Energy may go even higher

[Spectric]

I had not heard anything about this government bill until today, another sneaky one I dare say but what it essentially does is to give energy providers the right to pass on both construction and operational cost of nuclear power plant builds.

quote "

The RAB model is expected to allow new nuclear projects to be financed via private investors such as pension funds and insurers and reduce reliance on overseas investors. It would be funded by a charge on electricity suppliers, who are expected to pass the cost on to consumers.

The Bill allows for eligible nuclear generation companies to be given a right to a regulated revenue stream during the construction, commissioning, and operation of a new nuclear project.

"
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...our-say-on-the-nuclear-energy-financing-bill/
So the government now expects us to finance projects like Hinkley & Sizewell with no protection against the risk, so you would be faced with out of control spiralling cost, ontop of already ridiculous energy prices. Hinkley is 500 million over budget and not coming online until at least June 2026 and that is if they get a license to operate so imagine that spread over UK energy consumers, about £800 a year plus running cost for one plant.

Add to this the fact NI contributions go up 1.25% and the higher rate tax frozen at £37,701 it only looks rosy for the very wealthy few. So what is the answer to putting the brakes on this UK decline, are our none UK members suffering the same fate..

 

[Cabinetman]

Right, where’s my yellow coat?

 

[D_W]

It's going higher here, too, but maybe more temporary. About 6 months ago, I got an offer in the mail to contract natural gas for $2.99 per million BTU (there's another $6 or so of customer and distribution charges, so only the $2.99 can be managed). The commodity charge was $2.25 at the time. I felt like locking it in but dragged my feet and missed the deadline (assuming that if markets crash, people flee to commodities).

Last month's gas bill, the commodity charge was $4.85, and I checked the contract offers - they're now there for a $9.99 rate (!!).

The gas supply hasn't changed here, but when there is inflation, people will throw money at commodities as a hedge - so gas prices are going up. This area is fracking area, though - if the rates go up much, all of the drilling plans that were mothballed when fracking made gas dirt cheap will go on line - so really high rates won't last long locally.

Nuclear plants, however, are a dead end until someone figures out how to make them cost competitive with basic supply. Our already established plants here are claiming due to EE benefits costs and other regulatory expenses, they'll need to get 6 cents a kilowatt hour to stay in business. Each plant has a trail of about 1000-1200 employees, so if they go offline, it's terrible for their local area. But, gas plants that can go online and offline easily and run continuously if needed are bidding somewhere around 4 cents a kw/hr, and the levelized cost of the green energy bits going in here are trending lower than 6 cents. So I think nuke's days may be numbered .

Not a fan of what you're describing - public interest investors (insurers and pensions) want to get into the market to get steady fixed income, but in order to make the whole thing work, they need to basically get a forced donation from the public in utility bills. "investments" that need third party payers to supplement private investments ...not so good.

 

[Droogs]

Power generation, all forms of mass public transit, Health provision and infrustructure provision should be publicly owned and along with defence and law and order should be the only areas of life that can not be privately owned or provided. These are the basic pillars of a functioning country and should be owned by the people of that country. That does not negate that where applicable they be run for a profit to improve service and with half the profits going into the governments tax coffers and the rest distributed as performance bonus's for the staff.

 

[Spectric]

These are the basic pillars of a functioning country

That is the right way, provide a good sound infrastructure that supports the people who will then be more productive because they are not worried about paying the next bill or getting to and from work, just like the farmer or gardener who prepares the ground before planting, here the government expects a good crop by planting in concrete.

 

[Noel]

That is the right way, provide a good sound infrastructure that supports the people who will then be more productive because they are not worried about paying the next bill or getting to and from work, just like the farmer or gardener who prepares the ground before planting, here the government expects a good crop by planting in concrete.

Planting on concrete? Some believe you can grow concrete.....

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The UK has mainly adopted a policy of regulation of the private sector, rather than direct control of the resources and investment. For energy we have Ofgen, and there are similar for telecoms, TV, water etc.

Both regulation and nationalisation have good and bad characteristics.

