The Labour Government

[BobKowalski]

Having had time to read and digest all of your post now, the following quote struck me:

"China, not being a dogmatic country though, also understands that renewables are a medium term solution that will catapult them into the world's leading economic power. But that in order to industrialise and modernise some of the poorer parts of its incredibly humongously large country, it needs energy now. China isn't mass building coal plants because it doesn't care about renewables, it's building coal plants because it cares about civic expansion."

Well precisely. We should also not be dogmatic. I am not proposed we abandon all our renewables efforts, merely that we are being extremely dogmatic about it. It makes no sense to import gas when we have our own. It makes no sense to import oil (or steel) when we can make our own. We have resources we should be using, not shutting them off due to ideological dogma.

Our high energy costs (highest in the developed world) are driving to point where manufacturing in the UK is no longer viable. This is a terrible policy, especially considering that growth is the only way out of our fiscal malaise.

We aren’t being dogmatic though. Hence the decision to save the Scunthorpe blast furnace for future steel production. Our decision to phase out coal was pragmatic. It impacts less on the environment we live in and no one is arguing that breathing polluted air is a positive - what am I saying of course they do with the battle against clean air initiatives. People eh? Dumb as fuck. Probably all that lead in petrol rotted their brains before we banned it. And that was a battle as well! “Too costly, it will ruin my engine (fuck my brain I don’t use it)” etc etc

Over 50% of our electricity is now from renewables/nuclear sources. On what planet is that not a good thing and yes I am pro nuclear power. That’s 50% generated in this country. That’s 50% and growing where we are not relying on someone else or worrying about running out of oil and gas. Seriously, what is the issue?

You asked in another post why China does what it does and the answer was in the part you highlighted. An aim to be the dominant economic power. You can add India to that ambition. Half of the world’s population lives in Asia. They have the resources, the people and it seems the drive to get there. They are not, unlike the US, trying to turn the clock back or protecting their non EV car industry with trade barriers. A decision that will suppress investment in future tech and depress innovation. Investment and innovation is how developed economies grow.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Dear god you are hard work at times. How many weeks is 33 plus 8 (your figures)? 8 weeks. Then I said "Tbf I think she did this by working some extra days here and there". She was on a 4 day x 10 hour flexitime contract and some weeks worked 5 days to build up extra holiday, over and above the 8 weeks. So no, it's not debunked at all. Funny that since I live 2 doors from the woman, and you don't.

Also, she got 2 free bikes.

When I worked 50 hour weeks (like ALWAYS) I didn't get any extra holiday over and above my 4 or 5 weeks standard *(which incentally I rarely took because of the workload). Do you?

Why on earth are you so keen to pretend some people are not on a cushy number? Are you a nurse or something? It's like your on some kind of mission. I cannot believe you took the time to try to research something (that I didn't actually say!!! specifically to try to debunk it. How fucking sad is that.

15 days holiday you get in warehouse work or similar. (or did in the 80's)

oh yeah and wages were shit.

 

[Damocles]

Well precisely. We should also not be dogmatic. I am not proposed we abandon all our renewables efforts, merely that we are being extremely dogmatic about it. It makes no sense to import gas when we have our own. It makes no sense to import oil (or steel) when we can make our own. We have resources we should be using, not shutting them off due to ideological dogma.

I don't disagree and have long suggested that the UK and a lot of others are pissing in the wind with energy policy, attempting to meet quotas for climate change instead of focusing on building a secure energy economy.

Climate change isn't a political problem, it's a scientific one that has been stolen by politicians and the culture warriors to monetise for themselves. The first advocate for climate change awareness in UK politics was Margaret Thatcher, a scientifically literate woman herself. How this became a right/left thing baffles me. And both are as guilty as each other - the right wing denialism is as bad as the left wing who tried to link this to societal change and anti-capitalist sentiment. None of that has anything to do with how certain atoms stop certain radiation from escaping so putting more of them is going to heat up the planet. Nothing at all.

Climate change can be fixed with technology. Technology needs research to be invented. Research needs money to exist. Nobody has any money if we kill our economy. This seems a simple pipeline issue to me. Make renewables more profitable through the economies of scale then the world will switch to them in about 3.8 seconds.

Most Western Governments are trying to skip to the end instead of doing the work in the middle. It's not as much of a problem now as others (i.e. China) have done the work and make all the money from it, but it was particularly stupid around 15ish years ago.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Over 50% of our electricity is now from renewables/nuclear sources. On what planet is that not a good thing and yes I am pro nuclear power. That’s 50% generated in this country. That’s 50% and growing where we are not relying on someone else or worrying about running out of oil and gas. Seriously, what is the issue?

The issue is it's very expensive and not remotely reliable. It's a luxury we cannot afford at the moment, and yes we ARE being dogmatic because we refuse to budge off idiotic arbitrary and unachievable targets, due to dogma.

And BTW what percentage of our total energy needs are from renewables? We're still at around 40%. We've done the easy yards and the hard yards are to follow. People don't want heat pumps. They are way too expensive and don't work unless you're in a newish hjouse, and then they don't work because every house built since around 1980 has been plumbed with 10mm microbore central heating pipes, which cannot carry sufficient energy to the radiators with the lower water temperature. So you need to have your whole house re-plumbed and new radiators fitted. Clearly this is not going to work across millions of homes. People won't stand for it, but does the government listen? Of course not. Dogma again.

Another one: There's no way the UK is equipped, nor can it be equipped, for a ban on ICE car sales by 2030 (and pure electric only by 2035) for example.

All that will happen is that new car sales will drop through the floor because people will hang on to their petrol and diesel cars for longer. And tens if not hundreds of thousands of people involved in the automotive supply chains will lose their jobs. Or, if the dogmatic Labour government are still in power they will have to come up with some very attractive bung to encourage electric car ownership, at huge cost to the taxpayer. You can see this balls up unfolding in slow motion.

 

[hampshireblue]

15 days holiday you get in warehouse work or similar. (or did in the 80's)

oh yeah and wages were shit.

It's a good job the the unions got improvements then. It is now 28 days which may or may not include bank holidays. The EU minimum is 20 days but that was improved by the UK-despite us apparently not having the ability to make our own laws!

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Batteries exist. Massive ones capable of storing a huge amount of energy that can (and is) later used when the renewable source output drops. The technology isn't quite there yet at scale but it's improved 10 fold in the last 20 years. Renewables are the future either way. Also worth noting that capacity spikes are an acceptable risk on the National Grid. Even before the days of renewables, at half time in a big England game when people used to all go and switch the kettle on at the same time then we borrowed capacity from the European/French grids in order to avoid brownouts. We still do aswell, we've just built a second massive interconnector that will double the capacity exchange between the UK and France. Pretty much all energy networks (outside Texas) tend to send each other energy when they need it.



People think that there is a competition in renewable energy and Green Tech between all these different nations. There is no competition. China won that competition before the Americans even worked out that there in a technological race. There are more Green Tech billionaire entrepreneurs in China than in any other country in the world. They have massive capacity in renewables and are constantly funding them and building them.

China, not being a dogmatic country though, also understands that renewables are a medium term solution that will catapult them into the world's leading economic power. But that in order to industrialise and modernise some of the poorer parts of its incredibly humongously large country, it needs energy now. China isn't mass building coal plants because it doesn't care about renewables, it's building coal plants because it cares about civic expansion.

How China Became the World’s Leader on Renewable Energy

China has achieved stunning growth in its installed renewable capacity over the last two decades, far outpacing the rest of the world. But to end its continued dependence on fossil fuels, it must now move ahead with planned reforms to its national electricity system.

e360.yale.edu

View attachment 162109

Clean energy generated a record-high 44% of China’s electricity in May 2024, pushing coal’s share down to a record low of 53%, despite continued growth in demand.



As I say, this competition is already over because they actually invested while we sat around making a culture war out of simple high school level science. It's one of the great displays of incredible incompetence by the West in recent times. We've literally given up trillions of pounds in future revenue to argue about the wind. A stunning display of arrogance.

