| ▲ | spants 5 hours ago |
| The UK has some of the highest energy costs in the world due to the stupid Net Zero taxes. Our economy and manufacturing is suffering. |
|
| ▲ | atwrk 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Looking at the data it seems that uk industrial electricity is the most expensive before taxes, is that not correct? |
|
| ▲ | mekdoonggi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Have you considered that what you're paying for isn't just energy now, but energy security in the future? |
| |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't see any energy security for the future for the UK unfortunately. We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair Neo-labour era. Scotland maybe, they have wind-farms but the UK likes to tax that. We've just started the era of paying for the cost of Brexit. It's hitting hard. My weekly supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese, eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip. Parmesan Cheese is around ~£22-£45 ($30-$60) per kg compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg. | | |
| ▲ | mekdoonggi 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why not? You've got abundant wind and solar. Once installed, even if for some reason you can't get new turbines or panels, you'll still have a decent amount of capacity. | | |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Solar is hit & miss. The only capacity we really have is wind and those are only efficient to those near the sea or in the highlands. England, Scotland, Wales are governed by rain 80% of the year and with the sun we get, household solar rarely breaks even. Just because we've got, if the government isn't supporting it's pretty much wasted. The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms. Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no. > End 2024 installed electricity generating capacity was 105 GWe:
35.0 GWe natural gas;
32.8 GWe wind;
18.3 GWe solar;
7.4 GWe biofuels & waste;
5.9 GWe nuclear;
4.8 GWe hydro (including 2.9 GWe pumped storage) and 1.3 GWe oil. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... | | |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > household solar rarely breaks even. mate, I dunno what your smoking, but it deffo does. I'm about 50% "paid off" and I had an expensive setup. Installed now the equivalent costs about 50% of what it did. > Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no. National grid say "holy shit I need to build more cables" then local people say "ewwww pylons" and shit gets more expensive. There is a bottleneck between england and scotland, which is partially being solved by https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade The whole boo england, poor scotland/wales thing gets tired super quick. its being solved, is it being solved fast enough? no, but thats because we have a raised a shit generation of empty politicians from across UK and NI. (and the co-dependent pundit class) > The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms. Mostly pension funds. but yes, private. However given the high turnover of (useless) polticians, and a civil service that has had all is expertise hollowed out and replaced by consultancy firms, I don't think public funding, without structural reform is a good idea (look at railways for example) | |
| ▲ | mekdoonggi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A quick search says the UK produced 18,314 GWh of solar last year. And this was mostly funded by private investment? It seems like for some infrastructure investment, the government is getting long-term renewable power. If the solar isn't making money, why is it growing 30% annually? What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy. Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland? | | |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy. It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing. The stupidly of it is that we are small island. Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all that. If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK and the waste we do currently produce has to be shipped elsewhere; sold for dark money. > Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland? My preference would be my hand with a gun pointed at my temple and myself pulling the trigger. To dark? | | |
| ▲ | mekdoonggi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Forgive me, but I don't think you're looking at UK energy policy with a pragmatic and realistic lens. The UK could always make a reactor safer and more secure. If you're dependent on gas, Russia or the US could just shut off the tap. | |
| ▲ | M2Ys4U 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK Yes, we do. It really doesn't make that much space to store the waste. The biggest problem is people being irrationally scared of it. | |
| ▲ | Moldoteck 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | even accounting for fukushima/chernoble nuclear is between solar and wind in terms of human deaths. And new units are safer than both. EPR went 'just add one more thing' to be more expensive, AP1000 went passive safety way but westinghose imploded and they needed to ask Korea for help |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dalyons 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why not? Few more of these (1) and you should be golden. One years auction will be 12% of all uk demand. 1 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-uks-record-auction-for-o... ) | | |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If either one of the two alternative government parties of the UK get in they will scrap all. Reform UK sets out plans to tax renewable energy, conservatives are all for the oil. 2030 is four years away & the next election is in 2029. The Labour party is unlikely to get in again, and if they do it'll be a miracle. Far-Right or Fascist Right. Reform UK won't get enough seats to sit in parliament this election but if in the future, it's a dystopian vision I don't want to think about. Trump-XL, tax the EU, climate change doesn't exist, kick out asylum seekers, higher taxation to further screw Scotland and Wales. Heavily back pocketed by the US oil and tobacco industry, Nigel is foul MAGA of the UK. Conservatives, sponsored by oil and pharmaceutical. Exxon, Esso, BP et cetera. They got their wish with Brexit, they made a bucket load of cash from that and they're the ones who scrapped the renewable industry in the first place. One of their aims is to scrap the NHS and make it privatised. |
