u/Appropriate_Bell743

Yet another day with negative rates

Tomorrow is negative rates yet again. It's also pretty much continuous from 7am until 4pm meaning it's easy to plan around. I'm curious how much people respond.

These recent days of negatively priced days have some so frequently that we've no laundry left to do. It's hot so I'm not going to crank up the heat-pump. I can do pointless things like more disinfection cycles or use the immersion heater. I'm not sure my neighbours want me to heat the street...

These events also appear to be becoming quite common. In 2019 you'd have only 10 hours like this within a year. I'm curious about what are people's responses to this?

It's certainly the case that these plunge prices lower my average rate. I consumed far less electricity in May simply due to no plunge pricing hours which suggests it's more induced than shifted demand for my family.

Do people with EVs go on more weekend trips as a result? I.e. are there genuine economic stimulation from these prices? What technologies have people bought to best take advantage of this? My wife wants to dry fruit picked in summer for instance, maybe an electric pizza oven?

This article was not written by me but perfectly matches my user experience. The writer shows the template on how Agile can be run very cheaply. Our family has co-evolved the exact same strategies and our average 12-month price (16p/kWh) matches.

We have the same heat-pump (Daikin) again installed by Octopus but our operational SCOP is slightly better than the author here.

As more and more wind/solar is rolled out we will only see more drastic price differences between wholesale peak and off-peak rates. This makes fixed price deals harder and harder to administer. Either the fixed price rate is high or the energy retailer holds a lot of risk.

I'm yet to hear good reasons why the adoption rates for time-of-use tariffs aren't higher. Normally something consistently providing a ~40% cost saving would be popular even if there are sporadic risks.

The cost-of-living, energy rollout, decarbonisation, renewables, etc. all drive a lot of political debate.

Renewables are intermittent. No-one denies this but only the right discusses this. This means when wind speeds are low, solar is limited, prices are high, etc. they discuss this a lot.

For much of this year the opposite has been true. Wind/solar/nuclear has overproduced electricity with curtailment of wind farms and solar farms required. This means the wholesale price is actually negative -- frequently -- just to get more demand. As odd as it sounds in these moments it is more sustainable to consume than to not consume electricity.

Now, is one of these moments.

Now, the UK is creating a set of haves and have-nots due to this. Whilst the current electricity energy price cap is 26p/kWh I've only paid 10p/kWh over the last 3 months. I don't own any batteries, any solar panels, etc. This is due to a smart tariff. Most people who'd switch would also pay low amounts.

Simply put. Wind and solar generate power when they do. We can't dictate the weather. When they generate prices are very low. When they don't the prices are high and there's nothing to do about this. More grid storage won't change this from being true but just reduce the effect.

If people adapt to this reality of almost nature then they'd have low bills. If they don't then they'll continue to have high bills. The question for politics is how to persuade this adaption?

What's not politically stable is to have the majority continuing without any adaption paying large sums when there are people adapting paying less than they've ever done in UK recent history.

We have families like mine -- a family of 4 -- paying only £900 for all our energy demand over 12 months. We have households with only 2 people paying £3000 a year and suffering.

Anyone who has advocated for renewables needs to be part of this story. We've created this system which gives intermittently very cheap power. We need to be part of the story which makes this work in terms of cost.

Cotswold's solid stone cottage

Hello,

I'd really appreciate advice about my parents' house. They live in this solid stone Cotswold's house. It currently works off an oil boiler with some radiators (oddly) I believe are mono-flo.

They've been desperate to move away from oil-based heating for a while. They spent some time 5 years investigating ground source heat-pump options but it proved to be too complex/expensive. Additionally they have two wood burners (under the two chimneys) which can provide a substantial amount of warmth.

Are there systems/installers you'd recommend for such a property? Are there any examples of Cotswold's homes -- with their original character -- working well with heat-pumps? More widely their home is not unusual for much of rural UK. Are the solutions more commonly used in rural homes?

The context is that I live in a terraced single brick Victorian home. My parents' previous interest was the reason I got a heat-pump and it works perfectly for me. Heating costs are so low that it's only £220 for everything over 12 months. This means they've become interested again after a hiatus of 6 years.

Thanks for any advice :-)

A story of two brothers -- my cousins.

One works as a care-worker in Cornwall. He's low income, never travels far beyond Cornwall, and has very low emissions. He pays an average of £220 / tonne-CO2 for his lifestyle emissions via fuel duties, carbon prices on electricity, etc.

The other is a globally successful designer. Had Kamala won the election he'd designed the inauguration. He flies over 6000 miles a month with a high consumption lifestyle. He pays an average of £2 / tonne-CO2 -- two magnitudes less -- and in total pays less than his brother.

We can guess which cousin is the climate denier and which is the one wanting society to do more. It's trivially obvious that the low-polluting but heavily charged cousin thinks it's a hoax. The heavily polluting cousin is deeply worried about climate deniers and how they could affect any transition.

Thankfully the EU could be about to solve the material conditions which create these two diverging views. If they were include long-haul aviation the heavily polluting cousin would start paying ~£35 / tonne-CO2 (as only departing flights). Far from the £220 his poorer cousin pays but a significant improvement on the £2 / tonne he currently pays.

When we talk about climate injustice and the rise of reactions to climate action we need to look no further than this. The current system means the elites simply don't pay for their lifestyles but the poorer demographics do.

Electricity has 2 carbon prices applied to the gas generation. This can set the price of electricity meaning clean energy is essentially inflated in price due to these carbon prices. The poorer you are the greater a percentage of your money you pay on electricity. This is simply ignored by our political classes.

This is a big milestone which will get very little coverage in the media. I would like to be proved wrong.

The point of the Rest Is Politics is to "disagree agreeably" which should include European Commissioners. Instead of creating a useful debate where many of Rory's views could be challenged he merely waited until the end. It's weak and pointless to do this instead of debating front on in a direct manner which could be polite.

To this end the conclusion I garnered as a listener is that he's so set in his views that he doesn't wish them to be challenged. He has spoken to some people, tried to replicate their ideas but is fundamentally unsure why they're true so not prepared to have them challenged.

Let's be clear that is someone pro-climate policy did this the other way around they'd not get away with it.

It was also revealing how Stewart approaches energy security and in particular the issues caused by the strait of hormuz. Three major commodities were heavily affected: fertilisers, diesel, and kerosene. The Commissioner was clear in his phrasing that whilst all three are important on a global scale it's fertilisers and diesel of central importance. Stewart instinctively would lean towards kerosene over the other commodities. This points to a commentator to biased by their own life choices to be objective.

This is why I a developing belief that whilst Stewart is determined to appear that his objections to net-zero are led from first principles they are in fact led by what matters deeply to him at a personal level. The Climate Change Committee have shown very clearly that if the UK's net-zero policies continue on their current pathway within 10-15 years jet-fuel will go from its ~20% share of oil demand to being the majority. Heating will reduce from its current 16% share, road transport is likely to be solidly reducing via electrification.

This is not outlandish because it was this understanding which Sunak used in his weaponisation against net-zero --- the fact it'll become mainly about diet and aviation at the political level.

For those of us who mainly holiday within Europe this isn't troubling. High speed rail, electric planes, EVs, etc. will dominate most mileage within the continent. For someone who's explicitly designed their life to with maximal usage of long haul aviation this does pose challenges. What we are seeing is how intelligent people -- like Stewart -- are realising that net-zero and acting against climate change could quickly become personal.

Visualisation from BBC

This visualisation from the BBC really captures amount peak monthly temperatures are increasing. The May period which brought 35.1C was truly exceptional perhaps more than the record broken today for June.

The UK has previously broken two consecutive monthly records in 1911. This aspect is not novel but the extent of the May outlier and being followed by the June record being broken is novel. I don't believe the UK has broken three consecutive records.

This should be of no surprise to Greens. With the recorded 36.1C the 1976 June record is broken. The pace of change seems to be beyond what others were expecting. Climate models focus on mean temperatures but extremes can go more rapidly up.

The UK lacks a single party which is radical on climate action at this moment. The Overton Window has shifted towards inaction with Reform, Blair, Streeting, Tories, etc. all pivoting to inaction.

In this context the Green Party is itself not the party of 1 year ago where it was radical with its economics on sustainability. I get the need to move beyond what was seen as limiting and judgemental but we now have a void in terms of climate policy. No longer centred on de-growth as this doesn't align with left-populism but what is the ideology?

So, far someone looking on not being biased by the word "green" would see a party which has announced a fossil fuel subsidy (the freezing of energy price cap), has rhetoric about saving Brits summer holidays, etc. When there are geopolitical issues related to the global sales of oil/gas it's rare to have this as the central focus.

It's not sufficient to merely mention the words "climate crisis" in one's rhetoric.

This is the organisation which has led the campaign for these new proposed laws. They are called Smartphone free childhood

There are many people are fiercely against these changes in this SubReddit. I understand their points of views and respect their democratic position on this topic.

However, I think it's worth sharing the other point of view from my experience as a parent in a top Green target seat and our parents' chat. People avoid politics in general which is partly due to the very diverse year-group. Despite the local LTNs being very popular even people are shy about this topic due to being seen as divisive.

