people are bizarre. they want better broadband and then they moan about a few wooden poles . we've had these poles for years you hardly notice them , nimbys can be so annoying . they basically want to have their cake and eat it .
@@dh1380 exactly gas is cheaper partly because of supply and demand. And electricity is partly made from fossil fuels.so cars use lithium batteries which are very polluting.we should be reducing car use
Yeh how silly to moan about losing farmland to fields of toxic solar panels and chinese coal made wind turbines that take 20 years to become carbon neutral, how stupid of us to complain.
@@AnthonyBrown12324yes, only the wealthy should use cars, I agree, I personally think, why stop there why not ban heating for the poor, we don't need it, we might even die a decade or two early so we can save the planet by not using up resources 😂😂😂😂
People like to complain about this green transition and act like climate change isn't our problem or isn't even real. But people don't realise, being 100% sustainable energy means no more reliance on Russia or Saudi Arabia. Consistent and reliable energy production forever. But more importantly cheaper bills for everyone. No price spikes, no unexpected energy crisis. Even if you ignore climate change, it's still beneficial to everyone.
I think very few people are saying that this *shouldn't* happen. Most people are fed up with the unrealistic time frame. We need to over double our green energy production in 6 years. All while out-pacing the growth of energy demand. That is not a very realistic timeline. Which is why people are also very concerned about massive tax hikes to pay for it.
@K_Ri-mw4hr It would have been very realistic in the UK if the grid planning would have been quicker to respond. You would probably be twice as far on wind energy if the grid connections would be there when a project finishes.
With prices and quality of service at their lowest levels in nearly three decades, if Starmer's Labour can deliver on energy and rail, that will be this government's greatest accomplishment. The Tories can throw a fit about nationsalisation, and obviously they are going to, but results will speak for themselves.
Yeah, for me it's changing council tax bands, raising personal capital gain tax allowance back up to where it was or doubling it past that and person income tax bracket for lower earners going to 20k and the 40% threshold starting at 50k. No need to punished the working class and lower class. The whole system is designed to make the bulk tax slaves, dependent on benefits and not saving or punishing them for saving. And adding people's right to vote on cubcil tax rises. That change is the one I fully support.
@gregorymalchuk272 you are right, but that would exclude savings amd investments. I was referring to income tax. Personally, I don't support taxation, but to realistically raise the threshold must be done in a way that doesn't destroy the Sterling. Otherwise, we'll end up with inflation defeating the purpose of the payrise.
I'm an engineer and physicist who is very versed in this field. I have decades of experience in it and I am very (very) supportive of move to net zero - fully carbon free energy. And I voted Labour! HOWEVER, you can write-up all the policy documents you want. Gather up your Oxbridge PPEs and all the thinktank talkers and policy wonks you like as well - but ultimately you need people like me to actually make this happen. Focused policy and purposeful and driven organisation behind this are all essential elements - but ultimately It's an engineering endeavour. I'm here to tell you to pretend this even remotely possible feasible by 2030 is just setting yourself to totally fail. And what is with this £8 billion. Can anyone do maths here? This is peanuts. Even just to transition to install heat pumps in domestic housing stock is going to run into many hundreds of billions! So you have £hundreds of billions ?---- you are still looking to transition toward 2040 earliest. Just not enough time and not enough people to do it earlier. None of these appreciate this or have any knoweldge or expertise of what they are talking about. So its seems the way with the government is they are thinking like this. Depressing to think this You pointed out it's n16 years to connect windturbine to grid. But that cannot be just fixed at a snap by changing planning - you need engineers. Thats the choke point. Lots and lots of engineers. An army of engineers. Itf they are serious - and even have the money - first thing you need to do (tommorow !) is to make ten of thousands of degrees and appecenticehsips in relevant engineering subjects - free to anyone taking them up - all fully paid for by state. That will maybe attract the numbers you need. In 5 to 10 years (mid 2030s) that training and experience will start to bear fruit in turning us into true net zero economy. By 2040 (probably more like 2045) you may be 80% to where you need to be. The last 20% will take another 20 years beyond to achieve. In the meantime - all this is just wishful thinking p.s. Dale Vince is NOT an engineer or a visionary (a waffling poser maybe) - and if you ever had the unfortunate experience of having to rely his dreadful 'ecotricity' car charging network you would realise it's good not to listen to anything he has to say. Good job he sold it. Its been rebuilt from scratch and now just about serviceable.
Nothing like PFI The money is coming from windfall tax on oil and gas producers and the money will be invested in renewable technology, with a mix of a stake in the business and loan It’s the govt loaning out to businesses PFI is private companies lending to the govt You got it completely the wrong way around
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv I liked the bit about the windfall tax on energy giants, but why doesn’t the Government use that money and make GB Energy a fully-public-owned initiative instead? I mean, employ people directly and get them to serve the country, instead of serving private pockets.
@@GeneralInbox-wo9df GBenergy is fully publicly owned, the govt is the shareholder. In that respect it’s like EDF in France Although EDF own the nuclear power plants in France, the network and they are the energy suppliers to the customer. That would be what I want GBenergy to be, but the cost would be huge I guess what you mean fully nationalised. The problem I find with nationalised operations is that the govt then has the budget in their grasp and all too often budgets get squeezed to “Rob Peter to pay Paul” - exactly what happened to BR, the govt rant it down until it was on its needs and then said “oh state ownership is no good, let’s privatise”
If UK government co-owns and is consistent with policy, it will be able to claim returns to plough back in. But Labour need to do this right. PFI failed because the government still owned the risk of collapse but it also didn't get the benefit (ie it lowered private finance risk but still have private investors a higher unadjusted rate of return). PFI also failed because the government kept changing the specifications at mid points, creating opportunities for renegotiation and delivery delays once the government was over a barrel.
Solar and battery storage is cheaper than the running costs of gas already. Let that sink in. And prices of battery and solar panels are plummeting. Don’t fall for the oil and gas company vested interests lies to try and stop this renewable revolution. Oh and I charge my Tesla overnight for £5 for 300 miles on cheap wind power
Well lets just toss the physics and chemistry text books out the window. A Tesla Wall battery that stores just 10KWh(e) of energy only costs maybe $10,000, so $1 per Whr In chemical energy, a gallon plastic bucket which costs maybe $1 can store a gallon of fuel which hold 30KW of chemical energy which can make maybe 10KWh(e) So to say electrical energy storage is cheaper than chemical energy storage is idiotic. For goodness sake look up physics 101 Energy density of everything And if battery prices seem to be falling, they have a very slow curve to follow. The amount of e battery we have is only for a few minutes of energy max. And REs like solar make 5x more energy in the summer than winter, so forget about storing electrical energy in batteries for more than a few hours.
I have 10kw battery and 7kw solar, I fill my battery and sell from march to October, haven't used the grid since I installed it. Had untethered electricity all year and made a yearly profit (8years for full return on investment)
@@johnjakson444 solar and battery storage is ALREADY the cheapest form of energy. The gallon of fuel is burned and then gone. The battery is topped up by solar, used and then topped up again with zero additional cost. Think about the cost to refill that bucket, everyone and everything involved in that production process. And that’s before the environmental damage to the planet from climate change. Search Tony Seba’s lectures on this topic.
@@m9017t completely ignoring engineering and science facts, your private energy use is a tiny fraction of your per capita energy use if I had a dozen panels on my roof covering 5 people, it would represent about 1% of all our primary energy use, I have given links before Wikipedia Per Capita Energy use, 300GJpr/yr in the uS, about 200GJ in the UK. LLNL Energy Flow Graph, or similar at Euro stats, all Sankey diagrams In the US NE solar insolation is 5x weaker in the winter than summer, so using batteries to store electrical energy for 6months is practical now, nope., its probably worse in the UK.
Planning concerns is not always at the macro scale. I refurbished an Edwardian semi a decade ago, which required removing the cracked rough cast render. A perfect opportunity to install external insulation to the walls. We had put in planning for an extension. The planner was fine with that but said the external insulation on the frontage would have a negative impact on the adjoining property and street scene. To reduce heat loss and energy usage will involve quite a bit of work on most homes more than thirty years old. Removing chimneys, double glazing, replacement doors, external insulation. You might need planning permission which may not be a formality. So decarbonising homes will need some planning changes too.
