Cost of living crisis.

[ian__marshall]

16 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

3,000 acres of prime grassland

You've misquoted the article. It says 3000 acres not 3000 acres of prime grassland. Presumably this includes the footprint for the Mill and storage facilities needed to convert the grass to gas therefore the grassland area is likely to be proportionally smaller. Appreciate that the article is a bit misleading but that was my take on it. 

[dsr-burnley]

10 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

You've misquoted the article. It says 3000 acres not 3000 acres of prime grassland. Presumably this includes the footprint for the Mill and storage facilities needed to convert the grass to gas therefore the grassland area is likely to be proportionally smaller. Appreciate that the article is a bit misleading but that was my take on it. 

It's in Berkshire.  Grass grows well in Berkshire, and they're unlikely to have chosen a site for the first mill (which has to be a success for the scheme to be expanded) in an area that is less than half the efficiency of the average UK grassland - the average UK grassland, remember, includes northern uplands and chunks of Scotland.  

[kenny]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's in Berkshire.  Grass grows well in Berkshire, and they're unlikely to have chosen a site for the first mill (which has to be a success for the scheme to be expanded) in an area that is less than half the efficiency of the average UK grassland - the average UK grassland, remember, includes northern uplands and chunks of Scotland.  

We already have these plants in the UK currently. They generate Biomass gas from agricultural bi-product rather than grass. Its the stalks etc from grown wheat/barley. Other plants use food waste or the bi-products from abattoirs.

 

The plant itself is fairly small, this the one at Severn Trent, Stoke Bardolph near Notts.

 

[ian__marshall]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's in Berkshire.  Grass grows well in Berkshire, and they're unlikely to have chosen a site for the first mill (which has to be a success for the scheme to be expanded) in an area that is less than half the efficiency of the average UK grassland - the average UK grassland, remember, includes northern uplands and chunks of Scotland.  

I understand, but the article isn't saying it needs 3000 acres of grassland to power 4000 homes, simply it'll occupy an area of 3000 acres. I imagine the Mill and storage silo's will take up a sizeable surface area meaning whatever land is left over will be used for cultivating grass but it essentially won't be 3000 acres of grass so the ratio of acres of grass required per home will be far less (albeit I agree that these figures even at a reduced volume don't correlate to the numbers being suggested later in the article).

 

I also think they'll be a lot of variables to factor in such as capacity of the Mills to generate gas, number of homes capable of utilising this fuel, etc. Just because this site is likely to be situated on 3000 acres doesn't mean that this is the maximum generating capacity of the Mill. Likewise the land and Mill might be capable of feeding more homes but maybe only 4000 homes will be built to utilise this resource as part of a pilot. Furthermore if this is a pilot project the Mill may be a scaled down version just to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology with a view to scaling up longer term. 

 

Either way it's a great idea and one that if successful could be a real game changer. 

[cityfanlee23]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Why does it take 3,000 acres of prime grassland in Berkshire to heat 4,000 homes, but they claim to be able to use 4.5m acres across the country to heat 14m homes?  Where's the extra efficiency coming from?  

Honestly the figures in the link seem off, it was more the idea, he tends to come up with these things and run with them, he's currently got a business called sky diamonds which extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and creates diamonds from them to remove the environmentally damaging mining process, he's been doing this for a year or so now and they are fantastic from what I've seen.

If you follow him on facebook he is very good at responding to questions if you were generally interested, I just thought it was an interesting idea, and the fact he's thrown money into probably means it's viable. 
https://skydiamond.com/ 

[kenny]

3 hours ago, ian__marshall said:

I understand, but the article isn't saying it needs 3000 acres of grassland to power 4000 homes, simply it'll occupy an area of 3000 acres. I imagine the Mill and storage silo's will take up a sizeable surface area meaning whatever land is left over will be used for cultivating grass but it essentially won't be 3000 acres of grass so the ratio of acres of grass required per home will be far less (albeit I agree that these figures even at a reduced volume don't correlate to the numbers being suggested later in the article).

 

I also think they'll be a lot of variables to factor in such as capacity of the Mills to generate gas, number of homes capable of utilising this fuel, etc. Just because this site is likely to be situated on 3000 acres doesn't mean that this is the maximum generating capacity of the Mill. Likewise the land and Mill might be capable of feeding more homes but maybe only 4000 homes will be built to utilise this resource as part of a pilot. Furthermore if this is a pilot project the Mill may be a scaled down version just to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology with a view to scaling up longer term. 

 

Either way it's a great idea and one that if successful could be a real game changer. 

See the post above. They already exist all over the country and use waste not perfectly usable arable land.

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, ian__marshall said:

I understand, but the article isn't saying it needs 3000 acres of grassland to power 4000 homes, simply it'll occupy an area of 3000 acres. I imagine the Mill and storage silo's will take up a sizeable surface area meaning whatever land is left over will be used for cultivating grass but it essentially won't be 3000 acres of grass so the ratio of acres of grass required per home will be far less (albeit I agree that these figures even at a reduced volume don't correlate to the numbers being suggested later in the article).

 

I also think they'll be a lot of variables to factor in such as capacity of the Mills to generate gas, number of homes capable of utilising this fuel, etc. Just because this site is likely to be situated on 3000 acres doesn't mean that this is the maximum generating capacity of the Mill. Likewise the land and Mill might be capable of feeding more homes but maybe only 4000 homes will be built to utilise this resource as part of a pilot. Furthermore if this is a pilot project the Mill may be a scaled down version just to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology with a view to scaling up longer term. 

 

Either way it's a great idea and one that if successful could be a real game changer. 

Has the earth got enough spare land to use for grass-for-power?  We'll be importing more food to compensate.  Can the world grow enough crops to feed the people AND provide the power?

[leicsmac]

Interesting discussion above.

 

My own thought (without much further scientific evidence to back it) is while it's a good idea, it's likely only part of the solution and needs to be implemented alongside other systems - both renewable and fission-related.

[Jon the Hat]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting discussion above.

 

My own thought (without much further scientific evidence to back it) is while it's a good idea, it's likely only part of the solution and needs to be implemented alongside other systems - both renewable and fission-related.

There is certainly no one solution.  My company (or part of it) used to produce waste to power technology and sold a number of plants into the UK.  It is quite complex to do successfully.  I think the realization that energy can and will be more expensive has finally hit.  I'm sure all the people who said Nuclear was too expensive when the costs were locked in will be most apologetic.  Or not.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

There is certainly no one solution.  My company (or part of it) used to produce waste to power technology and sold a number of plants into the UK.  It is quite complex to do successfully.  I think the realization that energy can and will be more expensive has finally hit.  I'm sure all the people who said Nuclear was too expensive when the costs were locked in will be most apologetic.  Or not.

It's nonsense for fission to be overlooked in terms of future power generation, yes.

[ian__marshall]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Has the earth got enough spare land to use for grass-for-power?  We'll be importing more food to compensate.  Can the world grow enough crops to feed the people AND provide the power?

To answer your points regarding food production, yes there is enough land for both and no we wouldn't necessarily need to import more food. Recent scientific research suggests that if everyone on the planet switched to a plant based diet, there would be enough food to feed every person whilst reducing the amount of land required for agriculture by 75% which would in turn free up land for growing grass. 

 

Despite the above, such an hypothesis is too simplistic. The reality is that such methods would form part of a broader solution to sustainable energy production including wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, biofuel, etc. and we wouldn't be solely dependent upon this as a single source

[fox_up_north]

The older I get, the more willing I am to go plant-based, at the very least for 3-4 days a week. I'm almost at that point. I probably have about 2-3 dinners a week that are veggie and a couple of lunches, so I'm at 1-2 days a week now.

 

Surely, if everyone just went veggie for 3 days a week, that solves a lot of problems? Cuts meat use by about 40%. 

[kenny]

43 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

The older I get, the more willing I am to go plant-based, at the very least for 3-4 days a week. I'm almost at that point. I probably have about 2-3 dinners a week that are veggie and a couple of lunches, so I'm at 1-2 days a week now.

 

Surely, if everyone just went veggie for 3 days a week, that solves a lot of problems? Cuts meat use by about 40%. 

It probably depends on where your veggies come from as to whether it's an environmental benefit or not. 

 

If you are eating south American avocados grown on deforested rainforest then it will be worse for the environment than eating steak grown locally.

[fox_up_north]

11 minutes ago, kenny said:

It probably depends on where your veggies come from as to whether it's an environmental benefit or not. 

 

If you are eating south American avocados grown on deforested rainforest then it will be worse for the environment than eating steak grown locally.

A very good point. I think the next step is highlighting WHERE food comes from and how it got there.

 

I do find it quite annoying when I hear veggies/ vegans crowing on about their exotic food that's probably had a devastating impact on a local region. Though, they seem to be quieter these days. 

[Tommy G]

Interest rates likely up 0.5% again today at least. Glad I got a 5 year fix at 2.04% on my mortgage, seems like a steal now.

[Bayfox]

4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Interest rates likely up 0.5% again today at least. Glad I got a 5 year fix at 2.04% on my mortgage, seems like a steal now.

Ours was due to come off our fixed rate of about that figure in Nov. Best we have been offered was 3.09% with existing provider. Seemed a little high despite knowing rates would rise. Might have to consider signing up to it now as inevitably they will rise again and having done a quick search today online most offers seems to be around or above 4% now. But it puts about a £80/90 on the monthly payment. 

 

Be interesting to see if the banks actually start passing on the interest to some of my accounts that haven't seen any paid for a few years.

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Bayfox said:

Ours was due to come off our fixed rate of about that figure in Nov. Best we have been offered was 3.09% with existing provider. Seemed a little high despite knowing rates would rise. Might have to consider signing up to it now as inevitably they will rise again and having done a quick search today online most offers seems to be around or above 4% now. But it puts about a £80/90 on the monthly payment. 

 

Be interesting to see if the banks actually start passing on the interest to some of my accounts that haven't seen any paid for a few years.

As in November coming up, i.e Nov 22? I'd get onto a mortgage broker now.

 

Your mortgage will outweigh your savings preumably (quite heavily) so I wouldn't worry about how much you are earning as these gains will be wiped out by your mortgage interest expense pretty quickly! I think it's a pretty horrendous situation if your fix ends in early 23 which clashes with high energy prices. Could be looking at a few hundred quid added to your monthly mortgage particulalry with people who have stretched themselves. 

[KrefelderFox666]

1 hour ago, Bayfox said:

Ours was due to come off our fixed rate of about that figure in Nov. Best we have been offered was 3.09% with existing provider. Seemed a little high despite knowing rates would rise. Might have to consider signing up to it now as inevitably they will rise again and having done a quick search today online most offers seems to be around or above 4% now. But it puts about a £80/90 on the monthly payment. 

 

Be interesting to see if the banks actually start passing on the interest to some of my accounts that haven't seen any paid for a few years.

Definitely sooner rather than later. Our mortgage is in two parts, we had 4 years left on a 5 year fixed when we moved in October 2020. That one is continuing at 1.84%. However, we took out a second loan (to make up the difference) at 1.99% which is up on 31 October 2022. I could have switched 2 months ago but would have missed out on 1 month of 1.99% as the switch would have been 1 October. In hindsight I messed that up. When I looked about 5/6 weeks ago I could have switched at 3.19% (I think). Monthly payments would have increased by about £60. In the end I waited and waited until I could start the new product on 1 November to tie over with my current end date. I now switched at 3.59% and just over £100 a month more. Sometimes it's better to take a small hit now than to be too clever!

 

With a good chance of interest rates hitting over 3% by next year, if you are close to your deal end date, get on it now. Most lenders usually allow a product switch 5/6 months before an end date without penalties.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Definitely sooner rather than later. Our mortgage is in two parts, we had 4 years left on a 5 year fixed when we moved in October 2020. That one is continuing at 1.84%. However, we took out a second loan (to make up the difference) at 1.99% which is up on 31 October 2022. I could have switched 2 months ago but would have missed out on 1 month of 1.99% as the switch would have been 1 October. In hindsight I messed that up. When I looked about 5/6 weeks ago I could have switched at 3.19% (I think). Monthly payments would have increased by about £60. In the end I waited and waited until I could start the new product on 1 November to tie over with my current end date. I now switched at 3.59% and just over £100 a month more. Sometimes it's better to take a small hit now than to be too clever!

