@@Joe.Z.L I feel infrastructure projects that would make money in the long term due to improved capacity, traffic and by extension trade shouldn't be treated as "bad" debt.
@@Joe.Z.L also wasn't it leftists who were complaining that the Tories were not spending enough? But here now, you are quite literally saying that the Tories shouldn't have invested in infrastructure projects. You can't have it both ways to be honest. Either both Tories and Labour are wrong to pursue cuts to infrastructure projects or they are both right in investing in these things.
There is an assumption that just because private companies drill for oil off the north sea - Rishi's family business got over £1Bn contract from that license to BP - that they will sell it to the UK... no, no, no... they will sell it to whoever pays the highest price. You can see this with the USA, which has astounding amounts of home crude, yet they (private companies) first sell it abroad for more money, which is why USA are still affected by OPEC fluctuations, because they need to import it from the Middle East countries to make up the short fall. We should follow the Norwegian model and go 100% state owned, and sell the spare energy to whoever pays the most. I am disappointed in Starmer's plan, ultimately it just leads to another "If you see Sid, tell him" sell off, that benefits more rich investors and keeps energy in Private ownership.
@@Μ.Ζ-ρ4π it’s not that he’s wrong per se, it’s that he’s missing the point. The government isn’t going to drill any oil- this is politically untenable for them. Commercial entities can though. The key thing is that it doesn’t matter whether the oil we produce domestically is used here or not- it’s oil on the market , and crucially it’s tax revenue for the uk. If we don’t make it here, it just increases what we need to import, and reduces energy security if that import chain was ever threatened. Current government policy with regards oil isn’t going to do anything at all to reduce demand, but I can assure you all that it’s going to reduce the tax take in the medium and long term. And this is to speak nothing of the increased environmental impact and societal damage to the regions where oil and gas are major employers. Most project across the North Sea needed to maintain production (and I’m not talking about increased production at all) and maximise overall hydrocarbon recovery are now sub economic. I learned today that of the 20 projects we have on the horizon, only 8 scrape through now as being cash positive. Asset life spans are being reduced not by years, but by decades. Nationalising such companies would cause financial chaos, which affects everyone’s pensions, and would only serve to drive international investment away. As a side note, people need to forget about the big headline profit numbers for the super majors like shell and BP- those profits are almost entirely made up from production from other countries, so no amount of windfall tax makes any difference. If you want to tax the oil companies on where the real profits are made in the UK, it’s from the oil and gas traders in London. They make the biggest profits, and rather than putting gas in your boiler at home, they don’t actually “do” anything. The windfall tax, remarkably, completely side steps them. Go figure…
@@brogenville I understand yet nationalization of private industries can be beneficial. In my opinion renewables are a much better way to invest in energy due to the unpredictability of the oil market
@@Μ.Ζ-ρ4π I wouldn’t disagree, and honestly I don’t know anyone that works in oil and gas who would. But the reality is that people are going to need conventional fuels for quite some time, and killing off domestic production won’t change that. I feel that GB Energy is likely to be a damp squib. At best some kind of quango directing investment. But I’m still fine with that- I’ve no issue with the government owning a stake in a renewables industry. I cannot accept that this needs to come at the expense of killing off another industry before the point where it can naturally conclude or the demand can dwindle.
It's difficult. If it needs to expand and build new expensive infrastructure that costs a lot of money, those money needs to come from somewhere. Normally, from investors, and they want some interest on their money. And this doesn't matter if the company takes the loan directly or indirectly, where to state issues bonds to finance expenses (which is the case for the UK and most countries). But essential utilities should not be a milk cow and they should be run as efficiently as possible and pay *as little dividends as possible* .
@@nostro1940 there's a ton of non public companies that don't pay dividends....?? They still get investment. There's tons of infrastructure with public and private investment and no dividends.... the payment can be done through employments and salaries. Edit: Usually when a private company invests into something in partnership with a government, they'll expect profits from operating that new infrastructure. They don't get "dividends" they get more business, and they can raise their own salaries, and can grow their company by having a guaranteed buyer of their stuffs. The leadership doesn't need shareholders to participate in the gains, unless they're actively managing their own stock price.
@@ayoCCcompanies that don't pay dividends offer higher share price increases which the owner of said shares may sit on to generate more cash or progressively sell off, investors don't invest to not make money
I work in energy on a day to day basis and the constraint payments are actually even worse than its presented in the video. The cables connecting Scotland to the south of england are not big enough. When its really windy National Grid end up having to pay money to shut wind farms off, and then pay more money to turn gas plants in england on. The transmission system is pretty broken...
@DrBoss873 and part of this is because historically the rest of the UK didn't get the electricity from the Highlands (I appreciate you may know this, others won't) but from where coal stations were in the midlands and north Yorkshire. So that's where the 400/275kv lines went to.
Regulation already exists in energy. It's Ofgem. And compared to Ofwat they do a pretty decent job on the networks. Bear in mind they are focus on regulating the monopolised side of things, so have little interest in the generator or supply side.
@@muffinmendy7327 Private investors acting in their own interests doesn't hurt anyone. If they all disappeared, nobody would be any better off. Ironically, forcing these private investors to act altruistically WOULD involve hurting one person for the gain of another
That reveals a fundamental ignorance of economic theory. They actually do, in a free market. If people are free to buy from any seller, the way for sellers to get rich (and investors behind those sellers) is to offer better products or better prices than their competitors. To maximize your income, you need to maximize the number of customers, and to do that you aim to maximally please your customers. So the incentives are actually perfectly aligned.
Utilities absolutely should be nationalized. Given their absolute necessity to infrastructure, national security, etc., it's insane that they might be controlled by private companies.
I agree. A free market only makes sense for industries that are competitive and non essential, like restaurants. You can't shop around for your water supplier, and you can't go without it so companies can charge what they like while giving a bad service. The same is true of trains, hospitals, roads etc.
@@SaintGerbilUKmuch of the problems with the NHS is the privitisation of provision and infrastructure, despite that it's still one of the most efficient health services in the developed world despite the political crippling of the last 25 years. Try again
@@SaintGerbilUK The NHS is cost efficient and ran well within the context of the budget and people it delivers services for. Any organisation as large as the NHS is going to be full of administration as they are providing healthcare for 65+ million people. The NHS has seen funding cut and assets sold off, for what it should be the government has left it as bare bones. To suggestion you need profit to do something well is a dumb argument, the moral argument alone is enough for the kind of people the NHS attracts. If you wanted the people within the organisation to be competitive then it's down to paying them well or offering them benefits but the quality of services doesn't depend on profit. People in the modern era are brain washed, during the industrial revolution we had industrialists that would take a small chunk of money and then reinvest in the local areas, entire estates were built or renewed by company profits. That housing then sold to the workers to own their house. Things we seem to have forgotten.
It ultimately won't work out, though it might make things not worse than they already are - if the management of this thing is miraculous in some way. I really don't understand governments that don't get the message. It's simple. The private market is fundamentally incompatible with public essencial services. It doesn't matter how much politicians and economists, particularly neo-liberal ones, keeps shouting this message, more and more obviously to protect the status quo and make rich people even richer at the cost of the mid to low classes. You have a service that is needed by everyone equally. And a private sector that more and more advances towards anti-trust practices, anti-consumer, and pro investment and profit. This is just plain statistics, it's not a theory, not bias, not ideology, not propaganda. Anyone can check this by looking at statistics, economics data, historical evolution and whatnot. For essencial services that everyone has no choice but to pay for it, the costumer isn't this group, it's investors. People who pay for it is just a source of profit, something to exploit. Particularly for larger evermore consolidated private companies that control it all, and that the government or people can do nothing to influence it's inner workings. So, given that your costumer is the investor, you only have two choices as a private business on this. You either raise the price, or trash the service. Or do as most do - both. This might be because they are evil vampires willing to suck all the blood of their source of revenue, or just a reality of the market. If you don't do that, someone will be willing to do that, and investors will put whoever is willing to do it in place. They have the power of vote and choice, and they'll do whatever necessary for profit, because that's all that matters to them. It should be clear for anyone watching the news how twitchy, psychotic, and paranoid the investment market is. And that's how it's gonna behave with everything, including stocks on a private company that handles essencial services. Regulations and pressure don't matter in these situations because you are dealing with sacrificial pawns for the market. Whoever monopolizes the market does not get there by playing nice, they get there by doing the will of investors, who are rich and far removed from the needs of the service. Doesn't matter if you have to pay a higher bill or have sh*t quality service if on the other end you are hugely profiting from it, you can just pay to get mostly off the grid, have backups and use a tiny bit of the profits you make on increased bills. Furthermore, because those are essencial services, neither you as a consumer nor the government nor justice can just close it off due to bad behavior, corruption scandals, or whatever comes up. It's a history as old as the history of major man made catastrophes regarding essencial services and major infrastructure. At the most and in very rare cases, you replace management and punish the sacrificial pawns. But more often than not, it's not the sacrificial pawns fault that it all came crashing down - it's just market forces, the insatiable chase for profit, the exploitation of those who have no other option. The problem never gets fixed, because the problem is the system itself. It's not designed to fix issues and get better, it's designed to extract profit. So the math and logic will never add up here. You want the chance of control and service towards costumers, there is no other route other than getting it back to a public company, or nationalization nowadays. This is a function on how the private sector works, not only a matter of politics or ideology. And of course, it's not a miracle cure too. Because when it's at the hands of government, then it's a matter if representatives are really willing to attend the needs of the public, or they themselves are at the hands of investors, the rich and powerful, lobbyists and whatnot. But unfortunately, what you have there is chance of control versus no chance. Some power in vote versus none. Shouting at your elected representatives versus shouting into the void. Nothing has a guarantee to fix anything, but you still gotta wage your bets. Better put it into realistic choices rather than pipe dreams and utopic capitalism ideals. The market hasn't been "solving it" for a very long time now. It's past time people realize this.
you can't get more local than solar panels on your roof. There needs to be more incentive for home owners and mandates for building companies to install them. And batteries of course.
Solar panels? In British weather where it's overcast 80%+ of the year? Solar is great in areas with sunlight, solar wouldn't do a hell of a lot here and would be very ineffecient.
@@hardcorelace7565 Actually solar can provide reasonable output on cloudy/overcast days and as the original post states, less transmission infrastructure is needed. On long British summer days a lot of energy can be generated to partially make up for the lower production in the winter. Batteries are also very beneficial in reducing transmission requirements.
@@zen1647 they work at 10-25% effectiveness on cloudy days. For most of the year thats between 1/4 and 1/10 effectiveness. It is fully reasonable that most people don't think thats worth it. London gets 35 clear days per year, 150 partially cloudy and 180 cloudy. Assuming 100% effectiveness on clear days, 50% on partially cloudy and 25% on cloudy (being generous). Then a panel in London has 43% effectiveness on average. So you buy a panel at full price and get under half the energy at most. Now for some people that might be reasonable, but for the rest of the UK where the weather is worse than London it would seem reasonable to assume solar panels are just not worth it. I fully support green energy, however it isn't household energy production that's going to get us to net zero, anyone who can reasonably get solar panels should go ahead, but many can't reasonably get or afford solar panels and they shouldn't be blamed for that.
@@hardcorelace7565 Solar panels are really cheap now and usually pay for themselves in about 7 years, even with overcast and partly cloudy days. Everything after that is bonus gravy and every bit of green energy helps. The other point is batteries which also even out the load and reduce the amount of transmission required.
@@hardcorelace7565 oh right, so the panels on my roof in the north of England don't currently generate the same amount of energy that my house uses across the year? They won't have paid for themselves within 6 years? OK, I'll call for someone to come and remove them and reinstall gas shall I?
I don't understand experts and evidence shows privatization worked better than nationalization. I don't suppose your manipulating but You're speaking at the wrong end.
@@pascualromero8245 To be fair both privatizations and nationalizations have both positives and negative effects. Also what experts are you speaking about that claim to work better? I've seen privatizations go wrong, look at how Russia turned out under Yeltsin
@@pascualromero8245 Look at the state of British trains after they were privatised. Or how the water in the Thames is now. Perhaps it can work but we have glaring examples of where it's failed and it needs sorting
@@pascualromero8245 I'm very curious as to which evidence you're talking about, because in the majority of cases that doesn't work. The USA public transport systems were privatized in big cities and then gutted because it turns out the buyer were car industrials, and didn't want competition.
I've been abroad for 40 years but let me guess... Privatized energy has allowed infrastructure to deteriorate in order to maximize profit and now the govt. steps in and pays for it all to be made good again... :(
If only youd spend in building council housing/city housing... Maybe youd spend less on housing than you do.. But with trudeau in governance its useless to even hope
Thank you for making this. I went to Bruges last summer and was blown away. Belgium and The Netherlands are right at the top of my list for a city break
True energy independence is only possible by disconnecting energy prices from the international market. There are multiple ways to do this, but the easiest is to fully nationalise the grid. That is what they should be doing.
I really hope they start investing into more left behind renewable energies instead of just doing more wind. Tidal is waiting for investment & is 30 years behind wind but would give very similar results once it gets to a sustainable point, Nuclear also should be invested in more as its one of the cleanest energy sources that'd give the same reliability that coal & gas power stations do but without the Carbon emissions & if you properly deal with them having the right safety in place they are as safe as coal & gas with it being very unlikely for a disaster to happen (at least in the UK we don't have natural disasters like Japan or America do which could threaten meltdowns & we don't have the same lack of safety & understanding that lead to events like Chernobyl back in the 80s) Also nuclear waste can even be used to make power but the Anti-nuclear power people don't want us to know its benefits. Kyle Hill has a few videos on it. Also there is other renewables that are less known as they aren't really invested in much yet.
@@ella-kq2kc yea. After you look into Nuclear energy you see that its the best power source. Its only a problem when you let idiots control it by making cheap parts without proper safety & such. Even then the Japan disaster wasn't even that bad 1 person died due to it & there was a very small danger there & its problems only happened because the people in charge ignored the warnings. I wish the Green parties would realise how dangerous it is to remove the nuclear power plants as we can look upon Germany to see what happened.
Nope - it should be done to prioritise lowering bills, and follow the cheapest sources of energy which are wind & solar. Nuclear can't get anywhere near in terms of price. Anything else is ideologically led rather than evidence based
@@pickleboynibs1334 They currently provide most of the energy, we just need to build more of it. Wind/Solar is providing 38%, gas at 28% and nuclear is only providing 14.7%. Nuclear is just hella expensive.
many of the ideas in the GB energy policy are very good but renationalisation should have been a part of it, competition just does not make sense in something as basic and essential as energy
Completely nationalise the grid and power stations then that's the end of the matter. Private investment means profit driven and not good for bills and taxpayers
I genuinely hope that this works. I hope that in the future (heaven forbid) another crisis occurs that can radically increase global energy prices, the UK will be somewhat sheltered by global energy increase. Only time will tell though, but here is to hoping that in the next few years, we will have both lower energy bills as well as a majority of our energy needs will come from clean energy.
