Beelbeebub

UK loosens Russian oil sanctions as fuel prices rise https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy42x3g7r89o We are having to take action against our national security interests (buying diesel from an actively hostile foreign power that has invaded a European country and deployed chemical and radiological weapons on UK soil twice) because our transport network is critically dependent on a fuel we cannot produce enough of ourselves.... This action would be less neccesary if we had higher EV adoption rates. It's too late for this crisis, but we need to be ready for the next one. Again the NZ policy of strongly encouraging EV adoption - a policy that political parties with strong links to Russia have explicitly said they would reverse - is vital from a national security perspective regardless of any environmental concerns.

If only there was a mass produced technology that could efficiently use electricity to heat and cool a space...

No. That's my point - there really isn't much extra oil/gas left to get out. To a fair degree the argument whether or not to extract the last few % of the Uk's oil and gas is moot from a energy security standpoint. It will make no difference to our energy security if we continue on the projected path (green) or issue new licences (red and orange) What will make a huge difference to our energy security will be how much energy we can produce and use in the UK. So to that end we need to Reduce demand (insulation and public transport) electrifiy heating (heat pumps) Electrify transport (EVs) Increace local electricity production (winds, solar, nuclear, storage etc) All of those are "Net Zero" policies.

Indeed, mad. Still males makes me laugh. We will continue to consume fossil fuels for a while yet. The point is not that we shouldn't produce it in this country it's that we can't. Again, looking at the graphs in the previous post, our production is falling and the difference between our current course and drilling like lunatics is basically sod all.

Fully agree Yes, but I would caveat that with the point it cuts both ways. Certain political parties have made statements to the effect that they "will end net zero madness" and basically halt all renewable projects. We see this with trump who is literally paying companies not to install renewable projects despite causing a surge in fossil fuel prices! In the UK those same parties tend to follow up their "no to renewables" stance with the assurance that the UK will make up for that loss in generation by extracting more oil. In effect saying "we don't need renewables we can become a fully fossil fueled economy *by drilling for more oil*". This is often followed up with the promise that the UK can have lower bills and greater energy security by going this route. This is ideological BS. Yes, there are many ways to skin a cat, but the key point is that UK fossil fuel production is fast declining from only 50% of consumption and there is very little we can do about it. The difference between folloing our current "Net zero" and "drill baby drill" is so tiny as to be irrelevant. It's the difference between the green but and the orange&red bits. For gas in particular it's pretty much a rounding error.

So, No, you can't define it then? Here is the official definition "to be aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" So throwing "oh look at you - so aware of important facts and issues" as as insult says more about the mindset of the insulter than the insulted. But more importantly to this thread - it has absolutely bugger all to do with net zero policies except as part of the wider right-wing culture war. I'm all fornsunding renewables. But here are some "important facts and issues" The annual tax receipts from north sea production are about £5bn and as we have established production (and hence tax revenue) *will* fall. So the effect of drilling for that "good sweet oil" will be marginal. Revenue might be (at best) 1/4 rather than 1/4 of that in a decade. So say £1.5bn difference. That's chicken feed at this scale. We have also established that increacing out NSea output would not have made any difference in the current crisis. Our volumes are too small to affect world price. But the cost of staying on oil rather than electrifying our cars (for example). In April it was estimated uk motorists paid £2bn more for fuel. It would be better to pay for the renewables from the potential £2bn a month saved than the £1.5bn a year raised. So the "woke" NZ policy of transport electrification that seems to so enrage certain political segments well beyond any rational arguments would be saving motorists billions a year as well improving air quality.

Let's just pretend we are all die hard fossil fuel enthusiasts and are not gkig to have anything to do with renewable generation. Even then, bring gas in a power station, sending it down the network and using a badly installed heatpump at the other end uses 25% less gas than burning it in a gas boiler on site. So out limited gas reserves will go further. But heat pumps are "woke" (but not fridges obviously, they are very traditional and manly because you can store raw meat and beer in them) so real men can't use them.

Can you explain what exactly "woke" is? It seems to be thrown around alot as an insult.

The question then becomes "do the policies of electrfying hearing and transport whilst increacing renewable production negatively affect the UK economy and security?" It boils down to do we think uk renewable power is going to be cheaper and more reliable than importing oil and gas from the world market? I think, and studies on the overall cost per Mwh of the various technologies bear this out, that renewable power is cheaper and is much harder to disrupt. Bear in mind the cost to the economy of transitioning to the NZ position is less than the cost of one oil/gas shock like either of the two we have already had this decade.

An electric one would be sensible! 😁

Even then there is nuance - some countries prioritise keeping business electricity down at the expense of hugher domestic bills (Germany apparently) others the opposite. Some coubtries pay for infrastructure upgrades out of general tax rather than lumoing them on electric bills. Likewise things like green levies etc are on gas or general taxation. My understanding is the 15-20 years ago the thinking was to lump the transition costs on eekcteicty because everyone has electric and electric was, at the time, very co2 intensive so reducing consumption by cost was a good thing. We now have to unwind some of that.

Exactly. Energy and housing costs are basically dead money. Every £1 extra you have to spend on those is £1 less you can spend on a new outfit, a meal out, a holiday, a new kitchen etc.

Yup and whilst there is a fairly steady supply of new entrants to the hospitality workforce the same is not true of generators....

Yes they are. They tend to get rolled together when someone anti renewables days "ah but it costs so much! We should drill the north Sea for energy security and to being down bills" That argument is countered by showing renewables aren't more expensive (which can go back and forth) and more importantly that drilling the north Sea cannot provide enrgy security or bring down bills. Yes but with alot of nuance. For example - our gas is actually towards the cheaper end of comparable nations but our electricity and in particular our business elec is more expensive. This is a combination of multiple policy decisions. Even the much discussed marginal price auction system is not quite so cut a dried as appears. Interestingly gas *used* to be the price setter over 90% of the time. That has fallen to 2/3 the time now and is projected to keep falling. As to wen we can benefit - we already are as renewables have bkunted the impact of the recent gas price rise, but more generally by around 2030 the effect of transmission capacity increaces, older subsidy schemes ending etc are expected to start to bite. Two podcasts with energy policy professionals (climate change committee and OFGEM) are quite illuminating https://youtu.be/mFMPSms6MS4 https://youtu.be/NXjwkvaWclk

Even of the calculations were a fsctornof 10x out for wind turbines they would still be way better than gas plants. But the eco credentials of wind/solar are somewhat moot for this thread (though important of course). The argument this thread started with was that the "Net zero policies" like increacing renewable generation and electrifying heating and transport were worth doing from an economic and energy security perspective as they reduced the impact of world gas and oil prices on our economy. Subsequent events seem to be bearing this out. I listened to a podcast where the head of OFCOM was saying the impact of rising gas prices on electricity prices is less now than in 2022 because of the extra renewables. Electricity still rises but not as much.