Energy

[Mellsblue]

The green lobby will never let coal see the light of day. As far as Nottinghamshires mines go I'm no expert, but when some were shutdown whilst I lived there there wasn't much protest, more a reluctant acceptance that they weren't viable and a understandable sadness that a way of life that had dominated the area for decades had disappeared.

Micro-generation in all new builds and retro-fitting would be a game changer but it's too expensive. House prices are already too high. Legislating that all new builds must have solar panels etc would make them even more expensive. I believe there are moves to making building regs more stringent with regard to
Conservation of energy and power and this is, for me, the most cost effective way of reducing requirements from the grid. If I were in charge, god forbid, I'd slowly get the housing industry moving towards Passivehouse standards.

40 years ago a number of studies estimated that the Govt of the day (Thatcher) could reduce UK energy needs by 25% simply by providing grants to ensure all domestic properties were properly insulated. With cash in hand from oil revenues this could n=have been done but of course never happened.

Just building more efficient homes would make a huge difference and at limited cost.

There have been a few govt led initiatives over the years but they are poorly advertised - as the utility companies don't really want to do them - poor take up from the public or just not been properly managed. From the Green Deal back to free cavity wall insulation that I only belatedly found out about even though I worked for Central Networks (the successor to East Midlands Electricity) at the time, through to all those free energy light bulbs npower used to give away to whoever was in the right pace at the right time, regardless of need or suitability, because it was the easiest way to meet govt green targets. It's always been a farce.

[Mellsblue]

Renewables will never entirely solve the problem as technology stands. You need demand led supply. Improvements in storage will be the answer - I'm sure already about an affordable domestic wall hung battery approx 2m x 2m x 0.5m that could efficiently store about 5 days worth of elec from a home's micro-generation (figures are probably wholly wrong as I'm dragging from deep in my memory - or some genius working out how we can make energy from long nights and cold weather.

[Sandydragon]

Renewables will never entirely solve the problem as technology stands. You need demand led supply. Improvements in storage will be the answer - I'm sure already about an affordable domestic wall hung battery approx 2m x 2m x 0.5m that could efficiently store about 5 days worth of elec from a home's micro-generation (figures are probably wholly wrong as I'm dragging from deep in my memory - or some genius working out how we can make energy from long nights and cold weather.

If we can store energy effectively then that would overcome a lot of the issues with renewables. They may be an eyesore, but I think I could live with that compared to the alternatives.

One of the issues with home generation though is the cost. We are selling our home and as part of that we have been obliged to supply an energy performance certificate which specifies the possible things we (or the new buyer could do) to improve efficiency etc. Some of them are straight forward and would save us money in the medium term. But solar panels really aren't from a home economics perspective. The initial outlay is not recovered for 20+ years, and that of course assumes that no further work is needed on the solar panels or anything connected with them. As it stands they are a gimmick for richer households to impress their friends with.

Government grants to reduce the cost would be an obvious answer, if the cash could be found and if the will was there. It probably would be of help in the long run, especially if power could be stored on site for a period of time.

[Mellsblue]

Renewables will never entirely solve the problem as technology stands. You need demand led supply. Improvements in storage will be the answer - I'm sure already about an affordable domestic wall hung battery approx 2m x 2m x 0.5m that could efficiently store about 5 days worth of elec from a home's micro-generation (figures are probably wholly wrong as I'm dragging from deep in my memory - or some genius working out how we can make energy from long nights and cold weather.

If we can store energy effectively then that would overcome a lot of the issues with renewables. They may be an eyesore, but I think I could live with that compared to the alternatives.

One of the issues with home generation though is the cost. We are selling our home and as part of that we have been obliged to supply an energy performance certificate which specifies the possible things we (or the new buyer could do) to improve efficiency etc. Some of them are straight forward and would save us money in the medium term. But solar panels really aren't from a home economics perspective. The initial outlay is not recovered for 20+ years, and that of course assumes that no further work is needed on the solar panels or anything connected with them. As it stands they are a gimmick for richer households to impress their friends with.

Government grants to reduce the cost would be an obvious answer, if the cash could be found and if the will was there. It probably would be of help in the long run, especially if power could be stored on site for a period of time.

Yep, as said previously, micro-generation isn't cost effective. Not needing so much energy in the first place is the key. Solar panels are closer to 10-12 years return but still aren't widely economically viable. The rent your roof scheme is a cheap way in but is a legal nightmare when you move.

