Just watch this:
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1489147838214848512?s=20&t=-YydvUPNc_GZHWua0uwTTQ
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:
But also, they closed down a gas storage facility too did they not whilst other countries were investing in them.
The public seem far too unaware of this failure in a long line of failures in the name of austerity.
That was Centrica
OK – but I understand that it was the Tories who refused to help to maintain and improve the storage plant that they sold to the private sector and which was – in all honesty – a strategic asset?
The Tories have failed to protect that asset twice – firstly to keep it functional and well maintained during privatization and then failed to help keep it open at all.
Maybe we should have a mass withholding of gas and electricity bills until the energy companies use all their overblown profits to invest in wind, solar, insulation, heat pumps, and other measures to get both the energy price and climate crisis dealt with..
Good luck when disconnected…..
I don’t dispute for a second the need to transition to renewables and hugely to improve energy efficiency. My problem is that I have no faith in the suggested vehicle – a Government Green New Deal.
My experience of the previous Green Deal is that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) does not have the capability to deliver what is needed. I fear that it would turn out to be another debt creation scam with no practical benefits in terms of combating climate change. Has any review been carried out into the previous Green Deal? My experience is that it was neither “Green” nor value for money.
The Green New Deal and Green Deal are entirely unrelated issues
My frustration and, yes, anger, is at the way Private Companies have managed to obtain huge amounts of public resource in ways that I can only describe as fraudulent, with customers paying over the odds, receiving inferior goods and services. When the regulators catch up, the Companies go bust with limited liabilities and resurface a little later under a new name, share capital of £1 and, seemingly, no “history”. I realised I was not alone in feeling that the odds are stacked against ordinary people when last week I saw this:
https://youtu.be/a3O8mwDFo4M
You are right about the odds
I know what Julian is getting at here.
I have commented many times about incompetence.
I have seen no proof of how these schemes would be fit for purpose and not open to abuse.
If you do not believe in government what solution do you want?
Have you looked at the state of the government, opposition, most politicians and local government over the last fifty years?
Yes
Most are staffed by great people but are led by donkeys
So change the donkeys
I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the video. However, investments split into two broad groups: investments in renewables (RES), investments in energy efficiency (EE).
In the case of the latter (EE), gov’ have a big role to play not least due to the disconnect between energy savings due to EE and the up-front capital costs. The payback is over multiple decades. Which means that many people are reluctant to make the investment (or lack the means).
Tories have failed to consider this problem – even though there are some solutions available. Too much like hard work and no immediate up-front political pay back.
In the case of RES, things are more complex. As background, I was talking to both Ofgem and Crown Estates back in 2010 on off-shore wind and market potential. I set up & took part in various meetings (me, them, my clients). Obviously, in 2010 significant subsidies were needed.
This is no long the case and most off-shore projects can stand on their own financial two feet with no subsidy – although CfDs provides some certainty with respect to revenue flows. That said, in the German sector of the North Sea there have been zero subsidy/at market bids – which carries no certainty on revenue flows – but also mean there is zero gov’ financial commitment.
In the case of RES, the gov’ does not invest, companies do. The role of gov’ is:
a) act as a gate keeper – decide on how many auctions
b) base a) on what it thinks the subsidy ask will be.
This process was understandable up until circa 2017 – 2018 (limit the amount of subsidy paid) but then falls to pieces given that post-2018 most off-shore bids were either at market (bid price = averageish wholesale price) or zero bid. This then begs the question, why not push the pedal to the floor? Hold 10GW of auctions each year?
One reason could be that until recently it was foreign companies winning many of the bids. The oil & gas mafia mostly absent. This is changing – & perhaps HMG/tories are giving the O&G mafia time to get their act together?
One last thought. Hornsea 2 in the Uk is the world’s largest off-shore wind farm @ 1.3GW. How long do you think it took them to build it? 9 months to drive the piles and mount the wind turbines. Project will be finished in +/- 1 year. Key point: wind, on & off-shore can be built real quick.
Readers may care to contrast this with Hinkley Pointless (3.6GW) and its +/- 10 years+++ (& we will pass over in silence the size of the subsidy).
I was in contact with Clive’s bunch but they went somewhat silent. One of my concerns is that given the complexity of energy markets in general and electricity markets in particular, there is lack of focus and hence a lack of understanding amongst politicos. This in turn gives free reign to vested interests.
Staggered by the build speed you mention. If we can tackle hydrogen creation from excess wind, storage of the gas and then regeneration on still days we really DO have a plan to at least banish Natural Gas from electricity generation.
Does the green new deal describe the science to store wind or solar energy? Because without storage it doesn’t matter how many solar panels or wind falls you have the grid with always be in shortfall and there lies the reliance on fossil fuels – where we are increasing dependent on importing from countries for our supply.
You may argue for more investment in storage research. But there is no shortage of that globally it’s just that science hasn’t made the breakthrough. Until it does we cannot be dependent solely on renewables.
Just read Mike Parr here
The problem of how to store electricity for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine was solved towards of the 19th century with the industrialisation of electrolysers (the H2 was used to make fertiliser through the Haber Bosch process – also useful for making explosives btw). Excess elec can be stored in electrochemical batteries which can cover shortfalls in times frames of 24hrs. Electrolysers can cover multi-day through to seasonal short falls. The H2 is stored in the existing gas system – which for the most part in the UK can carry H2 (there is an “iron-mains replacement programme” which wil mean that by 2030 100% of the UK low pressure system is OK for 100% H2). As for “yes but electrolysers are not very efficient” (circa 70%) well that depends on what one does with the surplus heat – which could be used to heat houses.
Thus the problem of storage is one of engineering rather than science. Example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/02/a-tale-of-two-towns-one-in-the-north-one-in-the-south-exposes-the-lie-of-levelling-up
It would not be difficult to supply Ashington with 100% RES elec & 100% green H2 & to make sure that the community owned all the kit & that the supply of both would be much much cheaper than anything on offer from the main networks. That this does not happen reflects a lack of knowledge and perhaps lack of interest on the part of the politicos.
Thanks Mike