The Cost Of Living Crisis

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

If you know were the hustings are being held tomorrow evening you can make Mary and Rishi bounce out of their secret venue keelansgrandad.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

If you know were the hustings are being held tomorrow evening you can make Mary and Rishi bounce out of their secret venue keelansgrandad.

Not living in Norwich unfortunately. Would love to go and protest and see what level of threat I pose. Defcon 4?

[SteveN8458 61]

On 22/08/2022 at 18:19, Daz Sparks said:

Why doesn't the government install solar panels on every viable property in the country? The economic activity from this alone would stave off recession. £70,000,000,000 was spent on furlough, why the hell don't we just borrow another £70B or whatever it takes? 

The truth, however, is that multi billion property developers aren't even forced to install them on new builds, so no hope for the above, even though it's the right thing to do in the light of the environmental and economic cataclysm that awaits us.

Why not go a step further and include a battery system, that way you reduce even further the demand on the power grid!!

Lets look at a few simple numbers:

Say 20,000,000 houses suitable for solar. Cost per house say £10,000 (high volume discount)

Total cost £200,000,000,000

The problem with this is that then we would no longer need so many nuclear power stations ! hmmm

 

On another point: back before yr 2000 British gas had contracts in place with the likes of Shell/BP etc to buy all of the gas from specified gas fields in the North Sea at a fixed price, with the remainder sold via the spot market. However as the costs to get the gas to the beach increased these contracts became 'uneconomic' (important word that) and as a direct result of this those contracts were cancelled.

Why were the contracts not re-negotiated? no idea.

But for me this is where the government can step in and re-introduce these contracts. Ofgem operate too far down the food chain

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

Or we could set up a giant wind farm off the south  east coast of Iceland and cable the power back to North east England 

Or we set up a giant solar farm in Morocco  and cable the power back to south west England 

Of course, we mustn't upset the Icelanders and Moroccans in case they pull out the plug at their end 😁

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

None of these energy schemes are particularly quick to come to fruition but I think a few sacred cows do need to be slain.

I'm a fan of nuclear for base load - but not the small modular reactors - far too much of security headache. 

On shore wind-farms have to be allowed and no defacto veto or nimbyism. Same goes for fracking where sensible.

Improve or 'reopen' our gas storage facility.

Solar cells of course but presently we are supply limited (all of course made in China!).

I'm actually a bit dubious as to heat pumps - they need very well insulated houses to be efficient. Suspect they will get a bad name from many and not cheap either! In danger of being politically oversold.

Perhaps give every home a £10K credit to improve insulation - double glazing, loft insulation and so on may be much more effective.

Long term synthetic methane, green hydrogen and the like will be able to store excess 'electrical'' green energy in more convenient forms.  

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Boris, on a jaunt to meet his admirer in Ukraine, says we have to endure high prices for energy as long as it means freedom for Ukraine.

Can we come and stay at Chequers where you have been working from?

[SteveN8458 61]

29 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Improve or 'reopen' our gas storage facility.

 

Re-charging (refilling) the Rough storage should begin 1st September. it was decommed in 2017 but has been brought back.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

15 minutes ago, SteveN8458 said:

Re-charging (refilling) the Rough storage should begin 1st September. it was decommed in 2017 but has been brought back.

Yes I know - foolish to have closed it earlier. Many earlier decisions have / were delayed (nuclear build) for decades or simply cost saving measures (Rough). We aren't alone in our foolishness  -  I was at a German research reactor about 15 years ago which was having to shut down due to the German 'green' issues. People pulling their hair out at the time as to the idiocy.  Perhaps they will have learnt a lesson now about being realistic not idealistic.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

2 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Why not go a step further and include a battery system, that way you reduce even further the demand on the power grid!!

Lets look at a few simple numbers:

Say 20,000,000 houses suitable for solar. Cost per house say £10,000 (high volume discount)

Total cost £200,000,000,000

The problem with this is that then we would no longer need so many nuclear power stations ! hmmm

 

On another point: back before yr 2000 British gas had contracts in place with the likes of Shell/BP etc to buy all of the gas from specified gas fields in the North Sea at a fixed price, with the remainder sold via the spot market. However as the costs to get the gas to the beach increased these contracts became 'uneconomic' (important word that) and as a direct result of this those contracts were cancelled.

Why were the contracts not re-negotiated? no idea.

But for me this is where the government can step in and re-introduce these contracts. Ofgem operate too far down the food chain

Hi Steve. 

Great Post. I would say go another step further, and create a state funded/owned factory to produce the c 200m solar panels that would be needed and the 20m inverters and batteries. 

Not one of our so called leaders have anything close to the vision though, more concerned with re-election and keeping their snouts in the trough. 

I would like to start a petition for this, but my social media impact is so poor, I don't think I could get it going...

...maybe someone more widespread in this sphere should get it going?

[SteveN8458 61]

1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said:

Hi Steve. 

Great Post. I would say go another step further, and create a state funded/owned factory to produce the c 200m solar panels that would be needed and the 20m inverters and batteries. 

Not one of our so called leaders have anything close to the vision though, more concerned with re-election and keeping their snouts in the trough. 

I would like to start a petition for this, but my social media impact is so poor, I don't think I could get it going...

...maybe someone more widespread in this sphere should get it going?

All part of being a member of the 'Monster Raving Looooney Party' (I am fully paid up 🙂)

Edited August 25, 2022 by SteveN8458
spelling

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

2 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Re-charging (refilling) the Rough storage should begin 1st September. it was decommed in 2017 but has been brought back.

This is the sort of nimbyism that probably has to go - 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/25/solar-farm-plans-refused-highest-rate-five-years-great-britain

 

I like your idea of the UK having it's own large scale wafer fabs - £Bns (I doubt there are anything near 20M 'suitable' homes) but as usual that's far too strategic and industrial high tech for the UK (and always has been) given the returns - China dominates in solar cells and that's  largely why the price has dropped so much. One of my colleagues used to work for BP Solar (in Spain) doing exactly this - think it sold out to Tata eventually (India and yes China again).

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Why not go a step further and include a battery system, that way you reduce even further the demand on the power grid!!

Lets look at a few simple numbers:

Say 20,000,000 houses suitable for solar. Cost per house say £10,000 (high volume discount)

Total cost £200,000,000,000

The problem with this is that then we would no longer need so many nuclear power stations ! hmmm

On another point: back before yr 2000 British gas had contracts in place with the likes of Shell/BP etc to buy all of the gas from specified gas fields in the North Sea at a fixed price, with the remainder sold via the spot market. However as the costs to get the gas to the beach increased these contracts became 'uneconomic' (important word that) and as a direct result of this those contracts were cancelled.

Why were the contracts not re-negotiated? no idea.

But for me this is where the government can step in and re-introduce these contracts. Ofgem operate too far down the food chain

 

In the real world, where is the Labour coming from to build 200 million solar panels, and producing in the UK over China will result in a huge premium, not a discount, because we can't migrate hundreds of thousands of farm hands from rural areas to megacities and pay them £4000 a year.

That said, the government should be doing more, including introducing minimum solar panel quotas on new build estates, and forcing large ecommerce retailers to build fulfillment centres with solar panels covering a minimum percentage of the roof space (this could have the effect of them higher with more mezzanines to reduce floor area if that's cheaper than building roofs capable of carrying the load, but there's some upsides to that too, as land is at a premium of course).

Personally I think in the real world it wouldn't scratch the surface and we need to invest in nuclear to bridge the gap between what the UK generates and what it uses.

And gas is harder problem to solve, lets be honest, which is why they are talking about fracking again.

