Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

But it was fun while it lasted.:) Sadly though we can't actually claim that all the energy used in this period was produced coal free according to Liam Stoker of Current +- :

According to figures available via Drax’s Electric Insights tool, imports accounted for an average of 3.2GW of power each day in the week commencing 26 May 2019, around 11% of the country’s daily average demand.

EnAppSys’ data suggests that during the UK’s coal-free fortnight, the Netherlands produced some 535.8GWh of power from coal-fired plants. When taking into account the Netherlands’ exports to Britain (7.8%), the company assumes that around 40.4GWh of Dutch coal-fired generation aided the UK’s coal-free record.

That shouldn't take away credit from Britains Energy generators but does underline that we've a long, long way to go yet.



https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/more-frequent-coal-free-fortnights-to-be-driven-by-gb-carbon-taxes-coal-fired-imports

Hexane

Nuclear: Energy bills 'used to subsidise submarines'
"Prof Andy Stirling from Sussex argues that one reason the government is willing to burden householders with the expense of nuclear energy is because it underpins the supply chain and skills base for firms such as Rolls Royce and Babcock that work on nuclear submarines."

“The accelerating competitiveness of renewable energy and declining viability of nuclear power are making this continuing dependency increasingly difficult to conceal.”

"It was once forecast that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. But it's clear now that bill-payers will give price support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear station at a cost of £92.50 per megawatt hour, compared with £55 for offshore wind."

Interesting to see that the highest-rated comments are all dismissing the researchers' views. UK public opinion is strange.

Coastalwatch

Canadian company claim 80 -100% recycling of Li-ion batteries, which if true and economical should certainly help to allay fears/arguments posed by many doubters/opponents!


https://www.energy-storage.news/news/canadas-li-cycle-claims-100-materials-recovery-commercially-acheivable

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

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

No sorry, there is no mistake. You said the UK is responsible for 1% of CO2 emissions, that's correct it is.

The historic records show that the UK is responsible for approx 5% of CO2 emissions, that's correct too.

The error, was in you taking current annual UK CO2 emissions of 1%, and applying that figure to all historic CO2 emissions (the growth from 260ppm to 400ppm's (actually about 410ppm)).

Personally I don't doubt the experts on the issue of AGW, it's probably the most researched subject ever, and all of the leaked info from the deniers, such as Exxon, from their research in the 80's, also came to the same conclusions.

1961Nick wrote: »

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.

But I don't see any reality behind statements such as that. What do you mean?

We know the cost of not acting is greater than the cost of acting. We now have RE generation matching FF generation on cost before we include externalities such as AGW and pollution (NHS costs).

Why don't we start with your BEV example, as they are now roughly the same cost (TCO total cost of ownership) as an ICE vehicle when all costs are considered, so where is this cost you talk about. If it's the BEV grant, then that's relatively small and will reduce further.

As BEV's (and especially batts) fall in price, maintenace costs are low, and life expectancies grow, the 'cost' of a BEV will be less than that of today's ICE's, so where is the cost*?

*By cost I'm interested in additional marginal costs, not like for like expenditure as we are simply fooling ourselves if we count the cost of a wind farm, or a BEV as extra costs.

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

Nuclear: Energy bills 'used to subsidise submarines'
"Prof Andy Stirling from Sussex argues that one reason the government is willing to burden householders with the expense of nuclear energy is because it underpins the supply chain and skills base for firms such as Rolls Royce and Babcock that work on nuclear submarines."

This will be blatant nuclear bashing, but as always let me stress I'm bashing it on economics and timescale.

The article mentions RR, so here's a reminder of their small modular reactor brochure:

Small Modular Reactors - once in a
lifetime opportunity for the UK

It's a nice brochure, lots of jobs for the UK etc etc ..... if we sell any!

RR hopes that generation costs will fall to £65/MWh by 2035, that's more than PV and on-shore wind today, and more than off-shore wind contracts for 2023.

