There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
The efficiency of an energy source depends on cost, reliability and sustainability. Fossil fuels benefited from decades of subsidies and infrastructure investment, making them dominant. Renewables are already competing on cost and overtaking fossil fuels in some areas.
Here's some real world data: In the UK, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Offshore wind costs around £44/MWh, compared to £85/MWh for new gas plants. (Source gov.uk)
While wind and solar are intermittent, advances in battery storage, smart grids, and a mix of energy sources (e.g., hydro, nuclear) solve the problem of intermittent or unreliable power. The UK’s electricity system is already handling high levels of renewable energy - wind power alone provided over 30% of UK electricity in 2023.
While it's true that some companies struggle, so do fossil fuel companies - UK oil and gas firms receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies (Source: IEA) Renewables are becoming profitable without subsidies. For example, in 2023, Dogger Bank Wind Farm (the UK’s biggest wind farm) required no government subsidies through Contracts for Difference (CfD). It's going to produce the electricity required to power 4.5 million homes in the UK, with no subsidies.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.
Fact: renewables reduce costs over time. The UK’s renewable industry has already lowered wholesale electricity prices by replacing expensive gas power.
The green sector is one of the fastest-growing job creators. The UK’s renewable industry employs more than 250,000 people, and the global transition is expected to create millions of jobs (Source: IRENA, 2023). Green investment attracts private funding and reduces energy imports, making the economy more resilient.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.
In the short term, we're going to have to hope that Trump really does follow through with this threat to flood the world with cheap gas.
We've had successive governments promoting net zero and its been overwhelmingly miserable experience for the average UK citizen.
Weve had successive governments delaying, pushing back and underfunding net zero commitments. Its been a miserable experience in general for UK citizens but blaming it on too much net zero takes some serious mental gymnastics.
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
Why is it always those calling for efficiency and allowing free markets to do their thing that actually have no understanding of markets. Demand drives research which drives innovation which drives technology. It is perfectly economically viable to subsidise technological breakthroughs in the early days in order to stimulate that process. There absolutely is massive scope for a green led economic boom and this would be a real boom that benefits all parts of the economy and society not just the historically wealthy. Unfortunately in the UK we have too many people who are anti green or anti progress and so we have cut and pulled back all of these things. It looks like China will now crack sold state batteries and so we will forever be paying for them instead of UK companies (and government owning a small share). China is on course to hit net zero before Europe. They are investing heavily not for green ambitions but for the growth it will bring. We will look back on this period and say that the anti green lobby cost us a generation of growth.
Lots and lots just wrong with the above. just 2 points I'll pick up on - no one is pretending the technology is where it needs to be but as above it will only get there by use and by investment (and that's why I bang on so much about UK govt cutting research into battery technology).
The bit in bold is objectively not true. Even in your warped comparison where you are including front end costs of renewables but not the front end costs of speculatively drilling for gas/oil in the hope that one in 100 drills will actually result in a viable vein of fuel the cost is still significantly lower (between 75% and 80% lower). See below links that set this out.
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
Why is it always those calling for efficiency and allowing free markets to do their thing that actually have no understanding of markets. Demand drives research which drives innovation which drives technology. It is perfectly economically viable to subsidise technological breakthroughs in the early days in order to stimulate that process. There absolutely is massive scope for a green led economic boom and this would be a real boom that benefits all parts of the economy and society not just the historically wealthy. Unfortunately in the UK we have too many people who are anti green or anti progress and so we have cut and pulled back all of these things. It looks like China will now crack sold state batteries and so we will forever be paying for them instead of UK companies (and government owning a small share). China is on course to hit net zero before Europe. They are investing heavily not for green ambitions but for the growth it will bring. We will look back on this period and say that the anti green lobby cost us a generation of growth.
Lots and lots just wrong with the above. just 2 points I'll pick up on - no one is pretending the technology is where it needs to be but as above it will only get there by use and by investment (and that's why I bang on so much about UK govt cutting research into battery technology).
The bit in bold is objectively not true. Even in your warped comparison where you are including front end costs of renewables but not the front end costs of speculatively drilling for gas/oil in the hope that one in 100 drills will actually result in a viable vein of fuel the cost is still significantly lower (between 75% and 80% lower). See below links that set this out.
Just in case anyone thinks that we shouldn't proceed with our aims for net zero "because it's too expensive", it should be pointed out that the UK government has given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015. (Source: here) Kinda debunks a lot of myth around the "cost" of renewables to the taxpayer.
