Global financial system implosion begins

[kabbes]

Might I ask why? I think I saw an earlier version of your post in which you said it was for green reasons, but the thing is... Aren't they just supplying you energy from the National Grid just like everyone else? It's not as if they can actually separate out and only supply to you the electricity which was made by wind turbines, and not the electricity which was made by fossil fuel burning stations. All electricity sources in this country contribute to a big pool and everyone in draws from that, as I understand it.

This is the kind of thing I'm getting at whenever I say that supply-side solutions must form a major part of solving our energy problem. It's no good having all these companies offer "green" tariffs to customers, when it makes no damn difference as far as actually generating electricity goes. To me it stinks to high heaven of greenwashing, combined with the rotten idea that "consumer choice" has anything meaningful to do with it.

I’m with Good Energy. They claim that their mix is directly sustainable, and that they don’t use any carbon credits to achieve this. They provide their live fuel mix, in fact: today, it’s 55% wind, 29% biogen, 11% solar and 5% hydro. I don’t know how this is achievable, but it’s more complex than you’re making it out to be in terms of a single “pool”. I was pointed to Good Energy by my friend who is a green energy broker, because they are one of only two or three that can directly point to their sources in this way. His job is to go to places like wind farms and solar farms and broke a deal between them and specific energy suppliers, who are then buying their electricity from these sources. I don’t know how the National Grid mediates this because clearly it all goes through the same wires. But it’s not true to say that your supplier is irrelevant to the source.

 

[teuchter]

Is it not that the suppliers do buy from specific sources? Of course it all goes into the grid together but if they tell you that your tarrif is 100% renewable then it means that they have to match the amount they sell you with the amount they buy.

Therefore if enough people specify a green tarrif it increases the demand for energy from such sources and hopefully increases their viability.

Of course it might be that the UK grid overall buys in a certain amount of 'green energy' anyway, which is much greater than the amount demanded by green tarrifs, in which case they don't mask any difference.

 

[brogdale]

I’m with Good Energy. They claim that their mix is directly sustainable, and that they don’t use any carbon credits to achieve this. They provide their live fuel mix, in fact: today, it’s 55% wind, 29% biogen, 11% solar and 5% hydro. I don’t know how this is achievable, but it’s more complex than you’re making it out to be in terms of a single “pool”. I was pointed to Good Energy by my friend who is a green energy broker, because they are one of only two or three that can directly point to their sources in this way. His job is to go to places like wind farms and solar farms and broke a deal between them and specific energy suppliers, who are then buying their electricity from these sources. I don’t know how the National Grid mediates this because clearly it all goes through the same wires. But it’s not true to say that your supplier is irrelevant to the source.

But I'm unsure about this could affect the overall national mix which is determined by state policy decisions on regulation of the producers? Surely all this market differentiation does is to allow those who can afford to buy from the non-cheapest 'suppliers' to feel better about themselves? Irrelevant in the bigger picture.

 

[kabbes]

But I'm unsure about this could affect the overall national mix which is determined by state policy decisions on regulation of the producers? Surely all this market differentiation does is to allow those who can afford to buy from the non-cheapest 'suppliers' to feel better about themselves? Irrelevant in the bigger picture.

I guess it’s a bit like saying that overall UK food is one big pot, from which some people buy free range organic produce and others buy factory-processed ready meals. (Or, if that’s an analogy too far, some buy free range meat and others buy factory-reared meat). At one level, this is true and illustrates the powerlessness of an individual consumer. On another level, though, it is also true that market demand will influence the make-up of that overall pool.

I think maybe one thing you are missing is that green energy is not like burning coal in that you don’t actually need massive state-influenced power plants. Individual land owners can decide to install solar grids or wind farms at a fraction of that capital cost. If the demand is there, they will (and do). Those individual wind and solar farms really add up, but they need energy suppliers to buy directly from them.

 

[kabbes]

Is it not that the suppliers do buy from specific sources? Of course it all goes into the grid together but if they tell you that your tarrif is 100% renewable then it means that they have to match the amount they sell you with the amount they buy.

The thing you have to watch out for, though, is that almost every green tariff out there (and I’m not sure but I think bulb might have been guilty of this too) doesn’t quite do this. What they do instead is buy carbon credits, which are a dubious policy creation of dubious climate benefit. So you still get carbon-intensive electricity, but “offset” by credits.

