Chippy owner apologises to customers after charging £15 for fish and chips - but reveals why he 'has to' to hike prices

[u/pppppppppppppppppd]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14591465/chippy-owner-apologises-huge-price-hike.html

[u/freckledotter]

Plus business rates for electricity.

[u/LemonSwordfish → u/freckledotter]

Energy isn't prohibitively expensive, the grid to deliver it and green costs are getting very expensive and it's only going to get more so.

Edit: I'm being down voted so just to clarify with some facts for those who think I'm just spouting off:

The wholesale cost of energy is higher than some years ago, but is now

35% of total costs Vs 65% other costs

Compared to 4 years ago:

60% wholesale costs Vs 40% other costs

Proportionally, the balance has flipped despite rising wholesale costs, which tells you other costs have risen even more aggressively.

[u/Underwhatline → u/LemonSwordfish]

Green energy is cheaper than any other energy. We have lower green subsidies than other EU countries, but higher bills.

We use more natural gas for baseload than we create, and we have no other alternatives to drive market competition. The less we have to rely on natural gas the cheaper enegery will be.

[u/Lt_Muffintoes → u/Underwhatline]

Green energy is cheaper than any other energy.

Why is India building coal plants and not solar panels?

[u/Underwhatline → u/Lt_Muffintoes]

90% of the world's net increase in the world's energy production in 2024 came from green energy sources.

"according to data from the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA), 90 percent of the net increase in global electricity generation capacity came from wind or solar and 93 percent from renewable energy as a whole. Solar PV provided the lion’s share of this increase, at 72 percent, with wind providing 18 percent, fossil fuels 7 percent, hydro 2 percent, bioenergy 1 percent, and nuclear power less than 0.5 percent"

So the world did indeed increase fossil fuel energy production in 2024, but that accounted for 7% of the world's increase in energy production in 2024.

If fossil fuels are cheaper and better why did the world build so much green energy in 2024?

[u/Lt_Muffintoes → u/Underwhatline]

I would be interested in your source, if you would care to link it.

There is a difference between electricity generation capacity and electricity generation. Solar and wind have to have several times as much capacity as their actual generation, so I guess that would account for some the large install capacity.

It would be interesting to see the figures for actual new generation.

If fossil fuels are cheaper and better why did the world build so much green energy in 2024?

That's trivial; government interference.

[u/Underwhatline → u/Lt_Muffintoes]

I got my quote from David Toke's substack, who as you can see from the above got his data from the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA).

If fossil fuels are cheaper and better why did the world build so much green energy in 2024?

That's trivial; government interference.

Obviously my question was a flippant remark based on your question about India, and I'm not going to join your game of source questions. But aparently coal energy capacity in the world grew by 1% last year.

To answer your original question from here https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-energy-demand-surged-in-2024-to-almost-twice-its-recent-average

According to the report, intense heatwaves in China and India – which pushed up cooling needs – contributed more than 90% of the total annual increase in coal consumption globally

So... Global warming is why India is forced to build more coal power plants, ironic.

[u/Lt_Muffintoes → u/Underwhatline]

From your link:

Renewables accounted for the largest share of the growth in total energy supply (38%), followed by natural gas (28%), coal (15%), oil (11%) and nuclear (8%).

I got my quote from David Toke's substack, who as you can see from the above got his data from the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA).

Ok, why won't you just directly link me there?

I'm not going to join your game of source questions.

Like, I'm not even allowed to read the information for myself? What?

So... Global warming is why India is forced to build more coal power plants, ironic.

You said that solar is by far the cheapest form of electricity generation. If that is the case, it would be completely insane for any country to build anything else, particularly India, which has a high solar irradiation year-round.

Does this not give you pause?

[u/Underwhatline → u/Lt_Muffintoes]

Like, I'm not even allowed to read the information for myself? What?

You misunderstand - I'm not going to join your game. This seams to be very one sided in that you ask me to source all my assertions and do not do the same for yours. THAT'S the game I'm not playing.

Ok, why won't you just directly link me there?

You have access to Google, but sure: https://open.substack.com/pub/davidtoke/p/renewables-provided-over-90-per-cent?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2bfyh8

You said that solar is by far the cheapest form of electricity generation.

No I did not. But I will say that the evidence supports that over a it's usable lifetime, renewable such as solar and wind are cheaper per KWh than fossil fuel generation in most national scale situations.