Regulation should allow private sector companies the flexibility to operate efficiently to achieve agreed strategies within agreed financial constraints. This relies upon effective regulation and transparency on the part of the private sector, neither of which have been consistently delivered.

Nationalisation relies upon the effectiveness of government in selecting senior management and agreeing goals and financial constraints. If they are unable to regulate effectively they are no more likely to be able to manage a nationalised industry.

The question is whether a regulated private sector motivated by profit will deliver better outcomes than a nationalised body prioritising risk avoidance over enthusiastically embracing change.

The overall framework within which they operate should be similar. Whether the private sector or nationalised body build a nuclear reactor is unimportant - the question is which will deliver on time, to spec and budget, and the extent to which risk (and reward) is by the taxpayer or shareholder.

In either case the consumer will have to pay the cost of service provision - whether green, nuclear or carbon based. The last is largely influenced by the price on international markets of gas and oil beyond the control of the UK government or regulator.

The choice is how does the consumer pay - for energy consumed, or in some way offset through subsidy. The latter increases taxation or the deficit. The debate is therefore how are the increased costs of energy shared - they do not somehow disappear.

I accept there may be a diversity of views - personally I favour reinforcing regulation to deliver better outcomes, not nationalisation which may simply bury the consequences of poor regulation.

I believe consumers should pay the full cost of energy consumed albeit with some limited support for those on low incomes. We are hugely profligate with energy simply because it is so cheap.

Reducing consumption does not rely upon expensive ground source heat pumps etc, but turning down the central heating by 2C, buying a woolly, buying a smaller car next time you change, the Med not the far east for holidays etc.

 

[Spectric]

The issue with this bill is that it is like making you contribute towards say festools development cost even if you are buying a product from Veritas or Woodpecker. A customer should have the freedom to choose between a renewable energy supplier or one that has no enviromental credentials and not be forced into paying towards something that has the potential for enviromental catastrophe.

I believe consumers should pay the full cost of energy consumed albeit with some limited support for those on low incomes. We are hugely profligate with energy simply because it is so cheap.

That is the underlying issue with energy, rather than try and control usage to within reasonable limits we strive to just keep on meeting demand and I believe there should be a more structured cost system that rewards low users but penalises those who just consume in excess .

Reducing consumption does not rely upon expensive ground source heat pumps etc, but turning down the central heating by 2C, buying a woolly, buying a smaller car next time you change, the Med not the far east for holidays etc.

All part of our journey to become independant from our enviroment and live distanced from our natural world. I am not saying we have to return to the days when we had frozen loo's that were outside or bedrooms that had ice on the inside of windows but we have definately gone to far in the other direction and expect to be able to wear summer cloths indoors all year round.

Then you hear the government bleating on about being carbon neutral and that big COP26 meeting yet we are still building thousands of houses on green sites that use a gas boiler which are built to historical building standards, probably because the property developers are wealthy freinds of the party and building houses that meet the needs of future generations will impact their profits, so yet again greed wins.

 

[Droogs]

Plus they will get to rebuild the new replacements in 30 years as the shoddy piles of carp they put up now fall apart

 

[Cabinetman]

Plus they will get to rebuild the new replacements in 30 years as the shoddy piles of carp they put up now fall apart

Almost, a big, big time Builder friend of mine did actually say 50 years!
He died recently I would’ve loved to have asked him about fitting heat pumps to new houses. He was a Yorkshireman and didn’t take prisoners, he once asked very high up the ladder what carbon neutral was when building houses and of course they couldn’t tell him, try making a brick without energy, or virtually anything else for that matter.

 

[RobinBHM]

I wish my energy was a bit higher

 

[D_W]

The issue with this bill is that it is like making you contribute towards say festools development cost even if you are buying a product from Veritas or Woodpecker. A customer should have the freedom to choose between a renewable energy supplier or one that has no environmental credentials and not be forced into paying towards something that has the potential for enviromental catastrophe.


That is the underlying issue with energy, rather than try and control usage to within reasonable limits we strive to just keep on meeting demand and I believe there should be a more structured cost system that rewards low users but penalises those who just consume in excess .


All part of our journey to become independant from our enviroment and live distanced from our natural world. I am not saying we have to return to the days when we had frozen loo's that were outside or bedrooms that had ice on the inside of windows but we have definately gone to far in the other direction and expect to be able to wear summer cloths indoors all year round.

Then you hear the government bleating on about being carbon neutral and that big COP26 meeting yet we are still building thousands of houses on green sites that use a gas boiler which are built to historical building standards, probably because the property developers are wealthy freinds of the party and building houses that meet the needs of future generations will impact their profits, so yet again greed wins.

Here's the real problem - we focus on "energy efficiency" instead of energy use. So you get people with two hybrids driving 40k miles a year each claiming "they need to" when they could live closer to work. And then they go on vacation flying somewhere to another continent (on an airplane that's much more efficient than older jets). And then heat and cool their houses corner to corner, and pine for a larger house all the time.

Over time, the power companies in the US (which probably caused trends elsewhere) popularized open floorplan houses as they had trouble selling energy more than they did finding it (at least selling it faster and faster each year), so you end up with "efficient" houses that aren't amenable to low energy use.

if you have a huge house with plumbing end to end, hose bibbs on four corners outside (and associated plumbing, especially if it's on a slab or in wall), bathrooms on multiple floors far apart, then suddenly where I am, you can't just stop heating part of the house. If all of the plumbing centers on various floors around a stack, then you only have to heat the area where the water comes in (if you're lucky, it's south facing in the middle of the house) around the plumbing and drain stack.

pushing for more and more efficiency doesn't do anything to really solve the problem - pushing for ceasing use for certain things is a better idea.

And like it or not, anyone sitting on the internet all day is contributing enormous amounts to energy use. That includes streaming on TV - the energy consumption for custom streaming by individual, etc is huge.

In the US, where residences use a lot of energy (in cold areas, hot areas, relatively large compared to much of the world), residential energy use is still only 21% of the total. A bigger broader look with more options than "more insulation, better mileage" needs to be had.

 

[Spectric]

And like it or not, anyone sitting on the internet all day is contributing enormous amounts to energy use. That includes streaming on TV - the energy consumption for custom streaming by individual, etc is huge.

Not to mention the actual servers or data centres, these consume huge amounts of energy and generate tonnes of CO2.

 

[D_W]

Not to mention the actual servers or data centres, these consume huge amounts of energy and generate tonnes of CO2.

That's the part I'm thinking of. I think the consumption is probably far greater outside of our PC than in, and not just for minimal providing of services, but for constant mining and profiling and manipulating of data. Total internet use is apparently about 5% of global (energy) consumption.

As in, the internet uses more energy than the entire united states residential sector, which isn't exactly a sector of parsimony.

 

[baldkev]

Whatever happens we have to pay for it anyway....


And the best is, after weve paid for it, through higher prices, those prices wont come down, even when the electricty usage goes through the roof ( electric cars etc )
The only certainties in life are tax and death

 

[Jameshow]

Whatever happens we have to pay for it anyway....


And the best is, after weve paid for it, through higher prices, those prices wont come down, even when the electricty usage goes through the roof ( electric cars etc )
The only certainties in life are tax and death

And utility bills!!

Added to which we are foolishly putting all our ends in one basket of electricity!! No petrol, diesel, gas or coal!!

 

[baldkev]

Hmmm. Gas is supposed to go up by as much as 50% and our boiler is on its way out! Mind you, g.s.h.p etc cost way more to buy and install

 

[John Brown]

Hmmm. Gas is supposed to go up by as much as 50% and our boiler is on its way out! Mind you, g.s.h.p etc cost way more to buy and install

And to run.

 

[jimmy_s]

I'm slowly getting the house insulated enough for ground source as I'm on oil but no point financially at the moment with the likely hikes in electricity costs coming our way.

Even if I installed a GSHP with a pretty decent COP of say 4 or there about, it would still cost more to run than the oil boiler.

 

[baldkev]

And to run.

I haven't looked into it, but thought they must be cheaper??