[Kognito]

I sense you might not be arguing in good faith, but here's at least a mild effort to placate you.

> Since when? As of 2023, high, but not highest.

Since 2024, at least. [1][2]

> Could you provide evidence that factories and industry are actually on the decline in the UK?

Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.

> Energy prices spiked in 2021 and are now down.

False. Industrial prices have grown every year since 2011 [3]

> The risk of blackouts in Britain will be lower this winter...

Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?

> Who is we? Was this a party platform? Propaganda? Just something you were lead to believe?

It's a reference to a nuclear energy optimism from the 20th century. Some reading material for you. [4]

> Is it possible to actually produce that much nuclear energy.

Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand (FYI that's how the grid operates to this day) and we should certainly be encouraging more demand to improve living standards.

> A single plant is the buffer supply?

No, I never claimed that it was. But coal power has been used mainly to provide a buffer supply only as needed to prioritise cleaner generation in recent years so it's accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.

> That is a what-about-ism

It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burd...

[2] https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/uk-household-electricity-price...

[3] https://www.ibisworld.com/uk/bed/industrial-electricity-pric...

[4] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/history-10...

[Symbiote]

The prices very clearly correlate with the gas price increase following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Britain's fault is in relying too heavily on imported gas — not just for electricity, but also building heat — and not improving building standards.

European countries with similar climates have extensive district heating systems and better (sometimes much better!) building insulation. There are still homes without double glazing in Britain!

England also banned building on-shore wind turbines.

[Nursie]

> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India. Easy to find sources for that, it's all over the news.

But that's not particularly down to the price of energy is it?

"Electric arc furnaces do not require coal. Tata's plan is to switch from transforming iron ore into metal, and instead take scrap steel from demolished bridges, buildings, cars – anything usable – and melt it down again using electricity. The circular process promises huge carbon savings compared with blast furnaces."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/12/ste...

[roenxi]

That article seems to back Kognito up - there are mentions in it of things like "if the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe are closed, the UK will be left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" (!!) or "a source close to Tata suggested the company did not see enough demand to support [a small electric furnace near Llanwern]".

This would have a lot to do with the price of energy. Processing materials normally takes a lot of it, both in the transformation and transport.

[Nursie]

> This would have a lot to do with the price of energy.

That's speculation.

The old furnaces weren't using electricity, they used coal and the primary reason for shutting them down and moving away from that is climate change targets - https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj6e863nxn8t

This is not "Tata moving production to India because energy is expensive".

It does support the more generic point that UK industry could be in decline, but as a single data point it doesn't really give us anything meaningful there either.

[roenxi]

The debate in this thread so far seems to have included whether Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world, with the most vociferous complaint against that idea being that Ireland is #1 and UK is merely top 4. Then you put down an article saying that modern steelmaking is an electricity-demanding process and that the unions are worried because labour isn't really as needed any more.

Speculation it may be. But as speculation goes, it is tame to say that the reason the UK may potentially (and I quote your article again because the quote is delicious) "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel" is because of the world-famously expensive electricity that they are responsible for.

That article is pretty a pretty solid point in Kognito's favour. The evidence is compelling.

[Nursie]

Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.

Nor have you got the right read on why Britain will be "left without a way of transforming iron ore into steel".

For a start when you bring up the quote about there being no demand for a second furnace, they are talking about a second steel recycling furnace, not an ore refining one. Which makes it irrelevant to the quote you’re so enamoured with.

Secondly, the UK will be left without a way to transform ore into steel. Port Talbot has closed. Scunthorpe is closing. There is no ‘might’ here and the capability will be lost because nobody is investing in new plants to do that, not the private sector nor government. There are a myriad of reasons Tata might choose to either spin up new capacity elsewhere or just decide it doesn’t need capacity. Either way it’s not clear that energy prices in the UK are a significant factor in the loss of ore processing capability, compared to (as they explicitly say) CO2 emissions.

What they are investing in is an energy-intensive electric-arc steel recycling furnace. Which kinda makes it look like energy prices aren’t that much bother.

It seems to me that you and the OP are both making unsupported assumptions of single motivators in a complex picture of international trade and climate concerns. Not sure why you’re so keen on that, but if you want to ignore the stated reasons in favour of conjecture, that’s on you.

[roenxi]

> Except that’s not why the current furnaces are being shut down. They’re being closed because of emissions.

You've said something like that a few times. Do you have a source for the mechanism by which it is being done? Because your links don't support the idea that this is being done to meet a climate target. They talk about the high costs and large daily losses (£1m a day) that the blast furnaces were facing. When you factor in the supply problem that the UK has with coal that is surely an energy problem.

[zarzavat]

I agree and people are missing the bigger issue here.

