Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[Ghost1951]

I asked Google -

Is the Marginal Cost Pricing Scheme for paying UK power generators a scam?

This is the AI answer:

• AI Overview
  Learn more
  
  No, marginal cost pricing in electricity supply is not a scam. It's a widely used economic principle, but it has been criticized for its potential to lead to high electricity prices and for not accurately reflecting the true costs of electricity production, especially for certain renewable sources like nuclear and wind power.
  
  Explanation:
  • Marginal Cost Pricing:
    This pricing system sets electricity prices based on the cost of producing the last unit of electricity needed to meet demand. In theory, it aims to ensure efficient use of resources and encourage investment in new energy sources.
    
    
  • Criticisms:
    • High Prices: In some markets, including the UK, marginal cost pricing has been criticized for leading to high electricity prices. This is because the price is often determined by the most expensive generators, like those using natural gas, even if cheaper renewable sources are available.
      
      
    • Inaccurate Reflection of Costs: Some argue that marginal cost pricing doesn't fully reflect the true costs of electricity production. For example, the costs of building a nuclear power plant are not fully captured in marginal cost pricing, and the marginal cost of operating a wind farm can be very low.
      
      
    • Disincentivizes Investment: Some argue that marginal cost pricing discourages investment in new energy sources because it doesn't provide a long-term signal about expected prices, and it may not adequately compensate investors for their capital costs.
      
      
    • Potential for Exploitation: Critics have also argued that the current marginal cost pricing system can allow generators with high variable costs (like natural gas plants) to make windfall profits, even when there is plenty of cheaper renewable energy available.

The AI says it isn't a scam, but gives several reasons why it is not in the interests of consumers. That sounds pretty much like a SCAM to me...

 

[Woosh]

The AI says it isn't a scam, but gives several reasons why it is not in the interests of consumers. That sounds pretty much like a SCAM to me...

the marginal cost pricing scheme guarantees that all producers makes a profit, especially those who own a wind farm or a solar farm because they make electricity with free fuel.

 

[Ghost1951]

the marginal cost pricing scheme guarantees that all producers makes a profit, especially those who own a wind farm or a solar farm because they make electricity with free fuel.

I am sure it does, but the point is, more wind energy does NOT make the cost to the consumer cheaper, because the Marginal Pricing Scheme pays the producers all at the price of the most expensive bid to supply power. Wind may offer power at 7p a KwHr, but if the last megawatt of power comes from a gas plant at 30p a KWHr, the wind producer is paid 30p per KWHr even though he offered power at 7p.

Its completely nuts and what you said above is wrong.

We have just about the most expensive power in Europe and this is why.

About a month ago that liar Miliband, was on the Today Programme claiming that the reason our power was the most expensive was that the other European powers use less fossil fuel. That is an outright lie when you look at how most of them produce electricty. Numbers of them use coal and even brown coal which is a filthy fuel.

Neither was our use of gas the reason we pay more - except for the fact that the payment system pays all producers the same price as the marginal top up price from the most expensive gas producer such as an old gas turbine running without recovery of heat from the gas turbine exhaust, to generate more power. CCGT turbines are get 50% extra power from the same amount of gas as CHT turbines without exhaust gas heat recovery. It is GAS that sets the price paid to all and a MASSIVE profit margin for the wind producers.

You can say that wind is really cheap - it could be, but it isn't because we pay them the same money. It's a scam. The government and that liar Miliband know it is a scam too. It is done to encourage the roll out of large numbers of new wind stations. They don't admit that though.

 

[Woosh]

Its completely nuts and what you said above is wrong.

Government wants to make investment in renewables more attractive, the pricing scheme does exactly that. Also, the tax take on renewables is higher.
Besides, if there is less wind in the mix, we will depend even more on gas, when there is a crisis like war in Ukraine, the price is likely even higher.
What would be fair to consumers is to nationalise the selling of energy. Government would buy from the cheapest suppliers and sell to us at a small or no profit and even subsidied price.

