The Alternative Green Energy Thread

QrizB

JKenH said:

So is the consensus that HPC CfD should have been at a lower figure when set in 2013? 

I doubt you'll get a consensus on that, here or anywhere else.

JKenH

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source

Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

The UNECE study says nuclear ranges from 5.1 to 6.4 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of generation.

That compares to the wind power source that produces between 7.8 and 21 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh and coal at 753 – 1095g CO2 eq./kWh.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/22/un-hails-nuclear-as-the-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/

JKenH

MPs require all new buildings to have renewables from next year

Almost half of MPs approve the removal of VAT on all domestic renewables and energy efficiency measures for 10 years, a new survey shows

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/29/mps-require-all-new-buildings-to-have-renewables-from-next-year/

JKenH

UK oil and gas companies raise £1.1bn, up 307% in a year as commodities boom

Oil & gas and mining companies raised £1.1 billion in new equity in the openings months of 2021, new research has found.

It added that institutional investors have been more willing to back commodity companies in the past year, as sentiment towards oil & gas and mining stocks turns increasingly positive.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/367671/uk-oil-and-gas-companies-raise-1-1bn-up-307-in-a-year-as-commodities-boom/

JKenH

Much is published about how Oil Companies are responsible for the climate crisis but governments have known about global warming for at least 30, more probably 40 years.  Margaret Thatcher in a speech at the World Climate Confrerence in 1990 said.

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations,” 

Knowing this, what did governments do to curb the activities of oil companies? Little or nothing. The oil companies in the western world carried on as before because if they didn’t other oil companies would fill the void. Western governments knew that and went along with it. They wanted to retain some control over oil production. If Shell or ExxonMobil had stopped production would we have consumed less oil or would some other offshore companies have taken over the assets? We read recently that Shell had pulled out of a development in the Shetlands. Will that development still go ahead now? Probably yes.

Governments have had 30 years to prepare for now, to wean us off oil but they haven’t. They knew that if in the 1990s or 2000s or 2010s they had taken measures to reduce oil consumption in the western world our economies would have been weakened while Russia and China would have continued to expand their consumption of oil and grown. Possibly the world is a different place now as we have new technologies, some of which have been brought to commercial reality by the Chinese who are desperate to reduce their dependence on energy controlled by the West. Those were not around 20 or 30 years ago and it is pointless pretending they would have been had the oil companies had a Damascene conversion. No doubt if Exxon or Shell had said we cannot in good conscience pump more oil, western governments supported by the public would have asked them to keep on pumping. So would their shareholders. Maybe if Shell, Exxon et al had been able to convince their shareholders that ethics justified wiping out billions of pension funds around the world and bringing the western world to a grinding  halt we would be living in a different world. The Shells  and Exxons of this world are no more to blame for this crisis any more than we are as individuals and far less so than governments. Oil companies operate within a legal, moral and ethical framework dictated by public opinion and imposed by governments. 

You may say the population and government can’t impose ethics -well that was probably true in 1990 so decisions were taken by the commercial and regulatory framework of the day. But the world has changed and what we can and can’t say and do is now more regulated by governments who respond to social media as much as the ballot box. Even more, company policies are influenced heavily by the press and social media. The green conversion of BP and Shell is not an ethical change of heart but more a response to the changing profile of climate change discussion in the press and media. The same is true of governments, witness Boris Johnson’s about turn on climate change. As someone else pointed out, the facts haven’t changed since 2015 (and they probably haven’t changed since 1990). What has changed is the clamour of public opinion. There was no appetite for a green economy in 1990. 

Let’s not go all revisionist and judge decisions made 30 years ago by public opinions of today. It’s a new world now or is it?

30 years after Margaret Thatcher’s speech, apparently well aware of the damage oil is causing we still have Joe Biden asking OPEC to pump more oil. Why because the American public are more concerned about petrol prices than climate change. And so is the government off the day despite all the rhetoric we heard at COP 26.

Jim Tankersley of the New York Times asked Biden, "Why not allow even middle-class people around the world to pay more for gasoline in the hope that they would consume fewer fossil fuels and emit less?"

To which Biden responded "Because they have to get to their work. They have to get in an automobile, turn on the key, get their kids to school. The school buses have to run. That's the reason why."

"The idea that we can—that there's an alternative to walk away from being able to get in your automobile is just not realistic; it's not going to happen," the president added.

The idea that the oil companies could have started to wind down oil in 1990 is just farcical and childish.  30 years on with all the technological development we have had we still can’t. You can’t just go out and invent new technologies, they happen slowly over time. Governments can drive technology faster as they have done with solar and wind but when did western governments start throwing money at these industries? 20 years after Margaret Thatcher stood up and said there was a problem. Why didn’t they react in 1990? There simply was no will to do so and it was not because they didn’t know what was going on. Oil companies are merely a scapegoat for our governments’ reluctance to throw away all the benefits the oil fuelled society brought when at the time there was nothing on the horizon to replace it. 

We have China to thank for the green technology revolution because it is all about energy supply/independence, not because they are looking to save the planet - or they wouldn’t still be building coal fired power stations. Having fought so many wars for oil Joe Biden won’t imperil America by shutting down the industry that made America great. 