If the government is going to make a huge investment in energy it would be better off:

1). Subsidising heat pump production and installation

2). Increasing the amount of nuclear energy

It is estimated that 12% of energy is consumed by data centres. Right now we're using one to read this website, and you are using one when you use an app on your phone. The problem is that if we impose strict punitive measures on data centres or additional tax to fund renewables, we have to be wary that in Ireland they incredibly attractive market conditions for tech companies, so we could lose lots of jobs. That's the problem with living in such a globalised world isn't it, we'd all love to tax corporate behemoths more to fund a green revolution and improve social equality, but we also really need them not to all up sticks and f*ck off to other countries.

Edited August 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

53 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

In the real world, where is the Labour coming from to build 200 million solar panels, and producing in the UK over China will result in a huge premium, not a discount, because we can't migrate hundreds of thousands of farm hands from rural areas to megacities and pay them £4000 a year.

That said, the government should be doing more, including introducing minimum solar panel quotas on new build estates, and forcing large ecommerce retailers to build fulfillment centres with solar panels covering a minimum percentage of the roof space (this could have the effect of them higher with more mezzanines to reduce floor area if that's cheaper than building roofs capable of carrying the load, but there's some upsides to that too, as land is at a premium of course).

Personally I think in the real world it wouldn't scratch the surface and we need to invest in nuclear to bridge the gap between what the UK generates and what it uses.

And gas is harder problem to solve, lets be honest, which is why they are talking about fracking again.

If the government is going to make a huge investment in energy it would be better off:

1). Subsidising heat pump production and installation

2). Increasing the amount of nuclear energy

It is estimated that 12% of energy is consumed by data centres. Right now we're using one to read this website, and you are using one when you use an app on your phone. The problem is that if we impose strict punitive measures on data centres or additional tax to fund renewables, we have to be wary that in Ireland they incredibly attractive market conditions for tech companies, so we could lose lots of jobs. That's the problem with living in such a globalised world isn't it, we'd all love to tax corporate behemoths more to fund a green revolution and improve social equality, but we also really need them not to all up sticks and f*ck off to other countries.

Agree with the general gist of your argument we need to be practical. Actually it's not the labour element (I used to work in one!) but simply the capital and very long term commitment needed to get anywhere near a world class commercial facility - not our strong point (see issues in even building/financing nuclear plants). Aren't we just selling (to the Chinese) that wafer fab in Wales?

Now as European scale project we might have the heft..... 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Yellow Fever
Just to give the scale of semiconductor 'fab' problem - didn't Biden just unleash $50BN to try to boost US production. Deep pockets needed!

[SteveN8458 61]

41 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

In the real world, where is the Labour coming from to build 200 million solar panels, and producing in the UK over China will result in a huge premium, not a discount, because we can't migrate hundreds of thousands of farm hands from rural areas to megacities and pay them £4000 a year.

That said, the government should be doing more, including introducing minimum solar panel quotas on new build estates, and forcing large ecommerce retailers to build fulfillment centres with solar panels covering a minimum percentage of the roof space (this could have the effect of them higher with more mezzanines to reduce floor area if that's cheaper than building roofs capable of carrying the load, but there's some upsides to that too, as land is at a premium of course).

Personally I think in the real world it wouldn't scratch the surface and we need to invest in nuclear to bridge the gap between what the UK generates and what it uses.

And gas is harder problem to solve, lets be honest, which is why they are talking about fracking again.

If the government is going to make a huge investment in energy it would be better off:

1). Subsidising heat pump production and installation

2). Increasing the amount of nuclear energy

It is estimated that 12% of energy is consumed by data centres. Right now we're using one to read this website, and you are using one when you use an app on your phone. The problem is that if we impose strict punitive measures on data centres or additional tax to fund renewables, we have to be wary that in Ireland they incredibly attractive market conditions for tech companies, so we could lose lots of jobs. That's the problem with living in such a globalised world isn't it, we'd all love to tax corporate behemoths more to fund a green revolution and improve social equality, but we also really need them not to all up sticks and f*ck off to other countries.

Where in my post did I say "producing in the UK over China" I didn't.

Where in my post did I suggest "migrate hundreds of thousands of farm hands" I didn't.

What I was posting was a way that a 'pro-active' government could help thousands upon thousand of families reduce their electricity  bills.

