Fuel shortages

ShootersHillGuru · April 1

valleynick66 said:

I think the counter argument is that we should do a combination of both in the short term and IF the finances stack up exploit the oil fields a little more if only for fuel security.

No one right minded can surely advocate doing less on renewables.

See your point but it won’t improve our fuel security. That is now firmly with renewable sources. We should have followed France 20 years or more ago and secured our fuel security by building nuclear power plants. The energy costs in France are generally 40% cheaper than in the UK. As usual the UK is always reactive to a crisis not proactive. Look at the state of our current Royal Navy. 13 frigates with only one capable of putting to sea within a week. The rest take weeks. We don’t like spending money where it’s most needed. Never have.

MuttleyCAFC · April 1

I don't understand how any lesson we can learn from this doesn't involve investing in renewables. Surely it is simple common sense.

Rizzo · April 1

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't understand how any lesson we can learn from this doesn't involve investing in renewables. Surely it is simple common sense.

Sadly there are many people in this country who form their opinions from watching/listening to 'news' sources that are funded by individuals and entities with a vested interest in fossil fuels.

PrincessFiona · April 1

Rizzo said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't understand how any lesson we can learn from this doesn't involve investing in renewables. Surely it is simple common sense.

Sadly there are many people in this country who form their opinions from watching/listening to 'news' sources that are funded by individuals and entities with a vested interest in fossil fuels.

Sadly there are too many people who form their opinions on what they read on social media from people who have no idea what they are talking about and are completely outcome biased, without realising that, without realising that there is wealth of information out there and not knowing how to conduct thorough and objective reasearch, let alone doing any

EugenesAxe · April 1

I think some people think reading social media is the research.

jose · April 1

Try not to burn any more fossil fuels.
Try to use public transport a bit more, or try cycling or walking if you can.
Try not to destroy the planet.
Sir Dave Brailsford talked of the ‘aggregation of marginal gains’. A good philosophy to get the planet started.

PrincessFiona · April 1

EugenesAxe said:

I think some people think reading social media is the research.

That's part of the problem! 'Thinking' that (though I'm not sure much actual thought is involved), what and why it is on there, and that too many don't think to even verify/fact-check it objectively. Not using nuances is another bug bare of mine too

charltonkeston · April 1

ShootersHillGuru said:

valleynick66 said:

I think the counter argument is that we should do a combination of both in the short term and IF the finances stack up exploit the oil fields a little more if only for fuel security.

No one right minded can surely advocate doing less on renewables.

See your point but it won’t improve our fuel security. That is now firmly with renewable sources. We should have followed France 20 years or more ago and secured our fuel security by building nuclear power plants. The energy costs in France are generally 40% cheaper than in the UK. As usual the UK is always reactive to a crisis not proactive. Look at the state of our current Royal Navy. 13 frigates with only one capable of putting to sea within a week. The rest take weeks. We don’t like spending money where it’s most needed. Never have.

A bit of an aside but related to fuel. My father in law had a bit of work done on his house and the guy doing it mentioned he was ex navy. My FIL said to him he was ex real navy, (merchant), and actually went to sea. The guy laughed and told him, in 3 years he spent 2 of them in Portsmouth. The fuel alone prohibits putting to sea. While many seem to think we are some sort minor maritime superpower, we're not really and I doubt those who think that would want to bare the extra costs to have a few ships bobbing up and down needlessly. I suppose we could go green there and use wind but that might be a step backwards.

As for energy you are spot on, we had planned to build new nuclear but we didn't carry through with it at a time when the cost of borrowing money was at a historic. Oil peak was years ago, generally speaking you take the easier bits first and leave what isn't cost effective alone. I'm sure the big oil companies would have developed anything and everything if there was a pound in it for them despite what some politicians and "experts" say now.

shine166 · April 1

ShootersHillGuru said:

Brent Crude back below $100 a barrel this morning and the markets have responded positively following the statement that Trump made overnight that the war would be over in about three weeks. On the other hand Iran have stated that their gift of free access through the straights is over and from now on a toll would be exacted on shipping through the Straights of Hormuz. I’ve not seen how much this would be or if Trump has accepted this statement by Tehran. I think Trump has got in way above his head and now has to end his military involvement to get oil flowing again. He’ll declare a victory and as usual leave a mess for the grownups to clear up. Apart from the cost to all of us that will continue for months and months at best the big takeaway from this catastrophe is that Trump now has a reason to leave NATO that he can put to the American people. The man’s a complete fool.