[Curry Puff]

Renewables will never entirely solve the problem as technology stands. You need demand led supply. Improvements in storage will be the answer - I'm sure already about an affordable domestic wall hung battery approx 2m x 2m x 0.5m that could efficiently store about 5 days worth of elec from a home's micro-generation (figures are probably wholly wrong as I'm dragging from deep in my memory - or some genius working out how we can make energy from long nights and cold weather.

There is an article on new tech batteries in todays Telegraph online, cant copy it or read it as I do not subscribe, might be of interest.

[BBD]

I'm in favour of developing some new nuclear power generating capacity, but I'm not in favour of the pricing deal which has sort of been agreed with EDF, nor actually do I remotely like the idea we hand over security to foreign interests of our power generating capabilities, nor actually do I much like the idea it be done privately. I do also favour the development of renewables, and key to that will be energy storage, problem being with renewables that supply isn't assured and thus you need a more traditional model on standby, and once you're running a coal/gas plant say on standby you might as well just run it given the cost of standby operations.

i think you are right about the uk retaining more control over its energy production, however, it's enormously costly to set up, so govt, prefer to allow the private sector in to invest, knowing that with profit as their motive the cost borne comes at the other end I terms of pricing and control of supply and work force. Putting such a fundamental national resource I the hands of others takes a degree of courage,trust and collaboration

Just as an aside - It was interesting to note the number of foreign senior managers/directors at Sellafield, in particular from USA and France.
Also that the nuclear industry is much more closely linked around the world, they meet and share information & expertise on safety , security, engineering solutions, etc regularly. Sellafield also sent a load of specialists to Fukushima after their disaster which created a lot of good will.

[Donny osmond]

Renewables is surely the future. Nothing against nuclear except for the waste products, but IMO we, as a society, need to move toward a mindset of working with natural resources sustainably.

With a nod to whats been mentioned about storing power, heres a good news story about renewables...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -for-a-day

I'm sceptical about the current economics of wind, with plenty if money being made by rich land owners simply for having a turbine on their land, at the expense of the end customer. But, there's no silver bullet and whatever steps we need to work thru to get renewables up and running will be worth it eventually.

[Digby]

I'm in favour of developing some new nuclear power generating capacity, but I'm not in favour of the pricing deal which has sort of been agreed with EDF, nor actually do I remotely like the idea we hand over security to foreign interests of our power generating capabilities, nor actually do I much like the idea it be done privately. I do also favour the development of renewables, and key to that will be energy storage, problem being with renewables that supply isn't assured and thus you need a more traditional model on standby, and once you're running a coal/gas plant say on standby you might as well just run it given the cost of standby operations.

i think you are right about the uk retaining more control over its energy production, however, it's enormously costly to set up, so govt, prefer to allow the private sector in to invest, knowing that with profit as their motive the cost borne comes at the other end I terms of pricing and control of supply and work force. Putting such a fundamental national resource I the hands of others takes a degree of courage,trust and collaboration

Just as an aside - It was interesting to note the number of foreign senior managers/directors at Sellafield, in particular from USA and France.
Also that the nuclear industry is much more closely linked around the world, they meet and share information & expertise on safety , security, engineering solutions, etc regularly. Sellafield also sent a load of specialists to Fukushima after their disaster which created a lot of good will.

I know why they want private funding, partly the cost, and partly it outsources risk in the event anything goes wrong, be that environmental or political risk. I just don't happen to agree with them about such. I'd prefer it were managed, developed and paid for by the state, and that's still going to entail of course a huge amount of work for the private sector, and I don't want any daft schemes like PFI to deliver the funding.

[Digby]

Renewables is surely the future. Nothing against nuclear except for the waste products, but IMO we, as a society, need to move toward a mindset of working with natural resources sustainably.

With a nod to whats been mentioned about storing power, heres a good news story about renewables...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -for-a-day

I'm sceptical about the current economics of wind, with plenty if money being made by rich land owners simply for having a turbine on their land, at the expense of the end customer. But, there's no silver bullet and whatever steps we need to work thru to get renewables up and running will be worth it eventually.

That's fine, but we need to arrive in the future in a structured manner, and so for now, and to some degree regrettably, that's Nuclear.

[caldeyrfc]

It just shows what a clueless and stupid decision it was to privatise the Electricity sector in the 80/90's. To allow such an important utility to be decided by the "market" shows that Thatcher had no idea. But hey I sure some Tory donors made a nice little earner out of it

[Donny osmond]

Renewables is surely the future. Nothing against nuclear except for the waste products, but IMO we, as a society, need to move toward a mindset of working with natural resources sustainably.