 

[Ghost1951]

Government wants to make investment in renewables more attractive, the pricing scheme does exactly that. Also, the tax take on renewables is higher.
Besides, if there is less wind in the mix, we will depend even more on gas, when there is a crisis like war in Ukraine, the price is likely even higher.
What would be fair to consumers is to nationalise the selling of energy. Government would buy from the cheapest suppliers and sell to us at a small or no profit and even subsidied price.

I think we ought to have nationalised the gas forty years ago and made sure that the country made the lions's share of the profits rather than multi national oil corporations. Their involvement was essential, but we didn't have to give the resource away to them. Essentially, what happened was that our politicians acted like native rulers two hundred years ago, selling off priceless assets for a handful of beads and some pots and pans.

 

[MikelBikel]

Apparently Thurrock Council have a financial black hole that hasn't been illuminated despite loadsa solar!
Saving the world, 1 private jet at a time, so sus-tainable

 

[MikelBikel]

0.3-0.6% per year, ha, maybe "green" by "year 2525" with how much Taxpayers money? After all, all this "investment" is tax deductible, hehe.

YT notice on videos is getting pathetic, enough already!

 

[Woosh]

0.3-0.6% per year, ha, maybe "green" by "year 2525" with how much Taxpayers money? After all, all this "investment" is tax deductible, hehe.

You should know that fossil fuels also benefit from taxpayers money and proportionally, even more money has been spent helping the fossil industries.
Governments have to invest into extra capacity every year, whether they like it or not, because energy is the most essential ingredient for any economic growth and tax revenue.

ChatGPT:

As of the most recent global data, fossil fuels still receive more subsidies than renewables, although the gap has been narrowing in recent years.

1. Fossil Fuel Subsidies (Global)

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Energy Agency (IEA):

• In 2022, global fossil fuel subsidies (both explicit and implicit) reached $7 trillion.
• Explicit subsidies (direct government support, such as lowering fuel prices): about $1.3 trillion.
• Implicit subsidies (not pricing in environmental and health costs): make up the rest.

2. Renewable Energy Subsidies

• Global subsidies for renewables are significantly lower—estimated at around $250–300 billion per year (varies by source and definition).
• These subsidies come in the form of:
  • Feed-in tariffs
  • Tax credits (e.g., U.S. Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit)
  • Capital grants
  • Research and development support

3. Why Fossil Fuels Get More Support

• Many fossil fuel subsidies exist to make energy affordable in developing nations.
• Some subsidies are politically hard to remove (e.g., keeping fuel prices low for consumers).
• Fossil fuels still dominate the global energy mix (~80%), so support is often entrenched.

4. Trends

• Renewable subsidies are increasing as governments push for decarbonization.
• Some countries (e.g., EU nations) are phasing out fossil fuel subsidies more aggressively.
• The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2022) dramatically increased renewable energy support.

Summary:

No, globally fossil fuels still receive more subsidies than renewables, but the trend is shifting as more governments prioritize clean energy.

 

[Ghost1951]

You should know that fossil fuels also benefit from taxpayers money and proportionally, even more money has been spent helping the fossil industries.
Governments have to invest into extra capacity every year, whether they like it or not, because energy is the most essential ingredient for any economic growth and tax revenue.

ChatGPT:

As of the most recent global data, fossil fuels still receive more subsidies than renewables, although the gap has been narrowing in recent years.

1. Fossil Fuel Subsidies (Global)

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Energy Agency (IEA):

• In 2022, global fossil fuel subsidies (both explicit and implicit) reached $7 trillion.
• Explicit subsidies (direct government support, such as lowering fuel prices): about $1.3 trillion.
• Implicit subsidies (not pricing in environmental and health costs): make up the rest.

2. Renewable Energy Subsidies

• Global subsidies for renewables are significantly lower—estimated at around $250–300 billion per year (varies by source and definition).
• These subsidies come in the form of:
  • Feed-in tariffs
  • Tax credits (e.g., U.S. Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit)
  • Capital grants
  • Research and development support

3. Why Fossil Fuels Get More Support

• Many fossil fuel subsidies exist to make energy affordable in developing nations.
• Some subsidies are politically hard to remove (e.g., keeping fuel prices low for consumers).
• Fossil fuels still dominate the global energy mix (~80%), so support is often entrenched.

