The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

Author
Discussion

Condi

17,089 posts

170 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Gary C said:
We were much better at planning with a nationalised industry than we are with a 'free' market.

The drive for a lowest cost solution is political ? dont get that at all. Surely the market was the driver pushing against new nuclear and it was political market interference that has allowed HPC to be built.

When privatisation happened, nuclear was withdrawn from it and the market was then manipulated to allow us to generate. With a free market, every single reactor in the UK would have been shutdown in the 90's and none would be under construction.
There are different objectives between what the "free market" would do, and what actually happens due to political interference. The drive for a lowest cost solution is 100% political; it's why there is only 1 new reactor being built and only then after a gap of 30 years, and it'll only be finished after every other unit bar 1 has ceased to generate. If there was any long term planning, and a priority put on security and redundancy then we would have a had a program of reactors starting 20 years ago. As it was, HMG were backed into a corner and had to fight to even get 1 started.

Energy is not, and has never been, an entirely free market. It is a free market which operates under the incentives and priorities placed on it by Ofgem and the government to achieve non commercial aims, which is entirely appropriate (and I would argue, the system needs more intervention and importance placed on security of supply), but that is a different argument to stepping in now to break it just because the customer and government doesn't like what the market is saying. No matter what happens here we will continue to buy our fuels in the world market - and that includes uranium - and so we will always be exposed to external price drivers. Those price drivers shouldn't be ignored or be cast aside just because they are not what the government might like, they'll still be there, and someone will have to pay for it.

Gary C

12,315 posts

178 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Condi said:
There are different objectives between what the "free market" would do, and what actually happens due to political interference. The drive for a lowest cost solution is 100% political; it's why there is only 1 new reactor being built and only then after a gap of 30 years, and it'll only be finished after every other unit bar 1 has ceased to generate. If there was any long term planning, and a priority put on security and redundancy then we would have a had a program of reactors starting 20 years ago. As it was, HMG were backed into a corner and had to fight to even get 1 started.

Energy is not, and has never been, an entirely free market. It is a free market which operates under the incentives and priorities placed on it by Ofgem and the government to achieve non commercial aims, which is entirely appropriate (and I would argue, the system needs more intervention and importance placed on security of supply), but that is a different argument to stepping in now to break it just because the customer and government doesn't like what the market is saying. No matter what happens here we will continue to buy our fuels in the world market - and that includes uranium - and so we will always be exposed to external price drivers. Those price drivers shouldn't be ignored or be cast aside just because they are not what the government might like, they'll still be there, and someone will have to pay for it.
If the market was totally free, wouldn't it have sought the lowest cost generation ie maximum profit ?

and that would not have been any nuclear.

not even the running ones would have survived.

In fact the market almost killed us and it wasn't pleasant.

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 25th September 16:44

Condi

17,089 posts

170 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Gary C said:
If the market was totally free, wouldn't it have sought the lowest cost generation ie maximum profit ?
Yes. There are 2 different things here though - the market within GB is free to an extent, but (rightly) with political interference. The global market for energy is outside of the influence of the UK. Domestically, HPC only happened because of government intervention. The capacity market only happens because of government intervention. Subsidies for wind only happens because of government intervention.

However, once you look outside the UK then the energy market is much less affected by anything that the UK government can do. The price of our fuels - coal/gas/uranium - is set by a global market, and what that market is saying is that there isn't enough to go round. No matter what the UK government do they cannot avoid paying the market price for gas and oil, and it is fanciful that any short term changes to try and mitigate that will have long term benefits, because if you break that link between fuel cost and electricity cost then market participants will start doing illogical things which over time will end up costing more, either by reducing investment in the right areas, or discouraging sensible use of what is available.

If we subsidise prices here, so that we can essentially use more, then someone else in the world goes without. Every cargo which comes here at a high price is one which could otherwise have gone to Pakistan or Asia where they already have blackouts because the simply can't afford fuel. This is a global problem, and not one we should selfishly be insulating ourselves from by borrowing hundreds of billions which future generations will have to pay back.

Gary C

12,315 posts

178 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Condi said:
Yes. There are 2 different things here though - the market within GB is free to an extent, but (rightly) with political interference. The global market for energy is outside of the influence of the UK. Domestically, HPC only happened because of government intervention. The capacity market only happens because of government intervention. Subsidies for wind only happens because of government intervention.

However, once you look outside the UK then the energy market is much less affected by anything that the UK government can do. The price of our fuels - coal/gas/uranium - is set by a global market, and what that market is saying is that there isn't enough to go round. No matter what the UK government do they cannot avoid paying the market price for gas and oil, and it is fanciful that any short term changes to try and mitigate that will have long term benefits, because if you break that link between fuel cost and electricity cost then market participants will start doing illogical things which over time will end up costing more, either by reducing investment in the right areas, or discouraging sensible use of what is available.

If we subsidise prices here, so that we can essentially use more, then someone else in the world goes without. Every cargo which comes here at a high price is one which could otherwise have gone to Pakistan or Asia where they already have blackouts because the simply can't afford fuel. This is a global problem, and not one we should selfishly be insulating ourselves from by borrowing hundreds of billions which future generations will have to pay back.
Ah, yes. I think we are agreeing in different ways.

We can't avoid the affect of the world free market, even with a nationalised industry when we use fuel from outside the UK. We might have had a more resilient industry though.


Condi

17,089 posts

170 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Gary C said:
We might have had a more resilient industry though.
Yes, and that is where we need more government intervention domestically (even though it will increase bills, which the government has been against), but you can never plan for every single eventuality.

The chances of Ukraine, Covid recovery, German nuclear closures and French nuke outages happening all within 18 months are incredibly slim, yet it happened. No market or system, no matter how controlled and how resilient, is going to be able to deal with all that unaffected.

Gary C

12,315 posts

178 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Condi said:
Gary C said:
We might have had a more resilient industry though.
Yes, and that is where we need more government intervention domestically (even though it will increase bills, which the government has been against), but you can never plan for every single eventuality.

The chances of Ukraine, Covid recovery, German nuclear closures and French nuke outages happening all within 18 months are incredibly slim, yet it happened. No market or system, no matter how controlled and how resilient, is going to be able to deal with all that unaffected.
Certainly.

The days of domestic generation using domestic fuel are gone.

Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Cobnapint said:
Relax folks, Starmer has it covered. We're going to go nuts with renewables by 2030 to become totally carbon free, and his answer to LK about what happens when it isn't windy/sunny he said there'll always be a transition period.

Sorted.

(Lolz)
You mean the Starmer policy that was also Boris and Conservative policy until 4 weeks ago?
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.

Hill92

4,226 posts

189 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
He said 2035.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/all-britains-powe...

Evanivitch

19,804 posts

121 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
Starmer literally brought Boris' timeline forward by 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-...

That took all of 20 seconds to Google. Take the blue-tinted glasses off.

Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
Starmer literally brought Boris' timeline forward by 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-...

That took all of 20 seconds to Google. Take the blue-tinted glasses off.
Different then. Not the same.

Gary C

12,315 posts

178 months

Sunday 25th September 2022
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
Evanivitch said:
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
Starmer literally brought Boris' timeline forward by 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-...

That took all of 20 seconds to Google. Take the blue-tinted glasses off.
Different then. Not the same.

JagLover

42,266 posts

234 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
Starmer literally brought Boris' timeline forward by 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-...

That took all of 20 seconds to Google. Take the blue-tinted glasses off.
2035 wasn't possible and 2030 is even more impossoble.

To take just a few examples.

Who is going to pay to replace all the ICE cars by 2030?
Who is going to pay to replace all the gas boilers with electric alternatives and pay for replacing all the radiators?.
Who is going to build all the new Nuclear required in such a short space of time?.

2030 is 8 years away. It is a nonsense promise.

TGCOTF-dewey

5,071 posts

54 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
JagLover said:
Evanivitch said:
Cobnapint said:
I don't think Boris was ever considering 'carbon free' energy production by 2030.
A ban on ICE sales in 2030 and a new nuclear power station every year (lol), but nothing quite as blatantly drastic as zero carbon generation.
Not far off though. They're all as clueless as each other.
Starmer literally brought Boris' timeline forward by 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-...

That took all of 20 seconds to Google. Take the blue-tinted glasses off.
2035 wasn't possible and 2030 is even more impossoble.

To take just a few examples.

Who is going to pay to replace all the ICE cars by 2030?
Who is going to pay to replace all the gas boilers with electric alternatives and pay for replacing all the radiators?.
Who is going to build all the new Nuclear required in such a short space of time?.

2030 is 8 years away. It is a nonsense promise.
It's a ban on SALES not cars.

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
TGCOTF-dewey said:
It's a ban on SALES not cars.
Kill the new car market and encourage the second hand and grey import markets - what's not to like (oh wait how much VAT will go missing from the coffers)?

JagLover

42,266 posts

234 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
TGCOTF-dewey said:
It's a ban on SALES not cars.
Fair enough

It will still be extremely challenging to have a recharging infrastructure in place for all new cars by 2030. Also net zero will require virtually all the ICE cars to be scrapped eventually.

Evanivitch

19,804 posts

121 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
JagLover said:
2035 wasn't possible and 2030 is even more impossoble.

To take just a few examples.

Who is going to pay to replace all the ICE cars by 2030?
Who is going to pay to replace all the gas boilers with electric alternatives and pay for replacing all the radiators?.
Who is going to build all the new Nuclear required in such a short space of time?.

2030 is 8 years away. It is a nonsense promise.
The whole basis of Boris' policy was NET zero to be achieved through Carbon Capture, something the O&G industry have been pedaling for a decade now with little success at scale.

JagLover

42,266 posts

234 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
The whole basis of Boris' policy was NET zero to be achieved through Carbon Capture, something the O&G industry have been pedaling for a decade now with little success at scale.
So even less likely to be achieved 5 years earlier?

As I have said a nonsense promise to keep the activists happy with no chance of being achieved. It requires technological solutions that either haven't got regulatory approval yet (SMR), require massive investment and significant time to build, or don't exist.

Evanivitch

19,804 posts

121 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
JagLover said:
Evanivitch said:
The whole basis of Boris' policy was NET zero to be achieved through Carbon Capture, something the O&G industry have been pedaling for a decade now with little success at scale.
So even less likely to be achieved 5 years earlier?

As I have said a nonsense promise to keep the activists happy with no chance of being achieved. It requires technological solutions that either haven't got regulatory approval yet (SMR), require massive investment and significant time to build, or don't exist.
I agree it's nonsense, but..It's a stretch target, and I believe that's the right thing to do.

What I don't believe is it should be used to bash one party when it's obvious that the government are thinking along the same lines.

We should see a few GW offshore wind with greatly increased capacity factor online (circa 50%) by 2030, but that pathway is already largely sold and in planning.

But yes we need nuclear, solar and hopefully tidal in there and I'd appreciate some more geothermal.

Glade

4,256 posts

222 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
I am with the the Mrs family in France, at the dinner table last night they asked if we are expecting power cuts in winter…. I said no.

Apparently they are expecting systematic power cuts… i can’t tell if it’s legit or just social media hype they’re tapped into though.

hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Monday 26th September 2022
quotequote all
Condi said:
Gary C said:
If the market was totally free, wouldn't it have sought the lowest cost generation ie maximum profit ?
Yes. There are 2 different things here though - the market within GB is free to an extent, but (rightly) with political interference. The global market for energy is outside of the influence of the UK. Domestically, HPC only happened because of government intervention. The capacity market only happens because of government intervention. Subsidies for wind only happens because of government intervention.

However, once you look outside the UK then the energy market is much less affected by anything that the UK government can do. The price of our fuels - coal/gas/uranium - is set by a global market, and what that market is saying is that there isn't enough to go round. No matter what the UK government do they cannot avoid paying the market price for gas and oil, and it is fanciful that any short term changes to try and mitigate that will have long term benefits, because if you break that link between fuel cost and electricity cost then market participants will start doing illogical things which over time will end up costing more, either by reducing investment in the right areas, or discouraging sensible use of what is available.

If we subsidise prices here, so that we can essentially use more, then someone else in the world goes without. Every cargo which comes here at a high price is one which could otherwise have gone to Pakistan or Asia where they already have blackouts because the simply can't afford fuel. This is a global problem, and not one we should selfishly be insulating ourselves from by borrowing hundreds of billions which future generations will have to pay back.
The price of uranium has little effect on the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power, compared to the cost of coal or gas it's nugatory.