Stig said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.

You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.

So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive? 

It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.

I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.

I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.

1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer. 

2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.

We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.

Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive. 

Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.

Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).

Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.

Getting more oil and gas will not benefit consumers in the UK, it will be sold on international markets. 

Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change. 

You do realise that ME was quoting that phrase from its outlandish use above, don't you?

Chippycafc said:

I think its fair to say that governments should lead by example what ever their colour.   This lot certainly are.

https://order-order.com/2025/01/31/taxpayer-forks-out-11000-an-hour-for-starmers-private-jet-flights-over-first-three-months-in-office

Redskin said:

Stig said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.

You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.

So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive? 

It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.

I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.

I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.

1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer. 

2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.

We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.

Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive. 

Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.

Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).

Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.

Getting more oil and gas will not benefit consumers in the UK, it will be sold on international markets. 

Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change. 

You do realise that ME was quoting that phrase from its outlandish use above, don't you?

I didn't, but so what? I was pointing out the catastrophising asininity of the phrase, not the fact that ME14 quoted it.
You Chicken Lickens, honestly...

• The UK is likely to undergo drastic changes, as the effects of climate change become more pronounced
• If temperatures climb above 1.5°C, we could be facing a very different country by 2100
• Reaching net zero emissions and transforming the UK into a world leader in the fight against climate change, would set a precedent for other nations to follow
• The UK will need to invest heavily in flood defences and better firefighting services to manage the impact of climate change by 2100
• Many important species of animals in the UK could also be extinct by 2100, including hedgehogs, dormice, wildcats, and water voles

shirty5 said:

Shame no one listened to the climate expert that the BBC had on for a while when he first appeared 30 years ago.

Spoke a lot of sense back then which most is still happening today 

swords_alive said:

swordfish said:

Climate Change: Is It The Greatest Crisis Or A Global Deception

Shouldn't deniers just be left behind now? Why should such a debate still have purchase such that Forbes would bother entertaining it? Does it still stimulate sales sufficiently among the audiences of certain media outlets that they have to keep returning to it?

I'd be all for encouraging deniers to drive with a hosepipe running from the exhaust of their fossil powered vehicle to the driver seat to confirm the value of their beliefs in practice.

cantersaddick said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

swordfish said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

swordfish said:

In total, fossil fuels made up just 29% of the UK’s electricity in 2024 – the lowest level on record – while renewables reached a record-high 45% and nuclear was another 13%.

Edit - Link to the source Analysis: UK’s electricity was cleanest ever in 2024 - Carbon Brief

Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.

The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.

Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.

So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.

In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.

But isn’t that the real problem ? We are told there is electricity generation being put in place but that has all got long lead times and is subject to delay and cancellation; yet in the meantime there are increasing electricity usage measures and deadlines looming now that come at a significant cost to business and individuals. 

I'm not sure how there are significant costs to business or individuals? can you explain please?

However we use gas (I think we can all agree that Coal's day is done) its gonna come through the world market so will cost us the same. Whether we grant loads of exploratory drilling licenses (which as I said a few pages back are now guarantee that gas actually starts flowing and very unlikely in the next 10 years) whether we buy our gas from abroad or import energy it comes from the world market so will be costing broadly the same. Remember its not a govt decision but one for the suppliers so they will minimise costs. Also much of the energy we've been importing has been hydro electric from Norway. 

Drilling for gas has much longer lead times than the ones you are talking about for Nuclear. We have a massive offshore windfarm coming online this year. Prices of home solar are coming down - they can have instant effects, home mini wind turbines are becoming a thing, solid state batteries will revolutionise storage and how the grid works. Renewables will have much more of an effect in the short term AND cost 70-80% less than fossil fuels. Its a win win.

Chippycafc said:

Norway ‘fed up’ with net zero ‘nonsense’

1. Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
2. Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
3. Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
4. China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
5. Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives. 

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

Norway ‘fed up’ with net zero ‘nonsense’

1. Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
2. Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
3. Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
4. China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
5. Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives. 

The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy. 

Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.  

It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will
we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid;  b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.

letthegoodtimesroll said:

swordfish said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

Norway ‘fed up’ with net zero ‘nonsense’

1. Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
2. Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
3. Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
4. China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
5. Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives. 

The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy. 

Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.  

It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will
we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid;  b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.

Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?

I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.

FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.