Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As I recall it, it was you, not me that brought up the historical CO2 emissions, and I simply assumed it was an error (you stating 1% not 5%) but when I gave you a link to the correct 5% figure you responded with the anti-AGW argument (lie) that 'scientists don't agree'.

You're getting all 'historical' again Mart.....The UK's current contribution to global CO2 is 1% & falling

And I've no idea why you persist with this bankrupting nonsense. RE subsidies have tumbled, BEV's are getting affordable, RE employs more people, and dare I say, clean air is a nice thing, so spending suitable amounts of money seems to have no downside.

A reference to your obsession with the UK's 'historical' CO2 emissions.

thevilla

"For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks."

Just saying

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I personally see this is a strength not a problem. We all have different financial circumstances and so some people can be early adopters and some can't. The early adopters post on here with their experience and it helps the rest of us to make informed purchasing decisions once the tech falls to the price levels we can afford.

I'd also say that I'd change your comment to "we could do more but for financial reasons we cannot do" (choice may not come into it, not all of us have high levels of disposable income).

Speaking of which, I received an unexpected bonus at work and so I extended my solar array with an additional 1.5kw of solar. I do not get any FIT or export payments for this and will probably not see a return on my investment for years (if ever). I don't care, I have an aim where I want to reduce my carbon footprint and this helps me.

While I currently can't afford any more solar panels (I have a planned solar pergola in mind) and I can't afford an EV, I can afford to buy some fruit trees and plant them in the garden, I can afford to build some raised beds and created an allotment, both of which I am currently doing. In the grand scheme of things, they're a drop in the ocean, but from a personal level I am continuing to reduce my carbon footprint and I am slowly becoming part of the solution not the problem.

You might actually get something for the extra solar PV you produce under the Smart Export Guarantee starting in January if you go for metered export. (Sorry, you probably were aware of that.)

Like you I want to add some more panels but still haven’t had clearance from my DNO for the ones I have already. I also want to add a battery. I had been hoping to get them before the VAT rate changes end of next month but that now seems unlikely. As I am unlikely to benefit from metered export the panels might have quite a long payback - probably not even in my lifetime.

We all have our own reasons for doing things. My motivation?
I like the tech.
I would like to be as close to self sufficient in electricity as I can get.
If I can displace daytime electricity usage I save 14p each kWh.
Although we have quite a few panels because of roof orientation our PV output in winter is poor.
I am fed up of looking at my IBoost buddy and seeing it go in the red. Sometimes too much information is a bad thing.

My philosophy about RE is not so much reducing my carbon footprint as displacing usage of scarce resources. I was brought up in a time when there was serious concern that we would run out of oil - funny how times change but old habits die hard. Without wishing to start a debate on the subject it was the changes I had seen in my lifetime (in what had been believed to be universal truths) that some while back prompted my comment of “this decade’s facts are the next decade’s chip paper.” (Or something like that.)

pile-o-stone

thevilla wrote: »

"For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks."

Just saying

haha, this thread is well beyond its original purpose. We used to have a news story reported and then a few posts discussing that very story. We now have multiple threads about nuclear and Christ knows what (not news stories) spewed out by two posters.

The good news is that they have both announced that they are leaving the forum, so things will soon return to normal.

The only fly in the ointment is that people who really do leave just stop posting. People who make a grand announcement about leaving rarely ever do.

Perhaps they will be the exceptions to this rule? Though they may just come back as new users. Easy to spot as they will be the only people on a Renewable forum talking up the benefits of nuclear and fossil fuel :rotfl:

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Like you I want to add some more panels but still haven’t had clearance from my DNO for the ones I have already.

If you get a G100 compliant export limiting device (SMA do one) then you can fit as much Solar as you like and you DNO won't be able to stop you.

Mine was demanding £1500 to 'strengthen' the grid if I increased my existing solar. After a few enquiries I asked him about export limiting devices and he said that they would have to be G100 compliant. Job done. As I say though, I don't have the cash just now to add any more panels.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

haha, this thread is well beyond its original purpose. We used to have a news story reported and then a few posts discussing that very story. We now have multiple threads about nuclear and Christ knows what (not news stories) spewed out by two posters.

The good news is that they have both announced that they are leaving the forum, so things will soon return to normal.

The only fly in the ointment is that people who really do leave just stop posting. People who make a grand announcement about leaving rarely ever do.

Perhaps they will be the exceptions to this rule? Though they may just come back as new users. Easy to spot as they will be the only people on a Renewable forum talking up the benefits of nuclear and fossil fuel :rotfl:

Just a couple of corrections needed which I am sure are misunderstandings rather than any malice on your part.

I have never once posted in support of nuclear. As I said in a previous post, having agreed with someone on one topic does not mean I share all their views. It just suits someone on here to keep saying I support nuclear and by implication don’t support RE. I have also tried to apply some historical context to the role that FF has played in the past in the face of the current trend for a revisionist commentary. I have stepped back from that debate but I note the discussion is still continuing. I have not advocated any expansion of FF but there is currently a need for a mix of energy sources as RE is not yet in a position to stand alone.

I did not say I was leaving the forum, simply that I wasn’t going to continue the exchange with Mart which was unedifying.

HTH as Z would say.

Ken

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Just a couple of corrections needed which I am sure are misunderstandings rather than any malice on your part. I have never once posted in support of nuclear.

No correction required. In my post I actually said "...nuclear and Christ knows what"

If your posts don't fall into the 'nuclear' then they obviously fall into the 'Christ knows what"

JKenH wrote: »

I did not say I was leaving the forum, simply that I wasn’t going to continue the exchange with Mart which was unedifying.

HTH as Z would say.

Ken

Ah, my bad. I only saw GA's post where he quoted yours and said "I too will be walking away from the forum" (or words to that effect - I know inexact quotes are jumped on, so I caveat them here - I can't be bothered trawling back in the thread to get the exact quote).

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

You're getting all 'historical' again Mart.....The UK's current contribution to global CO2 is 1% & falling ..

Hi

In effect you're probably both correct, but that depends on what you use as a source & the set of data it's based on ...

For example ... are we all talking CO2 emissions, or is it a case that some may be referring to CO2 emissions, and others talking about emissions related directly to !!!!!! ? ...

A quick link to Wikipedia (which many would use!) seems to support 1%(ish) ... (link) ...yet a major clue lies in the detail ... it just covers fossil fuels!

Now, the source of the data looks to be this published EU report ... (link) ... which includes the following description & caveats ..

Fossil CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sectors are presented for all world countries. These emissions were calculated bottom-up using international statistics for the activity data (such as fuel consumption, cement production etc.), which are available for all major fossil CO2 sources, and IPCC (2006) values for the emission factors. For the emissions from fossil fuel combustion and fuel transformation, fuel consumption statistics for 1970-2015 were used from the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2017). Given the absence of sectorial fuel consumption data, CO2 emissions for 2016 and 2017 were estimated by using a Fast Track approach with BP statistics for total coal, oil and gas by country; emissions were projected by using BP fuel increase rate with reference to the last available year of emissions quantified with robust activity data from IEA. For CO2 emissions, the uncertainty is generally low (below 10%). It must be noted that when the Fast Track is used for the emission estimations for 2016 and 2017, uncertainties may be higher for a specific sector and country due to the assumptions behind this methodology.

Effectively, the way I read the report is that only the proportion of total CO2 emissions which can be directly attributed to the burning of !!!!!! plus downstream emissions directly related to the proportion of energy supply which result from the burning of FF energy is included, with the calculation being based & apportioned on a 'bottom-up' basis ...

From that it looks like short-cycle CO2 emissions (biomass etc) and other GHG emissions which are normally considered on a CO2 equivalence basis are specifically excluded ... obviously this would have a major impact on both the meaning of the data & how it should be used .... for example, where is all of the methane produced by dairy & beef cattle accounted for? ... if there's no problem then why are we hearing so much about reducing the proportion of meat in our diets on climatic sustainability grounds?

I'd say that if we're going to have people continue arguing, at least establish a set of ground rules ... so, are we talking about CO2 equivalence? & what about sectors that have a process CO2 equivalence by-product? - should only the FF element of energy requirements be included and therefore limit the scope of the argument to reduce the perceived global impact, or should it include all energy whatever the source to paint a more realistic anthropological impact picture? ...

... that's pretty much the real issue .... logical semantics!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

You're getting all 'historical' again Mart.....The UK's current contribution to global CO2 is 1% & falling

A reference to your obsession with the UK's 'historical' CO2 emissions.

Nope, simply telling the truth in the face of your 'mis-information'.

I fully accept that the UK's current contribution to annual CO2 emissions is about 1%. In fact I believe I told you that when explaining that at a minimum given our 1% of the global population, it confirms our responsibility to act, when you were suggesting we didn't have a moral responsibility.


BUT BUT BUT ....... please don't try to re-write history, you didn't say !% of annual emissions, you very specifically stated 1% of all the additional CO2 emissions. Would you like a reminder?

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).

In fact we are responsible for ~5%, or 7ppm, not 1.4ppm.

I explained this here:

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.

I assumed your error was accidental, but unfortunately, you responded with:

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.

Which is an AGW denialist argument. It ignores the truth and simply pretends that scientists do not agree.


So to recap, your original claim was untrue (but an acceptable mistake). Your follow up was an AGW denial argument. And now you are trying to deny what you said. Why?


PS - 'Moving to a low carbon economy will bankrupt us' is also an AGW denial argument, setting up a false claim to scare people off it.

silverwhistle

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Ouch, that's expensive..

It is, but what the poster fails to mention, surprising if he actually has an EV, is that the expensive ones are the fast ones: the sort you'd use when you're going distances. I can't remember the last time I used a motorway or even trunk road service station for petrol on the same principle of extra cost.

There are growing numbers of slower, destination chargers, at supermarkets, restaurants, hotels and the like, sometimes offered free (e.g. Sainsburys Waterlooville as I type) and others at more reasonable cost.

I keep an eye on the growing numbers of chargers as I'd like to get an EV, but it will be when the second hand markets expands a bit and I'd then have to make parking in my front garden. No way am I spending 30p a unit at the fast charger in my village!


Edit: I see this point has since been addressed.