110
Burnham to scrap Starmer’s digital ID scheme in ‘reset of priorities’ (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

The poorest people in our country are disproportionately affected by the natural gas supply crisis, the cause of which sits in the Kremlin.

Here's a lesson for anyone interested: there are only a few areas in the world that produce natural gas that can be used in our gas supply system with domestic refineries and distribution. There are sources further afield but without connection to a pipeline they are cost prohibitive. A commodity is only as valuable as your ability to deliver it.

Areas of natural gas readily accessible in Europe are the north sea, Baltic states and Russia. So whilst it is a "global market" in theory, the reality is price of natural gas for UK is effectively dominated by European continental availability.

Europe as a whole doesn't have enough gas without buying it from Russia, which is currently not sensible because Russia is using that money to fund a war against Europe. That is why the price is high.

Increasing UK supply of natural gas will offset energy costs ultimately reducing the cost for poorest people in the country.

Even the most optimistic estimates for creating a fully carbon neutral energy grid are 20 years away, that's best case scenario but the green party are working with reform to object to the infrastructure that is needed to make that happen.

Explain to me how helping poor people is bad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I really don't want this to come off as rude but you do not know what you're talking about.

    When they drill for oil and natural gas in the North sea it doesn't go into some special "only for the UK" reserve, it's private companies doing the drilling so they will sell on the global market. So more drilling of natural gas in the North sea will do diddly squat for the prices in the UK.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    I fully understand that there is no "UK reserve" it's basically my job to understand this. I have to simplify things for a shorter post, though.

    Here's a lesson for anyone interested: there are only a few areas in the world that produce natural gas that can be used in our gas supply system with domestic refineries and distribution. There are sources further afield but without connection to a pipeline they are cost prohibitive. A commodity is only as valuable as your ability to deliver it.

    Areas of natural gas readily accessible in Europe are the north sea, Baltic states and Russia. So whilst it is a "global market" in theory, the reality is price of natural gas for UK is effectively dominated by European continental availability.

    Europe as a whole doesn't have enough gas without buying it from Russia, which is currently not sensible because Russia is using that money to fund a war against Europe. That is why the price is high.

    If Europe, including UK are able to release more natural gas it will reduce the overall cost of gas a little bit (maybe a lot depending on other countries contribution and effectiveness of reducing gas usage) and also reduce the amount of money that goes to Russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If it's your job then you know the gas supplies aren't limited because we aren't extracting enough gas. The limited because they've been sold to other markets hence my original comment of more gas extraction will not necessarily equal more gas for the UK and therefore lower prices.

    Additionally it would take 5 to 6 years minimum to build out a drilling operation so it's hardly a solution for today or even 2029. Wouldn't the more sensible option be to build out more renewables such as solar which can be stood up in a lot less time than half a decade?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    There are other means to help this exact issue than just increasing supply.

    They could instead re-introduce the government programs (ECO) to insulate homes better - which is just ending - to reduce demand. Pumping heat into a home that has a draft going through it is still just burning money.

    Increasing supply instead just fuels speeding up global warming which is contributing to higher energy usage due to requiring more heating/cooling. The same people will be equally affected by those issues, and that's before even talking about the environmental impact and risks of the actual drilling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Did you know that the same people eligible for free insulation are also eligible for free heat pumps, and that scheme is still running?

    I agree we need to insulate more however: The insulation scheme is ending because despite a lot of work trying to get people to insulate their homes less than half of eligible homes actually did it and new applications dried up. In the end they were spending more on publicity than insulation.

    Or in other words; without forcing people to do it against their will everything that can be done with that particular scheme has been done.

    A bigger issue now is people in rented accommodation, particularly pre-war housing stock where landlords haven't insulated the property properly and that wasn't captured in the insulation scheme anyway. There is in theory minimum EPC standards for rented accommodation but the reality is a lot of properties don't meet that standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent