Cost of living crisis.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Nalis said:

On the energy point - are we getting to the stage where renewable energy is cheaper per unit will be cheaper than fossil fuels anyway?

I think that is going to come down to market rules and government interventions, and therefore to how much people want to get in the way of actually doing something to help guarantee the future of civilisation.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Just retaxed my car, and that's gone up another 15 quid this year

[Suzie the Fox]

£267.01 pm (gone up from £110) FML

[Dahnsouff]

Seems inevitable than energy rationing will come, probably sooner rather than later, and this may enforce a mindset change regarding energy upon us

[ajthefox]

16 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I think it’s Time to switch to back to coal. We’ve got 250 years of the stuff under our feet, literally. Some bright spark must know how to contain the emissions by now surely.

 

16 hours ago, Otis said:

Or start Fracking and use the 50 years of Shale gas underneath us.

 

16 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Yep

 

Fortunately I think this is going to be explored next week I was reading 

 

The only way forward is renewables. Why is it so hard to grasp this? If we'd invested more in solar and wind earlier we wouldn't be in this position. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

 

 

 

The only way forward is renewables. Why is it so hard to grasp this? If we'd invested more in solar and wind earlier we wouldn't be in this position. 

It’s very true. But I shan’t be touching them until they’re actually cost effective and more efficient 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

It’s very true. But I shan’t be touching them until they’re actually cost effective and more efficient 

Many apologies, but acknowledging that renewables are the way forward but then turning ones nose up at them and so not allowing them to progress seems a mite logically inconsistent.

[yorkie1999]

27 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

 

 

 

The only way forward is renewables. Why is it so hard to grasp this? If we'd invested more in solar and wind earlier we wouldn't be in this position. 

You are so right, everyone on the planet knows this but , how long will it be before fossil fuel is replaced by renewal energy? When will i be able to replace my gas boiler with an electric one? Will we be able to generate enough electricity to compensate for not burning the fosil fuels we currently burn?  Is it the intentention that for the next 10-15 years we have to suffer with no heating or hot water? And by the way, i invested in solar panels 15 years ago and if you think you're going to power a house with solar panels, dream on.

Edited 1 April 2022 by yorkie1999

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You are so right, everyone on the planet knows this but , how long will it be before fossil fuel is replaced by renewal energy? When will i be able to replace my gas boiler with an electric one? Will we be able to generate enough electricity to compensate for not burning the fosil fuels we currently burn?  Is it the intentention that for the next 10-15 years we have to suffer with no heating or hot water? And by the way, i invested in solar panels 15 years ago and if you think you're going to power a house with solar panels, dream on.

This is why we need a phased transfer from one to the other - well, we needed it two decades ago but now will have to do at increased expense as that cost is only going to go up.

 

And yes, solar panels alone probably won't do enough to power a house (for the time being, anyhow), which is why any reasonable assessment of the situation calls for Gen III/IV fission and fast breeder reactors, too.

 

I have no idea why so many people seem wedded to the idea of regression either in the form of relying on outdated energy generation until it dooms us all or a rollback in living standards. It simply doesn't have to be one or the other - the third option does, in fact, exist.

[yorkie1999]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is why we need a phased transfer from one to the other - well, we needed it two decades ago but now will have to do at increased expense as that cost is only going to go up.

 

And yes, solar panels alone probably won't do enough to power a house (for the time being, anyhow), which is why any reasonable assessment of the situation calls for Gen III/IV fission and fast breeder reactors, too.

 

I have no idea why so many people seem wedded to the idea of regression either in the form of relying on outdated energy generation until it dooms us all or a rollback in living standards. It simply doesn't have to be one or the other - the third option does, in fact, exist.

I personally think the future will be wind turbines and developing the ability to be able to store enough energy developed from them for when the wind doesn’t blow because it is a totally renewable source of energy with little consequences to energy production apart from the initial manufacture of them, they are a reliable,  safe,  known technology and are predictable. We currently have 11000, which produces enough power for 12 million homes, if we can get to 50000, that should be enough, but then what? We are currently paying a tax to invest in renewable energy, we have renewable energy, there are 39 million homes in the U.K., 12 million of them powered by almost free energy and yet here we are, double and triple energy prices, which is the point of this thread. The increased  cost of living is being caused not by pricing of energy, but by a government that is failing to care for the people who put them there in the first place. Somethings not quite right.

Edited 1 April 2022 by yorkie1999

[grobyfox1990]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I personally think the future will be wind turbines and developing the ability to be able to store enough energy developed from them for when the wind doesn’t blow because it is a totally renewable source of energy with little consequences to energy production apart from the initial manufacture of them, they are a reliable,  safe,  known technology and are predictable. We currently have 11000, which produces enough power for 12 million homes, if we can get to 50000, that should be enough, but then what? We are currently paying a tax to invest in renewable energy, we have renewable energy, there are 39 million homes in the U.K., 12 million of them powered by almost free energy and yet here we are, double and triple energy prices, which is the point of this thread.Somethings not quite right.

Interesting, thanks for that. You seem to be plugged in on this, what do you think is the short-medium term solution for this? As you can imagine, this is absolutely the worst time to be convincing people to be investing in the long-term, so what is the alternative, if any?!

 

Back onto cost of living, called up internet and mobile provider and read the riot act, two months free on each and price kept static for the next 12 months. Insurance policy's already done. I don't have any other bills to reduce now.... time to take a deep breath and cross fingers.

Edited 1 April 2022 by grobyfox1990

[Otis]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

 

 

 

The only way forward is renewables. Why is it so hard to grasp this? If we'd invested more in solar and wind earlier we wouldn't be in this position. 

Long term it's nuclear for reliable energy. Currently renewables aren't reliable enough. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I personally think the future will be wind turbines and developing the ability to be able to store enough energy developed from them for when the wind doesn’t blow because it is a totally renewable source of energy with little consequences to energy production apart from the initial manufacture of them, they are a reliable,  safe,  known technology and are predictable. We currently have 11000, which produces enough power for 12 million homes, if we can get to 50000, that should be enough, but then what? We are currently paying a tax to invest in renewable energy, we have renewable energy, there are 39 million homes in the U.K., 12 million of them powered by almost free energy and yet here we are, double and triple energy prices, which is the point of this thread. The increased  cost of living is being caused not by pricing of energy, but by a government that is failing to care for the people who put them there in the first place. Somethings not quite right.

Interesting thought, that. I'd have to look at the numbers myself and the energy storage issue is a tricky one, but other than that...

 

I'd agree that perhaps there is more to all this than it seems, but who knows what?

 

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Interesting, thanks for that. You seem to be plugged in on this, what do you think is the short-medium term solution for this? As you can imagine, this is absolutely the worst time to be convincing people to be investing in the long-term, so what is the alternative, if any?!

 

Back onto cost of living, called up internet and mobile provider and read the riot act, two months free on each and price kept static for the next 12 months. Insurance policy's already done. I don't have any other bills to reduce now.... time to take a deep breath and cross fingers.

To answer myself, there isn't one, sadly.

 

Either we as a species change energy infrastructure at reasonably heavy cost now, or the Earth makes us pay much much more down the line. If there is a third option that takes into account what we know about increasing global temperature and its consequences, then I'd be interested to hear it.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I put a link on the Ukraine thread (that elicited no reaction other than the usual laughing emoji from Self-Own1) to a piece that was mainly theorising about how energy markets will eventually be Putin's undoing but contained a lot of stuff about the costs of energy extraction and how the point where pulling fossil fuels out of the ground will no longer make economic sense isn't that far off.

 

I thought it was interesting anyway

 

 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Anyone have solar panels, and do they cover the cost of your total electricity bill (or the bulk of it)? Having a quick read-up, it looks like a 2kw system should be enough to cover the cost for my house (2-bed, single occupant), roughly £3,000 installed. If I were to eventually switch to infrared heating, it seems that the solar panels would pay for themselves within 3 years or so

[Dahnsouff]

26 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I put a link on the Ukraine thread (that elicited no reaction other than the usual laughing emoji from Self-Own1) to a piece that was mainly theorising about how energy markets will eventually be Putin's undoing but contained a lot of stuff about the costs of energy extraction and how the point where pulling fossil fuels out of the ground will no longer make economic sense isn't that far off.