I deliver supplies to new builds and they have to comply with local regulations, I went to a new build were they put 1 solar panel on each property because they said that was the council’s minimum agreement so the developers could get planning permission, I went to another where there was a roof full but there was no battery fitted. My company has started putting 200 panels on each depot, it cuts costs and brings in money at the end of the year.
What should happen, I think, is removal of a cap on profit for the utility companies (and I say it as someone who works for a utility company). The problem with the cap is that it removes an incentive for a company to operate efficiently. As long as Ofgem-set KPIs are met and profit cap is reached every year, there is no incentive to improve (processes, systems, assets etc.), reinvest into the business or spend money wisely and on the right things/in the right places.
3:05 The profit motive *always* runs counter to efficiency. It is right wing ideology that capitalism and competition improve efficiency - evolution shows how insane that idea is.
The whole point of having private energy generation is to have them compete, and for that they should pay for the 'amount' of transmission cables they use and any environmental costs they create, and be paid a dynamic price per KW based on supply and demand. In a free market economy the prices go down when there's too much supply, you don't get paid to produce less...
This is probably me being too simplistic here, but it seems like a good solution would be to make the generation companies responsible for ensuring the energy they produce is transmittable to where it needs to be used. This would be as simple as contract changes ensuring that there is sufficient matched investment into the national grid. Of course, simple things can be complex to implement, but that doesn't make them wrong to do.
You didnt mention how labour sre cutting energy aid and are increasibg energy cost cap Meaning mist are giing to see another 2k increase in energy bills
I feel like this doesn't go far enough. They should have done something similar to New York, where the state owns the generation facilities, resulting in some of the cheapest energy costs in the entire US.
A brief observation: I saw a solar farm in a field. Nothing wrong with that BUT it just had solar panels in it! Well, what's wrong with that you will think. I saw a couple of years ago, a solar farm but the panels wre higher up, say 3 to 6 meters. And underneath it, was live stock, grazing away. Now that is inovative, isn't it?
The best way to deal with "we don't want that here" is to offer discounts to the communities hosting the infrastructure People would be far less upset about solar farms or wind farms if they got 10% off their own bill in exchange
Bit like the private rail firms...Private when extracting money from the punters, nationalised when dealing with the train drivers wages...They are taking the piss
Those reactors require a sh*t ton of capital investment, the only way that will be acquired is by foreign investment, which isn't happening right now, or raising taxes, which will cripple labour's approval. Wind is a flexible solution until the economy can stabilise
Wind power is much cheaper per kWh than nuclear energy, and it can be installed much faster. Nuclear energy is important, because unlike renewables it gives a constant output of power that's independent of the weather, but there's no good reason for it to be the only power source we use. It would also be unwise to massively increase our production of nuclear waste given how we still have no long term storage solution (Finland is the only country in the world who has built one), and Sellafield is currently in the process of decommissioning at a cost of £60-140 billion over the next 100 years.
@@shamrock141very true but it could be cheaper. A lot of a nuclear reactor is basically the same as a coal reactor. Converting old coal plants to nuclear ones would still be expensive but you’d save a significant amount of money, by current estimates 35%. Our issue is we don’t have many left as all are back ups (I believe)
FWVLIW: Speaking as a conservative with a small 'C', good! ...as long as they do it sensibly - in my mid 50's I've yet to see a Labour gov't that doesn't let ideology get in the way of sense. I have nothing against private enterprise, indeed the less 'big government' is involved in the better - but when it comes to infrastructure such things absolutely should be government run: -It's idiotic to artificially create competition for 'national or regional infrastructure' - just further layers of complication... and unnecessary salaries the customer will have to pay for. -It's idiotic to divide 'national and regional infrastructure' administration in to artificial subunits when you're dealing with services everybody needs equally to the exclusion of profit.
You’re right except that when a buffoon like Miliband and his eco-zealot “advisor” are in charge it all falls apart. I’m 65 and an engineer with a power generation background. Nothing that this bunch or the last say or do makes any sense. Net zero is utter lunacy and will destroy our economy.
There is always a balance and I agree with you, Things vital for society to function should be government-run. Trains and energy should 100% be state-run. (provided they make sure it works well)
The last gov basically stole a giant wind farm project ownership (Viking) from the community in Shetland and has now commissioned it and is blocking grid access to original existing turbines with a new project Happy days Thanks SSE
Having half a continent for under 40m people, I'm always surprised that Canada acts like there's a scarcity. Hydro, shale, solar, and wind are all in massive supply over there, not to mention all natural minerals/materials, and immense land for agriculture. Good luck Canada.
@@JackChurchill101 It's not that there's a scarcity, within my comment thas nothing to do with it/wasn't even mentioned. It was the privatisation of these utilities I meant plus the many subsequent inefficiencies that are created therefrom.
Political economist Richard J Murphy of _Fund the Future_ (who is always worth listening to) calls Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund “ just state-backed private equity funds.” That’s as good an explanation as any.
Another observation: why are wind turbines always so far a part? Covering more land then is necessary I would think. Is that really the only way to make it work?
Maybe instead of giving Jaguar Landrover half a billion to make a battery manufacturing facility in Somerset, they could have built their own - to supply U.K households home battery storage at cost price.
Do you know how devastating it is on a local economy and taxpayers when a big manufacturer goes out of business or goes off shore? Look what happened with steel recently
The current market rules were created by the government. They were designed to minimise losses for producers. This market is strictly controlled, and has several bizarre mechanisms that exacberate the cost of energy in supply crunches. The government can change the market rules, and as far as I'm aware this is the only way to fix the market in the UK. So we need them to change the broken and unfair rules that govern it, not create another vehicle for extracting more money from the public sector.
100% correct and they don’t seem very intent on telling the public about this political disgrace. Of course Sir Starmer will do nothing for the people and just keep on with profiteering for the rich. This is England’s political class now. It’s who they are because it’s what they do, the political party is irrelevant now, the “system” of a 2-party state taking turns to fuck us over is well established.
"profits will go back to the community" Yeah... I heard that story 20 years ago when sorting trash started to become a thing. Now we have 6 different bins and trash cost is trough the roof. Used to be 1% of gross salary, now it's close to 5%
There's also Great British Nuclear which the Tories set up last year. I wonder if that's going to be subsumed into GBE or kept separate since nuclear is "special"?
BC in Canada has BCHydro, and it’s been great for me, cheap reliable government provided hydro power that’s much better than Ontario’s private sector electricity.
@@bm8641 "Ontario Power Generation was established in April 1999 as part of plans by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris to privatize the assets of Ontario Hydro and deregulate the province's electricity market" - wikipedia literally only half of Ontario electricity is generated by Ontario Power, and Ontario is an open electricity market. I'll admit ig its not fully private and I was wrong, but also whatever exists, sucks ducks.
Planning processes take so long that the only renewable projects that will finish construction in the next 5 years will be projects started before this govermrnt came to power. So all the projects started by this GB Energy will have their most expensive phases after the 5 years of this government. So what in GB Energy going to spend it's 8.3 billion pounds on?