 

With a good chance of interest rates hitting over 3% by next year, if you are close to your deal end date, get on it now. Most lenders usually allow a product switch 5/6 months before an end date without penalties.

When i took my mortgage out it was at 15.5%, glad that worry has gone though.

[Stevosevic]

I’m halfway through a 5 year fixed at 1.56% so very thankful for that right now. 
 

Lower than the base rate - crazy.

[Parafox]

I see fuel has dropped by 10p a litre in the last week. It's odd to see a price drop and think, "ooh that's cheap"!

[KrefelderFox666]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

When i took my mortgage out it was at 15.5%, glad that worry has gone though.

I hope you have remortgaged since!!!

[yorkie1999]

20 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I hope you have remortgaged since!!!

Only when i moved house, but i never fixed it or anything because the rates quickly started falling, always seemed a gamble that i'd end up fixing it at a higher rate. At the moment, i don't think the banks can afford to let it go up too much, people seem to be mortgaged up to the max.

[Trumpet]

12 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Only when i moved house, but i never fixed it or anything because the rates quickly started falling, always seemed a gamble that i'd end up fixing it at a higher rate. At the moment, i don't think the banks can afford to let it go up too much, people seem to be mortgaged up to the max.

This has crossed my mind recently. We’re due to end our fixed term at the end of 2023 and there’s a good chance that fixing for 5 years could mean we’re taking a substantially higher rate than we’d get later on in the term. Pure speculation on my part of course, but could be a scenario myself and many others find ourselves in. 
 

Is it possible to go on to the standard rate and then later on get another fox without the faff of remortgaging? 

[KrefelderFox666]

14 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

This has crossed my mind recently. We’re due to end our fixed term at the end of 2023 and there’s a good chance that fixing for 5 years could mean we’re taking a substantially higher rate than we’d get later on in the term. Pure speculation on my part of course, but could be a scenario myself and many others find ourselves in. 
 

Is it possible to go on to the standard rate and then later on get another fox without the faff of remortgaging? 

Remortgaging can be pretty simple. There are two options when you reach the end of your mortgage product term:

 

1. You remortgage in the truest sense (this would possibly include additional borrowing, moving to another lender who offers a better deal than your current one etc.)

2. You do something called a product switch (this is very simple but will only apply if you are not changing anything on your mortgage other than the product, so no extra borrowing, you are staying with your current lender etc.)

 

If all you want to do is keep your mortgage as is and stay with your lender, you can just switch to a new product. Normally your lender writes to you about 5 to 6 months before your product term comes to an end. Say in your instance your fixed product ends on 31 December 2023, then I would expect you to get a letter/email around July/August 2023. They will present you with options.

 

If you get to that point and you think that the rates at that time are likely to drop in a year or so, and therefore you do not want to fix long term at what seems a high rate, you have better options than just reverting to standard variable rates. Those rates are the last rates you want to be on. There are some other more flexible options. If you don't want to commit to a long term fix, you could move onto something called a Tracker mortgage. This gives you flexibility in that most of them (would have to check with your lender though) do not have early repayment charges. So if you took a Tracker out and wanted to wait until interest rates dropped a bit before fixing again, you could have it for say 6 months and then product switch to a fixed rate after that.

 

It has been a very nice market for mortgages for the past 10 years as rates have been at rock bottom. We are now starting to see movement again and some ups and downs inevitably. I assume your current fix is a very good rate so there is probably no rush to switch away from that until you have reached your end date of that fixed term.

 

PLEASE NOTE: Even though I work in the industry, I am not a qualified mortgage broker. This is advice on a football forum but hopefully it can be useful to you. Happy to answer any other questions as best as possible. However, I would always advise the use of a mortgage broker as they are professionally qualified and know the market much better.