Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    • 9,431Posts
    • 14,322Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 6:25 AM
    MSE Insert:

    We've seen some debate on this thread about the relevance of some posts to the topic.

    To ensure the thread remains on topic for forumites wanting to discuss the latest news we're asking that all posts contain a link to the news you're discussing.

    For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks.

    Back to Martyn1981's original post.

    ---

    I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for posting general news items that may be of interest.

    PV and the 'Solar in the news' thread attract a lot of interest, so here's a thread for all the other goings on.

    Mart.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 9:41 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Page 164
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Sep 19, 7:52 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I wonder why the extra complication of floating is added to this project - have we run out of space for traditional offshore turbines?
    Originally posted by michaels
    It's the hydrogen that makes them float .........
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Sep 19, 8:03 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Interesting article looking at 100% RE, and timely too given the reference to the oft touted and misleading 'need to keep the lights on' argument.

    We Can Still Save The Earth From Climate Change. Here’s How.

    We’re not doomed. With every new climate movement, new cleantech startup or new scientific publication, our voice gets stronger. A recently released years-long research project simulates a global pathway towards 100% renewables across all energy sectors, bearing a clear and powerful message: a global energy transition, which is at the core of real climate action, is not only technically feasible but also cheaper than our current energy system. The open-access study Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy was published by Berlin-based climate network Energy Watch Group (EWG) and Finnish LUT University.
    What is for you the most interesting fact from your research, something that you wish everybody knew?

    HJF: Our research dispels the two most widespread falsehoods associated with renewables: high costs and supply uncertainty. Our newest study shows that a technology-rich energy system based on 100% renewables can supply secure energy at all times of the year in every region of the planet, at a cheaper cost as compared to today’s system.

    CB: And this cost decline is possible without relying on high-risk technologies such as nuclear power and fossil carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 15th Sep 19, 8:22 AM
    • 3,076 Posts
    • 1,421 Thanks
    NigeWick
    Interesting article looking at 100% RE, and timely too given the reference to the oft touted and misleading 'need to keep the lights on' argument.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    As you are aware, I'm 100% for renewables and energy storage rather than nuclear and burning anything.

    As an aside, I had a new Tesla "gateway" fitted earlier in the year. I can now access my solar and PW2 if there's a power cut. V2G would also be nice but, when I looked at the Ovo offering it was really expensive and Chademo only.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 15th Sep 19, 10:20 AM
    • 960 Posts
    • 3,418 Thanks
    1961Nick
    Do we really want to bring politics on here? What political parties say in their manifestos and what they do in government are two very different things.
    Originally posted by JKenH
    That's the problem with manifestos, they can be as ambitious as you like if there's no chance of the party ever achieving power.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • Exiled Tyke
    • By Exiled Tyke 15th Sep 19, 1:00 PM
    • 363 Posts
    • 982 Thanks
    Exiled Tyke
    Do we really want to bring politics on here? What political parties say in their manifestos and what they do in government are two very different things.
    Originally posted by JKenH
    In all fairness the Lib Dems held the energy portfolio for the entire coalition period when we saw the biggest hike in investment in renewables. Since 2015 the government has pretty much done whatever it can to kill RE. They have pushed a green agenda as long as I've paid any attention to politics so personally I would trust them on this one.
    Install 28th Nov 15, 3.3kW, (11x300LG), SolarEdge, SW. W Yorks.
    Install 2 Sept, 600W ESE
    Solax 6.3kW battery
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Sep 19, 3:33 PM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    That's the problem with manifestos, they can be as ambitious as you like if there's no chance of the party ever achieving power.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Not sure that the policy suggestions are over ambitious. Petrol and diesel cars have no chance of fighting back now, so a 2030 deadline seems simple and sensible, and probably far less confusing to both the public and the auto industry than a 2040 deadline which is certainly meaningless now (nobody will be buying ICEV's by then).

    The ramping up of net zero targets to 2045 is also 'almost obvious' too, since RE and RE + storage is already about to take the lead economically (as well as cleaner and greener), and the Paris Accord promises were always expected to be ramped up as we moved forward.

    If the alternatives are better (cleaner, greener, cheaper) and in the case of RE, more labour intensive, then if anything we should be sniggering at the Lib Dems for saying/doing the obvious.

