Glad to be moving away from coal, but the lack of serious investment in anything but wind energy has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world, factories and industry closing their doors, the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating and a very real prospect of blackouts this winter.
We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter. We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day.
So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply and try your best to ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.
You can’t ignore the high prices when the wind doesn’t blow while saying the low prices when there is an excess of production is the true cost. This is called cherry picking.
The cost of intermittent power sources includes the dirty fossil fuel peaker plants built and ran to back them. Think of them as batteries.
Intermittent power sources more or less are financial engineering parasites to the grid at this point. It could be fixed but no one has the political will to do so. Eventually you run out of other people’s power and the chickens come home to roost.
The most obvious investment I’ve made in the past 15 years was natural gas. Until chemical battery storage catches up (doubtful) or there is a return to rationality in this space I expect the party to continue.
I hate it. I think solar and wind are great technologies that are currently horrifically misused by folks getting rich off the backs of regular people.
The highest cost electricity when the wind is blowing is imported natural gas. The highest cost electricity when the wind isn't blowing is imported natural gas.
> while saying the low prices when there is an excess of production is the true cost.
I didn't say that. There are no low prices in Britain because natural gas is expensive. There are low costs to some producers, but low costs and low prices aren't the same thing. There are multiple costs but only a single price, the highest one. You've got to completely eliminate the need for your highest cost producer before prices go down.
Batteries cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
> Batteries cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
Natgas cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
All of that is more true for natgas than for batteries.
You seriously do not believe your argument. All those costs are aggregated. As opposed to a battery endpoint, which is not. Someone is going to have to bear the cost. Right now a proprietor has to foot the bill for tanks, pumps and fuel on a shakey financing model. Just hoping they can sell enough mountain dew, CBD, and cigarettes to keep their head above water.
If (possibly when, as they are looking into it now) the UK moves to zonal pricing, Scotland will have the cheapest electricity in Europe, due to all the wind.
All the other zones would reduce in price too. Currently you get some oddities like France buying cheap wind from Scotland and since it can't get delivered through bottlenecks, gas plants in England supplying the power.
The cost of this gas is then the source of headlines about how expensive wind backup is, rather than headlines about why Scotland has mysteriously more cheap electricity than England, where onshore wind was effectively banned, and the problems caused by different areas having different amounts of cheap electricity and a single market price.
Gas took out both nuclear and pretty much all research on wind in the 1970s.
Remember nobody gives a flying fuck about the future only the present and gas was so ridiculously cheap and simple.
Still would be if Putin had been a man of reason.
Less profitable than a comparable gas turbine because it couldn't perform the same grid role of peaker plants. Make no mistake it was gas which killed coal here not wind.
A coal plant even with all of the modern upgrades is and always has been happiest as a baseload generator. It takes about 4-6 hours for a coal plant to come up from cold start, compared to about 5 mins for a gas peaker plant. This means you can use it for planned/predicted grid peaks but you'll have to run during some unprofitable times to do so.
Essentially coal has the same problem as wind, it's producing at the wrong times. If you want it to be really profitable you need pumped storage and batteries to hold that energy for peaks, something we're still short of in the UK.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess so. Use of coal as an energy source is fairly commonplace. Germany is an example of a country where coal makes up a huge make up of it's power.
It's probably becoming less profitable though- there aren't a lot of guarantees because coal takes a long time to start up, and the UKs energy price is volatile due to the ammount of wind energy in the system.
Probably a reason why natural gas continues to be a fossil fuel with a lot of use in the UK. It's very quick to turn on and off at times when wind is low/high.
I don't think any of your claims are supported by available data. Would you be able to provide some citations to give evidence for what you say?
Going through point by point:
> has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world
Since when? As of 2023, high, but not highest. [1]
> factories and industry closing their doors
Could you provide evidence that factories and industry are actually on the decline in the UK? Second, can you provide evidence it is related to energy prices?
It seems the data contradicts this type of correlation [2]. Energy prices spiked in 2021 and are now down, to very similar levels as they were over the last decade.
> the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating
Citations needed, and also to demonstrate that this is a new phenomenon. Considering energy prices are lower in the UK than recently, this decision would not be due to an increase in energy prices.
> very real prospect of blackouts this winter.
According to [3]: "
The risk of blackouts in Britain will be lower this winter as new gas generation capacity and greater electricity imports from Europe should ensure a larger buffer against potential shortages"
> We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter
Who is we? Was this a party platform? Propaganda? Just something you were lead to believe?
> We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day.
First claim is not supported. Is it possible to actually produce that much nuclear energy. Also, energy markets are global. Excess energy is sold, it is not necessarily divided out locally for free. Further, stupid cheap energy would create it's own demand, migration of energy usages.
> So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply
A single plant is the buffer supply?
> ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.
Imagine writing a whole screed about things not being built in the UK and not mentioning that the previous government effectively banned onshore wind energy in England.
I don't understand why these allegedly pro-growth people are so stuck in the 20th century when it comes to energy production but it makes them look disconnected from reality, which is presumably not the intent, just some strange bubble they are in and don't realise they are in.
> It is commonplace to claim that electricity generated from wind or solar power is cheaper than electricity from traditional power plants. Yet the more wind and solar we hook up to the grid, and the more fossil fuel power plants we retire, the higher bills seem to go.
"Seem to"? You're hingeing your entire futurist manifesto on "seem to"?
It would be interesting if they had put places apart from France in some of the cost analysis, since France has (by my understanding) extremely low costs for industrial electricity. Comparing most countries to France would end with "well we're not doing better than some of the best", but doesn't provide the full context.
(If I'd be cynical, I'd guess graphing more countries would show that the UK is not unique here, but I don't know).
Bit surprising that even in this supposed high priced environment, renewable energy seems to not have a market in the UK (at least according to this article). Lots of the world seems to be creating those markets!
The UK and France have been rivals for centuries - old habits die hard! :^)
Renewables have seen significant growth over the past decade, particularly offshore wind, for which the UK is ideally positioned: https://grid.iamkate.com/
I'm willing to accept that, but hasn't every country in the world been subsidizing energy the past couple of years? Is it more agressive than in other countries?
