Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

PV generation costs in sunny climes are just getting silly now ..... 1.1p/kWh!

Just a little less than Hinkley Point C then? We'd be far better off building up wind generation plus storage here as it would be far cheaper AND quicker to get going than HPC.

Martyn1981

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

PV generation costs in sunny climes are just getting silly now ..... 1.1p/kWh!

Just a little less than Hinkley Point C then? We'd be far better off building up wind generation plus storage here as it would be far cheaper AND quicker to get going than HPC.

I'm sure you're just quibbling? Let's see 1.1p/kWh for PV in Abu Dhabi in 2022.
4.58p/kWh for offshore wind in the UK in 2024.
10.45p/kWh for nuclear in the UK in .... perhaps ..... maybe ..... around 2027.

OK, I see your point. But I'm sure it made sense to somebody back in 2015. 

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

PV generation costs in sunny climes are just getting silly now ..... 1.1p/kWh!

Just a little less than Hinkley Point C then? We'd be far better off building up wind generation plus storage here as it would be far cheaper AND quicker to get going than HPC.

I'm sure you're just quibbling? Let's see 1.1p/kWh for PV in Abu Dhabi in 2022.
4.58p/kWh for offshore wind in the UK in 2024.
10.45p/kWh for nuclear in the UK in .... perhaps ..... maybe ..... around 2027.

OK, I see your point. But I'm sure it made sense to somebody back in 2015. 

I am not sure even on this thread you are allowed to get away with comparing apples with pears.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

PV generation costs in sunny climes are just getting silly now ..... 1.1p/kWh!

Just a little less than Hinkley Point C then? We'd be far better off building up wind generation plus storage here as it would be far cheaper AND quicker to get going than HPC.

I'm sure you're just quibbling? Let's see 1.1p/kWh for PV in Abu Dhabi in 2022.
4.58p/kWh for offshore wind in the UK in 2024.
10.45p/kWh for nuclear in the UK in .... perhaps ..... maybe ..... around 2027.

OK, I see your point. But I'm sure it made sense to somebody back in 2015. 

I am not sure even on this thread you are allowed to get away with comparing apples with pears.

That's true, I should have been fairer and included all the nuclear down sides, such as lack of public support, storage issues of spent fuel, decommissioning problems, 35yr subsidies (v's 15yr for RE), Government (UK population) covering insurance risks, and decommissioning costs if HPC doesn't put enough aside, etc etc ....... but I think the price alone is so bad, why stick the boot in, all the way.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

OK, I see your point. But I'm sure it made sense to somebody back in 2015. 

Even then, it had to be a political decision accepting taxpayers/customers would have to pay a higher price than for renewably generated electricity. Not to mention protecting the power plant and disposing of the nuclear waste.

Martyn1981

"Houston, we have a solution." [Stole that from the comments section, just couldn't resist.]
The city is going to power its municipal operations with 100% RE leccy, from 1st July, and save money too.

City of Houston Surprises: 100% Renewable Electricity — $65 Million in Savings in 7 Years

April 30, 2020 — Mayor Sylvester Turner announced today that the City of Houston has committed to purchasing 100% renewable energy through a renewed partnership with NRG Energy as the City’s retail electric provider.
As part of the contract renewal, the City will power all municipal operations with renewable energy and realize $65 million in savings over the seven-year contract. Through the NRG Renewable Select plan, the City will receive 1,034,399 MWh of renewable electricity annually from a new, third-party utility-scale solar facility in Texas that is dedicated to City operations.

Martyn1981

This article on Australia is very much inline with what I've mentioned before, and hoped might happen. After (and during I suppose) C19, economies all over the World will need a stimulus package to help get them back up to speed, so why not spend/invest in green energy and related technologies (storage, energy efficiency etc) and kill two birds with one stone.

Australian businesses call for climate crisis and virus economic recovery to be tackled together

A leading Australian business group is calling for the two biggest economic challenges in memory – recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and cutting greenhouse gas emissions – to be addressed together, saying it would boost growth and put the country on a firm long-term footing.

Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, representing more than 60,000 businesses, says economic recovery from the virus and the transition required to meet net-zero emissions by 2050 are overlapping issues that should be taken on together.

A report by the Clean Energy Council, also released on Tuesday, estimated that 50,000 construction and 4,000 ongoing jobs could be created, and $50bn worth of renewable electricity and storage projects built, if governments backed green policies and regulatory reform to “jumpstart” the economy.

Kane Thornton, the Clean Energy Council’s chief executive, said there were hundreds of large-scale wind and solar projects with planning approval that could proceed quickly, create jobs and bring down prices.

“This isn’t about a handout for industry when government is directing scarce taxpayer funding to other essential services and areas,” Thornton said.

“There is an enormous appetite for private investment in clean energy that can be unlocked through smart regulatory reform, sensible energy policy and investment in the grid and energy storage.”

The International Energy Agency last week reported a “staggering” plunge in global demand for coal, oil and gas during the pandemic, with only renewable electricity proving resilient.

Martyn1981

Same subject again - C19, recovery stimulus and green investment.

Green stimulus can repair global economy and climate, study says

Green economy recovery packages for the coronavirus crisis will repair the global economy and put the world on track to tackle climate breakdown, but time is running out to implement the changes needed, new analysis has shown.

Projects which cut greenhouse gas emissions as well as stimulating economic growth deliver higher returns on government spending, in the short term and in the longer term, than conventional stimulus spending, the study from Oxford University found.

Many of the projects that could create new jobs in the UK are “shovel-ready”, compliant with social distancing requirements and could be started quickly, said Cameron Hepburn, director of the Smith School of enterprise and the environment at Oxford University and lead author of the study.

He cited energy efficiency programmes to insulate the UK’s draughty housing stock, the building of electric vehicle charging networks, redesigning roads for more cycling, flood protection and planting trees. “These all need large-scale deployment, offer low to moderate skilled work and will have benefits in terms of climate change as well as boosting the economy,” he said.

The Oxford study compared green stimulus projects with traditional stimulus, such as measures taken after the 2008 global financial crisis, and found green projects create more jobs, deliver higher short-term returns per pound spent by the government, and lead to increased long-term cost savings.

Clean energy infrastructure construction is one example, generating twice as many jobs per pound of government expenditure as fossil fuel projects around the world. Others include expanding broadband so more people can work from home.

The paper, co-authored by the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, and Lord Nicholas Stern, the climate economist, catalogues more than 700 stimulus policies and makes comparisons with the global financial crisis of 2008. More than 230 experts, including senior officials from finance ministries and central banks in 53 countries, responded to a survey on the potential for climate benefits and fiscal recovery measures.

gefnew

Hi All
Elon musk to become electricity supplier in the uk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52533224?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business&link_location=live-reporting-story

Martyn1981

Not good news, in fact very bad news.

One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study

The human cost of the climate crisis will hit harder, wider and sooner than previously believed, according to a study that shows a billion people will either be displaced or forced to endure insufferable heat for every additional 1C rise in the global temperature.

In a worst-case scenario of accelerating emissions, areas currently home to a third of the world’s population will be as hot as the hottest parts of the Sahara within 50 years, the paper warns. Even in the most optimistic outlook, 1.2 billion people will fall outside the comfortable “climate niche” in which humans have thrived for at least 6,000 years.

The authors of the study said they were “floored” and “blown away” by the findings because they had not expected our species to be so vulnerable.

“The numbers are flabbergasting. I literally did a double take when I first saw them, ” Tim Lenton, of Exeter University, said. “I’ve previously studied climate tipping points, which are usually considered apocalyptic. But this hit home harder. This puts the threat in very human terms.”

We were blown away by the magnitude,” he said. “There will be more change in the next 50 years than in the past 6,000 years.”

The authors said their findings should spur policymakers to accelerate emission cuts and work together to cope with migration because each degree of warming that can be avoided will save a billion people from falling out of humanity’s climate niche.