To get to that price however, they've estimated the need to subsidise/sell approx 5GW of SMR's which will bring costs down to HPC levels (approx £100/MWh), then more sales to go lower.

The brochure optimistically suggests a worldwide market of 65-85GW by 2035, but to put that in context PV today can match that (in generation) from the 500GWp already deployed, a figure we might deploy every 3yrs or so going forwards.

So why would UK Gov invest in SMRs when RE is a much better bet both in financial and job creation terms?

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not very impressed with this:

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

And it seems I'm not alone, as the article title has already been changed, and No 10 has criticised the claim:

No 10 denies claim by chancellor that emissions target will cost UK £1tn

And just to stress again my point about additional spending v's just a shift in spending, we have:

“There are a lot of figures out there on this issue that don’t factor in the benefits or consider the costs of not doing this,” she said.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No sorry, there is no mistake. You said the UK is responsible for 1% of CO2 emissions, that's correct it is.

The historic records show that the UK is responsible for approx 5% of CO2 emissions, that's correct too.

The error, was in you taking current annual UK CO2 emissions of 1%, and applying that figure to all historic CO2 emissions (the growth from 260ppm to 400ppm's (actually about 410ppm)).

Personally I don't doubt the experts on the issue of AGW, it's probably the most researched subject ever, and all of the leaked info from the deniers, such as Exxon, from their research in the 80's, also came to the same conclusions.




But I don't see any reality behind statements such as that. What do you mean?

We know the cost of not acting is greater than the cost of acting. We now have RE generation matching FF generation on cost before we include externalities such as AGW and pollution (NHS costs).

Why don't we start with your BEV example, as they are now roughly the same cost (TCO total cost of ownership) as an ICE vehicle when all costs are considered, so where is this cost you talk about. If it's the BEV grant, then that's relatively small and will reduce further.

As BEV's (and especially batts) fall in price, maintenace costs are low, and life expectancies grow, the 'cost' of a BEV will be less than that of today's ICE's, so where is the cost*?

*By cost I'm interested in additional marginal costs, not like for like expenditure as we are simply fooling ourselves if we count the cost of a wind farm, or a BEV as extra costs.

The difference Martin is that I’m living in the present not the past.

I don’t actually know that the cost of not acting on CC is greater & neither do you. It could turn out that we would have spent the money much more wisely dealing with the consequences of CC rather than trying to prevent it. You seem to have the view that we should chase ‘zero’ regardless of cost...that could turn out to be an expensive folly.

It’s easy to make sensationalist headlines about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. But you could also argue that 260ppm is dangerously close to the minimum amount of carbon needed to sustain plant life. The consequences of that would be dire for animal life on the planet & make a 1m rise in sea level seem inconsequential.

I’m not against measures to reduce CC, just against going it alone & making this country uncompetitive in the process. While ever the measures required to tackle it are mired in politics, taxation & self interest, we won’t have a globally coordinated solution. Until we do, the sensible path would be to proceed ...but with caution.

You’re wrong about the current economics of BEVs. The lifetime cost of one for a high mileage user (the ones that make the CO2) is close to double that of an equivalent ICE vehicle. By comparison, it makes my Pylontechs look like a wise investment!!

Going to sleep now & will continue tomorrow if required....:)

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The difference Martin is that I’m living in the present not the past.

I'm sorry I don't understand that statement. This started with you using the UK's current emissions of about 1% of annual global emissions, and then wrongly applying that to all historic ('the past') emissions by saying we are therefore responsible for 1% of the additional CO2. But that is a false statement based on a mistake / wrong assumption.

The UK's historic emissions amount to 5% of global CO2 emissions. I'm not living in the past, I'm simply correcting the claim you made that we are only responsible for 1% of the increase in cumulative of CO2 based (wrongly) on present one year figures.