In other words, what behavior is distinct between the UK and France (or other countries)?
I sense you might not be arguing in good faith, but here's at least a mild effort to placate you.
> Since when? As of 2023, high, but not highest.
Since 2024, at least. [1][2]
> Could you provide evidence that factories and industry are actually on the decline in the UK?
Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.
> Energy prices spiked in 2021 and are now down.
False. Industrial prices have grown every year since 2011 [3]
> The risk of blackouts in Britain will be lower this winter...
Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?
> Who is we? Was this a party platform? Propaganda? Just something you were lead to believe?
It's a reference to a nuclear energy optimism from the 20th century. Some reading material for you. [4]
> Is it possible to actually produce that much nuclear energy.
Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand (FYI that's how the grid operates to this day) and we should certainly be encouraging more demand to improve living standards.
> A single plant is the buffer supply?
No, I never claimed that it was. But coal power has been used mainly to provide a buffer supply only as needed to prioritise cleaner generation in recent years so it's accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.
> That is a what-about-ism
It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.
The prices very clearly correlate with the gas price increase following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Britain's fault is in relying too heavily on imported gas — not just for electricity, but also building heat — and not improving building standards.
European countries with similar climates have extensive district heating systems and better (sometimes much better!) building insulation. There are still homes without double glazing in Britain!
England also banned building on-shore wind turbines.
I'm getting hit with a pay wall on your [1]. Though, it does say "The cost of power for industrial businesses". That is a more specific cost. With that qualification, I would agree your statement is supported.
I am curious why there is such a disparity in general energy cost vs cost to industrial businesses specifically.
> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India
While I would agree examples can demonstrate the potential for a trend, we need data there is a larger trend and that it is due to energy costs (and not say labor cost, metallurgical coal availability, taxes, brexit, etc). I'm stuck on a phone, otherwise I would try to research that more.
> Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?
Indeed. Though I interpreted from your phrasing that the risk was at least greater now compared to previous years due to this one coal plants closure, if not a completely brand new risk. Had you said, "_still_ have a risk of blackouts" - that would seemingly have been more accurate. FWIW, I'm a skeptic (or at least try to be). I do want data for significant claims before I start to accept them.
> Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand
I agree. Though greater supply does not get you to "too cheap to meter." Bitcoin miners would move in en-masse well before that happens.
I would agree that the price of energy for industry could get to at least as cheap as France, if not better.
Is there an energy link directly to France? Honest question. If so, super cheap energy would be sold to france - which would stop some of its production in turn and/or in sell its production to its neighbors. There would be quite a shift of what makes sense to produce based on non-local prices. I was thinking a lot about this topic when someone said we could stop sending food and keep it local. Producing more food means more is sent to the highest bidder (minus transport costs). Producing tons and tons off food does not make the local price necessarily cheaper given there is global demand. I understand electricity does not transport nearly as well as food, yet global markets still are at play in energy markets.
Back to "Too cheap to meter", I would guess that likely requires fusion energy. The amount of nuclear, fuel, managing the waste- all to get to "essentially free" - I suspect is a very staggering amount. Hence, honest question - is that actually possible (and feasible) even with nuclear? My wild ass guess is the UK would need at least 2, if not 3 or 4 orders magnitude more energy generation (and done at a price that was also cheaper than dirt). I'll check [4] out shortly. Though, honest question, can nuclear even do that?
> accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.
In a strict sense, any extra capacity is buffer supply. So yes. Though, the important source of buffer supply seemingly comes now from oil (per I believe my [3] cited above). I imagine, because we are talking one power plant, it is not a consequential amount of buffer. I'm curious what the ratio of energy from gas is (that would be considered buffer) compared to the one plant. I suspect it is low (again on phone, my apology to not try to look that up myself), thus the one plant (I suspect) is providing a non meaningful amount of buffer. My question there was a question, bit incredulous, but nonetheless a question.
> Some reading material for you. [4]
I appreciate you sourcing where the idea came from. I'll check it out.
> It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.
I don't think it is virtue signalling. The world needs to move away from coal energy. China is deploying a ton of solar (IIRC they put more online last year than the rest of the world combined). IIRC, the cost of solar is so low now, it is better to build solar than to even operate coal plants.
Though, what about'ism does just make for a weak argument. If someone else is murdering a thousand people, you should probably still stop murdering anyone anyways.
Yet, you seem to be conflating the lack of nuclear as a good choice to solve some real energy problems, with taking one coal plant off the grid. I understand you are lamenting that both are not being done (ie: ramping up nuclear while taking coal offline). Your arguments can almost be construed that you disagree with turning off any energy source. I got that vibe, though I'll take your "bittersweet" sentiment to mean you will not miss the coal (you just also wish there were a bunch of nuclear going). Let me know if that is an unfair characterization
To a large extent, I agree with that. Though, at the same time, I would not agree with the statement, "no coal should be taken offline until we have built nuclear to replace it." It over emphasizes the importance of coal as an energy source and does not consider there are other and faster options to ramp up energy production without nuclear. At the same time, I am in favor of a relatively massive deployment of nuclear, but I don't think that nuclear and taking coal energy offline need to be married at the hip.
I appreciate your response and your providing qualification and support for a large number of your claims. Thank you, it has made for a substantially more interesting dialog than typically had.
> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.
But that's not particularly down to the price of energy is it?
"Electric arc furnaces do not require coal. Tata's plan is to switch from transforming iron ore into metal, and instead take scrap steel from demolished bridges, buildings, cars – anything usable – and melt it down again using electricity. The circular process promises huge carbon savings compared with blast furnaces."
That article seems to back Kognito up - there are mentions in it of things like "if the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe are closed, the UK will be left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" (!!) or "a source close to Tata suggested the company did not see enough demand to support [a small electric furnace near Llanwern]".
This would have a lot to do with the price of energy. Processing materials normally takes a lot of it, both in the transformation and transport.
> This would have a lot to do with the price of energy.
That's speculation.
