Green, ethical, energy issues in the news
Comments
-
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.0 -
As you are aware, I'm 100% for renewables and energy storage rather than nuclear and burning anything.Martyn1981 wrote: »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.
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 Holmes0 -
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.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.4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North LincsInstalled June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh0 -
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.
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 19, 600W SSE
Solax 6.3kWh battery0 -
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.
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.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.0 -
An awful lot of young voters in 2015 believed their solemn pledge to abolish tuition charges.Exiled_Tyke wrote: »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.
NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
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.
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 electricity0 -
-
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
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.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »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.
If alternatives are as simple and economic as you say, why did CO2 emmissions increase 2% last year?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards