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.
You would have far more credibility when complaining about insults if you didn't use them yourself. Please refrain.
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.
You would have far more credibility when complaining about insults if you didn't use them yourself. Please refrain.
And you'd have more credibility as a moderator if you likewise targeted other posters calling me "a troll" (6 times so far without rebuke) or "Queerie" (@bobmunro), from suggesting that Chips and I are gay lovers(@chaz hill), that I'm a paid agitator (@Leuth), amongst numerous other insults along the way.
Not to mention the insults leveled at Chippy and Redskin, again, without any intervention or rebuke whatsoever from the "moderator".
Mismanaged climate disasters are bolstering far-right parties that channel public anger at political leaders while denying human-driven climate change. In Spain, the far-right Vox party gained traction after the October floods in Valencia, which killed over 220 people and exposed governmental shortcomings. The conservative regional government was criticised for failing to warn residents of flood risks, while the Socialist-led national government faced backlash for its slow response. Public anger overshadowed discussions on the role of climate change, which scientists link to record Mediterranean temperatures driving extreme rainfall.
Vox capitalised on these failures, promoting grassroots aid efforts and criticising the authorities. Its national support grew from 10.5% to 13.8% post-floods, despite controversial decisions like cancelling a proposed emergency unit and appointing a former bullfighter to a key cultural role. Spanish Transport Minister Óscar Puente highlighted the emotional nature of disaster reactions, which often neglect climate change’s underlying role.
Historical parallels exist; far-right groups exploited Germany’s 2021 floods to spread misinformation. Puente stressed the need for long-term infrastructure adaptation and significant investment to address climate realities. Spain has allocated €16.6 billion for flood recovery, but widespread criticism persists, reflecting the challenges of managing disasters in a warming world.
Also, I don't think @bobmunro would claim to be the first person to use the name Queerie. I think it may have been someone with a chip on his shoulder.
Vox is a far-right political party in Spain known for its nationalist, populist and conservative stances. It frequently criticises immigration policies, promotes traditional Spanish cultural values and opposes regional autonomy movements. The party is sceptical of man-made climate change, often questioning scientific consensus and downplaying its significance. Vox has resisted climate-focused policies, such as emergency preparedness initiatives and attributes environmental disasters more to governmental mismanagement than to climate change. This approach aligns with their broader agenda of challenging mainstream political narratives and capitalising on public discontent with traditional parties.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
Did we run out of energy, Centrica did say our gas reserves were low, but to my knowledge our needs were met without the need to use dirty coal, which is one of the worst fossil fuels for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
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.
Funny earlier on the page people were whining about freedom of speech. Another example of the two tier posting that goes on here. No wonder we have the leader we have and by example you can see who put him in.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
Did we run out of energy, Centrica did say our gas reserves were low, but to my knowledge our needs were met without the need to use dirty coal, which is one of the worst fossil fuels for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
We've been importing energy instead. Emissions are irrelevant given our utterly trivial contribution to global emissions, and that its use would only be temporary.
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.
Funny earlier on the page people were whining about freedom of speech. Another example of the two tier posting that goes on here. No wonder we have the leader we have and by example you can see who put him in.
Give it rest Chippy, unless you have something useful to say on the subject. It's a problem for the whole planet and we should all be working towards a solution.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
It's a fair question (the property here is bigger), but we had air conditioning running for 70% of the day, everyday for about 6 months in Vancouver and our energy bills were so small you didn't really notice the money leaving your account.
The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.
I fully understand the connection between increasing greenhouse gases, climate change, the need for the world to move away from fossil fuels, and for the UK to play its part in this. As an island, if we add much more tidal flow energy to the mix of renewables, and have some nuclear for back-up, I can see we have the potential to go carbon free in our electricity generation. This could give politicians the incentive to cut the tie between the selling price for electricity and the cost of gas, which in turn may encourage the domestic use of electric hobs & ovens, and heat pumps instead of gas boilers. So far, so good.
What concerns me is the distribution of electricity, and the lack of robustness of overhead power lines when storms strike. Climate change means storms are becoming stronger, and arguably more frequent. Storm Eowyn has once again seen many thousands of consumers suffering days of electricity cuts while overhead power lines are repaired. As the country moves towards greater reliance on electricity for heating and transport, this is going to pose more inconvenience all round, and increasing dangers to the vulnerable. While businesses and institutions such as hospitals may invest in back-up generators, that is not a universal solution for every household!