The old furnaces weren't using electricity, they used coal and the primary reason for shutting them down and moving away from that is climate change targets - https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj6e863nxn8t
This is not "Tata moving production to India because energy is expensive".
It does support the more generic point that UK industry could be in decline, but as a single data point it doesn't really give us anything meaningful there either.
The debate in this thread so far seems to have included whether Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world, with the most vociferous complaint against that idea being that Ireland is #1 and UK is merely top 4. Then you put down an article saying that modern steelmaking is an electricity-demanding process and that the unions are worried because labour isn't really as needed any more.
Speculation it may be. But as speculation goes, it is tame to say that the reason the UK may potentially (and I quote your article again because the quote is delicious) "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" is because of the world-famously expensive electricity that they are responsible for.
That article is pretty a pretty solid point in Kognito's favour. The evidence is compelling.
I agree and people are missing the bigger issue here.
Energy prices are an existential issue for brick-and-mortar businesses. Restaurants and cafes in particular struggle to pay their energy bills. Even if you have no customers you still have to heat and cool your premises otherwise you will definitely have no customers.
There is a potential for economic collapse if energy prices were to spike further from here, because many of these small businesses would become uneconomical and shut, leading to mass unemployment.
In many parts of the UK this scenario is already a reality but nobody will take notice until it happens in London.
Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.
Nor have you got the right read on why Britain will be "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel".
For a start when you bring up the quote about there being no demand for a second furnace, they are talking about a second steel recycling furnace, not an ore refining one. Which makes it irrelevant to the quote you’re so enamoured with.
Secondly, the UK will be left without a way to transform ore into steel. Port Talbot has closed. Scunthorpe is closing. There is no ‘might’ here and the capability will be lost because nobody is investing in new plants to do that, not the private sector nor government. There are a myriad of reasons Tata might choose to either spin up new capacity elsewhere or just decide it doesn’t need capacity. Either way it’s not clear that energy prices in the UK are a significant factor in the loss of ore processing capability, compared to (as they explicitly say) CO2 emissions.
What they are investing in is an energy-intensive electric-arc steel recycling furnace. Which kinda makes it look like energy prices aren’t that much bother.
It seems to me that you and the OP are both making unsupported assumptions of single motivators in a complex picture of international trade and climate concerns. Not sure why you’re so keen on that, but if you want to ignore the stated reasons in favour of conjecture, that’s on you.
> Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.
You've said something like that a few times. Do you have a source for the mechanism by which it is being done? Because your links don't support the idea that this is being done to meet a climate target. They talk about the high costs and large daily losses (£1m a day) that the blast furnaces were facing. When you factor in the supply problem that the UK has with coal that is surely an energy problem.
Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country, but £0.255/kWh is towards the lower end of what electricity costs in California. Hawaii is at or above those rates.
Neither California or Hawaii are good metrics to compare against. California is a mess of self inflicted high costs, and Hawaii is too small to have any industry and too far away from anything for cheap transporting of goods.
My own electric rate in the middle-north continental US is only a third of the £0.255/kWh rate.
No, they're both perfect. The comment I was responding to put forth the idea that the UK is an outlier when it's not far off from the cost in big chunks of the US. What's going on in California is no more self-inflicted than the UK choosing to ditch coal or choosing to be heavily reliant on Russian gas.
California is terrible company to keep, and has the worst energy prices in the US.
We condescendingly laugh at Texas when their grid shuts down, meanwhile we pay 3x the price and our grid burns down towns and is frequently disabled.
We have a state regulatory commission that sets price controls on electricity, which the price at operational costs +10%. Naturally, the costs to deliver power goes up every single time it is assessed.
California is also home to laws that every new house must have rooftop solar, despite excess solar production, in the midst of a housing crisis.
California is also home to income based electricity rates.
There was even discussion of literally taxing individuals for using the sun to generate their own power.
California is terrible company to keep, and has the worst energy prices
in the US.
Which is exactly what makes the comparison apt.
meanwhile we pay 3x the price and our grid burns down towns and is
frequently disabled.
Yeah, no. This week saw PSPS alerts for maybe a few hundred people in the Bay Area for 1? 2? days. That's a massive improvement over whole counties being down for a week.
Texas continues to struggle mightily with adverse weather — ERCOT was way off in their demand forecasts during the 2022 storms. It came down to sheer luck that they didn't see a repeat of 2021. Let's not forget that Texas is cheaper until it's not. 2021 saw residential power reach $9,000/kWh.
I would add that California struggles mightily with adverse weather too. In our case it is wind and lightning, which is different from Texas. The 2019 California PSPSs were over 3 million people at a time, and some people went without power for many days. California hasn't experienced statewide subzero temperatures, so Im not convinced our grid would preform any better under similarly extreme circumstances.
Either way, my point wasn't to start a pissing contest about which is worse, but point out the Hypocrisy of Californian condescension. Surely we can agree California isn't a shining beacon of wise grid management.
I wasn't comparing the whole country to the UK, I was comparing California to the UK.
There are more people in California than in a number of developed countries (e.g. Netherlands, Portugal, Taiwan, Singapore). PG&E alone provides electricity to more people (16 million across 5.5 million accounts) than the entire population of New England (15 million). California as a single market is an entirely valid comparison.
Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country
California and Hawaii are both extreme outliers in the US, and aside from gasoline prices in California, both are on the extreme end of outliers in comparing to Europe on most metrics as well.
Neither are good comparisons for what is "normal"... The only thing the comparison does is prove that the UK has high energy prices.
PG&E's non-residential rates aren't that much cheaper than their residential rates. The rate schedules are comically complex so I can't give you insight into what the differences are, but they're showing average rates of $0.42/kWh (A-1, Commercial), $0.19–$0.32/kWh (E-20, Industrial), $0.20–$0.32/kWh (B-20, Industrial), $0.51/kWh (AG-1A, Agricultural), etc., etc.
As was pointed out by another commenter California and Hawaii are outliers, but then again so is Texas (where the uncapped market rate plans socked people with $9,000/month residential bills). Thing is both Texas and California are huge markets, so while parts of the US are much cheaper, parts of the US that are each larger than the UK are quite a bit more expensive.
