Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, jack said:

 

Really? Have you lived in the UK for the last few decades?

argument to emotion

 

1 hour ago, jack said:

As an example, how about the ricidulous energy pricing paradigm discussed elsewhere in this thread, which has left us with insanely high energy prices?

Our insanely high energy prices are largely down to geopolitics and in particular our reliance on gas (which has got more expensive).  The marginal auction mechanism is a well founded approach, but it may well have put lived it's usefulness and be less able to pass on thr benefits of renewables to consumers. What we replace it with (and I would like to see a good discussion on that) is a much harder question. 

 

Your core argument (as I understand it) is that the government shouldn't be witholding licences and should let the companies decide if it is profitable or not.  Basically a very free market approach. 

 

But I would counter that the government has to put some regulation around licences, we can't obviously just let people drill and mine willy nilly. Things like environmental impact, health and safety, decommissioning etc all need to be regulated. 

 

So what is the functional difference between withholding a licence because the government considers drilling in an area might cause local nuisance and damage and withholding a licence because the government considers it will conflict with national and global priorities? 

 

There is a choice between renewables and oil and gas investment. There is a finite amount of money available for investors.  Banks and funds might choose to lend to an oil outfit or maybe a wind farm. Usually that voice will be dictated by returns (and the interest rates charged likewise on risks). We know oil and gas can be spectacularly profitable, so that is where the capital will flow.  If oil and gas isn't an option there will be more capital to flow to renewables. 

 

"cracking returns" is merely acknowledging that that the reason to allow more drilling is not

 

To lower bilks

To increace enrgy security

To reduce carbon footprint

 

The only reason to allow more drilking (to rephrase in a non emotional way) is for oil and gas firms to make larger profits. 

 

 

[jack]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

argument to emotion

 

You have a sense of humour, I'll give you that. 

 

[Beelbeebub]

40 minutes ago, jack said:

 

You have a sense of humour, I'll give you that. 

 

😁 

[Beelbeebub]

Re: fracking as a solution to UK oil production falls... 

 

Quote :

 

"... when we fly over some of these pump jacks and stuff like that, you'll be able to smell it... your eyes may burn just a little bit...." 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

fracking as a solution to UK oil production falls... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

 

[Spinny]

On 12/04/2026 at 19:10, Beelbeebub said:

The flip side is the profits to be made from putting in renewables does encourage more to be put in. 

If renewables are so cheap and profitable then why are renewable investment funds doing so badly. Investment in renewables has been driven by profit - but that profit has come from subsidy, guaranteed pricing (itself another subsidy), and low interest rates (now gone). Already the government are trying to row back on previous guaranteed pricing and breaking contract law. This in an environment where few bid for renewables contracts now.

 

In an act of desperation, having already destroyed British industry to create renewable jobs in China, they now propose to use variable pricing to force the UK population to buy millions of batteries. The cost of these batteries being fully justified by the extremely high costs of UK electricity.

 

This is what happens when politicians meddle in markets - they generally make things worse.

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, Spinny said:

If renewables are so cheap and profitable then why are renewable investment funds doing so badly. Investment in renewables has been driven by profit - but that profit has come from subsidy, guaranteed pricing (itself another subsidy), and low interest rates (now gone). Already the government are trying to row back on previous guaranteed pricing and breaking contract law. This in an environment where few bid for renewables contracts now.

 

In an act of desperation, having already destroyed British industry to create renewable jobs in China, they now propose to use variable pricing to force the UK population to buy millions of batteries. The cost of these batteries being fully justified by the extremely high costs of UK electricity.

 

This is what happens when politicians meddle in markets - they generally make things worse.

 

Extends well beyond markets too.

 

They appear to be wilfully blind/stupid/corrupt (delete as appropiate) to "consequences" of decisions they make. Which everyone else can see right at the start.

 

70 million people to choose from, and we end up with 600 odd morons/crooks. (delete as appropiate)

[Beelbeebub]

On 07/05/2026 at 12:34, Spinny said:

If renewables are so cheap and profitable then why are renewable investment funds doing so badly.

Are they? They are obviously cheap enough that the strike prices of

 

£91/Mwh (offshore wind)

£72/Mwh (onshore wind)

£65/Mwh (solar)

 

Attracted over 14Gw of bids. 

 

On 07/05/2026 at 12:34, Spinny said:

guaranteed pricing (itself another subsidy) 

CfDs are sort of a subsidy but only in the sense that any fixed price deal can be a subsidy if your costs are low enough.  Unlike a guarenteed price, the CfD also allows payback when the price rises above the strike price, so it's a two way bet. The supplier know they will never get less than the strike and the buyer knows they will never pay more than the strike price. This massively derisks the investment. 

 

 

[LnP]

When people say renewables are cheap, they are saying they are cheap compared to other types of generation - CCGT and nuclear. But the way renewables CfDs work, it's not a fair comparison for two reasons.

 

Renewables are intermittent, CCGT and nuclear are firm power. A MWh of intermittent energy is worth less than a firm one. If the renewables generators had to provide the facilities to deliver electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (batteries, back-up CCGT etc), they wouldn't be so cheap.

 

And they are in far flung corners of the country, distant from consumers, with a grid which does not have the necessary capacity. This results in curtailment where we pay them for electricity we do not consume, or incur capital costs to increase the grid capacity to connect the far flung places.

 

The costs are there, it's just that the renewables generators don't have to pay them. Consumers and tax payers pay them. Renewables are a good thing but we need an honest discussion about what they cost. 

[JohnMo]

43 minutes ago, LnP said:

costs are there, it's just that the renewables generators don't have to pay them

Who do you think pays for nuclear? Then managed for the next 1000 years post decommissioning - the tax payer

Edited 1 hour ago by JohnMo

[JohnMo]

45 minutes ago, LnP said:

Renewables are intermittent,

Yes but offshore wind is pretty reliable, seems to generate power most the time. It's dead still here currently - no wind, but the current energy mix is wind and solar, in NE Scotland 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

dead still here currently - no wind

Is it dead still 200m high?