JKenH

AMAZON CRIMES WILL COST THE EARTH – Extinction Rebellion disrupts Black Friday by blocking 15 Amazon fulfilment centres 

Black Friday epitomises an obsession with overconsumption that is not consistent with a liveable planet. Amazon and companies like it have capitalised on our desire for convenience and stoked rampant consumerism at the expense of the natural world, trapping consumers inside a cycle of buying our way to oblivion.[1] The reality is, COP26 has just passed and failed, for one primary reason; it is not designed to address the issue of an economic system that relies on unlimited growth at the expense of planetary survival.

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2021/11/26/breaking-amazon-crimes-will-cost-the-earth-extinction-rebellion-disrupts-black-friday-by-blocking-15-amazon-fulfilment-centres/

I am concerned by the alignment of the climate change campaigners with Marxism and wonder if much of the anti oil company/anti capitalist rhetoric is being driven by Marxists and neo marxists jumping on the climate change band wagon. 

Here is a Marxist view on the climate crisis.

Climate Change and Capitalism: A Political Marxist View.

Because of the structural drivers towards growth that we see under capitalism, it is extremely unlikely that capitalism can avoid catastrophic climate change. The structural drive for growth means that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will be overwhelmed by the expansion of economic activity. This is controversial to most mainstream environmentalists (and to many socialists). But it is the clear experience of the history of capitalism.

To date, resources have not been conserved under capitalism. Rather when we become more efficient or find new resources, this frees up resources that are used by other parts of the capitalist machine. This explains why, for example, renewable energy and nuclear power remain only a small part of the global energy system (Figure 2). Under capitalism, low-carbon energy sources have grown but they have not replaced fossil fuel at any meaningful scale. Instead low-carbon energy is simply another energy pot available to fuel growth in economic activity in order to generate profits.

We will only successfully avoid catastrophic climate change if we are able to break the dominance of the market, and break the social imaginary that ineffectually ties fulfilment to consumption.

The economy, the energy system, and the environment are all inextricably linked. Combining ecological economics and Political Marxism, I have set out a framework in which climate change can be seen not only as a consequence of capitalism but as fundamental to it.

To avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to break the expansionary cycle of the economy. Otherwise technological improvements, renewable energy, and energy efficiency gains will do nothing but add to the stock of ways that capitalists grow the economy and their profits. 

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-07-11/climate-change-and-capitalism-a-political-marxist-view/

Edit: a distinction between Marxist and Neo Marxist. 

Marxists in the traditional sense may expect capitalism to make the world ripe for socialism. Neo-Marxists, in contrast, wouldn’t want to wait for things to turn their way; they seek action. Instilling fear among the people that capitalism cannot overcome the world's pressing economic, social, and environmental problems, that capitalism is the root cause of all these plights, characterizes the strategy of the Neo-Marxists. That said, "climate change" and the coronavirus pandemic are lucky coincidences for them.

Climate Change

Under the promise of preventing climate change, governments are meant to run truly radical market interventions: imposing taxes and manipulating prices of goods and services, thereby politically determining the size and structure of consumer and investment demand. In fact, under the well-sounding "climate change policy" label, far-left policies can push economies effectively into central planning: the ruling elite determines who produces what and when and at what costs, and who is to consume when and what.

https://mises.org/wire/new-opportunities-marxists-climate-change-and-coronavirus

Cardew

JKenH said:

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source

Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

The UNECE study says nuclear ranges from 5.1 to 6.4 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of generation.

That compares to the wind power source that produces between 7.8 and 21 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh and coal at 753 – 1095g CO2 eq./kWh.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/22/un-hails-nuclear-as-the-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/

I wonder if this article would get the 'fair and reasoned debate'', so beloved of some posters, if it were posted on the Green, Ethical, Energy issues in the news section.

thevilla

Sellafield is a one on its own but did you see the Simon Reeve visit to the Lakes when he visited the site?  £100BN clean up costs lasting decades.  It isn't just CO2 we're passing to the next generation.   New nukes are supposed to be more decommission friendy but how do we know?

I'm not anti nuclear but a wind turbine and batteries are more tempting to me.

ABrass

Cardew said:

JKenH said:

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source

Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

The UNECE study says nuclear ranges from 5.1 to 6.4 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of generation.

That compares to the wind power source that produces between 7.8 and 21 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh and coal at 753 – 1095g CO2 eq./kWh.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/22/un-hails-nuclear-as-the-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/

I wonder if this article would get the 'fair and reasoned debate'', so beloved of some posters, if it were posted on the Green, Ethical, Energy issues in the news section.

Why discuss it at all, it's using stats from pre 2012 for the wind power.

shinytop

Cardew said:

JKenH said:

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source

Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

The UNECE study says nuclear ranges from 5.1 to 6.4 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of generation.

That compares to the wind power source that produces between 7.8 and 21 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh and coal at 753 – 1095g CO2 eq./kWh.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/22/un-hails-nuclear-as-the-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/

I wonder if this article would get the 'fair and reasoned debate'', so beloved of some posters, if it were posted on the Green, Ethical, Energy issues in the news section.

Post it and see. It's meant to be Green, Ethical, Energy issues in the news, not Wind and PV Energy only issues in the news.