[Politics] Johnson blames energy price rises on Putin

[rogersix]

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).

alas, that will annoy some tory party donors

 

[knocky1]

What a bizarre post and, I think, one you've made before.

I can try to guess that you are suggesting you will be banned for disagreeing with me. I can't recall banning anyone for disagreeing with me in the 20+ years I've looked after NSC. I've no plans to start now. People disagreeing with me is often how I learn something new, and appreciate alternate points of view.

All that aside, I'm not sure what there is to disagree with in the post I made. You'll note I'\ve not made any real comment on this whole issue as it's big, complicated and one I know little about. I'm reading as much as I can though, because I want to know more.

But the standing charge increase, and the reasons for it, is something I have read about and I'm not sure it has been that widely discussed. A large part of the recent increase has, I believe, been imposed to fund the losses of various suppliers who went bust as wholesale energy prices spiked. This is a regressive burden, with a greater impact on those who can least afford it. Taken to an extreme, I've heard about people on pre-payment metres who have stopped using a fuel completely in order to try to save money, but later found out that they are in debt due to the standing charge continuing to accrue, even though they were not using the fuel at all.

Like you, I imagine, I'm not likely to need to make the "heating or eating" choice in the near future, but it doesn't mean that I can't feel that something was amiss that allowed all these new suppliers to enter the market with little consideration for if they were going to be able to continue to operate if the macro-economic climate changed.

Attempt at a joke [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] and only time I've done it. I have full respect for how you run and use the site.

My unstated disagreement is purely that the wholesale price has gone up over tenfold in a couple of years and the inefficiencies of the retail side are small fry to this supply fiasco.

I apologise for my Saturday evening negative caustic comments and yes I do think It's good for you to read up and put it out on here. The billions lost to failed suppliers will add an estimated £94 to every bill. Terrible, regressive and small fry.

 

[El Presidente]

France are adding to national debt/printing more money

None of these is a solution

Don’t tell Thick Lizzy that, it is her meal ticket to being voted PM.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

no major party across europe has had a serious energy policy. they've had emissions policies, not taken into account how to deliver energy in the transistion. best shown by drive to ban ICE without consideration how to make up the shortfall of electricity required. events have brought forward a problem we'd face in the next decade, just where is all the energy supposed to come from? cant shut down nuclear, coal, then cut oil from transport without something to replace all that energy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why did the Lib Dems vote down nuclear plants in 2011 hindsight is great.

Because they think we should generate energy from the heat raised by furious spliff smoking?

Ask the young Liz Truss (video posted, passim)....she'll tell us all about it.

The liberals think we can generate all our energy from recycling and turbines, aka: piss and wind.

To be fair, I was 'anti nuclear' 40 years ago. It's looking much more appealing now.

Anyway....the conservatives have run the show for more than 10 years so the incompetence buck stops with them. Alas, the zombie government is asleep, and the leadership incomers are mostly interested in bowing and displaying their arse feathers to the only people with any power now, 100,000 or so blue rinse geriatric tory members with the gift of a leadership vote.

What a time to be alive

 

[Machiavelli]

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).

I differ with you on this. Solar panels increase supply. Insulation reduces demand. It's important that we get those key economic categories right. This matters because the forecasts are pointing towards an increase in demand for energy which increasingly is for electricity (and within that renewables-generated electricity), eg if it isn't already, the energy generated from your solar panels may soon be used for your electric car. It also feeds into my response to NB below:

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I do appreciate that energy is your thing, but think you could have done better on this.
The first priority the Green Party has been advocating for decades is better insulated houses. Successive (largely Tory) governments have dragged their heels on that. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be confronting the same extent of the current energy crisis and its solution.
The next priority has been to invest in renewables. If UK governments had been as keen on this, UK companies (whether public, private or hybrid) might have marched ahead with cornering the IP that German and Danish companies have secured in that void. We'd also have a far higher renewable contribution to our electricity mix. We now know (although the naysayers were disputing this less than a decade ago) that solar and wind produce cheap energy. My hunch (and it is a hunch) is that tidal will prove similarly effective and costworthy ...
... you're right on the overall GP policy on nuclear, although there is a vociferous debate within the party on this policy. Note that, in contrast to solar and wind pricing, the GP characterises nuclear as 'dirty, dangerous and expensive'. If this makes sense, in principle I'm opposed to nuclear but pragmatically so. How we should have gone forward (it's too late now) is to go all out for renewables over the past two decades. We haven't. But, equally so, neither have successive (largely Tory) governments invested in nuclear -- which in part explains Johnson's parting policy shot at Sizewell, although I suspect that you'd regard the level of investment (£700m I gather) to be insufficient, alongside too late. The principled-pragmatic oxymoron recognises that we have nuclear, that fossil fuels are an even worse option, and therefore its phasing out shouldn't be prioritised whilst, at the same time, advocating going all out for renewables as a state strategy. Part of that would be investing in battery and transportation technology which, as you indicate, needs advancement.
Interesting comment about 'pricing fossil fuels out of existence'. I'm not entirely convinced that that is what's happening now. The current price hike in part due to Putin's war which effects Europe the most and Germany especially. It's also down to Saudi and other Gulf states or OPEC, which plays a part in setting the price (and is currently manoeuvring to increase the price of oil), and also down to market pressures, and a broader recession (which looks like its coming) will pull that price down. That said, I suspect you'll have some further points to make on this, as you've demonstrated that you know more about it than me.

 

[heathgate]

Look,.. we can all huff and puff about the various alternatives to fossil fuels,... but... there is currently only one environmentally sustainable energy source, nuclear.... like it or not, until a viable, sustainable and reliable alternative arrives on the market ( it wont)... nuclear is where our efforts should be focused.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

This 30 min Panorama explains what's occuring - broadcast last night - 5th Sep 22

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I do appreciate that energy is your thing, but think you could have done better on this.
The first priority the Green Party has been advocating for decades is better insulated houses. Successive (largely Tory) governments have dragged their heels on that. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be confronting the same extent of the current energy crisis and its solution.
The next priority has been to invest in renewables. If UK governments had been as keen on this, UK companies (whether public, private or hybrid) might have marched ahead with cornering the IP that German and Danish companies have secured in that void. We'd also have a far higher renewable contribution to our electricity mix. We now know (although the naysayers were disputing this less than a decade ago) that solar and wind produce cheap energy. My hunch (and it is a hunch) is that tidal will prove similarly effective and costworthy ...
... you're right on the overall GP policy on nuclear, although there is a vociferous debate within the party on this policy. Note that, in contrast to solar and wind pricing, the GP characterises nuclear as 'dirty, dangerous and expensive'. If this makes sense, in principle I'm opposed to nuclear but pragmatically so. How we should have gone forward (it's too late now) is to go all out for renewables over the past two decades. We haven't. But, equally so, neither have successive (largely Tory) governments invested in nuclear -- which in part explains Johnson's parting policy shot at Sizewell, although I suspect that you'd regard the level of investment (£700m I gather) to be insufficient, alongside too late. The principled-pragmatic oxymoron recognises that we have nuclear, that fossil fuels are an even worse option, and therefore its phasing out shouldn't be prioritised whilst, at the same time, advocating going all out for renewables as a state strategy. Part of that would be investing in battery and transportation technology which, as you indicate, needs advancement.
Interesting comment about 'pricing fossil fuels out of existence'. I'm not entirely convinced that that is what's happening now. The current price hike in part due to Putin's war which effects Europe the most and Germany especially. It's also down to Saudi and other Gulf states or OPEC, which plays a part in setting the price (and is currently manoeuvring to increase the price of oil), and also down to market pressures, and a broader recession (which looks like its coming) will pull that price down. That said, I suspect you'll have some further points to make on this, as you've demonstrated that you know more about it than me.

I think that’s a good summary actually. I accept your criticism of my post. Probably guilt by omission on my part. We should definitely be starting from a different place and it has been extraordinarily difficult to reach the relative consensus we have now, in large part because of disinformation campaigns funded by the energy companies. When I talked about pricing fossil fuels out of existence I think I meant not so much directly (although it can be prompted by direct taxation) but by resetting the market infrastructure to a different point where the much cheaper marginal cost of renewables is incentivized over the fossil fuel status quo. I suspect we are in complete agreement on that and also that at the no use haven’t reached the point where renewables will satisfy demand. The problem is we stagger from crisis to crisis. For example even before Ukraine, coal was staging a comeback driven by big global increases in demand post Covid. The energy transition would be much easier without all these extreme events !

 

[Machiavelli]

I think that’s a good summary actually. I accept your criticism of my post. Probably guilt by omission on my part. We should definitely be starting from a different place and it has been extraordinarily difficult to reach the relative consensus we have now, in large part because of disinformation campaigns funded by the energy companies. When I talked about pricing fossil fuels out of existence I think I meant not so much directly (although it can be prompted by direct taxation) but by resetting the market infrastructure to a different point where the much cheaper marginal cost of renewables is incentivized over the fossil fuel status quo. I suspect we are in complete agreement on that and also that at the no use haven’t reached the point where renewables will satisfy demand. The problem is we stagger from crisis to crisis. For example even before Ukraine, coal was staging a comeback driven by big global increases in demand post Covid. The energy transition would be much easier without all these extreme events !

Thanks for this, and my criticism was probably OTT, so your generosity is noted. The next question is how to get such an energy strategy implemented, which might be somewhat trickier to identify.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think that’s a good summary actually. I accept your criticism of my post. Probably guilt by omission on my part. We should definitely be starting from a different place and it has been extraordinarily difficult to reach the relative consensus we have now, in large part because of disinformation campaigns funded by the energy companies. When I talked about pricing fossil fuels out of existence I think I meant not so much directly (although it can be prompted by direct taxation) but by resetting the market infrastructure to a different point where the much cheaper marginal cost of renewables is incentivized over the fossil fuel status quo. I suspect we are in complete agreement on that and also that at the no use haven’t reached the point where renewables will satisfy demand. The problem is we stagger from crisis to crisis. For example even before Ukraine, coal was staging a comeback driven by big global increases in demand post Covid. The energy transition would be much easier without all these extreme events !

You and [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] crack me up. One of the best things about NSC these days - the exploration of ideas and the reconsideration of suppositions and their implications after sometimes fierce rebuttal. I salute you

 

[Machiavelli]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tter-insulated-homes-putin-fossil-fuel-giants

 

[usernamed]

There is nothing remotely Churchillian about Johnson. He continually tries to ape his idol but doesn’t belong in the same sentence Winston. Johnson has been the worst PM this country has ever seen whilst Churchill can lay claim to being the finest.

In the same way that Liz Truss dressing like Thatcher does not make her Thatcher, Boris Johnson making semi-Churchillian speeches does not make him Churchill. They’re both cosplay leaders.

Churchill did some work.