Honestly I had no idea how pricey the non-residential plans are and I feel like there are almost certainly incentives that would cut the net cost significantly.
I'm pretty sure SDGE (San Diego) rates are higher than PG&E across the board, but I'm too lazy to look it up since PG&E covers a huge swath of California and is already eyewateringly expensive.
Most things get cheaper as you build more of them. However, those economies of scale never seem to kick in for nuclear as a) we don't build enough of them and b) the safety are requirements are always going up.
Sizewell C is being built by EDF, a French company. And it seems that every time they go over-budget they hold their hand out and the British Government coughs up some more. I read that it is likely to cost in the region of £40 billion.
Are you thinking of Hinkley Point C? My understanding was that there has been no additional funding provided. The project is way over budget, but it is EDF and its owner (the French taxpayer) who appear to be on the hook.
The project is funded by a pre agreed electricity price for the plant once it is operational, and private investment.
It is however likely to impact negotiations for Sizewell C which has not yet been greenlit, as funding terms amenable to the U.K. government and EDF have not been reached. EDF want terms that would cause cost overruns to be born by energy consumers, to avoid a repeat of Hinkley Point.
France built a bunch of them, they're still expensive and hard projects. People talk about economies of scales but there are only so many power plants you need to build in the world.
I'm sure there are strategies that could, at the very least, make things predictable. I think the biggest trouble with huge projects isn't so much the cost as it is the uncertainty.
We're not good at building nuclear power stations, partly because we haven't the skilled workforce to do so.
A lot of the (finanical and time) investment for Hinkley Point C has been certifying and upskilling the workforce.
Sizewell C is projected to be a much smoother and 'cheaper' operation, as it is a near clone of HPC. And the timing means the workforce will just transfer over to the new site.
Not all coal is equal. Some burns more cleanly, some is easier to extract and process
Though you make a good point it could be zero sum (or worse or better). Yet, it might be truly better to pay someone else to burn coal if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply.
The difference I raised is not necessarily dramatic. Mostly i wanted to point out the ease of extraction, processing, and quality are all variable. Context matters.
Consider oil for example, when the price is high then low productivity oil wells that need high amounts of processing becomes economical. Somewhat similar concept
FWIW, "global energy monitor" wiki has some interesting data: "Note that, perhaps counterintuitively, carbon dioxide emission factors are not necessarily lower for higher quality coals. For example, anthracite coal, which is the highest quality coal, produces more carbon dioxide per Btu than low-quality lignite. This is because anthracite lacks hydrogen, which is a small portion of the content of lower grade coals." [1]
Nah, people always spin this as "the horrible evil communist government is killing 800 JOBS!!!". Happened in Australia a few years ago - the parties on both sides only spoke about it as purely a negative thing because of loss of jobs, not a peep about carbon emissions or other pollution.
It's obviously better to produce X with 0 jobs than X with 100 jobs. Most people just don't seem to understand that economically instead of accruing some benefit to 100 people, everyone else gains marginally instead.
I absolutely hate political parties harping on about job creation, like that's the goal. No, the goal is value creation, hopefully for society as a whole, in the most efficient way possible.
We can't babysit people their whole lives, nor should we subsidise jobs that don't need to be done. I recognise I'm privileged in saying that, but even so the vast majority of people get by without special treatment to preserve their jobs (every worker in retail and hospitality).
There is no reason, usually, to give special treatment to these jobs.
Is there a tracker of energy prices pre coal shut down and post coal shut down?
Predictions is that it'd go up, due to the unreliable nature of wind, solar. Hence the minimum price is the cost to turn on a power generator and fill in the gaps.
Conversion a month ago from the pending shutdown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41443347
and three days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41695587
Fair play to the UK for kicking the coal habit. Next level, let's kick the natural gas habit.
Some unobjectionably good news, surely.
Bittersweet.
Glad to be moving away from coal, but the lack of serious investment in anything but wind energy has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world, factories and industry closing their doors, the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating and a very real prospect of blackouts this winter.
We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter. We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day.
So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply and try your best to ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.
Wind power is not to blame for the high price of electricity in Britain. Some of the wind power is being purchased at 4p/kWh.
Commodities are priced at the margin, and the marginal price in the UK is imported liquified gas.
You can’t ignore the high prices when the wind doesn’t blow while saying the low prices when there is an excess of production is the true cost. This is called cherry picking.
The cost of intermittent power sources includes the dirty fossil fuel peaker plants built and ran to back them. Think of them as batteries.
Intermittent power sources more or less are financial engineering parasites to the grid at this point. It could be fixed but no one has the political will to do so. Eventually you run out of other people’s power and the chickens come home to roost.
The most obvious investment I’ve made in the past 15 years was natural gas. Until chemical battery storage catches up (doubtful) or there is a return to rationality in this space I expect the party to continue.
I hate it. I think solar and wind are great technologies that are currently horrifically misused by folks getting rich off the backs of regular people.
The highest cost electricity when the wind is blowing is imported natural gas. The highest cost electricity when the wind isn't blowing is imported natural gas.
> while saying the low prices when there is an excess of production is the true cost.
I didn't say that. There are no low prices in Britain because natural gas is expensive. There are low costs to some producers, but low costs and low prices aren't the same thing. There are multiple costs but only a single price, the highest one. You've got to completely eliminate the need for your highest cost producer before prices go down.
Why doesn’t the UK just deploy large battery banks like Tesla Megapack?
It's a work in progress for sure, but it's certainly not cheap. Getting enough battery storage will be a mammoth task.
From the aricle, Europe's (then) biggest battery could supply just 2 hours of power to 300k homes - compared with ~ 35 million homes in the UK.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/uk-builds-europes...
We have some...
https://www.nationalgrid.com/richborough-energy-park-battery...
...and others are being planned....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4j1nrd0ro
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/200-megawatt-battery-s...
In a word: Math.
Batteries cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
> Batteries cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
Natgas cost a fortune, have all kinds of supporting hardware that has to be maintained, fire prone, and they depreciate. Who wants that on their books?