 

I thought it was interesting anyway

Agree, it was an interesting article, so thanks  

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Many apologies, but acknowledging that renewables are the way forward but then turning ones nose up at them and so not allowing them to progress seems a mite logically inconsistent.

When an electric car costs as little as a diesel, when it doesn’t cost £20k to replace the battery, and cost £1k to install a charger at your house, and the range of the vehicles improve- I’ll contemplate getting one

 

When an ASHP doesn’t cost about £15k to install (I could buy about 17 combi boilers with that) and they actually heat the home adequately as a combi does, and I don’t need ridiculously sized radiators to heat the rooms, I’ll think about getting one

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

When an electric car costs as little as a diesel, when it doesn’t cost £20k to replace the battery, and cost £1k to install a charger at your house, and the range of the vehicles improve- I’ll contemplate getting one

 

When an ASHP doesn’t cost about £15k to install (I could buy about 17 combi boilers with that) and they actually heat the home adequately as a combi does, and I don’t need ridiculously sized radiators to heat the rooms, I’ll think about getting one

I agree, save your money and buy a new planet  

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

When an electric car costs as little as a diesel, when it doesn’t cost £20k to replace the battery, and cost £1k to install a charger at your house, and the range of the vehicles improve- I’ll contemplate getting one

 

When an ASHP doesn’t cost about £15k to install (I could buy about 17 combi boilers with that) and they actually heat the home adequately as a combi does, and I don’t need ridiculously sized radiators to heat the rooms, I’ll think about getting one

Yep, the problem is one of expense.

 

That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the necessity of such solutions being implemented and is no reason to advocate against them - rather, it's an argument to advocate for interventions to make them more accessible, through whatever means, to everyone.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Well it’s ridiculous to think people are going to put themselves out of pocket for a feel good factor. Because that’s all it is 

[Legend_in_blue]

I see the MPs rise today will balance out the cost of living rises quite nicely.

 

How convenient.

 

Perhaps Sunak can use his additional funds to go on an adult education course on how to use a debit card in a service station without any hiccups.

 

 

[kenny]

2 hours ago, ajthefox said:

 

 

 

The only way forward is renewables. Why is it so hard to grasp this? If we'd invested more in solar and wind earlier we wouldn't be in this position. 

Solar and wind means we rely on the weather. Russian gas is more reliable than the weather.

 

Solar and wind are not the answer.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

Anyone have solar panels, and do they cover the cost of your total electricity bill (or the bulk of it)? Having a quick read-up, it looks like a 2kw system should be enough to cover the cost for my house (2-bed, single occupant), roughly £3,000 installed. If I were to eventually switch to infrared heating, it seems that the solar panels would pay for themselves within 3 years or so

They are not great.

 

My 5kw system peaks at 3.5 and produces electricity during the day and I get 5p for that once my battery is charged.

 

In the evenings I start purchasing electric at 26p at around 9.30 once the battery is empty.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Well it’s ridiculous to think people are going to put themselves out of pocket for a feel good factor. Because that’s all it is 

... so there isn't a problem or the problem is inevitable, then?

 

I'm going to be honest, helping to avert at best the death, suffering and migration of hundreds of millions of people and at worst the collapse of civilisation itself is rather more than a "feel good factor" IMO.

 

And also speaking personally, should the shit hit the fan anyway I'd rather explain that I did everything I could rather than hold my hands up and say I didn't care to that future generation growing up in terrible circumstances. Practically because enough people believing in that shortsighted nihilist BS means it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy anyway.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

Solar and wind means we rely on the weather. Russian gas is more reliable than the weather.

 

Solar and wind are not the answer.

Combined with Gen III/IV fission and/or better storage, they are.

 

As per above, I have no idea why so many people seem wedded to the idea of regression either in the form of relying on outdated energy generation until it dooms us all or a rollback in living standards. It simply doesn't have to be one or the other - the third option does, in fact, exist.