Paul,

Your prices should, perhaps, read in £/MWh?

Big ‘M’ denotes ‘million’ Watts whereas little ‘m’ indicates 1/1000 of a Watt. Only a differnce of 1000 million!🙂

Renewable energy generators used to receive payments for all generated energy. They were guaranteed an increasing subsidy for 25 years of operation. Market price of the generation was not controlled, so generators were ensured of income to pay for the installation, eventually.

For instance, early adopters of solar panels on their roof (and commercial enterprises) were paid about 50p for every unit generated. That payment is increasing yearly, but the ttal amount of generation, at that level of payment, is not that great in the whole energy sector. It was paid to encourage installstions which were a lot more expensive, back then.

That ‘feed in Tariff’ was terminated about three years ago. Commercial investors now are paid by “Contract for Difference” where the ‘strike price’ (price per unit at the time) is determined by ‘auction’ for the permission to build the project and sell the generated electricity. Early contracts were, at tops, about 12p/kWh (£120/MWh) but now (as installation/operation costs fall) seem to be around 4.5p/kWh. These latest projects appear to be expected operational from 2024/2025.

With this system, the generator will be paid the ‘strike ‘price plus increases according to agreement. If they sell at over that price, they pay the difference to the government; if the market price falls, the government will pay the generator the difference to the strike price (at the time) to ensure the generator will survive market fluctuations. I think these contracts will likely last 15 years?

As most of the renewable generation (under this system) is not yet operational, the actual price being paid to generators is fluctuating according to other energy pricing – fossil fuels. This has made the pricing of energy very volatile, particularly this last year . Energy suppliers are cashing in (and may be charged a ‘wind-fall tax’ later).

Government may be claiming they are subsidising energy costs – but it is really the current tax payers and future tax payers who will need to repay the capital amount and the interest on that borrowing.

Do remember, the strike price for hinkley point was almost 9p/kWh (for 35 years of operation) but has now risen to 10.6p/kWh. That was necessary for the project to go ahead. Recent strike price for renewables is now less than half that (and will be operational before that nuclear generation).

The whole energy retail system is a problem. People want more energy at lower prices and retailers want more money from all of us. Pukin is a current problem – but that goes a long way back, because europe has been relying on fossil fuels from there.

Diversification and economy of use of energy is the way out of this problem, but it will require time, money and patience (with dithering government policies). Climate change may well make the whole thing irrelevant within a few years.

Privatisation of utilities is always a disaster, it was never done to help people, it was done to gouge people

Britain was energy independent until recently when they stopped coal burning and the oil wells started running dry

Non energy independent countries always suffer in the global system and most end up as "poor"

Knowing the system is out to diddle people means I don't bother looking closely at it anymore but my last good look showed EDF raising French prices by 3% at the command of the French government while in the UK EDF hiked prices by 10%, and that was one single year

You'll will note that our wonderful free press don't talk about these things, they only babble on about "climate change". The people who run and own the media also have vast investments in our dodgy utilities

Edited By Ady1 on 07/02/2023 09:44:03

Sorry, Baz, but you need to do your maths again. About 50% higher and maybe as much as 80%, for current decent panels, l would suggest.

Depends on type, of course. Higher output panels tend to cost more. Mono- or poly-crystalline cells just for starters.

Agreed, one would need a fair bit more than that, to reach the permitted 3.68kW export limit (currently applicable to most domestic properties).

Paul

This may be of use. In terminal type:-

   defaults write com.apple.screencapture type pdf (or gif, tiff, jpeg or whatever)

This will change default file type etc.

Regards

Frank C.

Maximising benefit to shareholders is what private industry is legally obliged to do. It's called capitalism. Not nice but better than most of the alternatives.

Simple answer: YES.

Not to mention the sheer stupidity of making Russia richer and damaging ourselves through these misbegotten sanctions.

Greed maybe, but only if you have an alternative way of trading. The global system depends on generating wealth, which is risky, and profit is a good way of rewarding risk takers.

We're all guilty. I bet no-one critical of the massive profits being made by energy wholesalers at the moment gave them any money when they struggled during the Covid slump. Or financially supported any of the 30+ UK energy suppliers who went bust after agreeing to sell energy to customers for less than it cost them.

Truth is there's no loyalty between customers and suppliers. Their job is to sell us what customers want at the best price they can get and our job is to buy at the lowest price we can find. Prices oscillate. Some days you're the statue, other days you're the pigeon. There are no fairy godmothers!

Green isn't driving any of the three major factors behind the current problem. Green isn't responsible for the economic turbulence resulting from the Covid Pandemic. Or for Mr Putin's aggressive foreign policy, and the West's decision to draw a line over his latest adventure. Nor was Green responsible for the cost and ongoing impact of Brexit.

Blaming green is a bad mistake. There's a strong argument Green is the answer rather than the problem, because renewables reduce the UK's dependence on foreign fuels. Times have changed since the UK had plenty of our own coal, oil, and natural gas, from now on we rely ever more heavily on imports. Cosy ways of doing things based on having cheap fossil fuel reserves are coming to an end in the UK, making the need to find alternatives is urgent. The need to go green isn't down to a few trendy lefties incorrectly believing fossil fuels are polluting, it's because Britain's place as a world power and the standard of living of future Brits depends on it. It's not about forcing poor old grandad to change his ways without good reason; it's about making sure the UK economy isn't trashed over the next 30 years by wishful thinking.

Dave

The world will consume 8,000,000,000 tonnes of coal in 2023, which is the highest ever figure.

The 'green', Net Zero agenda is a con and those promoting it, know it, or are hugely naive.

I only had to read this document to see it as the work of fantasy that it really is.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033990/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf

Martin.

Did you read the document? There is nothing specific in it – it's a word salad of generalisations and fanciful notions with no evidence that they are achievable.

That document pushes Heat Pumps for home heating, so presumably you can show some proof they can be manufactured, installed and maintained without the use of fossil fuels and will be powered with electricity that isn't generated with fossil fuels.

What's your practical alternative to using fossil fuels for the steel industry, plastics industry and any other industry that relies on them exclusively?

Martin.