All of that is more true for natgas than for batteries.
You seriously do not believe your argument. All those costs are aggregated. As opposed to a battery endpoint, which is not. Someone is going to have to bear the cost. Right now a proprietor has to foot the bill for tanks, pumps and fuel on a shakey financing model. Just hoping they can sell enough mountain dew, CBD, and cigarettes to keep their head above water.
"just"
If (possibly when, as they are looking into it now) the UK moves to zonal pricing, Scotland will have the cheapest electricity in Europe, due to all the wind.
All the other zones would reduce in price too. Currently you get some oddities like France buying cheap wind from Scotland and since it can't get delivered through bottlenecks, gas plants in England supplying the power.
The cost of this gas is then the source of headlines about how expensive wind backup is, rather than headlines about why Scotland has mysteriously more cheap electricity than England, where onshore wind was effectively banned, and the problems caused by different areas having different amounts of cheap electricity and a single market price.
I wouldn't blame wind, but from the sidelines one would expect shutting down all the coal plants is linked to the high cost situation.
Wasn't suggesting it was the cause, just pointing out we seem to have done little to invest in other forms of power.
Wind has its place, but it will struggle to provide consistent base load or grid inertia that we'll lose from shuttering coal, gas and nuclear.
Besides wind, the UK has continued to invest significant sums into both natgas and nuclear.
Gas took out both nuclear and pretty much all research on wind in the 1970s.
Remember nobody gives a flying fuck about the future only the present and gas was so ridiculously cheap and simple. Still would be if Putin had been a man of reason.
China is replacing old inefficient coal plants with modern ones and the capacity factors are lowering.
2024 was the breaking point where more renewables was built than expected grid expansion and emissions are therefore expected to decline.
Nuclear power simply is too expensive. The Hinkley Point C CFD simply is insane and Sizewell C isn’t looking any better.
I'm curious, was is profitable? I don't mean to diminish other factors for keeping it alive, just wondering?
Less profitable than a comparable gas turbine because it couldn't perform the same grid role of peaker plants. Make no mistake it was gas which killed coal here not wind.
A coal plant even with all of the modern upgrades is and always has been happiest as a baseload generator. It takes about 4-6 hours for a coal plant to come up from cold start, compared to about 5 mins for a gas peaker plant. This means you can use it for planned/predicted grid peaks but you'll have to run during some unprofitable times to do so.
Essentially coal has the same problem as wind, it's producing at the wrong times. If you want it to be really profitable you need pumped storage and batteries to hold that energy for peaks, something we're still short of in the UK.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess so. Use of coal as an energy source is fairly commonplace. Germany is an example of a country where coal makes up a huge make up of it's power.
It's probably becoming less profitable though- there aren't a lot of guarantees because coal takes a long time to start up, and the UKs energy price is volatile due to the ammount of wind energy in the system.
Probably a reason why natural gas continues to be a fossil fuel with a lot of use in the UK. It's very quick to turn on and off at times when wind is low/high.
Last year Germany had more power from wind (32%) than coal (28%).
The UK (or EU?) introduced air pollution limits and carbon emission taxes. That made coal power unprofitable.
Ratcliffe had a supplemental income as an emergency producer of power, which presumably left it profitable, but it is no longer needed for that.
How much is a result of Brexit and losing trade agreement with Europe?
More or less none. Energy prices are a domestic mismanagement issue and pre-date the Brexit situation, unfortunately.
No I meant the comment about businesses and factories shutting down.
I don't think any of your claims are supported by available data. Would you be able to provide some citations to give evidence for what you say?
Going through point by point:
> has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world
Since when? As of 2023, high, but not highest. [1]
> factories and industry closing their doors
Could you provide evidence that factories and industry are actually on the decline in the UK? Second, can you provide evidence it is related to energy prices?
It seems the data contradicts this type of correlation [2]. Energy prices spiked in 2021 and are now down, to very similar levels as they were over the last decade.
> the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating
Citations needed, and also to demonstrate that this is a new phenomenon. Considering energy prices are lower in the UK than recently, this decision would not be due to an increase in energy prices.
> very real prospect of blackouts this winter.
According to [3]: " The risk of blackouts in Britain will be lower this winter as new gas generation capacity and greater electricity imports from Europe should ensure a larger buffer against potential shortages"
> We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter
Who is we? Was this a party platform? Propaganda? Just something you were lead to believe?
> We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day.
First claim is not supported. Is it possible to actually produce that much nuclear energy. Also, energy markets are global. Excess energy is sold, it is not necessarily divided out locally for free. Further, stupid cheap energy would create it's own demand, migration of energy usages.
> So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply
A single plant is the buffer supply?
> ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.
That is a what-about-ism
‐----- [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/589765/average-electrici...
[3] https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/black...
I believe the claims may be based off of the recently published Foundations essay: https://ukfoundations.co/
Specifically, the "Britain: the first energy superpower" section: https://ukfoundations.co/#footnote-source-6
Imagine writing a whole screed about things not being built in the UK and not mentioning that the previous government effectively banned onshore wind energy in England.
I don't understand why these allegedly pro-growth people are so stuck in the 20th century when it comes to energy production but it makes them look disconnected from reality, which is presumably not the intent, just some strange bubble they are in and don't realise they are in.
> It is commonplace to claim that electricity generated from wind or solar power is cheaper than electricity from traditional power plants. Yet the more wind and solar we hook up to the grid, and the more fossil fuel power plants we retire, the higher bills seem to go.
"Seem to"? You're hingeing your entire futurist manifesto on "seem to"?
It would be interesting if they had put places apart from France in some of the cost analysis, since France has (by my understanding) extremely low costs for industrial electricity. Comparing most countries to France would end with "well we're not doing better than some of the best", but doesn't provide the full context.
(If I'd be cynical, I'd guess graphing more countries would show that the UK is not unique here, but I don't know).
Bit surprising that even in this supposed high priced environment, renewable energy seems to not have a market in the UK (at least according to this article). Lots of the world seems to be creating those markets!
