Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

I am old fashioned, imho if you break the law (that has been enacted by democratically elected MPs) then you are guilty.  The Crown Prosecution Service have leeway to decide if a prosecution is in the public interest and the judge can decide within the (democratically) agreed punishment band what to impose.  I am not sure where the whole legal system stands if the jury decide to ignore the law.  Ie it is not that they decide that a case is not proven but that despite those charged being guilty they find them not guilty.

Coastwatch you seemed to be in favour of this.  Say the protesters had closed roads or whatever (for example smashed the windows and your company could no longer get insurance so decided to move abroad) so your job became unviable and you lost it or prevented an ambulance reaching a close friend or relative, would that still be fine?  After all the police might have made no attempt to clear the protest if they knew the courts would not actually enforce the law of the land.

Indeed, I am of a similar view to yourself in that if you break the law you are guilty, whatever the circumstance and hence wouldn't embark on such an escapade myself. However, on the balance of the arguments one could perhaps appreciate that Shell are guilty of considerable environmental damage and being entirely aware of it for the last half century. In comparison breaking a few windows and spraying graffiti are barely comparable. I'm not condoning it, but on reflection, I'm pleasantly surprised the jury found as they did, if a little confused by what the eventual outcome might be. Hence my reason for posting

On the other you appear to be trying to deflect attention by introducing other elements with extreme consequences that did not apply in this case. Had they done so the outcome may well have been different.

As usual you once again appear to place a priority on the value of jobs above the value of the planet, which seems rather short sighted to me. After all, no planet, no jobs.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I remember a few years ago when XR started their actions with road closures etc in London, and then other cities. My initial thought was that I get where they are coming from, and agree with them that massive action is needed immediately to save a fortune in the future, and the devastating impacts on people, workers etc. ....... but I also thought they would cause those that simply can't grasp the magnitude of what is happening, and needs to be done, to turn on environmentalism, and RE etc etc..

But, then I watched a news report, I think it was the BBC, but not sure, and the reporter asked an interesting question - "How will the actions of these individuals be viewed in the future" given the climate crisis, and the fact that as time goes on we will accept that greater action was needed sooner. The reporter compared public outrage (by some) against XR, to that of public outrage against the protests and property damage of the Suffrage Movement. At the time many saw them as troublemakers and criminals, but now they are seen as heroines whose cause was just, as the status quo at the time was entirely unfair, unsustainable and immoral.

That made me think. What is the bigger crime, with the greater harm and losses to all, especially those in poorer countries, and where do we draw the line between what is criminal and moral, or legal and immoral ....... today.

I've previously avoided mentioning XR, as I assumed the spin doctors and pot stirrers would come out of the shadows and use it as a way to disrupt G&E threads, or play the 'what about the poor', 'what about the jobs' card, whilst the planet suffers, the poor lose out, and vast numbers of jobs are delayed by FF campaigning and misinformation.

Yes but...no but

There are lots of groups who believe their 'truth' is universal and that history will vindicate them. Probably including the kkk and the nazis. If we are willing to over ride democracy how can we be sure our cause is the new sufragetism and not the new racism?

Decding that the enlightened few can dictate to the ignorant many sounds like the start of a pretty slippery slope to me.

Personally I agree that we are applying much too high a discount rate when valuing the future of humanity but disagree that my opinion is more valid than that of the majority. 

Cardew

michaels said:

Yes but...no but

There are lots of groups who believe their 'truth' is universal and that history will vindicate them. Probably including the kkk and the nazis. If we are willing to over ride democracy how can we be sure our cause is the new sufragetism and not the new racism?

A current example would be the violent demonstrations protesting against any form of CoVid restrictions. These have happened across much of the world - including India!

Did anyone see that ***** pub landlord arguing that the measures were ruining businesses(including his) ‘to save the lives of old people’

QrizB

michaels said:

There are lots of groups who believe their 'truth' is universal and that history will vindicate them. Probably including the kkk and the nazis. If we are willing to over ride democracy how can we be sure our cause is the new sufragetism and not the new racism?

Decding that the enlightened few can dictate to the ignorant many sounds like the start of a pretty slippery slope to me.

Personally I agree that we are applying much too high a discount rate when valuing the future of humanity but disagree that my opinion is more valid than that of the majority. 

I think we're getting away from the subject in question?

In this particular context, defendants have been tried by a jury of their peers and found Not Guilty. You might disagree with the verdict but English law, as I understand it to be, permits the jury to do this. There have been similar cases before, and no doubt there will continue to be, where the letter of the law has been out of step with public opinion (the Clive Ponting case, for example).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

I am old fashioned, imho if you break the law (that has been enacted by democratically elected MPs) then you are guilty.  The Crown Prosecution Service have leeway to decide if a prosecution is in the public interest and the judge can decide within the (democratically) agreed punishment band what to impose.  I am not sure where the whole legal system stands if the jury decide to ignore the law.  Ie it is not that they decide that a case is not proven but that despite those charged being guilty they find them not guilty.

Coastwatch you seemed to be in favour of this.  Say the protesters had closed roads or whatever (for example smashed the windows and your company could no longer get insurance so decided to move abroad) so your job became unviable and you lost it or prevented an ambulance reaching a close friend or relative, would that still be fine?  After all the police might have made no attempt to clear the protest if they knew the courts would not actually enforce the law of the land.

Indeed, I am of a similar view to yourself in that if you break the law you are guilty, whatever the circumstance and hence wouldn't embark on such an escapade myself. However, on the balance of the arguments one could perhaps appreciate that Shell are guilty of considerable environmental damage and being entirely aware of it for the last half century. In comparison breaking a few windows and spraying graffiti are barely comparable. I'm not condoning it, but on reflection, I'm pleasantly surprised the jury found as they did, if a little confused by what the eventual outcome might be. Hence my reason for posting

On the other you appear to be trying to deflect attention by introducing other elements with extreme consequences that did not apply in this case. Had they done so the outcome may well have been different.

As usual you once again appear to place a priority on the value of jobs above the value of the planet, which seems rather short sighted to me. After all, no planet, no jobs.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I remember a few years ago when XR started their actions with road closures etc in London, and then other cities. My initial thought was that I get where they are coming from, and agree with them that massive action is needed immediately to save a fortune in the future, and the devastating impacts on people, workers etc. ....... but I also thought they would cause those that simply can't grasp the magnitude of what is happening, and needs to be done, to turn on environmentalism, and RE etc etc..

But, then I watched a news report, I think it was the BBC, but not sure, and the reporter asked an interesting question - "How will the actions of these individuals be viewed in the future" given the climate crisis, and the fact that as time goes on we will accept that greater action was needed sooner. The reporter compared public outrage (by some) against XR, to that of public outrage against the protests and property damage of the Suffrage Movement. At the time many saw them as troublemakers and criminals, but now they are seen as heroines whose cause was just, as the status quo at the time was entirely unfair, unsustainable and immoral.

That made me think. What is the bigger crime, with the greater harm and losses to all, especially those in poorer countries, and where do we draw the line between what is criminal and moral, or legal and immoral ....... today.

I've previously avoided mentioning XR, as I assumed the spin doctors and pot stirrers would come out of the shadows and use it as a way to disrupt G&E threads, or play the 'what about the poor', 'what about the jobs' card, whilst the planet suffers, the poor lose out, and vast numbers of jobs are delayed by FF campaigning and misinformation.

Yes but...no but

There are lots of groups who believe their 'truth' is universal and that history will vindicate them. Probably including the kkk and the nazis. If we are willing to over ride democracy how can we be sure our cause is the new sufragetism and not the new racism?

Decding that the enlightened few can dictate to the ignorant many sounds like the start of a pretty slippery slope to me.

Personally I agree that we are applying much too high a discount rate when valuing the future of humanity but disagree that my opinion is more valid than that of the majority. 

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but I'm simply not a fan of the KKK, nazi's, nor the scientifically illiterate that ignore Covid restrictions. You may think that they have a point or you may not, and hard right views do seem popular with those that also disagree with AGW, and actions to combat it, but that's hardly G&E, and as I've pointed out many times in the past, not appropriate for a G&E thread/board - perhaps such views should be on the energy boards?

