UK Energy Production

[treeturner123]

Don't forget that we will need much more electricity if we:-

Increase AI and Cloud storage
Have 80% vehicles electric, lorries & buses will need significant amounts
Produce anything that requires heat to manufacture eg Pottery, metals

Gas gives more heat than per thermal unit than electricity so.....

And yes, Miliband, and in fact nearly ALL politicians have NO scientific training and very few civil servant have either.

Phil

 

[Chris152]

And yes, Miliband, and in fact nearly ALL politicians have NO scientific training and very few civil servant have either.

They do tend to have specialist advisers, tho.

 

[Jameshow]

Don't forget that we will need much more electricity if we:-

Increase AI and Cloud storage
Have 80% vehicles electric, lorries & buses will need significant amounts
Produce anything that requires heat to manufacture eg Pottery, metals

Gas gives more heat than per thermal unit than electricity so.....

And yes, Miliband, and in fact nearly ALL politicians have NO scientific training and very few civil servant have either.

Phil

Gas gives more heat per thermal unit than electricity?!!!
Surely thermal unit is a measure of heat?

 

[Dermot McArdle]

I really only want to follow the money on this one.
Going for a net zero option is going to cost lots of money.
That money will only come from us.

It will go to building the vast infrastructure required to transmit the electricity from where its being inconveniently produced (out at sea), to where its needed, ie cities and industries.

The money will also go into the pockets of the wind farm barons who can now sell their product at an enormous mark up because the price of electricity is struck at the price asked by the most expensive producers, ie gas and nuclear, even if we only need them for 2 days a year.

Is the government going to admit to the public that our electricity bills will not come down because transitioning to net zero is worth all of us having to pay a lot more for our energy.
Good luck with that one.

We all want good schools, hospitals, roads etc but these things are only dependent on UK business generating enough wealth for the country.
That's a big problem for them when they have some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
Will the government explain that as well?

 

[Jacob]

I really only want to follow the money on this one.
Going for a net zero option is going to cost lots of money.
That money will only come from us.

It will go to building the vast infrastructure required to transmit the electricity from where its being inconveniently produced (out at sea), to where its needed, ie cities and industries.

The money will also go into the pockets of the wind farm barons who can now sell their product at an enormous mark up because the price of electricity is struck at the price asked by the most expensive producers, ie gas and nuclear, even if we only need them for 2 days a year.

Is the government going to admit to the public that our electricity bills will not come down because transitioning to net zero is worth all of us having to pay a lot more for our energy.
Good luck with that one.

We all want good schools, hospitals, roads etc but these things are only dependent on UK business generating enough wealth for the country.
That's a big problem for them when they have some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
Will the government explain that as well?

Energy cost have been too low for too long. They will go up. There is no alternative. There will be big changes as we adjust. I reckon EVs and air flight will be off the agenda for starters.
A lot of people don't seem yet to have grasped what's going on. But fewer sceptics so that's good! Pity about the orange man but he won't be there for long.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I really only want to follow the money on this one.
Going for a net zero option is going to cost lots of money.
That money will only come from us.

It will go to building the vast infrastructure required to transmit the electricity from where its being inconveniently produced (out at sea), to where its needed, ie cities and industries.

The money will also go into the pockets of the wind farm barons who can now sell their product at an enormous mark up because the price of electricity is struck at the price asked by the most expensive producers, ie gas and nuclear, even if we only need them for 2 days a year.

Is the government going to admit to the public that our electricity bills will not come down because transitioning to net zero is worth all of us having to pay a lot more for our energy.
Good luck with that one.

We all want good schools, hospitals, roads etc but these things are only dependent on UK business generating enough wealth for the country.
That's a big problem for them when they have some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
Will the government explain that as well?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s easy or that there is a silver bullet answer.

What do you think the answer is as I’m pretty sure it’s not “drill baby drill”?

 

[Eshmiel]

I really only want to follow the money on this one.
Going for a net zero option is going to cost lots of money.
That money will only come from us.

It will go to building the vast infrastructure required to transmit the electricity from where its being inconveniently produced (out at sea), to where its needed, ie cities and industries.

The money will also go into the pockets of the wind farm barons who can now sell their product at an enormous mark up because the price of electricity is struck at the price asked by the most expensive producers, ie gas and nuclear, even if we only need them for 2 days a year.

Is the government going to admit to the public that our electricity bills will not come down because transitioning to net zero is worth all of us having to pay a lot more for our energy.
Good luck with that one.

We all want good schools, hospitals, roads etc but these things are only dependent on UK business generating enough wealth for the country.
That's a big problem for them when they have some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
Will the government explain that as well?

No one will have any wealth, schools, hospitals or anything else if we humans go on wrecking the climate at the (accelerating still) pace we're going at. "Growth" of the traditional economic ilk is the main cause of the looming catastrophes (well beyond merely "looming" for the increasing numbers who have been burnt, blown and flooded out). Worst case but highly possible scenario is that this century (or even the next 25 years) will see the human population crash as billions die from weather and its effects on everything (especially "growth") as we return to rather more primitive conditions than those we enjoy now.

If you have capital, the best strategy is to become energy-generation self-sufficient as far as possible. Such a strategy will also add up, if enough of us follow it, in providing a far more resilient national energy infrastructure than do huge centralised and very expensive generation facilities, wasted in grid transmission losses and organised to profit a few very greedy people rather than the nation as a whole.

Perhaps we could all continue to burn coal, or oil. Perhaps we could cut all the forests down to burn & choke us, hoping that "someone else" grows some new ones. It might reduce the electricity or gas bill by 2p a therm. But just after "my lowest bill ever" the mother of all storms will blow the house down. The lucky ones will die in the flood.