Once we have the correct figure, your position that we have little responsibility falls apart. But, even if it was only 1%, the UK having 1% of the world's population would still surely need to act and do its share.

1961Nick wrote: »

I don’t actually know that the cost of not acting on CC is greater & neither do you. It could turn out that we would have spent the money much more wisely dealing with the consequences of CC rather than trying to prevent it. You seem to have the view that we should chase ‘zero’ regardless of cost...that could turn out to be an expensive folly.

Firstly I think we do know the cost of not acting, as the science is solid on this, and the cost is horrific.

Secondly, you are falsely misrepresenting me on this issue, I have never said we should do this regardless of cost, I've been quite clear that I believe (like the scientific world and most governments now) that the cost of action is less than the cost of inaction.

Thirdly, as I've repeatedly stated, I believe that much of this cost is actually an investment, such as spending on LED lamps or insulation, there are costs, but as No.10 responded to Mr Hammond, there are also benefits.

1961Nick wrote: »

It’s easy to make sensationalist headlines about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. But you could also argue that 260ppm is dangerously close to the minimum amount of carbon needed to sustain plant life. The consequences of that would be dire for animal life on the planet & make a 1m rise in sea level seem inconsequential.

I've no idea why you think CO2 figures are 'sensationalism', we know that the planet had found equilibrium for nearly a million years with only a small fluctuation between 200 & 280 ppm of CO2. That seems to me to be pretty solid evidence.

As to your plant life argument, that is drifting dangerously close to the denial argument that CO2 is 'plant food' and is therefore a good thing. Can I suggest you do some Googling on this issue, especially the reduced nutritional value of rice crops grown in higher CO2 concentrations, and the potential impact on feeding billions of people.

Given that animals and plants were doing fine at the pre-industrial CO2 levels, but millions of species now face extinction, I simply have to dismiss your last sentence as a complete falsehood.

1961Nick wrote: »

You’re wrong about the current economics of BEVs. The lifetime cost of one for a high mileage user (the ones that make the CO2) is close to double that of an equivalent ICE vehicle. By comparison, it makes my Pylontechs look like a wise investment!!

You will need to supply a citation backing this up as I've never heard that claim before, in fact quite the opposite with all of the recent information now pointing to BEV's having a lower TCO than an ICE, whilst PHEV's have a slightly higher cost.

Here's a detailed comparison of the Tesla Model 3 v's the BMW 330i over 5yrs of short, medium and high mileage use. Not only is the BEV cheaper, but the cost savings actually get greater for high mileage users, seemingly debunking your claim. Also note that those calcs are based on petrol costing about £5/gall in the US, where as it's closer to £6/gall in the UK.

And back to my point about costs v's investment, if the BEV works out cheaper in the long run, then even a higher initial price is simply an investment, not a true cost of going low carbon, since the low carbon option actually has a lower long term cost.

The same applies to the UK going low carbon, where the long term expenditure is less than that of not acting, so the cost is negative in real terms, debunking Hammond's misleading position.

1961Nick wrote: »

Going to sleep now & will continue tomorrow if required....

But I don't see the point of continuing if you are only going to keep making un-referenced and false claims that go against the scientific position.

We should be discussing green and ethical issues, not trying to undermine them with old and debunked arguments.

Coastalwatch

Coastalwatch wrote: »

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

The article below from National Grid sheds a timely light on our recent musings!
It's certainly an interesting, and for me, an exciting period in the journey of mankind during his time on this planet. I can't wait to experience the transition from FF to clean renewable energies especially as it seems to be growing at a pace.:)


Are we still allowed to get excited at our age.;)



https://www.current-news.co.uk/blogs/the-coal-free-system-behind-the-scenes-at-national-grids-fortnight-without-coal

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand that statement. This started with you using the UK's current emissions of about 1% of annual global emissions, and then wrongly applying that to all historic ('the past') emissions by saying we are therefore responsible for 1% of the additional CO2. But that is a false statement based on a mistake / wrong assumption.