Well, as always in life, things are just a little bit more complicated, eh? If you want a peek, go to a UK natural gas futures chart, make sure to set the date range to go back to at least the pre-lockdowns of 2020 and behold… From 01/01/2019, the mean is about 106 pence per therm, whereas average range 150-200, considering the extreme spikes and more stable periods. Albeit the energy crisis of 2022 pushed these figures much higher for a significant portion of the period (have they told you yet who blew up nord stream in the end?? See some ideas from Malcom Kyeyune from Unherd)… To get to ~kWh, just divide by 29.3071, so mean about 3.62 pence/kWh. That’s wholesale. Average Ofgem from Oct’24 will be 6.24 pence/kWh… You do the maths hehe. Oh, and great help illustrating the progress on targets is within the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): natural gas…
"Money will go back into the community's vias reduced energy costs." Im sure the owners will certainly prioritize the people over profits 😂 Why does the public take the funding cost ... but a private owner reaps the reward?
Buy batteries! All the wind that is produced can be stored and using high DC transmission lines between those batteries can move the electricity between where there is too much to where there isn't enough.
So the plan is to make energy cheaper for the public, but they want private investment? The private sector gets their money from the public, they don't want cheaper bills for them, it means less profit. I'm not an economist, but I do not see why the private sector would be motivated to do this unless.
@@jhunt5578 Checks and balances. By treating the crown estate as an independent entity the government accounts for its capital expenditure and any future loss of income.
This shows how little people understand about energy and trying to coin useless ideas. Demand centres in UK are around London would you build renewable power stations around London or in seabed in Scotland where there is lots of wind ?
we always kick the can down the street, but after 14 years of the tories they need to improve living standards and reducing bills surely it cant be one or the other, lower bills but reinvest some in future renewables!
Sort of isn’t good enough the private sectors needs a baseline to compete against it isn’t enough for the government to legislate against their abuse they have to compete at atleast the fundementals of food, water, energy and healthcare and the private sector should always be struggling for relevancy
I don't know a single business that has solar panels on their roof. This implies that any deals the UK have to help people get solar on their roof are not very good. I feel like that should be where we focus if we want correctly distributed local green energy. Get solar on every roof in the UK (within reason St Paul's cathedral might not be a good choice) rather than in the hands of energy companies. I mean it's our tax money, we should benefit from it.
@@Pbchelt I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that it's not on most businesses like if I go to a business estate I don't think I'd see even 10% of the buildings with solar on and I think if we've got an issue with distribution which it sounds like we do and we want green electricity and maybe we don't want to rent land from the monarchy then maybe the individual should have the means of producing their own electricity.
@@hardcorelace7565 Well it's clean energy, it cheaper than most other fuels and the only reason those other power sources already exist is because their maintenance costs are less than the capital costs of solar of the same power. I'd suggest nuclear power but our government too involved with hinkley point so it's taken way longer than the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant in japan by at least double.
The private investors are leaving the country through this government why are other countries not doing this in a big way there building power stations
The fact that £300 off energy bills is a good thing in 2024 when we've had viable clean energy options for 20 years at least is a joke. They failed this country massively.
So in other words, they are not nationalising energy. The private sector got us into the energy crisis predicament, and expecting the good faith of energy corporations to do the right thing so people don't have to choose between food and heating is ridiculous. Very disappointed in the Labour party, but not surprised either.
The energy sector needs reform. Supplies physically do very little. They are there only to drive self regulate and drive market prices down for the customer, which given ofgem had to cap prices sugeests this hasnt worked.
Honestly, utilities are kind of the “perfect problem” for a government to solve. It’s something that everyone benefits from, but it isn’t something that you can “market” in order to expand the market/build a fan base/whatever else to make your utility stand out in the market….those kinds of problems, and problems of “insurance” (anytime where you need a big pile of money and the system works by more people paying into the pile than take out of the pile) are the two kinds of problems that led to us inventing government…. That’s what drives me nuts….im not really like a “political socialist” (I guess if I took an online quiz, then that is approximately where I’d fall but I’m not in a party or whatever) but it just seems obvious that some things a market is better at solving and other things the government is better at solving….and utilities fall much more on the “public good” side of things.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
If they stop cowering to NIMBYs and grow a spine, then they might just be successful.
Have you seen their new housing bill? It's directly aimed at nimbys
@@nightraven5760 they shouldn't have cancelled the Stonehenge Tunnel and other infrastructure projects if they care about growth.
@@inbb510sadly the last government shot the budget so these sacrifices have to be made
@@Joe.Z.L I feel infrastructure projects that would make money in the long term due to improved capacity, traffic and by extension trade shouldn't be treated as "bad" debt.
@@Joe.Z.L also wasn't it leftists who were complaining that the Tories were not spending enough?
But here now, you are quite literally saying that the Tories shouldn't have invested in infrastructure projects.
You can't have it both ways to be honest. Either both Tories and Labour are wrong to pursue cuts to infrastructure projects or they are both right in investing in these things.
What the heck were Tories doing in the last 14 years
Fighting themselves.
Making themselves and their big business mates richer on the backs of regular Brits
Their worst.
Giving their school friends and extended family the contracts with effectively a blank cheque and no deadline or oversight
Robbing us blind.
There is an assumption that just because private companies drill for oil off the north sea - Rishi's family business got over £1Bn contract from that license to BP - that they will sell it to the UK... no, no, no... they will sell it to whoever pays the highest price. You can see this with the USA, which has astounding amounts of home crude, yet they (private companies) first sell it abroad for more money, which is why USA are still affected by OPEC fluctuations, because they need to import it from the Middle East countries to make up the short fall.
We should follow the Norwegian model and go 100% state owned, and sell the spare energy to whoever pays the most. I am disappointed in Starmer's plan, ultimately it just leads to another "If you see Sid, tell him" sell off, that benefits more rich investors and keeps energy in Private ownership.
I can see you don’t work in the oil industry or understand how this all works.
@@brogenvillealright since you are an expert please explain on why he's wrong
@@Μ.Ζ-ρ4π it’s not that he’s wrong per se, it’s that he’s missing the point. The government isn’t going to drill any oil- this is politically untenable for them. Commercial entities can though. The key thing is that it doesn’t matter whether the oil we produce domestically is used here or not- it’s oil on the market , and crucially it’s tax revenue for the uk. If we don’t make it here, it just increases what we need to import, and reduces energy security if that import chain was ever threatened. Current government policy with regards oil isn’t going to do anything at all to reduce demand, but I can assure you all that it’s going to reduce the tax take in the medium and long term. And this is to speak nothing of the increased environmental impact and societal damage to the regions where oil and gas are major employers. Most project across the North Sea needed to maintain production (and I’m not talking about increased production at all) and maximise overall hydrocarbon recovery are now sub economic. I learned today that of the 20 projects we have on the horizon, only 8 scrape through now as being cash positive. Asset life spans are being reduced not by years, but by decades. Nationalising such companies would cause financial chaos, which affects everyone’s pensions, and would only serve to drive international investment away.
As a side note, people need to forget about the big headline profit numbers for the super majors like shell and BP- those profits are almost entirely made up from production from other countries, so no amount of windfall tax makes any difference. If you want to tax the oil companies on where the real profits are made in the UK, it’s from the oil and gas traders in London. They make the biggest profits, and rather than putting gas in your boiler at home, they don’t actually “do” anything. The windfall tax, remarkably, completely side steps them. Go figure…
@@brogenville I understand yet nationalization of private industries can be beneficial. In my opinion renewables are a much better way to invest in energy due to the unpredictability of the oil market
@@Μ.Ζ-ρ4π I wouldn’t disagree, and honestly I don’t know anyone that works in oil and gas who would. But the reality is that people are going to need conventional fuels for quite some time, and killing off domestic production won’t change that.