There are only two topics -- of a political nature -- which get shared with almost universal support:

1. Clean Air policies for the school. This led to a Green Screen to minimise air pollution into the school.
2. This topic about smartphones, social media, etc. pertaining to the freedom of children to have innocent childhoods.

The page I shared is what has been shared and liked by fellow parents. They all think this is a good thing and to be honest so do I. I've been listening to objections to this bill but they often start from a premise where childrearing is a highly individualistic pursuit forgetting most issues require collective action. Then there are complaints about any extra efforts/burdens for adults which is just the case for any child safeguarding laws.

My challenge to those who oppose this bill is to actually provide credible alternatives which don't rely on universal "good parenting". Alternatives which recognise that pressures tend to be shared with genuine needs for collective solutions. Alternatives which recognise that rules to regulate algorithms can always and will always be manipulated by the US big tech companies -- which we have little say over.

What's more the whole basis of climate action, social reforms, etc. is that we do search for collective actions for societal issues. All of us who've decarbonised our lifestyles have been able to do so due to collective changes such as the rollout of renewables, heat-pump grants, etc.

I'm able to cycle due to society building safe cycling routes. We accept the notion that activities which pose dangers -- such as cars -- can and should have restrictions on them. Age restrictions, access restrictions, etc.

I think this is a good debate and one the party should have. However, I think those opposing the bill need to step up the quality of their arguments to meet the desires and objectives which millions of parents have for their children's childhoods.

Currently our house has these main devices:

• e-bike
• heat-pump
• laundry
• induction hob and fan oven

I've been using Octopus Agile and our average rate is 16.0p/kWh spending £854 over 11 months. This is clearly not terrible as a £370 saving on flexible rates and £280 saving on Cosy. I even compared to historic rates going back 50 odd year adjusted with BoE inflation. Only 2000-2004 would be cheaper by a tiny amount and not cheaper if we included gas heating.

However, I am hoping that there's a low cost plugin battery which could further reduce our costs. We only use a tiny amount during peak hours (4pm-7pm) but this dominates our spending. It'd also be beneficial to sometimes power the morning ~8am period.

Usage and cost -- Agile Buddy

What I'm after is a simple to configure battery which would easily work with the Octopus Agile API. Ideally it'd know when to charge within a 24 hour period and discharge when over some threshold.

I've looked at fixed installations but they cost thousands whilst I'm sceptical we'd save more than hundreds per year. The heat-pump and laundry are the intensive appliances and easy to run when cheap already. I'm also interested about how cheap I could realistically expect to get my average rate this way. My hunch is something like 12p/kWh but this could be way off.

Plugin batteries look attractive for their simplicity. Does anyone have any experience with one which would work well combined with Agile?

There is this article which states that there's a maximal limit of kerosene from crude at roughly 26%. Do people believe that this is the case? Are there cheap solutions to this?

If the electric car rollout were to get to above 60% of total cars this could actually become not just a theoretical question but an actual reality of refining crude. Whilst getting 100% of cars to be EVs is unrealistic it's not unrealistic that they could become the majority of new cars within a decade.

In this context where gasoline demand is relatively declining but aviation continues with sustained 3-5% year on year growth where do people see the market going? Do people see this leading to sustained reductions in the cost of gasoline slowing down the EV transition? Do people see this as creating demand destruction for aviation? Do people not buy the notion that there's an issue here as innovation will enable refineries to adapt to these new demand proportions?

Let's be clear the EV mandate is more a combustion car mandate. The year 2030 matters because cars often can last up to 20 years. New sales of combustion cars in the 2030s means millions of combustion cars in the late 2040s and 2050s.

This should be the obvious issue for this party to back. It unites tons of interweaving concerns whilst placing the burden only on new car sales:

• Reduce the UK's fuel imports from Russia, Saudi, and USA. Regimes against our values.
• Slowly pivot to clean air in city centres.
• Long term shift in cost-of-living as bikes/EVs have lower running costs.
• Climate change as cars are 30% of the UK's oil consumption.
• etc.

Often people in the party make a mistake with these mandates due to a general dislike of cars. This isn't about endorsing a car-dominated society but ending the notion that we have the right to buy climate-wrecking technologies.

In this recent crisis where oil prices surged we have seen how economies with low combustion vehicle usage have been more robust. Whether via EVs, public transport, or bikes there's a robustness.

If anything the UK should be seeking to accelerate the process so that logistics doesn't so heavily rely on diesel. We see how there'll be high food price inflation in part due to lorries using an inelastic source of fuel -- at the whim of global events.