The UK and France have been rivals for centuries - old habits die hard! :^)
Renewables have seen significant growth over the past decade, particularly offshore wind, for which the UK is ideally positioned: https://grid.iamkate.com/
Energy prices in France being that low is not a result of nuclear energy, but only possible due to extreme subsidies for nuclear power there.
I'm willing to accept that, but hasn't every country in the world been subsidizing energy the past couple of years? Is it more agressive than in other countries?
In other words, what behavior is distinct between the UK and France (or other countries)?
For france at least, two thirds of energy is nuclear, falling demand, and now lots of renewables coming online [1]
Falling demand is notable to me. Though, the nuclear backbone and full embrace of renewable deployments is IMO smart
[1] https://fortune.com/2024/06/16/electricity-prices-france-neg...
I would like to know how much is subsidies and how much is economy of scale from a half-century of constantly pro-nuclear energy policy.
I sense you might not be arguing in good faith, but here's at least a mild effort to placate you.
> Since when? As of 2023, high, but not highest.
Since 2024, at least. [1][2]
> Could you provide evidence that factories and industry are actually on the decline in the UK?
Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.
> Energy prices spiked in 2021 and are now down.
False. Industrial prices have grown every year since 2011 [3]
> The risk of blackouts in Britain will be lower this winter...
Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?
> Who is we? Was this a party platform? Propaganda? Just something you were lead to believe?
It's a reference to a nuclear energy optimism from the 20th century. Some reading material for you. [4]
> Is it possible to actually produce that much nuclear energy.
Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand (FYI that's how the grid operates to this day) and we should certainly be encouraging more demand to improve living standards.
> A single plant is the buffer supply?
No, I never claimed that it was. But coal power has been used mainly to provide a buffer supply only as needed to prioritise cleaner generation in recent years so it's accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.
> That is a what-about-ism
It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burd...
[2] https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/uk-household-electricity-price...
[3] https://www.ibisworld.com/uk/bed/industrial-electricity-pric...
[4] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/history-10...
The prices very clearly correlate with the gas price increase following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Britain's fault is in relying too heavily on imported gas — not just for electricity, but also building heat — and not improving building standards.
European countries with similar climates have extensive district heating systems and better (sometimes much better!) building insulation. There are still homes without double glazing in Britain!
England also banned building on-shore wind turbines.
I'm getting hit with a pay wall on your [1]. Though, it does say "The cost of power for industrial businesses". That is a more specific cost. With that qualification, I would agree your statement is supported.
I am curious why there is such a disparity in general energy cost vs cost to industrial businesses specifically.
> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India
While I would agree examples can demonstrate the potential for a trend, we need data there is a larger trend and that it is due to energy costs (and not say labor cost, metallurgical coal availability, taxes, brexit, etc). I'm stuck on a phone, otherwise I would try to research that more.
> Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?
Indeed. Though I interpreted from your phrasing that the risk was at least greater now compared to previous years due to this one coal plants closure, if not a completely brand new risk. Had you said, "_still_ have a risk of blackouts" - that would seemingly have been more accurate. FWIW, I'm a skeptic (or at least try to be). I do want data for significant claims before I start to accept them.
> Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand
I agree. Though greater supply does not get you to "too cheap to meter." Bitcoin miners would move in en-masse well before that happens.
I would agree that the price of energy for industry could get to at least as cheap as France, if not better.
Is there an energy link directly to France? Honest question. If so, super cheap energy would be sold to france - which would stop some of its production in turn and/or in sell its production to its neighbors. There would be quite a shift of what makes sense to produce based on non-local prices. I was thinking a lot about this topic when someone said we could stop sending food and keep it local. Producing more food means more is sent to the highest bidder (minus transport costs). Producing tons and tons off food does not make the local price necessarily cheaper given there is global demand. I understand electricity does not transport nearly as well as food, yet global markets still are at play in energy markets.
Back to "Too cheap to meter", I would guess that likely requires fusion energy. The amount of nuclear, fuel, managing the waste- all to get to "essentially free" - I suspect is a very staggering amount. Hence, honest question - is that actually possible (and feasible) even with nuclear? My wild ass guess is the UK would need at least 2, if not 3 or 4 orders magnitude more energy generation (and done at a price that was also cheaper than dirt). I'll check [4] out shortly. Though, honest question, can nuclear even do that?
> accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.
In a strict sense, any extra capacity is buffer supply. So yes. Though, the important source of buffer supply seemingly comes now from oil (per I believe my [3] cited above). I imagine, because we are talking one power plant, it is not a consequential amount of buffer. I'm curious what the ratio of energy from gas is (that would be considered buffer) compared to the one plant. I suspect it is low (again on phone, my apology to not try to look that up myself), thus the one plant (I suspect) is providing a non meaningful amount of buffer. My question there was a question, bit incredulous, but nonetheless a question.
> Some reading material for you. [4]
I appreciate you sourcing where the idea came from. I'll check it out.
> It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.
I don't think it is virtue signalling. The world needs to move away from coal energy. China is deploying a ton of solar (IIRC they put more online last year than the rest of the world combined). IIRC, the cost of solar is so low now, it is better to build solar than to even operate coal plants.
Though, what about'ism does just make for a weak argument. If someone else is murdering a thousand people, you should probably still stop murdering anyone anyways.
Yet, you seem to be conflating the lack of nuclear as a good choice to solve some real energy problems, with taking one coal plant off the grid. I understand you are lamenting that both are not being done (ie: ramping up nuclear while taking coal offline). Your arguments can almost be construed that you disagree with turning off any energy source. I got that vibe, though I'll take your "bittersweet" sentiment to mean you will not miss the coal (you just also wish there were a bunch of nuclear going). Let me know if that is an unfair characterization
To a large extent, I agree with that. Though, at the same time, I would not agree with the statement, "no coal should be taken offline until we have built nuclear to replace it." It over emphasizes the importance of coal as an energy source and does not consider there are other and faster options to ramp up energy production without nuclear. At the same time, I am in favor of a relatively massive deployment of nuclear, but I don't think that nuclear and taking coal energy offline need to be married at the hip.
I appreciate your response and your providing qualification and support for a large number of your claims. Thank you, it has made for a substantially more interesting dialog than typically had.
> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.
But that's not particularly down to the price of energy is it?
"Electric arc furnaces do not require coal. Tata's plan is to switch from transforming iron ore into metal, and instead take scrap steel from demolished bridges, buildings, cars – anything usable – and melt it down again using electricity. The circular process promises huge carbon savings compared with blast furnaces."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/12/ste...
That article seems to back Kognito up - there are mentions in it of things like "if the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe are closed, the UK will be left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" (!!) or "a source close to Tata suggested the company did not see enough demand to support [a small electric furnace near Llanwern]".
This would have a lot to do with the price of energy. Processing materials normally takes a lot of it, both in the transformation and transport.
> This would have a lot to do with the price of energy.
That's speculation.
The old furnaces weren't using electricity, they used coal and the primary reason for shutting them down and moving away from that is climate change targets - https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj6e863nxn8t
This is not "Tata moving production to India because energy is expensive".
It does support the more generic point that UK industry could be in decline, but as a single data point it doesn't really give us anything meaningful there either.
The debate in this thread so far seems to have included whether Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world, with the most vociferous complaint against that idea being that Ireland is #1 and UK is merely top 4. Then you put down an article saying that modern steelmaking is an electricity-demanding process and that the unions are worried because labour isn't really as needed any more.
Speculation it may be. But as speculation goes, it is tame to say that the reason the UK may potentially (and I quote your article again because the quote is delicious) "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" is because of the world-famously expensive electricity that they are responsible for.
That article is pretty a pretty solid point in Kognito's favour. The evidence is compelling.
I agree and people are missing the bigger issue here.
Energy prices are an existential issue for brick-and-mortar businesses. Restaurants and cafes in particular struggle to pay their energy bills. Even if you have no customers you still have to heat and cool your premises otherwise you will definitely have no customers.
There is a potential for economic collapse if energy prices were to spike further from here, because many of these small businesses would become uneconomical and shut, leading to mass unemployment.
In many parts of the UK this scenario is already a reality but nobody will take notice until it happens in London.
Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.
Nor have you got the right read on why Britain will be "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel".
For a start when you bring up the quote about there being no demand for a second furnace, they are talking about a second steel recycling furnace, not an ore refining one. Which makes it irrelevant to the quote you’re so enamoured with.
Secondly, the UK will be left without a way to transform ore into steel. Port Talbot has closed. Scunthorpe is closing. There is no ‘might’ here and the capability will be lost because nobody is investing in new plants to do that, not the private sector nor government. There are a myriad of reasons Tata might choose to either spin up new capacity elsewhere or just decide it doesn’t need capacity. Either way it’s not clear that energy prices in the UK are a significant factor in the loss of ore processing capability, compared to (as they explicitly say) CO2 emissions.
What they are investing in is an energy-intensive electric-arc steel recycling furnace. Which kinda makes it look like energy prices aren’t that much bother.
It seems to me that you and the OP are both making unsupported assumptions of single motivators in a complex picture of international trade and climate concerns. Not sure why you’re so keen on that, but if you want to ignore the stated reasons in favour of conjecture, that’s on you.
> Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.
You've said something like that a few times. Do you have a source for the mechanism by which it is being done? Because your links don't support the idea that this is being done to meet a climate target. They talk about the high costs and large daily losses (£1m a day) that the blast furnaces were facing. When you factor in the supply problem that the UK has with coal that is surely an energy problem.
Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country, but £0.255/kWh is towards the lower end of what electricity costs in California. Hawaii is at or above those rates.
Neither California or Hawaii are good metrics to compare against. California is a mess of self inflicted high costs, and Hawaii is too small to have any industry and too far away from anything for cheap transporting of goods.
My own electric rate in the middle-north continental US is only a third of the £0.255/kWh rate.
No, they're both perfect. The comment I was responding to put forth the idea that the UK is an outlier when it's not far off from the cost in big chunks of the US. What's going on in California is no more self-inflicted than the UK choosing to ditch coal or choosing to be heavily reliant on Russian gas.
California is terrible company to keep, and has the worst energy prices in the US.
We condescendingly laugh at Texas when their grid shuts down, meanwhile we pay 3x the price and our grid burns down towns and is frequently disabled.
We have a state regulatory commission that sets price controls on electricity, which the price at operational costs +10%. Naturally, the costs to deliver power goes up every single time it is assessed.
California is also home to laws that every new house must have rooftop solar, despite excess solar production, in the midst of a housing crisis.
California is also home to income based electricity rates.
There was even discussion of literally taxing individuals for using the sun to generate their own power.
Texas continues to struggle mightily with adverse weather — ERCOT was way off in their demand forecasts during the 2022 storms. It came down to sheer luck that they didn't see a repeat of 2021. Let's not forget that Texas is cheaper until it's not. 2021 saw residential power reach $9,000/kWh.
I would add that California struggles mightily with adverse weather too. In our case it is wind and lightning, which is different from Texas. The 2019 California PSPSs were over 3 million people at a time, and some people went without power for many days. California hasn't experienced statewide subzero temperatures, so Im not convinced our grid would preform any better under similarly extreme circumstances.
Either way, my point wasn't to start a pissing contest about which is worse, but point out the Hypocrisy of Californian condescension. Surely we can agree California isn't a shining beacon of wise grid management.
California doesn't rely on Russian gas, and still has one (small) coal power plant.
Even so, cross the border into Oregon and their rates are half... CA is literally double the national average price in the US.
CA makes up about 11% of the US population. So, just short of 90% of the country pays half of what they do.
CA is a big place, but simply is not representative of the country as a whole. They are, in fact, an outlier in many metrics.
… so? How is any of that relevant?
I wasn't comparing the whole country to the UK, I was comparing California to the UK.
There are more people in California than in a number of developed countries (e.g. Netherlands, Portugal, Taiwan, Singapore). PG&E alone provides electricity to more people (16 million across 5.5 million accounts) than the entire population of New England (15 million). California as a single market is an entirely valid comparison.
You said
California and Hawaii are both extreme outliers in the US, and aside from gasoline prices in California, both are on the extreme end of outliers in comparing to Europe on most metrics as well.Neither are good comparisons for what is "normal"... The only thing the comparison does is prove that the UK has high energy prices.
I was referring to this article which quotes the IEA for industrial energy costs at around $0.085/kWh, versus $0.34/kWh in the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burd...
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/en/rate-information/electric-rat...
PG&E's non-residential rates aren't that much cheaper than their residential rates. The rate schedules are comically complex so I can't give you insight into what the differences are, but they're showing average rates of $0.42/kWh (A-1, Commercial), $0.19–$0.32/kWh (E-20, Industrial), $0.20–$0.32/kWh (B-20, Industrial), $0.51/kWh (AG-1A, Agricultural), etc., etc.
As was pointed out by another commenter California and Hawaii are outliers, but then again so is Texas (where the uncapped market rate plans socked people with $9,000/month residential bills). Thing is both Texas and California are huge markets, so while parts of the US are much cheaper, parts of the US that are each larger than the UK are quite a bit more expensive.
Honestly I had no idea how pricey the non-residential plans are and I feel like there are almost certainly incentives that would cut the net cost significantly.
0.25 GBP per kWh ($0.33) is at the top end of prices on this list:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/...
https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payme...
I'm pretty sure SDGE (San Diego) rates are higher than PG&E across the board, but I'm too lazy to look it up since PG&E covers a huge swath of California and is already eyewateringly expensive.
$0.45/kwh for me, but I expect this will go up because California mandated income based pricing for electricity.
At this rate, wont be long before we have to bring a copy of our w-2 to the super market so that the cashier can figure out the price of groceries.
Just a shame that we're increasingly purchasing power from abroad as we don't seem to be very good at building nuclear power stations.
Most things get cheaper as you build more of them. However, those economies of scale never seem to kick in for nuclear as a) we don't build enough of them and b) the safety are requirements are always going up.
Sizewell C is being built by EDF, a French company. And it seems that every time they go over-budget they hold their hand out and the British Government coughs up some more. I read that it is likely to cost in the region of £40 billion.
Are you thinking of Hinkley Point C? My understanding was that there has been no additional funding provided. The project is way over budget, but it is EDF and its owner (the French taxpayer) who appear to be on the hook.
The project is funded by a pre agreed electricity price for the plant once it is operational, and private investment.
It is however likely to impact negotiations for Sizewell C which has not yet been greenlit, as funding terms amenable to the U.K. government and EDF have not been reached. EDF want terms that would cause cost overruns to be born by energy consumers, to avoid a repeat of Hinkley Point.
Yes, I think I've confused Hinkley C with Sizewell C. Thanks.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/02/uk-government-addr...
France built a bunch of them, they're still expensive and hard projects. People talk about economies of scales but there are only so many power plants you need to build in the world.
I'm sure there are strategies that could, at the very least, make things predictable. I think the biggest trouble with huge projects isn't so much the cost as it is the uncertainty.
Economies of scale work very well for wind farms funny that. If only the UK had a North Sea...
Wind energy is great. But it only works when the wind is blowing...
We're not good at building nuclear power stations, partly because we haven't the skilled workforce to do so.
A lot of the (finanical and time) investment for Hinkley Point C has been certifying and upskilling the workforce.
Sizewell C is projected to be a much smoother and 'cheaper' operation, as it is a near clone of HPC. And the timing means the workforce will just transfer over to the new site.
As long as we aren't just paying other people to mine/burn coal instead.
Not all coal is equal. Some burns more cleanly, some is easier to extract and process
Though you make a good point it could be zero sum (or worse or better). Yet, it might be truly better to pay someone else to burn coal if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply.
>if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply
It won't be though, will it? They will buy it from the cheapest place they can, which will probably be a third world environmental disaster zone.
The difference I raised is not necessarily dramatic. Mostly i wanted to point out the ease of extraction, processing, and quality are all variable. Context matters.
Consider oil for example, when the price is high then low productivity oil wells that need high amounts of processing becomes economical. Somewhat similar concept
FWIW, "global energy monitor" wiki has some interesting data: "Note that, perhaps counterintuitively, carbon dioxide emission factors are not necessarily lower for higher quality coals. For example, anthracite coal, which is the highest quality coal, produces more carbon dioxide per Btu than low-quality lignite. This is because anthracite lacks hydrogen, which is a small portion of the content of lower grade coals." [1]
[1] https://www.gem.wiki/Estimating_carbon_dioxide_emissions_fro...
Nah, people always spin this as "the horrible evil communist government is killing 800 JOBS!!!". Happened in Australia a few years ago - the parties on both sides only spoke about it as purely a negative thing because of loss of jobs, not a peep about carbon emissions or other pollution.
Jobs are the dumbest argument anyway.
It's obviously better to produce X with 0 jobs than X with 100 jobs. Most people just don't seem to understand that economically instead of accruing some benefit to 100 people, everyone else gains marginally instead.
I absolutely hate political parties harping on about job creation, like that's the goal. No, the goal is value creation, hopefully for society as a whole, in the most efficient way possible.
The problem is that value creation is meaningless to people who are losing their jobs. Homelessness sucks.
Like it's impossible to get another job?
We can't babysit people their whole lives, nor should we subsidise jobs that don't need to be done. I recognise I'm privileged in saying that, but even so the vast majority of people get by without special treatment to preserve their jobs (every worker in retail and hospitality).
There is no reason, usually, to give special treatment to these jobs.
I'm just pointing out why, in your words, we see "political parties harping on about job creation".
Interesting XKCD comic on the amount of coal dug up in UK since the industrial revolution:
https://xkcd.com/2992/
[dupe] you new here?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41695587
dupe comment
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41735693
not flagged as dupe
Is there a tracker of energy prices pre coal shut down and post coal shut down?
Predictions is that it'd go up, due to the unreliable nature of wind, solar. Hence the minimum price is the cost to turn on a power generator and fill in the gaps.
Coal was barely used, just one power station left. Variable liad is natural gas mostly, plus hydro, imports etc.