gas has left.
Oil is predicted to last: ~50 years. Oil reserves may deplete by the 2070s if current usage continues and no new significant reserves are discovered. So, King George VII will have to rely either on renewables or have a coal-fired coronation.
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
Is that just about energy sources or are there wider issues here? Prices are not always comparable across the globe. I'd like to see a full break down of how those prices are arrived at before reading too much into two random energy bills. Land costs? Labour costs? Infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs? Taxes? Subsidies and incentives? Company efficiency? Shareholder skim-off? There are a lot of variables that contribute to those bills.
This article explains why the UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world. I believe it may be behind a paywall, so I have copied much of the article as it so important that everyone understands the arguments for and against a change to renewables. Article was taken from The Independent and was published on 11/01/2025.
A quarter of the UK’s power comes from fossil fuels, namely
gas. The remaining power comes from nuclear (13 per cent), biomass, such as
food and agricultural waste (4 per cent), and around 10 per cent from
interconnections to other countries.
Yet the UK’s reality is far more complicated. There are a
few key reasons for this. The capacity of renewables is still not high enough
to meet all demand.
The high upfront costs of building renewable energy
infrastructure also drive up prices, as businesses recover their investment.
The biggest driver of high electricity prices, however, is
the UK’s marginal pricing model, which means that electricity prices are
mostly dictated by gas prices.
The model means that the price for electricity is based on
the most expensive source which was used to meet energy demand
across the UK, set at intervals of every half hour.
If both gas and renewables have been used in any half-hour
period, the more expensive (gas) price will always be set overall, regardless
of whether renewables made up the larger proportion.
Bob Hope, policy director at the LSE Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, explained to The
Independent: “The cost of generating electricity is different for each
supplier, and so the price the network pays, and then passes on to consumers,
is set by the most expensive of the electricity suppliers that is required to
ensure all of the demand is met. This is the marginal price and every
supplier (whether they are gas or renewable) receives it, regardless of how
much it costs them to supply the electricity.”
As a result, renewable energy sources may be able to
provide electricity at lower cost but are paid the same rates as natural gas.
The UK has had marginal pricing since the late 1980s, when
energy companies were privatised. However, it may no longer be fit for purpose
with the increasing security of renewables.
“The current system does not fully transfer the value of
renewables to consumers,” says Susanna Elks, senior policy adviser at climate
think tank E3G.
In the UK, wholesale gas prices have decreased from their
peak in 2022. But the latest average wholesale price for gas (96.79p/therm in
October) is still over triple the pre-Covid levels, according to Ofgem data
(27.9p/therm in January 2020).
Wholesale electricity prices are 151 per cent higher than
pre-Covid levels, according to Ofgem data, at £88.96/MWh.
In the past decade, renewables have taken over the lion’s
share of the national grid, rising from just 10.7 per cent of UK power in 2014,
to 43.1 percent in September 2024 (the specific mix varies day to day).
However, due to marginal pricing model that sets the price
of electricity at every half hour, gas sets the price around 98 per cent of the
time - according to a 2021 study - even though it only contributed to 40 per
cent of the grid in that year.
Imperial College energy research Ian Staffell, one of the
paper’s authors, says that this is partly down to gas being a more reliable
part of the grid than renewables - a reality influenced by the UK’s
geographical isolation and lack of energy storage.
“It is a lot more expensive for us to build power cables
under the sea, interconnecting to other countries. We can’t trade as much power
with other countries. So when the wind’s not blowing here, we can’t rely on
renewable electricity from abroad, as easily Germany,” Dr Staffell told the
Independent.
“Other countries like France, Norway, they’ve got lots of
energy storage. They can rely on wind and solar energy that they charged up
over the previous days or weeks, while we can’t so much.”
Energy storage is key because it allows cheaper renewable
energy to be saved to meet demand in high-intensity periods or low-wind days,
otherwise gas has to be switched on as part of the equation.
For the first time on record (since 1979), the UK had the
most expensive electricity prices of any member country within the
International Energy Agency, according to latest data published by the
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).