I would like to see it made compulsory for all new-builds to have solar panels and/or small wind generators, plus for houses & flats a battery capacity sufficient at a minimum to run a kettle for drinks & hot water bottles and to keep a fridge-freezer running for several days in the event of a power outage. If the economy recovers sufficiently, I would like to see incentives (including a sensible rate for any excess energy returned to the grid) for retrofitting the same to the existing housing stock.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
It's a fair question (the property here is bigger), but we had air conditioning running for 70% of the day, everyday for about 6 months in Vancouver and our energy bills were so small you didn't really notice the money leaving your account.
The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.
I imagine your heating bill will be lower in the Summer, as long as you don't have to resort to aircon. But, really, what's wrong with putting a pullover on? It's a climate crisis: I think most people should be prepared to put a jumper on in January.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
Don't know the Spanish system specifically but in Europe generally the model is much more along the lines of state ownership and or proper regulation. Both of which have been abandoned in the UK over the last 30-40 years. That gives proper price control and consumer protections that we don't have.
We had situations where large energy companies during the energy crisis were taking advantage and blatantly profiteering. It's usual in a situation where costs are going up for profits to go up, but they should go up proportionally. In the UK energy costs to companies went up by 20-30% but their profits in the same period rose across the board by more than 100%. Those profits were pre crisis already determined to be meeting the economic definition of excess profits so it can't be argued they were needed. This is a failure of regulation and the costs are carried by the consumer.
European governments generally follow a slightly less extreme version of capitalism to the one we follow which is closer to the US model. That partly is why they maintained state ownership or better regulation and instead of allowing the doubling of excess profits in a sector a few countries including Spain are testing various versions of a wealth tax to prevent those situations. An additional tax on those additional excess profits of energy companies would go a long way imo.
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.
By that that reasoning, do you think that if you pay British Gas for your electricity, that they are sending you their own electrons directly to you, while your neighbour who's energy is supplied by EDF has a completely different set of electrons?
I dont think its misleading. It's just the way it works and a small amount of research gives reasonable explanation.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
Did we run out of energy, Centrica did say our gas reserves were low, but to my knowledge our needs were met without the need to use dirty coal, which is one of the worst fossil fuels for pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
We've been importing energy instead. Emissions are irrelevant given our utterly trivial contribution to global emissions, and that its use would only be temporary.
Having a back up that uses coal is not the solution. You can't just fire up a coal power station at will. Hydroelectric stations like the one in north Wales are used when a boost is needed.
If every country said our emissions are trivial so are irrelevant, we would never solve the problem of Climate Change.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
It's a fair question (the property here is bigger), but we had air conditioning running for 70% of the day, everyday for about 6 months in Vancouver and our energy bills were so small you didn't really notice the money leaving your account.
The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.
I imagine your heating bill will be lower in the Summer, as long as you don't have to resort to aircon. But, really, what's wrong with putting a pullover on? It's a climate crisis: I think most people should be prepared to put a jumper on in January.
Because other countries which pollute considerably more than us aren't making their citizens sit in cold houses as an act of virtue signalling like we do?
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
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.
How do the two properties compare?
Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad.
It's a fair question (the property here is bigger), but we had air conditioning running for 70% of the day, everyday for about 6 months in Vancouver and our energy bills were so small you didn't really notice the money leaving your account.
The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.
I imagine your heating bill will be lower in the Summer, as long as you don't have to resort to aircon. But, really, what's wrong with putting a pullover on? It's a climate crisis: I think most people should be prepared to put a jumper on in January.
Because other countries which pollute considerably more than us aren't making their citizens sit in cold houses as an act of virtue signalling like we do?
I think you don't underatand WHY those countries pollute. Hint: It's because we consume what they produce...
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
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.
By that that reasoning, do you think that if you pay British Gas for your electricity, that they are sending you their own electrons directly to you, while your neighbour who's energy is supplied by EDF has a completely different set of electrons?
I dont think its misleading. It's just the way it works and a small amount of research gives reasonable explanatio.
