Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Johnson blames energy price rises on Putin



Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
It is true.
The UK could withdraw from the global gas/energy market and, if it did so, prices would plummet. It would mean that the UK would have to become self-sufficient in its energy needs, and it would signal a drastic change in the UK's position at the vanguard of advocating the value/importance of global markets and that there is no alternative to them.
Our next PM thinks she's resurrecting Thatcher. She doesn't quite realise that Thatcher switched taxes, rather than cut them. Thatcher switched them from 'progressive' taxes on labour (ie so the rich pay) to consumption taxes (ie so the poor pay). Bizarrely, our next PM is proposing to do the opposite that Thatcher did, which is to cut VAT (the tax on the poor), rather than to raise it, which is what Thatcher did.

Self sufficiency in electricity would require a big increase in generation capacity that could only come from a combination of renewables and nuclear. We are not there yet and by the time we are who knows what the pricing will look like. Self sufficiency in gas is possible but not desirable as it is a fossil fuel. For oil; not possible hence the move to electric cars although this then moves the goalposts on electricity generation self sufficiency and is not without significant environmental consequences in rare metals for production and supply chains in unfriendly countries like China (80 % of rare metal production) and with the associated battery requirements-production and recycling.
There is a documentary on iplayer (I think) about the environmental effects of lithium extraction in South America.
On China and rare metals this is worth a read;

https://fortune.com/2022/07/22/china-rare-earths-monopoly-lynas-pensana-iluka-us-supply/amp/
 




Motogull

Todd Warrior
Sep 16, 2005
10,475
Let's face it, the bungle**** will blame anything on anyone.

Putin is a kunnt and he has fukked the world up for quite a while. He has sacrificed the mid term livelihoods for most Russians to pursue a strange soviet fetish. Restoring trust, relations and unraveling all the sanctions will take long time. Blaming Putin for energy price rises is an easy one.

In a world where gas is a bit of an issue, Thickie Truss wants to abandon solar and get back to full farming whilst Thickie Dorries waffles on about food security - there's a message. I get the food point because apples from RSA and lamb from NZ seems silly really, but solar energy seems a no brainer to me.

That Russian report needs publishing.
 






Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Fact in what way? It is subjective.

As for my speculation that tensions will increase, we'll see whether it will or not when the winter comes and people have no money, electricity, fuel, heat or food.

So you don’t mean things will get tense, more like they’ll go into meltdown?

Things are 100% tense right now aren’t they?
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
Let's face it, the bungle**** will blame anything on anyone.

Putin is a kunnt and he has fukked the world up for quite a while. He has sacrificed the mid term livelihoods for most Russians to pursue a strange soviet fetish. Restoring trust, relations and unraveling all the sanctions will take long time. Blaming Putin for energy price rises is an easy one.

In a world where gas is a bit of an issue, Thickie Truss wants to abandon solar and get back to full farming whilst Thickie Dorries waffles on about food security - there's a message. I get the food point because apples from RSA and lamb from NZ seems silly really, but solar energy seems a no brainer to me.

That Russian report needs publishing.

It's not a Soviet thing with Putin. That period was one of the better ones with its satellite areas in modern history. It's certainly a Greater Russia -- or Novorussiye -- thing. It's even more a 'great man of history' thing. Something that Putin shares with Johnson although, unfortunately, he's proven much better at it, for now at least.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
Self sufficiency in electricity would require a big increase in generation capacity that could only come from a combination of renewables and nuclear. We are not there yet and by the time we are who knows what the pricing will look like. Self sufficiency in gas is possible but not desirable as it is a fossil fuel. For oil; not possible hence the move to electric cars although this then moves the goalposts on electricity generation self sufficiency and is not without significant environmental consequences in rare metals for production and supply chains in unfriendly countries like China (80 % of rare metal production) and with the associated battery requirements-production and recycling.
There is a documentary on iplayer (I think) about the environmental effects of lithium extraction in South America.
On China and rare metals this is worth a read;

https://fortune.com/2022/07/22/china-rare-earths-monopoly-lynas-pensana-iluka-us-supply/amp/

Yes, big, big questions need to be asked about energy use, sourcing, etc. We've known that for decades. For the past 12 years under this dreadful rule we've been subjected to, we've swatted those questions aside and, instead, focused on pet ideologies and misguided projects.
 








drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,609
Burgess Hill
Here's a question.

Would it be more beneficial to spend money on installing/subsidising PV systems on as many domestic rooves as possible or spend the money on loads of insulation for homes, assuming they can't do both?

Doing the former would surely mean we could probably get to energy self sufficiency sooner rather than later.
 


Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
So you don’t mean things will get tense, more like they’ll go into meltdown?

Things are 100% tense right now aren’t they?

Slight amendment…so you dont think its tense now?

Obviously yes I do think it is tense now but I don't see people behaving and reasoning as if the doomsday might just be around the corner... which I believe could definitely be the case further on.
 




LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,416
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Here's a question.

Would it be more beneficial to spend money on installing/subsidising PV systems on as many domestic rooves as possible or spend the money on loads of insulation for homes, assuming they can't do both?

Doing the former would surely mean we could probably get to energy self sufficiency sooner rather than later.

Don’t know….but I’d ask why cant they/us do both …..along with help thats needed now.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,014
Here's a question.

Would it be more beneficial to spend money on installing/subsidising PV systems on as many domestic rooves as possible or spend the money on loads of insulation for homes, assuming they can't do both?

Doing the former would surely mean we could probably get to energy self sufficiency sooner rather than later.

it would seem unlikely for solar to deliver self sufficiency, its most effective generation is when we use least power. good for reducing net CO2 emissions, not so much for total power capcity as needs some storage or back up power. solutions self-sufficency need to look at how much power is needed in cold high pressure periods of winter, otherwise just firing up gas to cover shortfalls. insulation has a better long term return, not needing replacing for example, though the cost and time for this is long. serious retro fitting insulation, 12" of lagging, lined walls, would be expensive and take decades to deliver and may not save as much as claimed. really difficult to find meaningful data on what houses lose, just told we're terrible.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
Yes, big, big questions need to be asked about energy use, sourcing, etc. We've known that for decades. For the past 12 years under this dreadful rule we've been subjected to, we've swatted those questions aside and, instead, focused on pet ideologies and misguided projects.

Easy to say now but when has energy policy ever been the top priority of either major party ? It is today purely because of Russia. Making it the top priority also does not guarantee good decision making. Germany decisively went full on in closing down their coal fired power generation and thereby put themselves at the mercy of Putin. I’m sure there are quite a few people over there using equally colourful descriptions of Chancellor Merkel. I’m not sure it is going to change anything.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
Here's a question.

Would it be more beneficial to spend money on installing/subsidising PV systems on as many domestic rooves as possible or spend the money on loads of insulation for homes, assuming they can't do both?

Doing the former would surely mean we could probably get to energy self sufficiency sooner rather than later.

You can do both, and should. But I think you're right, insulation means that there's less demand for energy.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
Easy to say now but when has energy policy ever been the top priority of either major party ? It is today purely because of Russia. Making it the top priority also does not guarantee good decision making. Germany decisively went full on in closing down their coal fired power generation and thereby put themselves at the mercy of Putin. I’m sure there are quite a few people over there using equally colourful descriptions of Chancellor Merkel. I’m not sure it is going to change anything.

It's been the top priority of the party I've been in for nearly two decades now. More fool those that trusted the big two. The outcome will be that later generations and other parts of the world will really suffer the consequences.
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
It's been the top priority of the party I've been in for nearly two decades now. More fool those that trusted the big two. The outcome will be that later generations and other parts of the world will really suffer the consequences.

The Green Party have consistently opposed nuclear power and thereby abetted continued reliance on carbon emitting fossil fuels. They also cannot solve the technological issues with battery storage/recycling because it simply doesn’t exist yet to allow for full self sufficiency in renewables. This is a transition not a revolution which is why the Greens are a useful voice in keeping things on track but not one of the two major parties. I also don’t think the Greens have been entirely honest about the process. The only way to complete the transition is to price fossil fuels out of existence (as is happening now). If we are not prepared to wait until the technology catches up to create an energy mix that fully replaces fossil fuels then rationing on price with little back up is inevitable.
 




drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,609
Burgess Hill
You can do both, and should. But I think you're right, insulation means that there's less demand for energy.

But so do solar panels in that they reduce the demand from the national grid! We've got panels and the big energy users, eg washing machine, dishwasher and ironing, all are done during daylight. Only electricity being used in the evenings is for LED lights in the room we are in and the TV (and the odd cup of tea).

Should be mandated that every new build has panels (as well as being properly insulated at the outset).
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here