Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

mmmmikey

An analogy....

Martyn, Great Ape, Nick and others are in a life raft at sea.....

Martyn has spotted a hole in the raft and is telling everyone "We must fix this quickly or we'll all drown and die"

Great Ape is saying "Chill, it's not a big hole. And don't worry, new life rafts are much better designed and in future we won't need life rafts as we'll all be able to walk on water. In any event, the island we're drifting towards is inhabited by mutant zombies so a hole in the life raft is the least of your problems. Please stay calm and trust me, I'm a scientist."

Others on board the life raft have recognised that Great Ape has somewhat eccentric views so are ignoring him, but at the same time they are winding him up and egging him on as in some ways it's quite amusing to see him and Martyn taking chunks out of each other.

Unfortunately, this in turn is winding Martyn up and he is getting increasingly concerned because he doesn't think anyone is listening to him, so is shouting about the hole in the life raft louder and louder and really laying it on thick about the consequences of the boat sinking.

Nick and a few others are watching this and saying "You're right Martyn, we need to fix the hole as a matter of great urgency, and the implications of not doing so are indeed catastrophic. But we do have life jackets so if we put them on and we're lucky we may survive even if the raft sinks. Obviously we need to fix the hole, but the life raft is already half full of water and we may not be able to fix it in time. So lets split into two teams - one to fix the hole and the other to dsitribute the life jackets, just in case"

Martyn says "No, we must fix the hole or we're all going to die"

And so it goes on. I wonder how this will all end?

EricMears

mmmmikey wrote: »

. . . . And so it goes on. I wonder how this will all end?

Not soon enough alas !

pile-o-stone

mmmmikey wrote: »

An analogy....

Martyn, Great Ape, Nick and others are in a life raft at sea.....

I'd suggest a better analogy would be an ocean liner with a hole in it. Martyn, Great Ape, Nick and co are all passengers in steerage. They debate amongst themselves what the best solution is to the hole (or in Great Ape's case, he argues that there is no hole, and that even if there is one, it's already fixed). The vessel continues to sink because no one outside their small room in steerage hears them. After a while they all realise this and get back to talking about renewables and live happily ever.

mmmmikey

On a slightly different tack, this song seems somehow appropriate in the context of this thread



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I totally get where you are coming from, but we don't have a choice. We have to limit CO2 emissions and attempt to limit the temp rise to 1.5C, otherwise there is little chance of preventing runaway GW.

So the argument that we can't afford to act is not only false, but irrelevant, we have to, and are.

As to insurances in place, that too is a little confusing. Nick keeps saying we should spend monies also (or even instead) on preparing for AGW, but what does that mean, what is he suggesting?

We already spend monies on land drainage and flood defence, but these will be completely swamped (;)) if we don't prevent CO2(e) levels rising too far. And of course (I assume this is known by all) many countries simply won't be able to cope with these higher temperatures, and thus entire populations will have to migrate. There are nations already on the borderline due to higher average temps, reduced water, and reduced crops.

But here's the simplest argument, every penny nations don't spend on tackling AGW will result in more than one penny that we will all have to expend dealing with the damage. Most major cities in the UK are built around rivers, and/or coastal, and the same can be seen around the World, as prosperity typically revolved around water based trading. As waters rise, costs will rise, significantly.

But, what are these costs that seem to create so much fear in so many people - Rolling out cheap RE instead of FF generation? Rolling out storage to balance out generation demand, peaks and troughs in price, and make the grid far more stable? Rolling out BEV's that actually have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) than ICE's? Reductions in pollution and there health/cost implications?

We need to be very careful not to confuse a cost with an extra cost. Buying a new car might be viewed as an extra cost (compared to other non car buying years) but it isn't necessarily an additional cost to our norm. For example, If you've previously bought a £30k diesel car, then (some time later) buying a £30k petrol car could be seen as 'costing' £30k to change, or a £30k BEV as 'costing' £30k to change, but is it really a cost, or just business as usual?

Lastly, and just a play on your word 'insurances' - this might be the best way to explain this, insurances will rise considerably, or be removed completely due to rising sea levels, storm damage, extreme weather conditions etc..

AGW worriers are insisting we spend money now to solve the climate problem but is that the best policy? Do we want the UK to be an early adopter of RE or is it better to allow the technology to develop then buy in more cost effectively?

As an example the cost of wind power has fallen dramatically over the last decade. Is it not better to be investing now than 10 years ago? How much cheaper in another decade? Should we have waited even longer?

Battery storage costs have fallen dramatically and are expected to continue to do so. Investment of say £1 million in 10 years time may produce a far greater return in terms of CO2 savings than investing that sum now.

If in a decade’s time the cost of cutting CO2 has say halved then for the same investment we can save twice the amount of CO2 emitted.

Yes, there will be some catching up to do but if we are say aiming for zero emissions by 2050 then for the same total spend will we not get there much quicker by deferring the start date for 10 years?

JKenH

mmmmikey wrote: »

On a slightly different tack, this song seems somehow appropriate in the context of this thread



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs

Having lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation or a nuclear winter in the 60s and 70s somehow AGW doesn’t seem quite so scary.

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

AGW worriers are insisting we spend money now to solve the climate problem but is that the best policy? Do we want the UK to be an early adopter of RE or is it better to allow the technology to develop then buy in more cost effectively?

As an example the cost of wind power has fallen dramatically over the last decade. Is it not better to be investing now than 10 years ago? How much cheaper in another decade? Should we have waited even longer?

Battery storage costs have fallen dramatically and are expected to continue to do so. Investment of say £1 million in 10 years time may produce a far greater return in terms of CO2 savings than investing that sum now.

If in a decade’s time the cost of cutting CO2 has say halved then for the same investment we can save twice the amount of CO2 emitted.

Yes, there will be some catching up to do but if we are say aiming for zero emissions by 2050 then for the same total spend will we not get there much quicker by deferring the start date for 10 years?

I know the answer to this one. The chicken. Err no, the egg. Hang on a sec, surely it's the chicken? But that doesn't make sense it must be the egg.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Labour will make 30,000 electric cars available for hire on streets “in every community”, the party will announce today.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, is to unveil a £300 million plan for “community car clubs” across the country, allowing residents to hire vehicles that would be owned by local councils and cooperative groups.

The proposals are modelled on Zipcar, the private firm that offers more than 2,600 vehicles for hire using a membership scheme. The company’s vehicles are parked on streets around the UK and members can hire them via the internet or a mobile phone application, by the hour or by the day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/23/first-boris-bikes-now-corbyn-cars-labour-offers-30000-electric/

Interesting idea but will it work? Has anyone any experience of using private car clubs?

Seems silly and wasteful

But i would be pro the government giving every kid age 5 to 20 a subsidised electric scooter and having every school have dedicated infrastructure to securely park said scooters.

They are super energy efficient getting about 60 miles per KWh

Could cost as little as £200 for a bulk purchase

Charge the kids just £100

If half of kids go for it that would mean about 5 million scooters and it would cost the government £500 million one off

This would reduce car useage and will mean in the future more of these kids will stick with cheap efficient scooters and not bother with cars EV or oil

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

AGW worriers are insisting we spend money now to solve the climate problem but is that the best policy? Do we want the UK to be an early adopter of RE or is it better to allow the technology to develop then buy in more cost effectively?

As an example the cost of wind power has fallen dramatically over the last decade. Is it not better to be investing now than 10 years ago? How much cheaper in another decade? Should we have waited even longer?

Battery storage costs have fallen dramatically and are expected to continue to do so. Investment of say £1 million in 10 years time may produce a far greater return in terms of CO2 savings than investing that sum now.

If in a decade’s time the cost of cutting CO2 has say halved then for the same investment we can save twice the amount of CO2 emitted.

Yes, there will be some catching up to do but if we are say aiming for zero emissions by 2050 then for the same total spend will we not get there much quicker by deferring the start date for 10 years?

Yes and no
For PV yes
For larger projects like wind farms and nuclear power no

Also the UK is rich enough to do wind power at higher prices than fossil fuels and there are side benefits like sending less money to net oil and gas exporters who generally have somewhere different values to the western world

Also a lot of fossil emmissions are outside of energy generation like insulating homes and hear pumps etc where there isn't really a benefit in waiting


Overall reducing fossil fuel useage is more or less solved
The UK can chip away 2-4% a year and this will add up to significant figures over a thirty year period.

Stopping the climate warming is a different story
We probably don't need to nor want to cool the planet
But if nessaery it's within humanity capability to cool the planet

The two issues I feel should be seen separately
I'm not bothered by global warming
But I am mildly pro reducing fossil fuel useage
Primarily just because we can

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

An analogy....

Martyn, Great Ape, Nick and others are in a life raft at sea.....

Martyn has spotted a hole in the raft and is telling everyone "We must fix this quickly or we'll all drown and die"

Great Ape is saying "Chill, it's not a big hole. And don't worry, new life rafts are much better designed and in future we won't need life rafts as we'll all be able to walk on water. In any event, the island we're drifting towards is inhabited by mutant zombies so a hole in the life raft is the least of your problems. Please stay calm and trust me, I'm a scientist."

Others on board the life raft have recognised that Great Ape has somewhat eccentric views so are ignoring him, but at the same time they are winding him up and egging him on as in some ways it's quite amusing to see him and Martyn taking chunks out of each other.

Unfortunately, this in turn is winding Martyn up and he is getting increasingly concerned because he doesn't think anyone is listening to him, so is shouting about the hole in the life raft louder and louder and really laying it on thick about the consequences of the boat sinking.

Nick and a few others are watching this and saying "You're right Martyn, we need to fix the hole as a matter of great urgency, and the implications of not doing so are indeed catastrophic. But we do have life jackets so if we put them on and we're lucky we may survive even if the raft sinks. Obviously we need to fix the hole, but the life raft is already half full of water and we may not be able to fix it in time. So lets split into two teams - one to fix the hole and the other to dsitribute the life jackets, just in case"

Martyn says "No, we must fix the hole or we're all going to die"

And so it goes on. I wonder how this will all end?

Very good :T


Using the ship analogy I'd say
There is a small hole
Martin is running around like a headless chicken insisting we cannibalise other parts of the ship and make a makeshift electric furnace to melt the parts to fill the hole or everyone is dead
I'm saying chill the hole is so tiny it would take years to sink and we are only hours away from shore were we can fix it good and proper. But that if you insist we can just patch it up with something in the meantime


Global warming is slow so slow and not a problem
We will have the tech to do anything and everything in the near future
But if you insist we can slowly deploy alternatives at an acceptable rate
And we can geoengineer a cooler planet if necessary
So chill Martyn stop running around like a headless chicken