Ecotricity is 'my' power company. On railways I, my father, grandfather, great grandfather worked on the Railways as Fireman/Drivers. Best management we ever had was the old Big Four Railway Companies in cooperation with the Government. Worse thing Labour ever did was Nationalise the Railways in 48 then lose the 1951 Election so the Tories sabotaged the Railways all the way through to their mad privatisation. Hope Labour can turn all that around. It's a hell of an ask.
For licencing of prospecting of new oil and gas fields the government gets paid. When companies extract oil and gas the companies get taxed. My policy would be to let the licensing go ahead at a heightened cost and have a large windfall tax on all extraction. This money can then be used to fund green technology.
We should absolutely do a Norway and build our own sovereign wealth fund. Oil will still be used for plastic into the future and for fuel for a long time while we work to decarbonise. We should capitalise on that so we can be at the forefront of civilisation again, because we have an outsize ability to improve the world compared to other nations and if the UK went fully renewable with such wealth, we'd set a great example. We could do it quicker with that methodology. No fracking though, that's silly.
Agree Labour have made some positive early steps on renewables. I'd love to see some movement/coverage on decoupling electricity prices from gas, or the most expensive generator, in the electricity wholesale market. This could drastically bring down electricity prices and this would sell the benefits of renewables to anyone who is a doubter. How hard is this change to make and is it another low hanging fruit? Let's stop subsidising fossil fuels as well, or at least a plan to phase out such subsidies giving people time to plan.
The Gov and Starmer et al missed the best chance we will ever have to sort this out. Instead of pissing away 500 billion on ridiculous COVID measures, they should've looked at spending that tax payer's money on the improvements required for the electricity grid and other public services. There is also the obvious problem of renewables not performing to the required capacity for large periods of time every year. This required heavy investment into Nuclear projects, which could also have been used as opportunities to skill up a generationn of UK workers in the sector that will be the future of cleaner energy. But they chose to let the laptop class spend all day at home in the garden for two years... value for our money?
Generate & store electricity where it’s consumed. With the lack of housing situation that we are in now, new homes need to be built. Mandate that 8 solar panels are installed on each new house roof, combine that with a battery storage. ( some developers only add 3, which is a token gesture & not very practical.
There are plenty of alternatives out there, pretending that oil is our only choice simply because it is currently the most common one (which usually comes down to the question of 'what is cheaper?') is not only foolish but also scaremongering. Animal fats for example can be used in lubricants and there are plenty of alternatives to using plastics.
Materials science research has come a long way and once a synthetic replacement to oil emerges, itll disappear overnight like the whale oil industry or the horse industry
@@scp_sixtynine4203 Thats not true either, making synfuels is always more expensive than using readymade fuels ie hydrocarbons. But the cheapest way to go would be to use nuclear heat from high temp >700c reactors to break water with heat using sulfur and iodine, its precisely 50% eff in physics. A 2GWth reactor then makes 1GW of hydrogen.Then more energy is needed to combine CO2 with water and hydrogen to make any number of fuels like DME (diesel), methanol, ammonia etc With RE though using electricty to make hydrogen is fare costly on a physics basis and that electricty has to be constant, and it usually uses platinum or rhodium like metals.
One thing I never hear discussed in these energy conversations is decarbonising aviation. Several companies are working to bring SAF onto the market in the UK but the gvmt has been incredibly slow to move to support this.
Because decarbonising aviation is utterly irrelevant to humanity or wildlife. It's such a small percentage of overall pollution that it's not worth worrying about. We already know the solution, which is battery technology. We already have fully electric aeroplanes, and, as energy density increases, we will be able to make larger and larger ones. Since they are far more reliable, safer, and cheaper to run, they are an inevitability. Anyone focusing on air travel as a source of pollution, has been sold a false flag operation by the oil companies who want you to feel guilty about taking a flight, and think carbon emissions are your personal fault, and not theirs. Sadly, many people who claim to be environmentalists have fallen for their propaganda because they're actually not intelligent or knowledgeable but are extremely gullible.
Solar farms usually built on land that's not fertile? Come and see the amount of silicon we're growing all over East Anglia that used to be arable crop.
What about Dunkelfaute? Dunkelflaute is a German word referring to a period of winter weather with low light and little to no wind. It’s a fairly common phenomenon in Northern Europe, occurring between 50 and 100 hours each November, December and January. While these cold, dark windless spells aren’t necessarily anything new, they’re all the more concerning due to the growing popularity of renewable energy. As daylight and wind become increasingly limited, solar power and turbines won’t be able to produce as much electricity. To compound the issue, dunkelflaute events coincide with times when people are likely to use more energy. Buildings must turn up the heat to prevent freezing and ruptured pipes, and people will run their lights for longer periods in the absence of sunlight. Because wind and solar systems can’t generate electricity on demand, these cold snaps could jeopardise their reliability.
There is a simple thought exercise: let the government at all levels start with itself. How long will it take and how much will it cost for all GOVERNMENT buildings to have solar panels on their roofs or wind turbines nearby, and for ALL (civilian) government vehicles to be fully electrically powered (we'll exempt the MoD for now)? The vehicle bit obviously including a comprehensive charging infrastructure. What would be needed for that to happen IN THE REAL WORLD, so not in a committee or in a powerpoint presentation? Let's imagine, just for a laugh, that Labour can ride roughshod through all existing laws and regulations, and consultation and permission processes, and "decree" it will happen... It's very prosaic, but one of the things you'll find is that just GETTING all those solar panels and wind turbines is going to be tough. And finding qualified people to install them and connect them up will be even tougher. Then there is the time it takes to do the actual work, all the digging and laying of cables, the fabricating of bespoke grids to attach solar panels to for individual buildings, etc., etc., etc…. And of course the disturbance all this work will create, with diversions of traffic, [parts of of] buildings that can’t be used while work is ongoing, etc., etc., etc… None of this means that what Labour says it is striving for is IMPOSSIBLE, but it will be extremely difficult and need tons of money, and steely determination over a period of very many years. Do they know that? Are they willing to confront the British public? To persevere in the face of protests and mishaps and missed deadlines? Are they willing to risk losing seats over this?
energy? get a 340 litre wheely bin, put a gas tap in the lid, fill with kitchen waste,weeds,water and a cow pat,silicone the lid down, a methane bio digester! it will provide 50-100kw hours per month of methane natural gas for cooking,heating, it will run any engine with a spark plug, generator,car etc. after digestion what is left is called 'blackjack' the best bio fertiliser for 10x veg growing. gas storage, use a tractor inner tube , lilo,dingy,air bed,more pressure,put a brick on it. get everyone off grid!
I have not read about the so-called nimbyism of the Green Party MP but wildlife and biodiversity is just as important with regard to climate change as decarbonising and it can even play a very important in helping to decarbonise the environment. So putting wind farms and solar farms on areas not suitable for food production (less fertile usually means more diverse habitats for wildlife) has to be done appropriately. Biodiversity and wildlife continues to decrease very rapidly across Britain. For example, there has been a marked decrease in invertebrates this year. So his protest about a particular renewable energy project may be very valid.
Solar farms don't interfere with insects at all. Agrivoltaics is putting solar farms on farmland, and farming crops under the solar. This is perfectly possible, you just farm the crops that prefer shade which encourages them to grow faster. There are plenty of crops that benefit from this, and all life on the planet benefits from us not changing the climate. If anything, they're going to increase biodiversity since instead of hundreds of acres of mono-culture, they'll encourage a wider variety of plants to be grown across every country. And yes, the Green Party are nimbys. They don't want any worthwhile work done on infrastructure, and want us all to live in the stone age because they have zero understanding of the environment and never did. They've worked to block all forms of progress, even though electrification is the only thing that can save us. Please note that the Labour and Conservative parties also haven't changed planning law and were actually in power, hence we're behind where we could be. But we have all the technology we actually need to solve these problems. It's only a matter of letting engineers, and technicians get on with the actual work installing it. It is happening, but much slower than it should be.
Why not offer free shares or bonds in GB Energy to every UK citizen? That way, they will become more aware of the opportunities and benefits of renewable energy. They would also have full representation in shareholder meetings. If shares are offered, make sure they can only be sold to UK citizens in the future. Perhaps 51% citizen shares, and 49% corporate. That way, ultimate control is maintained by the UK, whilst inward investment can occur. Just a thought.
so many people have no money and can't invest in heat pumps ; why would you invest money subsidising relatively rich people to install them and what's being done about the noise and vibration the fans make . There are so many ways cleaner energy could be distributed . Electricity is much more expensive and increasing demand will only raise the price .
You do know politicans don't control the univervse. You have an untterly uninformed opinion of how long it should take and you want a poltician to insist on that. That's why the soviet union had so many accidents....
No, Labour left us with that. And the previous Conservative government. And the previous Labour government. Any of them could have fixed it and they are all 100% guilty. The Labour party could have proposed brilliant planning changes during Blairs government and pushed them through, they could have proposed plans they'd support during this last Conservative government, but they didn't because none of the parties contain any grown ups who can work together. They're only putting forward candidates who are a) ignorant and didn't study STEM b) venal and power hungry and c) lazy. Let's not pretend they're doing anything revolutionary, or that we didn't know for decades that planning permission is a really difficult thing to solve, but that there are obvious improvements we could make to ensure that required infrastructure and building does get done, but that it doesn't destroy our natural environment or cities. For instance, I haven't yet heard that Labour are ripping up the Stonehenge bypass plan, and going with the full length tunnel to protect it for the next several thousand years. Which is obviously the only correct way to deal with that issue since it's more valuable than the money.
There's capital to be raised in Denmark. And, possibly, a change that the pound will recover.... Thus supplying af windfall for institutional investors.
Hinkley Point C isn't due to switch on until 2030, and building started in 2017. There's no way that any new project started today would be ready in 6 years, even if they skipped the planning stage entirely.
@@robinbennett5994 So true, we need to be looking at Molten Salt Reactors made in factories like ship building yards. And the French were able to build their entire nuclear power system in close to a decade because the oil prices hit them very hard in the 70s oil crisis. The UK had north sea oil so we ignored nuclear, and now it is too late.
@@robinbennett5994, Labour have sought to reform infrastructure planning. At the moment, our construction industry is too fragmented. The centralised French or Spanish model is the way to go (and Labour have already sort of done this by making infrastructure decisions national rather than local).
Any ideas from Labour to chance the energy market which currently means that the most expensive source of electricity on any given day sets the price for ALL the electricty generated? People keep saying wind and solar are cheap, and they can be, but in fact the electricity they produce is usually sold at a huge mark up. The high price of electricity for industrial users is also killing the green transition by making electric rail freight more expensive than diesel, and various industrial users investing in their own (often diesel) generation options as the wholesale price is too high/volatile.
Acording to physics, electrical battery storage is 10,000 times more expensive than chemical energy density, check a 10KWhr(e) battery cost ($10k) vs the chemical energy content of a $1plastic bucket holding 1 gallon $4 of oil with 30KWhr(ch) worth about 10KWhr(e) after burning it in power plant. To power the entire UK economy with only solar or wind, every inch of land would be needed to power all energy use of 70M people. In 2017 according to Energy Flow Graph at LLNL, UK made solar 44PJ and wind 180PJ equiv primary energy out of total 7900PJ use about 3% so plenty
Not sure windfall taxes on the large oil & gas companies are a good way to go. The shareholders won’t be happy & nor will the companies. Nor will it help those companies progress in a renewable direction that’s inevitable. What if instead of collecting windfall taxes, that money was mandated & ringfenced that the o&g companies must invest in renewables. So the same money is invested in future, instead of fossil. The companies still have that money on their spreadsheets, the shareholders are investing in the further to see dividends in the future. It does mean they need to stick it for the long term, but isn’t that the general investment advice anyway ?
i worked for kensa contracting and huge investment opportunities for shared ground loop systems and renting the ground loop annually to home owners, similar to gas annual charges and investors desperate to invest in this and will help decarbonise heating- you need to talk about heating and transport
Why do all those carboncapture projects on power plants when houses can be insulated? And have their own small powerplants? Solar on the roof. And (bio)gas to boot.
We live on an island why are we not looking at non invasive hydro power I’ve seen balloons that can be used as batteries underneath the water the tide could push the energy back and forth helped from water pressure also we can float subs and cylinders like that to the ocean floor rather than drill into it Amsterdam should be underwater and much of this country will be by 2080 so why are we not looking at infrastructure to work with the water rather than billions replacing and making new in years to come
The solution is get people into jobs which innovate in decarbonising technologies, not have mass temper tantrum in the streets or cause economically damaging blockages like Just Stop Oil. The innovators are the real heroes of the climate. Not activists like Greta and JSO who get way too much airtime than they actually deserve.
@@bencops , no not really. Especially not when the climate activists are getting too much airtime over innovators who are actually doing the real work. Furthermore, there is nothing compassionate about blocking road routes that working-class people use to get to their work and put food on the table.
For detailed analysis of energy you would have to go to The New Engineer channel, yeh it doesn't exist because only engineers and scientists would tune in.
If GB Energy does nothing except speed up the process for grid connections then it would have been a success. There is no shortage of capital to fund wind, solar and grid scale battery projects. Where we need more investment is in the grid itself.
@@CmdrTobs National Grid plc have paid over £9 billion to shareholders in the past 5 years. Shareholders include Blackrock, The Norwegian pension fund, Lazards, British Columbia pension fun and many others. Their income is derived from generators who want to put power onto the grid and customers who take power from it So the 'grid' is the common element and should IMO be state owned as this is a natural monopoly with no competition possible. Instead of paying dividends to foreign shareholders we should be spending the money on prioritising renewable energy generators as is the case in Germany and adapting the grid to take these inputs.
Most of the things discussed here seemed to come down to issues caused in the planning stage along with the Nimby opposing so many projects ranging from solar/wind farms through meeting housing targets and on to just getting the national grid able to handle the countries modern/future use cases. In order to get things done it does seem to me that Labour will have to essentially go to war against Nimbys.
Your team really needs to be better read on the energy sector and the green energy transition. Lots of basic facts wrong in here, renewables ARE cheaper.
Where will the solar panels come from ? China whilst using coal power and bunker fuel ships to transport then , same as the wind turbines , how is that decarbonisation.
The weird fact that the king and his family own the seabeds around england,Scotland,wales and northern Ireland who many millions will they make for doing nothing when green energy is in full swing,all offshore turbines will be on royal property so why is nobody talking about this and wtf does the king own the seabeds around the UK.very weird.
Well I put 10 solar panels on my roof and built a 16kWh battery. I don't pay hardly anything and probably 95% carbon free. Cost £4k I know people who spend that on a holiday!
@@gregorymalchuk272 well a few reasons but mainly because we have wind turbines on the hill and in the winter, when windy, my electricity supplier gives the power away free. I charge my battery then and use it through the day. I get my own solar power in summer days and cheap wind power in the winter nights. It's great 👍 And you can sell the electricity back to the grid when the price goes really high. Apparently they reckon it's possible not to pay anything for energy if you had a heat pump but that's not for me. I like a fire
@@gregorymalchuk272 Selling excess solar may well be more than standing charges ... (winter solar would be v difficult off grid at 10 panels in any case)
If you’ve seen share company’s Greencoat energy or Berkshire Hathaway. It’s a pool of money that invests in operations and gains profits from investments.
Frankly anybody that knows not even really that much about the state of the UK's energy situation knows that 2030 target is a lie. It's categorically impossible. However, it is a promising move to deal with energy security - but we should not be ruling out oil and gas.....
2030 may or may not be overly ambitious, but I fail to see what they gain from lying about it. Perhaps you could educate me. There is too much toxic language used when discussing topics. Most people thought that Kennedy was crazy when, in 1962, he committed to landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
People with some spare cash are making enormous savings by having a few solar panels. It’s obvious that can be extended with larger scale investments. Eg. On the side and roof of flats etc.
The Green Party *should* oppose developments where they impact nature - Firstly, to be pragmatic, if they're seen as too development-happy, they will lose voters for that too. Secondly, as you have pointed out, the UK has been held back by not utilising planning for economic gain - this suggests there are ways that are more or less efficient at reaching those gains, as such this implies a strategic approach to planning that is not simply 'build everywhere', but 'build in the right places'. But sure, the Greens should be criticised if they really are holding up energy infrastructure problems - However, a few local cases do not serve to discredit the party entirely. I would trust the Greens to move more quickly on energy than any other party. As for nuclear, I do believe they ought to change their stance, but however you look at it, wind will be driving our decarbonisation efforts.
It's not about "not in my back yard" it's about "not in anyone's back yard". Scarring the environment and affecting our wildlife should be a last resort. There is plenty of scope for off shore wind and urban solar before we start installing massive noisy wind farms in nature. Ultimately whatever we do in the UK is not going to have the slightest impact on climate compared to China the US India etc.
