Energy cap to go up again in October

OK, that means you're not what I was beginning to suspect - a sponger.

But back to the windfall tax - it's not just the loss in value of the shares. It's likely the companies will reduce their dividends, in which case we'll have made a loss.

Andy

I dunno - but Kwasi wassisname is going to keep em running and bugger the legislation as far as I can see.

Since the prosecuting agency would, in this case, solely be the government, I guess he van simply fine em a peppercorn each and have done with it.

I don't find the argument very convincing. Yes, the EU, and Germany in particular is in hock to Russia over gas supplies (and more fool them for getting into that situation), but only 4% of our gas is Russian, (it says so in the article). Is it so difficult to replace that 4% that we have to keep four coal-fired power stations running. Can't North Sea gas just increase its output by 4%? I would have thought so. It's not such a big amount, surely.

Or is it that Kwasi wassisname is secretly acknowledging that renewables can't cut it, and is blaming the potential shortage of electricity on the Russian gas problem?

As the EU moves away from Russian gas, they will need to replace it with other sources and that will drive prices up and divert supplies - as we import gas, it will drive prices up for us and may cause shortages as our supplies get diverted because someone will pay a bit more.

In message snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, at 13:07:04 on Wed, 1 Jun 2022, Chris Hogg snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net remarked:

Only about half our gas is "from the North Sea", most of the rest being from Norway (I'll speculate that means: 'from the Norwegian bit of the North Sea'.)

They can sell that gas on the world market.

Similarly, the remaining 15% we need is also bought on the world market.

There's no reason the gas producers from our bit of the North Sea would sell to us at below the world price, but that does mean they are making a "windfall profit". Which is still subject to discussion when it comes to a special tax.

Well, that's the cover-story, and I've no doubt gas prices will rise sharply. But I see that Shell has just been given permission to open up a new gas field off Aberdeen, with production starting towards the end of 2025 and able to produce 6.5% of the UK consumption

So there's going to be no shortage of gas for the UK for the foreseeable future, and more than enough to replace imports from the US and the Middle East.

No doubt the operators of those fields are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the rising prices, which I doubt were factored in when the decisions were made to develop the fields a few years ago.

The opening of those fields hardly accords with the Government's objective of being carbon neutral by 2030, when we aren't supposed to be using any fossil fuels, so the price of gas would be irrelevant.

It's a tacit admission that renewables can't and won't ever be able to cope!

a) it is net neutral, not carbon neutral. We can still use fossil fuels, but they must be matched by the absorption of carbon by trees, plants, peat bogs, carbon capture and storage, etc.

and

b) it is net neutral by 2050, with fossil fuels remaining a requirement, but declining from about 2030 (IIRC).

That still leaves us needing to replace supplies that may be diverted elsewhere now and needing to ensure ongoing supplies for the future.

Hence needing nuclear, as the only large scale, zero carbon, 24/7/365 source of power.

In message <t7aa9r$ffm$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 13:26:35 on Thu, 2 Jun 2022, SteveW snipped-for-privacy@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:

Unless all the staff at nuclear power stations walk to work, or have electric cars, and every other input to the power station is zero carbon, then the output can only be low-carbon, or net neutral with counter measures.

You can say exactly that about wind, or solar, or tidal, or any other sort of "green" energy. After all they all need concrete in their construction.

Only Nuclear will give us reliable energy at scale without burning something to produce _lots_ of CO2.

Andy

Two points: the economic viability of any fossil fuel projects is dominated by the price you can get for what comes out. At times of low price operators sit on proven reserves, as its not worth developing them. Now it is. Secondly, the government is operating on two fronts, political acceptability to the green woke Ignorati, and the need to deliver basic services to te voting public. Hence the white papers that say WE WILL BE ADDING 30GW OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER BY 2050 . . . . . (and 120GW of nuclear power, gas and coal...see appendix Z..)

Politics is all about say *this*, but do *that*.

Only very naive people think governments mean what they say.

