# help us by a power station !!



## joethedrummer (2 Feb 2022)

just had my new direct debit figure for gas and electric,,,, a 54 % increase


----------



## Spectric (2 Feb 2022)

That sounds a hard hitter, then add in the extra 1.5% NI contributions from April and inflation is also starting to run away then we are going to have less in the pocket to spend out on hobbies. 

But the next increase on energy bills is also on it's way because our wonderful government has passed the new energy bill that will allow the electricity suppliers to pass on some of the cost of building new nuclear plants, I dare say they are also working on some way in which they can also pass on the cost of downing street parties to the tax payer as well. The bit I do not understand is that they want to raise more money so increase NI but at the same time are happy to give millions to a non nato country like Ukraine, logic says that if you were a PM on a sinking ship then would you not try and apease the people rather than taking more from them just to give it away whilst making the global economy unstable by provoking a big super power !


----------



## baldkev (2 Feb 2022)

In october energy will ( apparently )go up an estimated 20% ontop of the new prices.....


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Feb 2022)

No company is going to build new nuclear plants for free - it is simply a matter of who pays - consumers of electricity, taxpayers through higher taxes, or the magic money tree.

Despite the superficial attractiveness of the last option, I suspect the first has a degree of logic to it - those who use most pay most.

Final option is not to build nuclear plants - carry on paying for gas, building turbines or run out of leccy.


----------



## Sachakins (2 Feb 2022)

Cancel the build of just two nuclear power stations and invest in tidal energy generation, after all we are an island nation.


----------



## Jameshow (3 Feb 2022)

Perhaps we are paying in advance for Putin's immenant war??


----------



## highwood122 (3 Feb 2022)

build more electric capacity with tax payers money then sell it to foreign investors as per our water companys


----------



## Cozzer (3 Feb 2022)

baldkev said:


> In october energy will ( apparently )go up an estimated 20% ontop of the new prices.....



But then you read that the UK - thee, and me - have just given 88 million quid to Ukraine to help them "not be so dependent on Russia as regards the price of fuel".
_£88 million..._

Call me simple, but.....?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Feb 2022)

There are ~20m households in the UK all of which on average is going to pay ~£500 pa more for energy in the next few months.

The help to Ukraine is about £4.40 for each household.

I make no comment as to whether this is taxpayers money well spent. But whilst £88m as a lottery win is truly life changing, as a bit of government spending it is just trivial.


----------



## thetyreman (3 Feb 2022)

this is what happens when you exploit a planet with finite resources.


----------



## Spectric (3 Feb 2022)

Cozzer said:


> But then you read that the UK - thee, and me - have just given 88 million quid to Ukraine to help them "not be so dependent on Russia as regards the price of fuel".


And who now doubts that bumbling Borris has not suffered long term mental health issues since having Covid. It is his only possible excuse because otherwise he must be classed as insane.



Terry - Somerset said:


> But whilst £88m as a lottery win is truly life changing, as a bit of government spending it is just trivial.



If this was a one off expenditure then maybe trivial, but a lot of trivials can add up to a massive debt on us all, in times of increased hardship where some families are facing heat or eat then just giving money away is one sure way of losing votes and with the PM on the ropes lets hope it will soon be a knockout and the Uk can start to get back on track and stop war mongering in the process.



Terry - Somerset said:


> No company is going to build new nuclear plants for free



The issue is finding investors willing to invest a huge sum of money into a project with open ended risk and a lot of uncertaintity as to when it may return any dividends, most just run a mile. Would you want to invest in alchemy, clingfilm parachutes or chocolate tea pots because that is how many investors feel about the nuclear industry because the risk are just to great and the general concensus is all about green and renewable energy these days that does not leave a long term legacy of waste.


----------



## joethedrummer (3 Feb 2022)

,, so i told them i wouldn,t pay £122,, they said how much will you pay,, i said £98,, they said,, OK,, guess i,m going to pay a lot more later,, ( i was paying £79 and was £5 in credit after going thro" most of the winter )


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Feb 2022)

The general concensus is all about green and renewable energy these days that does not leave a long term legacy of waste... 

Yes, and we're paying for it.


----------



## D_W (3 Feb 2022)

Sachakins said:


> Cancel the build of just two nuclear power stations and invest in tidal energy generation, after all we are an island nation.



What's the actual proven cost of installed tidal energy over the long term? Wind is 6 cents per kwhr here. Hydro is even less, but there are environmental consequences in terms of water flow changes and animal behaviors. 

Gas here is around 4 1/2 cents and *ongoing* , not new, nuclear is pushing toward 6 cents a kw/hr. 

Tidal sounds like "free energy", but if it costs 14 cents a kwhr levelized for generation costs over its lifetime, it will make you poor - not just the ratepayer, but everyone. Hydro is efficient when the equipment is smaller and the pressure is higher (cost efficient). When the water is large volume moving with low head, it doesn't work at scale.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Feb 2022)

All energy sources have consequences - environmental and financial - eg:

Coal, gas, oil - atmospheric pollution, limited reserves/diminishing resource, climate change
Nuclear - risk of failure in operation, storage of waste, terrorism risk 
Wind - landscape pollution, bird life
Solar - rare elements, land not available for housing or food, not 24x7
Dams - impact on landscape, agriculture, fisheries 

This is not a complete and thoughtful list - merely demonstrating that there are competing impacts. Put cost into the equation and it is not just a trade off between different environmental impacts, but a trade off of environmental impact against cost, energy security and long term vs short term.

UK reliance on gas is in large part a legacy of North Sea production capability, for which we are now paying. Hinkley price per MWh at £92.50 seemed gross when originally negotiated a few years ago, and now seems like a good deal.

We need a coherent long term view of the future, not responding to short term pressures. Very complex and we will inevitably get it wrong. But we will probably have a better outcome if we have a strategy than not!


----------



## Cozzer (3 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> All energy sources have consequences - environmental and financial - eg:
> 
> Coal, gas, oil - atmospheric pollution, limited reserves/diminishing resource, climate change
> Nuclear - risk of failure in operation, storage of waste, terrorism risk
> ...



Somebody, somewhere will hopefully come up with a storage/battery/who-knows-what solution to this solar power conundrum. Then again, what happens to the spent storage medium at the end of its useful life? 

Wave power harnessing would seem to be the obvious solution for island GB, but apparently the science behind it is likely to remain costly and riddled with complexities.


----------



## MARK.B. (3 Feb 2022)

Must nip down the scrappy at the weekend  just watched a youtuber make his own free electricity making machine


----------



## Droogs (3 Feb 2022)

@joethedrummer This is a much help as I can give you. you don't own a whole powerstation but you do own a bit of one






How it works


Own part of a wind farm for clean, green electricity from as little as £25. All this can be yours in just 4 easy steps.




rippleenergy.com


----------



## Morty (4 Feb 2022)

We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.


----------



## Ollie78 (4 Feb 2022)

Just got a bill this morning. 
The electricity now costs more than both the gas and electricity used to cost together. 
Not fun.


Ollie


----------



## Adam W. (4 Feb 2022)

Morty said:


> We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
> The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.


More of a Doh!  than anything else.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> No company is going to build new nuclear plants for free - it is simply a matter of who pays - consumers of electricity, taxpayers through higher taxes, or the magic money tree.
> 
> Despite the superficial attractiveness of the last option, I suspect the first has a degree of logic to it - those who use most pay most.


A lot more logic in making those who own most also pay most


----------



## Woody2Shoes (4 Feb 2022)

Morty said:


> We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
> The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.