Main host making sarcastic jokes that imply that farming and climate policy are boring or not worth discussing for any great length. Particularly given discussion of not enough labour conversation on agriculture/rural affairs, maybe you shouldn't do that. It comes across as a little unprofessional.
I think this country should invest in agriculture. Instead of importing fresh foods like tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers we should have greenhouses using renewable energy and battery storage The govt could invest
Has Megan any idea of how much Cu will be required to renew the NationalGrid? Has she read up about the German experience on renewables? Dunkelflaute? New reliance on coal power?What does she think will provide the baseload? Where is any news on batteries?Storage? Buffer? ‘Power’ here seems to be used for ‘electricity’ . No reference to UK energy useage.. Look at the data. Hopeless.
Confusing the barely going German green energy switch which fails due to paperwork? Or their last conservative government shutting down the nuclear plants?
There's no issue with Cu supply. Germany has supplied 57% of its consumption from Rs h1 24. Germany coal consumption is at lows dating back to levels from the 50s/60s
It depends on how you define it. We already had a bunch of days over the last winter where we were at or close to 100% renewables. I suspect if we just scale so that we have excess capacity, then our overall generation can get to 100% average in reasonably quick order. That isn't the same as ALWAYS being on renewables (I.e. shut down the gas gen etc) which requires huge investment in storage. We would sell excess gen in good times, import / use FF when it's not... and them use good old offsets in the calculations :)
@@shyft09 Well not that we shouldn't bother, but be honest with us. No one thinks this is actually a realistic policy unless you pull out some extreme technicalities. We probably could get an energy drink that allows us to be 100% on renewables for a few weeks by 2030. But definitely not a long-term or permanent status.
It works domestically. I installed solar in 2014. Bills are low and it paid for itself by 6 years. Renewables are cheaper and sunlight doesn’t go up in price.
@@user-dc5qc1vb9c fair, I appreciate that. Domestic bills going down is definitely nice but powering the grid and all vehicles is not going to be cheap.
It's a bit embarrasing to think that farming, energy and climate change are weird issues to be discussing. This is meant to be a magazine for intelligent people...
People just like the sounds of there own voices, drama and have self importance these days. They are idiots!!! No common sense at all just get on with GB electricity, competition in a private utility market is always good..
The naivety and apparent igorance of the participants in this discussion is bewildering. When a senior member of the Green Party opposes a clean energy project in his neighbourhood, this is very likely on the grounds of environmental impact. The installation of clean energy infrastructure doesn't trump the protection of endangered species and agricultural productivity - it must be in service to the overarching goal of sustainability in its many and varied forms.
You don't recognise a capital land grab Vs community ownership? Sustainability also demands sustainable economics, not the capitalist business as usual that created this mess
3 trillion pound cost just for the infrastructure. Currently 6 Billion a year subsidise and double the US cost in energy. Windmills only become carbon neutral after 20 years of use but they dont last 20 years.
Dont be an ignorant gammon. Wind turbine blades are no different than aeroplane wings which is besides the point. The whole point is to decarbonise, inextricably linked to that actual important point is who owns this new capital and why, then down the line do you ask how will they be responsible for end of life disposal.
Why is the host making fun of the guest for talking about climate and farming? Thats why you asked her on! I know you politics nerds just want to talk about the economy but if we don't have food, clean water and a livable climate then we're dead.
its normally people that have somehting already that get annoyed when something is tried to get built they are infuriated. We need to accept we cant keep everyone happy society
Nimby's - god the Greens are insufferable. No nuclear because of waste storage, so you need more renewals (wind, solar, hydro etc.), which you need to install somewhere at scale. No that won't do either. Here is a concept: concentrated baseload or widespread installation that needs land and even more resources to achieve. They appear to want to sacrifice the entire future on the altar of the greenbelt. The UK has very limited natural landscapes per its gross area, its pasture.
@@1erkyrob2 If you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate: Because arguably it will vastly increase the cost of living and doing business, reduce quality-of-life, despoil the countryside, divert funds from more immediate social problems, and all for a negligible impact on global carbon emissions.
EVS will help balance the renewable grid as they have opportunity to send power back to grid. kensa installed heat pumps in tower blocks, new builds and commercial buildings
Exactly, the LLNL Energy flow graph shows energy use graphs for all the counties of the world as well as all US state. They also have graphs for water and CO2 emmissions, The EU also has similar stat databases. Pity that no a single green will look at them and when they do, draw the wrong conclusions. To save you the trouble, solar 44PJ, wind 180PJ, total UK energy use was 7900PJ as in 2017, and most of it was fossil fuel 6400PJ out of 7900 PJ.
No it won't. There are a variety of storage technologies available, for example pumped hydro, battery storage and the upcoming vehicle to grid. Not to mention the interconnectors to other countries that we have in place to tap into wider electricity grids. There are options to manage demand better as well such as load shifting.
Hydrogen fuel is the future, evs are not that environmentally friendly. Mining, manufacturing and disposal of ev batteries is very environmentally toxic. Producing green hydrogen is alot more friendly to the environment. The electricity production for ev is also very toxic to the environment as things stand for the near to long term future. Then theres the copper and other components for motors etc mined manufacured and current disposal practices that are very toxic to the environment.
![🎤 ไปกันต่อออ! จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.2] (1/2) เพลงของใครจึ้งสุดน้าา 💓🎤 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mLI_K0sAS4o/mqdefault.jpg)
people are bizarre. they want better broadband and then they moan about a few wooden poles . we've had these poles for years you hardly notice them , nimbys can be so annoying . they basically want to have their cake and eat it .
And they want electric cars
@@dh1380 exactly gas is cheaper partly because of supply and demand. And electricity is partly made from fossil fuels.so cars use lithium batteries which are very polluting.we should be reducing car use
Nimbyism causes more problems in the UK than people realise, whether that be housing, HS2, infrastructure, energy...
Yeh how silly to moan about losing farmland to fields of toxic solar panels and chinese coal made wind turbines that take 20 years to become carbon neutral, how stupid of us to complain.
@@AnthonyBrown12324yes, only the wealthy should use cars, I agree, I personally think, why stop there why not ban heating for the poor, we don't need it, we might even die a decade or two early so we can save the planet by not using up resources 😂😂😂😂
People like to complain about this green transition and act like climate change isn't our problem or isn't even real.
But people don't realise, being 100% sustainable energy means no more reliance on Russia or Saudi Arabia. Consistent and reliable energy production forever.
But more importantly cheaper bills for everyone. No price spikes, no unexpected energy crisis.
Even if you ignore climate change, it's still beneficial to everyone.
Not to mention thousands of new future proof jobs
Well said. Manufacturing in this country would be far more competitive too.
I think very few people are saying that this *shouldn't* happen.
Most people are fed up with the unrealistic time frame.
We need to over double our green energy production in 6 years. All while out-pacing the growth of energy demand.
That is not a very realistic timeline. Which is why people are also very concerned about massive tax hikes to pay for it.
@K_Ri-mw4hr It would have been very realistic in the UK if the grid planning would have been quicker to respond. You would probably be twice as far on wind energy if the grid connections would be there when a project finishes.
@@danieldevries5203 It would have been very realistic yes.
Shame that it isn't very realistic now.
With prices and quality of service at their lowest levels in nearly three decades, if Starmer's Labour can deliver on energy and rail, that will be this government's greatest accomplishment. The Tories can throw a fit about nationsalisation, and obviously they are going to, but results will speak for themselves.
HaHaHa
Yeah, for me it's changing council tax bands, raising personal capital gain tax allowance back up to where it was or doubling it past that and person income tax bracket for lower earners going to 20k and the 40% threshold starting at 50k. No need to punished the working class and lower class. The whole system is designed to make the bulk tax slaves, dependent on benefits and not saving or punishing them for saving. And adding people's right to vote on cubcil tax rises.
That change is the one I fully support.
@@yourstruly570640% threshold at 50,000 is going to kill people's retirement investments. Labour wants everybody perpetually poor.
@gregorymalchuk272 you are right, but that would exclude savings amd investments. I was referring to income tax. Personally, I don't support taxation, but to realistically raise the threshold must be done in a way that doesn't destroy the Sterling. Otherwise, we'll end up with inflation defeating the purpose of the payrise.
I'm an engineer and physicist who is very versed in this field. I have decades of experience in it and I am very (very) supportive of move to net zero - fully carbon free energy. And I voted Labour!