    I appreciate that you may think or say that I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd refer you to this decade, specifically the cost reductions in RE from the start, when it was horrific, to the middle when it looked good, to now, when it looks best. That's a remarkable change in an unbelievably short period of time (in terms of energy production economics).

    Take that forward another decade, and FF/nuclear will need support to stay operational. Then as we enter the 2030's, we will simply be demanding RE/BEV's on economic grounds, so the issue will be one of supply limitation, not demand.


    I mean this, quite seriously, I think anyone, or any political party, would really need to struggle to find a way to argue that FF/nuclear/ICEV's will be economically viable by 2040? At that point green will win, and by green, I mean dollars.


    Edit (to all) - I should add that there's no need to discuss politics, but I (and possibly others) will be very interested to see what environmental policies each party will propose. M.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 15-09-2019 at 3:47 PM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • EricMears
    • By EricMears 15th Sep 19, 7:32 PM
    • 2,548 Posts
    • 4,411 Thanks
    EricMears
    In all fairness the Lib Dems held the energy portfolio for the entire coalition period when we saw the biggest hike in investment in renewables. Since 2015 the government has pretty much done whatever it can to kill RE. They have pushed a green agenda as long as I've paid any attention to politics so personally I would trust them on this one.
    Originally posted by Exiled Tyke
    An awful lot of young voters in 2015 believed their solemn pledge to abolish tuition charges.
    NE Derbyshire.
    4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Sep 19, 8:01 PM
    • 3,858 Posts
    • 2,888 Thanks
    GreatApe
    No but it would be very interesting if they were part of a coalition with a resurgent Lib Dem party to see if their ideals were tempered by having the responsibility to keep the lights on.
    Originally posted by JKenH

    The west is rich enough to do a rapid deep decarb of its electricity grid via wind and solar
    So I don't think it's about keeping the lights on but rather how expensive are the politicians/public willing to allow electricity to become

    The UK is in a lucky position and 2015-2025 will be a huge decarb at little cost
    Some things like wind farms and PV panels push costs up but interconntors have/will push costs down and more efficient electrical items means we don't need as many units. Not forgetting shale gas has made LNG available in larger quantities and cheaper prices so switching off the coal and using more gas hasn't been a huge burden

    But the UK is a small actor in a big world
    The larger nations simply couldn't do the same
    China couldn't just close its coal plants and import more gas...there isn't enough gas to import in the world for China to do a coal to gas switch. Also UK domestic coal industry failed so it's easier to switch imported coal with imported gas. Harder sell to switch domestic coal for imported gas a la Germany.

    Likewise we are in a lucky position especially with regards to being able to import huge quantities of French nuclear and soon Norway hydropower.

    The UK has more or less solved it's grid with existing infrastructure, infrastructure under construction and infrastructure already committed to


    But the green lobby seem to forget it's not all about electricity generation
    Transport heating agriculture and bulk manufacturing (steel cement) are also heavily dependent on fossil fuels. These things are a lot more difficult to solve than electricity
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 15th Sep 19, 9:36 PM
    • 2,695 Posts
    • 4,026 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    I wonder why the extra complication of floating is added to this project - have we run out of space for traditional offshore turbines?
    Originally posted by michaels

    I think the equation may be 'deeper water- further offshore - stronger winds'.. But don't quote me!
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 19, 6:41 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    But the green lobby seem to forget it's not all about electricity generation
    Transport heating agriculture and bulk manufacturing (steel cement) are also heavily dependent on fossil fuels. These things are a lot more difficult to solve than electricity
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    I don't see how they could have forgotten about these issues/sectors when they talk about them all the time?

    Transport is looking like being solved already, just time now to switch over to cost competitive BEV's. Heating has multiple solutions, from nega-watts (insultaion), to bio-gas, heat pumps etc.

    Steel has hydrogen solutions, and lower carbon cement options already exist. And of course there's CCS, which is too expensive for leccy generation to be viable, but can be used to help 'clean up' CO2 heavy industries.

    Obviously none of this is new, nor news, so I apologise for repeating it.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 16th Sep 19, 9:46 AM
    • 3,858 Posts
    • 2,888 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I don't see how they could have forgotten about these issues/sectors when they talk about them all the time?

    Transport is looking like being solved already, just time now to switch over to cost competitive BEV's. Heating has multiple solutions, from nega-watts (insultaion), to bio-gas, heat pumps etc.

    Steel has hydrogen solutions, and lower carbon cement options already exist. And of course there's CCS, which is too expensive for leccy generation to be viable, but can be used to help 'clean up' CO2 heavy industries.

    Obviously none of this is new, nor news, so I apologise for repeating it.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    If alternatives are as simple and economic as you say, why did CO2 emmissions increase 2% last year?
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 16th Sep 19, 11:01 AM
    • 3,858 Posts
    • 2,888 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The ramping up of net zero targets to 2045 is also 'almost obvious' too, since RE and RE + storage is already about to take the lead economically (as well as cleaner and greener), and the Paris Accord promises were always expected to be ramped up as we moved forward.
    If wind/solar are cheaper why does global fossil fuel use continues to grow?
    And this is despite the benefit of higher efficiency appliances and lighting etc and a huge deployment of hydropower

    If the alternatives are better (cleaner, greener, cheaper) and in the case of RE, more labour intensive, then if anything we should be sniggering at the Lib Dems for saying/doing the obvious.
    How can something be cheaper and more labor intensive?

    I appreciate that you may think or say that I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd refer you to this decade, specifically the cost reductions in RE from the start, when it was horrific, to the middle when it looked good, to now, when it looks best. That's a remarkable change in an unbelievably short period of time (in terms of energy production economics).
    This is a trick. New tech does get cheaper but not to the level as when first invented

    Solar prices may have gone down 90% over a decade (or whatever) from say £40k to £4k this does not mean they will go down another 90% to £400

    It would be better to look at recent price changes for mature industries like solar PV
    What was the price of a 4KW PV kit fully installed in mid 2016 Vs mid 2019 ??

    Take that forward another decade, and FF/nuclear will need support to stay operational
    They already need support because the market is broken

    In the UK we have/had capacity payments and these capacity payments will have to go up to allow CCGTs to survive with ever falling annual utilisation. The alternative is the system will close down thermal stations so during times of high demand (winter windless peaks) the prices will go so high as to allow a few hours of operation to cover months of idleness

    Then as we enter the 2030's, we will simply be demanding RE/BEV's on economic grounds, so the issue will be one of supply limitation, not demand.
    Electricity 15p retail
    Gas 3p retail

    While wind power is okay at replacing electricity needs it's going to be much harder replacing natural gas heating which costs 1/5th what electricity costs.

    I mean this, quite seriously, I think anyone, or any political party, would really need to struggle to find a way to argue that FF/nuclear/ICEV's will be economically viable by 2040? At that point green will win, and by green, I mean dollars.
    If AI arrives then everything is 'free' and we will opt for 'green'

    If AI does not arrive then you will find fossil fuels actually cost much less to extract and use than you imagine. Remember everyone was saying sub $100 oil would bankrupt shale and other oil sites but that didn't happen

    The cost of extracting fossil fuels is much lower than the price
    So much so that whole nations are kept afloat off the back of fossil fuels
    If the price is $60 a barrel the cost in Saudi might only be $10
    So oil will keep flowing at lower and lower prices

    Alternatives would make fossil fuels cheaper
    Shale made coal cheaper
    Shale made oil cheaper
    Shale made gas cheaper

    If nuclear or wind power become successful rapidly it would make gas and coal cheaper
    If BEave became successful rapidly it would make oil cheaper

    Existing fossil fuel infrastructure is really cheap
    Powering an existing coal plant with an existing coal mine nothing is cheaper nor could it be
    Just like keeping your old car is the cheapest per mile option

    So what is more likely is if a successful alternative is found wind solar nuclear or something new
    The result will be a slow chipping away. It would still take 25+ years to do a bulk (80-90%+ transition) and of course right now there is no cheaper alternative so instead of global fossil fuel useage falling 2-3% per year it is increasing
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 19, 1:01 PM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    If alternatives are as simple and economic as you say, why did CO2 emmissions increase 2% last year?
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    To remind you, your claim was:

    But the green lobby seem to forget it's not all about electricity generation
    Transport heating agriculture and bulk manufacturing (steel cement) are also heavily dependent on fossil fuels. These things are a lot more difficult to solve than electricity
    And I was pointing out that, that claim is untrue. Obviously it's untrue as those of us that care about AGW, and aren't just on this board to troll, talk about all the ideas, technology, advances etc.

