As The Observer notes this morning:
Thousands of homes could lose their energy supplier in the coming months as a result of a financial shock looming over the industry's smaller companies.
Suppliers are due to pass on millions of pounds' worth of renewable energy subsidies, collected via energy bills, to the energy regulator, Ofgem, by the end of the month.
This deadline has in the past proved fatal for financially unstable energy suppliers, and it is feared that a string of collapses may follow in the coming months.
I am sure this is an issue. I am equally sure this is not the energy issue we now need to be worrying about.
It is almost absurd that when we face a global heating crisis what is of concern in the UK energy market is the fate of small companies trying to make a buck out of a failed system of energy privatisation that has very largely led to consumer rip off, limited real energy supply transformation, and a system so lacking in co-ordination that it can be claimed that when these companies fail people are left without energy suppliers when glaringly obviously the supply to their properties still exists.
If we are to get serious about tackling global heating the nineteen-eighties obsession with energy market reforms needs to be replaced with energy policy intended to deliver zero net carbon as the only issue of real priority.
And in the process we should also have single, fair, tariffs for all so that the age of rip-off ends forever.
This is what the Green New Deal requires. And we need it now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree the financialisation of energy supply has been a load of horseshit,
it’s even more problematic than the resultant co2 emissions in the respect that now, some would argue, we’re locked into it because resources have to be extracted and sold to pay off investments made in these markets,
no one wants to eat the losses if resource extraction is wound down and the oil, gas and coal stays in the ground,
one of the sneakiest aspects of financialisation is that it’s spread the investment risk amongst a wide group of individual investor/speculators instead of centralising it as a national asset where the government could make a common decision about resources held as common wealth.
another thing I have to say and will continue to restate even in the face of being ignored or denied;
humanity cannot give up using fossil energy sources in the near term without reducing the global population by 75% and returning to an almost pre industrial society, something no one is prepared to contemplate.
when you look at how much fossil energy is extracted and used globally today to support modern society and compare it to the tiny sliver of renewable energy that is generated,
when you look at how that renewable energy relies heavily on a fossil energy technology foundation, all renewables are built, installed and operated using fossil energy powered infrastructure.
fossil energy is not going away, we can only negotiate a controlled withdrawal from using it as profligately as we do today,
even reducing fossil energy usage by 50% would be a massive, possibly impossible, undertaking,
to date, even with all the supposedly renewable energy brought online worldwide, it hasn’t made even a scratch on fossil energy consumption,
in fact fossil energy consumption is still rising, albeit more slowly now because the cost of fossil energy is rising inexorably as it depletes, more complex methods are required to extract it and the rising costs choke off growth.
even if you chose to completely ignore the ecological implications of fossil energy use you still have to face the reality that the era of abundant and cheap fossil energy is coming to an end,
in reality the fossil energy era has been only 150-200 years, barely a blink of an eye in relation to 10,000 years of human civilisation,
it barely registers in terms of the geological time the fossil resources took to be created, layed down, compressed, heated and matured.
energy has become a deadly serious subject, a global civilisation of 7.5 billion souls is currently intricately dependent on maintaining a steady source of energy inputs,
it’s far too serious a subject to be left in the hands of financiers, speculators, ideologues and spivs.
the most important thing now is to accept that endless growth is no longer possible due to the lack of an ever growing energy base and the restrictions posed by a massively expanded human population within the confines of a finite planet.
we need to preserve and use wisely and frugally what fossil energy reserves are left, it’s nearly all we have to work with, without it we can’t build and operate wind turbines, solar panels, hydro electric dams, electrified rail transport systems, etc.
what fossil energy resources we have left available are vital national strategic assets that our nation is dependant on for survival, not the plaything of spivs and profiteers.
we need to take back control, not from silly diversions like the EU, we need to take back control from financiers, hedge funds, banking and trans national corporations that are running amok,
we need to pass control to scientists, engineers and academics that are employed by and loyal to the country, our planet, it’s people, their children and our collective future.
this isn’t a game anymore, it’s a matter of survival.
Agreed
A couple of points regarding your assertions on population. What do you consider the near term? Why 75%, when only about 25% use most of the fossil fuel? How do you reduce global population in the near term? The best that could be expected is probably a reduction in birth rate to say half the death rate, which would be reduction rate of about 0.5%, on that basis the population will take 150 years to reduce by 75% – that’s far too long to stop climate change!
We really do have to work with what we have, which is a global poplulation rising to 10 to 11 billion before, hopefully, starting a gradual decline over several centuries. Renewables and nuclear can probably get us there, renewables alone probably can’t.
Game Plan for energy & net zero – not doing what follows will make it much more difficult to get to net zero..
Move back to pre-1989 for the electrical power networks & gas with some subtle differences.
1. (re)Nationalise the UK DNOs. There are a couple of ways to do that which will minimise payments.
2. Take over 50.9% of National Grid (NG) and only allow the other 49.1 % to be owned by shareholders/pension funds based in the UK.
3. NG runs a merit order system for generation based on CO2 emissions. NG sells energy to the DNOs who then do what they did pre-89 sell electricity at a single price to customers.
