Thanks @transparent

From the Reform councilors and MPs you have spoken to, do you think Reform would do better than Labour on Net Zero? 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Expect them to favour small home-based battery storage, rather than BESS-farms which are controlled remotely.

er why, given that net zero is 'stupid' and therefore battery storage unnecessary.

Clearly some of these players are used to tap into the fossil fuel greenwashing cash (much of it foreign). The main goal is to divert and confuse. 😐 

My starting question would be: "Given that climate change is a fact and the mechanisms to reduce it are there to use, why would we not use common sense to seek good return on investment? And presumably, no policy decisions should ignore what worked and the expert and voters learnings when those solutions were trialled?". 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

There is a difference between no longer pursuing Net Zero and making best use of energy resources.
...

Using batteries to store that electricity is a common-sense decision.

If ROI is clear, why not? If individuals want to do it themselves... 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

So if Government scraps Net Zero, you either waste the energy, or else you facilitate a mechanism to store it locally.

That's why Reform Members are likely to be more in favour of home-based batteries.
It's a vote-winner, and it prevents bills rising further.

In the current parliament, what % of MPs support scrapping Net Zero? 😆 

The average cost of a home BESS could not be much less than 3k to supply and install safely. If that saves £500 per year in bills, that is just over 6 years pay-back. The thing is, unless a home already decarbonised its transport and/or heating, that £500 may be £200...  

But maybe the thinking here is a business model where people would be doing something for the community? 

So how much would you expect them to would pay home owner to host it?  Would the buildings insurance need an upgrade to cover it? Who would own the system, and give it the care and attention? 

Could a rental property be used for it? Like some landlords would like to get some extra rent, like they tried with mobile phone masts?  😉 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

My starting question would be: "Given that climate change is a fact..". 

Nope, that doesn't work either.  Apparently (according to the politicians and their supporters I spoke to on our local high street) climate change isn't a fact, the Met Office has only half the weather stations it claims it has and is deliberately deceiving us (I didn't have the presence of mind to ask what the motive might be).

Posted by: @batpred

↑

But maybe the thinking here is a business model where people would be doing something for the community? 

err, that reminds me that 'there is no such thing as society.' 

Try going into your local pub and suggesting that people do things for the good of others.  If you get a warm reception please do tell me where you live so I can move there, because (depressingly) it certainly doesn't cut it round where I live.

Posted by: @jeff

↑

From the Reform councilors and MPs you have spoken to, do you think Reform would do better than Labour on Net Zero? 

Hmm - interesting question.

I think my overall view is that all elected politicians would do better on energy issues if they were properly informed of the situation.
The lack of knowledge and understanding hinders their ability to make good decisions on behalf of their constituents.

It's all the more obvious when considering energy and heating issues, because that lack of understanding inevitably results in some policies which conflict with the laws of physics.

I was talking with a Labour MP earlier today.
On a particular point (s)he said "Well we need to get the grid sorted out first!"

There was no attempt to explain what (s)he thought might be wrong with the grid,
or from what source that opinion had been obtained.

But if that thinking is representative of Government thinking (and it might be), then it's likely to result in some very skewed policy decisions.

I wonder how many Government MPs are even aware of NESO's announcement that the number of applications for yet more (generation) connections to the grid
is four-times greater than is required to meet the 2030 target for de-carbonisation of our electricity supply. (Watch the embedded video clip)

Faced with the prospect of the de-carbonisation targets being met well ahead of the 2030 target date, the British Government launched a new initiative in July'25
to install another 45GW - 47GW of solar farm generation capacity.

The accelerated solar policy was arrived at in discussions between DESNZ and representatives of the commercial solar generation sector.

That begs the question of why Government is setting energy strategy which isn't founded on the data analysis coming out of NESO?
Could it be because the pressure being applied from the commercial solar generation lobby is being heard and understood, whilst the science produced by NESO gets ignored?

If MPs and Councillors don't get to hear any alternative views (from us), then it's unlikely that their own understanding of science is adequate to appreciate that the solar generation sector might be biased.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Community Energy is also likely to meet with their approval, once I've explained how it might work.

Surely only so long as it doesnt involve wind farms, solar panels , heat pumps or EVs.

Not so. You're possibly confusing Reform with Don Quixote.

1: Reform isn't going to be tearing down existing energy generation structures, or appointing a petrol-head to run a Dept of Transport.

2: Community Energy doesn't necessarily require the installation of any new generation assets.
It's about buying energy which is available locally, and selling it to Members (usually within a zone defined by the area supplied by a Primary sub-station).

Have a look at Energy Local Totnes.
They came across an existing hydro-turbine with (a lot of) unused capacity.

As a Community Interest Company, they are able to sign a contract with the owner of that facility, and arrange for the turbine to be kept operating outside of the hours when the owner requires it.

@transparent 

All I can say is that I admire your optimism!

@transparent 

The Totnes Society seems to operative like a cooperative. One person, one vote.

If they can provide power all year round..

It seems a fantastic way to ensure local support in the council planning meetings!

I wonder how they deal with their share of the 10% that are in arrears with their energy payments?

Further falls in wholesale gas will help the next price cap if it is sustained. 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

You're possibly confusing Reform with Don Quixote.

LOL

To be fair, Reform de la Mancha "policy" if it can really be called that, seems to change almost weekly (keeps them in the news cycle).  As such, it's very hard for anyone to know what Reform really represents on a topic like energy.

For example, Sancho Panza (Richard Tice) is gung-ho on fracking, but it seems like the councils and local Reform voters who would be on top of fracking sites, are less bullish on the plan.

Posted by: @scalextrix

↑

To be fair, Reform de la Mancha "policy" if it can really be called that, seems to change almost weekly (keeps them in the news cycle).  As such, it's very hard for anyone to know what Reform really represents on a topic like energy.

Judging by the representatives I have spoken to locally, they represent more or less whatever you want them to represent provided you don't try to disagree over immigration, net zero or that everything is shite.  Dare I say we have been here less than a decade ago?   Of course it could just be my local representatives!

Posted by: @scalextrix

↑

LOL

To be fair, Reform de la Mancha "policy" if it can really be called that, seems to change almost weekly (keeps them in the news cycle).  As such, it's very hard for anyone to know what Reform really represents on a topic like energy.

For example, Sancho Panza (Richard Tice) is gung-ho on fracking, but it seems like the councils and local Reform voters who would be on top of fracking sites, are less bullish on the plan.

🤣

One way to think about it is that they realised that people taking their news etc from Facebook and co are driven by algorithms that drive platform "engagement". 

So in essence, Reform accepts "rule by algorithm". Algorithms tend to find and ptomote what people object most about, including what creates an "us and them". So all that any such party (they have different names across the channel) seems to do is to be look for what divides us.. They are not bad people, they just don't believe in today's society.. 😊 

Totnes cooperative seems human. And it sounds like a great idea, at least for places that have little mobility.. 

<end of phylosophy rant>

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Judging by the representatives I have spoken to locally, they represent more or less whatever you want them to represent provided you don't try to disagree over immigration, net zero or that everything is shite.

Also the red crosses on the roundabouts...

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

  Dare I say we have been here less than a decade ago?  

Unfortunately not "been" but "are"?

Posted by: @jeff

↑

Thanks @transparent

From the Reform councilors and MPs you have spoken to, do you think Reform would do better than Labour on Net Zero? 

Is this a wind up?  🤦🏻‍♀️