Climate Emergency

swordfish · February 25

If we live in a world where hard facts are less meaningful to us than spin, what hope do we realistically have of solving anything?

Garrymanilow · February 25

cafcnick1992 said:

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

KingKinsella · February 25

Chizz said:

felix_31 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

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?

cantersaddick · February 25

KingKinsella said:

Chizz said:

felix_31 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

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.

Chizz · February 25

KingKinsella said:

Chizz said:

felix_31 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

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?

I think so.

fenlandaddick · February 25

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

swordfish · February 26

Garrymanilow said:

cafcnick1992 said:

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.

Hex · February 26

fenlandaddick said:

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 ?

cantersaddick · February 26

fenlandaddick said:

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.

Dansk_Red · February 26

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.

cantersaddick · February 26

Dansk_Red said:

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.

Leroy Ambrose · February 26

Dansk_Red said:

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.

Chippycafc · February 26

https://order-order.com/2025/02/26/net-zero-to-cost-same-amount-as-starmers-defence-uplift/

Lunatics finally taken over the asylum... No more kebabs on a Saturday night.

Dansk_Red · February 26

Leroy Ambrose said:

Dansk_Red said:

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.

Leroy Ambrose · February 26

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?

Chizz · February 26

Chippycafc said:

https://order-order.com/2025/02/26/net-zero-to-cost-same-amount-as-starmers-defence-uplift/

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.

Stig · February 26

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

https://order-order.com/2025/02/26/net-zero-to-cost-same-amount-as-starmers-defence-uplift/

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.

ME14addick · February 26

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po?sfnsn=scwspmo

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.

shirty5 · February 26

ME14addick said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po?sfnsn=scwspmo

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.

ME14addick · February 26

shirty5 said:

ME14addick said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po?sfnsn=scwspmo

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.

cantersaddick · February 26

ME14addick said:

shirty5 said:

ME14addick said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po?sfnsn=scwspmo

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.

Wheresmeticket · February 26

ME14addick said:

shirty5 said:

ME14addick said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po?sfnsn=scwspmo

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.

Christ on a bike.

fenlandaddick · February 26

Hex said:

fenlandaddick said:

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.

Smart meter was a huge help to plan my install

fenlandaddick · February 26

What it would say is I can import overnight at 7p into my battery and export at 15p.

So even when the sun is not shining I can make money.

The most I can export is 11kw thanks to a friendly DNO.

As I say a small power station.

You can all thank me later 😉

Covered End · February 26

fenlandaddick said:

Hex said:

fenlandaddick said:

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.
Smart meter was a huge help to plan my install

So how many years will it take for you to recover your outlay?
I'm assuming it could be something like 10 years?

fenlandaddick · February 27

It really depends the amount of sun and how high electricity prices go. The company estimate was 10 years. But that doesn't factor in I can charge overnight at 7p and then export at 15p. I can go with an intelligent export tarrif where I can export at a higher rate but for a shorter period of time. I think I can do it in 6 years with some intelligent import/export routines.

I am also shielded from most stupid decisions the governments make on electricity, and this was my main driver, I've lost all faith in their ability to run critical infrastructure in our favour, it is just another way of creaming money off us. What I really need is lower standing charge, as I am paying around 60 odd pence a day for nothing. Will be interesting what they come up with.

It cost me less than many spend on a new kitchen, and at least this investment can pay me back.

cantersaddick · February 27

You mentioning that the cost of panels is actually pretty small and the cost is installation, expertise, scaffolding etc. Reminded me of something I had seen from Germany I think where small panels aimed at balconies that can be plugged direct into a mains socket are becoming more common. Not gonna power a whole house but may be a cheap way to scale things a bit without the installation costs.

clive · February 27

Gatwick second runway backed by government

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjdz9q170yo

valleynick66 · February 27

fenlandaddick said:

It really depends the amount of sun and how high electricity prices go. The company estimate was 10 years. But that doesn't factor in I can charge overnight at 7p and then export at 15p. I can go with an intelligent export tarrif where I can export at a higher rate but for a shorter period of time. I think I can do it in 6 years with some intelligent import/export routines.
I am also shielded from most stupid decisions the governments make on electricity, and this was my main driver, I've lost all faith in their ability to run critical infrastructure in our favour, it is just another way of creaming money off us. What I really need is lower standing charge, as I am paying around 60 odd pence a day for nothing. Will be interesting what they come up with.
It cost me less than many spend on a new kitchen, and at least this investment can pay me back.

Curious - will you have any maintenance costs for this ‘kit’ within that 10 year or face any likely costs for upkeep / replacement soon after the 10 years? I’m just unaware of life expectancy and perhaps the less obvious costs.

fenlandaddick · February 27

Battery has no requirement for service. And a 10 year warranty with guarantee on capacity from Tesla

Solar panels have 5 year warranty.

3 year warranty on workmanship for the install with an insurance backed guarantee from HEIS.

Only reason to spend more would be damage or to upgrade the panels.

If there was a problem with cabling would need an electrician out after 3 years. But that would be true of cables already in house.

Panels over time will start to produce less, but my sister has a solar install that is 11 years old and she has not noticed any significant drop in output.

Climate Emergency

Comments

Gatwick second runway backed by government

Categories

Sponsored links: