Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400335/How-falling-oil-prices-exposed-great-green-lie-Saudi-Arabia-s-battle-drive-prices-far-reaching-peak-oil.html

Nice little Daily Mail article extolling fossil fuels, no surprise there. It's long been clear scientifically that the problem isn't that we are running out of fossil fuels, but quite the opposite - that the world has far more than it can possibly safely burn.

That's the elephant in the room that politicians won't address. They make commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but don't accept the corollary that this means they have to leave reserves in the ground. It's like a morbidly obese person saying they are going to lose weight but then loading up their trolley at the supermarket with deep fried foods.

ed110220

The DM is simply not a reliable source when it comes to science or the environment, in particular anything to do with climate change. It spouts all manner of nonsense - vaccination causing autism, denying the generally scientifically accepted view of global warming, claiming wind turbines in texas were contributing to global warming, claiming the warming had 'stopped'.

It's pure yah boo populism with a dash of Dunning-Kruger thrown in.

EricMears

ed110220 wrote: »

The DM is simply not a reliable source when it comes to science or the environment . . . .

. . . or indeed anything else

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

The DM is simply not a reliable source when it comes to science or the environment, in particular anything to do with climate change.

Is it any less reliable than the propaganda from all the solar industry publications with which we are endlessly bombarded in this section of MSE?


The part of that article dealing with heat pumps surely cannot be disputed.

ed110220

EricMears wrote: »

. . . or indeed anything else

This is true, though science comes as close to 'fact' as is possible, while the rest of the stuff the DM pushes can be better described as opinion.

Not sure how it helps Cardew's cause to promote a source strongly associated with pseudoscience that is agitating against a 'green lie' on a green and ethical board

ed110220

There's a fundamental difference between solar industry statements with their rosy POV that any but the most naive reader would take into account, and the DM which denies what are as close to facts as science comes.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Is it any less reliable than the propaganda from all the solar industry publications with which we are endlessly bombarded in this section of MSE?


The part of that article dealing with heat pumps surely cannot be disputed.

Cardew, this is a green and ethical board, so why on earth do you get so upset at the posting of any green and ethical news items?

If you don't like the fact that I posted an article from Business Green, then here it is straight from the horse's mouth, BNEF (or are they also propagandists for the solar industry?):-

CLEAN ENERGY DEFIES FOSSIL FUEL PRICE CRASH TO ATTRACT RECORD $329BN GLOBAL INVESTMENT IN 2015


For some reason you took offence to this posting too:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

International Energy Agency sees 'peak coal' as demand for fossil fuel crumbles in China

Yet it's a Telegraph article on the IEA!


For some reason you seem to feel a need to post counter articles to any good news stories on the environment, even descending into DM or skeptic/denialist articles recently.

You don't have to keep attacking green, ethical, or dare I say it PV news all the time, on a green and ethical board.


Here's another recent fun one:

Cardew wrote: »

The article is from a green viewpoint,

Now that is a surprise!

So it seems that a green viewpoint, on this board is somehow wrong, according to you. Yet your nonsense article claiming that the entire FiT budget is to be paid only by poor householders is usually described as being written by a Green Guru. "Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind.

You couldn't make it up ....... well ...... perhaps you could!


Lastly, if you don't want to read green based articles, then don't read a thread on green news. If you don't want to read PV based articles, then don't read a thread on solar news. It seems so obvious, but perhaps it needs saying.

Mart.

kevin6666

These guys called it right regarding a sustainable renewable industry in the uk
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/our-work/current-priorities/getting-the-feedintariff-right-.cfm
"we believe that the scheme is encouraging a short-term market in which early entrants are rewarded, instead of supporting a market which builds out for the longer term"

There's some thought/speculation the FIT scheme might not re-open as the mass final rush may have pushed the scheme passed it's overall objective. Would be hell of a white elephant/burden to the UK for the next 20 years.

Perhaps we might follow Spain and look to change existing Tariff Rates.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

These guys called it right regarding a sustainable renewable industry in the uk
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/our-work/current-priorities/getting-the-feedintariff-right-.cfm
"we believe that the scheme is encouraging a short-term market in which early entrants are rewarded, instead of supporting a market which builds out for the longer term"

There's some thought/speculation the FIT scheme might not re-open as the mass final rush may have pushed the scheme passed it's overall objective. Would be hell of a white elephant/burden to the UK for the next 20 years.

Perhaps we might follow Spain and look to change existing Tariff Rates.

Kevin, can you explain a few things to me.

1. Why did you chop the beginning off the sentence you quoted:-

RenewableUK is concerned by the structure of the Feed-in Tariff, specifically the removal of the 15kW FiT bracket. It is also concerned that the degression thresholds have not been appropriately set. In combination, we believe that the scheme is encouraging a short-term market in which early entrants are rewarded, instead of supporting a market which builds out for the longer term — including growing UK manufacturing of small scale wind systems where the UK is a world leader.

They appear to be questioning the way the scheme is being managed, not the scheme itself?


2. I agree that the scheme may not re-open, but this is due to a government decision on funding the FiT, not a shortage of money, and certainly not due to PV FiT rates.

They are happy to pay higher subsidy rates for off-shore wind and nuclear, and for far, far higher levels of deployment, and deployment with a much higher capacity factor (CF), so even greater quantities of output (at higher subsidy levels).


3. Why would you describe this as a white elephant, particularly a hell of a burden?

The cost of PV, and domestic PV is tiny compared to other generation funding, and a white elephant usually refers to a failed item/technology etc. But the FiT has already delivered one of the very cheapest forms of generation in the UK. Even accepting that the new FiT is too harsh, and applying a fairer FiT of 7p, means it now beats off-shore wind, and matches nuclear.

So the technology/scheme hasn't failed, it's entirely down to the government's decision to apply a 'just too low' FiT rate, and a simply horrific level of deployment*.

[* Annual domestic deployment to be capped at ~200MWp pa. Off-shore wind with a CF approx 4 times greater than PV, would equal that at 50MW of deployed capacity, yet we are to see multiple GW's of deployment, at a higher CF and a higher subsidy cost per unit of generation - so the government's position does not seem to be one of cost, at all.]

As far as I can see, it has worked, and finally come to fruition (finally being 6 years, one of the fastest 'finally's' we may ever see), it's just being blocked.

Would you oppose domestic PV at 7p FiT?
Do you mind domestic PV?
What source of generation would you support, given that domestic and large scale PV, and on-shore wind (the cheapest) are being blocked?
Are you happy to deploy more expensive off-shore wind and nuclear, than domestic PV (and large scale PV and on-shore wind*)?

Just trying to get an idea of what you stand for, or are trying to say.

Thanks.

Mart.

[Edit: * The Lords may go to war with the government over their plans to remove support for on-shore wind. Let's hope the Lords look at the bigger picture and also consider both demand side (FiT) and supply side (ROC/CfD) PV too. M.]

Martyn1981

Some positive news, for a change:-

Rapid switch to renewable energy can put Paris climate goals within reach

Countries can deliver on the promises of the historic Paris climate change agreement by rapid scaling up wind and solar power to 36% of the global energy mix by 2030, an international energy gathering will be told on Saturday.

Irena said those goals were within reach – if countries move fast. Scaling up renewable energy to 36% of the global energy mix by 2030 would provide about half of the emissions reductions needed to hold warming to 2C. Energy efficiency could make up the rest.

and it gets even better:-

In an effort to spur countries to action, an Irena report released on Saturday found doubling the share of renewables by 2030 would increase global GDP by up to 1.1% or about $1.3tn, and provide jobs for more than 24 million in the renewable sector.

Mart.