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
The efficiency of an energy source depends on cost, reliability and sustainability. Fossil fuels benefited from decades of subsidies and infrastructure investment, making them dominant. Renewables are already competing on cost and overtaking fossil fuels in some areas.
Here's some real world data: In the UK, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Offshore wind costs around £44/MWh, compared to £85/MWh for new gas plants. (Source gov.uk)
While wind and solar are intermittent, advances in battery storage, smart grids, and a mix of energy sources (e.g., hydro, nuclear) solve the problem of intermittent or unreliable power. The UK’s electricity system is already handling high levels of renewable energy - wind power alone provided over 30% of UK electricity in 2023.
While it's true that some companies struggle, so do fossil fuel companies - UK oil and gas firms receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies (Source: IEA) Renewables are becoming profitable without subsidies. For example, in 2023, Dogger Bank Wind Farm (the UK’s biggest wind farm) required no government subsidies through Contracts for Difference (CfD). It's going to produce the electricity required to power 4.5 million homes in the UK, with no subsidies.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.
Fact: renewables reduce costs over time. The UK’s renewable industry has already lowered wholesale electricity prices by replacing expensive gas power.
The green sector is one of the fastest-growing job creators. The UK’s renewable industry employs more than 250,000 people, and the global transition is expected to create millions of jobs (Source: IRENA, 2023). Green investment attracts private funding and reduces energy imports, making the economy more resilient.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.
Thanks Chizz, really succinct. Shouldn't the price of gas be hiked up (additional tax) to "encourage"/"nudge" customers towards clean electricity?
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
The efficiency of an energy source depends on cost, reliability and sustainability. Fossil fuels benefited from decades of subsidies and infrastructure investment, making them dominant. Renewables are already competing on cost and overtaking fossil fuels in some areas.
Here's some real world data: In the UK, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Offshore wind costs around £44/MWh, compared to £85/MWh for new gas plants. (Source gov.uk)
While wind and solar are intermittent, advances in battery storage, smart grids, and a mix of energy sources (e.g., hydro, nuclear) solve the problem of intermittent or unreliable power. The UK’s electricity system is already handling high levels of renewable energy - wind power alone provided over 30% of UK electricity in 2023.
While it's true that some companies struggle, so do fossil fuel companies - UK oil and gas firms receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies (Source: IEA) Renewables are becoming profitable without subsidies. For example, in 2023, Dogger Bank Wind Farm (the UK’s biggest wind farm) required no government subsidies through Contracts for Difference (CfD). It's going to produce the electricity required to power 4.5 million homes in the UK, with no subsidies.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.
Fact: renewables reduce costs over time. The UK’s renewable industry has already lowered wholesale electricity prices by replacing expensive gas power.
The green sector is one of the fastest-growing job creators. The UK’s renewable industry employs more than 250,000 people, and the global transition is expected to create millions of jobs (Source: IRENA, 2023). Green investment attracts private funding and reduces energy imports, making the economy more resilient.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.
Thanks Chizz, really succinct. Shouldn't the price of gas be hiked up (additional tax) to "encourage"/"nudge" customers towards clean electricity?
Economically thay move might make sense but socially given the environment right now it would be an awful decision. Political suicide too.
Its not really a consumer choice issue anyway. Its an invetsment and big business issue. What should be done and was done as a one off early in the energy crisis, is an additional tax on the profits of energy companies above the point where its deemed to be economically excess.
To give an example. During the cost of living crisis costs to companies go up therefore they put prices up and so profits should go up PROPORTIONALLY to that increase. Or in a real competitive free market world profits would actually fall as companies profits would swallow some of the price increase. Seems logical right? What actually happened during the cost of living crisis is that energy sector costs went up, prices went up proportionally more and so profit margins were increased and profits went up by a greater proportion than costs. This is blatant profiteering and is only possible due to the oligopoly power of the sector and government cronyism/corruption/lobbying. Oligopoly markets by definition make profits deemed to be economically excess. It's easy to calculate and pin point this based on published accounts. Additional tax on these amounts as per the windfall tax that was done early in the crisis would not harm the industry and would allow investment in renewables.
The same concept can be applied to almost every industry dominated by a small number of large powerful companies.
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
The efficiency of an energy source depends on cost, reliability and sustainability. Fossil fuels benefited from decades of subsidies and infrastructure investment, making them dominant. Renewables are already competing on cost and overtaking fossil fuels in some areas.
Here's some real world data: In the UK, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Offshore wind costs around £44/MWh, compared to £85/MWh for new gas plants. (Source gov.uk)
While wind and solar are intermittent, advances in battery storage, smart grids, and a mix of energy sources (e.g., hydro, nuclear) solve the problem of intermittent or unreliable power. The UK’s electricity system is already handling high levels of renewable energy - wind power alone provided over 30% of UK electricity in 2023.
While it's true that some companies struggle, so do fossil fuel companies - UK oil and gas firms receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies (Source: IEA) Renewables are becoming profitable without subsidies. For example, in 2023, Dogger Bank Wind Farm (the UK’s biggest wind farm) required no government subsidies through Contracts for Difference (CfD). It's going to produce the electricity required to power 4.5 million homes in the UK, with no subsidies.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.
Fact: renewables reduce costs over time. The UK’s renewable industry has already lowered wholesale electricity prices by replacing expensive gas power.
The green sector is one of the fastest-growing job creators. The UK’s renewable industry employs more than 250,000 people, and the global transition is expected to create millions of jobs (Source: IRENA, 2023). Green investment attracts private funding and reduces energy imports, making the economy more resilient.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.
Thanks Chizz, really succinct. Shouldn't the price of gas be hiked up (additional tax) to "encourage"/"nudge" customers towards clean electricity?
Over winter my home has used no electricity from the grid overall. I have been a net exporter due to a new solar and battery install.
I'm in the fortunate position to invest in this, so I don't have to worry about incompetent elected members shafting me sideways.
I no longer care how much or how long the TV is on. Fantastic investment.
I just read that gas turbine power stations have to pay a carbon tax for creating electricity. Let's think about this a little.
In the middle of the night I make no electricity, my battery provides power and then exports to the grid where my neighbours use the power I provide. A mini power station basically.
Others don't have this. In the dark still night we need the gas power station. They fire up, provide the power or equalise the grid, at the request of the grid operator.
They are heavily taxed for this. Who pays for this? You and I (although less so me now).
Secondly I am charged peak rate of 25pence for power, I export at flat rate of 15pence. My generated electric is the same as the imported. But it seems worth less, as the supplier can make 10p on my power.
I have ways to solve the imbalance above. But the principle remains. The power system is designed to.make large profits for shite companies. The tax system is a con.
Just think if there were mini power stations on all available homes and they could share that electric at a local price to neighbours
In the short term, we're going to have to hope that Trump really does follow through with this threat to flood the world with cheap gas.
We've had successive governments promoting net zero and its been overwhelmingly miserable experience for the average UK citizen.
What an apt choice of wording
Makes me laugh hearing some argue that natural disasters aren't the consequence of climate change, even though the science proves they're made more likely because of it.
The only reason for them questioning the link is because human activity contributes to climate change, causing it. If the science had found humans aren't the cause and can't influence it, but extreme weather events are a consequence, they wouldn't question it then.
Over winter my home has used no electricity from the grid overall. I have been a net exporter due to a new solar and battery install.
I'm in the fortunate position to invest in this, so I don't have to worry about incompetent elected members shafting me sideways.
I no longer care how much or how long the TV is on. Fantastic investment.
I just read that gas turbine power stations have to pay a carbon tax for creating electricity. Let's think about this a little.
In the middle of the night I make no electricity, my battery provides power and then exports to the grid where my neighbours use the power I provide. A mini power station basically.
Others don't have this. In the dark still night we need the gas power station. They fire up, provide the power or equalise the grid, at the request of the grid operator.
They are heavily taxed for this. Who pays for this? You and I (although less so me now).
Secondly I am charged peak rate of 25pence for power, I export at flat rate of 15pence. My generated electric is the same as the imported. But it seems worth less, as the supplier can make 10p on my power.
I have ways to solve the imbalance above. But the principle remains. The power system is designed to.make large profits for shite companies. The tax system is a con.
Just think if there were mini power stations on all available homes and they could share that electric at a local price to neighbours
Do you live in an igloo @fenlandaddick ? Even during midsummer our battery doesn't last all night. This winter has produced almost nil from our panels. How do you do it ?
Over winter my home has used no electricity from the grid overall. I have been a net exporter due to a new solar and battery install.
I'm in the fortunate position to invest in this, so I don't have to worry about incompetent elected members shafting me sideways.
I no longer care how much or how long the TV is on. Fantastic investment.
I just read that gas turbine power stations have to pay a carbon tax for creating electricity. Let's think about this a little.
In the middle of the night I make no electricity, my battery provides power and then exports to the grid where my neighbours use the power I provide. A mini power station basically.
Others don't have this. In the dark still night we need the gas power station. They fire up, provide the power or equalise the grid, at the request of the grid operator.
They are heavily taxed for this. Who pays for this? You and I (although less so me now).
Secondly I am charged peak rate of 25pence for power, I export at flat rate of 15pence. My generated electric is the same as the imported. But it seems worth less, as the supplier can make 10p on my power.
I have ways to solve the imbalance above. But the principle remains. The power system is designed to.make large profits for shite companies. The tax system is a con.
Just think if there were mini power stations on all available homes and they could share that electric at a local price to neighbours
This is bang on. I've posted before about localised mini grids and re-thinking the idea of the grid. The mini home wind turbines (literally 2-3ft tall) that are in development and will be dirt cheap to the market, plus solar, plus the development of solid state batteries which will revolutionise home energy usage (expected to be able to store a months worth of energy for a house) will enable localised connected grids where homes can use/contribute to the local grid, businesses can do the same, councils can invest in their own generation as part of this. There will likely be a tech/AI solution to managing peaks and troughs, enough batteries out there and in periods of high generation house and car batteries will auto charge, in periods of low generation these can be de-charged. There will still need to be the national grid for large scale generation but it wont need the massive storage its being talked about storage can happen at the local level.
The National Grid is having a big problem working out how to connect all these proposed battery farms to the grid network. The inferstructure is not there, which is typical of this country, there is very little joined up thinking. One of the biggest examples was the channel tunnel the French built a new railway line ready for the opening we just connected up old lines whilst a new line was still going through planning procedures. The Lizzy line is another example of connecting old existing lines, which are now constantly breaking, with part of the route through East London having speed restrictions. Very few ministers have any knowledge of the brief they are given.
The National Grid is having a big problem working out how to connect all these proposed battery farms to the grid network. The inferstructure is not there, which is typical of this country, there is very little joined up thinking. One of the biggest examples was the channel tunnel the French built a new railway line ready for the opening we just connected up old lines whilst a new line was still going through planning procedures. The Lizzy line is another example of connecting old existing lines, which are now constantly breaking, with part of the route through East London having speed restrictions. Very few ministers have any knowledge of the brief they are given.
Thats the point though - localised grids avoid the need for massive storage on the national grid.
The National Grid is having a big problem working out how to connect all these proposed battery farms to the grid network. The inferstructure is not there, which is typical of this country, there is very little joined up thinking. One of the biggest examples was the channel tunnel the French built a new railway line ready for the opening we just connected up old lines whilst a new line was still going through planning procedures. The Lizzy line is another example of connecting old existing lines, which are now constantly breaking, with part of the route through East London having speed restrictions. Very few ministers have any knowledge of the brief they are given.
You're conflating issues there. The biggest hurdle to making fast progress on big transport projects is, indeed, the planning system - which often weighs overly in favour of nimbyism, but that has nothing to do with ministers.
The national grid absolutely needs updating, but it's a plc, acting on behalf of the interests of its shareholders - for whom short term gain and divdends are far more important than long term infrastructure upgrades.
The National Grid is having a big problem working out how to connect all these proposed battery farms to the grid network. The inferstructure is not there, which is typical of this country, there is very little joined up thinking. One of the biggest examples was the channel tunnel the French built a new railway line ready for the opening we just connected up old lines whilst a new line was still going through planning procedures. The Lizzy line is another example of connecting old existing lines, which are now constantly breaking, with part of the route through East London having speed restrictions. Very few ministers have any knowledge of the brief they are given.
You're conflating issues there. The biggest hurdle to making fast progress on big transport projects is, indeed, the planning system - which often weighs overly in favour of nimbyism, but that has nothing to do with ministers.
The national grid absolutely needs updating, but it's a plc, acting on behalf of the interests of its shareholders - for whom short term gain and divdends are far more important than long term infrastructure upgrades.
But they are infrastructure projects, building offshore wind farms with no infrastructure in place to distribute the electricity. The people of East Angiia will do all in there power to stop pylons being erected, nimbyiism if you like. Ed Milliband is over seeing the this project, but will be long gone (probably sitting in the House of Lords) before any of this are up and running.
You don't have to build everything at exactly the same time. If we built the capacity to distribute the power first, but not the capacity to generate it, people would moan that we were wasting money on that instead. As for the people of East Anglia moaning - well, yes - quite. What's your solution to that?
Lunatics finally taken over the asylum... No more kebabs on a Saturday night.
This argument misrepresents the cost of Net Zero while ignoring its benefits. The 0.2% of GDP estimate from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is a net cost - it factors in both expenses and savings, including reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels, lower healthcare costs from cleaner air, and economic opportunities in green industries.
The suggested policies - heat pumps, EVs and dietary changes - are phased in gradually, allowing adaptation and innovation to drive down costs. The claim that this translates to “higher bills” ignores the long-term savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Meanwhile, comparing Net Zero costs to defence spending is misleading; one is an investment in economic resilience, the other a discretionary budget choice.
Cutting Net Zero pledges would increase long-term costs from climate damage, not save money.
Guido Fawkes must have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of its readers. In that, it might well have stumbled on a rare truth.
Lunatics finally taken over the asylum... No more kebabs on a Saturday night.
This argument misrepresents the cost of Net Zero while ignoring its benefits. The 0.2% of GDP estimate from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is a net cost - it factors in both expenses and savings, including reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels, lower healthcare costs from cleaner air, and economic opportunities in green industries.
The suggested policies - heat pumps, EVs and dietary changes - are phased in gradually, allowing adaptation and innovation to drive down costs. The claim that this translates to “higher bills” ignores the long-term savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Meanwhile, comparing Net Zero costs to defence spending is misleading; one is an investment in economic resilience, the other a discretionary budget choice.
Cutting Net Zero pledges would increase long-term costs from climate damage, not save money.
Guido Fawkes must have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of its readers. In that, it might well have stumbled on a rare truth.
Its owner has a low opinion of everyone but himself. That's why he drives around out of is skull, and claims that his Irish passport gives him exemption from British law. A proper shitstain.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
Taken from the linked article:
Murray Auchincloss, BP's chief executive, said the energy giant had gone "too far, too fast" in the transition away from fossil fuels, and that its faith in green energy was "misplaced".
He said BP would be "very selective" in investing in businesses working on the energy transition to renewables going forward, with funding reduced to between $1.5bn and $2bn per year.
He said this was part of a strategy "reset" by the company to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
Taken from the linked article:
Murray Auchincloss, BP's chief executive, said the energy giant had gone "too far, too fast" in the transition away from fossil fuels, and that its faith in green energy was "misplaced".
He said BP would be "very selective" in investing in businesses working on the energy transition to renewables going forward, with funding reduced to between $1.5bn and $2bn per year.
He said this was part of a strategy "reset" by the company to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.
BP profits are massively higher than they were before the energy crisis. As I detailed above they are making economically excess profits. This is the fundamental problem with the short-termist ultra capitalist world we live in. Even compared with European economies they have effective checks and balances against these things, rules about dividend payments and debt ratios, employees on the board to ensure long term stability of the company and numerous other measures. Us instead just allow these companies to take the piss unchecked in the search for every higher profits and every greater shareholder returns in a world of finite resources. If the system refuses to adapt it will surely collapse, whether that is socially, economically or as a result of a climate disaster.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
Taken from the linked article:
Murray Auchincloss, BP's chief executive, said the energy giant had gone "too far, too fast" in the transition away from fossil fuels, and that its faith in green energy was "misplaced".
He said BP would be "very selective" in investing in businesses working on the energy transition to renewables going forward, with funding reduced to between $1.5bn and $2bn per year.
He said this was part of a strategy "reset" by the company to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.
Over winter my home has used no electricity from the grid overall. I have been a net exporter due to a new solar and battery install.
I'm in the fortunate position to invest in this, so I don't have to worry about incompetent elected members shafting me sideways.
I no longer care how much or how long the TV is on. Fantastic investment.
I just read that gas turbine power stations have to pay a carbon tax for creating electricity. Let's think about this a little.
In the middle of the night I make no electricity, my battery provides power and then exports to the grid where my neighbours use the power I provide. A mini power station basically.
Others don't have this. In the dark still night we need the gas power station. They fire up, provide the power or equalise the grid, at the request of the grid operator.
They are heavily taxed for this. Who pays for this? You and I (although less so me now).
Secondly I am charged peak rate of 25pence for power, I export at flat rate of 15pence. My generated electric is the same as the imported. But it seems worth less, as the supplier can make 10p on my power.
I have ways to solve the imbalance above. But the principle remains. The power system is designed to.make large profits for shite companies. The tax system is a con.
Just think if there were mini power stations on all available homes and they could share that electric at a local price to neighbours
Do you live in an igloo @fenlandaddick ? Even during midsummer our battery doesn't last all night. This winter has produced almost nil from our panels. How do you do it ?
Heating is still Gas. I have oversized my array (east west facing house) we have 22 440 watt panels. I should admit for those weeks we had the northern blocking system that kept us grey I did draw from the grid overnight at 7p into my battery.
I also have an electric car so that takes alot of electric overnight but I have ignored that for my argument, as I would be paying more if using petrol motor. Electric is free if I'm in the office for work.
I designed my system so that even in winter on average the array and battery would cover our usage. Only Xmas day we need more than the powerwall can provide. This year there was enough sun so even then didn't need to worry.
But over the winter overall I am a net exporter.
I have a Tesla powerwall3 that can hold 13.5 kWh. A brilliant bit of kit (Shame about Musk). I can also add up to 3 more of them, so that when and if we go heat pump I can use them and the cheap electric overnight to keep the house warm. I'm waiting for the costs to make more sense before jumping to a heat pump
Our house is very energy efficient. Only 8 years old and extremely well insulated.
My advice to anyone who can invest is to fit as many panels as you can on the roof. The most expensive thing is the scaffolding and installer costs. The panels are really cheap. A battery is a must and I would 100% recommend a powerwall 3. The more I can export at 15p the sooner I can break even.
Usually between 4 to 6kwh per day in winter. Xmas around 13kwh.
Comments
We've had successive governments promoting net zero and its been overwhelmingly miserable experience for the average UK citizen.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.
Lots and lots just wrong with the above. just 2 points I'll pick up on - no one is pretending the technology is where it needs to be but as above it will only get there by use and by investment (and that's why I bang on so much about UK govt cutting research into battery technology).
The bit in bold is objectively not true. Even in your warped comparison where you are including front end costs of renewables but not the front end costs of speculatively drilling for gas/oil in the hope that one in 100 drills will actually result in a viable vein of fuel the cost is still significantly lower (between 75% and 80% lower). See below links that set this out.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-still-cheaper-than-gas-despite-auction-setback-for-offshore-wind/
Come on Canters - what the f*ck do ICL know compared to Guido?
Shouldn't the price of gas be hiked up (additional tax) to "encourage"/"nudge" customers towards clean electricity?
Its not really a consumer choice issue anyway. Its an invetsment and big business issue. What should be done and was done as a one off early in the energy crisis, is an additional tax on the profits of energy companies above the point where its deemed to be economically excess.
To give an example. During the cost of living crisis costs to companies go up therefore they put prices up and so profits should go up PROPORTIONALLY to that increase. Or in a real competitive free market world profits would actually fall as companies profits would swallow some of the price increase. Seems logical right? What actually happened during the cost of living crisis is that energy sector costs went up, prices went up proportionally more and so profit margins were increased and profits went up by a greater proportion than costs. This is blatant profiteering and is only possible due to the oligopoly power of the sector and government cronyism/corruption/lobbying. Oligopoly markets by definition make profits deemed to be economically excess. It's easy to calculate and pin point this based on published accounts. Additional tax on these amounts as per the windfall tax that was done early in the crisis would not harm the industry and would allow investment in renewables.
The same concept can be applied to almost every industry dominated by a small number of large powerful companies.
The only reason for them questioning the link is because human activity contributes to climate change, causing it. If the science had found humans aren't the cause and can't influence it, but extreme weather events are a consequence, they wouldn't question it then.
The national grid absolutely needs updating, but it's a plc, acting on behalf of the interests of its shareholders - for whom short term gain and divdends are far more important than long term infrastructure upgrades.
Lunatics finally taken over the asylum... No more kebabs on a Saturday night.
Meanwhile, comparing Net Zero costs to defence spending is misleading; one is an investment in economic resilience, the other a discretionary budget choice.
Cutting Net Zero pledges would increase long-term costs from climate damage, not save money.
Guido Fawkes must have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of its readers. In that, it might well have stumbled on a rare truth.
BP to spend more on oil & gas and move away from renewables, as shareholders are unhappy at their dividends.
The world can crash and burn, but as long as shareholders are ok, that's fine. BP will lose out in the end because the world HAS to move towards renewables and they won't have a fall back business to rely on.
The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.
Murray Auchincloss, BP's chief executive, said the energy giant had gone "too far, too fast" in the transition away from fossil fuels, and that its faith in green energy was "misplaced".
He said BP would be "very selective" in investing in businesses working on the energy transition to renewables going forward, with funding reduced to between $1.5bn and $2bn per year.
He said this was part of a strategy "reset" by the company to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.