Trump might be ready to give up in 3 weeks, but Netanyahu will be a different story.

Chippycafc · April 1

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

The shadow energy secretary on NF this morning said there are two documents on EMs desk that will allow exploration on two fields. (they even had bloody names) Apparently there is a stack of resource there.

Ed has had them for a while and dithering as usual on signing them. This is worth billions of revenue to the UK economy.

Rosebank is the largest remaining oilfield in UK waters. Whilst on paper it appears as though there is a lot of oil to be found there (up to an estimated 300m barells) there are a number of factors that work against it.

- The oil is deeper under the seabed and in a deeper part of the sea than in previous UK oil fields making it harder and much more expensive to extract
The oil isnt in one large vein but spread out in hundreds of small to miniscule veins again making it harder and massively more expensive to extract.
- This then relies on speculative drilling at a huge scale which again is expensive (has been subsidised by the UK government for the last 20 years so will cost the taxpayer money) and also will have massive destructive impact on those localised ecosystems.
- The environmental impacts would be huge - Nearly a tonne of C02 per barell of oil extracted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3xzgdqw3ro
- Ohh and as usual -it will be extracted by a foreign company where profits will be offshored, the oil will be sold on the world market so we will always be price-takers. A literal drop in the ocean for supply and prices.

So not all as rosey as its made out to be.

And as this Oxford report found recently - even if it can all be extracted efficiently at this and all other UK oilfields (it cant) and even if all tax revenue raised will be spent on reducing energy bills (it wont be) then the maximum impact on prices will be £16-£82 per year. Whereas "A UK powered fully by renewable energy could save all households up to £441 a year on their energy bills" https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

One of the experts as i use that word loosely after the nut job experts on the brexit thread that got trolled out. But in the last week those were all answered and dismissed as technology today can overcome all those problems easily with a bit of will, and know how. This isnt Khans Elizabeth line.

The majority of view in my opinion is for digging till it ACTUALY runs dry, only tree huggers seem to oppose it

Getting the oil out of mostly spent oilfields and out of the newer but more challenging oilfields is costly. Any developer would need to consider the cost of extraction against the cost of a barrel of oil by the time they actually have the oil. Newer oilfields might not be financially viable.

Its fine shoots we will keep buying it from the fields next to it and lose out on billions.

Again we buy from the world market not from individual fields or countries. But don't let facts get in the way of your rantings.

You still must have a hangover. Several professionals on media this and last week have stated we can utilise north sea oil and other areas for own use and to make a profit. I realise their not as knowledgeable as you who doesn't work in that field but of course don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Instead we have that mad idiot and is gullible followers thinking he's doing a grand job. No matter how much extra it cost us every month.

So I've provided links to peer reviewed studies and reports to back up my points. You just keep claiming experts said it. I imagine you saw those "experts" on GB news (Legally not news) or somewhere similar. Feel free to provide an actual source if you are able.

Again, any new North Sea Oil will not come online until the mid 2030's. It will require government subsidies for speculative drilling which will offset any tax revenue that might be raised. It will be mined by a foreign company and profits taken abroad. It will be taken abroad most likely to India to be refined, from where it will be sold on the global market having an negligible impact on world supply and our prices.

So explain again how this will in any way bring down bills? or raise any money for anyone other than foreign based fossil fuel companies? Burden of proof is on you since you are diagreeing with peer reviewed research by Oxford university published this month found here: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

No one thinks this government is doing a good job least of all me. But lets not fall for the opportunism of the fossil fuel companies who are using the power and platforms to exploit the crisis for their own gain.

OMG I give up you win... As stated there have been professionals from the industry, government, education, engineering and every other knowledgeable group that have been on the media platforms explaining quite rationally how this can be done and can't help you., if you choose not to listen. Also the benefits of doing it. my recollection no CEO or self interest group have been on there.

I prefer to listen to them then someone not in the industry on a football forum.

Perhaps they should ask you on. You seem to be an expert on most subject matters.

Canters is right and posts links to back up his claims. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence,
instead of hearsay, you make it very difficult to take what you say seriously.

Listen to the radio then.... I can't be arsed to Google someone else's work, quote it and pretend it's mine. Is posting links the only method then. And fair point re people taking me seriously.. As I don't theirs

If people think a few windmills and a few solar panels will be enough to run our countries power requirements they are as deluded as the fool pushing it. Still the same put him in.

Good to see the Aussie pm telling people to take public transport to work as an alternative to driving and the alternative that people lie about.

AndyG · April 1

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't understand how any lesson we can learn from this doesn't involve investing in renewables. Surely it is simple common sense.

Of course you are right mate it is common sense. Unfortunately it seems governments across the world are doing U-turns re fossil fuels. Our own glorious leaders have announced that in 2027 VAT will apply to renewable technologies! That’s a 20% price increase on products like Solar and ASHP’s not exactly encouraging consumers

jose · April 1

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Off_it · April 1

AndyG said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't understand how any lesson we can learn from this doesn't involve investing in renewables. Surely it is simple common sense.

Of course you are right mate it is common sense. Unfortunately it seems governments across the world are doing U-turns re fossil fuels. Our own glorious leaders have announced that in 2027 VAT will apply to renewable technologies! That’s a 20% price increase on products like Solar and ASHP’s not exactly encouraging consumers

Where did you hear / read that?

(Edit: because it's wrong!)

charltonkeston · April 1

Chippycafc said:

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

The shadow energy secretary on NF this morning said there are two documents on EMs desk that will allow exploration on two fields. (they even had bloody names) Apparently there is a stack of resource there.

Ed has had them for a while and dithering as usual on signing them. This is worth billions of revenue to the UK economy.

Rosebank is the largest remaining oilfield in UK waters. Whilst on paper it appears as though there is a lot of oil to be found there (up to an estimated 300m barells) there are a number of factors that work against it.

- The oil is deeper under the seabed and in a deeper part of the sea than in previous UK oil fields making it harder and much more expensive to extract
The oil isnt in one large vein but spread out in hundreds of small to miniscule veins again making it harder and massively more expensive to extract.
- This then relies on speculative drilling at a huge scale which again is expensive (has been subsidised by the UK government for the last 20 years so will cost the taxpayer money) and also will have massive destructive impact on those localised ecosystems.
- The environmental impacts would be huge - Nearly a tonne of C02 per barell of oil extracted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3xzgdqw3ro
- Ohh and as usual -it will be extracted by a foreign company where profits will be offshored, the oil will be sold on the world market so we will always be price-takers. A literal drop in the ocean for supply and prices.

So not all as rosey as its made out to be.

And as this Oxford report found recently - even if it can all be extracted efficiently at this and all other UK oilfields (it cant) and even if all tax revenue raised will be spent on reducing energy bills (it wont be) then the maximum impact on prices will be £16-£82 per year. Whereas "A UK powered fully by renewable energy could save all households up to £441 a year on their energy bills" https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

One of the experts as i use that word loosely after the nut job experts on the brexit thread that got trolled out. But in the last week those were all answered and dismissed as technology today can overcome all those problems easily with a bit of will, and know how. This isnt Khans Elizabeth line.

The majority of view in my opinion is for digging till it ACTUALY runs dry, only tree huggers seem to oppose it

Getting the oil out of mostly spent oilfields and out of the newer but more challenging oilfields is costly. Any developer would need to consider the cost of extraction against the cost of a barrel of oil by the time they actually have the oil. Newer oilfields might not be financially viable.

Its fine shoots we will keep buying it from the fields next to it and lose out on billions.

Again we buy from the world market not from individual fields or countries. But don't let facts get in the way of your rantings.

You still must have a hangover. Several professionals on media this and last week have stated we can utilise north sea oil and other areas for own use and to make a profit. I realise their not as knowledgeable as you who doesn't work in that field but of course don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Instead we have that mad idiot and is gullible followers thinking he's doing a grand job. No matter how much extra it cost us every month.

So I've provided links to peer reviewed studies and reports to back up my points. You just keep claiming experts said it. I imagine you saw those "experts" on GB news (Legally not news) or somewhere similar. Feel free to provide an actual source if you are able.

Again, any new North Sea Oil will not come online until the mid 2030's. It will require government subsidies for speculative drilling which will offset any tax revenue that might be raised. It will be mined by a foreign company and profits taken abroad. It will be taken abroad most likely to India to be refined, from where it will be sold on the global market having an negligible impact on world supply and our prices.

So explain again how this will in any way bring down bills? or raise any money for anyone other than foreign based fossil fuel companies? Burden of proof is on you since you are diagreeing with peer reviewed research by Oxford university published this month found here: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

No one thinks this government is doing a good job least of all me. But lets not fall for the opportunism of the fossil fuel companies who are using the power and platforms to exploit the crisis for their own gain.

OMG I give up you win... As stated there have been professionals from the industry, government, education, engineering and every other knowledgeable group that have been on the media platforms explaining quite rationally how this can be done and can't help you., if you choose not to listen. Also the benefits of doing it. my recollection no CEO or self interest group have been on there.

I prefer to listen to them then someone not in the industry on a football forum.

Perhaps they should ask you on. You seem to be an expert on most subject matters.

Canters is right and posts links to back up his claims. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence,
instead of hearsay, you make it very difficult to take what you say seriously.

Listen to the radio then.... I can't be arsed to Google someone else's work, quote it and pretend it's mine. Is posting links the only method then. And fair point re people taking me seriously.. As I don't theirs

If people think a few windmills and a few solar panels will be enough to run our countries power requirements they are as deluded as the fool pushing it. Still the same put him in.

Good to see the Aussie pm telling people to take public transport to work as an alternative to driving and the alternative that people lie about.

Windmills won’t ever produce enough electricity, in fact they won’t produce any electricity. They mill.

Wind turbines on the other hand will and do produce electricity.

ME14addick · April 1

Chippycafc said:

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

The shadow energy secretary on NF this morning said there are two documents on EMs desk that will allow exploration on two fields. (they even had bloody names) Apparently there is a stack of resource there.

Ed has had them for a while and dithering as usual on signing them. This is worth billions of revenue to the UK economy.

Rosebank is the largest remaining oilfield in UK waters. Whilst on paper it appears as though there is a lot of oil to be found there (up to an estimated 300m barells) there are a number of factors that work against it.

- The oil is deeper under the seabed and in a deeper part of the sea than in previous UK oil fields making it harder and much more expensive to extract
The oil isnt in one large vein but spread out in hundreds of small to miniscule veins again making it harder and massively more expensive to extract.
- This then relies on speculative drilling at a huge scale which again is expensive (has been subsidised by the UK government for the last 20 years so will cost the taxpayer money) and also will have massive destructive impact on those localised ecosystems.
- The environmental impacts would be huge - Nearly a tonne of C02 per barell of oil extracted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3xzgdqw3ro
- Ohh and as usual -it will be extracted by a foreign company where profits will be offshored, the oil will be sold on the world market so we will always be price-takers. A literal drop in the ocean for supply and prices.

So not all as rosey as its made out to be.

And as this Oxford report found recently - even if it can all be extracted efficiently at this and all other UK oilfields (it cant) and even if all tax revenue raised will be spent on reducing energy bills (it wont be) then the maximum impact on prices will be £16-£82 per year. Whereas "A UK powered fully by renewable energy could save all households up to £441 a year on their energy bills" https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

One of the experts as i use that word loosely after the nut job experts on the brexit thread that got trolled out. But in the last week those were all answered and dismissed as technology today can overcome all those problems easily with a bit of will, and know how. This isnt Khans Elizabeth line.

The majority of view in my opinion is for digging till it ACTUALY runs dry, only tree huggers seem to oppose it

Getting the oil out of mostly spent oilfields and out of the newer but more challenging oilfields is costly. Any developer would need to consider the cost of extraction against the cost of a barrel of oil by the time they actually have the oil. Newer oilfields might not be financially viable.

Its fine shoots we will keep buying it from the fields next to it and lose out on billions.

Again we buy from the world market not from individual fields or countries. But don't let facts get in the way of your rantings.

You still must have a hangover. Several professionals on media this and last week have stated we can utilise north sea oil and other areas for own use and to make a profit. I realise their not as knowledgeable as you who doesn't work in that field but of course don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Instead we have that mad idiot and is gullible followers thinking he's doing a grand job. No matter how much extra it cost us every month.

So I've provided links to peer reviewed studies and reports to back up my points. You just keep claiming experts said it. I imagine you saw those "experts" on GB news (Legally not news) or somewhere similar. Feel free to provide an actual source if you are able.

Again, any new North Sea Oil will not come online until the mid 2030's. It will require government subsidies for speculative drilling which will offset any tax revenue that might be raised. It will be mined by a foreign company and profits taken abroad. It will be taken abroad most likely to India to be refined, from where it will be sold on the global market having an negligible impact on world supply and our prices.

So explain again how this will in any way bring down bills? or raise any money for anyone other than foreign based fossil fuel companies? Burden of proof is on you since you are diagreeing with peer reviewed research by Oxford university published this month found here: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

No one thinks this government is doing a good job least of all me. But lets not fall for the opportunism of the fossil fuel companies who are using the power and platforms to exploit the crisis for their own gain.

OMG I give up you win... As stated there have been professionals from the industry, government, education, engineering and every other knowledgeable group that have been on the media platforms explaining quite rationally how this can be done and can't help you., if you choose not to listen. Also the benefits of doing it. my recollection no CEO or self interest group have been on there.

I prefer to listen to them then someone not in the industry on a football forum.

Perhaps they should ask you on. You seem to be an expert on most subject matters.

Canters is right and posts links to back up his claims. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence,
instead of hearsay, you make it very difficult to take what you say seriously.

Listen to the radio then.... I can't be arsed to Google someone else's work, quote it and pretend it's mine. Is posting links the only method then. And fair point re people taking me seriously.. As I don't theirs

If people think a few windmills and a few solar panels will be enough to run our countries power requirements they are as deluded as the fool pushing it. Still the same put him in.

Good to see the Aussie pm telling people to take public transport to work as an alternative to driving and the alternative that people lie about.

It depends on the radio station and the agenda of the person speaking. The powerful oil and gas lobby has tentacles everywhere.

There are many days when wind turbines and solar panels are the main source of electricity. It's clean, sustainable and cheaper than fossil fuels and much better for every living thing on the planet.

cantersaddick · April 1

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

cantersaddick · April 1

charltonkeston said:

Chippycafc said:

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

The shadow energy secretary on NF this morning said there are two documents on EMs desk that will allow exploration on two fields. (they even had bloody names) Apparently there is a stack of resource there.

Ed has had them for a while and dithering as usual on signing them. This is worth billions of revenue to the UK economy.

Rosebank is the largest remaining oilfield in UK waters. Whilst on paper it appears as though there is a lot of oil to be found there (up to an estimated 300m barells) there are a number of factors that work against it.

- The oil is deeper under the seabed and in a deeper part of the sea than in previous UK oil fields making it harder and much more expensive to extract
The oil isnt in one large vein but spread out in hundreds of small to miniscule veins again making it harder and massively more expensive to extract.
- This then relies on speculative drilling at a huge scale which again is expensive (has been subsidised by the UK government for the last 20 years so will cost the taxpayer money) and also will have massive destructive impact on those localised ecosystems.
- The environmental impacts would be huge - Nearly a tonne of C02 per barell of oil extracted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3xzgdqw3ro
- Ohh and as usual -it will be extracted by a foreign company where profits will be offshored, the oil will be sold on the world market so we will always be price-takers. A literal drop in the ocean for supply and prices.

So not all as rosey as its made out to be.

And as this Oxford report found recently - even if it can all be extracted efficiently at this and all other UK oilfields (it cant) and even if all tax revenue raised will be spent on reducing energy bills (it wont be) then the maximum impact on prices will be £16-£82 per year. Whereas "A UK powered fully by renewable energy could save all households up to £441 a year on their energy bills" https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

One of the experts as i use that word loosely after the nut job experts on the brexit thread that got trolled out. But in the last week those were all answered and dismissed as technology today can overcome all those problems easily with a bit of will, and know how. This isnt Khans Elizabeth line.

The majority of view in my opinion is for digging till it ACTUALY runs dry, only tree huggers seem to oppose it

Getting the oil out of mostly spent oilfields and out of the newer but more challenging oilfields is costly. Any developer would need to consider the cost of extraction against the cost of a barrel of oil by the time they actually have the oil. Newer oilfields might not be financially viable.

Its fine shoots we will keep buying it from the fields next to it and lose out on billions.

Again we buy from the world market not from individual fields or countries. But don't let facts get in the way of your rantings.

You still must have a hangover. Several professionals on media this and last week have stated we can utilise north sea oil and other areas for own use and to make a profit. I realise their not as knowledgeable as you who doesn't work in that field but of course don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Instead we have that mad idiot and is gullible followers thinking he's doing a grand job. No matter how much extra it cost us every month.

So I've provided links to peer reviewed studies and reports to back up my points. You just keep claiming experts said it. I imagine you saw those "experts" on GB news (Legally not news) or somewhere similar. Feel free to provide an actual source if you are able.

Again, any new North Sea Oil will not come online until the mid 2030's. It will require government subsidies for speculative drilling which will offset any tax revenue that might be raised. It will be mined by a foreign company and profits taken abroad. It will be taken abroad most likely to India to be refined, from where it will be sold on the global market having an negligible impact on world supply and our prices.

So explain again how this will in any way bring down bills? or raise any money for anyone other than foreign based fossil fuel companies? Burden of proof is on you since you are diagreeing with peer reviewed research by Oxford university published this month found here: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

No one thinks this government is doing a good job least of all me. But lets not fall for the opportunism of the fossil fuel companies who are using the power and platforms to exploit the crisis for their own gain.

OMG I give up you win... As stated there have been professionals from the industry, government, education, engineering and every other knowledgeable group that have been on the media platforms explaining quite rationally how this can be done and can't help you., if you choose not to listen. Also the benefits of doing it. my recollection no CEO or self interest group have been on there.

I prefer to listen to them then someone not in the industry on a football forum.

Perhaps they should ask you on. You seem to be an expert on most subject matters.

Canters is right and posts links to back up his claims. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence,
instead of hearsay, you make it very difficult to take what you say seriously.

Listen to the radio then.... I can't be arsed to Google someone else's work, quote it and pretend it's mine. Is posting links the only method then. And fair point re people taking me seriously.. As I don't theirs

If people think a few windmills and a few solar panels will be enough to run our countries power requirements they are as deluded as the fool pushing it. Still the same put him in.

Good to see the Aussie pm telling people to take public transport to work as an alternative to driving and the alternative that people lie about.

Windmills won’t ever produce enough electricity, in fact they won’t produce any electricity. They mill.
Wind turbines on the other hand will and do produce electricity.

35% of our engery over the last year in fact. https://grid.iamkate.com/

valleynick66 · April 1

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

So do we have any infrastructure projects nearing completion that will push this higher still?

ME14addick · April 1

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

So do we have any infrastructure projects nearing completion that will push this higher still?

Search on Google: As of early 2026, the UK has roughly 10.4 GW of offshore wind capacity under construction, with major projects like the 1.4GW Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (expected late April 2026) and phases of the massive Dogger Bank development currently being built. Other key projects in construction include East Anglia Two and Hornsea.

fenlandaddick · April 1

Looks like the Chancellor is up for a bit of drilling https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reeves-backs-north-sea-drilling-165944301.html

Positive impact on jobs and revenue apparently...

cantersaddick · April 1

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

So do we have any infrastructure projects nearing completion that will push this higher still?

Genuinely dont know so did a google search - this is the AI summary. Havent fact checked anything so take all details with a shovel of salt.

Key energy infrastructure projects going live or starting construction in 2026 include:

Renewable Energy and Generation

Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (1.4GW): Sited on Dogger Bank, this 100-turbine project has a planned completion date of late April 2026, with substantial construction activity ongoing.
Dogger Bank A & B (2.4GW): As part of the world's largest offshore wind farm, these phases are commissioning, with a second turbine installation vessel joining in 2026 to speed up the final installation of 95 turbines.
Cleve Hill Solar Park: Commencing operations, this is set to be one of the UK's largest solar and battery storage projects.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm: Following its planning consent, major construction on this West Sussex coast expansion is set to ramp up in 2026.
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind (FLOW): Receives support from Great British Energy (GBE) and the National Wealth Fund (NWF) in 2026 to advance toward operation.