The UK’s domestic energy prices (including taxes) were 72.7
percent above the average for IEA prices in 2023, at 36.4p/kWh compared to an
average of 21.1p/kWh.
The data was not yet available for Australia, Japan and
Denmark.
Zonal pricing
In a review of electricity market arrangements, the
government is considering an alternative model for pricing electricity,
dubbed zonal pricing.
Under this model, different geographical areas of the UK
would be priced independently of each other, meaning that gas-generated power
in one region would not necessarily raise the price of electricity in all
regions.
This would be especially positive for Scotland and the
North of England, which have the highest local wind farm capacity.
The South of England, and in particular London and the
Midlands, have far fewer renewable power plants.
March 2024, some 15.4
GW of energy in Scotland came from renewables. (Equinor) (Equinor)
One argument against zonal pricing points out that it would
create regional disparity in prices, with areas in the South of England more
likely to pay gas-determined prices.
Another concern, raised by ScottishPower boss Keith Anderson, is that such a radical
change will dissuade UK energy investment, as renewables suppliers who are
currently earning gas-led prices would have their income slashed.
“When you look at the investment needed in offshore wind
and onshore wind, saying to people part of the way through that investment that
you’ll flip the entire trading system and pricing mechanism, you run a risk
investment will delay,” said Mr Anderson.
Building new renewable energy projects requires high levels
of upfront capital, so businesses need to be sure they can recoup their
investment; meaning they depend upon stable pricing.
Yet Dr Staffell says that power companies will still turn a
profit without the artificial inflation linked to gas prices.
“Pricing reform would just make everything a bit more
efficient and a bit fairer,” he added.
Most importantly, increasing the UK’s renewable energy
capacity overall will protect consumers from unstable electricity prices, says
climate policy expert Ms Elks.
“Building renewables will reduce our exposure to
international gas price fluctuations. The UK needs to accelerate the roll out
of renewables and transition to electric heating if it is to avoid repeating
the recent gas crisis where bills spiralled, and the Government spent
£40billion subsidising bills,” said Ms Elks.
This is laid out as a priority in the government’s new
Clean Power 2030 Action plan.
“As the electricity system decarbonises, unabated gas
generation is used less often,” reads the document, published in December 2024.
“As we rollout renewables, we will see a significant reduction in wholesale
prices, the foundation for building an energy system that can bring bills down
for good.”
I hope your 'ducking out' is only temporary @swordfish. You've consistently posted interesting and informative posts here. Your contribution will be well missed.
I think it's also important that there are people like you who are trying their best the walk the walk as an inspiration to those of use who just yackety yak.
It is. Rest assured, if it still open, to quote Arnie "I'll be back,' but there are things I want to educate myself about in the meantime before posting without authority on them. The wonders of solar flares and spots and how solar cycles influence the climate, which they do and over which we don't have any control. In the meantime, I'll continue trying to reduce my C02 emissions, and emissions of waffle on here 😉
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
Is that just about energy sources or are there wider issues here? Prices are not always comparable across the globe. I'd like to see a full break down of how those prices are arrived at before reading too much into two random energy bills. Land costs? Labour costs? Infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs? Taxes? Subsidies and incentives? Company efficiency? Shareholder skim-off? There are a lot of variables that contribute to those bills.
The link in my recent post does compare UK pricing with the rest of the world.
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
What is it about "net zero" that you think is making your bills so high? are there any other contributing factors other than net zero?
I thought that the price we pay for electricity is set by the price of gas. I had a quick look and there are emission levies put on burning fossil fuels to try and phase out their use. But those costs are passed back to the consumer. It seems to me that whilst the levies have good intentions that there isnt really any insentive for that energy company to actually change anything.
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
What is it about "net zero" that you think is making your bills so high? are there any other contributing factors other than net zero?
I thought that the price we pay for electricity is set by the price of gas. I had a quick look and there are emission levies put on burning fossil fuels to try and phase out their use. But those costs are passed back to the consumer. It seems to me that whilst the levies have good intentions that there isnt really any insentive for that energy company to actually change anything.
