The UK government has cost us billions by denying permission for privately funded renewable energy projects simply on the basis that they look ugly!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-cutting-the-green-crap-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/25/solar-fa...
It’s so frustrating, I agree with the criticisms of building them on agricultural land, but we are in a situation where we need that power now. The government should be pushing though emergency measures allowing these projects to be built. But then planning on pushing for further projects to utilise industrial roofs and car parks.
There are real reasons to block development, like industrial waste or noise, but this is ridiculous. Even housing NIMBYs can come up with more convincing reasons like pressure on local services or traffic.
This kind of interference with property rights should be impossible. The UK's planning system is unfit for purpose and is far too local. Locality always means that locals will block anything they can due to being change-averse, ignoring reason or morality.
The issue I have with that article is that it doesn't say how many were accepted.
It could just be that overall there were more applications to build, with rejections rising proportionately.
The same is not true of government-subsidised projects in the UK like offshore wind. Those are guaranteed a fixed price by the government, and receive payments to make up the shortfall or pay back the excess under what's called a "contract for difference". The contracted prices of current offshore wind projects are... well below the current market price of electricity, let's put it that way. (Not every country does things this way. As an article that made it to HN the other day pointed out, Germany guaranteed a minimum and let suppliers keep the excess which was an expensive mistake: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32556113) Offshore wind also fits better into an overall strategy of switching to renewable energy, since it has a much better capacity factor and is actually useful in the winter unlike solar.
Also, England rejected plan for tidal lagoon power plant in Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_Lagoon_Swansea_Bay
I am saying that it's the opposite, our complacency in switching to renewables has caused this situation
So important that it's worth it for thousands of pensioners and poor people to freeze to death this winter?
So it helps, a bit.
Investment has started though - there's coire glas, which is taking about 5 years to build. 5 more of them and we could go 99% renewable on solar and wind alone.
That is a great analogy. Our technologies will improve, but it is madness to voluntarily depend on future advances that might or might not happen and might or might not be practical. We need Liberty ships (cheap, effective, reliable energy production units, however imperfect), not just sit here doing nothing because we’ll somehow figure out energy storage later, or we’ve read a pop sci article touting a new technology that’s unlikely to ever be practical.
We also need to realise that we need a total effort, not military but similar in scale to what we did during WWII. We need to build now all we can that is low-carbon, because half-arsing it won’t be enough. We also need to reduce consumption as much as possible. Keeping something close to a current western way of life will be hard enough, but things like humongous cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are madness. Even Teslas are very problematic and detrimental overall. So is living in the desert, and mass migrations even within countries need to be planned to avoid utter chaos.
Energy production is just the sharp tip.
Instead we've been prattling about waiting for a few old people to decide who will be the next PM, both of whom have promised not to expand renewable elecricity production, and thus to increase gas usage.
Your proposal of marginal rates relies on people understanding what a kWh is and being able to measure it themselves. Only about half of houses have smart meters, and when people get a £3k bill at the end of the month they will simply not pay it, which will mean mass moving of people onto pay as you go (push of a button to do that with smart meters).
Better to charge the £2/kWh but give every meter a £3000 lump sum (or £300 a month or whatever).
That said, I'm on a fix at 20p until October 2023, and I'm on oil heating which is currently about 90p/litre or 9p/kWh. Was about to go for a heat pump (literally the only reason I didn't do it was because the company that quoted it couldn't be bothered to phone me back last week), but instead I've just paid what seems a ridiciulous price for oil (90p/litre) and will use the capital to fund (or part-fund) solar+storage.
How long it could sustain this, or whether it would be regarded as state sponsored piracy, is debatable.
But Tory idiots in power. Probably won't address it until after WW3 kicks off.
This is a massive market failure that needs to be addressed
The entire real-estate market in the west (both buying and renting) is an intentional failure (but economic success for the owners) designed to be a zero sum game to squeeze newcomers and prop up existing landlords, asset owners, and banking profits on the backs of those trying to enter the market. And then western governments wonder why millennials and younger stopped having kids. Because you priced them out of home ownership, that's why.