    But, I seem to be getting a deja vu vibe here. I'm pretty sure you've posted this claim many times, over many years, over many profiles - and the answer remains the same - the 'green lobby' have forgotten nothing, your claim is false, was false, and will remain false next time you repeat it.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 19, 1:30 PM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    If wind/solar are cheaper why does global fossil fuel use continues to grow?
    And this is despite the benefit of higher efficiency appliances and lighting etc and a huge deployment of hydropower
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Growing world population. Growing middle classes in highly populated parts of Asia.


    How can something be cheaper and more labor intensive?
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Firstly, it is, so no point arguing. GIYF.

    Secondly, because the fuel is free, so whilst CAPEX is high, and labour is greater, OPEX is lower.


    This is a trick. New tech does get cheaper but not to the level as when first invented

    Solar prices may have gone down 90% over a decade (or whatever) from say £40k to £4k this does not mean they will go down another 90% to £400
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Strawman argument - PV is already the cheapest form of leccy generation in the World, and costs are still falling.

    Silicon/Perovskite is expected to get well into the 30% efficiency figures, and whilst the cost per Wp won't be lower, the impact on cost of generation will be massive as around 50% less land will be needed, and less frames, less labour to install, transport costs etc.


    It would be better to look at recent price changes for mature industries like solar PV
    What was the price of a 4KW PV kit fully installed in mid 2016 Vs mid 2019 ??
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    GIYF - However, everyone else will be aware that PV contracts around the World continue to fall, and set new low records.


    They already need support because the market is broken

    In the UK we have/had capacity payments and these capacity payments will have to go up to allow CCGTs to survive with ever falling annual utilisation. The alternative is the system will close down thermal stations so during times of high demand (winter windless peaks) the prices will go so high as to allow a few hours of operation to cover months of idleness
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    The market has always been broken as FF's have never paid for their externality costs, so are too cheap. Despite this, FF's and nuclear are now struggling to compete against cheaper, cleaner, greener RE.

    Capacity payments are not new, they've always been paid to keep excess generation ready to step in faster than it otherwise would.

    Storage solves this, and storage is already starting to be deployed.


    While wind power is okay at replacing electricity needs it's going to be much harder replacing natural gas heating which costs 1/5th what electricity costs.
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Nat gas doesn't account for its externality costs.
    Nat gas is less efficient than leccy.
    Nat gas is less efficient than heat pumps.
    If bio-gas can be produced at the cost of nat gas + externalities, then that avenue will open up too.

    Nothing new here, I believe this has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.


    The cost of extracting fossil fuels is much lower than the price
    So much so that whole nations are kept afloat off the back of fossil fuels
    If the price is $60 a barrel the cost in Saudi might only be $10
    So oil will keep flowing at lower and lower prices
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    If the cost was more, it wouldn't happen. Did this need pointing out?

    Yes, Saudi can extract oil at $10-$20 a barrel, but it costs more elsewhere. As the price falls, the profits fall, and many sources become uneconomical.


    Alternatives would make fossil fuels cheaper
    Shale made coal cheaper
    Shale made oil cheaper
    Shale made gas cheaper
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Only to the point that extraction becomes un-economic. Shale oil and tar sands oil are already struggling. The US frack industry has lost $100's of billions already, and the consensus of the Dems running for Presidential nomination is to end the industry.

    You point to coal getting cheaper - and what has been the impact on the industry ....... mass bankruptcies.


    If nuclear or wind power become successful rapidly it would make gas and coal cheaper
    If BEave became successful rapidly it would make oil cheaper
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Wind has become successful rapidly. Nuclear is now a 'dead industry walking', unable to compete today, unable to compete in 10yrs when commissioned.

    Assuming you mean BEV's, yes oil will get cheaper, and profits will fall. I refer you back to US coal.



    Existing fossil fuel infrastructure is really cheap
    Powering an existing coal plant with an existing coal mine nothing is cheaper nor could it be
    Just like keeping your old car is the cheapest per mile option
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    If we ignore the externality costs. But (aside from yourself) nobody on here is ignoring the externality costs.

    When costs are compared fairly, the coal generation is the most expensive solution possible short of burning polar bears as fuel.


    So what is more likely is if a successful alternative is found wind solar nuclear or something new
    The result will be a slow chipping away. It would still take 25+ years to do a bulk (80-90%+ transition) and of course right now there is no cheaper alternative so instead of global fossil fuel useage falling 2-3% per year it is increasing
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Did you think it was going to happen tomorrow?



    To be clear, all of your arguments are simply a denial of reality. We know what we need to do, and we are going to head in that direction.

    Since you don't agree with any of the science, can I suggest, once again, that you take your views and opinions to an appropriate site where science denial is appreciated, and leave the G&E boards alone.

    Thank you.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 16th Sep 19, 3:31 PM
    • 3,858 Posts
    • 2,888 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Growing world population. Growing middle classes in highly populated parts of Asia.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    But you keep trumpeting wind/pv are now cheaper if so why aren't growing populations doing predominantly wind/solar?

    Firstly, it is, so no point arguing. GIYF.
    Yeh it doesn't add up

    The only way alternative can be cheaper AND more labour intensive is if you pay the alternator producers less. So sure I can accept for instance solar PV could be cheaper and more labour intensive than coal (not saying it is but I could accept the possibility) if you argue for instance Germany is replacing German coal miners paid 5,000 euro per month with Chinese near slave factory workers at 500 euro a month

    Excluding this arbitrage of wages it's not realistic to accept that an alternative can be cheaper and more labor intensive at the same time. I'm not talking just electricity but anything

    Secondly, because the fuel is free, so whilst CAPEX is high, and labour is greater, OPEX is lower.
    The cost of anything is a very large chain of wages and capital return
    Even a hamburger
    It's a chain of hundreds of differen workers
    From the farmer to the vet who looked after the cows to the builder who built the barn to a huge number of different steps
    The £5 you pay breaks down to perhaps £3.50 of wages and £1.50 of capital return (which in itself is indirect wages or the rent of the store is par for the £5 burger but the rent is effectively paying the builders of the store for their labor etc

    So I don't buy any argument that says something can be cheaper and employ more people
    Unless you want to say these more employed people are paid substantially less than the alternative

    Strawman argument - PV is already the cheapest form of leccy generation in the World, and costs are still falling.
    Just because you claim so or some study says so doesn't make it true
    The true test is subsidy free expansion

    If I say shale gas is cheap and productivity I don't need to point to a study or calculation
    I can point to its massive expansion

    You say solar PV is the cheapest so why isn't it expanding like mad?
    And when subsidy is removed why do you object?

    Silicon/Perovskite is expected to get well into the 30% efficiency figures, and whilst the cost per Wp won't be lower, the impact on cost of generation will be massive as around 50% less land will be needed, and less frames, less labour to install, transport costs etc.
    Great I hope solar actually becomes cheaper than fossil fuel infrastructure so it can expand by itself rapidly and help chip away at FF demand

    Although I'm not holding my breath
    These improvements will probably allow States to reduce the PV subsidies not for PV to actually become cheaper than existing FF infrastructure.

    GIYF - However, everyone else will be aware that PV contracts around the World continue to fall, and set new low records.
    At the same time everyone is aware fossil fuel consumption increased last year

    How can you claim solar is the cheapest when fossil fuel infrastructure is growing?
    Is the world stupid or is Marty wrong when he claims solar is too cheap to compare?

    The market has always been broken as FF's have never paid for their externality costs, so are too cheap. Despite this, FF's and nuclear are now struggling to compete against cheaper, cleaner, greener RE.
    More empty claims
    Worldwide Fossil fuel used increased in 2018 it didn't decrease

    Storage solves this, and storage is already starting to be deployed.
    Batteries partially solve the problem but at additional cost
    So far very few PV and wind farms also employ significant battery storage because despite your protests they are uneconomical

    Nat gas doesn't account for its externality costs.
    Nat gas is less efficient than leccy.
    Nat gas is less efficient than heat pumps.
    If bio-gas can be produced at the cost of nat gas + externalities, then that avenue will open up too.
    Externalitiy costs of natural gas are mostly imaginary (negligible)
    Even if you disagree with this there is the fact that people are ok even happy to pay for stuff with their health rather than their wallets. Why do people buy cheaper less safe cars? They are happy to pay for the additional risk with their lives rather than pay for the additional safety with cold hard cash.