I'm 'one of those people' who believes in science, morals, and the well being of the planet and all its flora and fauna, which 'we do know'  is correct now, unless we are to ignore the unanimous scientific position (already a mighty consensus back in the 60's). Sorry.

Martyn1981

Germany is expanding its RE expansion;

Germany boosts 2022 onshore and PV auction volume

Germany's coalition government partners have agreed to boost the capacity available next year for solar power to 6GW from just under 2GW and onshore wind to 4GW from just below 3GW.

Coastalwatch

The potential for renewable sources of energy are growing by the week it seems and with prices still expected to decline in the years ahead the scope widens as each year passes, see graph below.

Hardly conceivable that such energy generated the other side of the world would benefit us here but, as posted earlier in the week, the proposal to supply the uk from Morocco surely opens up that possibility for much of north Africa to include the otherwise lifeless Sahara desert!

Australia positioned to be ‘battery of the world’

PV and wind could meet global energy demand 100 times over, according to a new report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative. Australia, in particular, is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the transition as one of the few developed countries with vast renewables potential and a low population.

Using current technology and available locations, it would be possible to capture at least 6,700 petawatt hours per annum from solar and wind, which is more than 100 times global energy demand, the Carbon Tracker Initiative said in a new report.

The decline in the cost of renewables over the past three years also means that half of this solar and wind potential is now economically viable, and by the end of the decade it will be above 90%.

“The technical and economic barriers [for renewables] have been crossed and the only impediment to change is political,” said Carbon Tracker.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/27/australia-positioned-to-be-battery-of-the-world/

silverwhistle

What I like is the potential speed of all these PV and wind installations. How much more will there be before Sizewell C starts generating (or they pull the plug on it)? Hornsea 2 (1.4MW) commissions next year. In Spain I notice a 640MW solar plant is starting this year and should be complete next. The constant increments in generation and the lowering of costs are very encouraging.

Coastalwatch

Just another incremental step but what struck me was that 40 GW figure which often seems to  feature as either average or maximum demand here in the UK. I can't find a recent highest generation for the UK, but the latest being 2018 when the figure was 13.1 GW.

German solar generates 40 GW for the first time

Germany is currently seeing cool, sunny weather, which is ideal for PV power generation. According to Energy Charts, the photovoltaic systems installed in the country have cracked the 40 GW mark for the first time.

The record result, of 40.7 GW, was achieved on April 27, at 1 p.m.

The favorable weather situation, with a sunny sky and low temperatures, had previously set new photovoltaic generation records on Friday and also at the weekend. According to German power provider Eon, a total of around 515 million kilowatt-hours of solar power were fed into the grid on Saturday and Sunday, which is more than ever for an April weekend.

Previously, according to Energy Charts, the highest photovoltaic output, of 37.7 GW, was reached at 1:30 p.m. on Friday. This exceeded the old record of June 1, 2020, when 37.2 GW was reached.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/28/german-solar-generates-40-gw-for-the-first-time/

QrizB

Coastalwatch said:

Just another incremental step but what struck me was that 40 GW figure which often seems to  feature as either average or maximum demand here in the UK. I can't find a recent highest generation for the UK, but the latest being 2018 when the figure was 13.1 GW.

I'm not sure you're comparing like with like there. The report you're quoting says that German PV output exceeded 40GW on 27th April (yesterday, as I type this) but that's from their 53.8GW of PV capacity (from chart here).

According to BEIS the UK currently has 13.54GW of installed PV capacity. There isn't any central metering of PV generation (not that I know of, anyway) but according to Sheffield Uni's estimates our all-time peak was 9.67GW on 6th May 2020 (although we got very close to that in the past few days).

Germany has roughly 4x the UK's installed PV capacity and their peak output is roughly 4x ours too.

Coastalwatch

Thanks for qualifying that QB as I suspect you are correct in your interpretation of the figures but it does show how far ahead of us Germany is when it comes to solar.

It may be they enjoy greater sunshine hours, although during my working life, one supplier from that nation described their weather as seven months of cold and wet with the remainder being winter.

Presumably, sunshine hours over there vary from area to area, as over here, so perhaps he was just unfortunate to where he did!