Politics POLL: Brexit Withdrawal Agreement

[Embattle]

I think both sides benefit, but it is more about removing existing barriers. Whatever happens, we'll still use interconnectors to buy and sell electricity even if we are outside the electricity single market.

 

[Scouse]

But we're not. The European energy market is designed to arbitrage everything. Wind power and other renewables benefit from this because of varying availability v demand, therefore it's of more interest to the suppliers with the variable supply then the countries with the demand (which is more predictable). Yes the EU would like to do some net Zero chest thumping, but let's be honest here, far less than they would have a couple of years ago; they are backsliding on commitments all over the place; the end of life for ICE cars will be extended out shortly as well.

Is the main benefit to the UK so we can say we've used dirtier 'leccy?

That's actually an argument for less reason to pay than more. A one-sided fee (rather than shared implementation costs) is the kind of closed-shop political shithousery that was used by Farage and his cronies to (oportunistically) prompt the leave vote in the first place. Making the UK pay to be part of that deal is just bad eggs.

I don't think the UK consumer would actually benefit from cheaper wholesale energy costs from the deal - energy companies might - and we lose the moral high ground on where we're getting our 'leccy (which is important to me, if nobody else).

Really it's a mutually beneficial deal. Both sides stand to benefit, but the "UK must be seen to be losing" narrative needs to die tbh.

 

[Embattle]

The Power of Partnership: UK-EU energy cooperation for a clean, secure future - Energy UK

Executive Summary The new Government has made clear its desire to reset the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) relationship with the European Union (EU). Despite years of acrimony, the UK and the EU remain deeply interconnected. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to energy and climate change...

www.energy-uk.org.uk

 

[Scouse]

I didn't know we stepped up so hard when Vitali and his friends bombed nordstream

 

[DaGaffer]

Is the main benefit to the UK so we can say we've used dirtier 'leccy?

That's actually an argument for less reason to pay than more. A one-sided fee (rather than shared implementation costs) is the kind of closed-shop political shithousery that was used by Farage and his cronies to (oportunistically) prompt the leave vote in the first place. Making the UK pay to be part of that deal is just bad eggs.

I don't think the UK consumer would actually benefit from cheaper wholesale energy costs from the deal - energy companies might - and we lose the moral high ground on where we're getting our 'leccy (which is important to me, if nobody else).

Really it's a mutually beneficial deal. Both sides stand to benefit, but the "UK must be seen to be losing" narrative needs to die tbh.

Its not a one sided fee; one side is already paying for it's internal mechanics and another side...isn't. The difference is the side that is paying is doing so out of a wider EU budget that covers other things besides energy interconnects, so isn't particularly interested in the UK cherry-picking its way into some EU agreements and not others without an entry fee.

 

[Scouse]

Framing:

So isn't particularly interested in the UK cherry-picking its way into some EU agreements and not others without an entry fee.

Is wrong.

If you read the article above, you'll see the EU really needs the access - and the UK clearly is happy to help, rather than see the lights in Paris go out.

The UK is energy dependent too - though not (largely) on the EU and significantly less than the EU is on other markets. Mainly Norway and the States. Not Russia (still) and Khazakstan.

"Give us access to all yer wind and pay us for it"

"Oh, whilst your at it, build the interconnects" - it used to be 50/50 but the UK is funding ~70% of the new ones.

 

[DaGaffer]

Framing:

Is wrong.

If you read the article above, you'll see the EU really needs the access - and the UK clearly is happy to help, rather than see the lights in Paris go out.

The UK is energy dependent too - though not (largely) on the EU and significantly less than the EU is on other markets. Mainly Norway and the States. Not Russia (still) and Khazakstan.

"Give us access to all yer wind and pay us for it"

"Oh, whilst your at it, build the interconnects" - it used to be 50/50 but the UK is funding ~70% of the new ones.

Hmm,

Energy UK analysis shows that greater UK-EU cooperation could reduce the cost of meeting the 300GW offshore wind target in the Ostend Declaration by €13bn

Yeah, I think I'd want that analysis done by someone who was a non partisan source? Fairly basic.