Good luck getting the governments to break this vicious cycle and stop making real-estate an investment vehicle designed for huge returns, and good luck getting existing property owners in voting for policies which will lead to a devaluation of their homes.
I feel like if this trend keeps growing, sooner or later, eating the rich will be the only solution.
Edit: just noticed I misread Austria as Australia (lol), point still stands though, a D rating is not that bad.
E.g. FIRE. It's not unfair that those who retire early don't continue to get a salary.
It's not even unfair (on its own) that those who are irresponsible with credit cards to go on trips, instead of investing in their future (e.g. staying home and learning), later have lower income.
That's not unfair.
That would essentially be no change from now.
What, short of abolishing capitalism altogether, would be "fair"?
More money will always be able to buy more than less money. And the comment you're replying to would HEAVILY subsidize people for their needs, while discouraging everyone's wants.
Taking this approach would punish us for trying to move away from direct fossil fuel consumption (I'm aware that much electricity still comes form fossil fuels).
So there is a lot of nuance in the proposal - allowances for electric cars, heat pumps (which the government is actively encouraging), mains gas, etc. Do each of these affect the basic needs?
An alternative that crossed my mind was to change the unit price based on house hold income. Higher income households would pay a higher rate per kWh, which I think would be considered progressive. Can't see the Tories ever going for that though.
Believe otherwise at your own peril, folks.
I am also typing this on a macbook air, which has a powersupply smaller than some fast chargers for android phones.
I think the heat and the macbook is fair enough, as I am actually using less energy than others this way, but how would your system account for buying prepared food vs making on your own?
(13) missed calls from Mensa.
And the reason for the SC doubling is to compensate energy providers for taking on the customers of energy providers that went bust.
Or, get this, we stop shooting ourselves in the foot, and allow businesses to purchase russian energy again.
Mark my words: this is the end of western hegemony.
Especially since brics is taking off, they are launching their own currency and tons of countries want to join it.
Bojo was a complete bozo to amp up the war.
Elect a clown, expect a circus
There are sanctions preventing Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be used. Sanctions also obstruct maintenance and normal operation of Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which had caused the reduction.
One could argue that Russia is not being too consumer-oriented and is overly pedantic in legal maters, but this is hardly surprising at the current level of relations.
Come on now...
Russia can't defeat Ukraine with Nato weapons. Once the gloves are of they can either take the deal with the international coalition now and get all the money for no work, or become even more of a joke and take the deal later anyway.
No nukes need fly, because we are not an existential threat and Russia cannot do much in a conventional war.
Don't expect that this will end up being as nice and comfy as bombing other 3rd world countries, which is the only military expertise that NATO had had for decades.
A few hypersonic Kinzhals with tactical nuclear warheads would surely be a refreshing response to NATO's typical "hit-and-run" tactics.
That would leave Putin with no power. So no, that is not going to happen.
As for how competent Russia is, we have seen that. They are not.
Says who?
Just as you don't expect an immediate all out nuclear armageddon as a response to your attempts to "bomb shit out of Russia", there won't be an "armageddon" response when Russia retaliates wiping a few crucial military installations from with the face of the Earth.
Nah, going all out with a civilisation-ending scenario would be the last resort, when everything is lost, and every other possible and dislikable option had been exhausted.
Up until then it will be a nice long and bloody escalation. Tactical nukes, chemical and bio-weapons provocations, assassinations, terrorist attacks, mass mobilisation and conscription -- all the fun stuff akin to what had been done to the Arab world, but on a much grander scale and incomparably higher stakes.
I'd doubt even the US would able to sit this one out. Can't imagine their shock from an actual real war, given what kind of tragedies were mere child's play things like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
Except of course Ukrainians are paying for it with their lives, sacrificing themselves for the safety of the rest of the world.
You meant that they are conscripted/mobilized and sent for slaughter for the safety of establishment's political interests?
So US currently engaged in Syria , Iraq and Libya is also slavery?
Im not sure any of those are akin to slavery. Choosing #2 as a hill we shall die on is particularly galling.
The poll where Russian soldiers pointed guns at crimeans in polling stations happened only in people's imaginations.
I, for one, am looking forward to dying of cold this winter on the principle of rejecting a democratic vote in Eastern Europe while we lavish support on such good and free countries as Saudi Arabia that only invade their neighbor in a good way.
This is the hill the western hegemony dies then let it be. The fbi is tracking all anti-nato comments so just be careful
That's only true on elastic consumption.
I mean, Europe's got something like 7 times the economy of Russia. And two European countries also have nukes and are on the UN permanent security council. If the sanctions against Russia weren't enough to stop the war, this winter is unlikely to be bad enough to stop Europen support of Ukraine.
Conversely, if Russia finds that it can wield its fuel as a weapon capable of destroying Europe by either riots or total economic collapse, then Europe automatically has an existential threat that only ends when Russia can no longer play that card.
And America will do what serves American interests, not necessarily what serves European interests, and they're not threatened by Russia cutting off its gas exports.
But it makes sense from their point of view. The only reason to export to the West is to swap for real goods and services from the West. Since the West isn’t selling anything to Russia there’s little economic reason for Russia to sell anything to the West.
Russia has its own floating rate currency. It has no need of our promises.
I explained why it isn't their source of income. They have their own currency with a floating exchange rate. Therefore what you think is their 'source of income' isn't. The FX system means that a Russian exporters 'source of income' (that which they use to pay their staff and suppliers) is the expenditure of the Russian importer, or the generosity of the Russian government sector - primarily the Bank of Russia. [0]
In local currency terms it is the Bank of Russia buying the gas, not the EU. That maintains the rouble monetary circulation in Russia, countering the drain to Rouble net savings and taxation.
[0]: https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-russian-gas-is-paid-for/
"Size" of economy is not a real metrics.
You can have a huge-ass economy based on providing high-margin services, but it would be worthless if it is not sustainable.
On the other hand, take Russia that does not really do much of global market high-margin services economy, but has sustainable enough industries.
As for problems getting anything, they cant even source potatoes for something as basic as fries.
That doesn't mean their interests are the same as mine.
I'm not ukrainian, or russian, whatever the outcome of the conflict won't really affect my country unless we go out of our way to involve ourselves in it.
If staying out of it results in cheaper gas at the pump for me, then that's what we should do.
It could even be extended so you are only eligible for the lower initial unit most if you have suitably insulated your house, using the government grants that are currently available.
Special rates for those that use electricity to power medical devices.
That way you don't subsidize people like me, who honestly don't need it.
Otherwise if nothing else you're incentivizing people into using their freebie electricity instead of gas for heating, if they've run out of freebie gas but not electricity.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but pricing goods according to supply and demand is kinda the thing the market does best, and if you think you'll do better you should think again. Nothing is perfect, but interfering with this part of capitalism is pretty much guaranteed to have unintended consequences.
We're rapidly approaching the point at which the only thing that's going to work is rationing.
I'd propose that we have marginal rates like income tax e.g. first X units for a household are 30p/kWh, second X units are 100p/kWh, third X units are 200p/kWh, with the aim of heavily penalising usage above what is necessary for basic needs. The bands need to be set based on analysing how much gas we can physically secure and deals need to be struck at a governmental level.
Basically, wartime footing to keep homes and factories running.
That might not even be enough, but the alternatives are worse; some mix of the following:
- people disengage with the system (e.g. ignore the bills, riot)
- millions of people end up unable to cook food or heat their home
- disposable income _disappears_. not goes down, but does not exist or goes negative for 80%+ of the population
The projections for early next year are that an average home will have to pay 7000 a year for energy, up from around 1000-1500 previously. It's not a matter of cutting back on luxuries, most households literally don't have that, and cutting energy use to 1/5th of their previous is impossible.
For businesses it's even worse, there's no cap, some places are facing 10x increases in energy costs e.g. just stop trading, your business model is unviable until/unless costs come down.