4. Trends

• Renewable subsidies are increasing as governments push for decarbonization.
• Some countries (e.g., EU nations) are phasing out fossil fuel subsidies more aggressively.
• The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2022) dramatically increased renewable energy support.

Summary:

No, globally fossil fuels still receive more subsidies than renewables, but the trend is shifting as more governments prioritize clean energy.

And where would we be without fossil fuels?

Have you considered what life was like before the Industrial revolution?

How miserable and back breaking life was before abundant power?

Try living without the benefits of fossil energy and the big bad fossil fuel industry is suddenly a saviour. I have spent a fair bit of time backpacking and wandering about under my own steam, living in the wilds under a poncho. It is quite a challenge and i can assure you there is nothing quite like getting back to a bit of fossil fuel comfort. Even then I took with me food that had been produced with the abundant use of fossil fuels and equipment made with them.

THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FOSSIL FUELS< UNLESS YOU WANT TO START LIVING LIKE A MEDIEVAL PEASANT. The life expectancy was about 35 back then and the main reason was they were half starved and worked to death.

We use massive amounts of fossil energy to produce our food:

• fertiliser
• cultivation
• transport and distribution
• preservation of food

Fertiliser factory


It takes massive amounts of oil to cultivate the land


Food distribution and preservation


Cold storage preserves fresh food



People advocating the end of fossil fuels are COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL if they think 8Bn people can live on a net zero planet.

They are wildly and ridiculously detached from reality.

Following their advice would lead to billions starving in no time.

 

[Ghost1951]

What is going on with the Pedelecs server?

It has been down twice that I noticed in the last few days unless the talktalk network has some sort of weird dns problem.

It has always been extremely slow, but now it seems to be unreliable too.

 

[Woosh]

And where would we be without fossil fuels?

Have you considered what life was like before the Industrial revolution?

How miserable and back breaking life was before abundant power?

Try living without the benefits of fossil energy and the big bad fossil fuel industry is suddenly a saviour. I have spent a fair bit of time backpacking and wandering about under my own steam, living in the wilds under a poncho. It is quite a challenge and i can assure you there is nothing quite like getting back to a bit of fossil fuel comfort. Even then I took with me food that had been produced with the abundant use of fossil fuels and equipment made with them.

THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FOSSIL FUELS< UNLESS YOU WANT TO START LIVING LIKE A MEDIEVAL PEASANT. The life expectancy was about 35 back then and the main reason was they were half starved and worked to death.

We use massive amounts of fossil energy to produce our food:

• fertiliser
• cultivation
• transport and distribution
• preservation of food

Fertiliser factory
View attachment 63409

It takes massive amounts of oil to cultivate the land
View attachment 63410

Food distribution and preservation
View attachment 63411

Cold storage preserves fresh food
View attachment 63412


People advocating the end of fossil fuels are COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL if they think 8Bn people can live on a net zero planet.

They are wildly and ridiculously detached from reality.

Following their advice would lead to billions starving in no time.

Fossil fuels are limited resources, especially as chemicals. It's bad enough to waste them through burning for energy, we have done just that for thousands of year and now we have the technology to use renewables, it's time to protect what's left.

 

[Ghost1951]

Fossil fuels are a limited resource, especially as chemicals. It's bad enough to waste them through burning for energy, we have done just that for thousands of year and now we have the technology to use renewables, it's time to protect what's left.

No we don't have the technology to replace them.

It is a miserable thing to deal with an advocate rather than someone who tells the unbiased truth, because they keep on putting up false and distorted versions of reality.

You KNOW that every winter the UK has periods - extensive periods without any wind and solar power generating possibilities, and yet you STILL claim we can have a cost effective green energy grid. You falsely claim battery power can take up the slack....

Err - how is that. Forty or more Gwatts of power demand for two weeks??? Battery power???? Pull the other one. It is an impossibility.

Last winter we had three and a half weeks when the wind didn't blow. There was no sun either.

You know because I just told you that producing our food requires very large fossil fuel inputs - fertiliser making is one of the big uses of fossil fuels.Tell me how you do it without them.