That is not what I am saying. When a suppler claims that it electricity come from 100% renewable sources why should I not believe that be the case, without having to do research on the Internet. I accept that Tesco's organic milk is what it says on the packing without going to the Internet to find out if it actually does.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
We're poorer because we let the big energy producers get rich, rather than our country benefit. If we had set up a sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the UK instead of privatising our energy, we wouldn't be seeing the huge bills we have now. We could have used that wealth to invest in renewable/sustainable energy.
A graphic from the FT on Thu: "Locations of ultra-rapid public charge points (power rating of 150kW+) by year".
I edited out 2022-23 for conciseness but the increase is steady, which cheered me up.
I should admit that I have a petrol 2012 Civic, so can't claim sainthood, but when the time comes to go electric, it is good to see that coverage is growing.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
We're poorer because we let the big energy producers get rich, rather than our country benefit. If we had set up a sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the UK instead of privatising our energy, we wouldn't be seeing the huge bills we have now. We could have used that wealth to invest in renewable/sustainable energy.
That's a cool story, but doesn't explain why energy is dirt cheap in the US, yet expensive here. Their energy is also privatised.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
You keep repeating this claim. Can you provide any evidence for it?
The sole reason for energy price rises iver the past few years has been external shocks affecting the gas and oil world markets pushing the price of fossil fuel energy up. Price of renewables if priced separately would be 20-30% of what we pay per unit. I can't understand how moving to renewables "too quickly" (even though the last government took a lot of steps to slow the move) has made anyone poorer?
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
We're poorer because we let the big energy producers get rich, rather than our country benefit. If we had set up a sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the UK instead of privatising our energy, we wouldn't be seeing the huge bills we have now. We could have used that wealth to invest in renewable/sustainable energy.
That's a cool story, but doesn't explain why energy is dirt cheap in the US, yet expensive here. Their energy is also privatised.
The US isn't affected by the EU Energy Crisis as much as us.
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 fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.
do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables? That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go. Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
We're poorer because we let the big energy producers get rich, rather than our country benefit. If we had set up a sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the UK instead of privatising our energy, we wouldn't be seeing the huge bills we have now. We could have used that wealth to invest in renewable/sustainable energy.
That's a cool story, but doesn't explain why energy is dirt cheap in the US, yet expensive here. Their energy is also privatised.
Its not a story its what happened. as per my above post:
"We had situations where large energy companies during the energy crisis were taking advantage and blatantly profiteering. It's usual in a situation where costs are going up for profits to go up, but they should go up proportionally. In the UK energy costs to companies went up by 20-30% but their profits in the same period rose across the board by more than 100%. Those profits were pre crisis already determined to be meeting the economic definition of excess profits so it can't be argued they were needed. This is a failure of regulation and the costs are carried by the consumer."
I dont know the US system particularly but I would imagine that they are less reliant on the Russian/would price of oil and gas due to geography and their own oil fields. So felt the shock of the Ukraine war less than Europe did. They also have a completely different tax system.
Enjoyed Rachel's Farm on bbc4 last night. It's about the conversion of farm land to re-generative farming- in a nutshell moving away from chemicals and boosting nature's processes (e.g. biodiversity) in sustainable systems.
It's set in Australia and that backdrop helped to make several points which 'stuck' for me.
1. The indigenous (aboriginal) people did practice sustainable farming (think we all know that anyway), but industrial processes striving for high yield means constant damage to soils and natural processes.
2. Australia has droughts and floods, which can further denude the soil of its richness. We get that here too now increasingly. One way round it was to create a moat on high ground to hold the water at a higher level so it permeated the soil below and around, keeping it at a more constant level of moisture. It's hard for farmers, especially on undulating land to cope with extremes of weather. And fire risks are also increasing in association with lengthy dry spells (as seen in London just a couple of years ago).
3. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by trees and grasses, so really these things (trees, green foliage etc), come out of 'thin air' - we all knew this anyway right (surely?!) but they used a couple of great animations back this up.
4. Soil is a rich complex universe of bugs and critters all doing their thing. The dung beetle is vital and where it doesn't flourish, the soil suffers greatly.
5. Carbon trading relies on having certified sites, like Rachel's Farm where purchasers/ investors/ polluters can offset their carbon footprint, so enriching the nation's biodiversity while maintaining a course to net zero (I have no idea what Australia's climate policies are currently but it was re-assuring to see people like Rachel and her network doing their bit).
