Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Masked Tulip

Energy Revolution Could Put Bills Up By A Third

Recommended Posts

Kind of back to the UK becoming more expensive to live in.

I think this will have an affect on the bigger and older properties.

.

Householders face a £300-a-year rise in their gas and electricity bills and significant cuts in how much energy they use if Britain is to “keep the lights on” and meet its climate change targets, the Government has said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/7913610/Energy-revolution-could-put-bills-up-by-a-third.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Coal-fired power stations would remain part of the grid as long as emissions were stored underground using “carbon capture”.

:rolleyes:

Even if they got that technology to work it reduces the output of the power station by over a quarter because the plant gobbles up so much energy itself.

I guess we should just cut to the chase and hand the keys to the country over to Mr Putin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of back to the UK becoming more expensive to live in.

I think this will have an affect on the bigger and older properties.

.

Unlikely. Theres one thing about big houses though, they tend to have chimneys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Unlikely. Theres one thing about big houses though, they tend to have chimneys.

Exactly, you can burn the floor boards. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

I love paying more for things. Just like houses, energy costs must be inflated at all costs.

Exactly, I think they should print another £200bn, just keep the taps full on until the price of everything doubles and everyone becomes a 40% tax payer, that means we'll all become above average and rich beyond our wildest dreams. Why didn't anyone in history ever try such a thing? They just chose to keep everyone in poverty, what tyrants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After copenhagen and climategate most of the world has moved on from the green energy/global warming fad. Britain's leaders are so enamoured with the idea they can't give it up though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of back to the UK becoming more expensive to live in.

I think this will have an affect on the bigger and older properties.

At least they are going to build the new reactors. Increase the number from 10 to 50 and that's all the goals achieved..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

At least they are going to build the new reactors. Increase the number from 10 to 50 and that's all the goals achieved..

Huhne and the rest of the libdems are deeply anti-nuclear, why do you think the government denied that modest loan to Sheffield Forgemasters? Because there will be precisely zero orders forthcoming. I guess they're hoping the tooth fairy will deliver us unlimited energy in the future, and the nearest thing to that in the real world is gas from cuddly and stable countries like Russia and Iran.

There will be rolling blackouts before the decade is out, mark my words, even the government admits this. At the moment it's like the credit bubble circa 2005, everyone knows it's going to end badly but they're either in denial or hoping for the best.

You'll find those coal stations that will be shuttered by EU legislation in a year or two won't be demolished but kept in reserve ready to be brought back online, once you have blackouts, rioting, huge disruption to rail, people regularly stuck in lifts or down the tube, food rotting in freezers and economic collapse; I'm guessing they'll soon forget about the CO2 monster and recognise the impending man made disaster before them. If the grid collapses entirely you also lose air traffic control, the water supply, communication networks, and all signalling on the railways (even if you have diesel trains ready). The financial markets and banking system would go down too, which given the circumstances is probably a good thing.

New nuclear stations take nearly a decade to plan and build, you can't get out of this mess by signing a bunch of blank cheques at 3am in the morning.

I guess the gold, baked beans and guns brigade have a certain critical awareness, they know we're ruled by short termist idiots and it's simply a matter of time before they screw up big time. Much like keeping interest rates too low for the best part of the 2000's, the only thing they need to do to mess things up is nothing,

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huhne and the rest of the libdems are deeply anti-nuclear, why do you think the government denied that modest loan to Sheffield Forgemasters? Because there will be precisely zero orders forthcoming. I guess they're hoping the tooth fairy will deliver us unlimited energy in the future, and the nearest thing to that in the real world is gas from cuddly and stable countries like Russia and Iran.

There will be rolling blackouts before the decade is out, mark my words, even the government admits this. At the moment it's like credit bubble circa 2005, everyone knows it's going to end badly but they're either in denial or hoping for the best.

You'll find those coal stations that will shuttered by EU legislation in a year or two won't be demolished but kept in reserve ready to be brought back online, once you have blackouts, rioting, huge disruption to rail, people regularly stuck in lifts or down the tube, food rotting in freezers and economic collapse; I'm guessing they soon forget about the CO2 monster and recognise the impending man made disaster before them. If the grid collapses entirely you also lose air traffic control, the water supply, communication networks, and all signalling on the railways (even if you have diesel trains ready). The financial markets and banking system would go down too, which given the circumstances is probably a good thing.