Your ambition would lead to massive food shortages, power blackouts lasting weeks at a time, Industrial stoppage and massive resources shortages.

Fantasy world - I'm afraid.

 

[MikelBikel]

Oops I broke the quote, ho hum.
[[/URL]
EDIT:

Just noted Mikel's post above - wondering what 'Conformational bias' is.....

I know about confirmation bias and have done for fifty years, but I never heard of that. Better watch his video and find out. I like to keep up to date...

Oh no - that video was all about confirmation bias - the presenter's. He doesn't like AI in case it will maybe tend to put him out of business. Well here's the thing - he is shouting into the hurricane. AI will put a lot of people out of business and a lot of new people will have new businesses because of it. That's pretty much certain.
End [/QUOTE]

A. It was the AI spellchecker that changed my "confirmational" to "conformational". Now it has both, and I left it in to see if anybody noticed.
As to the difference between them..
Milgram experiment was the Conform... version.
But what is a good example of the Confirm...?
Maybe everyone's use and reliance on AI?

 

[Ghost1951]

And by the way, I was learning in school in 1968 doing economics that oil and gas would all run out in twenty years. No where near - we have massive abundance of fossil fuels under the ground and permanently developing new techniques to exploit them. Coal is in massive abundance too. Ask the Chinese.

 

[Ghost1951]

This is what Woosh is advocating for:

Food production:



Timber production



An unusual feast in the future dystopian Greta-world




Of course, this is only AFTER the vast majority of the planet's human population has already starved to death.

Modern agriculture is all that has allowed the numbers of people on earth to survive and without it there would be mass starvation. Once most people are dead we can probably see a remnant survive on non-fossil fuel agriculture, but it will be bone crushingly hard work to do it.

 

[Woosh]

No we don't have the technology to replace them.

Let's fact check your argument.
Solar: recent technology. Einstein got a Nobel prize (1921) for figuring out how photoelectricity works (1905). First solar panel was invented at Bell Labs in 1954, commercially deployed in the early 70s. The yield then was 5%-7%, yes, it's difficult to think some businesses would try to exploit something as expensive as those panels at such a low harvesting yield.
Fast forward 50 years on, panels now are advertised at 22%-25% yield and the price is a tiny fraction of those early panels in the 70s. Now the technology is the cheapest to produce electricity in the world and yield are up to 45% in labs, 90%+ if combined with passive heat collection.

Wind: old technology. Windmills were known to be used in Persia since the 7th century to pump water and grind grains. In 1987, James Blyth used his windmill to generate electricity in Scotland. Fastforward 150 years, offshore windmills are the most powerful mechanical devices the generate directly electricity at unbelieveable scale, 7MW each are routinely installed through the world, 20GW in China. I asked ChatGPT: how much wind power save in carbon emission in the world if the same amount of electricity were to be produced by coal or oil or gas?
Here is the answer:
Global Wind Power in 2023 (example):

• Electricity generated by wind: ~2,100 terawatt-hours (TWh)
  • (Source: IEA estimate)

Carbon Savings Estimate:

Using rough midpoints for emissions:

If wind had been replaced by coal:

• 2,100 TWh × 950 g/kWh = 1.995 billion tonnes CO₂ avoided

If replaced by oil:

• 2,100 TWh × 750 g/kWh = 1.575 billion tonnes CO₂ avoided

If replaced by natural gas:

• 2,100 TWh × 450 g/kWh = 945 million tonnes CO₂ avoided

 

[flecc]

And by the way, I was learning in school in 1968 doing economics that oil and gas would all run out in twenty years. No where near - we have massive abundance of fossil fuels under the ground and permanently developing new techniques to exploit them. Coal is in massive abundance too. Ask the Chinese.

Indeed, the first predictions that peak oil had been past were in 1950. Since then we've discovered the reserves of the North Sea, Alaska, Mexican Gulf, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Angola and many more, without even looking at Russia and its satellites.

And of course crude oil and even "town" gas can be produced from this planet's seemingly inexhaustible coal reserves, the former done by South Africa during the sanctions years and the latter by us during the 19th and 20th centuries.
.

 

[lenny]

 

[lenny]

 

[lenny]