There was more but overall I thought it was good family viewing and well worth a watch and taught me those few things too.
Mismanaged climate disasters are bolstering far-right parties that channel public anger at political leaders while denying human-driven climate change. In Spain, the far-right Vox party gained traction after the October floods in Valencia, which killed over 220 people and exposed governmental shortcomings. The conservative regional government was criticised for failing to warn residents of flood risks, while the Socialist-led national government faced backlash for its slow response. Public anger overshadowed discussions on the role of climate change, which scientists link to record Mediterranean temperatures driving extreme rainfall.
Vox capitalised on these failures, promoting grassroots aid efforts and criticising the authorities. Its national support grew from 10.5% to 13.8% post-floods, despite controversial decisions like cancelling a proposed emergency unit and appointing a former bullfighter to a key cultural role. Spanish Transport Minister Óscar Puente highlighted the emotional nature of disaster reactions, which often neglect climate change’s underlying role.
Historical parallels exist; far-right groups exploited Germany’s 2021 floods to spread misinformation. Puente stressed the need for long-term infrastructure adaptation and significant investment to address climate realities. Spain has allocated €16.6 billion for flood recovery, but widespread criticism persists, reflecting the challenges of managing disasters in a warming world.
Also, I don't think @bobmunro would claim to be the first person to use the name Queerie. I think it may have been someone with a chip on his shoulder.
Vox is a far-right political party in Spain known for its nationalist, populist and conservative stances. It frequently criticises immigration policies, promotes traditional Spanish cultural values and opposes regional autonomy movements. The party is sceptical of man-made climate change, often questioning scientific consensus and downplaying its significance. Vox has resisted climate-focused policies, such as emergency preparedness initiatives and attributes environmental disasters more to governmental mismanagement than to climate change. This approach aligns with their broader agenda of challenging mainstream political narratives and capitalising on public discontent with traditional parties.
I think you forgot "Quote from the Financial times" !
Rather than trying to pretend that you get all this stuff from the top of your head 🤣
Comments
Not to mention the insults leveled at Chippy and Redskin, again, without any intervention or rebuke whatsoever from the "moderator".
Just sayin!
Mismanaged climate disasters are bolstering far-right parties that channel public anger at political leaders while denying human-driven climate change. In Spain, the far-right Vox party gained traction after the October floods in Valencia, which killed over 220 people and exposed governmental shortcomings. The conservative regional government was criticised for failing to warn residents of flood risks, while the Socialist-led national government faced backlash for its slow response. Public anger overshadowed discussions on the role of climate change, which scientists link to record Mediterranean temperatures driving extreme rainfall.
Vox capitalised on these failures, promoting grassroots aid efforts and criticising the authorities. Its national support grew from 10.5% to 13.8% post-floods, despite controversial decisions like cancelling a proposed emergency unit and appointing a former bullfighter to a key cultural role. Spanish Transport Minister Óscar Puente highlighted the emotional nature of disaster reactions, which often neglect climate change’s underlying role.
Historical parallels exist; far-right groups exploited Germany’s 2021 floods to spread misinformation. Puente stressed the need for long-term infrastructure adaptation and significant investment to address climate realities. Spain has allocated €16.6 billion for flood recovery, but widespread criticism persists, reflecting the challenges of managing disasters in a warming world.
Also, I don't think @bobmunro would claim to be the first person to use the name Queerie. I think it may have been someone with a chip on his shoulder.Vox is a far-right political party in Spain known for its nationalist, populist and conservative stances. It frequently criticises immigration policies, promotes traditional Spanish cultural values and opposes regional autonomy movements. The party is sceptical of man-made climate change, often questioning scientific consensus and downplaying its significance. Vox has resisted climate-focused policies, such as emergency preparedness initiatives and attributes environmental disasters more to governmental mismanagement than to climate change. This approach aligns with their broader agenda of challenging mainstream political narratives and capitalising on public discontent with traditional parties.
The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.