New nuclear stations take nearly a decade to plan and build, you can't get out of this mess by signing a bunch of blank cheques at 3am in the morning.

I guess the gold, baked beans and gun brigade have critical awareness, they know we're ruled by short termist idiots and it's simply a matter of time before they screw up big time.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The consequences of a shortfall of energy supply will be dramatic. The bigger problem though, IMO, is population. There are simply too many people on our planet, and the numbers are growing at a frightening rate. This is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Everything else is just a result of overpopulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The consequences of a shortfall of energy supply will be dramatic. The bigger problem though, IMO, is population. There are simply too many people on our planet, and the numbers are growing at a frightening rate. This is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Everything else is just a result of overpopulation.

Apparently the libdems and the big business backed toffs on the tory side are going soft on their immigration promises, they better hope we have enough energy to run London's new desalination plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love paying more for things. Just like houses, energy costs must be inflated at all costs.

Anything bigger costs more to buy, more to pay for and more to maintain, run and service. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huhne and the rest of the libdems are deeply anti-nuclear, why do you think the government denied that modest loan to Sheffield Forgemasters? Because there will be precisely zero orders forthcoming. I guess they're hoping the tooth fairy will deliver us unlimited energy in the future, and the nearest thing to that in the real world is gas from cuddly and stable countries like Russia and Iran.

The green movement does have a massive problem. There are a huge number of people who have convinced themselves (and each other) that somehow, some combination of renewables and efficiency can power a modern industrial society and that the only thing they need to make this happen is a few rejigs of the tax system. You will inevitably hear (just like this article) bleating about 'efficiency improvements'.

It's almost as bad as trying to argue with people who think that taking the contents of a few emails out of context disproves a large and well established field of science, but I digress.

Pretty much every serious scientist who has looked at the problem (the twin problem of fossil fuel availability and global warming) tends to advocate a large expansion of Nuclear power, amongst other things. The problem is that instead of having the magic fairy of market forces do this - which won't happen - you have to actually make decisions centrally that will not be particularly popular. Clearly, politicians don't like this, especially when they have the siren voices of environmental groups coupled with investment bankers telling them that trading carbon credits will work..

You'll find those coal stations that will shuttered by EU legislation in a year or two won't be demolished but kept in reserve ready to be brought back online, once you have blackouts, rioting, huge disruption to rail, people regularly stuck in lifts or down the tube, food rotting in freezers and economic collapse; I'm guessing they soon forget about the CO2 monster and recognise the impending man made disaster before them. If the grid collapses entirely you also lose air traffic control, the water supply, communication networks, and all signalling on the railways (even if you have diesel trains ready). The financial markets and banking system would go down too, which given the circumstances is probably a good thing.

Bear in mind that if we have electricity shortages, it will be dealt with in the same way as California - different areas will get blackouts at different times, and priority services will get priority. But yes, the people who think that somehow they can legislate to shut down Coal fired power plants without putting something else in place need a cold slap around the face.

New nuclear stations take nearly a decade to plan and build, you can't get out of this mess by signing a bunch of blank cheques at 3am in the morning.

If we had continued with the plans from the 1960s and 1970s, we'd have the first generation of IFRs already in service.. much lower carbon emissions, stable prices and no prospect of fuel shortages this side of 1,000,000AD. Instead we have had several decades of market forces and NIMBYfied environmental activism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

The green movement does have a massive problem. There are a huge number of people who have convinced themselves (and each other) that somehow, some combination of renewables and efficiency can power a modern industrial society and that the only thing they need to make this happen is a few rejigs of the tax system. You will inevitably hear (just like this article) bleating about 'efficiency improvements'.

The UK's 2900 odd wind farms are currently producing 0.6% of our electricity demand. Scientific and technical illiteracy is the price you pay for having a media and ruling class educated and stuck in their humanities bubble, they truly believe a few wind mills and a bit of wishful thinking will solve all our problems. They think potential future hardship is trading in the 4x4 for a Prius whilst in reality the declining output of oil and gas means a large chunk of the world's population will starve.

Let them find out the hard way.

It's almost as bad as trying to argue with people who think that taking the contents of a few emails out of context disproves a large and well established field of science, but I digress.

That's angels on the head of a pin stuff, trying to predict or model the future is a fools errand, what difference does it make? We're addicted to fossil fuels and that's that, we have plenty of other reasons not to use them if we could, but what choice do we have. The worlds energy demand will double by 2050 due to rising prosperity and population growth. If something is unsustainable then it cannot be sustained, lol, so at least one part of that future isn't going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every serious scientist who has looked at the problem (the twin problem of fossil fuel availability and global warming) tends to advocate a large expansion of Nuclear power, amongst other things. The problem is that instead of having the magic fairy of market forces do this - which won't happen - you have to actually make decisions centrally that will not be particularly popular.

Two comments:

  1. I wouldn't ask a scientist, serious or otherwise, to offer advice on an engineering problem. By definition, they are living in cloud-cuckoo land :)

  2. Maybe the reason that Nuclear power is not driven by the private sector is because there's currently no money in it - e.g. here in the UK within our piddling nuclear park, the government has to set aside a potential £40Billion for decommissioning, presumably because otherwise the private sector won't get involved. Or maybe the people who actually have money are smarter than us HPC posters and have realised that the whole energy market is distorted by multiple subsidies and that they don't want to get involved on too big a timescale, e.g. nuclear power plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Two comments:

  1. I wouldn't ask a scientist, serious or otherwise, to offer advice on an engineering problem. By definition, they are living in cloud-cuckoo land :)

  2. Maybe the reason that Nuclear power is not driven by the private sector is because there's currently no money in it - e.g. here in the UK within our piddling nuclear park, the government has to set aside a potential £40Billion for decommissioning, presumably because otherwise the private sector won't get involved. Or maybe the people who actually have money are smarter than us HPC posters and have realised that the whole energy market is distorted by multiple subsidies and that they don't want to get involved on too big a timescale, e.g. nuclear power plants?

It was the government that wanted all that plutonium for their bombs, that mess isn't exactly a direct result of civil power stations.

However, you're right, in the short term burning cheap fossil fuels is the most economical until they suddenly become expensive or unavailable either due to geology or geopolitics.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....because we have not invested long term to provide our energy requirements for the future, we will all have to pay the premium of the going rate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlikely. Theres one thing about big houses though, they tend to have chimneys.

Most houses here in NI have chimneys. TBH, I wouldn't want to live in a house without one, as it gives you another option for whenever the power cuts out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The consequences of a shortfall of energy supply will be dramatic. The bigger problem though, IMO, is population. There are simply too many people on our planet, and the numbers are growing at a frightening rate. This is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Everything else is just a result of overpopulation.

Yes and no.

It's a chicken and egg issue.

Overpopulation is the central problem. However, we only got ourselves into this situation because we had access to a seemingly unlimited supply of cheap hydrocarbon energy in the form of light sweet crude. This, in turn, allowed us to ramp up primary productivity. In particular, food production, leading to higher populations.

The energy came first. When the energy goes, everything that has come from it will go as well.

That includes at least 5 billion of us.

human_population_growth2.jpg

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could just point out, global warming is happening and sea levels are rising. These are measurable things.

If I could also just point out, London, the political and financial HQ of the UK, where almost all the rich and influential live and work, is mostly flat and very much at sea level. Does anyone really think this isn't having an effect on policymaking?

The other major cities in a similar position, by the way, include New York, Miami, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Alexandria, Mumbai, Kolkata, Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Ningbo, Shanghai, Tianjin, Osaka, Tokyo and Nagoya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments:

  1. I wouldn't ask a scientist, serious or otherwise, to offer advice on an engineering problem. By definition, they are living in cloud-cuckoo land :)

  2. Maybe the reason that Nuclear power is not driven by the private sector is because there's currently no money in it - e.g. here in the UK within our piddling nuclear park, the government has to set aside a potential £40Billion for decommissioning, presumably because otherwise the private sector won't get involved. Or maybe the people who actually have money are smarter than us HPC posters and have realised that the whole energy market is distorted by multiple subsidies and that they don't want to get involved on too big a timescale, e.g. nuclear power plants?

First, I'd rather ask a scientist than an economist. Or politician.

Second, the private sector cannot drive this - on its own the energy system would go to a coal fired grid because that is fairly low capital and low fuel cost, I suspect. Energy is one of those infrastructure problems that are not well addressed by markets.

Third, £40 billion sounds a lot.. but how much is that per kwh? (and how much involves weapons and/or research sites?). It's easy to come up with scary numbers in energy/environment problems, harder to give them the correct context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.