Heat in the home

[al_yrpal]

There's no point in making the environmental problems worse by "short term" use of even more fossil fuels...

What I am suggesting is a short term measure to ease the price of energy, and it wont be even more it will be the same as we and Germany use now. Or would you rather Germany resumes and increases the burning of lignite?

Al

[Cugel]

There are more barriers to acquiring renewable energy sources than you might imagine.

For nearly 12 months now we've been attempting to add a set of Tesla batteries to our house with the objectives of a) initially buying & storing cheaper overnight electricity then b) setting up more solar panels (we already have a 4K array) and (when they mature) small windmills to generate more, or all, of our electricity. As you might guess, this will cost a pretty penny.

Imagine our dismay, then, to discover that the so-called network provider (Western Power) won't allow more than one Tesla battery - and no more solar or wind power generators - unless we also upgrade the connection to the house from their local grid, from one-phase to three-phase. They give us an estimated-only cost of around £23,000 for such an upgrade. This is off putting, especially when they tell us that such an upgrade will still not necessarily allow us to have all the batteries, solar panels and wind generators that we might want. And that the actual cost might escalate well above £23,000 if they discover "difficulties".

The daft thing is that this upgrade of our connection to the grid is necessary only because we might, theoretically, overload their local network by exporting large amounts of electricity from our batteries, solar panels and wind generators. We have no intention to do that as our objective is to generate and store electricity for our own use, with only the already extant 4K array of solar panels used to generate electricity back to the grid, as it does now.

The suppliers of the batteries and solar panels say this problem exists over vast swathes of rural areas where the grid infrastructure is quite old, not being upgraded and is therefore not suitable for the evolving modern facilities of home generation from solar and wind.

Eventually we'd like to go off-grid, sso that this problem posed by Western Power's poor service will be irrelevant. However, this requires viable small scale wind generators for winter, which are not yet commercially available. Larger scale windmills require a lot of wind and are very expensive. Living in a valley we don't get enough wind to drive large scale windmills, so buying Tesla batteries and more solar panels is the limit of our available capital.

At the moment, then, we have no ability to pursue an improved strategy for going greener via technologies to generate and store more electricity, solely because of the inadequacy of the local grid and the grid supplier's refusal to upgrade it unless we pay a very large price for doing so. This situation would apply to any other householder in the local area wanting to do the same thing - we'd all have to pay Western power tens of thousands each to upgrade their network, which they continue to own and which we would all continue to pay rent for.

Western Power is a business, of course, not a public service. They can't afford to upgrade their network because shareholders and fat-cat execs soak up the profits in the form of dividends, huge salaries and bonuses. They have no motive to improve their network other than milking more profit out of the customers; and for a "service" (exporting electricity) that those customers don't really need or want.

Cugel

[Jdsk]

There's no point in making the environmental problems worse by "short term" use of even more fossil fuels...

...
What I am suggesting is a short term measure to ease the price of energy, and it wont be even more it will be the same as we and Germany use now. Or would you rather Germany resumes and increases the burning of lignite?

I'd prefer it if all countries met, or preferably exceeded, the rate at which they reached their agreed targets for reducing emissions. As the Climate Change Committee have shown the UK won't make it if we proceed as at present. "The same as we use now" is failure, not success.

There's always special pleading for local and national exceptions and "just in the short term" exemptions and they always make the problem harder to solve.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Western Power is a business, of course, not a public service. They can't afford to upgrade their network because shareholders and fat-cat execs soak up the profits in the form of dividends, huge salaries and bonuses. They have no motive to improve their network other than milking more profit out of the customers; and for a "service" (exporting electricity) that those customers don't really need or want.

Did you see the news from France?

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

Did you see the news from France?

I understand that edf is about to be nationalised. "Good News - 'bout time energy companies were took back into public ownership - makes sense!" I hear you cry. ahahahahaha joke's on us as the country taking ownership is of course France. Now Hinkley Point (think back to the 2nd Severn Xing...) is about to become a French project! All the considerable profits from edf will go back into the French energy infrastructure... merde!!

[al_yrpal]

There's no point in making the environmental problems worse by "short term" use of even more fossil fuels...

...
What I am suggesting is a short term measure to ease the price of energy, and it wont be even more it will be the same as we and Germany use now. Or would you rather Germany resumes and increases the burning of lignite?

I'd prefer it if all countries met, or preferably exceeded, the rate at which they reached their agreed targets for reducing emissions. As the Climate Change Committee have shown the UK won't make it if we proceed as at present. "The same as we use now" is failure, not success.

There's always special pleading for local and national exceptions and "just in the short term" exemptions and they always make the problem harder to solve.

Jonathan

We are proceeding at pace with more solar, more wind and at last tidal, thats good and should be encouraged. We represent only 1% of worldwide emmisions, and producing our own gas and gas for Germany where 50% use gas to heat their homes wont make a haporth of difference to emmissions but it will help the poorest to whom the green lobby seem indifferent,

I'm alright Jack evidently rules

Al

[Jdsk]

We are proceeding at pace with more solar, more wind and at last tidal, thats good and should be encouraged.

We're failing to meet our agreed targets. That's what the report makes clear. it's going to be even harder if we use more fossil fuels than planned.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

We represent only 1% of worldwide emmisions, and producing our own gas and gas for Germany where 50% use gas to heat their homes wont make a haporth of difference to emmissions but it will help the poorest to whom the green lobby seem indifferent,

Burning more fossil fuel produces more carbon dioxide and makes the problem greater.

I very much doubt that there's a "green lobby" that isn't concerned about fuel poverty. But they'll want to address it without even more emissions.