Like I say, Good Energy are one of only a few suppliers that buy their green energy directly from suppliers. I’ve never recommended them on here, though, because they might be Good Energy but they are also Lousy Customer Service.

 

[teuchter]

The thing you have to watch out for, though, is that almost every green tariff out there (and I’m not sure but I think bulb might have been guilty of this too) doesn’t quite do this. What they do instead is buy carbon credits, which are a dubious policy creation of dubious climate benefit. So you still get carbon-intensive electricity, but “offset” by credits.

Like I say, Good Energy are one of only a few suppliers that buy their green energy directly from suppliers. I’ve never recommended them on here, though, because they might be Good Energy but they are also Lousy Customer Service.

I have a Bulb tariff and this is what they say about it

We provide all our members with 100% renewable electricity. For every unit you use, we make sure a unit is produced and put on the grid by a renewable source including solar, wind and hydro. Plus, our gas is 100% carbon neutral. We offset the emissions from the gas we supply by supporting carbon reduction projects around the world. We’re also one of the biggest buyers of green gas for homes in the UK. So a chunk of our gas mix comes from renewable sources, too.

So the electricity does come from renewable sources. There is offsetting on the gas, but there's no such thing as truly carbon neutral gas anyway.

 

[kabbes]

There is bullshit that statement, though. “We supply 100% renewable energy “ is incompatible with using gas. So they’re already lying. They’re not supplying renewable energy, they’re buying carbon credits. You can also see that in their statement that “we make sure a unit is produced”. So they don’t buy those units, they just buy the carbon credits that are sold by the producers of those units.

It’s a subtle sleight of hand but what it comes down to is that they do not buy 100% renewable energy and they do not buy their renewable energy from the people that produce it. They rely on a carbon trading scheme that is subject to heavy political winds.

It’s undoubtedly better than using non-green tariffs but you should go into it with your eyes open for what it is and is not.

 

[youbeauty]

You're right about the carbon credit thing but Bulb don't claim to supply 100% renewable energy - the claim is 100% renewable electricity.

 

[kabbes]

You're right about the carbon credit thing but Bulb don't claim to supply 100% renewable energy - the claim is 100% renewable electricity.

Ok, I thought we were only talking about electricity, so I read the statement in that context and missed the reference.

It still looks like they rely on carbon credits rather than directly purchasing renewable electricity, though.

 

[brogdale]

I guess it’s a bit like saying that overall UK food is one big pot, from which some people buy free range organic produce and others buy factory-processed ready meals. (Or, if that’s an analogy too far, some buy free range meat and others buy factory-reared meat). At one level, this is true and illustrates the powerlessness of an individual consumer. On another level, though, it is also true that market demand will influence the make-up of that overall pool.

I think maybe one thing you are missing is that green energy is not like burning coal in that you don’t actually need massive state-influenced power plants. Individual land owners can decide to install solar grids or wind farms at a fraction of that capital cost. If the demand is there, they will (and do). Those individual wind and solar farms really add up, but they need energy suppliers to buy directly from them.

I really don't know enough about how the 'market' operates to question that, but my understanding of the decarbonisation process was that hit was largely driven by 'carrot & stick' (subsidy/fiscal) regulation policies and not consumer-led demand. We could all ask for 100% green energy, but the national mix is the national mix.

 

[kabbes]

I really don't know enough about how the 'market' operates to question that, but my understanding of the decarbonisation process was that hit was largely driven by 'carrot & stick' (subsidy/fiscal) regulation policies and not consumer-led demand. We could all ask for 100% green energy, but the national mix is the national mix.

I’m no expert either, but I think the point is that the national mix is changeable depending on what is seen as economic

 

[brogdale]

I’m no expert either, but I think the point is that the national mix is changeable depending on what is seen as economic

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying as well; it's just that I don't think some wealthier (?) consumers being able to demand the greener portion of the output changes much at all.

 

[kabbes]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying as well; it's just that I don't think some wealthier (?) consumers being able to demand the greener portion of the output changes much at all.

Well, we’re back to the food production analogy, really. What you say is kind of true — consumer power is a comfort blanket, not a real strength. But this applies to everything, not just electricity. Electricity production is subject to the same kind of political and systemic as well as consumer and market pressures as any other production. How comfortable you are as a consumer to use this argument to wash your hands of any decision making is kind of a personal choice, I’d say. Like with all things, it becomes a fudge of personal inconsistencies and hypocrisies based on individual lived realities. In short, I can afford to buy the more “ethical” option and salving my conscience in this way helps me sleep at night, making it good value.

 

[NoXion]

I’m with Good Energy. They claim that their mix is directly sustainable, and that they don’t use any carbon credits to achieve this. They provide their live fuel mix, in fact: today, it’s 55% wind, 29% biogen, 11% solar and 5% hydro. I don’t know how this is achievable, but it’s more complex than you’re making it out to be in terms of a single “pool”. I was pointed to Good Energy by my friend who is a green energy broker, because they are one of only two or three that can directly point to their sources in this way. His job is to go to places like wind farms and solar farms and broke a deal between them and specific energy suppliers, who are then buying their electricity from these sources. I don’t know how the National Grid mediates this because clearly it all goes through the same wires. But it’s not true to say that your supplier is irrelevant to the source.

Ugh. If it works for you that's great, but taking a wider perspective, that all sounds like a load of neolib bullshit. If we just made good on transitioning the entire grid to a post-fossil fuels energy mix, then there would be absolutely no need for these companies to even exist, and everyone in the country would benefit from a supply of clean energy. Electricity supply via a national grid is a natural monopoly like the rail network, and splitting up the supply like that is just as ideological as the imposition of "choice" in rail carriers.

I mean, I don't agree that climate change is going to be the apocalypse, but it doesn't have to be in order to constitute one of the biggest challenges for human civilisation this century. Why the fuck is something so important being left up to "consumer choice"? Utter garbage, it should be national policy.

 

[kabbes]

Course it should be national policy. Whilst I'm waiting for that to become the case, though, choosing a green energy supplier is the best I can manage.

 

[teuchter]

Ok, I thought we were only talking about electricity, so I read the statement in that context and missed the reference.

It still looks like they rely on carbon credits rather than directly purchasing renewable electricity, though.

Where do they say that?

Our energy | Bulb

We supply 100% renewable electricity and 100% carbon offset gas to every member, as standard.

bulb.co.uk

I have a long-running argument with my dad where he says that if you have a 100% renewable tarrif you can consider yourself as using clean energy, while I say that you can't - you should assess things on the basis of the overall UK mix, even if your tarrif choice helps to incentivise renewables. Where this becomes relevant is if you're in an area with gas, and you are trying to decide the relative impacts of using gas or electricity, and make a "real" decision as a result (for example, switch your heating to electric). I say you should make that choice on the basis of the UK overall mix rather than your tarrif, because that's what you are actually using, rather than making a decision on the basis that if you choose electric heating it will run from 100% renewable sources.

 

[kabbes]

Where do they say that?

Our energy | Bulb

We supply 100% renewable electricity and 100% carbon offset gas to every member, as standard.

bulb.co.uk

It’s more what they don’t say. They don’t say that they buy renewable electricity. Why not? Why use the strange and difficult to interpret language of “we make sure that a unit is produced and put in the grid”? Because that’s what carbon trading is, is why.

(Beyond that, I also have separate knowledge that comes from talking to my friend that is a broker in this market, and I’m pretty sure he said bulb don’t directly buy renewable energy. But I’m not asking you to rely on that, and the memory is a few years old now anyway)

 

[toblerone3]

Might I ask why? I think I saw an earlier version of your post in which you said it was for green reasons, but the thing is... Aren't they just supplying you energy from the National Grid just like everyone else? It's not as if they can actually separate out and only supply to you the electricity which was made by wind turbines, and not the electricity which was made by fossil fuel burning stations. All electricity sources in this country contribute to a big pool and everyone in draws from that, as I understand it.

This is the kind of thing I'm getting at whenever I say that supply-side solutions must form a major part of solving our energy problem. It's no good having all these companies offer "green" tariffs to customers, when it makes no damn difference as far as actually generating electricity goes. To me it stinks to high heaven of greenwashing, combined with the rotten idea that "consumer choice" has anything meaningful to do with it.

It's a good question and I did choose them for green reasons but I haven't perhaps looked into it as deeply as I should have. If you look on their website they refer you to this analysis

Fuel Mix of UK Domestic Electricity Suppliers - electricity info

electricityinfo.org

 

[teuchter]

It’s more what they don’t say. They don’t say that they buy renewable electricity. Why not? Why use the strange and difficult to interpret language of “we make sure that a unit is produced and put in the grid”? Because that’s what carbon trading is, is why.

(Beyond that, I also have separate knowledge that comes from talking to my friend that is a broker in this market, and I’m pretty sure he said bulb don’t directly buy renewable energy. But I’m not asking you to rely on that, and the memory is a few years old now anyway)

They do say

Bulb supplies 100% renewable electricity to all its members from solar, wind and hydro. Every unit of electricity we supply can be traced back to a renewable source. There are different ways to buy this renewable electricity. At Bulb, we partner with generators across the UK to directly purchase their electricity. And we buy energy on the wholesale market with renewable energy certificates to match.

I don't think that's the same as carbon trading - carbon trading implies they buy non-renewable energy but compensate for it by paying some other company in another industry for its surplus carbon credits.

 

[kabbes]

They do say


I don't think that's the same as carbon trading - carbon trading implies they buy non-renewable energy but compensate for it by paying some other company in another industry for its surplus carbon credits.

Carbon trading means that they can trace each unit back to a renewable source. Which is what they say they can do. There’s not much that they can’t claim if they buy carbon credits but the one thing they can’t say directly is that they actually buy renewable electricity from a provider. And that’s the thing they don’t say.

 

[8ball]

Carbon trading means that they can trace each unit back to a renewable source.

You need a blockchain for that.
Then all the blockchains will be linking right back to the blockchain, tracking the energy burned to mine the next unit.
Looping and looping and looping for ever.

This is how the universe dies.

 

[Idaho]

You need a blockchain for that.
Then all the blockchains will be linking right back to the blockchain, tracking the energy burned to mine the next unit.
Looping and looping and looping for ever.

This is how the universe dies.

You don't necessarily need to have proof of work levels of energy use to use a blockchain. You could run one on barely any energy use if you didn't want to be entirely decentralised.

 

[8ball]

You don't necessarily need to have proof of work levels of energy use to use a blockchain. You could run one on barely any energy use if you didn't want to be entirely decentralised.

Sounds a bit precarious to me…

 

[Idaho]

Sounds a bit precarious to me…

Sounds like you don't really understand anything about blockchains tbf

 

[8ball]

Sounds like you don't really understand anything about blockchains tbf

I know about a 90 second YouTube video’s worth!!

 

[magneze]

Why do you need a blockchain in order to be decentralised?

 

[8ball]

Why do you need a blockchain in order to be decentralised?

I think a relevant factor is that you need a log of every transaction to exist in a lot of places which gets embedded in the chain. So it’s like phoning everyone in town to say you bought a pint and everyone needs to write it down. But with more heavy maths.

And because of the heavy maths it’s really hard to just sneak a bit of data in there. So you can run a money type system with it because you have inbuilt robustness and security.

Like I said - about 90 seconds on YouTube.

 

[Idaho]

I think a relevant factor is that you need a log of every transaction to exist in a lot of places which gets embedded in the chain. So it’s like phoning everyone in town to say you bought a pint and everyone needs to write it down. But with more heavy maths.

And because of the heavy maths it’s really hard to just sneak a bit of data in there. So you can run a money type system with it because you have inbuilt robustness and security.

Like I said - about 90 seconds on YouTube.

That's all broadly correct

A blockchain is a way of storing sequential data across a distributed network. The centralisation/decentralisation issues occur when you come to validate it all. Who has permission to give permission!

 

[8ball]

That's all broadly correct

A blockchain is a way of storing sequential data across a distributed network. The centralisation/decentralisation issues occur when you come to validate it all. Who has permission to give permission!

I’m not sure whether it escaped you that post #6,801 was a joke.

As I (possibly wrongly) suggested, though (drawing on seconds 74-83 of the video), it seems you build in more security with a broader net of validation nodes (I may have fluffed the terminology a bit). But I intuitively expect that the computing power required escalates in something proportional to a Fibonacci pattern based on the number of nodes (that’s based on me imagining what it would look like if I was making a “my first blockchain”, though I expect in reality people have come up with optimisations - or maybe I’m flat wrong and need to watch another video).

 

[Idaho]

What I've read from those who understand it a lot more than me, is that with blockchain design you have to choose 2 priorities from security, speed and decentralisation - but currently you can't have all 3.