Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

Heedtheadvice said:

......

As an experienced engineer working on many a project I was dissapointed by Zeupeters comments on time slippage being the only result of the delay on the climate zero aim.

Adverse things such as a delay often trigger rethinks in methods to achieve the aim and still keep to time, quality and cost. Mind you some of those do seem to have disappeared in the management of some projects! 

......

Hi

Actually, that's not what Zeupater attempted to convey about project management ....

Effectively, if there's rethink options which could bring a project that's experienced a (say) ~30% delay resulting from external influences but can still be completed on time without major change in original scope or calling on and employing considerably more resource at no additional cost, then that brings up serious questions on the quality of the original plan .... 

The original plan, like all effective project plans, should have considered the human resource available to bring the project in within target timescales, however, such a large scale plan also needs to consider the total supply chain capacity to provide the materials and machinery required .... in this case the plan should/will have considered available manufacturing capacities in the renewables sector (solar panels, wind turbines, infrastructure etc) which likely describe some of the the main constraints to establishing timeline ... yes, some resource can be increased considerably to shorten particular tasks without effecting efficiencies (and therefore cost), but that only has a real impact on the timeline if that task forms part of the critical path, however what happens if the critical path analysis shows the materials supply chain's capacity to react & supply from a planned resource capacity is a key factor which can't be ramped up without considerable further investment and the appropriate lead time???? ...

I agree that projects of small scope can be accelerated by allocating more resource ... maybe allocating double the number of tradesman to a task could halve the timescale at no additional cost, however, in doubling again the potential for interference and associated efficiency loss increases, so as each unit of labour becomes less efficient the cost/time relationship changes ... you can recover, but it will cost more .... this is a fundamental truth associated with project planning - it's all about balancing materials supply, plant & machinery, labour & time within each task (/subproject) to set & meet agreeable milestones, particularly related to tasks impacting the critical path.

Within the case in question it's unreasonable to assume that, seeing that it's a continent-wide endeavour, global supply chain capacities & availabilities were not originally considered, so considering that the pandemic resulted in both the (then) existing supply chain and the projects building new capacity being shut down for around 2 years then that lost time could effectively be recovered immediately, or even immediately at no additional cost .... the loss of 30% of capacity due to time simply results in additional equivalent capacity above the originally planned expanded capacity to be made available ... and that adds to cost in some way or other because other projects in other countries in other continents are all drawing on the same supply chain at the same time ...

What was conveyed in the previous post is that, due to the pandemic, the 2030 milestone targets are unlikely to be met & that considerable further expenditure would be necessary to mitigate this, so rather than wasting time and effort for what is essentially a 'saving face' exercise against an arbitrary timescale, the logical approach would be to recover the position over the next 5 year period, so the mitigation plan should allow for the lost progress prior to 2030 to be recovered by 2035. 

In effect this is not as bad as it first looks because of the effect of lockdown itself. For a couple of years many of the sources of emissions were either in, or affected by the various lockdowns ... air travel, transport, considerable proportions of manufacturing, tourism, construction and almost all other sectors were emitting considerably less than budgeted for and seeing that it's taken considerable time & effort for economies to recover to previous levels of activity, it's likely that the budgeted carbon emissions for the period immediately after everything was eventually opened up were also lower. All of these pandemic associated emission reductions need to be considered within any recovery plan ... maybe it's a case that although the 2030 'in year' carbon emissions target would be missed, the total carbon emission output for the period 2020-2030 will be considerably lower than expected !!! ...

HTH - Z (The impossible I do immediately, miracles take a little longer - if only!)        

Heedtheadvice

Apologies Z if I picked you up incorrectly. It was particularly the para starting 'Targets are set....'

I have managed several large projects and generally what you eloquently write I do agree with. However the 'project' in question (achieve net zero) is not a single project, not even a configuration of projects with controlled linkages plus all the possibilities of methods to meet the aim are continuously changing as are the resources and the other normal constraints on a project. Thus it needs different methodology applied and flexible approaches as the ability to do tasks changes (hopefully improves) in all the collection of projects. Even re-evaluation and acceptance of risks as we learn about new possibilities can mean plans change. 

Not therefore that any original plan was necessarily wrong. Several ( or all) will have been!

Yes build in contingency and mitigation for changes but it is too complex to know what those awill be at the outset. We did predict a pandemic ( and the politicians did not react sufficiently before one that was called Covid arrived ) but we could not predict the time of it. We now need to react and improve our plans.

zeupater

Hi

The way I see it is that the whole concept would need to be regarded as a single project consisting of multiple sub projects each with their own critical paths and associated milestones, but each impacting the overall critical path to satisfy the required goals.

I know it's complicated but the basic reasoning is that many of the resources involved, both supply chain and skillset, are drawn from what is effectively a limited pool and in various ways common to multiple 'sub projects' along national, regional, specific locality and technological grounds .... think of it as requiring multidimensional planning & management and you'll start to get the idea. To have a successful outcome each of the sub projects therefore should have been evaluated and prioritised so as to deliver the best possible outcome per unit of investment within the acceptable milestone timescales, else the likelihood of overall project creep or overspend becomes a major risk element and the later this is recognised, the higher the impact/cost of timeline recovery activities.

I agree that contingency planning could have included the possibility of a pandemic, however, although personally having seen, audited & reviewed many such plans over multiple manufacturing sectors, I've never come across any measures that would have made any difference in situations where lockdowns were mandated at political levels, especially when such decisions were global ... effectively a full risk analysis would place this event in the high impact/low probability zone with little chance of reduction on the impact due to the political decision aspects being outside any form of control ...

Anyway, the discussion we're having is predicated on the assumption that timescales and milestones & budgets were actually derived from some form of logical planning which was fully scrutinized in an open & fully transparent manner .... my opinion is that goals & dates were set at a political level with little regard for whether timescales were achievable, let alone having researched likely costs .... but again, many don't seem to understand that there's a world of difference between wishing & planning, especially so within political circles!

HTH - Z (PPPPPP .... if you know what I mean!) 

Martyn1981

California is now stepping into the ring, to take on the oil companies and their disinformation campaigns helping to fuel (and often fund) AGW denial. I appreciate it's way too late now to prevent the massive harm caused by burning FF's, but anything and everything that might faster reduce their consumption, is at least something.

Hopefully, the more the harm caused is brought to everyone's attention, the greater the shift in awareness and policies will be / can be. So faster deployment of RE, BEV's, heatpumps etc.

California sues oil companies claiming they downplayed the risk of fossil fuels

California has filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public and downplayed the risks posed by fossil fuels.

The civil lawsuit filed in state Superior Court in San Francisco also seeks creation of a fund – financed by the companies – to pay for recovery efforts after devastating storms and fires. Democratic governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement the companies named in the lawsuit – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP – should be held accountable.

“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us – covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said. “California taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for billions of dollars in damages – wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air, deadly heatwaves, record-breaking droughts parching our wells.”

The 135-page complaint argues that the companies have known since at least the 1960s that the burning of fossil fuels would warm the planet and change the climate, but they downplayed the looming threat in public statements and marketing.

It said the companies’ scientists knew as far back as the 1950s that the climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window of time in which communities and governments could respond.

Instead, the lawsuit said, the companies mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit a growing scientific consensus on climate change, and disputed climate change-related risks.

Allegations in the lawsuit include faulting the companies for creating or contributing to climate change in California, false advertising, damage to natural resources and unlawful business practices for deceiving the public about climate change.

Coastalwatch

As if to confirm all of the above Dave Borlace's latest Just Have a Think video due out this evening makes us aware of their serious global effects coming, not at the end of the century, but sometime next year. 

Scary, to me at least!

Heedtheadvice

@Z certainly have some common thinking with you there especially with your last para !!

All I would add is that project sub project relies on a controlled structure. We do not have that possibility with politicians in charge and too many customers and stakeholders ( all who cannot agree and still have greater other priorities ) so pppppp stops at the first p!

silverwhistle

I think there should be another p at the end.. probably.

The other thing with big complicated projects is the opportunity to blame your dependency on others for your own failures. Hence why, unless there are serious conflicts, I reckon everybody should get on as best they can with what they can achieve in their own projects!

zeupater

silverwhistle said:

I think there should be another p at the end.. probably.

The other thing with big complicated projects is the opportunity to blame your dependency on others for your own failures. Hence why, unless there are serious conflicts, I reckon everybody should get on as best they can with what they can achieve in their own projects!

Hi

That's probably fully covered in the fourth 'P' ...

Blame related to others & related factors is the very reason all projects need management ... without it you are effectively accepting drift followed by denial, then ultimate failure ... that's exactly why so many public sector projects come in late and well over budget as at almost all political levels it's considered that once approval is given and funds allocated, that's it, job finished, and everyone looks around for the applause & gongs reserved for winners, whereas in reality the starting gun has just been sounded .... it's a mindset so typical that those responsible should be held accountable for their complete naivety, sometimes bordering on criminal level stupidity, particularly when failure is expected/exposed and unworkable recovery solutions are employed without an appropriate level of consideration ...

Relating to the recent discussion, the issue seems to revolve around the vast EU bureaucracy realising that their commitments to meet the 2015 Paris Accord agreed 2030 targets for energy related emissions whilst, of course, neglecting to understand their own decisions related to the pandemic form a major factor in the overrun ... this was so obvious to anyone with the capacity to actually think logically (obviously excluding people who walk in busy streets with their smartphone permanently glued to their nose!) that any and all existing project costs & milestones would need some level of reassessment, especially those high profile ones related to climate, which is so hot a topic and so urgent that the fundamental existence of humanity depends on it's successful conclusion ... success of a project which they themselves seem to be unaware that it was they who fired a full salvo of torpedoes at to save humanity from an even greater threat to the existence of humanity, the pandemic, and made really poor judgements by placing too many energy generation related eggs in a Russian basket without having thought through a plan B !! ...

Can't have it all ways, but there seems to be plenty of high level scare scenario cards being played recently ... just makes you wonder why, doesn't it ??? 

Having already effectively achieved net-zero on an individual household basis, I'll just sit here and continue to watch the elite making such an absolute 'pigs-ear' of something which in reality is pretty straightforward if they only put their mind to it and reduced reliance on vested interest groups, whichever side of the debate they sit on .... 

Vast issues aren't really solved by seeking & championing grandiose solutions, it just takes the ability to break the whole down into manageable chunks, allocate the appropriate resource, get on with things, then move on to the next task - and this is what well defined projects are designed to do from the onset ....

HTH - Z ( Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, moved on! )

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

California is now stepping into the ring, to take on the oil companies and their disinformation campaigns helping to fuel (and often fund) AGW denial. I appreciate it's way too late now to prevent the massive harm caused by burning FF's, but anything and everything that might faster reduce their consumption, is at least something.

Hopefully, the more the harm caused is brought to everyone's attention, the greater the shift in awareness and policies will be / can be. So faster deployment of RE, BEV's, heatpumps etc.

California sues oil companies claiming they downplayed the risk of fossil fuels

California has filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public and downplayed the risks posed by fossil fuels.

The civil lawsuit filed in state Superior Court in San Francisco also seeks creation of a fund – financed by the companies – to pay for recovery efforts after devastating storms and fires. Democratic governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement the companies named in the lawsuit – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP – should be held accountable.

“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us – covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said. “California taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for billions of dollars in damages – wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air, deadly heatwaves, record-breaking droughts parching our wells.”

The 135-page complaint argues that the companies have known since at least the 1960s that the burning of fossil fuels would warm the planet and change the climate, but they downplayed the looming threat in public statements and marketing.

It said the companies’ scientists knew as far back as the 1950s that the climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window of time in which communities and governments could respond.

Instead, the lawsuit said, the companies mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit a growing scientific consensus on climate change, and disputed climate change-related risks.

Allegations in the lawsuit include faulting the companies for creating or contributing to climate change in California, false advertising, damage to natural resources and unlawful business practices for deceiving the public about climate change.

Hi

That'll go far then .... it'll end up with 'State sues itself and the Federal Government for historical decisions', obviously the argument will revolve around previous administrations being aware or not, and after having unnecessarily relocated taxpayers' dollars into the much loved lawyers' pockets, all will either go away without resolve, or any judgement in California's favour will pass through to the US Supreme court, where it'll be judged unconstitutional, probably on the grounds that Federal land usage (major source of oil), national security & international policy issues are ultimately Federal concerns ... looks like a headline grabbing biased interpretation of historical events to me!

HTH - Z

Grumpy_chap

I am not sure whether the BBC is reporting real news here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

Maybe it is just political posturing via think tank groups to test the water and then they'll come back in to say they are not changing anything.
An area to keep an eye on I suppose.