Biff & NT:
>>The linked page does discuss one of the partial solutions, energy use reduction. But the main thing that strikes me is that the page does not in any way support or even discuss your claim that the capitalist principle of price being determined by supply and demand will break down.
>Of course the government is not admitting that. You'll have to read further articles from TOD-UK
I dont know which articles you're refering to, or where to find them.
>>Everything I see suggests a rise in energy prices, and nothing more
>When energy prices rise something must happen. In fact two things might happen. The conventional capitalist view, supported by historical experience, is that supply increases and everyone is happy. But when there is a geological constraint because total supply is finite, exacerbated by technical blocks on the rate of production, then a rise in price results in 'demand destruction', which is a polite way of saying the poor do without.
AIUI capitalist principles tell us 2 things will happen as prices rise.
1. Consumption will reduce. Most people will turn their thermostats down, the average mpg figure for new car sales will go up, aluminium ladder sales will be partly replaced by steel and wood, retrofitting of house insulation will continue, high energy industries such as aluminium will see a decline in output, frivolous spending will reduce, seasaide holidays will once again replace foreign travel, new heating systems will be fully zoned to reduce consumption, people will commute less, heat pumps will replace resistance heating, and so on. There is a great deal of scope for energy reduction, a lot of which would cost us little if anything. We are careless with energy today because it is plentiful and cheap.
As you rightly say, the poorest will get colder and travel less. The poorest among us always have and always will go without.
2. As you say, more supply generation will occur. There are renewable energy technologies with prices not too far above that of fossil fuels, and as the price reaches those levels, suppliers will begin generating using what are currently alternative energies.
Supply is not something subject to geologic limits afaik, as there are other sources than fossils. Nuclear and wind are in the front line there, with varoius other options forming the 2nd line such as solar thermal etc.
People often quote nuclear facility decomissioning dates as if they were fact, but the reality is decommissioning of British nukes is routinely put off repeatedly. We run nukes long past their sell by date, and will continue to do so for a fair time yet. It looks likely that new plants will replace decommissioned ones, and presumably they will be larger output. And new nuclear sites might possibly be added.
Self supply will also become more popular as prices go up. Solar space heating, solar HW, windmills and so on will become more popular.
TDP is another emerging source of supply that is looking good. TDP processes rubbish into fuel gas and oil.
The key concept here is that price rise will be capped at a little above the cost of alternative energy sources. As prices rise, investment in these techbnologies becomes an attractive business proposition.
Dont forget that as time goes by the cost of alternative generation technologies is ever reducing, so this cap will be lower than it would be today.
The time frame of energy plant construction is well within the sights of people in the energy business, just as it has been for most of the last century. The key data is gathered and made publically available, the legal framework is well established, experience with all the main technologies is there, the investment framework is experienced, and so on.
What have I missed?
NT
>>The linked page does discuss one of the partial solutions, energy use reduction. But the main thing that strikes me is that the page does not in any way support or even discuss your claim that the capitalist principle of price being determined by supply and demand will break down.
>Of course the government is not admitting that. You'll have to read further articles from TOD-UK
I dont know which articles you're refering to, or where to find them.
>>Everything I see suggests a rise in energy prices, and nothing more
>When energy prices rise something must happen. In fact two things might happen. The conventional capitalist view, supported by historical experience, is that supply increases and everyone is happy. But when there is a geological constraint because total supply is finite, exacerbated by technical blocks on the rate of production, then a rise in price results in 'demand destruction', which is a polite way of saying the poor do without.
AIUI capitalist principles tell us 2 things will happen as prices rise.
1. Consumption will reduce. Most people will turn their thermostats down, the average mpg figure for new car sales will go up, aluminium ladder sales will be partly replaced by steel and wood, retrofitting of house insulation will continue, high energy industries such as aluminium will see a decline in output, frivolous spending will reduce, seasaide holidays will once again replace foreign travel, new heating systems will be fully zoned to reduce consumption, people will commute less, heat pumps will replace resistance heating, and so on. There is a great deal of scope for energy reduction, a lot of which would cost us little if anything. We are careless with energy today because it is plentiful and cheap.
As you rightly say, the poorest will get colder and travel less. The poorest among us always have and always will go without.
2. As you say, more supply generation will occur. There are renewable energy technologies with prices not too far above that of fossil fuels, and as the price reaches those levels, suppliers will begin generating using what are currently alternative energies.
Supply is not something subject to geologic limits afaik, as there are other sources than fossils. Nuclear and wind are in the front line there, with varoius other options forming the 2nd line such as solar thermal etc.
People often quote nuclear facility decomissioning dates as if they were fact, but the reality is decommissioning of British nukes is routinely put off repeatedly. We run nukes long past their sell by date, and will continue to do so for a fair time yet. It looks likely that new plants will replace decommissioned ones, and presumably they will be larger output. And new nuclear sites might possibly be added.
Self supply will also become more popular as prices go up. Solar space heating, solar HW, windmills and so on will become more popular.
TDP is another emerging source of supply that is looking good. TDP processes rubbish into fuel gas and oil.
The key concept here is that price rise will be capped at a little above the cost of alternative energy sources. As prices rise, investment in these techbnologies becomes an attractive business proposition.
Dont forget that as time goes by the cost of alternative generation technologies is ever reducing, so this cap will be lower than it would be today.
The time frame of energy plant construction is well within the sights of people in the energy business, just as it has been for most of the last century. The key data is gathered and made publically available, the legal framework is well established, experience with all the main technologies is there, the investment framework is experienced, and so on.
What have I missed?
NT