Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Investment requires MONEY to pay for it. So which country has done a better job, and is not having higher prices?
If you're not producing it, you have to import the remainder. No way around that, other than things like fracking. Using UK produced gas doesn't make it cheaper, as it's sold on the international market.
Link
Currently Gas is being used for 49% of electricity. How do you replace that?
Nuclear is 13%, Wind is 3%, Solar 9%. Not a lot of room to expand on non-Gas sources. A five-fold increase in nuclear might just work.
We're importing around 13% of our requirements. |
France has capped prices by renationalising the part of EDF it did not own. We've also nationalised Bulb and subsidised prices. Investment requires money to pay for it but you get some kind of return. We're not getting that currently through our interventions.
As I've previously argued, we should have replaced coal fired capacity with alternatives when they were decommissioned but failing that we need more power generation now.
Fracked gas is sold at global prices so that doesn't reduce prices and it still contributes to the climate change crisis.
All sources have their disadvantages. Nuclear power is struggling at the moment, (just look at France both in inability to deliver new projects and issues in operating during hot summers), better storage is needed for renewables and we know the story on gas. But doing nothing and waiting for the markets to solve it is not an option.
In terms of electricity generation, I think you need to look at sources on a quarterly basis not a daily one to get a more representative figure
Ofgen states for Q1 2022:
Gas 27.45%
Wind and solar 26.49%
Nuclear 11.34%
Bio 8.46%
Net imports 4.94%
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data...created&page=4