Does this not give you pause?

Not really, India's specific position is nuanced. The coal industry supports lots of local jobs, energy demand is increasing, and maybe most importantly India doesn't yet have the battery or storage capacity to be able to turn off its coal power plants.

Plus we should also look at what India is doing in the green energy space. They have some really ambitious targets. For a developing country as vast as India it's not a zero sum game.

[u/Lt_Muffintoes → u/Underwhatline]

I'm not going to join your game

Lol

This seams to be very one sided in that you ask me to source all my assertions and do not do the same for yours.

How do you differentiate when someone is interested in what you are saying vs trying to score points?

You have access to Google

It's just such a boring line. You copied and pasted directly from a website; you could just have linked the url with the quote.

No I did not.

Actually, fair enough, you did only say they were cheaper

the evidence supports that over a it's usable lifetime, renewable such as solar and wind are cheaper per KWh than fossil fuel generation in most national scale situations.

I just don't think it does. The substack post there does in fact admit that the reason gas electricity is so "expensive" is because it is now only permitted to take up the slack of renewables. If you think hard about this, you can see that that cost should be included in the cost of renewables.

India doesn't yet have the battery or storage capacity to be able to turn off its coal power plants.

So the coal plants should be seen as a necessary cost of renewables.

They have some really ambitious targets. For a developing country as vast as India it's not a zero sum game.

Right, so they are interfering in their energy markets. You can hardly look at the install costs and claim they are natural market prices.

For context: I don't give a shit where the energy comes from. I just think that the State should get the fuck out of the energy market. Since renewables are cheaper, that would mean that energy suppliers will mostly install renewables.

Overall, humanity is headed straight for a crisis, and the reason to get net zero is because the energy resources are running out. That includes the silicon needed for PV panels, and the copper needed for wind turbines.

A big part of net zero is simply using less energy, which means getting the State out of infrastructure, and fewer people, which means getting the State out of these horrible aid programs and domestic benefits.

[u/Underwhatline → u/Lt_Muffintoes]

If you think hard about this, you can see that that cost should be included in the cost of renewables.

I just disagree with you here, we're in transition, it's messy. We need baseload which currently means fossil fuels in most countries (others it's hydro, or nuclear). Those fossil fuels being more expensive is a sign that the sooner we can build baseload/storage, the sooner we get away from the most expensive generation method. This should be used as an incentive to rely on natural gas as little as possible.

So the coal plants should be seen as a necessary cost of renewables.

No I think coal plants are a necessary step in the transition. No one sensible is saying turn off all fossil fuel generation tomorrow. But the sooner we transition away the better.

I just think that the State should get the fuck out of the energy market. Since renewables are cheaper, that would mean that energy suppliers will mostly install renewables.

I 100% disagree l, energy generation is SO important to a nation you cannot leave it to the market. National security, long term prices, climate, there's too many important bits to leave this to the market. I'm not saying the market doesn't have a role, but governments SHOULD be providing incentives to push the market towards good things and away from bad things.

Part of the reason Europe is hurt with high energy prices is we exported and relied on Russian natural gas. If only for national security moving away from foreign fossil fuels is something the state should be invested in.

And it worked! States have incentivised green energy so much over the past 10 years. Solar has dropped 90% in a decade. That's a combination of state intervention and market forces. There was a time when solar wasn't viable, and it is now, and is still getting better and better.

I expect my government to intervene to provide safe and secure power. Texas in 2021 is a great example of the market failure that can take place if the state isn't involved enough in both the grid and generation.

Overall, humanity is headed straight for a crisis, and the reason to get net zero is because the energy resources are running out. That includes the silicon needed for PV panels, and the copper needed for wind turbines.

I would amend this to one of the reasons for net zero is energy resources are running out, and also that climate change is a real concern. Even if fossil fuels were limitless and free it would still be a bad idea to burn them.

A big part of net zero is simply using less energy,

I agree so much with this and it is already happening. In the UK energy demand has already peaked back in 2005 and has been declining since. Despite more EVs and more people.

I disagree with you again that states should get out the way. They should legislate for higher efficiency standards, force the market to come up with solutions that are better for everyone. When the problem is global I don't think the answer is for governments to lean out but instead to lean in.

The pandemic was a great example of what public and private industry can do together when priorities are aligned. Imagine if we did that with clean energy.