Well Roland, if te price of fossil continues to increase that will in fact be the reality

I am sure you can monitor and control a nuclear power station for the most part remotely

I wrote a paper on no fossil fuel scenarios. I think the way it ends up is that as far as transport goes, you get a uber style driverless electric car that takes you to the nearest rail station, where you go and sit in a coach earmarked for your next hop, which then gets added to a driverless electric train going in that general direction...there is no air travel, but nuclear ships could be very very fast indeed...a 100 ft long cruise ship has a hull speed of 175knots!

...because the economics of nuclear power are that the fuel is almost free,what counts is the capital cost versus the journey times - as more passenger or freight miles per years = more income to service a bigger capital debt.

I think your 'unless...' is predicated on the assumption that we want to stay te same but just change fuel. I think that isn't how it works. What we need to understand is how it works in a holistic manner. Lockdown showed us that we can survive at least physically with far far less travel than we are accustomed to. Much can be done online - shopping and work - without the need for travel. As far as land travel goes, electric trains are 'on grid;' and therefore Will Just Work, and could be used far more effectively for non time critical goods transport. Computerised parcel switching standard box technology could sort and store and forward all goods. Insofar as fuel as mobile transport goes, or as a baseline for industrial processes go, well you can make synthetic fuel out of CO2 and water...

In short almost everything we *need* could be done, albeit at a very different ratio of 'at home' to 'out to work' ratio, provided we have access to virtually unlimited amounts of nuclear heat and power. Planes will still fly, albeit at a horrendous price of fuel. Most people will take the train or the nuclear boat.

There is in fact no need to plan for this or try and make it happen, as todays fuel prices show, its already cost effective to slow down a little, order off amazon rather than pop into town to buy...fire up teams to talk to your project manager and co workers, and sit in front of an LCD screen rather than a car dashboard.

Even physical tasks could be done by remote controlled 'waldos' or semi-autonomous robots - enough people are familiar with operating in a non local virtual reality as it is..

All government needs to do is stop funding renewables and review nuclear regulation and provide some guarantee that they will be allowed to operate free of political interference. The rest will 'just happen' as economic forces will drive the most cost effective solutions.

E.g., at today's fuel prices it is already cost comparable to accept a £5 delivery charge for online orders as drive to the local supermarket.

You seem in denial that nuclear (re)processing and storage costs are not free.

I'd be inclined (while acknowledging the carbon footprint of construction) to separate out the carbon footprint of ongoing operations. That's where Nuclear is not quite as zero-carbon as sometimes claimed. And then there's the decommissioning.

Was your pension controlled by your employer? Didn't all that change after Maxwell?

It seems that you cannot educate the stupid. Even before I retired every communication from the various pension providers, and in government information leaflets, warned about moving money away from "final salary" type pension funds.

Think yourself lucky, one of my pensions is only linked to a maximum of

There also seems that there is a new "unofficial" tax in our utility bills. The energy companies seem to be setting up funds to help those who are £250+ in debt. I wonder where that money will come from!

Perhaps it's time to cancel the DD and run up unpaid amount with the energy companies in order to claim some of this additional financial help.

Which misses the big point. A final salary pension stops when the main beneficiary dies (*). By moving it to a SIPP when interest rates are rock bottom means you then have a significant sum under your control, plus you can take out a 25% tax-free lump sum, or take out more (and pay the tax) and use it to buy property, or pay off an earlier interest-only loan, or whatever.

Finally, if it is simply invested in, say a global tracker and not touched, it is free of IHT. This is attractive to a lot of people.

(*) It is the pension liabilities that result in generous transfer liabilities. 50 years ago no-one would have forecast that by 2020 there would be 560,000 people over age 85, 15,000 over age 100 and

If the failed energy companies had been treated like any other failed company, then all their customers would have had to get their 'credit' back from the receiver (which means in almost all cases they would get nothing). Whereas Ofgem have simply allowed the rescuing company to 'refund' the non-existent credit and spread the cost over all those customers who *never* switched, by doubling the daily standing charge.

The warm cooling water outlets could be used to boost the output of 'ground source' district heat pumps, which could be used to develop a local glasshouse business.

I'm sure waste heat from a now-closed coal-fired plant was used to grow tomatoes commercially somewhere, possibly over in Kent.