    Yes, Saudi can extract oil at $10-$20 a barrel, but it costs more elsewhere. As the price falls, the profits fall, and many sources become uneconomical.
    I think you underestimate how cheap fossil fuel extraction actual is or could be
    Recall oil fell to about $30 did production crash? No

    Only to the point that extraction becomes un-economic. Shale oil and tar sands oil are already struggling. The US frack industry has lost $100's of billions already, and the consensus of the Dems running for Presidential nomination is to end the industry.
    This shows how deep the confirmation bias is on your news sources
    Shale oil has been expanding
    Iirc 2018 USA oil production increase was the most in ant country in the history of mankind
    Shale isn't struggling it is booming
    Only held back by demand and pipeline infrastructure

    The democrats won't ban shale because to do so would cause economic blight, concentrated economic blight. It would cause less tax receipts, it would crash the dollar, its as realistic as the democrats banning farming

    You point to coal getting cheaper - and what has been the impact on the industry ....... mass bankruptcies.
    In the USA yes
    But a truly cheaper alternative was found and deployed
    Domestic shale gas run through existing CCGTs
    The same more or less happened on the dash for gas in the UK during the 1990s

    Wind has become successful rapidly. Nuclear is now a 'dead industry walking', unable to compete today, unable to compete in 10yrs when commissioned.
    I agree wind power has done well but it's still not economic Vs existing FF infrastructure

    Assuming you mean BEV's, yes oil will get cheaper, and profits will fall. I refer you back to US coal.
    Yes but much more slowly because global wind/PV isn't and probably can't expand as fast as shale gas on the USA has

    If we ignore the externality costs. But (aside from yourself) nobody on here is ignoring the externality costs.
    I don't ignore externality costs o just assign a value of close to zero to them

    When costs are compared fairly, the coal generation is the most expensive solution possible short of burning polar bears as fuel.
    You mean when you set the externality costs
    When governments/citizens do it they are happy with the costs involved
    Either they are stupid or your assumptions are wrong
    I'd go with the latter

    To be clear, all of your arguments are simply a denial of reality. We know what we need to do, and we are going to head in that direction.

    Since you don't agree with any of the science, can I suggest, once again, that you take your views and opinions to an appropriate site where science denial is appreciated, and leave the G&E boards alone.

    Thank you.
    Still claiming to be the arbiter of truth science justice and all things wholesome
    Despite not being a scientist yourself
    Interesting....
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 16th Sep 19, 4:39 PM
    • 2,695 Posts
    • 4,026 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Can I suggest that those of you who think coal is the future put their savings into appropriate shares. Peabody, anybody?


    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-can-renewable-energy-power-the-world/
    Last edited by silverwhistle; 16-09-2019 at 4:56 PM.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 17th Sep 19, 7:17 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I'll just pick out a few fun points:

    The majority of new capacity is RE, and much new FF capacity is replacement for old retirements.

    New demand for energy (I mentioned growing middle classes) is still outstriping RE deployments, that's one of the reasons why this issue is so big and important. China, India (and others) under the Paris Accord are actually to grow their GHG emissions till around 2030(ish), as they expand energy, but per capita are well below the Western World, and always will be.


    Personally, I'm always fascinated by the consternation caused when I point out that RE is cheaper but also has a higher labour intensity.

    the reason I'm so fascinated is because 1. it's a simple fact, we can look at contracts issued for generation, and also to industry staffing levels. But 2. I'm mainly fascinated because I can't comprehend how people (like you) can argue against the basic facts, will also claiming to have some (any) understanding? If you aren't aware of the simple facts and truths, then how do you feel qualified enough to disagree.


    When you say I or some study say RE is cheaper, that's yet another example of your denial - the contracts say so, the issued contracts for leccy say so. Do you understand that? the prices are lower.


    Yes you can point to a huge expansion in shale gas (almost a side effect of shale oil production), and yes it's cheap, in fact much of it is sold at a loss when transportation is taken into account. That's why the US fracking industry has lost $100's of billions over the last decade - it's now no better than a Ponzi scheme.


    You seem obsessed with the (now) low RE subsidies and support, yet you have always denied the FF subsidies estimated to be around $5tn per year. You choose to obsess about small RE subsidies, but simply deny the $5tn annual cost of Ff externalities. Weird.


    Both the wind and solar industries have stated that batteries will be added as they become economical. Some are already doing this. There is no penalty for adding them later. Please don't deny the start of intra-day battery storage deployment around the World, as the list of your denials is now getting hard to keep up with.


    Externality costs of nat-gas (and fugitive methane emissions) are AGW.


    If shale oil and gas production costs were lower, then they wouldn't be losing so much money already.


    I refer you back, the shale industry is now a Ponzi scheme, to maintain revenue the companies have to employ a 'drill, baby drill' practice to increase supply, but that also undermines profits / expands losses further by depressing the price [recent bombing in Saudi aside].

    Ending an un-economic industry will not crash the US. And BEV's can solve the problem of purchasing foreign oil.


    Assigning a value of zero to externality costs is actually the same as ignoring them, just via your usual route of complete and total denial.


    So to recap - every one of your claims, arguments, positions etc is entirely based on you denying facts, science and costs. The moment we introduce facts, everything you say collapses.

    Now, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts! And for the point of proving to Ken (and possibly Nick) I have engaged with you, but you have not added anything new, only remained entirely in full denial.

    If you want to deny AGW, RE etc, then you can of course do so, but you should do it on an appropriate site. This site is based on facts, this board is based on green and ethical (truth not lies) issues, this thread is for those interested in G&E issues, not for you to promote failed lies and anti-science diatribe.

    So once again, I would ask that you respect everyone else and stop what you are doing.

    [I won't engage you in these silly discussions any further, however I will point out your falsehoods when you post old and failed arguments/articles.]

    PS I note Cardevv has thanked you - I'm glad I stood up to his endless posts in the past as support for your anti-science post is, I believe, full validation of my past (and present) position.




    But you keep trumpeting wind/pv are now cheaper if so why aren't growing populations doing predominantly wind/solar?



    Yeh it doesn't add up

    The only way alternative can be cheaper AND more labour intensive is if you pay the alternator producers less. So sure I can accept for instance solar PV could be cheaper and more labour intensive than coal (not saying it is but I could accept the possibility) if you argue for instance Germany is replacing German coal miners paid 5,000 euro per month with Chinese near slave factory workers at 500 euro a month

    Excluding this arbitrage of wages it's not realistic to accept that an alternative can be cheaper and more labor intensive at the same time. I'm not talking just electricity but anything



    The cost of anything is a very large chain of wages and capital return
    Even a hamburger
    It's a chain of hundreds of differen workers
    From the farmer to the vet who looked after the cows to the builder who built the barn to a huge number of different steps
    The £5 you pay breaks down to perhaps £3.50 of wages and £1.50 of capital return (which in itself is indirect wages or the rent of the store is par for the £5 burger but the rent is effectively paying the builders of the store for their labor etc

    So I don't buy any argument that says something can be cheaper and employ more people
    Unless you want to say these more employed people are paid substantially less than the alternative



    Just because you claim so or some study says so doesn't make it true
    The true test is subsidy free expansion

    If I say shale gas is cheap and productivity I don't need to point to a study or calculation
    I can point to its massive expansion

    You say solar PV is the cheapest so why isn't it expanding like mad?
    And when subsidy is removed why do you object?



    Great I hope solar actually becomes cheaper than fossil fuel infrastructure so it can expand by itself rapidly and help chip away at FF demand

    Although I'm not holding my breath
    These improvements will probably allow States to reduce the PV subsidies not for PV to actually become cheaper than existing FF infrastructure.



    At the same time everyone is aware fossil fuel consumption increased last year

    How can you claim solar is the cheapest when fossil fuel infrastructure is growing?
    Is the world stupid or is Marty wrong when he claims solar is too cheap to compare?



    More empty claims
    Worldwide Fossil fuel used increased in 2018 it didn't decrease



    Batteries partially solve the problem but at additional cost
    So far very few PV and wind farms also employ significant battery storage because despite your protests they are uneconomical



    Externalitiy costs of natural gas are mostly imaginary (negligible)
    Even if you disagree with this there is the fact that people are ok even happy to pay for stuff with their health rather than their wallets. Why do people buy cheaper less safe cars? They are happy to pay for the additional risk with their lives rather than pay for the additional safety with cold hard cash.




    I think you underestimate how cheap fossil fuel extraction actual is or could be
    Recall oil fell to about $30 did production crash? No



    This shows how deep the confirmation bias is on your news sources
    Shale oil has been expanding
    Iirc 2018 USA oil production increase was the most in ant country in the history of mankind
    Shale isn't struggling it is booming
    Only held back by demand and pipeline infrastructure

    The democrats won't ban shale because to do so would cause economic blight, concentrated economic blight. It would cause less tax receipts, it would crash the dollar, its as realistic as the democrats banning farming



    In the USA yes
    But a truly cheaper alternative was found and deployed
    Domestic shale gas run through existing CCGTs
    The same more or less happened on the dash for gas in the UK during the 1990s



    I agree wind power has done well but it's still not economic Vs existing FF infrastructure



    Yes but much more slowly because global wind/PV isn't and probably can't expand as fast as shale gas on the USA has



    I don't ignore externality costs o just assign a value of close to zero to them



    You mean when you set the externality costs
    When governments/citizens do it they are happy with the costs involved
    Either they are stupid or your assumptions are wrong
    I'd go with the latter



    Still claiming to be the arbiter of truth science justice and all things wholesome
    Despite not being a scientist yourself
    Interesting....
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 17th Sep 19, 7:31 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Timely article with info on what China is doing.

    The first graph (one I've mentioned in the past in response to Nick) is interesting, it shows that China is still far behind the US in cumulative emissions despite having over a billion people, and India hasn't even caught us up .... yet, and probably never will on a per capita basis.


    Make no mistake, as a country, China is the biggest 'problem' but they are also one of the most serious actors too - and of course, per capita is a fairer comparison, and by that measure they are doing well.

    China Is Doing A Lot Better On Climate Action Than Most People Realize

    And, of course, China, unlike the US, is signatory to the Paris Accord and is on track to vastly exceed its 2030 pledge, and meet or exceed its 2020 pledge. Of course, those pledges are inadequate to curb global warming, but China is likely to increase its targets radically, just as it is expected to double its solar and potentially wind generation targets for 2030. And it’s very worth pointing out that while China’s emissions rose 2.3% in 2018, the US’ emissions rose by 3.4% in the same year. And China has done more to address fossil fuel subsidies than the US has as well. In other words, as US politicians point fingers at China, the US is actually going in the wrong direction faster and doing less to bend the curve in the right direction.

    While a lot of fingers are being pointed at China by people committed to both inaction and action in North America, the actual climate story in China is much different than most people realize. It should be looked to for inspiration in the fight on global warming and encouraged in its effort, not attacked and definitely not used as an excuse for inaction.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 17th Sep 19, 7:38 AM
    • 9,431 Posts
    • 14,322 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Bit of a sensitive one this, so I'll try to caveat it by saying I'm looking at the economics not the politics. But an interesting G&E side effect.

    This article talks about the end of oil wars, thanks to RE, and it reminded me of what one of the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination mentioned when asked how he would fund his suggested expansion of RE, BEV's etc - one of the funding routes was the significant savings of US defence spending on international oil production and transportation - policing oil (and the cost of wars, when policing doesn't work).

    Here’s Another Argument For Renewable Energy: No More Wars For Oil

    All that money and all those emissions do not take into account the human toll on the members of the military who have died or been injured while fighting these wars or the burden placed on millions of civilians who have been displaced as a result of them.

    Switching to renewable energy is about more than lowering carbon emissions. It’s about dismantling the current geopolitical constructs that support the notion that access to oil must be maintained at all costs.

    Oil grossly distorts international relations. Access to oil was one of the primary factors that drove Japan to invade its neighbors prior to World War II. It has been a leading cause of European adventurism in the Middle East. It’s what caused Iraq to invade Kuwait and the US to invade Iraq in turn.

    Renewable energy can re-balance the economic structure of the world. No more would nations eye the natural resources of their neighbors and plot to capture them for themselves. No more would despots rule their countries as feudal fiefdoms propped up by staggering fortunes based on oil. Not only can renewable energy lower carbon emissions but it can potentially eliminate one of the primary causes of conflict between nations. How do you put a price tag on that?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 17th Sep 19, 11:31 AM
    • 3,076 Posts
    • 1,421 Thanks
    NigeWick
    This article talks about the end of oil wars, thanks to RE,
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Water may well be the cause of the next large conflict. What would Egypt do if countries upstream started using more/all of the Nile's water?
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

151Posts Today

1,916Users online

Martin's Twitter