The UK's historic emissions amount to 5% of global CO2 emissions. I'm not living in the past, I'm simply correcting the claim you made that we are only responsible for 1% of the increase in cumulative of CO2 based (wrongly) on present one year figures.

Once we have the correct figure, your position that we have little responsibility falls apart. But, even if it was only 1%, the UK having 1% of the world's population would still surely need to act and do its share.




Firstly I think we do know the cost of not acting, as the science is solid on this, and the cost is horrific.

Secondly, you are falsely misrepresenting me on this issue, I have never said we should do this regardless of cost, I've been quite clear that I believe (like the scientific world and most governments now) that the cost of action is less than the cost of inaction.

Thirdly, as I've repeatedly stated, I believe that much of this cost is actually an investment, such as spending on LED lamps or insulation, there are costs, but as No.10 responded to Mr Hammond, there are also benefits.



I've no idea why you think CO2 figures are 'sensationalism', we know that the planet had found equilibrium for nearly a million years with only a small fluctuation between 200 & 280 ppm of CO2. That seems to me to be pretty solid evidence.

As to your plant life argument, that is drifting dangerously close to the denial argument that CO2 is 'plant food' and is therefore a good thing. Can I suggest you do some Googling on this issue, especially the reduced nutritional value of rice crops grown in higher CO2 concentrations, and the potential impact on feeding billions of people.

Given that animals and plants were doing fine at the pre-industrial CO2 levels, but millions of species now face extinction, I simply have to dismiss your last sentence as a complete falsehood.




You will need to supply a citation backing this up as I've never heard that claim before, in fact quite the opposite with all of the recent information now pointing to BEV's having a lower TCO than an ICE, whilst PHEV's have a slightly higher cost.

Here's a detailed comparison of the Tesla Model 3 v's the BMW 330i over 5yrs of short, medium and high mileage use. Not only is the BEV cheaper, but the cost savings actually get greater for high mileage users, seemingly debunking your claim. Also note that those calcs are based on petrol costing about £5/gall in the US, where as it's closer to £6/gall in the UK.

And back to my point about costs v's investment, if the BEV works out cheaper in the long run, then even a higher initial price is simply an investment, not a true cost of going low carbon, since the low carbon option actually has a lower long term cost.

The same applies to the UK going low carbon, where the long term expenditure is less than that of not acting, so the cost is negative in real terms, debunking Hammond's misleading position.




But I don't see the point of continuing if you are only going to keep making un-referenced and false claims that go against the scientific position.

We should be discussing green and ethical issues, not trying to undermine them with old and debunked arguments.

The difference between us Martin, is that I don't carry any guilt for what we may have done in the past. That's history as far as I am concerned & we cannot change it.

We contribute 1% to current global emissions & that figure is decreasing as global economic activity increases. Whatever we do, our actions cannot therefore amount to any more than a fairy insignificant 1%....assuming we can get to zero.

Your assertions about the cost of the UK not going "low carbon" mystify me. How can this be true if 99% of the carbon in our atmosphere originates elsewhere? This is the sort of nonsense you normally hear from our politicians...usually when they want to increase tax on something.

I have nothing against being "green & ethical", but I'm not going to be blinkered about the impact we can make. The biggest difference will come by virtue of the fact that FF are running out. That will force us to turn to renewables & probably hydrogen as a high density liquid fuel for energy storage. When we have a viable solution to the energy storage problem, a future with 100% renewable energy is likely....and desirable.

I don't need a scientific citation for my comments about BEVs. I last changed my car 2 years ago & they were the numbers at that time. Admittedly the Tesla Model 3 (Performance pack) brings those numbers closer, but a diesel is still considerably cheaper for me at the moment. I will make the change to electric when the numbers get closer to parity. A charging point in the car park I use would help that decision as well!

Btw, 420ppm is well below the optimum for plant life as a whole.