But that would reduce the need for 'Increasing the amount of nuclear energy'

Just a quick minor question, but where are these new nuclear power stations going to be built and who's technology will be used? (French & Chinese I believe)

Then, how quickly could just one of the 'new' power stations be designed/permission granted/and finally come on line?

A single solar panel system could be designed and installed in a matter of weeks (yes component supply WILL be an issue). So that household is helped then, not in say 30 years + as for Sizewell C

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Where in my post did I say "producing in the UK over China" I didn't.

Where in my post did I suggest "migrate hundreds of thousands of farm hands" I didn't.

What I was posting was a way that a 'pro-active' government could help thousands upon thousand of families reduce their electricity  bills.

But that would reduce the need for 'Increasing the amount of nuclear energy'

Just a quick minor question, but where are these new nuclear power stations going to be built and who's technology will be used? (French & Chinese I believe)

Then, how quickly could just one of the 'new' power stations be designed/permission granted/and finally come on line?

A single solar panel system could be designed and installed in a matter of weeks (yes component supply WILL be an issue). So that household is helped then, not in say 30 years + as for Sizewell C

I stand corrected on the producing in the UK thing, but dishing out contracts worth tens or hundreds of billions of pounds to China to purchase Solar Panels is likely also an undesirable solution at the minute, as they seem to have Putinesque expansionist ambitions and are currently building 6 more huge warships.

Realistically the cheapest and arguably cleanest means of meeting our electricity needs is nuclear power, admittedly we'd be kicking a can down the road in terms of disposing of the waste, although something like 10000 to 20000 years down the road (apparently how long we can safely bury it for with existing materials), apparently however research into how the waste can be reused and recycled/repurposed is advancing so that becomes a little less scary every year.

Don't know if you've ever done a calculator to estimate your potential energy bill saving with a 4kw system but it will barely scratch the surface of our domestic energy needs, yet alone our industrial and commercial needs. Powerwalls (or similar) are a nice idea, but aren't they lithium? Scarce material.

As for Nuclear, I said "nuclear power stations", but what I actually meant was "mini nuclear reactors" (otherwise known as Small Modular Reactors). Not sure if you are aware but what I'm proposing isn't a hypothetical or my ideal, unlike yours, but what is actually happening right now in the real world. 

Rolls Royce won a £210m government contract to build the reactors, just last year . No idea where the technology originated, not sure that matters, but Rolls Royce aren't a French or Chinese firm yet?

I'm sure it was rhetorical as you aren't au faux with real world developments and wanted to accuse me of Nibyism, but here's the actual answer to your question about where they are going to be built: https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/rolls-royce-smr-shortlists-7-locations-for-first-factory#:~:text=The first of three factories,announced today (4 July).

Shortlist for the first of three sites is down to those 7 locations. 

Each Small Modular reactor is capable of powering 1 million homes. So those 3 alone will meet the electricity needs of 10% of UK households. That is the solution.

Contrary to taking "30+ years", the Rolls Royce reactors are aiming to be approved by mid-2024 and deployed by the end of this decade. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[SteveN8458 61]

47 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I stand corrected on the producing in the UK thing, but dishing out contracts worth tens or hundreds of billions of pounds to China to purchase Solar Panels is likely also an undesirable solution at the minute, as they seem to have Putinesque expansionist ambitions and are currently building 6 more huge warships.

Realistically the cheapest and arguably cleanest means of meeting our electricity needs is nuclear power, admittedly we'd be kicking a can down the road in terms of disposing of the waste, although something like 10000 to 20000 years down the road (apparently how long we can safely bury it for with existing materials), apparently however research into how the waste can be reused and recycled/repurposed is advancing so that becomes a little less scary every year.

Don't know if you've ever done a calculator to estimate your potential energy bill saving with a 4kw system but it will barely scratch the surface of our domestic energy needs, yet alone our industrial and commercial needs. Powerwalls (or similar) are a nice idea, but aren't they lithium? Scarce material.

