Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Agree, but to get to the destination in time may require roads to be built along routes which many wouldn't naturally agree with ... the problem that exists is that we are where we are and the destination remains where it is - if the journey had been started earlier then the route could have been better planned to utilise existing resources and we'd not have needed to consider the environmental impact of building the equivalent of unenvironmental motorways to get to where we need to be in time ...

Too much time has been expended on debate, argument & protest by groups with myopic beliefs and agendas without anyone looking at the affect on the available timeline, leaving us with limited options ... effectively it's now down to extending the project timeline or an interim reliance on leveraging UK gas reserves with other options having what boil down to various levels of unacceptable risk to both the economy & life - I'm certainly reticent to be the one to apologise to queues of grieving families that have lost vulnerable relatives because of a combination of energy prices and/or availability during the disruptive phase of the transition to a low carbon future and I expect that there'd be very few that would relish the employment opportunity.

HTH
Z

The fact that you feel squeezed far enough into a corner to look at options like this displays just how bad I think things have gotten, as clearly this wouldn't be your first choice. I hope that's not a rude assumption, it's simply based on your normal optimistic attitude. In fact, your comments here scare me a bit, as I'll openly admit to trusting your overview as being more 'wide eyed' than my tunnel vision can often get.

As you say, time is running out, and had we acted faster it would have been so much easier.

I keep hoping for a long term plan to be announced, with a schedule of action, and consultations on solutions, such as action on insulation, and even the phase out of new GCH in 10, 20etc years. But decisions like the recent withdrawal of a mandatory rate for PV export scare me - not the individual actions but the pattern that is forming.

Sorry to mention fracking again, but the two planning decisions at the same time, to restrict on-shore wind, and to 'force' through fracking, seemed odd. Add to that the decision at the same time to scale back the new building regs, one year short of the zero(ish) carbon target, and HPC getting through a 2015 cost review, on-shore wind and PV losing grid side subsidy support, but off-shore wind getting more.

All these measures seem to favour big industry (off-shore wind tends to be backed by big energy), but 'mess up' actions on the smaller scale and individual households ability to maximise potential.

I'm really not sure why what is happening is happening, I don't believe that the Tories are bad/evil folk, so there may be a sound plan in the background. But I suspect they are stalling and hoping that others (countries) act first/faster. Let's just hope all countries don't play the same game of global chicken. [Off-shore wind and the phase out of coal do however buy us some time and kudos points.]

Am I the only one that's getting frustrated because I feel we are so, so close to winning, if we just made a little more effort?

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The fact that you feel squeezed far enough into a corner to look at options like this displays just how bad I think things have gotten, as clearly this wouldn't be your first choice. I hope that's not a rude assumption, it's simply based on your normal optimistic attitude. In fact, your comments here scare me a bit, as I'll openly admit to trusting your overview as being more 'wide eyed' than my tunnel vision can often get.

As you say, time is running out, and had we acted faster it would have been so much easier.

I keep hoping for a long term plan to be announced, with a schedule of action, and consultations on solutions, such as action on insulation, and even the phase out of new GCH in 10, 20etc years. But decisions like the recent withdrawal of a mandatory rate for PV export scare me - not the individual actions but the pattern that is forming.

Sorry to mention fracking again, but the two planning decisions at the same time, to restrict on-shore wind, and to 'force' through fracking, seemed odd. Add to that the decision at the same time to scale back the new building regs, one year short of the zero(ish) carbon target, and HPC getting through a 2015 cost review, on-shore wind and PV losing grid side subsidy support, but off-shore wind getting more.

All these measures seem to favour big industry (off-shore wind tends to be backed by big energy), but 'mess up' actions on the smaller scale and individual households ability to maximise potential.

I'm really not sure why what is happening is happening, I don't believe that the Tories are bad/evil folk, so there may be a sound plan in the background. But I suspect they are stalling and hoping that others (countries) act first/faster. Let's just hope all countries don't play the same game of global chicken. [Off-shore wind and the phase out of coal do however buy us some time and kudos points.]

Am I the only one that's getting frustrated because I feel we are so, so close to winning, if we just made a little more effort?

Of course one option consistent with the facts is that they are aware the war is lost on climate change* and thus any tinkering now will make our lives worse without benefiting the nightmare that is the lives of those to come....


*Other civilisation as we know it ending scenarios are available from meteor impact through flu pandemic, antibiotic resistance and AI take over.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Of course one option consistent with the facts is that they are aware the war is lost on climate change* and thus any tinkering now will make our lives worse without benefiting the nightmare that is the lives of those to come....


*Other civilisation as we know it ending scenarios are available from meteor impact through flu pandemic, antibiotic resistance and AI take over.

Blimey that took a dark turn all of a sudden.

Time for a nice sing song to cheer ourselves up.

Actually we all need to rise up in revolution, though my chose of battle anthem suggests I'm getting too old - Great lyrics though!

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The fact that you feel squeezed far enough into a corner to look at options like this displays just how bad I think things have gotten, as clearly this wouldn't be your first choice. I hope that's not a rude assumption, it's simply based on your normal optimistic attitude. In fact, your comments here scare me a bit, as I'll openly admit to trusting your overview as being more 'wide eyed' than my tunnel vision can often get.

Hi

Still full of optimistic vigour, it's simply that optimistic ideas need to be safely delivered within a package that mitigates risk with a reasonable guarantee of success .... unfortunately, the logical path which best addresses the potential risks includes a stable, guaranteed & sufficient supply of gas throughout the transition phase, which almost certainly means that UK gas reserves must be explored & tapped.

HTH
Z

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Am I the only one that's getting frustrated because I feel we are so, so close to winning, if we just made a little more effort?