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

I still see no sign of our (as in, all of us - the only quantity that matters) acting with the necessary clarity, urgency & efficacy. By the time climatic conditions become intolerable to even the dimmest of green-sceptic lever holders, it will waaaaaay too late to do anything meaningful except sundry wailing, renting of garments and gnashing of teeth.
I can't quite decide if it's an extraordinary privilege to be witnessing The End - or else some sort of sick joke...

[Jdsk]

I still see no sign of our (as in, all of us - the only quantity that matters) acting with the necessary clarity, urgency & efficacy. By the time climatic conditions become intolerable to even the dimmest of green-sceptic lever holders, it will waaaaaay too late to do anything meaningful except sundry wailing, renting of garments and gnashing of teeth.
I can't quite decide if it's an extraordinary privilege to be witnessing The End - or else some sort of sick joke...

We can make it less bad than it would otherwise be.

Jonathan

[axel_knutt]

The very short term interventions that would reduce fuel poverty are redistribution of national income to support the poor and better regulation of the providers.

Jonathan

One low hanging fruit ripe for picking is to ban standing charges, and put an end to the rewarding of the rich and profligate with regressive tariffs that penalise the poor and frugal. A progressive tariff would create even more incentive to reduce energy use than a flat rate:

[Cugel]

I still see no sign of our (as in, all of us - the only quantity that matters) acting with the necessary clarity, urgency & efficacy. By the time climatic conditions become intolerable to even the dimmest of green-sceptic lever holders, it will waaaaaay too late to do anything meaningful except sundry wailing, renting of garments and gnashing of teeth.
I can't quite decide if it's an extraordinary privilege to be witnessing The End - or else some sort of sick joke...

We can make it less bad than it would otherwise be.

Jonathan

There would be that chance if there was a "we". (You often mention this mythical collective). Shurely shome mishtake as there are many, many different groups with many competing and often incomprehensible objectives. There's also a vast number of "living my one lifers" who have no interest whatsoever in changing their profligate and damaging ways; and will object in word & action should anyone attempt to force them to do so.

No ... we're all doomed! (Your collective does exist in this scenario, as it offers no alternative).

On the other hand, why not pretend that we aren't all doomed if we as individuals act appropriately? I rather like virtue signalling - as long as there's some actual virtuous actions to signal about. Then again, I do enjoy the mad posts of one or few members who prefer to signal their vices - which appear to be actual vices to boot. "Lookit me the dafty, seeking out my doom (and yours too, so watchit)".

Cugel, caught in someone's dark joke so trying the laugh along.

[Jdsk]

I still see no sign of our (as in, all of us - the only quantity that matters) acting with the necessary clarity, urgency & efficacy. By the time climatic conditions become intolerable to even the dimmest of green-sceptic lever holders, it will waaaaaay too late to do anything meaningful except sundry wailing, renting of garments and gnashing of teeth.
I can't quite decide if it's an extraordinary privilege to be witnessing The End - or else some sort of sick joke...

We can make it less bad than it would otherwise be.

There would be that chance if there was a "we". (You often mention this mythical collective). Shurely shome mishtake as there are many, many different groups with many competing and often incomprehensible objectives. There's also a vast number of "living my one lifers" who have no interest whatsoever in changing their profligate and damaging ways; and will object in word & action should anyone attempt to force them to do so.

You can read the "we" as the human race, as there are posts suggesting that it is doomed, or as people and countries acting together through the existing structure of countries and their agreements on climate change. Neither of these is mythical.

The agreements aren't as strong or as fast as I would like but they do exist and we are acting together.

Jonathan

[Biospace]

There's no point in making the environmental problems worse by "short term" use of even more fossil fuels...

...
What I am suggesting is a short term measure to ease the price of energy, and it wont be even more it will be the same as we and Germany use now. Or would you rather Germany resumes and increases the burning of lignite?

I'd prefer it if all countries met, or preferably exceeded, the rate at which they reached their agreed targets for reducing emissions. As the Climate Change Committee have shown the UK won't make it if we proceed as at present. "The same as we use now" is failure, not success.

There's always special pleading for local and national exceptions and "just in the short term" exemptions and they always make the problem harder to solve.

Jonathan

Most realise that the warming planet is likely to kill more humans than high energy prices will elderly people this winter. Short termism is the scourge of this nation, but something ought to be done to prevent death through poverty.

The pricing system has long favoured those who consume most, just one good example of how 'free market' principles fall down when used by utility companies. Why shouldn't the price of the first few units of energy be very low, to help protect the poorest and benefit those who use least? Individuals who can afford to heat swimming pools with grid energy should not object to ameliorating and saving the lives of the poorest.

I don't hear howls of complaint from those who wish not to deviate from our path towards "net zero" when it comes to sending weapons to Ukraine and funding their war, so why are there such objections to temporarily opening up our own fossil fuel supply in the effort to deny Putin his goal?

I understand that allowing agreements to slip is potentially a slippery slope, but isn't this whole situation making it clearer than ever that we need energy from a domestic supply which isn't a huge national security risk or from a limited resource? If common sense rather than nothing more than fallible economics is applied, the end result is invariably better than simply pursuing an idealistic goal.

Surely mass energy storage and tidal energy should now be seen more clearly than ever as the way to energy security?

[ANTONISH]

Surely mass energy storage and tidal energy should now be seen more clearly than ever as the way to energy security?

Both admirable ideas but how much stored energy will be sufficient? - most ideas are for woefully short periods and with the rise of intermittent wind energy this is a difficult problem - I believe Australia has a massive battery system in one state but they are endowed with a lot of space.
Of course tidal schemes besides requiring massive infrastructure will bring environmental challenges.

All in all I only see nuclear as providing for our needs in the relative short term.