Fracking in the UK was never going to make any sense, geologically, economically or environmentally. Thankfully, that ship has sailed never to return.
We have access to world class wind and tidal resources, which we should have been much more actively exploiting before now.
We are maxed out on hydro, through lack of geography - much of our existing hydro is used as a form of energy storage 'pumped hydro'.
Successive governments have failed to plan properly, and OFGEM the regulator is not fit for purpose.
While electricity is only a part of our energy mix, there is cause for optimism - current demand just short of 39GW:

Wind

12400 MW

(32.0%)

Gas

10400 MW

(26.9%)

Nuclear

5200 MW

(13.5%)

Biomass

2900 MW

(17.5%)

France

1700 MW

(4.4%)

Netherlands

1100 MW

(2.7%)

Coal

980 MW

(2.5%)

Belgium

970 MW

(25%)

Storage

850 MW

(2.2%)

Hydro

730 MW

(1.9%)

Norway

690 MW

(1.8%)

Solar

510 MW

(1,3%)

Other

270 MW

(0.7%)

N. Ireland

14 MW

(00%)

Ireland

0 MW

(0.0%)

Oil

0 MW

(0.0%)

Updated 04/02/2022 09:05


----------



## RobinBHM (4 Feb 2022)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Fracking in the UK was never going to make any sense, geologically, economically or environmentally.



Does that depend on what we compare it to?

the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns 

Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option


----------



## clogs (4 Feb 2022)

a little bit of everything is the way to go...
ie wind , solar etc.....
we def need to get away from PUTINS gas supply tho....make him snort the stuff....
anything that makes elec wholesale should be VAT free and also domestic solar panels.....
esp RESEARCH into/on that subject.....

bit a bit less money for cake a coissonts at number 10 tho....
or is it Moet and olives.....

Actually having somebody at the helm that actually knows about the subject would be a great help.....
not some no nothing silly person in a suit taking bribes....
we've got the brains (men in sheds) but not the inclination from industry, thats because they are happy with what they have...
Large bills and inflation don't afect them.....
what we really need is for 50%of the pop go out and buy their own solar elec system and go off grid....
that might wake a few up.....
cos I'm giving it more thought everyday.....


----------



## Woody2Shoes (4 Feb 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Does that depend on what we compare it to?
> 
> the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns
> 
> Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option


Compared to importing it from countries that can produce it in much greater volumes than we ever could, with expenditure of much less resource overall, with much less additional environmental damage.

The marginal cost of production of Saudi oil is around $5 per barrel - the onshore southern UK equivalent marginal cost of production (from "tight oil" deposits - got by "fracking" - just like the oil Bakken in the US, but orders of magnitude smaller!) is probably around $70-90 per barrel. Even if we were to go all out for it, with massive investment, the production volumes would not make any significant contribution to overall UK supply and we would be swimming against the tide in any event.

Saying we should use a lot of (imported, for the most part) diesel/steel/gas to get a trivially small amount of (certainly in the south of England) oil *not* gas - rather than importing it from somewhere it can be produced much more economically - is a bit like saying that just because we technically can grow bananas in the UK, we should do that in preference to importing them from countries with a more appropriate climate (for the time being!). Sheik Yamani said something along the same lines as "let the lowest cost producers do just that".

We are very far from being self-sufficient in food, and yet nobody's making any serious argument that we should bulldoze the place to grow significantly more of our own food (bananas or anything else)...

The truth is that we can and must wean ourselves off fossil fuels as soon as possible, and that takes political will which is sadly lacking (partly because the vested interests have such powerful lobbying capabilities - have you noticed the publicity campaigns [funded by middle eastern interests] trying to convince us all of the merits of "blue" hydrogen?).

We have most of the technology already - we should have upgraded our existing housing stock already, for example - it is quite possible to engineer housing that doesn't need heating/cooling (certainly not to the painful extent as currently) - again, powerful lobby groups have averted government action for too long.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (4 Feb 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Does that depend on what we compare it to?
> 
> the reality is we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a quote a long time so is there an argument that we would be better to extract it here in the UK under high levels of environmental control rather than buy it from foreign parts where there may be no such concerns
> 
> Im not in any way disagreeing with the point you made, I just wonder about what might be the least worst option


It doesn't make sense geologically, because in the Sussex weald, what there is is mostly oil (the geology is not sufficiently 'thermally mature' to have produced much gas) - this is something that was conveniently glossed over by the would-be frackers, because gas sounds slightly better than oil environmentally speaking. The truth is that they were after oil, because it's much more profitable, and at the time oil prices were about $100 per barrel.

The largest producing well in Sussex, from a 'conventional' reservoir, produces a couple of tanker-loads of oil a day - any associated gas is flared off 24/7 (probably wasting enough energy to heat the nearby village of Singleton) because they can't see any incentive to do other wise - bottom left in GE picture below:


----------



## Terry - Somerset (4 Feb 2022)

There seem to be (to me anyway) some abundantly clear "truths" in respect of fossil fuels:

gas, oil, coal are a limited declining resource
global energy demand is increasing
only increasing prices will make ever more marginal reserves economic
neither climate change nor environmental pollution are attractive side effects
declining North Sea reserves are compromising UK energy security 
There is no good case, other than short term expediency, for developing new sources of fossil fuels. 

Rapid transition to domestically sustainable green sources is needed. Growth in solar and wind have been good, tidal energy largely forgotten (Severn barrage etc), nuclear woefully slow. Technical issues (energy storage) should be regarded as challenges, not insuperable barriers.

Not a popular sentiment, but energy costs have been far too low and encourage profligacy - 1500kg vehicles for a 75kg occupant, long haul holidays, airfreighted food, replace not repair culture, turn the central heating up rather than wear a vest etc etc. 

Consumption can be be materially reduced with minimal impact on quality of life. Regulation has been limited - eg: minimum standards for new developments need to be higher and rigorously enforced. Solutions have mainly been market driven - higher energy costs will drive innovation, behaviour changes and investment.


----------



## joethedrummer (4 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> @joethedrummer This is a much help as I can give you. you don't own a whole powerstation but you do own a bit of one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


,,thanks,, thinking a bit more,, didn,t we used to own the power stations,?,,


----------



## clogs (4 Feb 2022)

Woody 2 shoes....
Sheik Yamani....is that a bit like shake yer money....hahaha....
sorry my sence of humor is a bit weird...
Problem for most is old housing stock.....even the newer houses are pants really....
it's not like we can knock em down and build something better....
thats if u can find a decent builder with high standards.....the big three need not apply.....


----------



## Woody2Shoes (4 Feb 2022)

clogs said:


> Woody 2 shoes....
> Sheik Yamani....is that a bit like shake yer money....hahaha....
> sorry my sence of humor is a bit weird...
> Problem for most is old housing stock.....even the newer houses are pants really....
> ...


Yes, the vast bulk of our housing stock was built pre-war, but it could still be made *much *more energy efficient, with a bit of imagination and leadership from those in power (I know, I know....). Think how many jobs could be/have been created.
For new builds, the only reason that building regs aren't tougher (and aren't enforced - remember Grenfell etc.) is because of lobbying by the powerful vested interests of the building industry, who value gross profit over everything else.


----------



## Jameshow (4 Feb 2022)

Morty said:


> We are now paying the price of not fracking a few years ago.
> The "water melons" will be throwing up their arms at this comment.


Not to mention coal and gas! 
Which China, Germany, Romanian etc are still digging up by the dumper load!! 

Thanks Maggie!!


----------



## Spectric (4 Feb 2022)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Yes, the vast bulk of our housing stock was built pre-war, but it could still be made *much *more energy efficient


And they are still building to outdated specs now, if they were serious they would have ensured all modern housing was built to standards fit for the future and not be bending over backwards to the property developers.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> A lot more logic in making those own most pay most



never works.


----------



## woodieallen (4 Feb 2022)

Sachakins said:


> Cancel the build of just two nuclear power stations and invest in tidal energy generation, after all we are an island nation.


Until you posted this, I'd not really given tidal power much thought. But it doesn't take long for Miss Google to deliver the goods.









The state of UK tidal energy


Why does the UK Government remain hesitant to encourage adoption of tidal energy, despite its growing popularity across the world?




www.power-technology.com





It's a no-brainer apart from maybe upsetting vegans as the blades chomp up the marine life.

That and an inept Govt.


----------



## woodieallen (4 Feb 2022)

Suddenly a water turbine in my stream looks attractive.


----------



## Morty (5 Feb 2022)

To clarify, a water melon is green on the outside and red on the inside


----------



## Jonm (5 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> making the global economy unstable by provoking a big super power !


Presumably you are referring to Russia. Their gdp is 11th in the world at 1.6 trillion USD. Compared to USA at 19.5 and UK at 2.7.

Combined GDP of NATO 42.4 trillion USD.









GDP by Country - Worldometer


Countries in the world ranked by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). List and ranking of GDP growth, GDP per capita and couuntry share of World's GDP




www.worldometers.info












NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2023







countryeconomy.com


----------



## Woody2Shoes (5 Feb 2022)

Morty said:


> To clarify, a water melon is green on the outside and red on the inside


What a valuable contribution to the discussion...


----------



## Persephone (5 Feb 2022)

We have lived in a flat in the city centre for almost 25 years. It's a warehouse conversion managed by a housing association - it was the only way we could live in the city back then - but it has appalling heat retention. It doesn't have a cavity wall or insulation. A few years ago they fitted secondary glazing in front of ill fitting windy sash windows. This stopped most of the draught but also seemed to make the place very damp and it's actually colder than it used to be. At several points on the external walls there is cold bridging and anything placed there becomes mouldy. Heating is from one storage heater and a convector heater. Rent is £600 a month for a small flat. Welcome to 21st century social housing!
Last year our electricity bill soared from an average of £200 a quarter to £450+. Now we pay monthly and provide meter readings. For months we have not had any heating on and make sure the water heater is on only at night (and take cold showers when we've forgotten to switch it on - the timer isn't reliable). Our bills over the past three months have remained around £450 for the quarter. I wonder how high they would have been had we put the heating on?!
We are not poor and have relatively well paid jobs. We also have substantial savings. We are fortunate that in two weeks we will have the keys to our new home (a nice 1939 semi in the suburbs). However, the flat illustrates the problem with much British housing stock - it requires a lot of heating to make it habitable. 
The house we are moving to is not on a North-South axis so solar panels won't be particularly effective. It also has a hipped gable reducing usable roof area. But given my experience of the price hike in electricity over the past six months and now the raising of the energy price cap is set to raise prices further I wonder what the best option for the average homeowner would be? And my experience as a tenant demonstrates you need to be a homeowner to make any positive changes to your home. 
It is clearly problematic to rely on power generation that's fed from the resources of another state. As most British housing stock isn't energy efficient prices need to be cheap enough for people to afford to heat them - without heat the houses will begin to deteriorate. I'm not advocating a state hand out. It's apparent that the UK needs to be self sufficient in energy production. Nuclear power is not a quick option and while I wish we had more nuclear power stations it will take too long for any new ones to impact the immediate crisis. However, we are sitting on around 100 years' worth of coal. Yes, I know it's a fossil fuel, but having looked at how efficient combi boilers have become I wonder if we can't make clean and efficient coal fired power station. This would put us on for a few years while we develop renewable sources such as water, wind, solar, ground heat, etc. 
In the immediate future the government could scrap the green levy applied to energy bills. 
Anyway, rant over!


----------



## Droogs (5 Feb 2022)

Personally, I think RippleEenergy have the right idea for most energy users. For those in a position to do so (and I think most if motivated enough are), investing a one off payment of around 2K to be able to get a lifetime return off your energy bills is a very sound way to go. Admittedly to get the most out of it you need to be fully electric with not other energy fuels such as gas. But with fitting even a smallish battery bank in your home you will get a lot of savings. Yes I know there are lots who can't do any of this as they can't raise those kinds of funds to invest (including me, currently we live on less <£100/wk total income) but those who can should


----------



## Spectric (5 Feb 2022)

Persephone said:


> we are sitting on around 100 years' worth of coal. Yes, I know it's a fossil fuel, but having looked at how efficient combi boilers have become I wonder if we can't make clean and efficient coal fired power station.


Does it really mater if we just use it because both the Australians and Chinese are still consuming / mining vast amounts of coal, it is good we are showing a good example to others but it should not be at the expense of UK living standards.


----------



## joethedrummer (5 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Does it really mater if we just use it because both the Australians and Chinese are still consuming / mining vast amounts of coal, it is good we are showing a good example to others but it should not be at the expense of UK living standards.


,,more food for thought there,, well constructed suggestion,,you can,t keep warm sitting on a heap of coal,,


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Feb 2022)

Does anyone seriously think the rest of the world takes the slightest bit of notice of anything Britain (or anyone else, come to that) does or doesn't? We have power stations designed to burn rubbish so a clean one burning coal shouldn't be beyond the beyond the wit of man - I have read that Drax is more polluting burning wood than it was burning coal.


----------



## clogs (5 Feb 2022)

Phil 
most of that wood was shipped from the USA and Canada....
so how much did that cost the envoiro....
No idea on how many boat loads to keep it running for a week.....then there's the trucks to get from the docks....which would be Liverpool....??
Should be able to harness all the hot air politions make....


----------



## thetyreman (5 Feb 2022)

I think nuclear power is the way forward, but we're just way too conservative and too worried about the risks involved, which has been the case for a long time, also get all power out of the hands of private companies to bring the cost down, it can be done but this gov are pathetic and lack the leadership and ambition.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Feb 2022)

clogs said:


> Phil
> most of that wood was shipped from the USA and Canada....
> so how much did that cost the envoiro....
> No idea on how many boat loads to keep it running for a week.....then there's the trucks to get from the docks....which would be Liverpool....??
> Should be able to harness all the hot air politions make....


25 million trees a year, apparently. That's a few boats.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> I think nuclear power is the way forward, but we're just way too conservative and too worried about the risks involved, which has been the case for a long time, also get all power out of the hands of private companies to bring the cost down, it can be done but this gov are pathetic and lack the leadership and ambition.


Yes. Until someone invents a storage method where power enough for a city can be stored in a shoe box. Might be a century or two yet.


----------



## Persephone (5 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Does it really mater if we just use it because both the Australians and Chinese are still consuming / mining vast amounts of coal, it is good we are showing a good example to others but it should not be at the expense of UK living standards.


Exactly. We could get some Australian miners over here!


----------



## Persephone (5 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> I think nuclear power is the way forward, but we're just way too conservative and too worried about the risks involved, which has been the case for a long time, also get all power out of the hands of private companies to bring the cost down, it can be done but this gov are pathetic and lack the leadership and ambition.


Not long ago we were going to build a new one, well we were going to let the Chinese build one for us and run it. I don't think we've had such a brain drain that we're reliant on outside talent. A few nuclear power stations to keep us going in the medium term should be built, but built by us and run by us.


----------



## Persephone (5 Feb 2022)

And while we're all being pushed towards electric vehicles how are we going to afford to power them when electricity prices overtake diesel?


----------



## Jameshow (5 Feb 2022)

Funny that a Swedish teenager and English grandad at a Scottish summit got us into this big mess!!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Feb 2022)

We need to separate what we do now from long term strategic solutions which need to be agreed and implemented with real urgency to minimise future costs and improve energy security.

Immediate option is a windfall tax on North Sea companies making very high profits fed through to consumers. More complex than the media portray but would certainly help. Oil companies predictably fighting their corner - reduced investment etc.

Switching supply to different sources is probably a complete non-starter. Either new plants need to be built, or old plants (if they exist) recommissioned - both of which takes time.

Individually there are options. Some low/no cost - eg: heating down and switch off in unused rooms, wear a jumper, 2 min not 10 min shower, lights off as you leave room etc. Some higher cost and longer lead times - better insulation, PV if possible. GSHP is probably only for a few.

There could be debate over how the burden of higher costs is shared differently. This does little/nothing to change consumption. Sunak has come up with a proposal - reasonably balanced in my view, but I am sure there is a wide spread of opinion.


----------



## Sachakins (6 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Snip ...
> Individually there are options. Some low/no cost - eg: heating down and switch off in unused rooms, wear a jumper, 2 min not 10 min shower, lights off as you leave room etc.
> ...Snip


This unfortunately will not be an option for many already in fuel poverty, as they have already cut consumption to bare minimum, often below that as its is now heat or eat option.

Maybe the government could move to providing homes with solar PV installations, say upto max of 8kw for free, with the option to add on extra KW at say £100 per KW, so if you wanted a 14KW system, you would contribute £600, a 16KW would be extra £800 etc.

It provides employment growth to ramp up installations, provides accelerated green energy target achievements, will ease the burden on home energy costs rises now and in future.

Monies for it could be found by halting the £11 billion smart metre roll out fiasco, reduce the nuclear power station builds an redirect into the scheme outlined above.

The criteria would simply be, if your home doesn't have existing solar system then you will get one. None of this means tested are age related rubbish they do now for grants, boilers etc, channel that monies into the scheme too.

It won't be 100% solution, and those that can't benefit, ie conservation area, flats, unsuitable structures etc could be targeted in other ways.

Money could even be taken from the fibre Broadband rollout, after all do you really need 100mb plus speeds, maybe reconsider fixed fibre altogether, take that money into solar scheme to and rethink Broad band strategy towards mobile connectivity instead.

It's not hard scheme to do, with systems far cheaper and better than when the used the feed in tariff model government used last time, but political will to do it is the issue.

OK, I don't solve immediate crisis, but i think the measures announced will fire fight that somewhat.


----------



## J-G (6 Feb 2022)

Sachakins said:


> Maybe the government could move to providing homes with solar PV installations, say upto max of 8kw for free


It seems that you haven't done sufficient research! 

An 8Kw system would require 32 Solar panels - I have 16 panels and that covers the two faces of my roof that come close to the ideal facing direction on a three bed semi - and I'm lucky being on a corner plot. Most of the houses on the adjacent streets simply do not have roofs facing anywhere near south.

I haven't done any research regarding current costs but I doubt that there has been much of a reduction since August 2015 when my 4Kw system cost me £6k so even if there were some very large homes with sufficient roof space to take 32 panels that were facing in the right direction, the cost would likely approach £11k if not more. Totally impractical as a 'Freeby'!


----------



## Sachakins (6 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> It seems that you haven't done sufficient research!
> 
> An 8Kw system would require 32 Solar panels - I have 16 panels and that covers the two faces of my roof that come close to the ideal facing direction on a three bed semi - and I'm lucky being on a corner plot. Most of the houses on the adjacent streets simply do not have roofs facing anywher near south.
> 
> I haven't done any research regarding current costs but I doubt that there has been much of a reduction since August 2015 when my 4Kw system cost me £6k so even if there were some very large homes with sufficient roof space to take 32 panels that were facing in the right direction, the cost would likely approach £11k if not more. Totally impractical as a 'Freeby'!


OK, got my numbers wrong, the average around, 2kw then, but the important process is still valid, so change numbers to max 2.5kwh, and charge £500/0.5kwh. That would need further measurement for accuracy, but may be a bit higher than the detail below, adding a an overhead for in preperation for ev charging .

Household SizeAnnual Electricity UsageNumber of Solar Panels1 *person**850kWh**4*2 people1,700kWh83 people2,550kWh124 people3,400kWh16


----------



## J-G (6 Feb 2022)

@*Sachakins* That still doesn't address the issue of housing stock that is not predominatly 'South facing'


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Feb 2022)

I do wonder whether there are cheaper solutions which could be applied to most properties, not just those with the right orientation and roof space:

simple reduction of drafts, sealing cracks etc
mandatory replacement of non-LED lighting
VAT zero rated thermal vests and long johns (possibly not a joke!!)
timers - workshop fan heater automatically switches off after 20 mins 
easily installed insulation - carpet underlay on concrete floors, full loft insulation
improved glazing - low emissivity glass, double glazing to replace single glazing etc


----------



## Spectric (6 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> I think nuclear power is the way forward, but we're just way too conservative and too worried about the risks involved,


Has Windscale, three mile island, Chernobyl or Fukishima not clearly highlighted the potential hazards that nuclear can create, and many are still suffering from to this day. Then you also have the huge amounts of radioactive waste that need to be babysat, it takes Uranium 4.5 billion years to become lead and during this process it becomes Polonium for a duration, yes the stuff that killed Alexander Litvinenko. So nuclear is never "safe" it is not controlled but only managed and then only until something goes wrong and you have a global event.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2022)

Immediate option is a windfall tax on North Sea companies making very high profits fed through to consumers ...

As someone pointed out yesterday - Shell have just announced record profits so apparently should be taxed more. Strange the government didn't subsidise them last year when they posted a record loss, then.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Has Windscale, three mile island, Chernobyl or Fukishima not clearly highlighted the potential hazards that nuclear can create, and many are still suffering from to this day ...



I can't speak for the first two, but from what I've read the latter two were preventable.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I do wonder whether there are cheaper solutions which could be applied to most properties, not just those with the right orientation and roof space:
> 
> simple reduction of drafts, sealing cracks etc
> mandatory replacement of non-LED lighting
> ...


(1) in many instances would lead to endless problems with damp.
Short of inspecting every property how would we comply with (2)? That's a bit nanny state.
Good luck insulating under my carpets - I have none.


I have said for the last forty years that all new builds and commercial properties should have solar panels of some type by law. The price would have dropped dramatically if done on that scale and we wouldn't have 100,000s of acres of solar panels on farm land.
The rights and wrongs of energy usage aside, every government and energy minister in the last four or five decades should hang their heads in shame - anyone with half a brain could foresee the oncoming shortages that long ago.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2022)

It was several years ago admittedly, but last I researched solar panels in detail to have enough to be worth worrying about on my house thay would have had a 115 year payback time. My friend however after 16 or 17 years (iirc) is still getting something like 41p per kwh from his feed in tariff. His panels cost him £15,000 and thanks to us they paid for themselves a few years ago.


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2022)

Persephone said:


> We have lived in a flat in the city centre for almost 25 years. It's a warehouse conversion managed by a housing association - it was the only way we could live in the city back then - but it has appalling heat retention. It doesn't have a cavity wall or insulation. ........... Welcome to 21st century social housing!


Small correction; welcome to 21st century _free market_ housing with minimal regulation following years of government failure to deal with the issues.
The tragedy is that housing issues are relatively easy to fix. Particularly in your case, where "warehouse conversion" implies plenty of room for relatively cheap insulation on all internal surfaces, with very low heat losses approaching zero space heat requirement.
This is not _failed_ government policy - it's current policy in action, red in tooth and claw.
The big question to ask is why is it government policy to _*not*_ deal with housing issues?


----------



## Sachakins (6 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> @*Sachakins* That still doesn't address the issue of housing stock that is not predominatly 'South facing'


New panels are less affected by not being true south, but yes I agree, hence why I said 
" It won't be 100% solution, and those that can't benefit, ie conservation area, flats, unsuitable structures etc could be targeted in other ways."

What those ways are I don't know, but at least starting my sort of scheme would surely help.


----------



## thetyreman (6 Feb 2022)

[Q


Spectric said:


> Has Windscale, three mile island, Chernobyl or Fukishima not clearly highlighted the potential hazards that nuclear can create, and many are still suffering from to this day. Then you also have the huge amounts of radioactive waste that need to be babysat, it takes Uranium 4.5 billion years to become lead and during this process it becomes Polonium for a duration, yes the stuff that killed Alexander Litvinenko. So nuclear is never "safe" it is not controlled but only managed and then only until something goes wrong and you have a global event.



no denying it's dangerous, I've not once said it is safe, nothing is without risk.


----------



## J-G (6 Feb 2022)

Sachakins said:


> New panels are less affected by not being true south, ...


That's not what I read in the latest advice I can find with a quick 'Google' - which still states that 'direct South' is the 'ideal'.

Your idea may be a good starting point but the problem is by no means simplistic - re-directing allocated funds away from 'Smart Meters' could be useful but a whole lot more research needs doing.


----------



## Persephone (6 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Small correction; welcome to 21st century _free market_ housing with minimal regulation following years of government failure to deal with the issues.
> The tragedy is that housing issues are relatively easy to fix. Particularly in your case, where "warehouse conversion" implies plenty of room for relatively cheap insulation on all internal surfaces, with very low heat losses approaching zero space heat requirement.
> This is not _failed_ government policy - it's current policy in action, red in tooth and claw.
> The big question to ask is why is it government policy to _*not*_ deal with housing issues?


The building was converted to flats in 1989 from an office and warehouse building built in 1907. I understand that at the time Northern Counties Housing Association acquired it for £1. They clearly did the conversion on the cheap - which would have been the result of poor funding from Margaret Thatcher's government - as they simply fitted plaster board over the external-facing walls and fitted lower internal ceilings. The loose fitting sash windows were not draught sealed. No insulation was added between the plaster board and external walls. Fixtures like bathrooms were clearly job lots of auction clearances - our bathroom suite was a delightful avocado green for many years and a neighbour had a burgundy suite reminiscent of something from a brothel in a 70s movie. 
The rent here was always relatively high for the size of the apartment - and they crammed in as many tiny apartments as they could get away with - but you pay for location and an M1 postcode was quite desirable back in the late 90s. However, for much of the time very little was done to maintain the building (including throughout the Blair/Brown governments) and ultimately the building was sold to the Guinness Partnership. (If anybody is tempted to rent a property from the Guinness Partnership make sure you know all the clauses in the tenancy first.)
The Guinness Partnership did nothing to maintain the property. For a central location in a listed building with high rents we would often come home to find the elevators not working and at one point during lockdown it was out for three weeks and some elderly/disabled residents were unable to leave their flats. 
However, because of Grenfell the government seems to have thrown lots of money at certain sectors of social housing as for two years the building has been clad in scaffolding and the sunlight blocked out while a private contractor (rarely seen) supposedly repairs the roof. If only the money could be put towards replacing the barely functioning plumbing and employing a team of plumbers who could come out to a blockage (and solve the problem) within seven days. A functional heating system would also be beneficial. 
Anyway I digress. Yes you are correct that this conversion could have been done much better. I guess if they were doing it now they'd fit a vapour barrier and celotex insulation between the exterior walls and the plaster board. The plumbing would be functional and the heating would be more efficient. My post was to comment on the current state of much of Britain's social housing. It could be upgraded but for buildings like this you would probably have to temporarily re-home all the tenants and gut it. 
A thing I did not mention about this building, and one of the reasons we decided it was time to go is that Manchester City Council took control of who could live here. What was once a building tenanted by bohemian types, urban professionals (young and old) and many LGBT people who wanted to be close to the gay village has become a building filled more and more with drug addicts (functional or otherwise), refugees and asylum seekers. I have no problem with these groups of people but when concentrated in a building that barely functions because of poor construction it becomes somewhat unpleasant. And whoever thought it would be a good idea to place groups of people with very conservative religious beliefs in a building with a large LGBT population should be forced to stand between them in the elevator and observe the hatred and comments directed towards the LGBT people from those refugees and asylum seekers. And don't get me started on the number of times the refugees upstairs have flooded my apartment then refused to answer the door.
But anyway I've digressed again and now sound like a presenter from GB News. I am not that person, I am someone who has been placed in an impossible situation by the failure of the housing association to properly maintain the building and the local council who don't care about communities. I am, however, more fortunate than many of my fellow tenants in that I have substantial savings and a house to move into that I can insulate and maintain myself. I only wish it didn't have a gable end roof and was on a North-South axis so I could fit solar panels. Perhaps a wind turbine in the garden is an idea? Actually, thinking about the garden, subsidised ground source heat pumps would be a good start.


----------



## Sachakins (6 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> That's not what I read in the latest advice I can find with a quick 'Google' - which still states that 'direct South' is the 'ideal'.
> 
> Your idea may be a good starting point but the problem is by no means simplistic - re-directing allocated funds away from 'Smart Meters' could be useful but a whole lot more research needs doing.


Yes "The ideal is south", but they still work at some angles to direct south.


----------



## Spectric (6 Feb 2022)

Having fixed panels is your problem, but there are ways round this.

1) Motorised panels to deliver best elevation for the time of day.
2) Fixed panels but have a motorised reflector that can direct more of the sun onto your panels.
3) Put the panels where they can all be rotated to follow both the direction and elevation of the sun, should only need about 180° so no full turns.


----------



## Adam W. (6 Feb 2022)

Persephone said:


> And while we're all being pushed towards electric vehicles how are we going to afford to power them when electricity prices overtake diesel?


The Danes are having a bit of an issue with their electricity infrastructure, because it can't cope with the sudden demand placed on it by the switch to electricity powered air/ground source heat pumps and car charging.


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2022)

Persephone said:


> The building was converted to flats in 1989 from an office and warehouse building built in 1907. I understand that at the time Northern Counties Housing Association acquired it for £1. They clearly did the conversion on the cheap - which would have been the result of poor funding from Margaret Thatcher's government - as they simply fitted plaster board over the external-facing walls and fitted lower internal ceilings. The loose fitting sash windows were not draught sealed. No insulation was added between the plaster board and external walls. Fixtures like bathrooms were clearly job lots of auction clearances - our bathroom suite was a delightful avocado green for many years and a neighbour had a burgundy suite reminiscent of something from a brothel in a 70s movie.
> The rent here was always relatively high for the size of the apartment - and they crammed in as many tiny apartments as they could get away with - but you pay for location and an M1 postcode was quite desirable back in the late 90s. However, for much of the time very little was done to maintain the building (including throughout the Blair/Brown governments) and ultimately the building was sold to the Guinness Partnership. (If anybody is tempted to rent a property from the Guinness Partnership make sure you know all the clauses in the tenancy first.)
> The Guinness Partnership did nothing to maintain the property. For a central location in a listed building with high rents we would often come home to find the elevators not working and at one point during lockdown it was out for three weeks and some elderly/disabled residents were unable to leave their flats.
> However, because of Grenfell the government seems to have thrown lots of money at certain sectors of social housing as for two years the building has been clad in scaffolding and the sunlight blocked out while a private contractor (rarely seen) supposedly repairs the roof. If only the money could be put towards replacing the barely functioning plumbing and employing a team of plumbers who could come out to a blockage (and solve the problem) within seven days. A functional heating system would also be beneficial.
> ...


Strongly argued below that that poor housing policy is the primary cause of poor housing (obviously, but has to be pointed out too often) but also of _*most of the social problems associated:*_








The big idea: could fixing housing fix everything else, too?


From inequality to pollution, Britain’s housing crisis sits at the root of a surprising range of problems




www.theguardian.com




Council house sell off started this - least desirable housing stayed rental - the mixed communities who used to live there were filtered so that poorer families remained - responsibility for their welfare was devolved, weakly regulated to inefficient Housing Associations - supply further reduced by low levels of council house building and problems thereby increased.
A perfect storm!


----------



## joethedrummer (6 Feb 2022)

,, just a few real life figures,, had solar panels fitted about nine and a half years ago, split 9 panels facing east and 7 facing west on a shallow (18 degree) roof for a,bout £6500, had about that in payments, and reduced the electricity drawn in that time by about £2000, just had to move things about like using appliances whilst producing and not altogether, which became easier upon retirement,,


----------



## J-G (6 Feb 2022)

Sachakins said:


> Yes "The ideal is south", but they still work at some angles to direct south.


'twas ever thus! - 11 of mine are in fact 49° SW which gives them 93% efficiency and 5 are 41° SE with 94.3% efficiency. More of an issue is a beautiful Silver Birch which at times shades the 5 panels by up to 14% but I would rather have the tree than gain that little bit!


----------



## heimlaga (6 Feb 2022)

From the very blurred wiew I can get through binoculars from the other side of Europe I am not quite set up to draw far reaching conclusions concerning British politics.
Hovewer there is one thing that strikes me. A total lack of either will or ability to deal with systematic flaws.
Housing and energy consumption and energy supply and social issues. All are interwined with one caused by another and causing a third.

I have no intent to be an international besserwisser telling you how to solve the problems. Because I cannot. I just wish people in many contries including both Britain and Finland would stop throwing horse manure at one another and start building a new functional system instead. And hopefully have it well on the way when our present fossil fuel based system falls apart.
What is presently done to remedy the problem is akin to nailing a few lead patches onto the City of Adelaide to make her seaworthy for a trip around the world.

We must all increase self sufficiency, reduce the need for fossil fuels, reduce consumption of natural resources and rebuild the ecosystem both on sea and on land so that it produces more harvestable resources than the depleted ecosystem of today. Rebuild forests to get sustainable timber. Rebuild rivers to get salmon to eat. Rebuild cod stocks in the North Sea. Rebuild nutrient depleted soils. Reduce the need for long distance transport. All this without creating rifts in society. All while building a new energy supply from renewable resources.


----------



## woodieallen (6 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> From the very blurred wiew I can get through binoculars from the other side of Europe I am not quite set up to draw far reaching conclusions concerning British politics.
> Hovewer there is one thing that strikes me. A total lack of either will or ability to deal with systematic flaws.
> Housing and energy consumption and energy supply and social issues. All are interwined with one caused by another and causing a third.
> 
> ...


And limit the number of children per family. Too many people for this planet to support.


----------



## Ollie78 (6 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> From the very blurred wiew I can get through binoculars from the other side of Europe I am not quite set up to draw far reaching conclusions concerning British politics.



I can give you the perspective from here.
It`s a complete farce on a scale so vast it is actually hard to believe it`s realy happening in front of our very eyes.

Ollie


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> And limit the number of children per family. Too many people for this planet to support.


In most Countries (certainly the first world ones) the main reason the population is increasing is people living a lot longer, not the birthrate going up. A few African Countries being noticeable exceptions.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> From the very blurred wiew I can get through binoculars from the other side of Europe I am not quite set up to draw far reaching conclusions concerning British politics.
> Hovewer there is one thing that strikes me. A total lack of either will or ability to deal with systematic flaws.


Spot on 100%. .
It's not inability - most broad based issues are relatively simple. 
It's not systemic failures.
It's much worse than either - _*it's an ideological commitment to doing nothing, or as little as possible *_based on a crackpot ideology of "free markets" ultimately serving everybodies needs; a.k.a. "neoliberalism".
It's easy to see who are the main proponents of this nonsense and no coincidence that they are the main beneficiaries - and it's not 'the working man'


> ..........
> 
> I have no intent to be an international besserwisser telling you how to solve the problems. Because I cannot. ......



Free free, don't underestimate yourself, you could as well as the various idiots we now have in power!!


----------



## Droogs (7 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> In most Countries (certainly the first world ones) the main reason the population is increasing is people living a lot longer, not the birthrate going up. A few African Countries being noticeable exceptions.


On that subject have a watch of this, it gets very interesting after the first minute or so


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's much worse than either - _*it's an ideological commitment to doing nothing, or as little as possible *_based on a crackpot ideology of "free markets" ultimately serving everybodies needs; a.k.a. "neoliberalism".



I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing. Every opposition Party is honour bound to gainsay every government decision no matter how sensible and good and every government has to kick the can of major expenses further down the road.

*“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”*

― Jean-Claude Juncker


----------



## Spectric (7 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> I just wish people in many contries including both Britain and Finland would stop throwing horse manure at one another and start building a new functional system instead.


A lot of the problem is as we say " lets not rock the boat " , ok so Borris has got that one very wrong but the people who are now licking his rear and supporting him most certainly are trying because they know there job is on the line if he falls. The problem with politics is politicians, they all seem to come out of the same moulds and have very similar traits such as saying one thing but meaning something else, never answering a question directly and having some measure of self importance. It has now become a farce, who can really take anything coming out of westminster seriously and we all know the current system is broken, it is more akin to a historical play with too many court jesters. Another issue that is prevalent is the attitude of I am all right jack, sod the rest of you which seems to be happening when it comes to global warming, they look at a problem and realise that no major impact should occur during their lifetime so just pay it lip service, this is why we need younger people involved in politics and government decisions because they are going to be the ones most affected.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing.


It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back. "The Salisbury Group was set up set up in 1976, dedicated to the political vision of the Third Marquess of Salisbury who had famously declared that good government consisted in doing as little as possible."
This was taken up and run with by a new army of neo-liberals, talking of non intervention, de-regulation, bonfire of the red tape, free market economics. "Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
They turned it into an ideology, over and above the familiar inertia of trad conservatives.


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> All energy sources have consequences - environmental and financial - eg:
> 
> Coal, gas, oil - atmospheric pollution, limited reserves/diminishing resource, climate change
> Nuclear - risk of failure in operation, storage of waste, terrorism risk
> ...



land for food isn't really an issue with solar. in fact, solar is so much more energy dense than biofuels that if you just took away land used for biofuels and replaced with solar, it may be enough power for the entire earth. 

In the US, something like 40-50% of the corn crop gets used for ethanol. The whole thing is nothing but treading water - nobody wants the ethanol in the fuel beyond the amount needed as an oxygenate, and the inputs and land use are huge (especially fertilizer, but also the hauling of all of the bulk). I did a calculation of gross energy density of ethanol vs. solar (which is probably an OK approximation, as there are distiller's grains from ethanol that end up getting fed - i'm not counting them and will do a generous conversion of saying those and fodder baled and used may be a net zero against the inputs - it isn't , but let's say it is). 

Here's the BTU per acre of ethanol (it's very difficult to burn it with much efficiency, but we'll ignore that for now) - 190 * 2.7 * 77000 (190 bushels per acre on average, 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, 77000 btus per gallon) = 39.5MM btus. )

the current average production for solar installations per acre is 351MW/hr per year. The conversion to watt hours makes 39.5MM btus 11.576 MW/hr

So, the gross energy from solar is slightly over 30 times that of ethanol. All of the trucking and energy used for fertilizer is freed, and the only thing lost is the distiller's grain (which is used in a feed mix for cattle). I doubt you could make panels safe for cattle to graze, so I guess that would need to be solved, but figure for every 30 acres that were corn, you still have 29 to feed the cows or whatever the corn is going to be used for. 

using the two current stats for corn (92.7MM acres of corn, 40% used for ethanol - goog's two general returns for those stats) - the solar output would be 13.02 billion mw/hr, or roughly 3 times the total electricity use in the US. 

That may be a bit too much numerical noodling to follow, and it doesn't cover a lot of complexity (the idea of actually installing that much solar, distributing the power, storing it, etc.) Just an illustration of how much food acreage is used in the US for mostly waste (car fuel that in reality is just a political ploy as a farm subsidy). 

-----------------------------

But, here's the real issue with solar - people in the US claim they're in favor of wind and solar, but as soon as it's placed in their township, then there's opposition. My parents had joint ownership of a 330 acre plot (a farm) and it's in a good spot for solar development. They've sold now because of the 15 sites being considered for solar development in their township, one got the go ahead and residents complained about not wanting to see panels from their back yard and installation of commercial solar sites has been shelved by township ordinance. Our farm had been rented for quite some time, and most of what gets grown on it is corn (the renter chooses, as long as they don't deplete the land). 

-----

the TL/DR of that is I agree - everything has some environmental or other impact. It can be as simple in this case as people not wanting to see hillsides covered by solar panels. That may change a little over time as solar is getting cheaper to install than almost anything else in terms of generation capacity and a dispersed 1000 acre array is being installed closer to my parents' house property (farm and house were 10 miles apart - the farm will continue to be a farm, but it's owned by a couple of amish dudes now).


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back e.g. "the Salisbury Group, which had been set up in 1976, dedicated to the political vision of the Third Marquess of Salisbury who had famously declared that good government consisted in doing as little as possible."
> This was taken up and run with by a new army of neo-liberals, talking of non intervention, de-regulation, bonfire of the red tape, free market economics. "Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
> They turned it into an ideology, over and above the familiar inertia of trad conservatives.



What they really need is an about face so that coordinated economic successes like the soviet union, venezuela and cuba can be had. 

The same folks who think that private business offers little to society would do well in those systems, too, blaming someone else for failed economies and bare shelves. I think their gas tank for pointing fingers is almost endless.


----------



## Sachakins (7 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> It seems that you haven't done sufficient research!
> 
> An 8Kw system would require 32 Solar panels - I have 16 panels and that covers the two faces of my roof that come close to the ideal facing direction on a three bed semi - and I'm lucky being on a corner plot. Most of the houses on the adjacent streets simply do not have roofs facing anywhere near south.
> 
> I haven't done any research regarding current costs but I doubt that there has been much of a reduction since August 2015 when my 4Kw system cost me £6k so even if there were some very large homes with sufficient roof space to take 32 panels that were facing in the right direction, the cost would likely approach £11k if not more. Totally impractical as a 'Freeby'!


Quick check, 4kw around £3,950, also low user 2.5kwh, med user 3.9kwh, so installing 4kw system seems best option to give a bit of overhead for EV future.


----------



## heimlaga (7 Feb 2022)

Both modern capitalism and classic Soviet style communism are utterly unable to do something about the current system flaws. There is no point in bashing one more than the other. Neither a chainsaw nor a pneumatic rock drill does a good job of flattening a cast iron machine table. There is no point of bragging about one and bashing the other because none of them can do the job at hand.
It is time for some new thoughts appropriate for this new situation which mankind har never had to deal with nor ever imagined in the millions of years that have passed since we started lighting fires.
An old textbook solution is not going to help much.

I have met people aged anything between 16 and 95 who have had bits of knowledge or ideas that may be useful contributions or much needed warnings to avoid failiour.
The old have the knowledge from the 1930-ies and 40-ies and 50-ies of how things could be made work with a significantly smaller input of energy. The young are generally better at developing new ideas out of old ones.
My oppinion is that we should all work together trying to sort out the problems.


----------



## Woodmatt (7 Feb 2022)

Until there is population control and therefore less drain on the earths resources everything will continue to cost more and more at a faster and faster rate


----------



## Woodmatt (7 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> @joethedrummer This is a much help as I can give you. you don't own a whole powerstation but you do own a bit of one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what percentage do you think you are saving with your Ripple ownership?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> It has been the basis of "Conservatism" from a long way back ...



The political diatribe isn't unexpected, but I was referring to all Parties' inertia.
Good government consisted in doing as little as possible? Perfectly logical and sensible in my book.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2022)

We have eight miles of dual carriageway being built, without doubt it will have cycle paths. I wondered what the practicalities would be if instead of a central reservation as such a two way cycle lane was run down the middle - with armcos, obviously. All the services could be run under it and it could be roofed over with solar panels instead of the hundreds of acres of fields that are being taken for them.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Feb 2022)

Current average resource consumption requires 1.8 earths - USA levels would need over 5, Europe ~3, other parts of the world < 1. Resources includes fishing, mining, land, water etc.

Accepting this very simplistic overall figure means that for long term stability, total consumption needs to halve. High consumers (USA, Russia, Europe etc) need to cut by up to 80%. Bits of the world needing to improve basic facilities will need to do so with limited consumption increases. 

There are only two ways in which this is likely to happen peacefully:

existence becomes increasingly constrained - smaller housing, less freedoms, lower consumption, people interact digitally, rarely leave home, with a nutritionally balanced diet delivered by robot. A factory farm for humans!
population control. This has always been too "difficult", despite being the obvious solution. It may now be too late anyway population growth for the next 20-30 years is "baked in"
So we are left with the inevitable alternatives - war, pandemics, starvation, water shortages. The wealthy and powerful will generally prevail, the rest will perish. Not an attractive prospect - "sunlit uplands" may be emotionally comforting but detached from reality.


----------



## Spectric (7 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> We have eight miles of dual carriageway being built, without doubt it will have cycle paths.


That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses that just returns the traffic conjestion back to the same level it was before the new road was built so nothing gained but valuable countryside lost.



Woodmatt said:


> Until there is population control and therefore less drain on the earths resources everything will continue to cost more and more at a faster and faster rate



Population is the underlying issue with everything that is or has gone wrong on planet earth, but instead of accepting this as a potential problem and looking at some way to control it the people that could make these decisions just see them as potential future revenue and the local councils equate more people to more housing and more council tax and no one takes into account any negatives. 

I dare say that many people round here can remember the days when having a kid equated to council accomodation, that really helped the population grow.


----------



## heimlaga (8 Feb 2022)

A growing population worldwide is a part of the problem but if we look at population statistics the population is slowly scrinking in pretty much every country that has democracy and rights and education for women as well as tax financed care for the old.
Women who have education and the freedom to decide for themselves and who can rely on the taxpayers to give them care in their old age if their childrendon't do it tend to give birth to around two children per woman on average. As some femele children don't reach reproductive age this results in a slowly schrinking population.
Unless there is a population surplus from elsewhere pouring in.

In other words. If we want the wold population to schrink in a slow and controlled manner without any unnecsessary suffering we should work hard to improve momen's rights and to provide education to women in Africa and India and the Middle East.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses...
> 
> I dare say that many people round here can remember the days when having a kid equated to council accomodation, that really helped the population grow.



That are being built by the thousand around here anyway by government decree, so need better roads.

The largest families here are invariably had by the people who can least afford them.


----------



## John Brown (8 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> That are being built by the thousand around here anyway by government decree, so need better roads.
> 
> The largest families here are invariably had by the people who can least afford them.


On the other hand, it's the richest folk who have the biggest carbon footprint, by quite a long way. So if we were to have a cull, to preserve the earth's resources, we'd should start with the billionaires.


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The political diatribe isn't unexpected,


Hardly a "diatribe" - just swapping facts and opinions. You don't have to join on if you don't want to!








Diatribe - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org






> but I was referring to all Parties' inertia.
> Good government consisted in doing as little as possible? Perfectly logical and sensible in my book.


That makes you "a little conservative" then!  No surprise there!


----------



## John Brown (8 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I don't think it's so much an idealogical commitment to do nothing. Every opposition Party is honour bound to gainsay every government decision no matter how sensible and good and every government has to kick the can of major expenses further down the road.
> 
> *“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”*
> 
> ― Jean-Claude Juncker


Which is, of course, the widely acknowledged problem with a lot of governmental systems. The total focus on re-election, thus favouring short termism.
I do agree with the bit about opposition being honour bound to gainsay etc. It can be monumentally pointless and a giant waste of time. Maybe it's a particular problem with what is, in effect, a two party system.


----------



## joethedrummer (8 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> That is how urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, one minute you are driving small roads with fields both sides, then someone decides to build a bypass or another road and the next thing you get are the property developers building hundreds of new houses that just returns the traffic conjestion back to the same level it was before the new road was built so nothing gained but valuable countryside lost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


,,yes we,ve got a couple of miles of dual carriageway going in near us,about £21 million and thats a budget figure,, it,s to facilitate the construction of 9000 houses,, so agree with your first statement,,


----------



## Spectric (8 Feb 2022)

joethedrummer said:


> yes we,ve got a couple of miles of dual carriageway going in near us,


I know the A12 corridor well, I can remember it from the seventies when you had Chelmsford, Boreham, Hatfield Peveral, Witham, Kelvedon, Marks Tey and then Colchester but I went North thirty years later and by then all those places were merging as huge housing estates just joined them together and traffic conjestion was just ramping up. My commute changed from thirty five minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes, thousands more houses on the cards and for me enough was enough so got out.

In fact going further back to when living in Hornchurch as a kid we often visited Colchester zoo before the A12 was even built! 

