Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Campaigners urge UN to endorse global fracking ban

Quite short, worth a read, here are some extracts:

A global campaign backed by 450 activist groups and celebrities, including actors Emma Thompson and Mark Ruffalo, is calling on the UN to endorse a global end to fracking before the industry torpedoes efforts to tackle the climate crisis.

The open letter to the UN secretary general, Ant!nio Guterres, includes signatures from individuals representing global environmental movements, universities and faith groups.

The open letter said fracking for fossil fuels “torpedoes our global efforts to tackle climate change and violates basic human rights”.

The letter also points to the “overwhelming scientific documenting” of the fracking industry’s negative impact on the environment, public health and the climate crisis. The activist signatories include members of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Robert Howarth, a professor at Cornell University in the US and one of the letter’s signatories, said fracking for shale gas was a climate disaster because the process releases huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

He said: “Over the past decade, methane levels have been rising rapidly in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to the unprecedented global climate disruption seen in recent years.”

Howarth added: “Over 60% of the increased global methane emissions are from the oil and gas industry, and shale gas development in North America is responsible for one-third of the increased emissions from all sources.”

Martyn1981

HOLY COW - Off-shore wind at around £40/MWh (2012 baseline).

And if I'm reading it correctly, capacity that will generate roughly the same amount as HPC but with no monetary impact on budget pots, v's the ~£50bn for HPC?

Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 3 Results – Published by BEIS on 20 September 2019

Martyn1981

Still trying to get my head around this, but section F looks fun as it compares the allocation cost against the bid caps (£56 & £53) that were set for this round.

From those bid caps, and the fact multiple bids were made, I had my fingers crossed for a £50, and allowed myself to hope for a £45, but £40 ...... again ..... HOLY COW!

Martyn1981

Press release:

Clean energy to power over seven million homes by 2025 at record low prices

Twelve new renewable energy projects will be powering over seven million homes at record low prices thanks to the latest round of the government’s flagship Contracts for Difference scheme.

The new projects will provide around 6GW of capacity – 2.4GW more than the last round. For the first time renewables are expected to come online below market prices and without additional subsidy on bills, meaning a better deal for consumers. The costs of offshore wind are now around 30% lower than the second auction held in 2017, with projects now being delivered for as low as £39.65/MWh.

The new projects and lower prices are another step toward decarbonising our energy system as we work toward net zero emissions by 2050, creating jobs and economic opportunities across the UK. According to research by RenewableUK, the new projects could see 8,000 jobs created.

It has been estimated that the low carbon economy in the UK could grow four times faster than rest of the economy out to 2030 and could deliver between £60 billion and £170 billion in exports by 2030. Today’s results demonstrate the potential of renewables to create such ‘green-collar’ jobs.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.........at the expense (externality costs) of everyone else as desirable?

Really....what about the billions of people that willingly consume the products of those aforementioned industries? If you want to include all the businesses that have a negative impact on AGW, that's virtually the whole global economy!

This seems a bit like your many claims that my support for RE will bankrupt the country.

"Many claims" ... I guess that you're referring to my suggestion that when RE is the cheapest option guaranteeing continuous supply, it'll become the dominant source of energy ... and you don't actually need to do anything to make that happen.

Perhaps if people on here focused on RE and reality, there would be less support for FF's and strawman arguments.

Perhaps some of us on here are realists & accept that the transition to a carbon neutral world will take much longer than "too late". That's not an argument for not doing anything to slow AGW, just that some effort should also be made towards dealing with the inevitable consequences.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Perhaps some of us on here are realists & accept that the transition to a carbon neutral world will take much longer than "too late". That's not an argument for not doing anything to slow AGW, just that some effort should also be made towards dealing with the inevitable consequences.

Nothing realistic about falsely claiming RE will bankrupt the UK, or I don't like profits.

Perhaps if you stopped making false claims, you'd see that economic and profitable RE is arriving.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nothing realistic about falsely claiming RE will bankrupt the UK, or I don't like profits.

What are these "false claims" that you keep referring to? I'm sure you've got something copied pasted & filed away.

Perhaps if you stopped making false claims, you'd see that economic and profitable RE is arriving.

Perhaps because I believe that, I don't think it's necessary to bludgeon anyone that isn't spending 20 hours a day waving an RE banner.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Still trying to get my head around this, but section F looks fun as it compares the allocation cost against the bid caps (£56 & £53) that were set for this round.

From those bid caps, and the fact multiple bids were made, I had my fingers crossed for a £50, and allowed myself to hope for a £45, but £40 ...... again ..... HOLY COW!

Indeed very low prices which presumably have implications for any further nuclear build out.
If wind can be profitable without subsidies why aren't we seeing projects being built outside of the govt price guarantee CFD scheme?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

What are these "false claims" that you keep referring to? I'm sure you've got something copied pasted & filed away.



Perhaps because I believe that, I don't think it's necessary to bludgeon anyone that isn't spending 20 hours a day waving an RE banner.

Nick I really don't know what your problem is.

Yesterday you had to create the claim that I don't like profits, so that you can have another go. Now today you've moved on to 'bludgeoning' people, when I have no problem what people's interest is (or isn't).

No idea why you keep getting so upset when all I do is post news and pushback against three of you ....... oh I see, it's because I've called out so many of your false claims, like the UK only being responsible for 1% of cumulative CO2 emissions, when it's 5%, or when I challenged your response to that claiming scientists disagree whether it's 1% or 4%, or when you said a high mileage driver would have twice the costs in a BEV, or that crops benefit from more CO2, or the UK's contribution to acting against AGW (around £1tn) isn't worth it, or we should spend on dealing with AGW, not spend on minimising it, and so on .....

Please just give it a rest now. RE is good, it's good for jobs, it's good for profits, it's good for the economy, and it clearly won't bankrupt us.

Might I suggest you pop me on ignore since my pro-RE posts, on a pro-RE thread on a pro-RE board upset you so much.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Indeed very low prices which presumably have implications for any further nuclear build out.
If wind can be profitable without subsidies why aren't we seeing projects being built outside of the govt price guarantee CFD scheme?

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If, big if, the government wanted to support PV and on-shore wind, but not pay out subsidies, then issuing a CfD with a strike price close to, or even below average prices would work well. the benefit to the developer is in having a guaranteed income, and from that could get lower financing costs.

Also, this is currently how off-shore wind is being allowed. The next step would be leases:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that off-shore wind with CfD's close to anticipated wholesale averages will be subsidy free, but I'd hazard a guess that it'll be close, and therefore something to cheer, especially since that average price won't reflect all the externalities of the FF and nuclear generation.

Also, there is the potential for costs to keep falling, so we could in the future see subsidy free contracts but with a lease fee, raising income. Or bidding taking the CfD strike price below average, with hopefully an annual surplus into the subsidy pot.

And if the cost of the lease was around the same as the difference between these bids and the wholesale price (per MWh), then the net result is the same, with some of the revenue going to the Treasury.