Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,444
My cooking is already on electric so I am half way there.
Just have to convert my heating over to something greener and then see about replacing my 12 year old car with a greener option but at the moment EV's are terribly expensive and a bit crap.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
My cooking is already on electric so I am half way there.
Just have to convert my heating over to something greener and then see about replacing my 12 year old car with a greener option but at the moment EV's are terribly expensive and a bit crap.
We've never used gas for cooking, on days of plentiful sunshine I use the excess electricity from our solar to heat the water but most the time it is gas.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
We've never used gas for cooking, on days of plentiful sunshine I use the excess electricity from our solar to heat the water but most the time it is gas.
Same, until we moved here and there's an old ceramic hob.
Fuck that.
I'm inclined to agree.

But, frankly, we can't really afford not to.

But, to be consistent, I've said we don't make it - and one of the reasons is that the government is going to go hard in on blue hydrogen. Not because we "won't be told" to use induction hobs - but because the oil and gas industry have sold the government on blue hydrogen.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Been saying for ages. European super grid - and a boatload of solar on the Sahara. (Plus some actual spend on energy efficiency, as the scientists have requested for, like, ever)

I recally it actually being in-plan somewhere.

All this is is engineering challenges tbh. Not good in the short term though - but new nuclear will take longer to bring online (and be much more expensive) than wiring us up properly.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
He's not wrong.

Could you also imagine the amount of batteries required to run a continent for such a period of time would be too?

Answer. Hydrogen. It's always hydrogen. Make it, store it, burn it when needed.

Or nuclear ofc.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
A European super grid will be off no use whatsoever when the whole continent is windless and sunless. Like we just had.

So getting energy from those countries the Sahara is in? You’d want to bet your energy security on that?
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
the whole continent is windless and sunless
??

And no. I wouldn't bet my energy security on it. But how do you build enough new nuclear given a ten year lead time and limited expertise in the build?

We're in grid infancy and need to ramp up quickly. And reduction in energy requirements is a huge part of that battle - efficiencies are quick to make, cost effective, safe, long lasting, produce millions of jobs.

Why aren't we in the game properly?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
??

And no. I wouldn't bet my energy security on it. But how do you build enough new nuclear given a ten year lead time and limited expertise in the build?

We're in grid infancy and need to ramp up quickly. And reduction in energy requirements is a huge part of that battle - efficiencies are quick to make, cost effective, safe, long lasting, produce millions of jobs.

Why aren't we in the game properly?
It was cloudy almost everywhere.

And we should have invested in nuclear years ago.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
1) Cloudy is fine (not ideal) and I'm calling bullshit on everywhere...

And, importantly:

2) We havent tho, so...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
1) Cloudy is fine (not ideal) and I'm calling bullshit on everywhere...

And, importantly:

2) We havent tho, so...
We're haven't invested in big mahoosive storage either so your point is moot.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
We're haven't invested in big mahoosive storage either so your point is moot.
We haven't heavily invested in distributed production networks, energy efficiency, solar or wind - and we can do a shitload of that in fifteen years, really cheaply.

You could pull the trigger today on 500 nuclear power plants and we could build fuck all.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
Quite a bad mix this month with some overcast sky's and not enough solar, low wind and the IC to France went bang this week thus Gas prices are surging and we've fired up some coal production.

Again it is a mix you need to successfully pull away from fossil fuels, personally I see need to move towards a mix involving Solar, Wind, Nuclear and Storage along with properly insulating homes.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
properly insulating homes.
This is the non-sexy massive win that gets stuff done quickly and cost-effectively.

There's zero pressure on to make it happen though :(
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,710
We haven't heavily invested in distributed production networks, energy efficiency, solar or wind - and we can do a shitload of that in fifteen years, really cheaply.

You could pull the trigger today on 500 nuclear power plants and we could build fuck all.
So we can't start building a proven, clean, safe energy source as it will take ten years to complete (your figures), but 15 years to build some useless renewables is OK?

Do you actually ever listen to the demented arse juice you spout on here?
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
So we can't start building a proven, clean, safe energy source
No. We should build as many as we can as fast as we can - which is fuck all in the time we need them.

So we need to, in parallel, do much more useful things too.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
I'm still of the view we need lots more roof based solar, no real excuse for the majority not to have it, and Wind but need to replace CCGT with modern nuclear.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
I'm still of the view we need lots more roof based solar, no real excuse for the majority not to have it, and Wind but need to replace CCGT with modern nuclear.
Totally agree with this. But first things first is insulation.

