Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

silverwhistle

There's only so much one can do on a pension of <1200 a month but I've managed to get PV panels and my import is just over 1100kWh a year. My gas import is similar (estimated 1,040 kWh p.a.). I might even not replace the gas boiler when it gives up the ghost.



My view is that there is a bigger cost to _not_ being green and I'll do what I can. Next car I hope to raid savings to get an EV, but the current one is only 10 years old, so maybe another 2+ years down the line. I hope to install a MHRV unit to my bathroom and replace the draughty back door, and other incremental changes I can afford.



The problem is that at the moment we have a government so concerned about other matters and incompetent to boot that they seem to be actively hampering. So expecting people to get PV and exporting for _no_ return, not allowing land based wind, raising VAT on energy saving goods, not setting the regulatory environment so that pumped storage can get a return, allowing fracking which is unpopular with the public in our crowded islands, going for the option of nuclear even as costs and delays escalated.



Many of us have dipped our hands in our pockets, and we're not necessarily the ones with the deepest pockets. It would be nice if some of the load were taken by those who do and that's where government comes in.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

In the near future when we have bear AI

Wait.... what?!?

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

People don't look at TCO they look at how much per month, often only for the finance ignoring insurance, fuel, road tax etc.

I am also more of a believer in how do people choose to spend their money rather than what they say to surveys. And I see people continuing to fly abroad on holidays, buy fossil cars and fitting gas heating boilers

But I was just pointing out that what you said doesn't appear to be true. Reduced energy consumption and energy bills isn't a hit on standards of living. Cheaper overall transport costs with BEV's is less not more. And disagreeing with 'all' surveys on peoples support of renewables and renewable financing isn't exactly a strong argument.

With regard to people still flying, buying ICEV's and installing GCH, I' not sure your point? Do you expect a sudden and instant switch? I'd expect a trend shifting over time, as is already happening (slowly) with BEV's in the UK, as total vehicle sales fall, but BEV sales rise (up 150% July 19 v's July 18), and hopefully a move to bio-fuels with air travel if international policies push us in that direction.

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

This is yours and Marts hobby

Consider yourself very fortunate if you have a stable family and stable income and stable heath phsycial and mental. Sadly most people don't have all of the above certainly not all of the time.

If you're a diabetic above to lose a foot how much time do you dedicate to considering the merits of hear pumps?

If one of your two kids isn't coming home until after midnight and spending their time on gangs how much time do you dedicate to shopping for a green gas supplier

If your marriage is days away from failure how much time and effort do you put into finding better paid work so as to afford an EV

A man needs a hobby and this is yours and Marts hobby and good on you spend time energy money on your hobby it doesn't have to be a return on investment calculation. Some guys buy fast cars it's their hobby. Some pay thousands to watch a dozen men chase a leather ball. Some spend 2h a day every day in the gym. It's your hobby go nuts.

But don't ask the state to make your hobby a positive return on investment for you (this is a general statement not a statement to you)


Anyway none of you need to worry
Irrespective of what we do the fossil fuel ' problem ' will be solved with software

We will get AI this century, probably before 2050 and once that is here everything is free
We either go the way if the dodo or we enter a stage of economics where whatever we want however massive or difficult a task is basically free and very rapidly (a 8 year nuclear build might take 8 months with AI. A 30 year wind/PV deployment might only take 30 months with AI)

I was with you up to the last paragraph. When nuclear power was first proposed it was predicted it would be too cheap to be worth metering.

AI: If the materials of consumer life are almost free then weapons of mass destruction will be near free to states. No matter how much AI we have, the real problem will always be humans.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry Mart but as you are the arbiter of all things green I do find it surprising that you are not personally putting into practice what you preach. I am not talking about shifting en masse but individuals, such as yourself, who are so vocal about AGW maybe should be leading by example. I am not suggesting you are another Emma Thompson but you have been vocal in arguing against batteries on the basis they are not economical and you don’t have an EV. The only person making those decisions is Mart - not Big Oil, not Big Auto. If it doesn’t stack up financially then you aren’t going to go there no matter how much it will help the planet.

I've never claimed to be the arbiter of all things green. I'm not sure why my opinions (and those on the left) upset you so, whilst you seem to be arguing against green issues, and supportive of those on here who are negative.

I believe I have led by example, despite your dismissive comments. I added a WNW PV array as I felt my system didn't support consumption patterns fully. I set up the PV FAQ's to help pay it forward (FiT receipts) to others, and to use some of my free time to offer help and assistance to those interested in PV. I have lots of small investments in green schemes. I have fairly low energy consumption.

Can I ask why you think I should do more, just because I love chatting about renewables and fully accept the science of AGW? Your 'placing the blame' on me, is a common pro-FF strawman argument.

With regard to BEV's, as already explained we simply don't have the money at the moment, and I'm not sure there is (yet) a suitable BEV, though a 5yr old Tesla Model Y (let's say 7-8yrs from now) would be great. We recently considered and discussed a van conversion (Peugeot Partner), but with a 60 mile range, and slow charging, it wouldn't work for Wifey who makes a lot of 100+ mile trips [not optional as they relate to NDCS weekend volunteering.]

Regarding batteries, I'm surprised you would raise this! Perhaps you want to cause diversion, disruption, or hope I say something negative. I think my position has been clearly stated many times and not open to criticism. I will get some when I can afford them, and in doing so I believe I'm benefiting the environment. At the moment my money is better invested in RE schemes, and my leccy set free in the wild to decarbonise my neighbours. Batteries will (not may) have a huge beneficial impact on RE, and I fully support those that already have them, as early adopters are important.

JKenH wrote: »

You want policies to make it easier to go green, i.e. you want me and 31m other taxpayers to subsidise a green lifestyle for you? How do you sell that to all the tenants of flats who have no hope of benefitting from green measures for solar, EVs etc?

Not for me, for all. Your repeated attempts to attack RE and RE policies by attacking me seem odd.

Everyone will benefit from fighting air pollution and AGW. Your 'flat tenants' argument is a strawman. Again I simply don't understand why my support of RE is bringing out all these old and false arguments from you. Why can't we discuss green energy issues, not waste time on what is steadily turning into RE bashing from you, and comments about the left who support action on AGW.

JKenH wrote: »

Are you saying keeping the price of EVs high iand the supply low is a conspiracy on the part of Big Auto?

Not a conspiracy, simply them wanting to retain profits by building simple ICEV's, rather than addressing fuel consumption and emissions.

You may not be aware of this, but in the US Tesla is blocked from selling cars directly to customers in many states. This is due to Big Auto's actions in getting State legislation passed/enforced. Due to their abuse of dealerships in the past (selling rights to too many), laws were set up to protect dealerships and state that manufacturers have to sell through their dealerships. Tesla got round this by the simple fact they don't have dealerships, so the legislation was changed from 'their dealerships' to just 'dealerships'.

Tesla's share price has been assualted this year by shorting. Tesla has for a while now been the most shorted stock in the US by percentage, but recently became the most shorted by value, overtaking Apple at ~$10bn, but crucially ~1% of Apple stock is shorted, whilst ~35% of Tesla is. As shorting increased, Tesla's share price drops, and this can impact on fund raising, and therefore expansion. I'm not convinced that this definitely is a 'conspiracy', but much of the US (supportive) commentary on Tesla raises concerns over the simply vast amount of negative coverage the company gets.

Read any decent articles on BEV's v's ICE and you will note that the money for dealerships is in the servicing and maintenance, and sales of new cars as the old ones wear out. The minimal need for servicing, and long life expectancies for BEV's is very bad news for Big Auto and their dealers.

JKenH wrote: »

You can’t realistically compare Big Oil with Big Tobacco? Tobacco is an addiction. What has tobacco done for our standard of living? Using oil (and gas) is either a choice or a necessity depending on how committed you are to being green and ethical.

You seem to be trying to misrepresent my comments. I have openly accepted and praised the benefits of Ff consumption, but once we realised that the true cost was far higher than we'd realised, we needed to change direction. Support for action in the 80's was positive, and had we acted then, we would now be in a much better position. However Big Oil, despite knowing that the science on AGW was correct (Exxon internal reports from that time confirmed AGW was real and serious) ran or financed enormous campaigning against the reality of AGW and science.

So like Big Tobacco, Big Oil, in a defence of their profits, have lied about the true impacts of their product.

Your apparent insistence on raising the issue(s) of FF benefits is irrelevant to the point I made.

JKenH wrote: »

I don’t normally respond quite so aggressively but if you are going to suggest my post constitutes “silliness” then a slightly more robust response was warranted. I know you are a good guy but you give everyone who doesn’t see the world quite like you do such a hard time. You are the lifeblood of this forum and I know you are passionate about AGW but for those of us less perfect please just cut us a bit of slack and not respond to every post as though we are casting aspersions on your parentage.

