Prof David Mackay 2050 Pathways Calculator

jamesingram

I thought i'd flag this up and see what thoughts there are .
hopefully it'll be of interest.

After discussions around FITs/PV it seems looking into long term
Uk generation plans would help with clarity on what's required
and how best to achieve that.

ok its based around CO2 reduction and if you see no need then it would seem pointless , but forgetting CO2 reduction,
Future UK energy supply and production is what it's really about.

this leads into it well
http://markbrinkley.blogspot.com/2012/01/2050-calculator-limits-of-arithmetic.html

• What is the cheapest pathway?
• Is it cheaper / how much more expensive is it to tackle climate change than to not?
• What are the biggest costs in tackling climate change?
• What are the biggest sources of uncertainty in tackling climate change?
• Is it cheaper to be more energy efficient or to build more capacity?
• Is nuclear cheaper than wind or CCS?

Prof. Mac kay makes comments on the blog.

haven't looked through it fully yet , but it shows possible costings of the various available options.
cheers Jim

Ken68

The energy providers need to protect their investment/profit and the government need to keep the tax coming in.
So nothing will change for the consumer. Everything else is like re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic.

jamesingram

Is that the view of the modern apathetics ?

If we nose dive into a poorly considered solution it could be very expensive for all .

Ken68

Not me James and not raining on your parade, but we need to stop all new investment until people are back into jobs.
Bring in compulsory passive house standards for new builds and mandatory insulation elswhere.
Do it today.

jamesingram

Ken68 wrote: »

we need to stop all new investment until people are back into jobs.
Do it today.

Not to sure about that, one may require the other.

But agree fully re. PH for all new builds , dutch and german house builders claim < 10% increase in build costs to achieve these standards , relative to thier current regs. Trouble here is skill shortage and no incentive for the big UK developers.
50% of German builds are of the hands off selfbuild type , so future owner/developer have an interest in long term energy use of the project.

if building are responsible for around 30%+ of UK energy use then
reducing that demand will make a big difference to future UK energy supply capacity.

I think the MacKay project includes costings for energy efficiency.
But jiggling figures may show even investment in energy efficiency may not be the most cost effect approach.

Ken68

Only on Page 147 James but seems to me so far that a few quick changes in the
law would incentivise builders and planners and even householders.
Don't get the skills shortage bit. (2.5 unemployed some of them white collar)

jamesingram

skill shortage to build to Ph level , attention to detail required in PH build process to achieve levels of airtightness etc.
though no reason people cant be trained up.

these lot are trying to move PH idea forward here in UK

http://www.aecb.net/index.php

http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/

Ken68

Yet it's odd how double glazing is not considered cost effective.
I was offered a whole house exterior insulation last year at a cost of £15,000. mostly grantable.
3 bed semi built 1932...savings £200 a year. 75 year payback.

grahamc2003

jamesingram wrote: »

Is that the view of the modern apathetics ?

If we nose dive into a poorly considered solution it could be very expensive for all .

If?

We've been nosediving around poorly (I'd say totally un-) considered (non)solutions for about 40 years, and it is proving to be very expensive for all, and to top it all, we'll soon be having electricity rationing. The fortunate oil strike in the North Sea kept the illusion of a well managed electricity supply industry going for a decade or two, but with that depleting, the results will soon be clear.

The problem is any professional, serious quantitative analysis into our electricity needs is simply frowned upon as little or no value since it inescapably leads to conclusions people don't like. I take it you know Prof Mckay comes in for a great deal of stick for his rational analysis. The government will always, well usually, ensure the energy businesses are run for votes and not rational reasons, hence little long term planning and energy policy formed by those who best influence public opinion and not, as used to be the case, industry experts.

Unfortunately, these days, rational analysis has little value. That will change imv in a few years when the results of our long term energy policy become visible with frequent electricity shortages and the associated controlled power cuts, together with very expensive electricity when you can get it.

jamesingram

Hi Graham , do you really think the lights will start to go out in a few years. Quite alot of people out there that believe the mix generation route we're currently heading towards will do the job.
I'm hoping the're not all idiots
Yes Mackay got some stick , but he got a big job on the back of it , so someone must have been impressed .

So you'd go all-in for his option E then (nuclear)?

It adds up , costs wise in his original work . But things seem less clear in this new calculator?

albyota

Hi Jamesingram, 2014 seems to be the point where.....if nothing has been done.....rationing will begin.

I think it is also possible that before then, either Rossi or someone will have mastered the LENR....thoughts?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3748067