Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

silverwhistle wrote: »

16 days now. My domestic monitor (silver birch and PV ) still looking good.
Anybody care to hazard a guess as to how long this particular run will go on for?

An interesting question and one I've been musing over as well.

I have no idea how the decision to switch coal on or off is arrived at or, what conditions must prevail in order for it being pressed into service. Is it merely down to economics as opposed to climate change or perhaps a combination of both.
Either way, considering recent news topics, I can't help but chuckle how timely it all is, coincidence or not!:D

silverwhistle

More musings.


On Sunday night we had a power cut for 7 hours after something in the local substation went bang. We've still got a generator providing the electricity for the local circuit. At the moment my solar is heating water but at one stage yesterday afternoon I was exporting almost 2.5kW. Presumably the lorry mounted generator adjusts its output to deal with varying (net) demand and they probably keep a record of output.



I wonder what lessons they've learnt about the impact of embedded generation from these situations: useful little undergraduate engineering research project?

Martyn1981

More news on hydrogen production/storage and Australia exporting 'sunshine' to Japan and S. Korea.

Renewable hydrogen getting cheaper, Australia could lead global market

Some of Australia’s leading energy experts say that renewable hydrogen is beginning to reach cost parity with some fossil fuel equivalents, and can emerge as a high potential export industry for Australia – with tens of billions of dollars – as technology costs continue to tumble.

A joint briefing held on Wednesday by experts from CSIRO, the Australian National University, and Monash University explored how Australia is ideally placed to take advantage of growing global demand for low or zero emissions hydrogen fuel, and falling technology costs that is allowing hydrogen to emerge as a cost-competitive and zero emissions fuel alternative.

Martyn1981

All good things must come to an end.

A teeny weeny amount of coal gen came back on line after setting a new coal free record of 18 days and 6 hours. Now, on to the next record!

UK's record coal free-run comes to an end

Martyn1981

Not very impressed with this:

Cutting UK emissions to net zero would cost £1tn, says Hammond

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has warned Theresa May that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero could cost the country £1tn and lead to industries becoming “economically uncompetitive” without government subsidies.

In a letter to the prime minister, he said the 2050 net zero target – one of the most far-reaching proposed in the world – would mean less money for schools, the NHS and police forces, the Financial Times reported. The target has the backing of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the government’s advisory panel.

Shirley, business' would only become uncompetitive if we are the only ones taking action? So long as a majority, or just a sizeable minority act, then 'carbon tariffs' can be deployed to balance things up.

It goes on to explain that petrol and diesel cars will have to be banned and lots of charging points for EV's rolled out - Yes, of course, isn't that already the plan, and won't it happen anyway.

And we'll need to spend money on insulation ...... REALLY .... what to reduce energy consumption and energy bills?

Then there's the added cost of replacing gas boilers, since none will need replacing by 2050 if we don't decarbonize? And it ignores the possibility of non-FF gas in the future.

Is the government starting point here really the cost of action, instead of the cost of inaction which we now accept is unimaginably high.

I'd like to know what the externality costs of FF usage would be up to 2050.

silverwhistle

Yes, I've just read that with exactly the same thoughts. I also thought "getting your excuses in early" and "giving up before you've even started"..

pile-o-stone

This comes as no surprise to me at all. Hammond is one of the biggest cheerleader for the Status Quo. That's why he's such a prominent remainer - he doesn't voice any positive argument for staying in the EU, he is just fearful of any change and so pushes the same alarmist, negative project fear doomster reason for remain.

If we were back in the 1980s, he'd be arguing for us keeping coal powered energy generators. Why does UK politics attract these grey, unimaginative and fearful people?

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not very impressed with this:

Cutting UK emissions to net zero would cost £1tn, says Hammond



Shirley, business' would only become uncompetitive if we are the only ones taking action? So long as a majority, or just a sizeable minority act, then 'carbon tariffs' can be deployed to balance things up.

It goes on to explain that petrol and diesel cars will have to be banned and lots of charging points for EV's rolled out - Yes, of course, isn't that already the plan, and won't it happen anyway.

And we'll need to spend money on insulation ...... REALLY .... what to reduce energy consumption and energy bills?

Then there's the added cost of replacing gas boilers, since none will need replacing by 2050 if we don't decarbonize? And it ignores the possibility of non-FF gas in the future.

Is the government starting point here really the cost of action, instead of the cost of inaction which we now accept is unimaginably high.

I'd like to know what the externality costs of FF usage would be up to 2050.

£1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

£1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).

I'm not sure what your argument is. The problem isn't +1.4ppm, but the whole, and if we are part of the problem, then we have a responsibly to be part of the solution. Plus the UK has 1% of the world's population so even at 1% of (current) emissions that confirms our responsibility, it doesn't excuse it?

The cost of not acting is far greater, and historically the UK was the greatest emitter of CO2 until 1911 when the US overtook us, but we are still in 3rd or 4th place (depending on whether India has now caught us up). [Edit - according to that chart the UK is responsible for 5% of global CO2 emissions in total. Taking population into account we are just a tiny fraction behind the US, and nearly 9x worse than China. M.]

See the third chart.

But the point I was trying to make is that much of that £1tn 'cost' seems to just be normal spending (a BEV instead of an ICE, RE leccy instead of coal/gas leccy), not additional spending.

And, at the end of the day, FF's will run out, so we have to do it anyway, so not additional spending.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm not sure what your argument is. The problem isn't +1.4ppm, but the whole, and if we are part of the problem, then we have a responsibly to be part of the solution. Plus the UK has 1% of the world's population so even at 1% of (current) emissions that confirms our responsibility, it doesn't excuse it?

The cost of not acting is far greater, and historically the UK was the greatest emitter of CO2 until 1911 when the US overtook us, but we are still in 3rd or 4th place (depending on whether India has now caught us up). [Edit - according to that chart the UK is responsible for 5% of global CO2 emissions in total. Taking population into account we are just a tiny fraction behind the US, and nearly 9x worse than China. M.]

See the third chart.

But the point I was trying to make is that much of that £1tn 'cost' seems to just be normal spending (a BEV instead of an ICE, RE leccy instead of coal/gas leccy), not additional spending.

And, at the end of the day, FF's will run out, so we have to do it anyway, so not additional spending.

One expert says 1% , another says 4%....that really goes to show how little we actually know about the climate & our impact on it.

My point is that we have to be careful not to go too hard at carbon reduction & price ourselves out of the market. If we do that, we won't have an economy that can support widescale adoption of BEVs etc.