Grid Infrastructure and Storage

Eastern Green Link 1 (EGL1): A multi-billion-pound subsea and onshore HVDC cable project connecting renewable energy from Scotland to the North of England is a key focus for 2026.
Eastern Green Link 2 & 3 (EGL2/EGL3): Subsea "superhighways" securing early investment for construction to deliver Scottish wind energy to England.
Battery Storage Expansion: 2026 will see the commission of approximately 725 MW of new-build battery capacity procured via the Capacity Market to balance the grid.

Nuclear and Low-Carbon Industry

Hinkley Point C (Nuclear): In 2026, the focus shifts heavily from civil construction to the intricate mechanical, electrical, and HVAC (MEH) installation phases.
Sizewell C (Nuclear): Ramps up construction in 2026, including major sea defence installations.
Net Zero Teesside (CCUS): This carbon capture project is expected to begin construction in Q4 2026, designed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of C02
Green Hydrogen Projects (HAR1): Ten commercial-scale green hydrogen projects, including Hygen's Bradford and MorGen's West Wales projects, will begin construction following 2025 approvals.

Regulatory and Strategic Moves

Great British Energy (GBE): Will actively deploy capital as a developer, investor, and owner of clean energy projects in 2026.
Grid Connections Reform: New "First Ready, First Needed" rules mean projects with 2026/27 connection dates are being prioritized in the queue.
Heat Networks Regulation: From January 27, 2026, Ofgem will begin regulating heat networks to support the expansion of low-carbon heating.

cantersaddick · April 1

ME14addick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

So do we have any infrastructure projects nearing completion that will push this higher still?

Search on Google: As of early 2026, the UK has roughly 10.4 GW of offshore wind capacity under construction, with major projects like the 1.4GW Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (expected late April 2026) and phases of the massive Dogger Bank development currently being built. Other key projects in construction include East Anglia Two and Hornsea.

To put that 10.4GW into context it will almost double our current wind capacity. It is also higher than the average use of fossil fuels across the past year 8.4GW so should reduce that right down to tiny levels needed to see out peaks and troughs that cant be managed through storage/nuclear/hydro.

valleynick66 · April 1

On that basis you’d expect the percentages previously quoted to grow further quite quickly then.

cantersaddick · April 1

valleynick66 said:

On that basis you’d expect the percentages previously quoted to grow further quite quickly then.

Would expect so. Though slightly slowed by ever increasing demand and things like AI energy usage.

valleynick66 · April 1

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

On that basis you’d expect the percentages previously quoted to grow further quite quickly then.

Would expect so. Though slightly slowed by ever increasing demand and things like AI energy usage.

Well if your second point is true that potentially (at least in part) plays to an argument to maintain if not temporarily increase the remaining fossil fuel element.

Always a balance.

My question was really motivated by the blockers to more wind farms etc and the NIMBY challenge. I recall some rhetoric on changing planning consents / objections to circumvent that but wasn’t sure how well that was progressing to bring even more on stream in the short to medium term.

Hooefully that is also being smoothed over to continue the expansion. The nonsense argument about eyesores when it’s remote locations just baffles me.

Fumbluff · April 1

First click on this thread and it seems to be about @cantersaddick doubling his wind capacity. I’m out…

cantersaddick · April 1

Fumbluff said:

First click on this thread and it seems to be about @cantersaddick doubling his wind capacity. I’m out…

A name like Fumbluff you would be worried about wind!

cantersaddick · April 1

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

On that basis you’d expect the percentages previously quoted to grow further quite quickly then.

Would expect so. Though slightly slowed by ever increasing demand and things like AI energy usage.

Well if your second point is true that potentially (at least in part) plays to an argument to maintain if not temporarily increase the remaining fossil fuel element.

Always a balance.

My question was really motivated by the blockers to more wind farms etc and the NIMBY challenge. I recall some rhetoric on changing planning consents / objections to circumvent that but wasn’t sure how well that was progressing to bring even more on stream in the short to medium term.

Hooefully that is also being smoothed over to continue the expansion. The nonsense argument about eyesores when it’s remote locations just baffles me.

Ohh absolutely - I certainly have not been arguing that we should stop current oil extraction. But if that expansion is what is expected within a year imagine how much further we will be by the early 2030s when any new oilfields would come online. We should realistically expect to be at a point where they are unnecessary - even before you consider the 'we buy from global markets' point.