I feel that GB Energy is likely to be a damp squib. At best some kind of quango directing investment. But I’m still fine with that- I’ve no issue with the government owning a stake in a renewables industry. I cannot accept that this needs to come at the expense of killing off another industry before the point where it can naturally conclude or the demand can dwindle.
Essential utilities should not pay dividends.
No investments then
It's difficult. If it needs to expand and build new expensive infrastructure that costs a lot of money, those money needs to come from somewhere. Normally, from investors, and they want some interest on their money. And this doesn't matter if the company takes the loan directly or indirectly, where to state issues bonds to finance expenses (which is the case for the UK and most countries).
But essential utilities should not be a milk cow and they should be run as efficiently as possible and pay *as little dividends as possible* .
Why???
@@nostro1940 there's a ton of non public companies that don't pay dividends....?? They still get investment.
There's tons of infrastructure with public and private investment and no dividends.... the payment can be done through employments and salaries.
Edit:
Usually when a private company invests into something in partnership with a government, they'll expect profits from operating that new infrastructure.
They don't get "dividends" they get more business, and they can raise their own salaries, and can grow their company by having a guaranteed buyer of their stuffs.
The leadership doesn't need shareholders to participate in the gains, unless they're actively managing their own stock price.
@@ayoCCcompanies that don't pay dividends offer higher share price increases which the owner of said shares may sit on to generate more cash or progressively sell off, investors don't invest to not make money
I work in energy on a day to day basis and the constraint payments are actually even worse than its presented in the video. The cables connecting Scotland to the south of england are not big enough. When its really windy National Grid end up having to pay money to shut wind farms off, and then pay more money to turn gas plants in england on. The transmission system is pretty broken...
@DrBoss873 and part of this is because historically the rest of the UK didn't get the electricity from the Highlands (I appreciate you may know this, others won't) but from where coal stations were in the midlands and north Yorkshire. So that's where the 400/275kv lines went to.
I wish TLDR would post content about the riots and general civil unrest in the UK right now.
Civil unrest is putting it lightly. It’s bordering on pogroms now
They would downplay it or will ignore it
They dont want to trigger their right wing base. All of their videos are both sided.
The country: burning
Tldr news: kier stalmers energy plans
No point giving credence to those racist thugs
Let's hope the regulation isn't some old boys / girls network like OFWAT or the DWI
Regulation already exists in energy. It's Ofgem. And compared to Ofwat they do a pretty decent job on the networks. Bear in mind they are focus on regulating the monopolised side of things, so have little interest in the generator or supply side.
Private investors have no incentive to prioritize the needs of the people.
Are you implying that's a bad thing?
@@JohnDoe-nl3nf"Is it bad that we hurt people for our own gain?"
@@muffinmendy7327 Private investors acting in their own interests doesn't hurt anyone. If they all disappeared, nobody would be any better off. Ironically, forcing these private investors to act altruistically WOULD involve hurting one person for the gain of another
If he carries on down this path, history will remember him as Keir Stalin.
That reveals a fundamental ignorance of economic theory. They actually do, in a free market. If people are free to buy from any seller, the way for sellers to get rich (and investors behind those sellers) is to offer better products or better prices than their competitors. To maximize your income, you need to maximize the number of customers, and to do that you aim to maximally please your customers. So the incentives are actually perfectly aligned.
Calling this "nationalisation" is akin to being gaslighted
Which is why no is calling it that…
Labour are….
A side benefit of extending marine wind farms generates areas of safety for a huge variety of marine species. The life of the seas benefit hugely.
Utilities absolutely should be nationalized. Given their absolute necessity to infrastructure, national security, etc., it's insane that they might be controlled by private companies.
And then they will be run as well as the NHS.
I agree. A free market only makes sense for industries that are competitive and non essential, like restaurants. You can't shop around for your water supplier, and you can't go without it so companies can charge what they like while giving a bad service. The same is true of trains, hospitals, roads etc.
@@SaintGerbilUKmuch of the problems with the NHS is the privitisation of provision and infrastructure, despite that it's still one of the most efficient health services in the developed world despite the political crippling of the last 25 years. Try again
@@SaintGerbilUK The NHS is cost efficient and ran well within the context of the budget and people it delivers services for. Any organisation as large as the NHS is going to be full of administration as they are providing healthcare for 65+ million people. The NHS has seen funding cut and assets sold off, for what it should be the government has left it as bare bones. To suggestion you need profit to do something well is a dumb argument, the moral argument alone is enough for the kind of people the NHS attracts. If you wanted the people within the organisation to be competitive then it's down to paying them well or offering them benefits but the quality of services doesn't depend on profit.
People in the modern era are brain washed, during the industrial revolution we had industrialists that would take a small chunk of money and then reinvest in the local areas, entire estates were built or renewed by company profits. That housing then sold to the workers to own their house. Things we seem to have forgotten.
@@SaintGerbilUK The least efficient healthcare system in the world is largely private.
It ultimately won't work out, though it might make things not worse than they already are - if the management of this thing is miraculous in some way.
I really don't understand governments that don't get the message. It's simple. The private market is fundamentally incompatible with public essencial services. It doesn't matter how much politicians and economists, particularly neo-liberal ones, keeps shouting this message, more and more obviously to protect the status quo and make rich people even richer at the cost of the mid to low classes.
You have a service that is needed by everyone equally. And a private sector that more and more advances towards anti-trust practices, anti-consumer, and pro investment and profit. This is just plain statistics, it's not a theory, not bias, not ideology, not propaganda.
Anyone can check this by looking at statistics, economics data, historical evolution and whatnot.
For essencial services that everyone has no choice but to pay for it, the costumer isn't this group, it's investors. People who pay for it is just a source of profit, something to exploit. Particularly for larger evermore consolidated private companies that control it all, and that the government or people can do nothing to influence it's inner workings.
So, given that your costumer is the investor, you only have two choices as a private business on this. You either raise the price, or trash the service. Or do as most do - both. This might be because they are evil vampires willing to suck all the blood of their source of revenue, or just a reality of the market. If you don't do that, someone will be willing to do that, and investors will put whoever is willing to do it in place. They have the power of vote and choice, and they'll do whatever necessary for profit, because that's all that matters to them. It should be clear for anyone watching the news how twitchy, psychotic, and paranoid the investment market is. And that's how it's gonna behave with everything, including stocks on a private company that handles essencial services.
Regulations and pressure don't matter in these situations because you are dealing with sacrificial pawns for the market. Whoever monopolizes the market does not get there by playing nice, they get there by doing the will of investors, who are rich and far removed from the needs of the service. Doesn't matter if you have to pay a higher bill or have sh*t quality service if on the other end you are hugely profiting from it, you can just pay to get mostly off the grid, have backups and use a tiny bit of the profits you make on increased bills.
Furthermore, because those are essencial services, neither you as a consumer nor the government nor justice can just close it off due to bad behavior, corruption scandals, or whatever comes up. It's a history as old as the history of major man made catastrophes regarding essencial services and major infrastructure. At the most and in very rare cases, you replace management and punish the sacrificial pawns. But more often than not, it's not the sacrificial pawns fault that it all came crashing down - it's just market forces, the insatiable chase for profit, the exploitation of those who have no other option. The problem never gets fixed, because the problem is the system itself. It's not designed to fix issues and get better, it's designed to extract profit.