Energy prices are an existential issue for brick-and-mortar businesses. Restaurants and cafes in particular struggle to pay their energy bills. Even if you have no customers you still have to heat and cool your premises otherwise you will definitely have no customers.

There is a potential for economic collapse if energy prices were to spike further from here, because many of these small businesses would become uneconomical and shut, leading to mass unemployment.

In many parts of the UK this scenario is already a reality but nobody will take notice until it happens in London.

[seadan83]

I'm getting hit with a pay wall on your [1]. Though, it does say "The cost of power for industrial businesses". That is a more specific cost. With that qualification, I would agree your statement is supported.

I am curious why there is such a disparity in general energy cost vs cost to industrial businesses specifically.

> Tata Steel is the most topical one, production moving to India

While I would agree examples can demonstrate the potential for a trend, we need data there is a larger trend and that it is due to energy costs (and not say labor cost, metallurgical coal availability, taxes, brexit, etc). I'm stuck on a phone, otherwise I would try to research that more.

> Right, so you agree with me that there's a risk of blackouts then?

Indeed. Though I interpreted from your phrasing that the risk was at least greater now compared to previous years due to this one coal plants closure, if not a completely brand new risk. Had you said, "_still_ have a risk of blackouts" - that would seemingly have been more accurate. FWIW, I'm a skeptic (or at least try to be). I do want data for significant claims before I start to accept them.

> Of course it is. Energy is hard to sell long distance in large quantities. We're perfectly capable of building more supply than demand

I agree. Though greater supply does not get you to "too cheap to meter." Bitcoin miners would move in en-masse well before that happens.

I would agree that the price of energy for industry could get to at least as cheap as France, if not better.

Is there an energy link directly to France? Honest question. If so, super cheap energy would be sold to france - which would stop some of its production in turn and/or in sell its production to its neighbors. There would be quite a shift of what makes sense to produce based on non-local prices. I was thinking a lot about this topic when someone said we could stop sending food and keep it local. Producing more food means more is sent to the highest bidder (minus transport costs). Producing tons and tons off food does not make the local price necessarily cheaper given there is global demand. I understand electricity does not transport nearly as well as food, yet global markets still are at play in energy markets.

Back to "Too cheap to meter", I would guess that likely requires fusion energy. The amount of nuclear, fuel, managing the waste- all to get to "essentially free" - I suspect is a very staggering amount. Hence, honest question - is that actually possible (and feasible) even with nuclear? My wild ass guess is the UK would need at least 2, if not 3 or 4 orders magnitude more energy generation (and done at a price that was also cheaper than dirt). I'll check [4] out shortly. Though, honest question, can nuclear even do that?

> accurate to say we're turning off (some) buffer supply.

In a strict sense, any extra capacity is buffer supply. So yes. Though, the important source of buffer supply seemingly comes now from oil (per I believe my [3] cited above). I imagine, because we are talking one power plant, it is not a consequential amount of buffer. I'm curious what the ratio of energy from gas is (that would be considered buffer) compared to the one plant. I suspect it is low (again on phone, my apology to not try to look that up myself), thus the one plant (I suspect) is providing a non meaningful amount of buffer. My question there was a question, bit incredulous, but nonetheless a question.

> Some reading material for you. [4]

I appreciate you sourcing where the idea came from. I'll check it out.

> It is, but I rather enjoy paying attention to the wider world instead of navel gazing and virtue signalling.

I don't think it is virtue signalling. The world needs to move away from coal energy. China is deploying a ton of solar (IIRC they put more online last year than the rest of the world combined). IIRC, the cost of solar is so low now, it is better to build solar than to even operate coal plants.

Though, what about'ism does just make for a weak argument. If someone else is murdering a thousand people, you should probably still stop murdering anyone anyways.

Yet, you seem to be conflating the lack of nuclear as a good choice to solve some real energy problems, with taking one coal plant off the grid. I understand you are lamenting that both are not being done (ie: ramping up nuclear while taking coal offline). Your arguments can almost be construed that you disagree with turning off any energy source. I got that vibe, though I'll take your "bittersweet" sentiment to mean you will not miss the coal (you just also wish there were a bunch of nuclear going). Let me know if that is an unfair characterization

To a large extent, I agree with that. Though, at the same time, I would not agree with the statement, "no coal should be taken offline until we have built nuclear to replace it." It over emphasizes the importance of coal as an energy source and does not consider there are other and faster options to ramp up energy production without nuclear. At the same time, I am in favor of a relatively massive deployment of nuclear, but I don't think that nuclear and taking coal energy offline need to be married at the hip.

I appreciate your response and your providing qualification and support for a large number of your claims. Thank you, it has made for a substantially more interesting dialog than typically had.