It is, see my post above, it's long but explains why.
Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
What is it about "net zero" that you think is making your bills so high? are there any other contributing factors other than net zero?
I thought that the price we pay for electricity is set by the price of gas. I had a quick look and there are emission levies put on burning fossil fuels to try and phase out their use. But those costs are passed back to the consumer. It seems to me that whilst the levies have good intentions that there isnt really any insentive for that energy company to actually change anything.
The incentive should be that consumers choosing to buy their energy from a supplier that uses a low proportion of renewables will face higher bills than consumers choosing to buy energy from suppliers with a higher renewable proportion. That's how government intervention in the market should work. In this way, it doesn't matter if the consumer ends up paying the additional cost, because the consumer can just switch to a supplier that doesn't have to charge the costs.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
The National Grid operates like a giant pool or reservoir that all electricity producers (renewable or not) feed into. All consumers draw electricity from this same pool. Once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable in terms of its source - whether it came from a wind turbine, a solar panel or a coal-fired power plant. When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:
Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable.
If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources. Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home. Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:
It increases demand for renewable energy certificates like REGOs.
This incentivises further investment in renewable generation.
Over time, it contributes to a larger proportion of renewables in the grid.
In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale.
A simpler way to look at it is like this. I buy organic milk from Tesco. Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic. The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk. But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase. Tesco is like the National Grid. the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
The mess of privatisation. It's the same electricity, you just chose which company to pay.
At 11.25am renewables (solar, wind & hydroelectric) were providing 50.1% of energy for the National Grid, the producers of those sources will be paid the same as the providers of gas.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
The National Grid operates like a giant pool or reservoir that all electricity producers (renewable or not) feed into. All consumers draw electricity from this same pool. Once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable in terms of its source - whether it came from a wind turbine, a solar panel or a coal-fired power plant. When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:
Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable.
If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources. Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home. Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:
It increases demand for renewable energy certificates like REGOs.
This incentivises further investment in renewable generation.
Over time, it contributes to a larger proportion of renewables in the grid.
In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale.
A simpler way to look at it is like this. I buy organic milk from Tesco. Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic. The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk. But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase. Tesco is like the National Grid. the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier.
Thanks, just as I thought it misleading the consumers.
I thought threads like this were a thing of the past on here. We've had them before and they all end the same way. People just cant be trusted.
Quite why anyone who's interested in and wants to debate politics with any seriousness chooses to do it on a fans message board for a shit third tier football club completely baffles me. But each to their own I guess. But it's certainly not for me.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
The National Grid operates like a giant pool or reservoir that all electricity producers (renewable or not) feed into. All consumers draw electricity from this same pool. Once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable in terms of its source - whether it came from a wind turbine, a solar panel or a coal-fired power plant. When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:
Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable.
If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources. Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home. Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:
It increases demand for renewable energy certificates like REGOs.
This incentivises further investment in renewable generation.
Over time, it contributes to a larger proportion of renewables in the grid.
In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale.
A simpler way to look at it is like this. I buy organic milk from Tesco. Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic. The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk. But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase. Tesco is like the National Grid. the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier.
Thanks, just as I thought it misleading the consumers.
That's not the conclusion I would draw from that explanation. 100% of the money paid by a customer of a company claiming that 100% of their electricity comes from renewable sources goes to purchase electricity from renewable sources.
Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers? It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.
The National Grid operates like a giant pool or reservoir that all electricity producers (renewable or not) feed into. All consumers draw electricity from this same pool. Once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable in terms of its source - whether it came from a wind turbine, a solar panel or a coal-fired power plant. When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:
Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable.
If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources. Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home. Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:
It increases demand for renewable energy certificates like REGOs.
This incentivises further investment in renewable generation.
Over time, it contributes to a larger proportion of renewables in the grid.
In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale.
A simpler way to look at it is like this. I buy organic milk from Tesco. Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic. The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk. But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase. Tesco is like the National Grid. the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier.
Thanks, just as I thought it misleading the consumers.