HOWEVER, you can write-up all the policy documents you want. Gather up your Oxbridge PPEs and all the thinktank talkers and policy wonks you like as well - but ultimately you need people like me to actually make this happen. Focused policy and purposeful and driven organisation behind this are all essential elements - but ultimately It's an engineering endeavour.
I'm here to tell you to pretend this even remotely possible feasible by 2030 is just setting yourself to totally fail. And what is with this £8 billion. Can anyone do maths here? This is peanuts. Even just to transition to install heat pumps in domestic housing stock is going to run into many hundreds of billions!
So you have £hundreds of billions ?---- you are still looking to transition toward 2040 earliest. Just not enough time and not enough people to do it earlier.
None of these appreciate this or have any knoweldge or expertise of what they are talking about. So its seems the way with the government is they are thinking like this. Depressing to think this
You pointed out it's n16 years to connect windturbine to grid. But that cannot be just fixed at a snap by changing planning - you need engineers. Thats the choke point. Lots and lots of engineers. An army of engineers. Itf they are serious - and even have the money - first thing you need to do (tommorow !) is to make ten of thousands of degrees and appecenticehsips in relevant engineering subjects - free to anyone taking them up - all fully paid for by state. That will maybe attract the numbers you need. In 5 to 10 years (mid 2030s) that training and experience will start to bear fruit in turning us into true net zero economy. By 2040 (probably more like 2045) you may be 80% to where you need to be. The last 20% will take another 20 years beyond to achieve.
In the meantime - all this is just wishful thinking
p.s.
Dale Vince is NOT an engineer or a visionary (a waffling poser maybe) - and if you ever had the unfortunate experience of having to rely his dreadful 'ecotricity' car charging network you would realise it's good not to listen to anything he has to say. Good job he sold it. Its been rebuilt from scratch and now just about serviceable.
So it'll give away free money to private companies to build energy infrastructure, but not actually own any of it? So PFI version 2.0? Great.
Nothing like PFI
The money is coming from windfall tax on oil and gas producers and the money will be invested in renewable technology, with a mix of a stake in the business and loan
It’s the govt loaning out to businesses
PFI is private companies lending to the govt
You got it completely the wrong way around
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv
I liked the bit about the windfall tax on energy giants, but why doesn’t the Government use that money and make GB Energy a fully-public-owned initiative instead? I mean, employ people directly and get them to serve the country, instead of serving private pockets.
@@GeneralInbox-wo9df GBenergy is fully publicly owned, the govt is the shareholder. In that respect it’s like EDF in France
Although EDF own the nuclear power plants in France, the network and they are the energy suppliers to the customer. That would be what I want GBenergy to be, but the cost would be huge
I guess what you mean fully nationalised. The problem I find with nationalised operations is that the govt then has the budget in their grasp and all too often budgets get squeezed to “Rob Peter to pay Paul” - exactly what happened to BR, the govt rant it down until it was on its needs and then said “oh state ownership is no good, let’s privatise”
If UK government co-owns and is consistent with policy, it will be able to claim returns to plough back in. But Labour need to do this right.
PFI failed because the government still owned the risk of collapse but it also didn't get the benefit (ie it lowered private finance risk but still have private investors a higher unadjusted rate of return). PFI also failed because the government kept changing the specifications at mid points, creating opportunities for renegotiation and delivery delays once the government was over a barrel.
@@GeneralInbox-wo9df Dead easy innit. Civil servants just know how to start and run energy companies?
Solar and battery storage is cheaper than the running costs of gas already. Let that sink in. And prices of battery and solar panels are plummeting. Don’t fall for the oil and gas company vested interests lies to try and stop this renewable revolution. Oh and I charge my Tesla overnight for £5 for 300 miles on cheap wind power
Well lets just toss the physics and chemistry text books out the window.
A Tesla Wall battery that stores just 10KWh(e) of energy only costs maybe $10,000, so $1 per Whr
In chemical energy, a gallon plastic bucket which costs maybe $1 can store a gallon of fuel which hold 30KW of chemical energy which can make maybe 10KWh(e)
So to say electrical energy storage is cheaper than chemical energy storage is idiotic. For goodness sake look up physics 101 Energy density of everything
And if battery prices seem to be falling, they have a very slow curve to follow. The amount of e battery we have is only for a few minutes of energy max. And REs like solar make 5x more energy in the summer than winter, so forget about storing electrical energy in batteries for more than a few hours.
I have 10kw battery and 7kw solar, I fill my battery and sell from march to October, haven't used the grid since I installed it. Had untethered electricity all year and made a yearly profit (8years for full return on investment)
@@johnjakson444 solar and battery storage is ALREADY the cheapest form of energy. The gallon of fuel is burned and then gone. The battery is topped up by solar, used and then topped up again with zero additional cost. Think about the cost to refill that bucket, everyone and everything involved in that production process. And that’s before the environmental damage to the planet from climate change. Search Tony Seba’s lectures on this topic.
This is such a lie the cost to store wind energy for 6 hours is trillions.
@@m9017t completely ignoring engineering and science facts, your private energy use is a tiny fraction of your per capita energy use
if I had a dozen panels on my roof covering 5 people, it would represent about 1% of all our primary energy use, I have given links before
Wikipedia Per Capita Energy use, 300GJpr/yr in the uS, about 200GJ in the UK.
LLNL Energy Flow Graph, or similar at Euro stats, all Sankey diagrams
In the US NE solar insolation is 5x weaker in the winter than summer, so using batteries to store electrical energy for 6months is practical now, nope., its probably worse in the UK.
Planning concerns is not always at the macro scale. I refurbished an Edwardian semi a decade ago, which required removing the cracked rough cast render. A perfect opportunity to install external insulation to the walls. We had put in planning for an extension. The planner was fine with that but said the external insulation on the frontage would have a negative impact on the adjoining property and street scene.
To reduce heat loss and energy usage will involve quite a bit of work on most homes more than thirty years old. Removing chimneys, double glazing, replacement doors, external insulation. You might need planning permission which may not be a formality. So decarbonising homes will need some planning changes too.
Without nuclear, this is a recipe for disaster. Expect your energy bills to go up.
They have tried to before and all their councils have gone bust
Nottingham ? That was an actual power company that bought power & sold it on. It got its maths all wrong & went bust.
Ecotricity is 'my' power company. On railways I, my father, grandfather, great grandfather worked on the Railways as Fireman/Drivers. Best management we ever had was the old Big Four Railway Companies in cooperation with the Government. Worse thing Labour ever did was Nationalise the Railways in 48 then lose the 1951 Election so the Tories sabotaged the Railways all the way through to their mad privatisation. Hope Labour can turn all that around. It's a hell of an ask.
You can combine solar energy & farming in the same area of land. It's not an either/or choich!
For licencing of prospecting of new oil and gas fields the government gets paid. When companies extract oil and gas the companies get taxed.
My policy would be to let the licensing go ahead at a heightened cost and have a large windfall tax on all extraction. This money can then be used to fund green technology.
We should absolutely do a Norway and build our own sovereign wealth fund. Oil will still be used for plastic into the future and for fuel for a long time while we work to decarbonise. We should capitalise on that so we can be at the forefront of civilisation again, because we have an outsize ability to improve the world compared to other nations and if the UK went fully renewable with such wealth, we'd set a great example. We could do it quicker with that methodology. No fracking though, that's silly.
whats happening with the national grid capacity ?
Agree Labour have made some positive early steps on renewables.
I'd love to see some movement/coverage on decoupling electricity prices from gas, or the most expensive generator, in the electricity wholesale market. This could drastically bring down electricity prices and this would sell the benefits of renewables to anyone who is a doubter. How hard is this change to make and is it another low hanging fruit?
Let's stop subsidising fossil fuels as well, or at least a plan to phase out such subsidies giving people time to plan.
"Just decouple it" - You've drank the coolaid.
@@CmdrTobsMost grids sell power in blocks and only the peakers get premium pricing. Base load gets paid low prices.
The Gov and Starmer et al missed the best chance we will ever have to sort this out. Instead of pissing away 500 billion on ridiculous COVID measures, they should've looked at spending that tax payer's money on the improvements required for the electricity grid and other public services. There is also the obvious problem of renewables not performing to the required capacity for large periods of time every year. This required heavy investment into Nuclear projects, which could also have been used as opportunities to skill up a generationn of UK workers in the sector that will be the future of cleaner energy. But they chose to let the laptop class spend all day at home in the garden for two years... value for our money?