Nicely put. Can I add that the West has been addicted to oil and gas mainly due to the capitalist society that the rich and powerful create. They want us buying their products and renewables are the enemy of these powerful people.

They don’t care about any of us, all they care about is their wealth.

 

[Hertzblue]

Honestly, I am not remotely surprised by any of this.

I've posted previously about my near neighbour who worked for the NHS for many years doing some management function or other (I never quite understood what but it was liaising with various commitees) and then when there was some restructuring and she decided to leave and get a job in the private sector. She was genuinely shocked at how hard she was expected to work and the stress she was put under. She lasted about 2 years, before quitting and going back to the NHS. Back in the NHS, she had a full time job but was seemingly always on holiday. One year she had 12 weeks holiday! Tbf I think she did this by working some extra days here and there, but even so. She worked from home most of the time. Her demeanor was entirely different. She got free electric bikes to get to the office on the few occasions she actually went in. I got the impression it was a holiday camp. She retired last year, at 60 on a decent pension. She's a lifelong Labour voter, btw.

New NHS boss Sir Jim Mackey is making the right noises. He has said that the NHS does seem like it sees patients as an inconvenience, admitted it has wasted a lot of money etc. It will be a big job to turn it around but I think that needs to start with a frank discussion about our demographics and what it can and cannot reasonably do on a universal basis. That productivity is still way below pre-covid levels despite the extra £ billions and headcount is staggering , it is broken. Maybe the removal of NHS England and the consequent re-structure will give it the impetus to change.

 

[Hertzblue]

I think you'll find there's a lot of that goes on, Bob. In some sectors more than others.

I worked at GKN Steelstocks in Hazel Grove for a few months. The steel would arrive on lorries in the morning mainly and we'd work for a few hours and then do nothing for most of the day. They'd even built a den inside the warehouse where you could hide inside and have a kip. Then at 16:30 we'd do overtime!

I was maybe 19 at the time - it was a vac job - so not my place to say it do anything about it, but had it been my business id have sacked half the workforce.

Lol.. reminds of me that film I'm alright Jack.
No need to build dens for sleeping now, things have moved on . We have Work from home!

 

[Hertzblue]

As I stated previously my bill is lower. Stop looking to the Government to wipe your arse and get yourself a better deal.

Isn't looking to the state to wipe your arse a tenet of socialism Bob ? or is it a consequence ?
Be good if you could apply the same principle to your thinking on our Welfare state issue.

 

[bluethrunthru]

It's a good job the the unions got improvements then. It is now 28 days which may or may not include bank holidays. The EU minimum is 20 days but that was improved by the UK-despite us apparently not having the ability to make our own laws!

yep its now 28 days statutory paid in the UK - something that the Employments Rights Bill 2024 protects and which workers friends Reform Ltd and a lot of Tory MP's voted against in Parliament

 

[Hertzblue]

Nicely put. Can I add that the West has been addicted to oil and gas mainly due to the capitalist society that the rich and powerful create. They want us buying their products and renewables are the enemy of these powerful people.

They don’t care about any of us, all they care about is their wealth.

Are you serious ?

Can I add that the West has been addicted to oil and gas mainly due to the capitalist society that the rich and powerful create.

You mean those fossil fuels that propelled the Industrial Revolution , enabled billions of people to escape poverty, starvation, drudgery and ignorance.Essentially gave us the lives we enjoy now as opposed to peasantry.
Is it any wonder we are addicted?
Or we you rather give it all up for a life in the fields ?
Damn those capitalists !

 

[Chippy_boy]

Over 50% of our electricity is now from renewables/nuclear sources. On what planet is that not a good thing and yes I am pro nuclear power. That’s 50% generated in this country. That’s 50% and growing where we are not relying on someone else or worrying about running out of oil and gas. Seriously, what is the issue?

Let me turn it around.

You must accept that since the UK produces less than 1% of the CO2, then whether we hit net zero or not, is going to make minimal to zero difference to climate change. That is not a question, BTW ;-)

So that being the case, what are the advantages to the UK of pursuing net zero?

1. Lower bills? No, definitely not. Absolutely definitely not in the short term and not in the long term either, since we will need conventional power generation as well.
2. Improved air quality? You might have thought so, but it seems that electric cars are filling our cities air with microscopic rubber particles, so no again.
3. Better for the planet? No, not really. Lithium and cobalt mining is having a devastating effect
4. Better for the countryside? Acres of solar panels and fields of wind turbines aren't doing it for me. Nor the thousands of miles of additional pylons that we will need.

So, it costs more, does nothing for the environment and ruins the countryside. Can you think of any positives, other than a false sense of feel good factor?

 

[metalblue]

It was tongue in cheek. There is at least one "contributor" that thinks the government have a direct influence on everything from utility prices to his car insurance( apart from VAT and IPT) of course. As usual he's always quick to criticise but absolutely no comment when prices go to his advantage.

Fair enough. Government policy can of course influence energy costs, eg a green levy but I get the wider point.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The hard truth about heat pumps:
:
Air-source heat pumps typically cost £10,000–£15,000 installed.

Ground-source heat pumps can exceed £20,000–£30,000.

Even with government grants like the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (£7,500), many households still face a multi-thousand-pound shortfall.

The annual savings on energy bills are often modest — £200–£400 per year at best, and sometimes none at all depending on electricity vs gas prices and insulation quality.

Lifespan of a heat pump is around 15–20 years, so unless energy prices change dramatically or installation costs fall sharply, the system won’t pay for itself in that time. And then you need another one.

The break-even argument is largely academic for most people:
Even optimistic government or industry scenarios put the payback period at 20+ years, which exceeds the product's lifetime and assumes consistent performance and no expensive repairs.

And regards the £7,500 subsidy, that is just tax taken off some people and given to other people. The cost to the UK remains £7,500 higher per heat pump.

And without mass adoption (near 100%) of households changing to heat pumps, we cannot achieve net zero, unless other industries go lower than zero. Like electric HGVs and electric passenger aircraft. No, I haven't see any of those either. It's all one enormous con.

 

[BobKowalski]

Let me turn it around.

You must accept that since the UK produces less than 1% of the CO2, then whether we hit net zero or not, is going to make minimal to zero difference to climate change. That is not a question, BTW ;-)

So that being the case, what are the advantages to the UK of pursuing net zero?

1. Lower bills? No, definitely not. Absolutely definitely not in the short term and not in the long term either, since we will need conventional power generation as well.
2. Improved air quality? You might have thought so, but it seems that electric cars are filling our cities air with microscopic rubber particles, so no again.
3. Better for the planet? No, not really. Lithium and cobalt mining is having a devastating effect
4. Better for the countryside? Acres of solar panels and fields of wind turbines aren't doing it for me. Nor the thousands of miles of additional pylons that we will need.

So, it costs more, does nothing for the environment and ruins the countryside. Can you think of any positives, other than a false sense of feel good factor?

For starters, my energy bill is lower.

It would seem self evident that energy produced in the UK by renewables/nuclear power will be less susceptible to events in other countries- oil and gas supply/price fluctuations, wars, etc. No one is invading anyone for their solar or wind farm.

We have much better air quality than we used to have. Regulations on car emissions, more efficient cars, cleaner fuel, congestion zones, clean air zones etc. All things we habitually rail against (and still do) as costing too much and yet here we are with cleaner air and the economy still surviving. If there are problems with new tech then the process begins of finding a solution as we always do. Progress is a constant, not a finite destination. This applies to rubber particles or battery production.

So let’s talk battery production where despite the damage, the case for EV still trumps ICE.

"The results were clearer than we thought, actually," says Georg Bieker, with the International Council on Clean Transportation, who authored one of those reports. (This is the group that busted Volkswagen for cheating on its emissions tests. Holding industries accountable for whether they're actually reducing emissions is the ICCT's whole thing.). Building a battery is an environmental cost that's paid once. Burning gasoline is a cost that's paid again, and again, and again.’

Battery production and methods will evolve. The pursuit for new tech stimulates innovation and solutions to problems. Just as we did with ICE. Cleaner fuels, more efficient cars, etc.

The aesthetic of solar panels is a personal issue. I prefer them to wind turbines. If a farmer is happy to stick panels in a field and still allow it for pasture than I’m really not seeing a problem.

Personally, I don’t think your argument stands up. I’m not even sure it’s an argument more ‘I hate new stuff coz reasons.’

 

[BobKowalski]

Isn't looking to the state to wipe your arse a tenet of socialism Bob ? or is it a consequence ?
Be good if you could apply the same principle to your thinking on our Welfare state issue.

No idea. I’m not a socialist.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Johnson, Truss, Sunak. All totally out of their depth

Hard to dissagree with this, people have short memories.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

For starters, my energy bill is lower.

It would seem self evident that energy produced in the UK by renewables/nuclear power will be less susceptible to events in other countries- oil and gas supply/price fluctuations, wars, etc. No one is invading anyone for their solar or wind farm.

We have much better air quality than we used to have. Regulations on car emissions, more efficient cars, cleaner fuel, congestion zones, clean air zones etc. All things we habitually rail against (and still do) as costing too much and yet here we are with cleaner air and the economy still surviving. If there are problems with new tech then the process begins of finding a solution as we always do. Progress is a constant, not a finite destination. This applies to rubber particles or battery production.

So let’s talk battery production where despite the damage, the case for EV still trumps ICE.

"The results were clearer than we thought, actually," says Georg Bieker, with the International Council on Clean Transportation, who authored one of those reports. (This is the group that busted Volkswagen for cheating on its emissions tests. Holding industries accountable for whether they're actually reducing emissions is the ICCT's whole thing.). Building a battery is an environmental cost that's paid once. Burning gasoline is a cost that's paid again, and again, and again.’

Battery production and methods will evolve. The pursuit for new tech stimulates innovation and solutions to problems. Just as we did with ICE. Cleaner fuels, more efficient cars, etc.

The aesthetic of solar panels is a personal issue. I prefer them to wind turbines. If a farmer is happy to stick panels in a field and still allow it for pasture than I’m really not seeing a problem.

Personally, I don’t think your argument stands up. I’m not even sure it’s an argument more ‘I hate new stuff coz reasons.’

Out of interest how does a farmer grow anything in a field which is covered in solar panels? I'm intrigued?

Also arnt renewable electricity prices in the UK tied to the wider market price?

 

[BobKowalski]

Are you serious ?

You mean those fossil fuels that propelled the Industrial Revolution , enabled billions of people to escape poverty, starvation, drudgery and ignorance.Essentially gave us the lives we enjoy now as opposed to peasantry.
Is it any wonder we are addicted?
Or we you rather give it all up for a life in the fields ?
Damn those capitalists !

Now here’s a random thought.

It is a feature of capitalism that it evolves and adapts. From horse power to steam power to internal combustion. From candlelight to gas light to electric light.

Each step eliminates an industry and creates others in its place. Without that constant change, that need to eke out a competitive edge, there is no innovation and no progress.

The fight to maintain fossil fuels is a fight to freeze progress and is anti-capitalist. The far right of politics is seemingly engaged in this anti-progress, anti-capitalism and engaged to the point where they have become somewhat unhinged.

Personally, I think it’s one of the reasons why the Tory Party has lost its way. It’s very reason for being was pro business, pro trade and now it is anti the things it once held dear. The sad thing (or not depending on your viewpoint) is the Tory Party and its supporters don’t even realise it.

 

[BobKowalski]

Out of interest how does a farmer grow anything in a field which is covered in solar panels? I'm intrigued?

Also arnt renewable electricity prices in the UK tied to the wider market price?

Sheep grazing in fields with solar panels.

Big debate in Australia about it. Usual suspects are agin it. Others don’t see a problem. The trouble is nothing is debated on its merits. It’s debated on its politics. The right hates renewable energy. It’s weird.

Farmers who graze sheep under solar panels say it improves productivity. So why don’t we do it more?

Allowing livestock to graze under renewable developments gives farmers a separate income stream, but solar developers have been slow to catch on

www.theguardian.com

Yes, the price is fixed to the spot market or something like that, which does negate part of my argument.