| |
| ▲ | FrostViper8 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > A supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese, eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip. No it doesn't. Maybe if you are shopping at Waitrose. It is more expensive. But it isn't £45 for basics. I did an entire shop which will last me the week for £30 (in Aldi). | | |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I shop at Sainsburys where I can. The main supermarkets for me are Morrison and kind of forced to use M&S. Everyone has their super market preference. ASDA would be cheaper still. You can't disagree that prices have sky rocketed, shrunk in quantity and now lower quality. |
| |
| ▲ | KaiserPro an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg. thats per pound (lb). Given that you can't make parmesan in the UK AND its historically expensive (see samual peypes) it seems an odd choice to pin your argument on. > We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair Neo-labour era. I mean we really didn't it was a period of great productivity and a massive boost in living standards almost universally. | |
| ▲ | klelatti 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Pamantasan Cheese What cheese? A misspelling? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nindalf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a glib statement that disregards a massive amount of complexity. Energy is not expensive because of Net Zero taxes. Here's a breakdown of the average UK electricity bill over time [1]. The Renewables Obligation, that subsidised wind and solar at a time when they were infeasible without subsidies, was a scheme that ran between 2002 and 2017. It was stopped once renewables became cheaper than the alternatives. We will continue to pay for the renewable plants set up back in the day, but this will gradually taper off. In this electricity bill estimate for 2030 [2], you'll find that the Renewables Obligation is much lower (£17 rather than £102) for two reasons: plants losing subsidies as they age out and a chunk of the subsidy being borne by the treasury from general taxation. So why aren't electricity bills coming down? Because we're recognising the reality that we will need to be powered by a mix of nuclear, wind and solar. Check out this real time dashboard of electricity generation in the UK [3], which shows you how Wind has zoomed in the last 14 years. From 2GW to 14GW, wind is now the single largest source of energy generated in the UK. Wind is only going to grow, because it is cheap compared to the alternatives. In the Jan 2026 auction for wind power, an 8.4GW contract was awarded for a price 40% lower than the cost of a gas power plant. And unlike gas you aren't at the vagaries of global gas prices, like we were in 2022. And now you're thinking, if wind is so cheap and we're continuing to build more, why is the estimate for the 2030 electricity bill higher than 2025? The 2030 page explains this - the wind is being built in the North Sea, far from where it is needed - in the South of England. This means investing in the transmission network, which will cost £70B over the next 5 years. That cost will be passed onto consumers. So no, bills aren't high because of renewables. The decision to double down on wind, solar, batteries and nuclear by the previous and current government are sound. We will be more energy independent than we were in 2022 and possibly paying a bit less in overall bills. The reduction in carbon emissions is a nice bonus. [1] - https://www.electricitybills.uk [2] - https://www.electricitybills.uk/2030 [3] - https://grid.iamkate.com |
| |
| ▲ | Moldoteck 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | bills are higher because of co2 tax, cfd's paid through AR rounds, and transmission expansion |
|
|
| ▲ | ricardo81 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The social and environmental cost part is being removed in April and should save around 15-20% of the bill. I guess that is what you mean by net zero taxes? |
|
| ▲ | pornel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| OTOH, 60%-80% of electricity production is already renewable/low-carbon. |
|
| ▲ | mrks_hy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > due to the stupid Net Zero taxes. No. Citation neede. The issue is the moronic way energy auctions are done, first by setting the price to the highest source that can satisfy (always gas) but ignoring (!) geography. Then, phase 2, dropping the impossible providers (i.e. Scottish hydro in the North for South England), and doing another (much more expensive pass). The Octopus CEO had a succinct explainer recently, can't find the video... Found it: https://youtu.be/5WgS-Dsm31E?t=91 starts at 1:31 |
| |
| ▲ | Moldoteck 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | this is not moronic. This is done everywhere in the world.
In fact, merit order does justify more ren deployment even if economics aren't that great, because operators will be paid according to merit order, needing less cfd's. You can also check out how much of the gas electricity price is just carbon tax. And how transmission spending evolved. And how CFD's for different tech evolved in each AR round |
|