With a nod to whats been mentioned about storing power, heres a good news story about renewables...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -for-a-day

I'm sceptical about the current economics of wind, with plenty if money being made by rich land owners simply for having a turbine on their land, at the expense of the end customer. But, there's no silver bullet and whatever steps we need to work thru to get renewables up and running will be worth it eventually.

That's fine, but we need to arrive in the future in a structured manner, and so for now, and to some degree regrettably, that's Nuclear.

It would be nice and obvs preferable to arrive in the future ina structured manner, I'm just not sure that's possible given the number of competing companies/technologies/politicians

[BBD]

I'm in favour of developing some new nuclear power generating capacity, but I'm not in favour of the pricing deal which has sort of been agreed with EDF, nor actually do I remotely like the idea we hand over security to foreign interests of our power generating capabilities, nor actually do I much like the idea it be done privately. I do also favour the development of renewables, and key to that will be energy storage, problem being with renewables that supply isn't assured and thus you need a more traditional model on standby, and once you're running a coal/gas plant say on standby you might as well just run it given the cost of standby operations.

i think you are right about the uk retaining more control over its energy production, however, it's enormously costly to set up, so govt, prefer to allow the private sector in to invest, knowing that with profit as their motive the cost borne comes at the other end I terms of pricing and control of supply and work force. Putting such a fundamental national resource I the hands of others takes a degree of courage,trust and collaboration

Just as an aside - It was interesting to note the number of foreign senior managers/directors at Sellafield, in particular from USA and France.
Also that the nuclear industry is much more closely linked around the world, they meet and share information & expertise on safety , security, engineering solutions, etc regularly. Sellafield also sent a load of specialists to Fukushima after their disaster which created a lot of good will.

I know why they want private funding, partly the cost, and partly it outsources risk in the event anything goes wrong, be that environmental or political risk. I just don't happen to agree with them about such. I'd prefer it were managed, developed and paid for by the state, and that's still going to entail of course a huge amount of work for the private sector, and I don't want any daft schemes like PFI to deliver the funding.

Fair enough, can I ask why you would prefer it to be managed that way?
The reason I ask is I think there is another benefit of private funded over state funded, which is technological advancement which I believe is more likely in a competitive environment.

[Digby]

i think you are right about the uk retaining more control over its energy production, however, it's enormously costly to set up, so govt, prefer to allow the private sector in to invest, knowing that with profit as their motive the cost borne comes at the other end I terms of pricing and control of supply and work force. Putting such a fundamental national resource I the hands of others takes a degree of courage,trust and collaboration

Just as an aside - It was interesting to note the number of foreign senior managers/directors at Sellafield, in particular from USA and France.
Also that the nuclear industry is much more closely linked around the world, they meet and share information & expertise on safety , security, engineering solutions, etc regularly. Sellafield also sent a load of specialists to Fukushima after their disaster which created a lot of good will.

I know why they want private funding, partly the cost, and partly it outsources risk in the event anything goes wrong, be that environmental or political risk. I just don't happen to agree with them about such. I'd prefer it were managed, developed and paid for by the state, and that's still going to entail of course a huge amount of work for the private sector, and I don't want any daft schemes like PFI to deliver the funding.

Fair enough, can I ask why you would prefer it to be managed that way?
The reason I ask is I think there is another benefit of private funded over state funded, which is technological advancement which I believe is more likely in a competitive environment.

I'd have all major public utilities supplied through the state. Which doesn't mean you couldn't have private firms coming in with a plan to supply technologies, but the funding and running would be handled by the state. Has there been much competition? Since deregulation I thought we'd typically not had many new power stations built, that power was being generated in the main in power stations built by the public purse, and the only real 'competition' was annoying companies who wanted to be the one to send you the bill with their letterhead, but the power would still be coming from the same place and sent down the same lines on the grid

There are many many concerns I wouldn't want to see the state run, most really. But the armed forces, major transport, water and power companies, the NHS I'd all do through the state, with as above some massive input from the private sector in the delivery of those services.

[canta_brian]

If micro was a requirement of new build would we see a decrease in cost just on the basis of scale?

Main problem with micro is that it takes a profit from big companies and possibly future tax revenues from the government. They won't want the public to be as self sufficient as this could make them. Oh and the problems with batteries and storage and battery waste products and all that