Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

which appreciates the energy of youth, but which also respects the wisdom that comes with experience and age”

I suspect that the concern of people like Greta, is that the supposedly experienced generation are not displaying or demonstrating the wisdom to which they lay claim, in their actions.

As some Australian youngsters had on their placards, "we'll be less activist if you'll be less sh*t". Greta carefully avoids language like that, but I think she would agree with the sentiment.

JKenH

Hexane wrote: »

I suspect that the concern of people like Greta, is that the supposedly experienced generation are not displaying or demonstrating the wisdom to which they lay claim, in their actions.

As some Australian youngsters had on their placards, "we'll be less activist if you'll be less sh*t". Greta carefully avoids language like that, but I think she would agree with the sentiment.

One of the lessons of growing old is that you come to realise just how little you know about the things you thought you knew so much about.

Some may be old enough to remember the chorus of a Bob Dylan song

Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Good news bad news, perhaps bad news first. As covered lots before, the US is still releasing vast amounts of methane gas.

Oil Majors Dump Millions Of Cubic Feet Of Methane Directly Into The Atmosphere

Yes, it was (I don’t know if it still is) a common sight as you drive past the oil refineries on the south bank of the Humber. In the seventies and eighties when I worked in the area I was appalled at the waste and pollution but never realised at the time the implications for our climate.

Another similar story

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/207796/flaring-burned-enough-gas-in-2018-to-power-every-uk-home/

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Cheer up, some good news (unless you own shares in US coal, or face a job loss), watching Youtube last night, and between funny cat vids, I saw this approx - 8mins 45 to 10mins 45

In the last year 7 coal business have filed for bankruptcy, and several more have registered that they may be unable to meet debt repayments.

Also, whilst coal provided 48% of US leccy in 2008, it's down to ~25% for 2019 and 22% expected next year.

Good news for the planet but the social cost at a local level is enormous. Imagine what the impact at Bridgend will be when Ford close their engine plant as they inevitably will with the rise of EVs.

Progress is inevitable but we do need to spare a thought for those employed in those industries and the industries that serve them which are being impacted by the energy revolution.

It is easy to talk about Big Auto,Big Oil and Big Coal just as anonymous corporations who deserve to be put out of business but thousands of people and whole communities depend on the employment they provide in the UK and around the world. I am not a socialist but I saw what happened when the South Yorkshire coalfields were decimated in the eighties and it wasn’t pretty.

So, yes, good for the planet but not something really to celebrate.

EricMears

JKenH wrote: »

Progress is inevitable but we do need to spare a thought for those employed in those industries and the industries that serve them which are being impacted by the energy revolution.

Job opportunities for stage coach drivers, grooms, stable lads etc etc were decimated by the introduction of horseless carriages but the 'mass unemployment' that was no doubt forecast at the time didn't trouble us for long (though having a Great War probably helped).

People & premises currently employed in making engines can probably be redeployed to meeting the increased demand for electric motors.

ABrass

Interesting topic, but pretty irrelevant with regards to coal. It's already shrunk to a tiny proportion of the population as a whole. A big employer in some areas but that's always been a concern when you have a large employer of any industry.

In the US it makes us about 50k jobs, give or take. Down from around 140k in 1990 but I suspect it's been on the slide for even longer.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001

However the Green power system seems to be more human focused, or at least intensive.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

Perhaps the question should be: "How much cheaper will renewables become once they are as industrialised as the fossil fuel industry?"

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Good news for the planet but the social cost at a local level is enormous. Imagine what the impact at Bridgend will be when Ford close their engine plant as they inevitably will with the rise of EVs.

Progress is inevitable but we do need to spare a thought for those employed in those industries and the industries that serve them which are being impacted by the energy revolution.

It is easy to talk about Big Auto,Big Oil and Big Coal just as anonymous corporations who deserve to be put out of business but thousands of people and whole communities depend on the employment they provide in the UK and around the world. I am not a socialist but I saw what happened when the South Yorkshire coalfields were decimated in the eighties and it wasn’t pretty.

So, yes, good for the planet but not something really to celebrate.

The problem with that 'argument' is that like all the other excuses directed against RE and change, is that it has no depth, no depth whatsoever.

The RE industry employs far more people in the US than the coal industry, and as RE is both cheap, and labour intensive (v's thermal generation), it's a better long term opportunity with all estimates pointing to a net increase in jobs via a transition to RE. In fact RE has employed more people for years:

U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment

Also, as many articles and interviews have pointed out in the US over the last few years, coal mining is not a great job, good money but not a great job, however the workers have good skills and these are in demand:

Chinese Turbine Manufacturer Goldwind Wants to Hire Out-of-Work Coal Miners

JKenH wrote: »

One of the lessons of growing old is that you come to realise just how little you know about the things you thought you knew so much about.

Some may be old enough to remember the chorus of a Bob Dylan song

Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now

I'm also a big Dylan fan, and he really nailed it with 'The Times They Are A-Changin'

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

Perhaps the question should be: "How much cheaper will renewables become once they are as industrialised as the fossil fuel industry?"

Arguably the wind and PV industry is more industrialised than the fossil fuel industry apart from perhaps shale fossil fuel industry

Combined wind and PV it's well over $200 billion a year that is a significant sized industry. Nearly 400 million solar panels were produced in 2018

How cheap will renewables get?
Cheaper each year but this doesn't mean they will displace fossil fuels any time soon
2018 was actually an increase in fossil fuel consumption and excluding recessions global fossil fuel consumption is likely to continue to increase for the next decade if not more

For renewables to truely take over rapidly they need to cost less than the marginal cost of using existing infrastructure. This means in the USA wind power would need to fall to sub $20/MWh at that price if it could be achieved a huge rapid conversion away from coal and gas for electricity generation would happen. Can wind power get that cheap? Maybe but not any time soon by comparison the UK offshore bids everyone is jumping up and down about are $60/MWh deployed in 2024

So prices need to fall to 1/3th of what they are for rapid self funded deployment
Otherwise it's going to be a slow chipping away with wind and solar deployment dependant on government subsidy which in the UK seems to be deploying wind to meet 2% of electricity needs per year

Can wind power get to those sorts of levels $20/MWh in the USA and perhaps £20/MWh in Europe? Maybe but I'm not holding my breath it's not likely in the 2020s

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

In the US it makes us about 50k jobs, give or take. Down from around 140k in 1990 but I suspect it's been on the slide for even longer.
"

The coal industry is much bigger than the reports pretend because it employs many many more people indirectly from the trains that carry the coal to the train maintenance companies that maintain the trains to the companies that make the machines and parts to crush that coal into a powder to the men who work at the coal fired power stations to the companies that recycle the coal ash to companies that make the hear for coal workers to a thousand other things

A decent guess for the USA would be 550 million tons X $50 a ton = $27.5 billion divided by mean USA income of $48k = 570,000 workers

And of course these jobs will be concentrated in certain parts of the country
No good telling a community of mine workers don't worry new jobs will be created manufacturing PV modules in China and jobs created glueing said PV kits on California homes if their community homes and schools are 1,000 miles away from California and 10,000 miles away from china

GreatApe

EricMears wrote: »

Job opportunities for stage coach drivers, grooms, stable lads etc etc were decimated by the introduction of horseless carriages but the 'mass unemployment' that was no doubt forecast at the time didn't trouble us for long (though having a Great War probably helped).

People & premises currently employed in making engines can probably be redeployed to meeting the increased demand for electric motors.

Have you never been to Yorkshire?
When there do you get a sense that the coal mine closures were on net a good idea?

Anyway the conversion away from fossil fuels are so slow that these job arguments don't matter much a coal miner is probably safe to mine his coal until he retires and the coal companies can just stop hiring workers and let retirement shrink their workforce

More rapid were things like the German nuke closures. overnight some towns become ghost towns as their biggest employer closed shop so not only did the local area lose the income of 1,000 workers but those people left for jobs elsewhere which meant 1,000 fewer families spending money in the economy so more job losses and more moving away from the town and so on