As always I will allow you the last word.

Ken

Sorry, from what I see, I (and others) strongly disagree with the anti-RE position of one poster. Your comments about me, seem to be entirely an attempt by you to support his position. You cannot do so based on facts and science, so have instead knocked/insulted facts, and instead pushed opinions.

Your 'silliness' was to raise the tired, old, pro-FF, anti-RE argument that unless everyone who supports RE has done everything you demand, then their views are not relevant. I have no issues with how 'prefect' you or others are, and have never placed myself above you - it is you (not I) that keeps bringing up my individual actions, and repeatedly attempted to knock me for not doing more. Perhaps you could tone that down a bit (cut me some slack).

Perhaps you could stop questioning my actions, and supporting anti-RE opinions, and instead allow us to return to discussing RE issues in the news.

Martyn1981

Article on the impacts of FF emissions on health. Hopefully the UK (and all others) will shift/accelerate policies that promote green energy and BEV's. I think we are so close now to tipping into disruption territory, just need a bit more government support. Just a change to government policy ending ICE sales by 2030 would help accelerate change today, I believe.

Hitting clean air targets 'could stop 67,000 child asthma cases a year'

In total the team’s estimates encompassed more than 63.4 million children.

According to WHO guidelines, levels of PM2.5 should not exceed an annual average of 10 μg/m3, and levels of NO2 should not exceed an annual average of 40 μg/m3.

The new study suggests that, if the 18 countries in the study were to stay within these limits for PM2.5, 66,600 new cases of childhood asthma, accounting for 11% of new diagnoses, would be prevented each year, about 10,400 of which would be in the UK. Around 2,400 new cases would be prevented each year across the 18 countries if WHO limits for NO2 were not exceeded.

Advertisement
The team found even greater effects when they set air pollution levels to the lowest ever recorded in studies – a sort of “background measure” which was recorded in Germany for PM2.5 and in Norway for NO2. The estimates suggest a third of new childhood asthma cases – around 190,000 a year – would be prevented if PM2.5 fell to such levels across the 18 countries, and 23% of cases would be prevented if NO2 was reduced to its lowest recorded levels.

“It is not really realistic at the moment to get down to these levels, but it just gives an [estimate of] how many cases actually may be attributable to [these pollutants],” Nieuwenhuijsen said.

pile-o-stone

GreatApe wrote: »

Nobody asked for your life story, arbiter of truth and goodness

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry Mart but as you are the arbiter of all things green

Very interesting.... :think:

GreatApe

buglawton wrote: »

I was with you up to the last paragraph. When nuclear power was first proposed it was predicted it would be too cheap to be worth metering.

Where is the evidence for this?
Which nuclear vendors said they would build and sell nuclear power stations at prices too cheap to bother metering them? Or was it a comment made by some tom !!!! and Harry and not an actual nuclear vendor?

AI: If the materials of consumer life are almost free then weapons of mass destruction will be near free to states. No matter how much AI we have, the real problem will always be humans.

Well the AI itself will be a weapon of mass destruction the chances of us surviving in our current form are probably low. If we don't make it then there's nothing for us to worry about. If we do make it we have the ability of gods

EricMears

JKenH wrote: »

I have spent four of the last six days travelling on heritage railways and would be very sad if they are forced to close because all the mines are shut down.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/07/steam-trains-could-die-government-crackdown-coal-heritage-railway/

It seems somewhat of an over-reaction to suggest that heritage railways would have to close just because UK power stations will stop using coal ! As the quote from a government spokesman said at the end of the telegraph article : "They will be able to continue to source coal either through domestic suppliers or imports." That might mean that alternative sources of coal will become dearer although there's an equally valid argument to suggest that reduced demand for coal would see prices dropping.

But a steam locomotive doesn't have to use coal. With a few minor adjustments to the grate, loco boilers could be adapted to burn other fuels. Gas or oil would be the easiest to arrange but that wouldn't be very 'green'. Logs, wood chips or even straw could be used to heat a boiler. Coal was of course the only practical fuel for long distance running but heritage railways aren't usually more than a few miles long. A London to Edinburgh run could probably be done on one tenderful of coal (or possibly a couple of quick stops to top up ?) but would probably need ten tenderloads of wood chips; chugging down a couple of miles & back would easily be accomplished on one load (indeed several successive trips like that probably wouldn't need a refuelling break).

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Very interesting.... :think:

I'd suggest putting him on ignore just in case

Sorry JKenH