Now living up north I am now witnessing the same destruction as down south, once freindly small towns are just being swamped by housing development and their character ripped out forever, one local town that was once a desirable place to live and with property in demand has become just an urban ghetto where kids that have nothing to do just cause trouble, traffic queues throught the high street because the roads were never layed out with cars in mind and people have long commutes because there is no local work that pays a decent wage. Up here it is agriculture and farming, either livestock or holiday makers.


----------



## joethedrummer (8 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> I know the A12 corridor well, I can remember it from the seventies when you had Chelmsford, Boreham, Hatfield Peveral, Witham, Kelvedon, Marks Tey and then Colchester but I went North thirty years later and by then all those places were merging as huge housing estates just joined them together and traffic conjestion was just ramping up. My commute changed from thirty five minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes, thousands more houses on the cards and for me enough was enough so got out.
> 
> In fact going further back to when living in Hornchurch as a kid we often visited Colchester zoo before the A12 was even built!
> 
> Now living up north I am now witnessing the same destruction as down south, once freindly small towns are just being swamped by housing development and their character ripped out forever, one local town that was once a desirable place to live and with property in demand has become just an urban ghetto where kids that have nothing to do just cause trouble, traffic queues throught the high street because the roads were never layed out with cars in mind and people have long commutes because there is no local work that pays a decent wage. Up here it is agriculture and farming, either livestock or holiday makers.


,, the A12 corridor,, that makes you a clever Ex Local,,


----------



## Spectric (8 Feb 2022)

joethedrummer said:


> the A12 corridor,, that makes you a clever Ex Local


Nothing clever, just too much pressure to remain having seen better days!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Maybe it's a particular problem with what is, in effect, a two party system.



I suspect it is, or at least it's worse.


----------



## Droogs (8 Feb 2022)

Woodmatt said:


> So what percentage do you think you are saving with your Ripple ownership?


I can't afford to invest right now too low an income to put anything back to do so, but more info about how long for payback etc below:


----------



## Jonm (8 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Now living up north I am now witnessing the same destruction as down south, once freindly small towns are just being swamped by housing development and their character ripped out forever


I think that is now called “levelling up”.


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The political diatribe isn't unexpected, but I was referring to all Parties' inertia.
> Good government consisted in doing as little as possible? Perfectly logical and sensible in my book.


Forgot to add - it's always a pleasure to explain to a trad conservative what it really stands for (doing as little as possible) as they are often taken by surprise!
If in doubt Lord Salisbury expands at great lengths here: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury - Wikiquote
Brought further up to date, but with a harder edge (less noblesse oblige) by The Salisbury Review as edited by Roger Scruton until recently.


----------



## Spectric (8 Feb 2022)

Jonm said:


> I think that is now called “levelling up”.


Yes another wonderful idea by the party of parties that can produce a lot of hot air and not much else, don't blame Borris long covid can have that effect.

This is a case of you cannot pick and choose, if you want to be like the south east and have more wealth then you must also take all the shiete that comes with it such as pollution, overcrowding and decimation of anything green that must be built on. I personally having experienced that rat race would not wish it upon anyone but once they realise that up north it will be too late.


----------



## John Brown (8 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> I can't afford to invest right now too low an income to put anything back to do so, but more info about how long for payback etc below:



I love this idea, but I can't see myself investing with a 14 year payback period. Maybe if I were 20 years younger.


----------



## Woodmatt (8 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> I can't afford to invest right now too low an income to put anything back to do so, but more info about how long for payback etc below:



Thanks Droogs,very interesting,will be investigating further


----------



## gmgmgm (9 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> I can't afford to invest right now too low an income to put anything back to do so, but more info about how long for payback etc below:



I suspect an IFA would advise you to steer well clear.

If you really want to 'invest' in solar, then there are existing options such as BSIF (Bluefield solar, not a recommendation, but it's been around for many years) and then you can put the dividends against your electricity bill. And it's liquid, so you can sell if you want to. There are probably wind equivalents.


----------



## MARK.B. (9 Feb 2022)

Have just seen on the news that scientists in the UK have made a small but important advance in fusion energy , of course it is only a small step but in years to come it could very well be the answer to many of our energy needs , and with only a small amount of radiation (compared to fission power) that has a much shorter half life ,it should be better than anything out there( not including green sources) in terms of pollution. Thinking positively, given time my Grand children may reap the rewards that this will bring


----------



## Henniep (9 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> A growing population worldwide is a part of the problem but if we look at population statistics the population is slowly scrinking in pretty much every country that has democracy and rights and education for women as well as tax financed care for the old.
> Women who have education and the freedom to decide for themselves and who can rely on the taxpayers to give them care in their old age if their childrendon't do it tend to give birth to around two children per woman on average. As some femele children don't reach reproductive age this results in a slowly schrinking population.
> Unless there is a population surplus from elsewhere pouring in.
> 
> In other words. If we want the wold population to schrink in a slow and controlled manner without any unnecsessary suffering we should work hard to improve momen's rights and to provide education to women in Africa and India and the Middle East.


A word of caution about broadbrushing the right for women in Africa. There are 54 independant countries in Africa. Many of these countries have provided education for women for decades, and have groundbreaking successes in embracing women's rights. Many of these countries have women cabinet ministers and, in a few cases, leaders of the country. Just another perspective from a fellow African.


----------



## DrPhill (9 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> A growing population worldwide is a part of the problem


But not as much a part as some would have you believe.... the part of the earth's population that is expanding is generally the poorer part, and that is the part consuming far less than half the carbon.


Oxfam said:


> New research by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute
> (SEI) reveals the extreme carbon inequality in recent decades that
> has driven the world to the climate brink. From 1990 to 2015, a
> critical period in which annual emissions grew 60% and cumulative
> ...





https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf


----------



## heimlaga (9 Feb 2022)

Henniep said:


> A word of caution about broadbrushing the right for women in Africa. There are 54 independant countries in Africa. Many of these countries have provided education for women for decades, and have groundbreaking successes in embracing women's rights. Many of these countries have women cabinet ministers and, in a few cases, leaders of the country. Just another perspective from a fellow African.


Good point. I painted with a too broad brush.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (11 Feb 2022)

Jonm said:


> Presumably you are referring to Russia. Their gdp is 11th in the world at 1.6 trillion USD. Compared to USA at 19.5 and UK at 2.7.
> 
> Combined GDP of NATO 42.4 trillion USD.
> 
> ...


Don't forget that a disproportionate amount of Russia's GDP is oil/gas-related!


----------



## Woody2Shoes (11 Feb 2022)

heimlaga said:


> From the very blurred wiew I can get through binoculars from the other side of Europe I am not quite set up to draw far reaching conclusions concerning British politics.
> Hovewer there is one thing that strikes me. A total lack of either will or ability to deal with systematic flaws.
> Housing and energy consumption and energy supply and social issues. All are interwined with one caused by another and causing a third.
> 
> ...


Excellent points - I'd add another alternative/partial explanation for the lack of will/ability to deal with systematic flaws, which I think we underestimate, is that powerful vested interests (who are unimaginably wealthy) are actively working to frustrate attempts to sort things out. Just one example - COP26: Fossil fuel industry has largest delegation at climate summit


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

DrPhill said:


> ............ the part of the earth's population that is expanding is generally the poorer part, ......


T'was ever thus.
Increased reproduction is a basic survival technique across all species and cranks up when the going gets tough. The mechanisms vary. Dried up ponds cause Amoeba to 'encyst' and produce thousands of spore. Fish etc in hostile environments produce millions of offspring. Human in stressed environments lose normal constraints, and so on. Also produces labour force to care for the elderly.
So the solution is obvious - reduce stress, increase stability and security, all the obvious things. We see the result in falling pops in many of our most "successful" nations.


----------



## Jonm (12 Feb 2022)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Don't forget that a disproportionate amount of Russia's GDP is oil/gas-related!


The west buys the oil/gas and uses it to heat homes, transport and make consumer goods in the case of germany. Russia used the money to buy/make arms to threaten the west and expand their empire. They learnt a thing or two from Hitler/Ribbentrop.


----------