As for the rest, Britain helped out, very good, but we both know that kind of thing can and will cut both ways over time, and the larger source of energy will statistically help the smaller over the long run.

 

[Embattle]

I would like us to push on Tidal, especially in places like the Bristol Channel, as we have 50% of all of Europe's Tidal energy.

This is an interesting document, although lengthy:

https://www.neso.energy/document/364541/download

While a lot of future modelling from different sources shows the UK being a net exporter to Europe of electricity over the interconnectors, I would also like to see more plans around creating green hydrogen using any excess energy.

 

[Scouse]

the larger source of energy will statistically help the smaller over the long run.

This is just a feeling. Both already and what looks to be in the medium term Britain is less dependent than the EU - so which way is that energy going to be flowing?

We just don't need it as much as Europe.

But we're doing it, and we're picking up the lion's share of the costs. The EU should chalk that up to "fee" and STFU.

It's purely political. And if the discussion was happening under another government then a "naughty Britain" fee would be off the table.

Maybe if we agree to pay a fee for being bad, the EU can reform the European Comission and make it's members directly electable? As the primary legislative proposing body that seems reasonable, no?

 

[Scouse]

I would like us to push on Tidal, especially in places like the Bristol Channel, as we have 50% of all of Europe's Tidal energy.

Expensive. Very expensive.

Why not just put up a shitload more wind instead?

They're doing tidal at holyhead. It's likely to fuck the seabird population at one of the most delicate and important european sites.

They poroposed something good in swansea bay but hell the cost.

 

[Embattle]

Expensive. Very expensive.

Why not just put up a shitload more wind instead?

They're doing tidal at holyhead. It's likely to fuck the seabird population at one of the most delicate and important european sites.

They poroposed something good in swansea bay but hell the cost.

Tidal is expensive compared to the established and mature Wind market, which isn't surprising.

Demystifying the Cost of Tidal Energy - Orbital Marine

Levelised cost of energy (LCOE) is a term used a lot by politicians, the media, industries, and academics when discussing energy mixes or policies. But what is it? And why do we need to be aware of its shortcomings? Here’s what you need to know: the LCOE can be thought of as the average minimum […]

www.orbitalmarine.com

It should be pointed out that there are many different ways to capture tidal, the original idea was barrages such as Rance Tidal Power station in France, then lagoons, and often overlooked tidal devices.

 

[DaGaffer]

Maybe if we agree to pay a fee for being bad, the EU can reform the European Comission and make it's members directly electable? As the primary legislative proposing body that seems reasonable, no?

Yeah you know the way you fix that? By being in the EU and not pissing and moaning from the sidelines for 40 years.

 

[Scouse]

Yeah you know the way you fix that? By being in the EU and not pissing and moaning from the sidelines for 40 years.

The EU isn't going to fix it's democratic deficit. We pissed and moaned from the inside for 40 years, and it didn't change. Then we left.

We'll make worse decisions - you can watch us doing it. But at least they'll be democratic decisions, on the not-so-long-road to humanity's extinction.

Hopefully one of those decisions will be to say fuck off to the demand for cash. But with Labour in charge, they'll probably proffer actual cash money - nestled nicely in Starmer's ass

 

[DaGaffer]

The EU isn't going to fix it's democratic deficit. We pissed and moaned from the inside for 40 years, and it didn't change. Then we left.

We'll make worse decisions - you can watch us doing it. But at least they'll be democratic decisions, on the not-so-long-road to humanity's extinction.

Hopefully one of those decisions will be to say fuck off to the demand for cash. But with Labour in charge, they'll probably proffer actual cash money - nestled nicely in Starmer's ass

I look forward to hearing who you recommend as a better alternative.

 

[Scouse]

I look forward to hearing who you recommend as a better alternative.

I mean, if the EU had any class they'd demand it nestled in the ass of Prince Andrew.

That way we'd get to keep it too. Cavernous I hear. Cavernous.