If we properly insulate houses - including cladding old housing stock - we can (conservatively) reduce domestic power requirements (in terms of heating) by 2/3rds.

Add to that - applicances should only be allowed to be sold of the highest efficiency ratings.

There's lots we can do, really cheaply in relative terms, to reduce power consumption requirements without hitting people's lifestyles. When you wang in ubiquitous rooftop solar then that goes a long way to helping. A long way. But government doesn't seem to want to do it :(
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
I've always agreed people need to insulate their homes properly, again there is little excuse for not doing so since it isn't overly expensive.

The biggest problem has been people tend to move so much nowadays that they don't see the return on investment before they move again, thus they don't bother doing it.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
I've always agreed people need to insulate their homes properly, again there is little excuse for not doing so since it isn't overly expensive.

The biggest problem has been people tend to move so much nowadays that they don't see the return on investment before they move again, thus they don't bother doing it.
Cladding old houses is way too expensive for most people and regardless of ROI you need readies to pay builders - readies you ain't going to get - especially if you're poor.

Landlords aren't going to see any ROI and have no impetus to clad their buildings.

We need central, governmemt, subsidy. It would create jobs, is effe tive and, frankly, if we stopped subsidising coal and gas we'd have fucktons of money for it.

Instead, we're intent on criminalising protestors. Go go Tories.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Which is the bit that you disagree with @Embattle? This is what I find frustrating - you just say "no" and I genuinely want to engage with you. So lets break it down by point:

1) It costs 15-20k to externally clad a detatched house with insulation, about 10k for a semi.

22% of the UK live on a family income of less than £14,800 after housing costs (£17k before). Where are they going to get the money to clad their houses?

2) Lanlords ain't gonna do it. Why would they? It could easily wipe out all profits for the forseeable futre.

3) We subsidise coal and gas much more heavily than renewables (that report states by a factor of 32 times more) - yet we need to decarbonise.

4) Take that coal and gas subsidy - insulate every house in Britain in a multi-year programme.


Which bits of that don't you like? Or am I wrong about them? You've got information that shows otherwise?
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,800
Which is the bit that you disagree with @Embattle? This is what I find frustrating - you just say "no" and I genuinely want to engage with you. So lets break it down by point:

1) It costs 15-20k to externally clad a detatched house with insulation, about 10k for a semi.

22% of the UK live on a family income of less than £14,800 after housing costs (£17k before). Where are they going to get the money to clad their houses?

2) Lanlords ain't gonna do it. Why would they? It could easily wipe out all profits for the forseeable futre.

3) We subsidise coal and gas much more heavily than renewables (that report states by a factor of 32 times more) - yet we need to decarbonise.

4) Take that coal and gas subsidy - insulate every house in Britain in a multi-year programme.


Which bits of that don't you like? Or am I wrong about them? You've got information that shows otherwise?
I'd imagine @Scouse it's the bit that you pull where you stick Tory on it to begin with to get a reaction and then drop that bit off with your follow up piece here.

Leaving out self-serving political parties here, there is no reason not to subsidise insulation as that gets over a number of barriers including @Embattle 's point about no return on investment (you don't need an ROI if you're not investing anything yourself)
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
I'd imagine @Scouse it's the bit that you pull where you stick Tory on it to begin with to get a reaction and then drop that bit off with your follow up piece here.
If that's what the disagree is then I can back that up with fact (not just argument) too:


The Tories have been in charge of Britain for a long long time now - they've known about the requirement to insulate (and have spectacularly failed to do anything about it) and instead are moving full steam ahead with myriad legislative programmes that curb our right to peaceful protest from multiple angles.

Not just gluing yourself to the road (it's still peaceful protest) - but stuff like if protests are deemed too noisy. Too fucking noisy?


Insulate the fucking country you tory cunts. Stop curbing our right to protest peacefully.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
1) Let me say I suspect the category of homes you've picked and the figures of low income aren't likely to be related to each other, in essence I would be surprised to see a person on low income able to afford either of those types of houses.

2) The majority of homes in the UK have cavity walls (https://assets.publishing.service.g...cal-release-estimates-of-home-insulation-.pdf) which is a lot cheaper to insulate.

3) I would like to see more go to renewables, but from what I've read on how such figures are calculated it seems part of it comes from charging a reduced rate of VAT on Gas, Electricity, etc.

4) I don't like subsidising fossil fuels but I also don't want to subsidise those who can easily afford to do it.

I don't agree with a bunch of hypocritical wankers gluing themselves to the road or blocking them, which is nothing new and I won't be changing my view on it either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom