The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

Smart meter rollout plunged into crisis in fresh blow for net zero

Every home is meant to have a smart meter by 2025 as part of the Government's net zero plans, but the rollout is far behind schedule because Covid disrupted appointments and millions of consumers are reluctant to have the devices installed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/25/smart-meter-rollout-plunged-crisis-fresh-blow-net-zero/

I've tried to get one but have been told 'no availability in your area at this time' Or something like that.

It is frustrating if you are buying an EV as without a smart meter you can’t get TOU tariffs like Octopus Go.

JKenH

michaels said:

Earlier today, average grid CO2 fell to 32g - not bad at all.

Drax Electric Insights

Could it be a record low?  This from 2021 when 39g was a record low
Britain's grid was the greenest it has ever been this year! - Energy Live News

Not quite.

JKenH

Natural Gas Prices To Rally As G7 Changes Its Tune On LNG Investment

How many of us would have seen this coming a couple of years ago or even last year?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year, the European Union has experienced a major priority rearrangement in the energy department that culminated this week with the G7 declaring their support for investments in new LNG production after earlier committing to halting all public spending on such investments, as well as investments in fossil fuels in line with their net-zero plans.

“Investment in this sector is necessary in response to the current crisis,” the leaders of the world’s seven biggest economies said in a statement, as cited by Bloomberg, noting that this is temporary and the projects would need to be aligned with climate objectives to gain their support.

However many hedges the G7 include, this is still a U-turn of the sharper variety. Just months ago, at the COP26 gathering, the G7 leaders and their fellow leaders in Europe were racing to make the most ambitious climate commitment. Now, the race is on to secure enough oil and gas to last the winter.

Even though the G7 leaders pretend long-term contracts are not a thing, or that they can pass for “temporary”, they very much are a thing, and that’s some serious compromise on climate goals as is already being detected by the media.

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/natural-gas-prices-rally-g7-230000593.html

JKenH

Analysts cast doubt on National Grid’s plan for off-peak energy use

The scheme which aims to pay consumers to use less electricity at peak times will not solve the “big capacity crunch”, according to a report

https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/06/30/analysts-cast-doubt-on-national-grids-plan-for-off-peak-energy-use/

QrizB

JKenH said:

How many of us would have seen this coming a couple of years ago or even last year?

Two different crises with two different solutions.

Short-term measures (more gas and oil) are needed to keep the lights on for the next few years, but long-term measures (more low-carbon generation, reduced demand, efficiency improvements) are still needed to try and keep CO2 under control.

The Yahoo article links out to the New York Times, which has a longer-form piece on the transatlantic LNG market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/liquefied-natural-gas-europe.html

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

How many of us would have seen this coming a couple of years ago or even last year?

Two different crises with two different solutions.

Short-term measures (more gas and oil) are needed to keep the lights on for the next few years, but long-term measures (more low-carbon generation, reduced demand, efficiency improvements) are still needed to try and keep CO2 under control.

The Yahoo article links out to the New York Times, which has a longer-form piece on the transatlantic LNG market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/liquefied-natural-gas-europe.html

It was intended as an example of how difficult it is to predict the future, short or long term. We know the long term trend is away from oil and gas and some form of sustainable energy will have to replace them, although we can’t predict what form that will take in 2050. It also demonstrates that for all the fine long term intentions and promises, politics dictate short term pragmatism will prevail. 

The impact of the energy crisis is to distort all energy markets not just oil and gas. Renewable energy producers are also benefiting from higher energy prices which make investment in them more attractive but as coal, oil and gas prices eventually fall, so will all energy prices impacting on investment returns. 

QrizB

JKenH said:

It was intended as an example of how difficult it is to predict the future, short or long term. We know the long term trend is away from oil and gas and some form of sustainable energy will have to replace them, although we can’t predict what form that will take in 2050. It also demonstrates that for all the fine long term intentions and promises, politics dictate short term pragmatism will prevail.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Even if the energy strategy had been "burn all the things and to heck with the climate" the war in Ukraine (and the political response to it) would still have disrupted the supply of Russian oil and gas, and so we'd still be having to build redundant infrastructure to let us change our source of supply.

No-one is saying that building LNG terminals will prevent Europe from also building low-carbon energy sources, are they?

The impact of the energy crisis is to distort all energy markets not just oil and gas. Renewable energy producers are also benefiting from higher energy prices which make investment in them more attractive but as coal, oil and gas prices eventually fall, so will all energy prices impacting on investment returns. 

I made that exact same point (in a different context) here.

1961Nick

JKenH said:

Natural Gas Prices To Rally As G7 Changes Its Tune On LNG Investment

How many of us would have seen this coming a couple of years ago or even last year?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year, the European Union has experienced a major priority rearrangement in the energy department that culminated this week with the G7 declaring their support for investments in new LNG production after earlier committing to halting all public spending on such investments, as well as investments in fossil fuels in line with their net-zero plans.

“Investment in this sector is necessary in response to the current crisis,” the leaders of the world’s seven biggest economies said in a statement, as cited by Bloomberg, noting that this is temporary and the projects would need to be aligned with climate objectives to gain their support.

However many hedges the G7 include, this is still a U-turn of the sharper variety. Just months ago, at the COP26 gathering, the G7 leaders and their fellow leaders in Europe were racing to make the most ambitious climate commitment. Now, the race is on to secure enough oil and gas to last the winter.

Even though the G7 leaders pretend long-term contracts are not a thing, or that they can pass for “temporary”, they very much are a thing, and that’s some serious compromise on climate goals as is already being detected by the media.

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/natural-gas-prices-rally-g7-230000593.html

Maybe this is a good thing? Europe expands LNG production to displace Russian gas & Russia diverts gas exports to China where it displaces coal. Overall it's a win for the environment albeit an expensive one for everyone bar the Chinese.

michaels

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

Natural Gas Prices To Rally As G7 Changes Its Tune On LNG Investment

How many of us would have seen this coming a couple of years ago or even last year?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year, the European Union has experienced a major priority rearrangement in the energy department that culminated this week with the G7 declaring their support for investments in new LNG production after earlier committing to halting all public spending on such investments, as well as investments in fossil fuels in line with their net-zero plans.

“Investment in this sector is necessary in response to the current crisis,” the leaders of the world’s seven biggest economies said in a statement, as cited by Bloomberg, noting that this is temporary and the projects would need to be aligned with climate objectives to gain their support.

However many hedges the G7 include, this is still a U-turn of the sharper variety. Just months ago, at the COP26 gathering, the G7 leaders and their fellow leaders in Europe were racing to make the most ambitious climate commitment. Now, the race is on to secure enough oil and gas to last the winter.

Even though the G7 leaders pretend long-term contracts are not a thing, or that they can pass for “temporary”, they very much are a thing, and that’s some serious compromise on climate goals as is already being detected by the media.

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/natural-gas-prices-rally-g7-230000593.html

Maybe this is a good thing? Europe expands LNG production to displace Russian gas & Russia diverts gas exports to China where it displaces coal. Overall it's a win for the environment albeit an expensive one for everyone bar the Chinese.

High fossil fuel prices are a double edged sword, they encourage renewables investment but they also result in previously uneconomic reserves being exploited, and once these reserves are tapped no doubt they will be exploited until depleted even if prices fall again, as a big part of the cost is upfront capital expenditure.

Hopefully bringing forward renewable investment will outweigh the short term increase in FF exploitation.

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

It was intended as an example of how difficult it is to predict the future, short or long term. We know the long term trend is away from oil and gas and some form of sustainable energy will have to replace them, although we can’t predict what form that will take in 2050. It also demonstrates that for all the fine long term intentions and promises, politics dictate short term pragmatism will prevail.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Even if the energy strategy had been "burn all the things and to heck with the climate" the war in Ukraine (and the political response to it) would still have disrupted the supply of Russian oil and gas, and so we'd still be having to build redundant infrastructure to let us change our source of supply.

No-one is saying that building LNG terminals will prevent Europe from also building low-carbon energy sources, are they?

The impact of the energy crisis is to distort all energy markets not just oil and gas. Renewable energy producers are also benefiting from higher energy prices which make investment in them more attractive but as coal, oil and gas prices eventually fall, so will all energy prices impacting on investment returns. 

I made that exact same point (in a different context) here.

We were trending to lower energy prices before COVID struck. In the early part of 2020 the oil and gas industry was on its knees and refineries started closing then last summer low wind in Europe and a recovering world economy took oil back past the $60 level where it had been languishing for the last half of the 2010s. The p9litical climate has changed and to step in and produce more oil and gas. Joe Biden is asking oil companies to explain why they shut down so many refineries during the pandemic. Green leaning investment managers and banks, encouraged by politicians, were denying oil companies funds for development  but are now saying that gas and oil are ethical investments as  energy security is vital. The mood changed before Russia invaded Ukraine. Back in August 2021 Joe Biden asked the Saudis/OPEC to pump more oil. Meanwhile the pandemic slowed down the roll out of renewable energy exacerbating the situation. 

It’s not just the fossil fuel industry. Germany decided to shut down its nuclear generation fleet and France seems to be struggling with nuclear generation. One minute we are moving towards nuclear, the next we are saying there are too many practical problems. The Russia/Ukraine war has brought the situation to a head but Europe’s energy supply was already creaking. 

I am not making a judgement on the ethics or practicalities of the situation, just pointing out how over the space of less than 2 years both attitudes and fortunes changed for the oil and gas and nuclear industries. It may take a few years to work through or some other event such as a world recession may alter the balance all over again. 

What I am trying to say is that we just don’t know what is round the corner. We’ve had COVID - something like that could easily happen again. We have a war between Russia and Ukraine - next year it could be China and Taiwan or Russia flexing its muscles again along its western flank. China and the US may have a trade war.  Geopolitical tensions could disrupt the supply of crucial materials needed for renewable energy and EVs.  It could be a Middle East conflict, a major terrorist attack, a world recession - who knows? There are numerous potential issues which could derail our progress to a zero carbon world. We are now so dependent on international trade that it only takes one brick to be removed and the whole wall falls down. All the while new technologies are developing at an ever increasing rate and we don’t know who the winners and losers will be. Tesla since launching the TM3 has totally disrupted the auto industry but just 5 years ago it was a niche player teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. We didn’t see it coming and we won’t believe the next tech revolution until it is happening. If history tells us anything it won’t be at all like what we are expecting.