[Politics] The Labour Government

[cunning fergus]

Wind and solar are brilliant, but they are unreliable - they can go from providing most of our electricity needs to barely any of it in the space of days. There is an expensive (and environmentally troublesome) gap to be bridged in terms of how we generate our base supply need of electricity without using fossil fuels (without relying on the unreliable), and how we store any excess that we can collect from wind and solar when it is available (more pumped storage perhaps? Where?) without damaging the environment, a problem exacerbated by increasing demand for electricity from industry (think data centres) and a population that has been predicted to grow significantly over the next few years.

It seems to me that we need to reduce demand in order for the transition to be realistically affordable for the consumer, but then if the consumer is paying less are the infrastructure changes needed going to be affordable? As with anything in life there needs to be a financial incentive in order for individuals and businesses to change - I think that this is likely to be technologically driven, and I don't think the government should be driving innovation down one specific route as we might be missing something beneficial that could be done elsewhere.

These are hard things for every government to circle, so why any government would hamper themselves with a net zero target is beyond me.

I doubt anyone would deny that the implementation of renewables is negative as long as the implementation costs/ongoing maintenance are at worst broadly cost neutral. The introduction of renewables should a) lower energy costs and b) secure the UKs energy security.

Once the algorithm points to negative costs/effects that create punitive costs for domestic and industrial users then the position changes and we should have a pragmatic position where we continue to use fossil fuels.

Like many issues the British public might be sympathetic with there is a threshold, and lower energy bills with usage of gas reserves in North Sea is a prime example.

I suspect like countries in the EU we would still happily import gas from Russia if bills were 33% lower.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I doubt anyone would deny that the implementation of renewables is negative as long as the implementation costs/ongoing maintenance are at worst broadly cost neutral. The introduction of renewables should a) lower energy costs and b) secure the UKs energy security.

How will it do that? Renewables combined with energy security must of necessity have massive redundancy in the system, because we need to be able to provide full power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. If renewables were provided primarily by hydro-electric and tidal power, and by cutting down our own forests rather than Canadian ones, then we might have a chance - but even then, the technology has a long way to go to being cheaper than gas or coal. Remember we've been paying green energy supplements for a long time.

 

[pb21]

Ideal energy mix is clear IMO

Nuclear, providing baseload.
Energy storage, using surplus renewable generation
ERFs with CC.
Wind/solar/green hydrogen and other renewables.
Interconnectors to the continent.
Gas back up for peak demand, with CC.