So the math and logic will never add up here. You want the chance of control and service towards costumers, there is no other route other than getting it back to a public company, or nationalization nowadays. This is a function on how the private sector works, not only a matter of politics or ideology. And of course, it's not a miracle cure too. Because when it's at the hands of government, then it's a matter if representatives are really willing to attend the needs of the public, or they themselves are at the hands of investors, the rich and powerful, lobbyists and whatnot.
But unfortunately, what you have there is chance of control versus no chance. Some power in vote versus none. Shouting at your elected representatives versus shouting into the void.
Nothing has a guarantee to fix anything, but you still gotta wage your bets. Better put it into realistic choices rather than pipe dreams and utopic capitalism ideals. The market hasn't been "solving it" for a very long time now. It's past time people realize this.
you can't get more local than solar panels on your roof. There needs to be more incentive for home owners and mandates for building companies to install them. And batteries of course.
Solar panels? In British weather where it's overcast 80%+ of the year?
Solar is great in areas with sunlight, solar wouldn't do a hell of a lot here and would be very ineffecient.
@@hardcorelace7565 Actually solar can provide reasonable output on cloudy/overcast days and as the original post states, less transmission infrastructure is needed.
On long British summer days a lot of energy can be generated to partially make up for the lower production in the winter.
Batteries are also very beneficial in reducing transmission requirements.
@@zen1647 they work at 10-25% effectiveness on cloudy days. For most of the year thats between 1/4 and 1/10 effectiveness. It is fully reasonable that most people don't think thats worth it.
London gets 35 clear days per year, 150 partially cloudy and 180 cloudy. Assuming 100% effectiveness on clear days, 50% on partially cloudy and 25% on cloudy (being generous). Then a panel in London has 43% effectiveness on average.
So you buy a panel at full price and get under half the energy at most. Now for some people that might be reasonable, but for the rest of the UK where the weather is worse than London it would seem reasonable to assume solar panels are just not worth it.
I fully support green energy, however it isn't household energy production that's going to get us to net zero, anyone who can reasonably get solar panels should go ahead, but many can't reasonably get or afford solar panels and they shouldn't be blamed for that.
@@hardcorelace7565 Solar panels are really cheap now and usually pay for themselves in about 7 years, even with overcast and partly cloudy days. Everything after that is bonus gravy and every bit of green energy helps.
The other point is batteries which also even out the load and reduce the amount of transmission required.
@@hardcorelace7565 oh right, so the panels on my roof in the north of England don't currently generate the same amount of energy that my house uses across the year? They won't have paid for themselves within 6 years? OK, I'll call for someone to come and remove them and reinstall gas shall I?
My worry is that it takes one Tory government to sell it all off, and all the work would have been for nothing
I don't understand experts and evidence shows privatization worked better than nationalization.
I don't suppose your manipulating but You're speaking at the wrong end.
@@pascualromero8245 To be fair both privatizations and nationalizations have both positives and negative effects. Also what experts are you speaking about that claim to work better? I've seen privatizations go wrong, look at how Russia turned out under Yeltsin
@@theverydankghost9225 Capable economist Thomas Sowell and the legendary Milton Friedman.
@@pascualromero8245 Look at the state of British trains after they were privatised. Or how the water in the Thames is now. Perhaps it can work but we have glaring examples of where it's failed and it needs sorting
@@pascualromero8245 I'm very curious as to which evidence you're talking about, because in the majority of cases that doesn't work. The USA public transport systems were privatized in big cities and then gutted because it turns out the buyer were car industrials, and didn't want competition.
I've been abroad for 40 years but let me guess... Privatized energy has allowed infrastructure to deteriorate in order to maximize profit and now the govt. steps in and pays for it all to be made good again... :(
Then sell it back at a loss as quickly as possible!
It need to stop the profiteering by the private energy supplier. Look at the few big supplier. Hundreds of millions of profit a year.
Canada has very few nationalized industries, but electricity is (mostly) one of them. It only makss sense. Cost, safety, and reliability requires it.
If only youd spend in building council housing/city housing...
Maybe youd spend less on housing than you do..
But with trudeau in governance its useless to even hope
Thank you for making this. I went to Bruges last summer and was blown away. Belgium and The Netherlands are right at the top of my list for a city break
True energy independence is only possible by disconnecting energy prices from the international market. There are multiple ways to do this, but the easiest is to fully nationalise the grid. That is what they should be doing.
so it's not true nationalisation then. it's just like Network Rail as an overview or managing/regulator body.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking after watching the video. It's not "(Sort of) Nationalising Energy". It's "(Not at All) Nationalising energy"
Network Rail isn't just a manager/regulator, it owns and maintains basically all rail infrastructure in the country.
Its what you'd expect from the red tories.
It owns and maintains all rail, so that private companies can enact a profit.
It's not even that
Owned by the crown, not the Royal family. Those are two different entities!
I really hope they start investing into more left behind renewable energies instead of just doing more wind. Tidal is waiting for investment & is 30 years behind wind but would give very similar results once it gets to a sustainable point, Nuclear also should be invested in more as its one of the cleanest energy sources that'd give the same reliability that coal & gas power stations do but without the Carbon emissions & if you properly deal with them having the right safety in place they are as safe as coal & gas with it being very unlikely for a disaster to happen (at least in the UK we don't have natural disasters like Japan or America do which could threaten meltdowns & we don't have the same lack of safety & understanding that lead to events like Chernobyl back in the 80s) Also nuclear waste can even be used to make power but the Anti-nuclear power people don't want us to know its benefits. Kyle Hill has a few videos on it. Also there is other renewables that are less known as they aren't really invested in much yet.
over 90% nuclear waste can be recycled as well
@@ella-kq2kc yea. After you look into Nuclear energy you see that its the best power source. Its only a problem when you let idiots control it by making cheap parts without proper safety & such. Even then the Japan disaster wasn't even that bad 1 person died due to it & there was a very small danger there & its problems only happened because the people in charge ignored the warnings. I wish the Green parties would realise how dangerous it is to remove the nuclear power plants as we can look upon Germany to see what happened.
Nope - it should be done to prioritise lowering bills, and follow the cheapest sources of energy which are wind & solar. Nuclear can't get anywhere near in terms of price. Anything else is ideologically led rather than evidence based
@@NathanaelHarwoodbut can those renewable sources fufill the need of the population? Actual question
@@pickleboynibs1334 They currently provide most of the energy, we just need to build more of it. Wind/Solar is providing 38%, gas at 28% and nuclear is only providing 14.7%. Nuclear is just hella expensive.
Don't forgot home insulation
many of the ideas in the GB energy policy are very good but renationalisation should have been a part of it, competition just does not make sense in something as basic and essential as energy
Still amazed how badly planed the grid is, years of lead times on power generation projects yet the infrastructure was not installed to support it.
Completely nationalise the grid and power stations then that's the end of the matter. Private investment means profit driven and not good for bills and taxpayers
Strip the royal family of their ownership of the seabed and return it to the nation. Theres £bs per year savings strsight off the bat.
I genuinely hope that this works. I hope that in the future (heaven forbid) another crisis occurs that can radically increase global energy prices, the UK will be somewhat sheltered by global energy increase. Only time will tell though, but here is to hoping that in the next few years, we will have both lower energy bills as well as a majority of our energy needs will come from clean energy.
Hope they will succeed and set UK on the path of increasing that renewable energy 4 or 5 times as well, in order to allow for full energy provision.
Wayer energy and other essentials should NOT have been privatised. We have Mrs Thatcher to thank for that!
I deliver supplies to new builds and they have to comply with local regulations, I went to a new build were they put 1 solar panel on each property because they said that was the council’s minimum agreement so the developers could get planning permission, I went to another where there was a roof full but there was no battery fitted. My company has started putting 200 panels on each depot, it cuts costs and brings in money at the end of the year.
What should happen, I think, is removal of a cap on profit for the utility companies (and I say it as someone who works for a utility company). The problem with the cap is that it removes an incentive for a company to operate efficiently. As long as Ofgem-set KPIs are met and profit cap is reached every year, there is no incentive to improve (processes, systems, assets etc.), reinvest into the business or spend money wisely and on the right things/in the right places.
This sounds terribly common sense for the UK government.
Dont worry, it wont happen.
3:05 The profit motive *always* runs counter to efficiency. It is right wing ideology that capitalism and competition improve efficiency - evolution shows how insane that idea is.
Nationalise Wetherspoons
Pub chains are a cancer in the UK.
'Great British Deli Deal'
Corned beef and onion sandwich and a warm pint of Boddingtons
The whole point of having private energy generation is to have them compete, and for that they should pay for the 'amount' of transmission cables they use and any environmental costs they create, and be paid a dynamic price per KW based on supply and demand. In a free market economy the prices go down when there's too much supply, you don't get paid to produce less...
8.3 billion pounds to pay for people sat on computers pretending to do a job...The spiral downwards is excellerating
This is probably me being too simplistic here, but it seems like a good solution would be to make the generation companies responsible for ensuring the energy they produce is transmittable to where it needs to be used. This would be as simple as contract changes ensuring that there is sufficient matched investment into the national grid.
Of course, simple things can be complex to implement, but that doesn't make them wrong to do.
Socialising risk, privatising reward
You didnt mention how labour sre cutting energy aid and are increasibg energy cost cap
Meaning mist are giing to see another 2k increase in energy bills
Thank you..... You always bring us as it is so we can understand. 😉
You shouldn't be leasing them they should have to sell that property at fair market value to the State
I feel like this doesn't go far enough. They should have done something similar to New York, where the state owns the generation facilities, resulting in some of the cheapest energy costs in the entire US.
A brief observation: I saw a solar farm in a field. Nothing wrong with that BUT it just had solar panels in it! Well, what's wrong with that you will think. I saw a couple of years ago, a solar farm but the panels wre higher up, say 3 to 6 meters. And underneath it, was live stock, grazing away. Now that is inovative, isn't it?
The best way to deal with "we don't want that here" is to offer discounts to the communities hosting the infrastructure
People would be far less upset about solar farms or wind farms if they got 10% off their own bill in exchange
Bit like the private rail firms...Private when extracting money from the punters, nationalised when dealing with the train drivers wages...They are taking the piss
Seems like a fuckload of work just to avoid building fission reactors.
Those reactors require a sh*t ton of capital investment, the only way that will be acquired is by foreign investment, which isn't happening right now, or raising taxes, which will cripple labour's approval. Wind is a flexible solution until the economy can stabilise
Wind power is much cheaper per kWh than nuclear energy, and it can be installed much faster. Nuclear energy is important, because unlike renewables it gives a constant output of power that's independent of the weather, but there's no good reason for it to be the only power source we use.
It would also be unwise to massively increase our production of nuclear waste given how we still have no long term storage solution (Finland is the only country in the world who has built one), and Sellafield is currently in the process of decommissioning at a cost of £60-140 billion over the next 100 years.
GB energy’s policy document says that GB energy will begin to work on solo mega projects like nuclear once it’s built up experience in the industry.
@@shamrock141very true but it could be cheaper. A lot of a nuclear reactor is basically the same as a coal reactor. Converting old coal plants to nuclear ones would still be expensive but you’d save a significant amount of money, by current estimates 35%. Our issue is we don’t have many left as all are back ups (I believe)
Thats not a politic choice,rather a tactical one.
FWVLIW: Speaking as a conservative with a small 'C', good! ...as long as they do it sensibly - in my mid 50's I've yet to see a Labour gov't that doesn't let ideology get in the way of sense.
I have nothing against private enterprise, indeed the less 'big government' is involved in the better - but when it comes to infrastructure such things absolutely should be government run:
-It's idiotic to artificially create competition for 'national or regional infrastructure' - just further layers of complication... and unnecessary salaries the customer will have to pay for.
-It's idiotic to divide 'national and regional infrastructure' administration in to artificial subunits when you're dealing with services everybody needs equally to the exclusion of profit.
You’re right except that when a buffoon like Miliband and his eco-zealot “advisor” are in charge it all falls apart. I’m 65 and an engineer with a power generation background. Nothing that this bunch or the last say or do makes any sense. Net zero is utter lunacy and will destroy our economy.
There is always a balance and I agree with you, Things vital for society to function should be government-run. Trains and energy should 100% be state-run. (provided they make sure it works well)
The last gov basically stole a giant wind farm project ownership (Viking) from the community in Shetland and has now commissioned it and is blocking grid access to original existing turbines with a new project
Happy days
Thanks SSE
Can you re-nationalise our energy over here in Canada (at least Ontario please).
Having half a continent for under 40m people, I'm always surprised that Canada acts like there's a scarcity.
Hydro, shale, solar, and wind are all in massive supply over there, not to mention all natural minerals/materials, and immense land for agriculture.
Good luck Canada.
@@JackChurchill101 It's not that there's a scarcity, within my comment thas nothing to do with it/wasn't even mentioned.
It was the privatisation of these utilities I meant plus the many subsequent inefficiencies that are created therefrom.
Not getting clear at all. Also generators do pay for use of transmission network via TNUoS
If they help providing energy infrastructure, does this reduce standing charges? We pay every month over 20£, if we use energy or not.
Well I doubt you can go a whole month without using any energy
Political economist Richard J Murphy of _Fund the Future_ (who is always worth listening to) calls Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund “ just state-backed private equity funds.” That’s as good an explanation as any.
PFI for energy
Another observation: why are wind turbines always so far a part? Covering more land then is necessary I would think. Is that really the only way to make it work?
Maybe instead of giving Jaguar Landrover half a billion to make a battery manufacturing facility in Somerset, they could have built their own - to supply U.K households home battery storage at cost price.
Did you consider that it'd be cheaper for them to build that facility in a country with lower wages and standards?
They would go elsewhere then.
Do you know how devastating it is on a local economy and taxpayers when a big manufacturer goes out of business or goes off shore? Look what happened with steel recently
The current market rules were created by the government. They were designed to minimise losses for producers. This market is strictly controlled, and has several bizarre mechanisms that exacberate the cost of energy in supply crunches. The government can change the market rules, and as far as I'm aware this is the only way to fix the market in the UK. So we need them to change the broken and unfair rules that govern it, not create another vehicle for extracting more money from the public sector.
100% correct and they don’t seem very intent on telling the public about this political disgrace. Of course Sir Starmer will do nothing for the people and just keep on with profiteering for the rich. This is England’s political class now. It’s who they are because it’s what they do, the political party is irrelevant now, the “system” of a 2-party state taking turns to fuck us over is well established.
"profits will go back to the community"
Yeah... I heard that story 20 years ago when sorting trash started to become a thing. Now we have 6 different bins and trash cost is trough the roof. Used to be 1% of gross salary, now it's close to 5%
There's also Great British Nuclear which the Tories set up last year. I wonder if that's going to be subsumed into GBE or kept separate since nuclear is "special"?
I would assume it stays separate. nuclear isn't really useful for energy, military applications are probably the goal there
@@Jonas-Seiler Um, no, GBN is absolutely for civilian nuclear power stations only, military use is handled by the MoD and AWE.
The U.K. should be doing this with social housing.
So long as the UK Dothan to own their own power grid is not really going to matter.
It's been over a week and my copy of Too Long never arrived, what should I do?
As an American, seeing that the government has to lease land from the crown is insane 😭 y'all pay these people to be rich and wave
yeah, is crazy. but that is just a small part of what is going on.
BC in Canada has BCHydro, and it’s been great for me, cheap reliable government provided hydro power that’s much better than Ontario’s private sector electricity.
Ontario power is not private
@@bm8641 "Ontario Power Generation was established in April 1999 as part of plans by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris to privatize the assets of Ontario Hydro and deregulate the province's electricity market" - wikipedia
literally only half of Ontario electricity is generated by Ontario Power, and Ontario is an open electricity market.
I'll admit ig its not fully private and I was wrong, but also whatever exists, sucks ducks.
whem my standing charge is not double the amount of actual electricity I use. Then I will believe they care about fuel poverty.
Planning processes take so long that the only renewable projects that will finish construction in the next 5 years will be projects started before this govermrnt came to power.
So all the projects started by this GB Energy will have their most expensive phases after the 5 years of this government. So what in GB Energy going to spend it's 8.3 billion pounds on?
Whatever happens, it can't be as bad as 100% annual bill increases.
Whats to say? Some hooligans totally disrespect the grieving families and rioted.
commendable but I am skeptical over nationalisation. Time will tell. Commenting here to return back to this
Well, as always in life, things are just a little bit more complicated, eh? If you want a peek, go to a UK natural gas futures chart, make sure to set the date range to go back to at least the pre-lockdowns of 2020 and behold…
From 01/01/2019, the mean is about 106 pence per therm, whereas average range 150-200, considering the extreme spikes and more stable periods. Albeit the energy crisis of 2022 pushed these figures much higher for a significant portion of the period (have they told you yet who blew up nord stream in the end?? See some ideas from Malcom Kyeyune from Unherd)…
To get to ~kWh, just divide by 29.3071, so mean about 3.62 pence/kWh. That’s wholesale. Average Ofgem from Oct’24 will be 6.24 pence/kWh… You do the maths hehe. Oh, and great help illustrating the progress on targets is within the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): natural gas…
Net zero means ...no heating....
"Money will go back into the community's vias reduced energy costs."
Im sure the owners will certainly prioritize the people over profits 😂
Why does the public take the funding cost ... but a private owner reaps the reward?
I'm sure it's the fault of the profit motive that there's a national standard energy price system and not government's.
This is nowhere close to nationalisation. It’s subsidising/derisking private companies who will own the infrastructure and keep the profits.
Buy batteries! All the wind that is produced can be stored and using high DC transmission lines between those batteries can move the electricity between where there is too much to where there isn't enough.
So the plan is to make energy cheaper for the public, but they want private investment? The private sector gets their money from the public, they don't want cheaper bills for them, it means less profit. I'm not an economist, but I do not see why the private sector would be motivated to do this unless.
Why the hell do the royal family own the sea bed and have to get paid by the people!
They don't. The Crown Estate is part of the government and it's income is paid into the Treasury.
@@vzolin Why is any payment being made at all then? The government should be able to build there with zero cost.
@@jhunt5578 Checks and balances. By treating the crown estate as an independent entity the government accounts for its capital expenditure and any future loss of income.
what proportion of ownership does the Government retain for its investment?
This shows how little people understand about energy and trying to coin useless ideas. Demand centres in UK are around London would you build renewable power stations around London or in seabed in Scotland where there is lots of wind ?
Hi! If you're reading this, have a great day!
Thx trump
we always kick the can down the street, but after 14 years of the tories they need to improve living standards and reducing bills surely it cant be one or the other, lower bills but reinvest some in future renewables!
Sort of isn’t good enough the private sectors needs a baseline to compete against it isn’t enough for the government to legislate against their abuse they have to compete at atleast the fundementals of food, water, energy and healthcare and the private sector should always be struggling for relevancy
I don't know a single business that has solar panels on their roof. This implies that any deals the UK have to help people get solar on their roof are not very good. I feel like that should be where we focus if we want correctly distributed local green energy. Get solar on every roof in the UK (within reason St Paul's cathedral might not be a good choice) rather than in the hands of energy companies. I mean it's our tax money, we should benefit from it.
In my area lots of businesses have panels.
@@Pbchelt I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that it's not on most businesses like if I go to a business estate I don't think I'd see even 10% of the buildings with solar on and I think if we've got an issue with distribution which it sounds like we do and we want green electricity and maybe we don't want to rent land from the monarchy then maybe the individual should have the means of producing their own electricity.
@@matthewtalbot-paine7977if we lived somewhere where solar would excel then sure, but solar is ineffecient here so why bother?
@@hardcorelace7565 Well it's clean energy, it cheaper than most other fuels and the only reason those other power sources already exist is because their maintenance costs are less than the capital costs of solar of the same power. I'd suggest nuclear power but our government too involved with hinkley point so it's taken way longer than the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant in japan by at least double.
@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 domestic PV is a terrible idea from perspective lf the grid anyway. Causes absolutely havoc.
The private investors are leaving the country through this government why are other countries not doing this in a big way there building power stations
Great British energy needs to own assets or it’s just a bunch of smoke.
The fact that £300 off energy bills is a good thing in 2024 when we've had viable clean energy options for 20 years at least is a joke. They failed this country massively.
Thames water is going bankrupt, north sea is running out of oil.
North sea is running out of cheap oil. Plenty of oil in the North Sea but at depth
Hope it is as innovative as some of the new starts like octopus ???
So in other words, they are not nationalising energy. The private sector got us into the energy crisis predicament, and expecting the good faith of energy corporations to do the right thing so people don't have to choose between food and heating is ridiculous. Very disappointed in the Labour party, but not surprised either.
The energy sector needs reform. Supplies physically do very little. They are there only to drive self regulate and drive market prices down for the customer, which given ofgem had to cap prices sugeests this hasnt worked.
Honestly, utilities are kind of the “perfect problem” for a government to solve.
It’s something that everyone benefits from, but it isn’t something that you can “market” in order to expand the market/build a fan base/whatever else to make your utility stand out in the market….those kinds of problems, and problems of “insurance” (anytime where you need a big pile of money and the system works by more people paying into the pile than take out of the pile) are the two kinds of problems that led to us inventing government….
That’s what drives me nuts….im not really like a “political socialist” (I guess if I took an online quiz, then that is approximately where I’d fall but I’m not in a party or whatever) but it just seems obvious that some things a market is better at solving and other things the government is better at solving….and utilities fall much more on the “public good” side of things.
Please get back to me when that energy bill is -300
They should nationalize the royal land and get rid of the monarchy.
TLDR showing real Tory bais in this. Pick a side or go neural. Don't claim to be neural and then show bais.
How do they have Tory bias?
lol I live near Fintry but my village refused to do anything similar because it would be ugly 😂
Here, that private companies. So, overseas private companies will be in charge of UK energy🤦♂️
Lease land from the Royals? Does that mean were going to defund the royals and let them wokr for a living? 😮
When energy providers go under will GB energy take them over and nationalise that way?
Is it just me or does this just sound like light socialism
next step is nationalise, including water.