As for Nuclear, I said "nuclear power stations", but what I actually meant was "mini nuclear reactors" (otherwise known as Small Modular Reactors). Not sure if you are aware but what I'm proposing isn't a hypothetical or my ideal, unlike yours, but what is actually happening right now in the real world. 

Rolls Royce won a £210m government contract to build the reactors, just last year . No idea where the technology originated, not sure that matters, but Rolls Royce aren't a French or Chinese firm yet?

I'm sure it was rhetorical as you aren't au faux with real world developments and wanted to accuse me of Nibyism, but here's the actual answer to your question about where they are going to be built: https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/rolls-royce-smr-shortlists-7-locations-for-first-factory#:~:text=The first of three factories,announced today (4 July).

Shortlist for the first of three sites is down to those 7 locations. 

Each Small Modular reactor is capable of powering 1 million homes. So those 3 alone will meet the electricity needs of 10% of UK households. That is the solution.

Contrary to taking "30+ years", the Rolls Royce reactors are aiming to be approved by mid-2024 and deployed by the end of this decade. 

Hmm.

So 'dishing out' contract to china for Solar panels is different to 'dishing out' contracts to Chine for nuclear power stations!!

As for solar not scratching the surface, well I don't have to calculate, I just look at the meter and even today ALL of our useage has been covered by the solar panels. (note: we don't have any batteries as when we get the electric car we can use the batteries in that) our last elec bill was under £50/month.

Rolls Royce 🙂 here is their 'plan'

• Design submitted for assessment in 2021
• Manufacturing facilities being built by 2025
• First SMR goes live early 2030s  Not fixed then!! could even be argued as 'hypothetical' as nothing has been built or tested!!!

 

Nothing I have suggested is not available today, can be installed in a matter of a few months and would have a direct impact on every home it is installed at.

The government were happy to throw money at solar when they contracted (25years) to pay 45p per unit to those that could afford to install solar when it first became available. When the costs came down to a price that most could afford it dropped to 5p a unit

Your proposal to rely on nuclear fision leaves a BIG problem for our children.... for thousands of years, something you think is a good idea? I guess that's not 'in the real world'

 

And just for the record, NO I do not approve/like/condone blah blah, ANY nuclear power station. My 'ideal' would be renewable only.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

 

Personally I believe we should be moving away from gas, and look at developing renewables. That will take a little time, though.

Meanwhile, one short term option might be to ramp up gas extraction from Groningen, in The Netherlands 

That would buy a bit of time whilst Putin is acting the **

Though the locals would need to be placated 😲

[Pyro Pete 1,889]

On Friday, 115,000 postal workers will walk-out across the country, in the largest strike of the summer.

If you so choose, you can show your support for your postie by putting a poster in your window. Download from here.

Which looks like this:

 

[Naturalcynic 628]

3 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

On Friday, 115,000 postal workers will walk-out across the country, in the largest strike of the summer.

If you so choose, you can show your support for your postie by putting a poster in your window. Download from here.

Which looks like this:

 

Er, no.  Unlike many on here, I don’t support the transparent attempts by militant union leaders to foment a general strike intended to bring down a democratically-elected government.

[Naturalcynic 628]

9 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

 

Personally I believe we should be moving away from gas, and look at developing renewables. That will take a little time, though.

Meanwhile, one short term option might be to ramp up gas extraction from Groningen, in The Netherlands 

That would buy a bit of time whilst Putin is acting the **

Though the locals would need to be placated 😲

I also believe we should be moving away from gas, but it’s clear to anyone looking at it objectively that we will still need to burn fossil fuels for power generation for many hears to come.  So why is it ok to consider using Dutch gas but not ok to extract our own shale gas reserves which would go a very long way to insulating us from increasing global prices?

[Pyro Pete 1,889]

5 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Er, no.  Unlike many on here, I don’t support the transparent attempts by militant union leaders to foment a general strike intended to bring down a democratically-elected government.

Don't worry, that will happen in two year's time anyway, after the walking-disaster that is Liz Truss has been in charge.

