Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[PurplePenguin]

Just looked at a couple of sites and although UK gas is below 8% (today) they show quite high imports from Belgium, Netherlands, France and Norway.

What are we importing? Is it whatever mix those countries have in their energy generation?

Yes, so nuclear from France and hydro from Norway I would expect.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Does that make it even dafter that electricity prices are still set by gas prices? (Maybe that's not the case now... I'll admit almost total ignorance about how it all works.)

People always say this, but there's a lot more nuance to it. For example, the power price goes up and down throughout the day, but the price generators pay for gas doesn't change half-hourly. The efficiency of gas generators varies considerably, so only the most efficient gas generators will be in use when there is a lot of renewable generation and the price will be much lower as a result. It was £-5/MWh earlier, so gas generators were making a loss at the time.

The amount of renewables are also driven long term by other factors which affect the generation available and therefore the price.

It is true, however, that higher gas prices will raise the prices for the same level of generation by other technologies. It also encourages investment in renewables which, if successful, brings down the price, which discourages investment in renewables, etc.

 

[First Aspect]

People always say this, but there's a lot more nuance to it. For example, the power price goes up and down throughout the day, but the price generators pay for gas doesn't change half-hourly. The efficiency of gas generators varies considerably, so only the most efficient gas generators will be in use when there is a lot of renewable generation and the price will be much lower as a result. It was £-5/MWh earlier, so gas generators were making a loss at the time.

The amount of renewables are also driven long term by other factors which affect the generation available and therefore the price.

It is true, however, that higher gas prices will raise the prices for the same level of generation by other technologies. It also encourages investment in renewables which, if successful, brings down the price, which discourages investment in renewables, etc.

This does appear to be a catch 22.

What's the solution to getting renewables costs not at the price of gas?

 

[First Aspect]

Yes, so nuclear from France and hydro from Norway I would expect.

Are we importing for any particular reason? And/or do we export at other times?

(This is a somewhat interesting topic, but not quite interesting enough for me to be reviewing the national grip website periodically for months to build up a picture for myself. I am too busy collating locomotive and rolling stock serial numbers and cross referencing against ages, to show the normal distribution for each rail franchise.)

 

[PurplePenguin]

Are we importing for any particular reason? And/or do we export at other times?

(This is a somewhat interesting topic, but not quite interesting enough for me to be reviewing the national grip website periodically for months to build up a picture for myself. I am too busy collating locomotive and rolling stock serial numbers and cross referencing against ages, to show the normal distribution for each rail franchise.)

Import mostly from France, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway. Export to Ireland.

Under the Clean Power 2030 plan GB will be exporting excess renewables. A plan that is flawless if other countries intend to do the same.

 

[briantrumpet]

People always say this, but there's a lot more nuance to it. For example, the power price goes up and down throughout the day, but the price generators pay for gas doesn't change half-hourly. The efficiency of gas generators varies considerably, so only the most efficient gas generators will be in use when there is a lot of renewable generation and the price will be much lower as a result. It was £-5/MWh earlier, so gas generators were making a loss at the time.

The amount of renewables are also driven long term by other factors which affect the generation available and therefore the price.

It is true, however, that higher gas prices will raise the prices for the same level of generation by other technologies. It also encourages investment in renewables which, if successful, brings down the price, which discourages investment in renewables, etc.

Thanks PP. I had a suspicion that it would be more complicated than the headlines, even if there is still the apparent oddity of one energy source (that we're moving away from) having such an influence on the entire market. That said, it's probably just as well that the promised price for nuclear power from Hinckley isn't going to be the benchmark (if I've understood that situation correctly).

 

[PurplePenguin]

Hinckley has a CFD so will receive the market price from the market plus a top up from the government to their agreed price. Therefore with low prices the government will pay more and with very high prices it will receive money.

 

[briantrumpet]

Hinckley has a CFD so will receive the market price from the market plus a top up from the government to their agreed price. Therefore with low prices the government will pay more and with very high prices it will receive money.

Ah, I had in my mind it was an agreed total price, so thanks for clarifying (aka putting me out of my ignorance).

 

[laurentian]

This does appear to be a catch 22.

What's the solution to getting renewables costs not at the price of gas?

I follow Dale Vince on Bluesky. He makes a lot of noise about energy prices being somehow linked to gas prices and the fact they shouldn't be.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I don't get why so much fuss is made about it. If the day ahead auction was changed to pay as bid, the outcome would be very similar, because in a free market everyone sells everything at the highest price they can.

Perhaps people think the government should step in and determine the price generators are allowed to receive. Aside from breaking previous commitments and starting to look a bit communist, this effectively happened with the energy generation levy - a tax that efficient gas generators were exempt from despite making a fortune.

In the end, all it would do is discourage investment in renewable energy which should surely not be the aim at the moment. So, ultimately, anyone who thinks renewables are making a killing because of gas prices needs to get out there and build some so they can cash in, but something tells me that those who shout the loudest will run a mile when they find out the reality of worrying about power prices for the next 30 years.

 

[CXRAndy]

Milliband now considering renewing north sea oil licensing. You can't make this up.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1938370247448297841?t=QXCPbRslhsb39ZKYLZjHww&s=19

 

[matticus]

Here's a jolly PR idea:

Just Stop Oil is advocating for storms to be named after fossil fuel companies to highlight the connection between these companies and the impacts of climate change. This is in response to the Met Office's storm naming competition. The group suggests naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover to draw attention to the role of these companies in driving climate change.
Elaboration:
Just Stop Oil is a coalition of young climate activists who aim to end the reliance on fossil fuels. They are calling for an end to new oil and gas projects and a halt to the "business as usual" approach to fossil fuel consumption. The group believes that naming storms after fossil fuel companies will help to make the link between these companies and the impacts of extreme weather events more apparent.
The campaign suggests that naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover would be a powerful way to remind the public of the role these companies play in driving climate change. They argue that naming storms after people who work to keep people safe during extreme weather events makes the disruptions seem innocuous, while naming them after polluters would highlight the connection between the companies and the damage caused by climate change.
The Met Office recently opened a storm naming competition, and climate campaigners have submitted numerous ideas to the Met Office, including suggestions to name storms after fossil fuel companies. Just Stop Oil's proposal is part of a larger effort to draw attention to the role of fossil fuel companies in driving climate change and to advocate for a faster transition to renewable energy.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Here's a jolly PR idea:

Just Stop Oil is advocating for storms to be named after fossil fuel companies to highlight the connection between these companies and the impacts of climate change. This is in response to the Met Office's storm naming competition. The group suggests naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover to draw attention to the role of these companies in driving climate change.
Elaboration:
Just Stop Oil is a coalition of young climate activists who aim to end the reliance on fossil fuels. They are calling for an end to new oil and gas projects and a halt to the "business as usual" approach to fossil fuel consumption. The group believes that naming storms after fossil fuel companies will help to make the link between these companies and the impacts of extreme weather events more apparent.
The campaign suggests that naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover would be a powerful way to remind the public of the role these companies play in driving climate change. They argue that naming storms after people who work to keep people safe during extreme weather events makes the disruptions seem innocuous, while naming them after polluters would highlight the connection between the companies and the damage caused by climate change.
The Met Office recently opened a storm naming competition, and climate campaigners have submitted numerous ideas to the Met Office, including suggestions to name storms after fossil fuel companies. Just Stop Oil's proposal is part of a larger effort to draw attention to the role of fossil fuel companies in driving climate change and to advocate for a faster transition to renewable energy.

Sometimes the simplest things can be quite effective. Every time there is a storm it generates bad PR. Not to be underestimated.

On that basis, and in true Trumpian style, I would call them all Storm America

 

[BoldonLad]

Here's a jolly PR idea:

Just Stop Oil is advocating for storms to be named after fossil fuel companies to highlight the connection between these companies and the impacts of climate change. This is in response to the Met Office's storm naming competition. The group suggests naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover to draw attention to the role of these companies in driving climate change.
Elaboration:
Just Stop Oil is a coalition of young climate activists who aim to end the reliance on fossil fuels. They are calling for an end to new oil and gas projects and a halt to the "business as usual" approach to fossil fuel consumption. The group believes that naming storms after fossil fuel companies will help to make the link between these companies and the impacts of extreme weather events more apparent.
The campaign suggests that naming storms after companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Range Rover would be a powerful way to remind the public of the role these companies play in driving climate change. They argue that naming storms after people who work to keep people safe during extreme weather events makes the disruptions seem innocuous, while naming them after polluters would highlight the connection between the companies and the damage caused by climate change.
The Met Office recently opened a storm naming competition, and climate campaigners have submitted numerous ideas to the Met Office, including suggestions to name storms after fossil fuel companies. Just Stop Oil's proposal is part of a larger effort to draw attention to the role of fossil fuel companies in driving climate change and to advocate for a faster transition to renewable energy.

Are there enough Fossil Fuel companies to make this work, or, would we have to resort to "Storm BP 5" etc?