The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

1961Nick

mmmmikey wrote: »

The essence of this forum is that it is a place for discussion about how the global climate emergency is best addressed in a cost effective way, and/or what scope is there for using green technologies to save money. It is fair game (just about) to question on occasion whether there really is a climate emergency, but it is not in my view reasonable to hijack this forum and use it as a place for discussing whether there really is a problem to be addressed.

I don't think there is anyone on this forum that would dispute that the climate is going to change. Opinions only differ about whether iit's going to be climate change, a climate emergency a or climate crisis.

Some believe that we will do enough to limit GW to around 1.5C & everything will be ok(ish), however I'm not one of those. I personalty think the climate will warm by at least 3C & possibly as high as 4C. Even if we do reach those figures, the action we take today should slow down the warming & give us more time to adapt to the changing world. You may think that this is a very pessimistic outlook, but to me it's a pragmatic view of the world & what I see happening. If someone can get the USA, China & India onboard, and hold the global population at today's level, I might be more optimistic.

Martyn1981

At present, actions are woefully short of us reaching the 1.5C target. The idea is to keep ramping up RE deployments and switching space heating and transport, but we are behind the curve. This year we'll deploy 200GW of RE generation, but need to be at 300GW.

Hopefully with all the climate action now, and the decisions to refer to climate change as climate crisis going forward will spur more action and we get back on the curve, but the Paris Accord actions/promises from each country were always going to need to be stepped up as time went on.

If we miss the 1.5C figure, then all bets are off as to just how bad things will get, and just how high the costs of adaptation will be. Hence the need for more mitigation spending today which will reduce the damage and spending later.

mmmmikey

Good to see a couple of posts based on conflicting but reasoned positions and without a personal element

JKenH

Some of you will be pleased to hear that my appearance on here may in future be spasmodic. Yesterday I suffered the devastating and life changing prospect of no longer being able to contribute to this forum after my IP address was banned by MSE. Access has been reinstated and lost several times today and MSE have drawn my attention to this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5637311/warning-do-not-copy-and-paste-content-from-word-pdfs-etc-into-your-posts

As it is a pita (IYCBTJT) having to get in touch with MSE to sort this every time I may not bother and just catch up intermittently. My wife was highly delighted I couldn’t get on the forum last night and has pointed out that I was wasting a lot of time arguing with people I don’t know (a point already made by others) and after a few hours of cold turkey I admit she possibly has a point. I have sneaked down to the kitchen to post this furtively but hear footsteps on the landing so have to go...

Bye for now.

Solarchaser

^^That made me lol

pile-o-stone

Solarchaser wrote: »

^^That made me lol

me too. I'm always getting told off for wasting time on one thing or another when 'jobs' need to be done. I wonder what point in time our partners become our supervisors? I think it was about 3 months after mine moved in and noticed 'the guest bedroom is looking a little shabby'.

I've been 'on the clock' ever since

mmmmikey

pile-o-stone wrote: »

me too. I'm always getting told off for wasting time on one thing or another when 'jobs' need to be done. I wonder what point in time our partners become our supervisors? I think it was about 3 months after mine moved in and noticed 'the guest bedroom is looking a little shabby'.

I've been 'on the clock' ever since

Based on previous experience I can confirm that divorce is NOT a moneysaving solution to this issue

JKenH

Copied from the news thread so as to not take that off topic.

”Universities entering into PPA's to buy wind energy. Not clear from the article, but I'm reading it that this is existing generation, not a build out to meet the PPA, but I may be wrong, plus any increase in demand for RE will push the market forward.

UK universities in landmark deal to buy energy direct from windfarms

“
Twenty of the UK’s leading universities have struck a £50m deal to buy renewable energy directly from British windfarms for the first time.

The collaborative clean energy deal will supply electricity from wind farms across Scotland and Wales to universities including Newcastle University, University of Exeter and Aberystwyth University.
”
“
James Rolfe, the chief operating officer at Anglia Ruskin University, which is part of the deal, said the university has joined others in declaring a climate emergency, and plans to be climate neutral by 2030.

“To support this commitment we aim to source all of our electricity from zero carbon sources by 2025, and this power purchase agreement makes a significant contribution towards this goal whilst delivering financial savings and budget stability,” he added.

Richard Murphy, the managing director of The Energy Consortium, said the “groundbreaking deal” would help universities reduce their carbon emissions and save money by accessing the power purchase market for the first time.
”




Very meritorious but little more than virtue signalling.

At 9am on the morning of 1st March 2019 renewables were only providing 11.5% of the grid requirement with solar and wind making up just 4%. That of course is more than enough for the universities but if the whole country were to adopt the same renewables only policy the lights would go out.

Yes we need to promote more wind but we still need back up when we are becalmed. Until that is in place there is a limit to how much of the grid requirement can be made up by wind.

Edit: by back up I am referring to storage rather than fossil fuel back up which we rely on at present when wind is low.

1961Nick

JKenH wrote: »

Copied from the news thread so as to not take that off topic.

”Universities entering into PPA's to buy wind energy. Not clear from the article, but I'm reading it that this is existing generation, not a build out to meet the PPA, but I may be wrong, plus any increase in demand for RE will push the market forward.

UK universities in landmark deal to buy energy direct from windfarms

“
Twenty of the UK’s leading universities have struck a £50m deal to buy renewable energy directly from British windfarms for the first time.

The collaborative clean energy deal will supply electricity from wind farms across Scotland and Wales to universities including Newcastle University, University of Exeter and Aberystwyth University.
”
“
James Rolfe, the chief operating officer at Anglia Ruskin University, which is part of the deal, said the university has joined others in declaring a climate emergency, and plans to be climate neutral by 2030.

“To support this commitment we aim to source all of our electricity from zero carbon sources by 2025, and this power purchase agreement makes a significant contribution towards this goal whilst delivering financial savings and budget stability,” he added.

Richard Murphy, the managing director of The Energy Consortium, said the “groundbreaking deal” would help universities reduce their carbon emissions and save money by accessing the power purchase market for the first time.
”




Very meritorious but little more than virtue signalling.

At 9am on the morning of 1st March 2019 renewables were only providing 11.5% of the grid requirement with solar and wind making up just 4%. That of course is more than enough for the universities but if the whole country were to adopt the same renewables only policy the lights would go out.

Yes we need to promote more wind but we still need back up when we are becalmed. Until that is in place there is a limit to how much of the grid requirement can be made up by wind.

Edit: by back up I am referring to storage rather than fossil fuel back up which we rely on at present when wind is low.

As long as there are consumers out there who aren't bothered where their energy is generated, this is all pretty pointless. Allocating more green energy to universities just means that someone else gets more FF energy ... and they probably don't know or even care about it. Conclusion - a silly headline grabbing paperwork exercise that won't make a jot of difference.

mmmmikey

1961Nick wrote: »

As long as there are consumers out there who aren't bothered where their energy is generated, this is all pretty pointless. Allocating more green energy to universities just means that someone else gets more FF energy ... and they probably don't know or even care about it. Conclusion - a silly headline grabbing paperwork exercise that won't make a jot of difference.

Agreed. I find it particularly frustrating that an academic establishment can indulge in this kind of virtue signalling. My neighbour proudly told me the other day that he was doing his bit for the environment by switching to a green tariff. I can forgive him for not appreciating that this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to CO2 emissions, but I am much less sympathetic towards the universities who I think can reasonably be accused of getting involved in shameless marketing.