The Alternative Green Energy Thread

ed110220

JKenH said:

Interesting podcast about changing attitudes to climate change in the UK and the impact on UK politics.

“From this…

I believe that we have a moral duty. We will be ending our contribution to climate change by 2050 and legislating for a net zero emissions target.

Green is good. Green is right.

To this…

Net zero by 2050 is impossible. I want a better future and a better environment for our children, but we have to get real.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/have-we-stopped-caring-about-climate-change/id1501716010?i=1000725803493 includes transcript if, like me, you prefer the written to the spoken word.

https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/29451228-60ed-4423-9a93-759b00f4c865/episodes/8f346775-5402-4b4b-82ff-06aa8a24c405/the-story-have-we-stopped-caring-about-climate-change?ref=dm_sh_OWt6YH5nOzr6QCE0eDKRyMAN9

It's odd how just when the effects of climate change have never been clearer and the technologies to tackle it have never been cheaper and are now the cheapest option almost everywhere, there has been a growing rejection of that reality in Britain and some other developed countries.

Or perhaps not odd as it's driven by a reactionary movement that by definition is backward looking and exploits the badly informed... I bet its typical supporter wouldn't have a clue that for example solar is now by far the largest contributor to the world's increase in electricity demand, that renewables have pushed fossil fuel burning for electricity generation into absolute decline for the first time, that ICE vehicle production peaked almost 10 years ago and all growth since has been in EVs etc. It would blow their tiny minds if they were able to accept it rather than denying it.

As Philip K !!!!!! said 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away'. We can stop believing in reality but the world is moving on with or without us. All we'll achieve by rejecting reality is some self harm.

shinytop

It's odd how just when the effects of climate change have never been clearer and the technologies to tackle it have never been cheaper and are now the cheapest option almost everywhere, there has been a growing rejection of that reality in Britain and some other developed countries.

Or perhaps not odd as it's driven by a reactionary movement that by definition is backward looking and exploits the badly informed... I bet its typical supporter wouldn't have a clue that for example solar is now by far the largest contributor to the world's increase in electricity demand, that renewables have pushed fossil fuel burning for electricity generation into absolute decline for the first time, that ICE vehicle production peaked almost 10 years ago and all growth since has been in EVs etc. It would blow their tiny minds if they were able to accept it rather than denying it.

As Philip K !!!!!! said 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away'. We can stop believing in reality but the world is moving on with or without us. All we'll achieve by rejecting reality is some self harm.

And that (disagreement = tiny mind/stupidity) is exactly why a large (and apparently increasing) section of the population is reluctant to accept what they are being told to do.  

Have a look at Aesop's fable The North Wind and the Sun.        

QrizB

See also item 16 on this listicle.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jake_farrington/power-of-people-in-groups

JKenH

This Guardian article was first linked on the Energy thread but worth a mention here. The government says energy costs are high because of wholesale gas prices, while the power industry say that even if the wholesale price was zero bills would still be where they were today because of the increase in non-commodity costs. As always we will believe who we want to believe.

Energy bills likely to rise by 20% in next four years, says Britain’s biggest supplier

MPs told that even if wholesale prices plummet, consumers face higher bills owing to costs of government policies

An executive at Octopus Energy said household energy bills were likely to rise by 20% unless the government took radical action to address the burden of increasing “non-commodity costs”, even in a scenario where wholesale electricity prices fell by half.

Rachel Fletcher, its director for regulation and economics, made the stark warning before MPs at a select committee hearing on Wednesday.

Fletcher, who has held senior positions at Britain’s energy and water industry regulators, said “serious and urgent consideration” was needed to address the rise in non-commodity costs, which include levies paid through bills to support upgrades to gas and electricity networks, running the energy system and subsidising low-carbon power projects. This could include delaying investments that were not needed by the UK energy system in the short term, she added.

Fletcher appeared before the committee alongside senior executives from Britain’s biggest energy suppliers. Chris Norbury, the chief executive of E.On UK, said the supplier’s own modelling had suggested that even if the wholesale price was zero bills would still be where they were today because of the increase in non-commodity costs.

A government spokesperson said: “We categorically reject this speculation. Wholesale gas costs for households remain 75% higher than they were before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the main reason energy bills remain high.”

​”The only way to bring down energy bills for good is by making Britain a clean energy superpower, which will get the UK off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices and onto clean, homegrown power that we control,” the spokesperson said.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/15/britain-biggest-energy-supplier-octopus-bills-on-track-to-rise-by-fifth-in-next-four-years

Effician

QrizB said:

See also item 16 on this listicle.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jake_farrington/power-of-people-in-groups

As individuals, we have a lot of power, but when we come together, we are nearly unstoppable. Howeverrrrrrr, that doesn't always mean the thing we unite for is actually for the greater good.

Reminds me of the folks on this board, hopefully someone on here can tell me of some point in human history where " the next big thing"  has been good for our planet, yes you can say it's different this time but  this crusade that folks are on will morph into something not so good,  . Think about it , all advancements somehow lead to facilitating population growth & further demands on the planet.

Be careful what you wish for.

& yes man made climate change is real , global warming is here & i'm doing my bit because it's the right thing to do.

ed110220

shinytop said:

It's odd how just when the effects of climate change have never been clearer and the technologies to tackle it have never been cheaper and are now the cheapest option almost everywhere, there has been a growing rejection of that reality in Britain and some other developed countries.

Or perhaps not odd as it's driven by a reactionary movement that by definition is backward looking and exploits the badly informed... I bet its typical supporter wouldn't have a clue that for example solar is now by far the largest contributor to the world's increase in electricity demand, that renewables have pushed fossil fuel burning for electricity generation into absolute decline for the first time, that ICE vehicle production peaked almost 10 years ago and all growth since has been in EVs etc. It would blow their tiny minds if they were able to accept it rather than denying it.

As Philip K !!!!!! said 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away'. We can stop believing in reality but the world is moving on with or without us. All we'll achieve by rejecting reality is some self harm.

And that (disagreement = tiny mind/stupidity) is exactly why a large (and apparently increasing) section of the population is reluctant to accept what they are being told to do.  

Have a look at Aesop's fable The North Wind and the Sun.        

If I were a politician I'd have put it more diplomatically, but I'm not. The other thing about reality is that it doesn't care about popularity or feelings. We can convince ourselves that cleantech is a "hoax" to make some political point, or try to protect feelings, but the economics mean that China and most of the world will carry on regardless and we'll be more and more uncompetitive.

The closest historical parallel I can think of is the Soviet Union in which genetics, cybernetics and other whole fields of science had (negative) political values attached to them and were suppressed. Of course genetics etc didn't go away, other countries carried on developing them and gaining their benefits and by the time the Soviets were forced to come around to reality, they had just contributed to their own backwardness. 

JKenH

The Tony Blair Institute has issued a report with recommendations on our clean energy future.

The UK was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and therefore, until the early 1800s, was responsible for the majority of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Over time, however, the UK’s share has steadily diminished. By the end of the second world war, it had fallen to 10.5 per cent; by 1970, to 4.4 per cent; and by 1990, when the first report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released, to 2.65 per cent. By 2023, the UK accounted for just 0.81 per cent of global emissions – a figure that continues to shrink as UK emissions decline and other economies industrialise.

This trajectory underlines a central truth: while further UK decarbonisation remains important, its direct impact on the global climate will be marginal. The larger challenge lies in supporting the rest of the world’s transition.

At home, there is also debate about the most effective route to accelerate decarbonisation. Electricity made up just 21 per cent of the UK’s total final energy consumption in 2023. This means that reductions in power-sector emissions alone cannot deliver economy-wide decarbonisation. With the UK grid already relatively clean, the priority must shift toward driving electrification of transport, heating and industry. Lowering electricity bills will be crucial to that effort, since affordability is a key determinant of uptake.

For these reasons, there is limited climate rationale for racing towards a 95 per cent clean electricity system in the near term. While the eventual full decarbonisation of UK power is essential, this can be achieved over a longer horizon as technology and innovation catch up with policy ambition. In the meantime, the UK can maximise its climate contribution by supporting global decarbonisation abroad and accelerating electrification at home.

The government must therefore focus on what matters most – for growth, for consumers and for the climate: reducing the cost of electricity in a renewables-based system and creating the conditions for the full electrification of the economy. The immediate task is not squeezing out the final emissions in the power sector but delivering electricity that is both cheap and clean, so it becomes the obvious alternative to fossil fuels for households, transport and industry alike.

Doing so requires reform of the Clean Power 2030 mission. Launched in the middle of the gas crisis and in a low-interest environment, it was right for its time, but circumstances have changed. The UK now needs more than a decarbonisation plan. It needs a full-spectrum energy strategy built on growth, resilience and abundant clean electricity. This means prioritising cost, flexibility and long-term stability – the real building blocks of electrification – not just short-term emissions cuts.

If Britain gets this right, the prize is enormous – both for the climate and the economy. Cheaper, clean electricity would cut emissions while lowering bills in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It would attract new industries, such as AI data centres, to locate in Britain. It would accelerate electrification across households, transport and industry, raising efficiency and boosting productivity. And by proving that decarbonisation can be done affordably, Britain could lead abroad as well as at home – exporting not only clean technologies but also a model for others to follow.

Unless the foundations are fixed, however, the risks are clear: higher costs, weaker reliability, lost public confidence and a growing backlash against climate action.

To focus minds across government, the Clean Power 2030 mission should therefore be reframed as Cheaper Power 2030, Net Zero 2050.

The UK’s commitment to net zero remains firm. Britain led the world in enshrining the Climate Change Act, and that legal duty stands. While some have suggested walking back the country’s commitment to the Climate Change Act or to achieving net zero by 2050, that choice would amount to rolling back progress. The question is no longer whether to decarbonise, but how – how to deliver clean power affordably, securely and with public support.

https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/cheaper-power-2030-net-zero-2050-resetting-UK-electricity-strategy

Magnitio

JKenH said:

The Tony Blair Institute has issued a report with recommendations on our clean energy future.

Is that the same Tony Blair Institute that receives significant funding from the UAE?

Netexporter

I'm sure his energy credentials are as finely honed as his bringing peace to the Middle East skills.

JKenH

Magnitio said:

JKenH said:

The Tony Blair Institute has issued a report with recommendations on our clean energy future.

Is that the same Tony Blair Institute that receives significant funding from the UAE?

Does it ultimately matter where the funding comes from? It may to you and some others. But let’s be real, at the end of the day all that matters is whether or not Tony Blair or the TBI has sufficient influence to impact policy. Most democratic governments have policies they wish to pursue because they believe it’s the right thing to do but ultimately the priority of any government is staying in power and if the leaders see the political sands shifting beneath their feet they will look for firmer ground. Energy costs are a hot potato and with TB having personally approved the report it may be difficult for the prime minister to reject it out of hand.