So bills won’t come down and we won’t make any profit back as we don’t own the kit. Great plan 😂
What is the point of the Greens?
Generate & store electricity where it’s consumed. With the lack of housing situation that we are in now, new homes need to be built. Mandate that 8 solar panels are installed on each new house roof, combine that with a battery storage. ( some developers only add 3, which is a token gesture & not very practical.
Planning control is important to balance competing priorities. Local opposition to specific proposals is sometimes valid.
Yes yes yes!
Oil is needed for lubricants and plastics etc so we will need it for a long long time!
There are plenty of alternatives out there, pretending that oil is our only choice simply because it is currently the most common one (which usually comes down to the question of 'what is cheaper?') is not only foolish but also scaremongering. Animal fats for example can be used in lubricants and there are plenty of alternatives to using plastics.
Materials science research has come a long way and once a synthetic replacement to oil emerges, itll disappear overnight like the whale oil industry or the horse industry
@@scp_sixtynine4203 Thats not true either, making synfuels is always more expensive than using readymade fuels ie hydrocarbons. But the cheapest way to go would be to use nuclear heat from high temp >700c reactors to break water with heat using sulfur and iodine, its precisely 50% eff in physics. A 2GWth reactor then makes 1GW of hydrogen.Then more energy is needed to combine CO2 with water and hydrogen to make any number of fuels like DME (diesel), methanol, ammonia etc With RE though using electricty to make hydrogen is fare costly on a physics basis and that electricty has to be constant, and it usually uses platinum or rhodium like metals.
Yes lets stop using it as fuel then
@@jameslewis2635 it's just the amounts we are talking abut are staggering, although I agree with your sentiment :)
I hear brave and ambitious which means doomed.
One thing I never hear discussed in these energy conversations is decarbonising aviation. Several companies are working to bring SAF onto the market in the UK but the gvmt has been incredibly slow to move to support this.
The Labour government is committed to SAF. You just need to look at the document available on the Labour Party website.
Not remotely feasible nor even desirable.
Because decarbonising aviation is utterly irrelevant to humanity or wildlife. It's such a small percentage of overall pollution that it's not worth worrying about. We already know the solution, which is battery technology. We already have fully electric aeroplanes, and, as energy density increases, we will be able to make larger and larger ones. Since they are far more reliable, safer, and cheaper to run, they are an inevitability. Anyone focusing on air travel as a source of pollution, has been sold a false flag operation by the oil companies who want you to feel guilty about taking a flight, and think carbon emissions are your personal fault, and not theirs. Sadly, many people who claim to be environmentalists have fallen for their propaganda because they're actually not intelligent or knowledgeable but are extremely gullible.
Solar farms usually built on land that's not fertile? Come and see the amount of silicon we're growing all over East Anglia that used to be arable crop.
What about Dunkelfaute? Dunkelflaute is a German word referring to a period of winter weather with low light and little to no wind. It’s a fairly common phenomenon in Northern Europe, occurring between 50 and 100 hours each November, December and January. While these cold, dark windless spells aren’t necessarily anything new, they’re all the more concerning due to the growing popularity of renewable energy.
As daylight and wind become increasingly limited, solar power and turbines won’t be able to produce as much electricity. To compound the issue, dunkelflaute events coincide with times when people are likely to use more energy. Buildings must turn up the heat to prevent freezing and ruptured pipes, and people will run their lights for longer periods in the absence of sunlight.
Because wind and solar systems can’t generate electricity on demand, these cold snaps could jeopardise their reliability.
There is a simple thought exercise: let the government at all levels start with itself.
How long will it take and how much will it cost for all GOVERNMENT buildings to have solar panels on their roofs or wind turbines nearby, and for ALL (civilian) government vehicles to be fully electrically powered (we'll exempt the MoD for now)? The vehicle bit obviously including a comprehensive charging infrastructure.
What would be needed for that to happen IN THE REAL WORLD, so not in a committee or in a powerpoint presentation? Let's imagine, just for a laugh, that Labour can ride roughshod through all existing laws and regulations, and consultation and permission processes, and "decree" it will happen...
It's very prosaic, but one of the things you'll find is that just GETTING all those solar panels and wind turbines is going to be tough. And finding qualified people to install them and connect them up will be even tougher. Then there is the time it takes to do the actual work, all the digging and laying of cables, the fabricating of bespoke grids to attach solar panels to for individual buildings, etc., etc., etc…. And of course the disturbance all this work will create, with diversions of traffic, [parts of of] buildings that can’t be used while work is ongoing, etc., etc., etc…
None of this means that what Labour says it is striving for is IMPOSSIBLE, but it will be extremely difficult and need tons of money, and steely determination over a period of very many years. Do they know that? Are they willing to confront the British public? To persevere in the face of protests and mishaps and missed deadlines? Are they willing to risk losing seats over this?
energy? get a 340 litre wheely bin, put a gas tap in the lid, fill with kitchen waste,weeds,water and a cow pat,silicone the lid down, a methane bio digester! it will provide 50-100kw hours per month of methane natural gas for cooking,heating, it will run any engine with a spark plug, generator,car etc. after digestion what is left is called 'blackjack' the best bio fertiliser for 10x veg growing. gas storage, use a tractor inner tube , lilo,dingy,air bed,more pressure,put a brick on it. get everyone off grid!
I have not read about the so-called nimbyism of the Green Party MP but wildlife and biodiversity is just as important with regard to climate change as decarbonising and it can even play a very important in helping to decarbonise the environment. So putting wind farms and solar farms on areas not suitable for food production (less fertile usually means more diverse habitats for wildlife) has to be done appropriately. Biodiversity and wildlife continues to decrease very rapidly across Britain. For example, there has been a marked decrease in invertebrates this year. So his protest about a particular renewable energy project may be very valid.
Solar farms don't interfere with insects at all. Agrivoltaics is putting solar farms on farmland, and farming crops under the solar. This is perfectly possible, you just farm the crops that prefer shade which encourages them to grow faster. There are plenty of crops that benefit from this, and all life on the planet benefits from us not changing the climate. If anything, they're going to increase biodiversity since instead of hundreds of acres of mono-culture, they'll encourage a wider variety of plants to be grown across every country. And yes, the Green Party are nimbys. They don't want any worthwhile work done on infrastructure, and want us all to live in the stone age because they have zero understanding of the environment and never did. They've worked to block all forms of progress, even though electrification is the only thing that can save us. Please note that the Labour and Conservative parties also haven't changed planning law and were actually in power, hence we're behind where we could be.
But we have all the technology we actually need to solve these problems. It's only a matter of letting engineers, and technicians get on with the actual work installing it. It is happening, but much slower than it should be.
Since any major planning now has to come with biodiversity net gain I don't think argument is strong
Why not offer free shares or bonds in GB Energy to every UK citizen? That way, they will become more aware of the opportunities and benefits of renewable energy. They would also have full representation in shareholder meetings. If shares are offered, make sure they can only be sold to UK citizens in the future. Perhaps 51% citizen shares, and 49% corporate. That way, ultimate control is maintained by the UK, whilst inward investment can occur. Just a thought.
Because GB energy is not a proper electric producing company
so many people have no money and can't invest in heat pumps ; why would you invest money subsidising relatively rich people to install them and what's being done about the noise and vibration the fans make . There are so many ways cleaner energy could be distributed . Electricity is much more expensive and increasing demand will only raise the price .
I'll be cold in my grave before I get a heat pump
meaning GSHP will be a similar cost to installling a gas boiler as the ground array has been paid for by the investors
She praising the Conservatives for connecting renewables to the grid but actually they left us with a 15 year wait for grid connections.
You do know politicans don't control the univervse. You have an untterly uninformed opinion of how long it should take and you want a poltician to insist on that. That's why the soviet union had so many accidents....
No, Labour left us with that. And the previous Conservative government. And the previous Labour government. Any of them could have fixed it and they are all 100% guilty. The Labour party could have proposed brilliant planning changes during Blairs government and pushed them through, they could have proposed plans they'd support during this last Conservative government, but they didn't because none of the parties contain any grown ups who can work together. They're only putting forward candidates who are a) ignorant and didn't study STEM b) venal and power hungry and c) lazy. Let's not pretend they're doing anything revolutionary, or that we didn't know for decades that planning permission is a really difficult thing to solve, but that there are obvious improvements we could make to ensure that required infrastructure and building does get done, but that it doesn't destroy our natural environment or cities.
For instance, I haven't yet heard that Labour are ripping up the Stonehenge bypass plan, and going with the full length tunnel to protect it for the next several thousand years. Which is obviously the only correct way to deal with that issue since it's more valuable than the money.
There's capital to be raised in Denmark. And, possibly, a change that the pound will recover.... Thus supplying af windfall for institutional investors.
Invest in using A.I. in developing enhanced electrical conductors for more efficient dynamos, motors & transmission grid!
If Labour is serious about net-zero by 2030 they need to reform permitting, build Hinkley Point C, and double down on Nuclear Power.
Hinkley Point C isn't due to switch on until 2030, and building started in 2017. There's no way that any new project started today would be ready in 6 years, even if they skipped the planning stage entirely.
@@robinbennett5994 So true, we need to be looking at Molten Salt Reactors made in factories like ship building yards. And the French were able to build their entire nuclear power system in close to a decade because the oil prices hit them very hard in the 70s oil crisis. The UK had north sea oil so we ignored nuclear, and now it is too late.
Wind and solar are the fastest and cheapest to deploy. Nuclear doesn't feature in the 2030 time horizon.
@@robinbennett5994, Labour have sought to reform infrastructure planning. At the moment, our construction industry is too fragmented. The centralised French or Spanish model is the way to go (and Labour have already sort of done this by making infrastructure decisions national rather than local).
@@robinbennett5994The fastest energy transition in human history was the nuclearization of French power. Period.
Any ideas from Labour to chance the energy market which currently means that the most expensive source of electricity on any given day sets the price for ALL the electricty generated? People keep saying wind and solar are cheap, and they can be, but in fact the electricity they produce is usually sold at a huge mark up. The high price of electricity for industrial users is also killing the green transition by making electric rail freight more expensive than diesel, and various industrial users investing in their own (often diesel) generation options as the wholesale price is too high/volatile.
Think it’s a good idea for the government to help open the door to renewables
we have lots of renewable electricity we need lots of battery storage domestic, commercial and utlility storage to do the transition
Acording to physics, electrical battery storage is 10,000 times more expensive than chemical energy density, check a 10KWhr(e) battery cost ($10k) vs the chemical energy content of a $1plastic bucket holding 1 gallon $4 of oil with 30KWhr(ch) worth about 10KWhr(e) after burning it in power plant.
To power the entire UK economy with only solar or wind, every inch of land would be needed to power all energy use of 70M people.
In 2017 according to Energy Flow Graph at LLNL, UK made solar 44PJ and wind 180PJ equiv primary energy out of total 7900PJ use about 3% so plenty
This is very weak analysis, I didn't hear a single statistic on any of this.
Encourage the politicalisation of the climate, encourage the criminalisation of climate protestors, and anti-genocide protestors.
That is Keir's aim
Not sure windfall taxes on the large oil & gas companies are a good way to go. The shareholders won’t be happy & nor will the companies. Nor will it help those companies progress in a renewable direction that’s inevitable.
What if instead of collecting windfall taxes, that money was mandated & ringfenced that the o&g companies must invest in renewables. So the same money is invested in future, instead of fossil. The companies still have that money on their spreadsheets, the shareholders are investing in the further to see dividends in the future. It does mean they need to stick it for the long term, but isn’t that the general investment advice anyway ?
Why is the union flag back to front in the thumbnail?
This critique of the greens isn't that impressive. Without knowing the details of the complaint I'd hold back on the condemnation
i worked for kensa contracting and huge investment opportunities for shared ground loop systems and renting the ground loop annually to home owners, similar to gas annual charges and investors desperate to invest in this and will help decarbonise heating- you need to talk about heating and transport
Why do all those carboncapture projects on power plants when houses can be insulated? And have their own small powerplants? Solar on the roof. And (bio)gas to boot.
This 2030 target is for the production of electricty. This discussion is not clear.
We live on an island why are we not looking at non invasive hydro power I’ve seen balloons that can be used as batteries underneath the water the tide could push the energy back and forth helped from water pressure also we can float subs and cylinders like that to the ocean floor rather than drill into it Amsterdam should be underwater and much of this country will be by 2080 so why are we not looking at infrastructure to work with the water rather than billions replacing and making new in years to come
The planet is boiling. It is not a question of can we do this. We have to do this if we want to survive as a species.
The solution is get people into jobs which innovate in decarbonising technologies, not have mass temper tantrum in the streets or cause economically damaging blockages like Just Stop Oil.
The innovators are the real heroes of the climate. Not activists like Greta and JSO who get way too much airtime than they actually deserve.
@@inbb510better do both eh
@@bencops , no not really.
Especially not when the climate activists are getting too much airtime over innovators who are actually doing the real work.
Furthermore, there is nothing compassionate about blocking road routes that working-class people use to get to their work and put food on the table.
@@inbb510 not sure that was supposed to be compassionate was it? I wonder why they did it.
@@inbb510 I’d hate for people who were worried about billions of people’s lives, backed by science, to get too much air time.
The lack of detailed analysis is starting to turn me off this channel.
For detailed analysis of energy you would have to go to The New Engineer channel, yeh it doesn't exist because only engineers and scientists would tune in.
If GB Energy does nothing except speed up the process for grid connections then it would have been a success. There is no shortage of capital to fund wind, solar and grid scale battery projects. Where we need more investment is in the grid itself.
So what is your opinions on the speed of grid connections? They just mucking about are they?
@@CmdrTobs National Grid plc have paid over £9 billion to shareholders in the past 5 years. Shareholders include Blackrock, The Norwegian pension fund, Lazards, British Columbia pension fun and many others. Their income is derived from generators who want to put power onto the grid and customers who take power from it So the 'grid' is the common element and should IMO be state owned as this is a natural monopoly with no competition possible. Instead of paying dividends to foreign shareholders we should be spending the money on prioritising renewable energy generators as is the case in Germany and adapting the grid to take these inputs.
@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 So because investers made *some* return that means a specifc aspect of a business could go faster?
Grand speculation.
GB energy has got to be better than Electricity De France, who currently seem to own much of the system.
EDF supply 8+% of UK with nuclear energy.
It make take time more than 6 weeks. Why are labour expected to fix problems the Tories have not resolved in 14 years.
Most of the things discussed here seemed to come down to issues caused in the planning stage along with the Nimby opposing so many projects ranging from solar/wind farms through meeting housing targets and on to just getting the national grid able to handle the countries modern/future use cases. In order to get things done it does seem to me that Labour will have to essentially go to war against Nimbys.
Your team really needs to be better read on the energy sector and the green energy transition. Lots of basic facts wrong in here, renewables ARE cheaper.
highlight for me: rachel referring to "twitter" with no mention of the rebrand... i approve
kensa advocated ambient loops using heat pumps to take waste heat and use this heat to heat buildings
Where will the solar panels come from ?
China whilst using coal power and bunker fuel ships to transport then , same as the wind turbines , how is that decarbonisation.
Labour say this is about energy security, yet have banned all new oil and gas exploration licences...
The weird fact that the king and his family own the seabeds around england,Scotland,wales and northern Ireland who many millions will they make for doing nothing when green energy is in full swing,all offshore turbines will be on royal property so why is nobody talking about this and wtf does the king own the seabeds around the UK.very weird.
Well I put 10 solar panels on my roof and built a 16kWh battery. I don't pay hardly anything and probably 95% carbon free. Cost £4k
I know people who spend that on a holiday!
Why didn't you disconnect from the grid?
@@gregorymalchuk272 well a few reasons but mainly because we have wind turbines on the hill and in the winter, when windy, my electricity supplier gives the power away free. I charge my battery then and use it through the day. I get my own solar power in summer days and cheap wind power in the winter nights. It's great 👍
And you can sell the electricity back to the grid when the price goes really high.
Apparently they reckon it's possible not to pay anything for energy if you had a heat pump but that's not for me. I like a fire
@@gregorymalchuk272 Selling excess solar may well be more than standing charges ... (winter solar would be v difficult off grid at 10 panels in any case)
Wind turbines on every ridge in the National Parks. Windermere dammed for Dinorwig plants
If you’ve seen share company’s Greencoat energy or Berkshire Hathaway. It’s a pool of money that invests in operations and gains profits from investments.
Frankly anybody that knows not even really that much about the state of the UK's energy situation knows that 2030 target is a lie. It's categorically impossible. However, it is a promising move to deal with energy security - but we should not be ruling out oil and gas.....
2030 may or may not be overly ambitious, but I fail to see what they gain from lying about it. Perhaps you could educate me. There is too much toxic language used when discussing topics. Most people thought that Kennedy was crazy when, in 1962, he committed to landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
People with some spare cash are making enormous savings by having a few solar panels. It’s obvious that can be extended with larger scale investments. Eg. On the side and roof of flats etc.
So rich people who own their own homes.
The Green Party *should* oppose developments where they impact nature - Firstly, to be pragmatic, if they're seen as too development-happy, they will lose voters for that too. Secondly, as you have pointed out, the UK has been held back by not utilising planning for economic gain - this suggests there are ways that are more or less efficient at reaching those gains, as such this implies a strategic approach to planning that is not simply 'build everywhere', but 'build in the right places'.
But sure, the Greens should be criticised if they really are holding up energy infrastructure problems - However, a few local cases do not serve to discredit the party entirely. I would trust the Greens to move more quickly on energy than any other party. As for nuclear, I do believe they ought to change their stance, but however you look at it, wind will be driving our decarbonisation efforts.
It's not about "not in my back yard" it's about "not in anyone's back yard". Scarring the environment and affecting our wildlife should be a last resort. There is plenty of scope for off shore wind and urban solar before we start installing massive noisy wind farms in nature. Ultimately whatever we do in the UK is not going to have the slightest impact on climate compared to China the US India etc.
Offshore wind and rooftop solar are the least cost effective ways of doing them. Meaning least decarbonization per dollar.
Main host making sarcastic jokes that imply that farming and climate policy are boring or not worth discussing for any great length.
Particularly given discussion of not enough labour conversation on agriculture/rural affairs, maybe you shouldn't do that.
It comes across as a little unprofessional.
I think this country should invest in agriculture.
Instead of importing fresh foods like tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers we should have greenhouses using renewable energy and battery storage
The govt could invest
Has Megan any idea of how much Cu will be required to renew the NationalGrid? Has she read up about the German experience on renewables? Dunkelflaute? New reliance on coal power?What does she think will provide the baseload? Where is any news on batteries?Storage? Buffer? ‘Power’ here seems to be used for ‘electricity’ . No reference to UK energy useage.. Look at the data. Hopeless.
Confusing the barely going German green energy switch which fails due to paperwork?
Or their last conservative government shutting down the nuclear plants?
There's no issue with Cu supply. Germany has supplied 57% of its consumption from Rs h1 24. Germany coal consumption is at lows dating back to levels from the 50s/60s
Just show you how bad the Tories were
Nothing about cheaper small and safer SMR reactors? If you wanna go green you'll need alot more nuclear.
I work in energy, every single person I've spoke too on this says net zero 2030 is completely ludicrous - which it is
Listening to the ginger girl talking, she has no clue.
so we shouldn't even bother, right? the time for that kind of tosh was a few decades ago, it's squeaky bum time now in case you didn't notice
@@shyft09 facetious response. Labour should be honest with people, because it wont be 2030.
It depends on how you define it. We already had a bunch of days over the last winter where we were at or close to 100% renewables. I suspect if we just scale so that we have excess capacity, then our overall generation can get to 100% average in reasonably quick order.
That isn't the same as ALWAYS being on renewables (I.e. shut down the gas gen etc) which requires huge investment in storage. We would sell excess gen in good times, import / use FF when it's not... and them use good old offsets in the calculations :)
@@shyft09 Well not that we shouldn't bother, but be honest with us.
No one thinks this is actually a realistic policy unless you pull out some extreme technicalities. We probably could get an energy drink that allows us to be 100% on renewables for a few weeks by 2030. But definitely not a long-term or permanent status.
They should be blond. SteeL will require 16.9 GW installed by 2028. That is nearly half again as we presently generate..
There's no way that in the short/medium term bills go down if we get closer to 100% renewables.
It works domestically. I installed solar in 2014. Bills are low and it paid for itself by 6 years. Renewables are cheaper and sunlight doesn’t go up in price.
@@user-dc5qc1vb9c fair, I appreciate that. Domestic bills going down is definitely nice but powering the grid and all vehicles is not going to be cheap.
You have more chance of winning the lottery
I have never heard so much rubbish talked in my life. Very one sided and unrealistic
These girls live in fairy land
It's a bit embarrasing to think that farming, energy and climate change are weird issues to be discussing. This is meant to be a magazine for intelligent people...
People just like the sounds of there own voices, drama and have self importance these days.
They are idiots!!! No common sense at all just get on with GB electricity, competition in a private utility market is always good..
The naivety and apparent igorance of the participants in this discussion is bewildering. When a senior member of the Green Party opposes a clean energy project in his neighbourhood, this is very likely on the grounds of environmental impact. The installation of clean energy infrastructure doesn't trump the protection of endangered species and agricultural productivity - it must be in service to the overarching goal of sustainability in its many and varied forms.
You don't recognise a capital land grab Vs community ownership?
Sustainability also demands sustainable economics, not the capitalist business as usual that created this mess
6:00 what? More Energy Security by reliance upon the variable wind and sunshine? Shes NUTS.
NIMBYs have too much power
3 trillion pound cost just for the infrastructure. Currently 6 Billion a year subsidise and double the US cost in energy. Windmills only become carbon neutral after 20 years of use but they dont last 20 years.
Dont be an ignorant gammon. Wind turbine blades are no different than aeroplane wings which is besides the point.
The whole point is to decarbonise, inextricably linked to that actual important point is who owns this new capital and why, then down the line do you ask how will they be responsible for end of life disposal.
@@toyotaprius79 Ah because someone knows it is a lie they are a gammon. Wow your so convincing.
Why is the host making fun of the guest for talking about climate and farming? Thats why you asked her on! I know you politics nerds just want to talk about the economy but if we don't have food, clean water and a livable climate then we're dead.
This is going to be a disaster. Wait until the lights go out.
Gooddaye BP exec.
Here we go. It's not been a month and we've already got labour non official spokespeople changing what was said. It was fun for a month!
When you woke up this morning did you even think of what happened in leeds and the damage done by migrants
its normally people that have somehting already that get annoyed when something is tried to get built they are infuriated. We need to accept we cant keep everyone happy society
Nimby's - god the Greens are insufferable. No nuclear because of waste storage, so you need more renewals (wind, solar, hydro etc.), which you need to install somewhere at scale. No that won't do either. Here is a concept: concentrated baseload or widespread installation that needs land and even more resources to achieve. They appear to want to sacrifice the entire future on the altar of the greenbelt. The UK has very limited natural landscapes per its gross area, its pasture.
Wait until the Greens find out about how the wind turbine blades are destroyed...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe both .
The epidemic of pro-social narcissism is out of hand now.
Ludicrous policy
Explain?
@@1erkyrob2 If you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate: Because arguably it will vastly increase the cost of living and doing business, reduce quality-of-life, despoil the countryside, divert funds from more immediate social problems, and all for a negligible impact on global carbon emissions.
EVS will help balance the renewable grid as they have opportunity to send power back to grid. kensa installed heat pumps in tower blocks, new builds and commercial buildings
Running a renewable energy system will still require a parallel fossil fuel backup system for when there’s no wind and solar generation.
Exactly, the LLNL Energy flow graph shows energy use graphs for all the counties of the world as well as all US state. They also have graphs for water and CO2 emmissions, The EU also has similar stat databases. Pity that no a single green will look at them and when they do, draw the wrong conclusions.
To save you the trouble, solar 44PJ, wind 180PJ, total UK energy use was 7900PJ as in 2017, and most of it was fossil fuel 6400PJ out of 7900 PJ.
No it won't. There are a variety of storage technologies available, for example pumped hydro, battery storage and the upcoming vehicle to grid. Not to mention the interconnectors to other countries that we have in place to tap into wider electricity grids.
There are options to manage demand better as well such as load shifting.
@@danrooke7372, the problem is that the NIMBYs and Green Party tree huggers don't want this.
what a load of piybys (Put in your back yard)
Hydrogen fuel is the future, evs are not that environmentally friendly.
Mining, manufacturing and disposal of ev batteries is very environmentally toxic.
Producing green hydrogen is alot more friendly to the environment.
The electricity production for ev is also very toxic to the environment as things stand for the near to long term future.
Then theres the copper and other components for motors etc mined manufacured and current disposal practices that are very toxic to the environment.