In this climate crisis we have sectors where there isn't any adequate solution. These are the sectors where electrification isn't easily applicable. I get the need for a nuanced debate for these sectors but for road transport this is now a solved issue. There's no reason to slow down our trajectory here.

The UK's climate change committee and others are very clear that future debates about net-zero will be dominated by aviation, agriculture, and on the flip side policies to capture and store these emissions (in separate processes).

Predictions for the UK's most polluting sectors going towards 2050

We see that places like Spain or Portugal are getting very competitive energy prices due to net-zero compatible electricity systems. The UK's electricity system is already low-emissions (les than aviation) and the trajectory has guaranteed reductions. The way gas sets the price will follow quickly with evidence already that it has partially.

Electric cars, heat-pumps, etc. all can have higher upfront costs in terms of purchase, adaption, and infrastructure. However, their superior operational costs means that they'll dominate long term in most scenarios. It's just a question of how quickly and whether European manufacturers have a slice of the pie.

Where most modellers are pessimistic is with long distance travel. For transit within the European continent we might see mixtures of high speed rail, electric planes, etc. decarbonising this sector. However, short haul aviation is only 20% of the total aviation emissions.

The 80% emissions (for 20% of flights) which are long haul have no practical solutions. Already consume 8-9% of global oil demand and are rising year on year 4-5%. The net-zero compatible solutions tend to involve:

• Carbon price (demand suppression)
• Biofuels (increases costs so also demand suppression)
• Synthetic e-fuels (same)
• Carbon capture and storage (hugely expensive so demand suppression)

This means lifestyle choices reliant on long haul aviation are the most exposed to net-zero policies and uniquely incompatible. However, very few people are like Rory Stewart in having a job (Yale professor) in different continent to where they live meaning regular long haul commutes. The limit of most commutes are < 100 miles in a car and typically not across oceans. What's more his leisure choices are considerably more based upon long haul aviation than what most citizens would be -- most find the travel time tiresome.

I think this is biasing his wider views on the net-zero transition. His lifestyle choices are the ones where net-zero is guaranteed to be cost-increasing but this isn't the case for millions of different lifestyle choices. In many respects net-zero policy will feel deeply personal to him within a matter of 10-15 years if it doesn't already.

People might notice that along with aviation there's also agriculture left but this is an entirely different matter. The emissions left here are expected to be almost entirely methane where there's an entirely different debate due and an emission which is far more widely spread across the general population (not much a difference between rich and poor consumption).

Do other people believe that his usual lifestyle choices are what are influencing his views?

I'm interested in people's thoughts on aviation as it's becoming evident that we aren't on a credible net-zero pathway.

There appears to be vastly different narratives about this sector based upon how one splits the statistics. A common argument amongst those who don't mind the status quo would be aviation accounts for 2.5% of global emissions. The implication is that this is a small percentage so nothing to worry about (not my view).

There's an alternative presentation of the statistics which flips the narrative entirely. It's one of the only sectors with rapid growth. The IATA is predicting 4-5% YoY growth with a lot of that growth found in long haul.

For already developed nations, such as the UK, we observe that aviation emissions top electricity supply with most scenarios suggesting it'll lead the UK's consumption emissions along with agriculture in 15-25 years. The UK's approach to mitigate this rests on unproven (at scale) carbon storage projects.

It seems to fair to assume that as all nations develop they'll converge to an emissions profile -- for aviation -- more similar to the UK than their current situation.

I've found much of the reporting on how RCP8.5 is now deemed implausible interesting in this thread. The argument seems to rest upon the trajectory for coal consumption growth with renewables making it unlikely now.

Are we doing the opposite with aviation? Are we underestimating how this sector's emissions will grow, the lack of appetite to combat it, etc. Electrification of land transport will indeed cause the long term reduction in oil prices but given ~30% of aviation costs are fuel costs this will create clear demand boosting to this sector. I don't think it's likely that the Middle Eastern hubs, US, etc. will enact robust aviation carbon pricing.

How do people see this sector? What do people see as the plausible emissions trajectory assuming good economic growth in currently poorer nations? What do people see as the solutions pathways? I'm partially interested in long-haul as from an European perspective this dominates 80% of the oil-demand.

I had a botched gas boiler installation 12 years ago. I had a brilliant heat-pump installation last year. The issue seems to be not about heat-pumps but about the quality of UK based heating engineers.

Despite this we have article after article in the media about botched heat-pump installations. How serious an issue is this really? Is it not trivially solvable via using a flagship installer such as HeatGeek or their certification? All the issues mentioned in this article are trivially solved by using most standard installers.

The question is what is really going on here? Is there an agenda to create a sense that getting this technology is inevitably "brave" with all the installers from the wild-west?