No idea on planning laws and agree about NIMBYism

Blackheathen · April 1

shine166 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Brent Crude back below $100 a barrel this morning and the markets have responded positively following the statement that Trump made overnight that the war would be over in about three weeks. On the other hand Iran have stated that their gift of free access through the straights is over and from now on a toll would be exacted on shipping through the Straights of Hormuz. I’ve not seen how much this would be or if Trump has accepted this statement by Tehran. I think Trump has got in way above his head and now has to end his military involvement to get oil flowing again. He’ll declare a victory and as usual leave a mess for the grownups to clear up. Apart from the cost to all of us that will continue for months and months at best the big takeaway from this catastrophe is that Trump now has a reason to leave NATO that he can put to the American people. The man’s a complete fool.

Trump might be ready to give up in 3 weeks, but Netanyahu will be a different story.

When the war ends attention will be back on the Epstein Files. Trump won’t want that.

cafcfan · April 1

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

jose said:

In 2024 renewables generated just over half of the UK electricity.
So from 0 to 50% in about 40 years is pretty good going. I think we must continue that direction of travel and try to move faster.

Its actually even better than that - over the past year fossil fuels only made up 27.3% of our energy generation.

So do we have any infrastructure projects nearing completion that will push this higher still?

Genuinely dont know so did a google search - this is the AI summary. Havent fact checked anything so take all details with a shovel of salt.

Key energy infrastructure projects going live or starting construction in 2026 include:
Renewable Energy and Generation
Sofia Offshore Wind Farm (1.4GW): Sited on Dogger Bank, this 100-turbine project has a planned completion date of late April 2026, with substantial construction activity ongoing.
Dogger Bank A & B (2.4GW): As part of the world's largest offshore wind farm, these phases are commissioning, with a second turbine installation vessel joining in 2026 to speed up the final installation of 95 turbines.
Cleve Hill Solar Park: Commencing operations, this is set to be one of the UK's largest solar and battery storage projects.
Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm: Following its planning consent, major construction on this West Sussex coast expansion is set to ramp up in 2026.
Pentland Floating Offshore Wind (FLOW): Receives support from Great British Energy (GBE) and the National Wealth Fund (NWF) in 2026 to advance toward operation.
Grid Infrastructure and Storage
Eastern Green Link 1 (EGL1): A multi-billion-pound subsea and onshore HVDC cable project connecting renewable energy from Scotland to the North of England is a key focus for 2026.
Eastern Green Link 2 & 3 (EGL2/EGL3): Subsea "superhighways" securing early investment for construction to deliver Scottish wind energy to England.
Battery Storage Expansion: 2026 will see the commission of approximately 725 MW of new-build battery capacity procured via the Capacity Market to balance the grid.
Nuclear and Low-Carbon Industry
Hinkley Point C (Nuclear): In 2026, the focus shifts heavily from civil construction to the intricate mechanical, electrical, and HVAC (MEH) installation phases.
Sizewell C (Nuclear): Ramps up construction in 2026, including major sea defence installations.
Net Zero Teesside (CCUS): This carbon capture project is expected to begin construction in Q4 2026, designed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of C02
Green Hydrogen Projects (HAR1): Ten commercial-scale green hydrogen projects, including Hygen's Bradford and MorGen's West Wales projects, will begin construction following 2025 approvals.

Regulatory and Strategic Moves
Great British Energy (GBE): Will actively deploy capital as a developer, investor, and owner of clean energy projects in 2026.
Grid Connections Reform: New "First Ready, First Needed" rules mean projects with 2026/27 connection dates are being prioritized in the queue.
Heat Networks Regulation: From January 27, 2026, Ofgem will begin regulating heat networks to support the expansion of low-carbon heating.

Yes, offshore wind in particular is slated for a big increase in production. The problem comes if some lunatic, let's call him Putin, decides to chop through the linking undersea cables, that anticipated 43GW suddenly becomes zero. Add in the 20% of our gas supply through the 1,166km long Langeled pipeline suddenly blown up and we are in deep doggie do. It's not as if we have an operational navy to protect anything.

Fuel shortages

Comments

Categories