Cost of reducing emssions

Martyn1981 · 22 January 2020 at 5:31PM

Cardew wrote: »

George Monbiot is the devil incarnate.

That's a bit rough, sometimes he's spot on:

The farce of the Hinkley C nuclear reactor will haunt Britain for decades - George Monbiot

Cardew wrote: »

Surely on an internet forum different views should be encouraged.

And Shirley, shouldn't examination of those views and positions be expected, especially if they are weak, outdated, or prefer a failed and expensive technology to RE on a G&E board?

BTW - A quick review of that thread on Green Subsidies seems to show a very pleasant and friendly discussion with myself, Z and Solverwhistle providing an enormous amount of info, links, numbers, facts etc.

I'd say the fears (real or imagineered) around RE subsidies were quashed. In fact, and I'll admit I only skimmed it, it looks like an interesting and helpful thread still today.

The only 'upset' on the thread seems to come from yourself complaining about how it was all going. Weird!

pile-o-stone · 22 January 2020 at 5:33PM

Cardew wrote: »

Surely on an internet forum different views should be encouraged.

Different views on the ROI of solar panels, rainwater recycling and other technologies that MSE people may be considering implementing, sure.

Different views on discussions about whether climate change exists or whether the UK should have nuclear power? Surely these are pure discussion points and should be open to a wider audience on a pure discussion board. Most people have a view on Climate change and so can enter the discussion. Very few MSE people have a view on ROI of solar panels and so it's appropriate for that to be in here.

In my view.

EVandPV · 22 January 2020 at 8:51PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And Shirley,

Don't call me Shirley.

silverwhistle · 23 January 2020 at 8:50PM

Cardew wrote: »

Unfortunately any criticism of the scheme – not the participants – led to arguments and this spread to attacking anyone who dared to have a counter view on the subject of RE - solar in particular- to that expressed by a dominant few.

Personally I find the scores of posts regurgitating Solar industry propaganda boring, others don’t, so I don’t read them any more.

I remember the debates, and I seem to recall most of the criticism came from you. But it was very slanted argument and you didn't acknowledge any facts that didn't fit your case, such as the declining levels of FIT, the numbers who achieved the highest rates, the industry view of those rates, the reason behind the design of the scheme and its success.

So if people got a bit irate with you or currently with GA I suggest you consider why. As for the latter's arguments being "thought provoking", I would suggest that from the random quotes I've seen his random assemblage of facts and the fact that he doesn't respond with other than verbiage makes me doubt your judgement and regard your interventions on his behalf with even more suspicion.

pile-o-stone · 24 January 2020 at 9:38AM

silverwhistle wrote: »

So if people got a bit irate with you or currently with GA I suggest you consider why. As for the latter's arguments being "thought provoking", I would suggest that from the random quotes I've seen his random assemblage of facts and the fact that he doesn't respond with other than verbiage makes me doubt your judgement and regard your interventions on his behalf with even more suspicion.

I also have these suspicions...

Nemo72 · 24 January 2020 at 4:51PM

one of the easiest and cheapest way to reduce emissions is changing the car for an Ebike
and it is not that expensive, is it?
I bought one for 1600 pounds and I hardaly consume petrol
so easy...

Martyn1981 · 24 January 2020 at 7:28PM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I also have these suspicions...

Interestingly, in the last week or two, all* of Team Denial have made the very same approx statement - 'Please don't question or challenge any of the negative opinions, statements and claims that I have made'.

It seems that they want to spread their misinformation, but get quite upset if it's politely challenged, and robustly dismantled.

*Can't speak for GA as I ignore his comments.

GreatApe · 24 January 2020 at 10:08PM

Nemo72 wrote: »

one of the easiest and cheapest way to reduce emissions is changing the car for an Ebike
and it is not that expensive, is it?
I bought one for 1600 pounds and I hardaly consume petrol
so easy...

It's not really a mass option

Also the externalities of cycling are significant
The additional accidents and food to power the bicycle will cut into some or all of the savings you think you're making

Nemo72 · 24 January 2020 at 10:26PM

the thing is: why should we reduce emissions at such a high cost, whilst the US and China are not reducing theirs?
Should we pay for it while others don't do it and therefore become more competitive with lower manufacturing costs?

GreatApe · 24 January 2020 at 10:45PM

Nemo72 wrote: »

the thing is: why should we reduce emissions at such a high cost, whilst the US and China are not reducing theirs?
Should we pay for it while others don't do it and therefore become more competitive with lower manufacturing costs?

Some things have zero costs or even save money
Like LED bulbs replacing incandescent bulbs
Efficiency standards for buildings and appliances also save money

Offshore wind is more expensive than just using the fossil fuel infrastructure we have, but it's affordable enough to do on a large scale. It will indeed make our heavy industry a little less competitive but we don't have much heavy industry left anyways

The UK is doing things reasonably well

40GW offshore wind for 2030 is acceptible
The 10-15GW interconntors are a good idea and will lower costs
And just finish off HPC and we will have a pretty green grid by 2030

Transport works if BEVs or 50 mile plug in hybrids become more affordable
Heating can be Electrified but this isn't a problem that you need to worry about until the 2030s

Cost of reducing emssions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free