What concerns me is the distribution of electricity, and the lack of robustness of overhead power lines when storms strike. Climate change means storms are becoming stronger, and arguably more frequent. Storm Eowyn has once again seen many thousands of consumers suffering days of electricity cuts while overhead power lines are repaired. As the country moves towards greater reliance on electricity for heating and transport, this is going to pose more inconvenience all round, and increasing dangers to the vulnerable. While businesses and institutions such as hospitals may invest in back-up generators, that is not a universal solution for every household!
I would like to see it made compulsory for all new-builds to have solar panels and/or small wind generators, plus for houses & flats a battery capacity sufficient at a minimum to run a kettle for drinks & hot water bottles and to keep a fridge-freezer running for several days in the event of a power outage. If the economy recovers sufficiently, I would like to see incentives (including a sensible rate for any excess energy returned to the grid) for retrofitting the same to the existing housing stock.
We had situations where large energy companies during the energy crisis were taking advantage and blatantly profiteering. It's usual in a situation where costs are going up for profits to go up, but they should go up proportionally. In the UK energy costs to companies went up by 20-30% but their profits in the same period rose across the board by more than 100%. Those profits were pre crisis already determined to be meeting the economic definition of excess profits so it can't be argued they were needed. This is a failure of regulation and the costs are carried by the consumer.
European governments generally follow a slightly less extreme version of capitalism to the one we follow which is closer to the US model. That partly is why they maintained state ownership or better regulation and instead of allowing the doubling of excess profits in a sector a few countries including Spain are testing various versions of a wealth tax to prevent those situations. An additional tax on those additional excess profits of energy companies would go a long way imo.
I dont think its misleading. It's just the way it works and a small amount of research gives reasonable explanation.
If every country said our emissions are trivial so are irrelevant, we would never solve the problem of Climate Change.
Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all. Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required.
But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.
The transition has been far too fast.
I edited out 2022-23 for conciseness but the increase is steady, which cheered me up.
I should admit that I have a petrol 2012 Civic, so can't claim sainthood, but when the time comes to go electric, it is good to see that coverage is growing.
The sole reason for energy price rises iver the past few years has been external shocks affecting the gas and oil world markets pushing the price of fossil fuel energy up. Price of renewables if priced separately would be 20-30% of what we pay per unit. I can't understand how moving to renewables "too quickly" (even though the last government took a lot of steps to slow the move) has made anyone poorer?
"We had situations where large energy companies during the energy crisis were taking advantage and blatantly profiteering. It's usual in a situation where costs are going up for profits to go up, but they should go up proportionally. In the UK energy costs to companies went up by 20-30% but their profits in the same period rose across the board by more than 100%. Those profits were pre crisis already determined to be meeting the economic definition of excess profits so it can't be argued they were needed. This is a failure of regulation and the costs are carried by the consumer."
I dont know the US system particularly but I would imagine that they are less reliant on the Russian/would price of oil and gas due to geography and their own oil fields. So felt the shock of the Ukraine war less than Europe did. They also have a completely different tax system.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0027fw1/rachels-farm
It's set in Australia and that backdrop helped to make several points which 'stuck' for me.
1. The indigenous (aboriginal) people did practice sustainable farming (think we all know that anyway), but industrial processes striving for high yield means constant damage to soils and natural processes.
2. Australia has droughts and floods, which can further denude the soil of its richness. We get that here too now increasingly. One way round it was to create a moat on high ground to hold the water at a higher level so it permeated the soil below and around, keeping it at a more constant level of moisture. It's hard for farmers, especially on undulating land to cope with extremes of weather. And fire risks are also increasing in association with lengthy dry spells (as seen in London just a couple of years ago).
3. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by trees and grasses, so really these things (trees, green foliage etc), come out of 'thin air' - we all knew this anyway right (surely?!) but they used a couple of great animations back this up.
4. Soil is a rich complex universe of bugs and critters all doing their thing. The dung beetle is vital and where it doesn't flourish, the soil suffers greatly.
5. Carbon trading relies on having certified sites, like Rachel's Farm where purchasers/ investors/ polluters can offset their carbon footprint, so enriching the nation's biodiversity while maintaining a course to net zero (I have no idea what Australia's climate policies are currently but it was re-assuring to see people like Rachel and her network doing their bit).
There was more but overall I thought it was good family viewing and well worth a watch and taught me those few things too.
Rather than trying to pretend that you get all this stuff from the top of your head 🤣