[Naturalcynic 628]

Just now, Pyro Pete said:

Don't worry, that will happen in two year's time anyway, after the walking-disaster that is Liz Truss has been in charge.

That’s fine.  The ballot box is the way these things should be done.  

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

I also believe we should be moving away from gas, but it’s clear to anyone looking at it objectively that we will still need to burn fossil fuels for power generation for many hears to come.  So why is it ok to consider using Dutch gas but not ok to extract our own shale gas reserves which would go a very long way to insulating us from increasing global prices?

I was looking at it from a  European perspective, I didn't make that clear 

Extraction of Dutch gas would relieve the pressure on supply across Europe, but comes with the obvious problem of earthquakes 

 

[Naturalcynic 628]

1 minute ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I was looking at it from a  European perspective, I didn't make that clear 

Extraction of Dutch gas would relieve the pressure on supply across Europe, but comes with the obvious problem of earthquakes 

 

By earthquake I’m assuming you mean at worst the very occasional, insignificant and extremely minor tremor equivalent to that caused by a vehicle driving down a road.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

12 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

By earthquake I’m assuming you mean at worst the very occasional, insignificant and extremely minor tremor equivalent to that caused by a vehicle driving down a road.

No

Damage to buildings, as referred to in the link 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Er, no.  Unlike many on here, I don’t support the transparent attempts by militant union leaders to foment a general strike intended to bring down a democratically-elected government.

Do you advocate that governments choose Union leaders?

[Barbe bleu 814]

59 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

No

Damage to buildings, as referred to in the link 

 

Your article suggests that the quakes thus far have peaked at a magnitude of 3.6 (in 2012).   I looked this up.   Across the world there are 100,000 quakes in the range 3.0-3.9 every year and they are described thus:

"Often felt by people, but very rarely causes damage. Shaking of indoor objects can be noticeable."

 

 

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

Your article suggests that the quakes thus far have peaked at a magnitude of 3.6 (in 2012).   I looked this up.   Across the world there are 100,000 quakes in the range 3.0-3.9 every year and they are described thus:

"Often felt by people, but very rarely causes damage. Shaking of indoor objects can be noticeable."

 

 

 

They have caused damage to buildings in The Netherlands, which is clearly referred to in the article. Probably because the buildings are not built to withstand them. 

I live in an earthquake zone. I rarely feel anything less than 4.0. Even earthquakes of 5.0+ cause minor damage. Probably because the buildings are built with earthquakes in mind 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Banks. What a pile of robbing, lazy bar stewards.

Lloyds, who I have been with since an apprentice, are closing our Redruth Branch. They installed a machine to count deposit cheques and notes about five years ago. They threatened that if it didn't handle a certain percentage of deposits they would close the branch. They only wanted to have one teller on. And now they are carrying out their threat.

Such a large part of their daily business was from local businesses who still need to deposit coins. Now they will either have to keep it at home or on the premises during the week as the nearest branch is Truro, 9 miles away.

2008 and they were begging for help. Now that has been dismissed and they are back taking our money and the pish at the same time.

And their internet banking is always so slow that the pound has been devalued by the time I present the enter key.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[Naturalcynic 628]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Banks. What a pile of robbing, lazy bar stewards.

Lloyds, who I have been with since an apprentice, are closing our Redruth Branch. They installed a machine to count deposit cheques and notes about five years ago. They threatened that if it didn't handle a certain percentage of deposits they would close the branch. They only wanted to have one teller on. And now they are carrying out their threat.

Such a large part of their daily business was from local businesses who still need to deposit coins. Now they will either have to keep it at home or on the premises during the week as the nearest branch is Truro, 9 miles away.

2008 and they were begging for help. Now that has been dismissed and they are back taking our money and the pish at the same time.

And their internet banking is always so slow that the pound has been devalued by the time I present the enter key.

 

But it’s people like you and me that use internet banking who are responsible for the lack of footfall in local branches, ultimately resulting in their closure due to lack of demand.