The Alternative Green Energy Thread

Exiled_Tyke

I don't want to shut down debate but don't believe that's the purpose of these particular boards.  I'm up for debate if it's from reliable sources.  Populism does't equate to truth and GB news success (and its history of being reprimanded for biased reporting and breaking Ofcom rules) should be of great concern to us all. 

michaels

Exiled_Tyke said:

I don't want to shut down debate but don't believe that's the purpose of these particular boards.  I'm up for debate if it's from reliable sources.  Populism doesn't equate to truth and GB news success (and its history of being reprimanded for biased reporting and breaking Ofcom rules) should be of great concern to us all. 

I don't think you are shutting down debate and value this thread where we can take a holistic view of the subject.  I think most of us geeky enough to be taking part in the discussion are also able to appraise the reliability and biases of the quoted material

Challenging conventional wisdom is always valuable.  I was recently at a talk on a PHD research project which was trying to look at whole economy CO2 impacts of specific 'green' interventions including unintended consequences.  For example encouraging green steel by subsidising green hydrogen might have knock on effects in terms of where the methane no longer used for steel might be used instead (if it remained profitable to extract at a marginally lower market price) and whether reducing the price of steel (due to cheaper production costs now green hydrogen was subsidised to be cheaper than natural gas) might lead to increased steel (and other materials) usage thus not really reducing CO2 as much as expected from that route either. 

Magnitio

Some reading:

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/renewable-energy-costs/#heading-4

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/why-is-cheap-renewable-electricity-so-expensive/

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/

If it doesn't agree with your views, then just ignore it.

JKenH

Government projected to miss revised Clean Power 2030 targets by 32GW

https://www.cornwall-insight.com/press-and-media/press-release/government-projected-to-miss-revised-clean-power-2030-targets-by-32gw/

JKenH

In case anyone had been having sleepless nights since the report a couple of years ago that the AMOC could collapse by 2025, hopefully this will put your minds at rest. (That assumes of course that I have understood it correctly.)

Atlantic overturning inferred from air-sea heat fluxes indicates no decline since the 1960s

Based on the here identified relationship and observation-based estimates of the past air-sea heat flux in the North Atlantic from reanalysis products, the decadal averaged AMOC at 26.5°N has not weakened from 1963 to 2017 although substantial variability exists at all latitudes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5

Edit: I should add that I have just finished reading A Winter Grave, a novel by Peter May set in a 2051 Scotland which had seen dramatic climate change induced by the collapse of the AMOC. This dramatisation, (much more realistic than The Day After Tomorrow) really brought home the potential impact of Climate Change on the UK. I believe fiction can sometimes drive home a message better than factual reporting.

Guardian review:

Veteran crime writer Peter May was all set to retire after he published The Night Gate in 2021. Then Cop26’s failures ignited his rage. They also set him on a research project into the climate crisis that persuaded him he needed to write about the catastrophe looming in our future. A Winter Grave (Riverrun, £22) is set in the Scottish Highlands almost 30 years from now, after the “Big Change” has hit the world. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/24/the-best-recent-and-thriller-writing-review-roundup-janice-hallett

ed110220

JKenH said:

I am sure we could debate, ad infinitum, the motivations of commentators on both sides of the climate debate. If you are aware, however, of any sources discussing the impact of renewables on UK electricity bills (in terms of actual numbers) then please post them. It should be possible to have a discussion on the impact on bills independently of ideology but I am fearful that some may see any suggestion that renewables actually increase electricity bills as back door climate denial and try to shut it down. Can we perhaps try and look at the impact on bills objectively like, say, the government of the day might have to do. I appreciate everything in politics is a balancing act and getting the facts right is an essential precursor to any decision. It isn’t as easy as saying it’s got to be done whatever the cost.

It's not even a question of motive, it's that you're quoting sources that are known to be dishonest. As it's a complex subject that isn't easily verified by the average person and so needs some trust in the source, avoiding known dishonest actors is important. There are loads of respected sources out there, just two from a quick search:-

How cost-effective is a renewables-dominated electricity system in comparison to one based on fossil fuels? (Imperial College)

Chasing the Sun and Catching the Wind: Energy Transition and Electricity Prices in Europe (International Monetary Fund)

It's a bit like if you had a serious medical problem that required trust in medical professionals you wouldn't go to someone already known to be a dishonest quack for their opinion, and it wouldn't be reasonable to treat their opinion and that of a respected specialist as "just some opinions to consider". Or to say that "they both have motives, so they're equally valid". Promoting dishonest sources just discredits your own opinions. 

JKenH

ed110220 said:

JKenH said:

I am sure we could debate, ad infinitum, the motivations of commentators on both sides of the climate debate. If you are aware, however, of any sources discussing the impact of renewables on UK electricity bills (in terms of actual numbers) then please post them. It should be possible to have a discussion on the impact on bills independently of ideology but I am fearful that some may see any suggestion that renewables actually increase electricity bills as back door climate denial and try to shut it down. Can we perhaps try and look at the impact on bills objectively like, say, the government of the day might have to do. I appreciate everything in politics is a balancing act and getting the facts right is an essential precursor to any decision. It isn’t as easy as saying it’s got to be done whatever the cost.

It's not even a question of motive, it's that you're quoting sources that are known to be dishonest. As it's a complex subject that isn't easily verified by the average person and so needs some trust in the source, avoiding known dishonest actors is important. There are loads of respected sources out there, just two from a quick search:-

How cost-effective is a renewables-dominated electricity system in comparison to one based on fossil fuels? (Imperial College)

Chasing the Sun and Catching the Wind: Energy Transition and Electricity Prices in Europe (International Monetary Fund)

It's a bit like if you had a serious medical problem that required trust in medical professionals you wouldn't go to someone already known to be a dishonest quack for their opinion, and it wouldn't be reasonable to treat their opinion and that of a respected specialist as "just some opinions to consider". Or to say that "they both have motives, so they're equally valid". Promoting dishonest sources just discredits your own opinions. 

Neither of those articles provide any real insight into the actual additional cost of increasing renewables on UK electricity bills. Both appear to be theoretical studies, the first referring to 2035 prices (and quoting system costs below the LCOE cost inflation adjusted CfD strike price of AR6 wind generation) and the second an almost unintelligible (at least to me) statistical analysis of price volatility in relation to renewables - neither analyse the additional costs such as subsidies and network costs and are therefore totally unhelpful to any attempt to assess the impact of renewables on our domestic bills. 

Edit: correction: LCOE cost inflation adjusted CfD strike price

QrizB

JKenH said:

In case anyone had been having sleepless nights since the report a couple of years ago that the AMOC could collapse by 2025, hopefully this will put your minds at rest.

It's nice to hear a bit of good news, assuming "bad thing we thought might be happening, probably isn't" counts as good news!

And that book sounds interesting too.

You mentioned "The Day After Tomorrow"; did you ever see the review of the movie by a palaeoclimatologist? It was originally posted on Usenet but is still worth reading:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.written/c/FY2NddLElKM/m/X3djr3oVUm4J

JKenH

I came across this very useful paper from Cornwall Insight which sets out how electricity bills could be reduced by £207 for a dual fuel user (£300 for electricity only) by removing policy costs and additional environmental and social levies.




https://mcsfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Policy-Costs-in-Domestic-Energy-Bills.pdf

edit: not all the policy costs are directly related to renewables - it also includes the WHD scheme I believe. I will try and provide further edits to break down these costs. As an example a bill for OFGEM’s typical 2700kWh user would be around 60p/day standing charge - say £219 plus 2700kWh at 24p  - £648 gives a total of £867. Without the policy costs it would be £660. Policy costs therefore add around  31% to the typical  domestic electricity bill. 

Please note that these figures do not include future network up grade costs which are likely to be running at £5bn+/year. Based on Cornwall Insight’s figures (£6.5bn = £300/household) this would mean network upgrade costs could be adding another £230+ per annum in future years. I don’t know how much of this is additional and how much is included in existing bills. 

Below is a breakdown of policy costs but this doesn’t tally with the Cornwall Insight figure so there is obviously a difference as to what is included.

https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/whats-in-an-energy-bill/policy-costs/#:~:text=Policy%20costs%20are%20government%20levies,cover%20investments%20in%20renewable%20energy.

Sorry I have to go out now but will try and have a look at this again later.

edit -  correction. I used electricity only user costs where I should have used dual fuel. I haven’t had time to look at the network costs again as I really do have to go out now. 

Magnitio

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

In case anyone had been having sleepless nights since the report a couple of years ago that the AMOC could collapse by 2025, hopefully this will put your minds at rest.

It's nice to hear a bit of good news, assuming "bad thing we thought might be happening, probably isn't" counts as good news!

And that book sounds interesting too.

You mentioned "The Day After Tomorrow"; did you ever see the review of the movie by a palaeoclimatologist? It was originally posted on Usenet but is still worth reading:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.written/c/FY2NddLElKM/m/X3djr3oVUm4J

Although it only analysed data through to 2017 and doesn't preclude a collapse occurring. There have been significant increases in global temperatures since 2017 (in particular the last 18 months) a considerable reduction in the arctic ice cover and an increase in the rate at which the Greenland ice sheet is melting. This is not a time for complacency.