4. The 13 UK DNOs re-established with boards being drawn 100% from local citizens who are revolved on a two year basis.
5. The DNOs remit is to help their customers use electricity (& gas) more efficiently and effectively.
6. DNO remit: work with local authorities to ram through energy renovation at a scale that is fit for purpose.
7. DNOs take over gas network (and gas billing), with a view to sector coupling and a move to hydrogen – i.e. sector coupling at the physical layer.
8. Energy Council – with a remit to make sure that the DNOs are making progress in driving forward with energy efficiency and delivering in partnership with LAs and local communities embedded renewables. The Council will coordinate R&D for the DNO and Nat Grid.
9. UK to take risk sharing partnerships in all large-scale generation projects.
10. Government to set embedded renewables targets matched to LA delivery of a renewable energy portfolio (what is the potential for a local region).
“Markets” & companies have a key role to play in the above = deliver the equipment needed at an attractive price.
Bit off topic: There needs to be a written constitution & in it one of the clauses makes clear that only the state can own and operate national infrastructure. This will avoid the Tories in some future – treating the UK as a large-scale Lego set – tearing things apart & “experimenting” “cos its fun” & carries no costs for them.
Your suggestions make a lot of sense
As I understand what you are suggesting is:
– because of the subsidies for renewables the energy companies may have finical difficulty/
– there should be a single tariff for all customers (industry and residential?) so don’t need smart meters then?
– what about feed in tariffs for solar?
a) Is true, apparently
b) Residential yes: smart meters serve a different purpose. They are about controlling use
c) I am open, but I suspect existing contracts will need to be maintained
RES subsidies.
My business partner & I are involved in REs projects – mainland Europe and UK. UK projects typically run @ 30% more capital costs than identical ones in mainland Europe. This is partly due to the various soft barriers which remain in place (keep in mind (irony follows) – there is no climate emergency – there is no global heating). Certainly on-shore wind needs no subsidy, ditto roof-mounted PV on factory roofs. For various reasons (nuclear addiction?) none of the various flavours of tory govs over the past 9 years seemed to be inclined to address this problem.
The situation with residential roof-top PV is more mixed – but overall there is a business case (no subsidy) when deployed at scale with batteries. Batts plus PV can meet around 60% of annual household demand – all behind the meter – which does not leave much “space” for electricity retailers (the 60% is not an assertion – it is a reality). That is why re-nationalisation of the entire energy “market” makes sense – whilst leaving equipment suppliers to do what they do & getting some government participation on the generation side.
Note: in Spain, both PV and wind projects are now built with zero subsidy. The UK has a far greater wind resource on & off-shore, than Spain. So why can Spain “do it” & the Uk cann’t?
Your last is an excellent question
I’m a domestic Solar PV user (I know nothing of wind power) and have been looking into batteries and I’d be interested in your comments. here’s some details:
– I have a 16 panel system sized at 4 kWh which cost me around £6k. It has a system which diverts unused electricity to an immersion heater, thus gas usage is minimised.
– In 2018 I generated 3.6 mwh and got paid via the FIT around £600 (fortunately I installed in 2015 before the huge reduction in the FIT from around 15p per KWH to around 4p per KWH). I paid c£900 to the supplier for c5.5 mwh electricity.
– There’s currently no way of measuring how much electricity has been transferred back to the grid (no smart meters) and so they assume 50% at around 4p per kWh.
– In the winter the system generates at best 20% of the summer months.
– A battery would seem to cost around £5k and as far as I can see over the six ‘winter’ months wouldn’t store anything. As far as I know they are not capable of storing excess electricity created in July & using it in December.
I can’t see a way for me that makes battery cost effective. Appreciate your view.
Does this actually happen in the UK?”
Nope, because ownership of the wires isn’t tied to the supply. There’s a split between the network operator (which is a regional monopoly) that supplies the wires, and your electricity supplier, which supplies or buys in the electricity that is delivered down the network operator’s wires.
If the supplier goes bust, you’re still connected to the network, and the regulator will just switch you to a new middleman.
There might be a problem if one of the big companies goes bust, if they’re a supplier and a regional network operator (I’ve a feeling they’re separate legal entities in the same group, to prevent that, but I can’t remember; it’s years since I did electricity regulation), but so far that’s nowhere near happening; it’s only small middleman suppliers that have gone bust.
Erm… about that scientific concensus… I keep hearing there isn’t one. More here https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
You buy that pro-capitalist argument Bill?
Really?
This is a quick response to Graham & his question on batteries.
1. Measuring exported electricity. There are various simple & cheap systems to measure exported electricity. I can give you details – perhaps off-line.
2. What size battery were you quoted for? 6kWhs would be sufficient. I can get up to date prices for you – (perhaps off-line & no I’m not trying to sell you a system).
3. Batteries become interesting as & when time of use tariffs become significant (& to offer these there needs to be real time metering (aka “smart meters” – although there is little that is “smart” about them). This would allow you (in winter) to store low cost off-peak elec in the battery and use it at peak times.
Richard – feel free to pass my e-mail address on to Graham.+
Graham – may I mail you?
Yes – no problem
https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/201562/hydrogen-could-replace-natural-gas-to-heat-homes-report-claims/
Is there any substance in this?