That's not the conclusion I would draw from that explanation. 100% of the money paid by a customer of a company claiming that 100% of their electricity comes from renewable sources goes to purchase electricity from renewable sources.
Yet they will still be paying the price linked to gas.
A very apt description of the numerous posters who are Woke, Green, and behave like a Mob on this particular thread and numerous others in the past.
Who chose to throw abuse, insults and try to silence anyone who dares challenge their views in any way, and who, coincidentally, all happen to come from the same side of the political fence.
Comments
Even if the world's population was halved from current numbers, those remaining would need to be living closer to carbon neutral lifestyles to slow global warming. And we'd still need to find a way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere if it's concentration was nearing the 450 parts per million tipping point. By my very rough estimation, at current emission rates, that could happen as early as the first half of the 2030's
However, I've been banging the drum on the need for us to lead as individuals for a while now, and accept that it will only take us so far in the fight ahead. For me to carry on posting about it now makes me feel like a one legged duck, going around in circles, so I'll take that as my cue to duck out of it.
Thanks for engaging in respectful, meaningful debate and for the educational links posted, from which I for one, learned a lot.
My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.
My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.
I think it's also important that there are people like you who are trying their best the walk the walk as an inspiration to those of use who just yackety yak.
Coal is predicted to last: ~100–150 years. Coal has the largest reserves and may last into the 22nd century, depending on demand and technological developments. So coal is likely to be depleted within 4-6 generations. Or, roughly as far into the future as Charlton's existence stretched back to the past.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-bills-gas-electricity-renewables-b2672760.html
The UK is seeing a second increase in energy price caps this winter, announced by Ofgem on 1 January. Energy bills skyrocketed in 2022 and have continued to remain high and above pre-Covid levels.
A quarter of the UK’s power comes from fossil fuels, namely gas. The remaining power comes from nuclear (13 per cent), biomass, such as food and agricultural waste (4 per cent), and around 10 per cent from interconnections to other countries.
In general, electricity from renewables should be cheaper to generate than from gas, which would bring bills down for consumers.
Yet the UK’s reality is far more complicated. There are a few key reasons for this. The capacity of renewables is still not high enough to meet all demand.
The high upfront costs of building renewable energy infrastructure also drive up prices, as businesses recover their investment.
The biggest driver of high electricity prices, however, is the UK’s marginal pricing model, which means that electricity prices are mostly dictated by gas prices.
The model means that the price for electricity is based on the most expensive source which was used to meet energy demand across the UK, set at intervals of every half hour.
If both gas and renewables have been used in any half-hour period, the more expensive (gas) price will always be set overall, regardless of whether renewables made up the larger proportion.
Bob Hope, policy director at the LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, explained to The Independent: “The cost of generating electricity is different for each supplier, and so the price the network pays, and then passes on to consumers, is set by the most expensive of the electricity suppliers that is required to ensure all of the demand is met. This is the marginal price and every supplier (whether they are gas or renewable) receives it, regardless of how much it costs them to supply the electricity.”
As a result, renewable energy sources may be able to provide electricity at lower cost but are paid the same rates as natural gas.
The UK has had marginal pricing since the late 1980s, when energy companies were privatised. However, it may no longer be fit for purpose with the increasing security of renewables.
“The current system does not fully transfer the value of renewables to consumers,” says Susanna Elks, senior policy adviser at climate think tank E3G.
In the UK, wholesale gas prices have decreased from their peak in 2022. But the latest average wholesale price for gas (96.79p/therm in October) is still over triple the pre-Covid levels, according to Ofgem data (27.9p/therm in January 2020).
Wholesale electricity prices are 151 per cent higher than pre-Covid levels, according to Ofgem data, at £88.96/MWh.
In the past decade, renewables have taken over the lion’s share of the national grid, rising from just 10.7 per cent of UK power in 2014, to 43.1 percent in September 2024 (the specific mix varies day to day).
However, due to marginal pricing model that sets the price of electricity at every half hour, gas sets the price around 98 per cent of the time - according to a 2021 study - even though it only contributed to 40 per cent of the grid in that year.