A hugely interesting debate and like Mart I too feel frustrated at the lack of focus being placed upon the whole renewable sector. Yes, we may have large off shore wind farms and sizeable Solar fields but we by no means lead the world as some of our politicians maintain. We are behind Germany, Australia, Scandinavia and even some parts of the USA, but the current policy of backing away from any form of incentives toward renewables(at least compared to Nuclear) is a major concern. Even in France where nuclear has been king, their leader does at least have a grasp of the situation setting out an ambitious programme of tidal energy generation, even using additional revenue from the sales of FF to assist with it's investment.

I wrote to our local MP asking reassurance that she would back renewable energy where possible with particular regard to new house builds being designed to make the most of solar energy. Sadly all I got back was a statement enphasising that the need for new houses alone outweighed the need for consideration of solar. Apparently the building industry has enough to contend with, without the need for further regulation!

Perhaps she was right as it seems that some major house builders can't even get the sand and cement mix correct with the result that mortar is being blown away between courses of bricks in some modern estates!

If new developments are not designed with solar in mind, preferably in place, then any resulting output would be far less than could otherwise be achieved possibly rendering it unviable in many cases.
It would seem our current leaders are sitting back hoping big business will do it all. All well and good when the finances stack up but if there is to be no visable return on investment then business will show little interest either.
Frustration indeed, but until other viable sources of generation exist on industrial scale then sadly we may need additional sources of gas generation until they do.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry to mention fracking again, but the two planning decisions at the same time, to restrict on-shore wind, and to 'force' through fracking, seemed odd. Add to that the decision at the same time to scale back the new building regs, one year short of the zero(ish) carbon target, and HPC getting through a 2015 cost review, on-shore wind and PV losing grid side subsidy support, but off-shore wind getting more.

With domestic PV it's worse than that, as new individual domestic customers would either have to buy batteries or subsidise big business!


But all of those decisions appear to me to rather give the lie to the thought that encouraging fracking is a strategic decision. What has been achieved is almost in spite of government, and one wonders what could be achieved with a bit of vigorous policy making and political will. This current government in particular makes one consider why they are bothering to be in office at all, given their 'can't do' attitude.


It really is unlike you Z to talk emotionally about grieving relatives, the loss of vulnerable people due to heating issues and costs. We could start by improving housing for a start, and that's a benefit in all scenarios.

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

it's simply that optimistic ideas need to be safely delivered within a package that mitigates risk with a reasonable guarantee of success .... unfortunately, the logical path which best addresses the potential risks includes a stable, guaranteed & sufficient supply of gas throughout the transition phase, which almost certainly means that UK gas reserves must be explored & tapped.

I can remember the last "pea souper" in London. We cleaned up our act a bit after that and I see no reason why government can't nanny state us into stopping burning fossil fuels very quickly.

I understand that the majority of the country are against fracking and would hopefully accept legislation that pushes renewables, better insulation, heat pumps and other energy saving technologies that would mean a swift end to fossil burning and nuclear energy production.

I thought fracking was still losing US companies money?

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Still full of optimistic vigour, it's simply that optimistic ideas need to be safely delivered within a package that mitigates risk with a reasonable guarantee of success .... unfortunately, the logical path which best addresses the potential risks includes a stable, guaranteed & sufficient supply of gas throughout the transition phase, which almost certainly means that UK gas reserves must be explored & tapped.

HTH
Z

But, and I'm not being rude, nor combative, but your statement above only works if fracking in the UK is a success, and the government still works as hard as possible to reduce the use of nat-gas.

If, as I believe, a pro fracking policy is rolled out, then we will see a negative impact on policies to reduce/eliminate nat-gas as soon as possible.

But, even worse than that is my other belief that UK fracking will fail to be a technical/economic success. If that happens, then your statement works completely against fracking - "it's simply that optimistic ideas need to be safely delivered within a package that mitigates risk with a reasonable guarantee of success" but I do appreciate that your later words "which almost certainly means that UK gas reserves must be explored & tapped." does provide for my concerns.

In the nicest way possible, I do hope you are wrong, and that policies are rolled out that eliminate the need for a pro-fracking policy, but sadly, I have a feeling you may be right.

I think this year I'll try to keep an eye out for news articles that feature bio-gas, gas storage, gas (space heating) reductions etc etc, and perhaps the more efficient use of H2 as a storage medium for excess leccy generation, as that might cross-subsidise issues on the space heating side.

The article I mentioned on Sweden developing apartment blocks with PV and H2 storage for leccy and heating needs is a promising development, but the UK would need to build more efficient buildings, and shift away from the money making detached properties that seem very popular with developers.

zeupater

Hi

Yes, but there's a difference between what's possible and what can be delivered within what are pretty tight timescales ....

We simply can't argue about not needing gas as the transition energy source because it's what's being expanded as the transition energy source ... effectively it's a case that gas will need to be extracted from somewhere, so what we're discussing is national nimbyism ....

If the shale gas that's found is of poor quality or economically unviable to extract then so be it, but not looking 'just in case' is a really poor strategy, in terms that we're used to it would be akin to banning the development of EVs because they are too expensive to build, have little supporting infrastructure and no proof that there's enough demand to warrant doing anything ...

What is known is that decarbonising the economy will lead to increased maximum demand for electricity as the transition phase plays out ... I quite like the idea of a wellhead with a generating facility to one side and a connection to the gas mains on the other, all within a short distance from major centres of demand ... there's nothing to prevent a semi-mobile solution to be used to ensure that dismantling the transition infrastructure is straightforward when it needs to be removed either!

HTH
Z

zeupater

Hi

Looks like electricity carbon intensity will be low for a while ... at 19:10 the UK's metered wind generation was 12.03GW & rising ... <link> ...

HTH
Z