Imperial College energy research Ian Staffell, one of the paper’s authors, says that this is partly down to gas being a more reliable part of the grid than renewables - a reality influenced by the UK’s geographical isolation and lack of energy storage.
“It is a lot more expensive for us to build power cables under the sea, interconnecting to other countries. We can’t trade as much power with other countries. So when the wind’s not blowing here, we can’t rely on renewable electricity from abroad, as easily Germany,” Dr Staffell told the Independent.
“Other countries like France, Norway, they’ve got lots of energy storage. They can rely on wind and solar energy that they charged up over the previous days or weeks, while we can’t so much.”
Energy storage is key because it allows cheaper renewable energy to be saved to meet demand in high-intensity periods or low-wind days, otherwise gas has to be switched on as part of the equation.
For the first time on record (since 1979), the UK had the most expensive electricity prices of any member country within the International Energy Agency, according to latest data published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).
The UK’s domestic energy prices (including taxes) were 72.7 percent above the average for IEA prices in 2023, at 36.4p/kWh compared to an average of 21.1p/kWh.
The data was not yet available for Australia, Japan and Denmark.
Zonal pricing
In a review of electricity market arrangements, the government is considering an alternative model for pricing electricity, dubbed zonal pricing.
Under this model, different geographical areas of the UK would be priced independently of each other, meaning that gas-generated power in one region would not necessarily raise the price of electricity in all regions.
This would be especially positive for Scotland and the North of England, which have the highest local wind farm capacity.
The South of England, and in particular London and the Midlands, have far fewer renewable power plants.
March 2024, some 15.4 GW of energy in Scotland came from renewables. (Equinor) (Equinor)One argument against zonal pricing points out that it would create regional disparity in prices, with areas in the South of England more likely to pay gas-determined prices.
Another concern, raised by ScottishPower boss Keith Anderson, is that such a radical change will dissuade UK energy investment, as renewables suppliers who are currently earning gas-led prices would have their income slashed.
“When you look at the investment needed in offshore wind and onshore wind, saying to people part of the way through that investment that you’ll flip the entire trading system and pricing mechanism, you run a risk investment will delay,” said Mr Anderson.
Building new renewable energy projects requires high levels of upfront capital, so businesses need to be sure they can recoup their investment; meaning they depend upon stable pricing.
Yet Dr Staffell says that power companies will still turn a profit without the artificial inflation linked to gas prices.
“Pricing reform would just make everything a bit more efficient and a bit fairer,” he added.
Most importantly, increasing the UK’s renewable energy capacity overall will protect consumers from unstable electricity prices, says climate policy expert Ms Elks.
“Building renewables will reduce our exposure to international gas price fluctuations. The UK needs to accelerate the roll out of renewables and transition to electric heating if it is to avoid repeating the recent gas crisis where bills spiralled, and the Government spent £40billion subsidising bills,” said Ms Elks.
This is laid out as a priority in the government’s new Clean Power 2030 Action plan.
“As the electricity system decarbonises, unabated gas generation is used less often,” reads the document, published in December 2024. “As we rollout renewables, we will see a significant reduction in wholesale prices, the foundation for building an energy system that can bring bills down for good.”
I thought that the price we pay for electricity is set by the price of gas. I had a quick look and there are emission levies put on burning fossil fuels to try and phase out their use. But those costs are passed back to the consumer. It seems to me that whilst the levies have good intentions that there isnt really any insentive for that energy company to actually change anything.
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1883096307637588323
When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:
- Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
- Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
- By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable.
If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources.Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home.
Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:
In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale.
A simpler way to look at it is like this. I buy organic milk from Tesco. Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic. The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk. But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase. Tesco is like the National Grid. the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier.
A very apt description of the numerous posters who are Woke, Green, and behave like a Mob on this particular thread and numerous others in the past.
Who chose to throw abuse, insults and try to silence anyone who dares challenge their views in any way, and who, coincidentally, all happen to come from the same side of the political fence.