Climate Change

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I suspect that even Jeremy Clarkson would vote labour if this guy was say it's deputy leader, what a pity he doesn't have a relative who could help get him into parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

On 11/18/2015, 9:41:34, The Gasbuster said:

Collis has made the point that a number of threads have been "hijacked" recently, and he is right. He has also claimed that some of the topics we have discussed in recent weeks are "minor issues" (i.e. benefit cheats), then goes on to say there are more important matters, and names climate change as one.

So here is it's own thread.

My point of view is that we have invested more (per head) on renewable energy, than any other E.U. country, especially when you look at the number of onshore and offshore wind farms we have. To me, the rest of the E.U. are not in any position to criticise. France, I believe, has around 80% of it's energy generated by nuclear means (correct E.M.B. ?).

The energy secretary has announced today that all coal fired power stations will be out of commission within 10 years.

Personally, this announcement, plus the investment in renewables in recent years, speaks volumes for this government, and the previous ones over the last 15 years.

However, let's not forget that the U.K. generates less than 2% of the world's pollution.

Meanwhile, India with it's population of more than a billion is increasing the quantity of coal it mines, and is building more coal fired power stations.

I would imagine China are doing something similar . Then there is the U.S.A., who apparently generate around 25 % of the world's pollution (China must be around this sort of figure as well).

The shadow secretary of state for energy stated today that we should be "showing India the way" by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for generating power.

Really ? will India take note of what we say ? I doubt it somehow.

In essence, bearing in mind the size of the problem worldwide, I would say we are doing more than our fair share. Any further improvements we make will be tiny when you look at the overall picture.

 

Collis, over to you..................

I'm coming to this late, so sorry but a few points.

Have you got a source for the claim that we have spent more on renewable energy (per head) than any other EU country? Per head Denmark generates about 5x more electricity from wind, and Germany generates about 3x more from wind and solar than the UK so its quite shocking that we have spent so much despite being the windiest country in Europe. 

It is true that there are other countries which generate more pollution, of which the ones most cited are USA, China and India. 

The USA has had falling coal consumption for many years, generally replaced by onshore wind and shale gas. America is currently the largest generator of electricity using wind in the world and due to economies of scale wind and increasingly solar are cheaper than all fossil fuels at generating electricity. Obama has brought in pollution and efficiency control measures for vehicles which will cut oil consumption going forward and the Clean Power Plan will accelerate the switch to renewables. 

China is now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, however, in the last couple of years there is evidence this is changing. Coal use for electricity generation has peaked and there is evidence that carbon emissions have as well. This is partly  due to  global climate concerns but mostly due to concerns about local pollution/smog. China is now installing more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country on earth and the targets for 2020 are very large (unofficially 200GW of wind and 200GW of solar). By comparison, the UK will be around 15GW of each at this point. 

India is still developing and so has massively increasing energy demand. Whilst this does include a lot of new coal, Modi has made a "National Solar Plan" a main target meaning lots more solar, as well as a continuation of wind power. Competitive auctions show solar and wind are now cost competitive with coal in India, and this difference is only expected to increase. 

Wind and solar PV continue to get cheaper, with the average cost of wind generation falling by 14% for each doubling of capacity, and solar PV having a learning rate nearer 22%. Battery technologies are similarly decreasing in cost meaning a greater switch to electric vehicles and the prospect of energy storage at the grid level - already energy storage is cheaper than gas under some circumstances. At the same time, the long term prospects for fossil fuel prices are only going to increase as the best resources are depleted.

Simple economics explain why there are increased chances of a deal in Paris, renewable energy is now similar in price or cheaper than the alternatives meaning the cost of action is much less. 

[Red-Robbo]

59 minutes ago, Stoke_Gifford_Red said:

I'm coming to this late, so sorry but a few points.

Have you got a source for the claim that we have spent more on renewable energy (per head) than any other EU country? Per head Denmark generates about 5x more electricity from wind, and Germany generates about 3x more from wind and solar than the UK so its quite shocking that we have spent so much despite being the windiest country in Europe. 

It is true that there are other countries which generate more pollution, of which the ones most cited are USA, China and India. 

The USA has had falling coal consumption for many years, generally replaced by onshore wind and shale gas. America is currently the largest generator of electricity using wind in the world and due to economies of scale wind and increasingly solar are cheaper than all fossil fuels at generating electricity. Obama has brought in pollution and efficiency control measures for vehicles which will cut oil consumption going forward and the Clean Power Plan will accelerate the switch to renewables. 

China is now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, however, in the last couple of years there is evidence this is changing. Coal use for electricity generation has peaked and there is evidence that carbon emissions have as well. This is partly  due to  global climate concerns but mostly due to concerns about local pollution/smog. China is now installing more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country on earth and the targets for 2020 are very large (unofficially 200GW of wind and 200GW of solar). By comparison, the UK will be around 15GW of each at this point. 

India is still developing and so has massively increasing energy demand. Whilst this does include a lot of new coal, Modi has made a "National Solar Plan" a main target meaning lots more solar, as well as a continuation of wind power. Competitive auctions show solar and wind are now cost competitive with coal in India, and this difference is only expected to increase. 

Wind and solar PV continue to get cheaper, with the average cost of wind generation falling by 14% for each doubling of capacity, and solar PV having a learning rate nearer 22%. Battery technologies are similarly decreasing in cost meaning a greater switch to electric vehicles and the prospect of energy storage at the grid level - already energy storage is cheaper than gas under some circumstances. At the same time, the long term prospects for fossil fuel prices are only going to increase as the best resources are depleted.

Simple economics explain why there are increased chances of a deal in Paris, renewable energy is now similar in price or cheaper than the alternatives meaning the cost of action is much less. 

Great post - and very informative. 

Good to hear from someone who clearly knows the subject very well.

[Red Bill]

At the beginning of this post the question of where our power would come from in the future arose.  Here, in Kent, next to the Dungeness Nuclear Power Station, there is a large installation which is the British end of a massive cable - the other end being in France and we are already importing electricity.  I suspect (though cannot be certain) that in future we will be importing even more.  This seems to be the way our beloved leaders think - hand everything over to johnny foreigner.  N-Power is German owned; Scottish Power is Spanish owned; EDF is French owned and E-On is German owned.

What worries me is that, should there be an energy shortage in the future, will these companies give priority of supply to their domestic consumers or the British?

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

1 hour ago, Red Bill said:

At the beginning of this post the question of where our power would come from in the future arose.  Here, in Kent, next to the Dungeness Nuclear Power Station, there is a large installation which is the British end of a massive cable - the other end being in France and we are already importing electricity.  I suspect (though cannot be certain) that in future we will be importing even more.  This seems to be the way our beloved leaders think - hand everything over to johnny foreigner.  N-Power is German owned; Scottish Power is Spanish owned; EDF is French owned and E-On is German owned.

What worries me is that, should there be an energy shortage in the future, will these companies give priority of supply to their domestic consumers or the British?

Currently two interconnectors to the continent (France and Holland) with two connections across to Ireland with plans for several more interconnections, including to Norway and Iceland. If used correctly they should lower UK bills and reduce volatility but there is the risk of supplies being controlled from abroad. However, the UK is already very import dependent for energy with more oil, gas, coal and uranium being imported than extracted domestically. 

[howey_ducky]

10 hours ago, Stoke_Gifford_Red said:

I'm coming to this late, so sorry but a few points.

Have you got a source for the claim that we have spent more on renewable energy (per head) than any other EU country? Per head Denmark generates about 5x more electricity from wind, and Germany generates about 3x more from wind and solar than the UK so its quite shocking that we have spent so much despite being the windiest country in Europe. 

It is true that there are other countries which generate more pollution, of which the ones most cited are USA, China and India. 

The USA has had falling coal consumption for many years, generally replaced by onshore wind and shale gas. America is currently the largest generator of electricity using wind in the world and due to economies of scale wind and increasingly solar are cheaper than all fossil fuels at generating electricity. Obama has brought in pollution and efficiency control measures for vehicles which will cut oil consumption going forward and the Clean Power Plan will accelerate the switch to renewables. 

China is now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, however, in the last couple of years there is evidence this is changing. Coal use for electricity generation has peaked and there is evidence that carbon emissions have as well. This is partly  due to  global climate concerns but mostly due to concerns about local pollution/smog. China is now installing more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country on earth and the targets for 2020 are very large (unofficially 200GW of wind and 200GW of solar). By comparison, the UK will be around 15GW of each at this point. 

India is still developing and so has massively increasing energy demand. Whilst this does include a lot of new coal, Modi has made a "National Solar Plan" a main target meaning lots more solar, as well as a continuation of wind power. Competitive auctions show solar and wind are now cost competitive with coal in India, and this difference is only expected to increase. 

Wind and solar PV continue to get cheaper, with the average cost of wind generation falling by 14% for each doubling of capacity, and solar PV having a learning rate nearer 22%. Battery technologies are similarly decreasing in cost meaning a greater switch to electric vehicles and the prospect of energy storage at the grid level - already energy storage is cheaper than gas under some circumstances. At the same time, the long term prospects for fossil fuel prices are only going to increase as the best resources are depleted.

Simple economics explain why there are increased chances of a deal in Paris, renewable energy is now similar in price or cheaper than the alternatives meaning the cost of action is much less. 

Your post comes across as though you are an educated individual however I must question the direction you are trying to put your point across in.  I have highlighted the most glaringly obvious statement that is worded to give the impression that China is doing something about cleaning up how it produces energy.

For us to produce 15GW (using your figures) and China to produce 200GW, that would make the UK the winner when it comes to solar and wind energy production per head.

You have written the whole post with an agenda, you're completely wrong on numerous points and it annoyed me, enough that I have felt the need to pull you up on one of said points.

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

29 minutes ago, howey_ducky said:

Your post comes across as though you are an educated individual however I must question the direction you are trying to put your point across in.  I have highlighted the most glaringly obvious statement that is worded to give the impression that China is doing something about cleaning up how it produces energy.

For us to produce 15GW (using your figures) and China to produce 200GW, that would make the UK the winner when it comes to solar and wind energy production per head.

You have written the whole post with an agenda, you're completely wrong on numerous points and it annoyed me, enough that I have felt the need to pull you up on one of said points.

Apologies if you didn't like the way I wrote the little post. 

I do not disagree that based on the projections the UK will have a larger per capita installed capacity than China, the purpose of my post was merely to point out that those who claim China (and India and USA) aren't doing anything are wide of the mark . By installing the largest amount of renewable energy capacity globally China clearly is attempting to clean up their act, whether this matches other countries in percentage or per capita was not the point I was trying to make.  If I was attempting to choose a country doing much more than the UK I would choose somewhere like Uruguay (95% rerenewable electricity), Iceland (practically 100% renewable heat and electricity), or Costa Rica which went about 3 months earlier this year without resorting to fossil fuels to generate electricity. Also, I was referring to installed capacity, not  production since there was no "time frame" to my units.  

As an aside, as the per capita annual electricity consumption in China is lower than in the UK, by 2020 the percentage of power  generated from renewable sources will be relatively similar in both places. 

If you wish to point out any of the further "numerous" points where you believe I am wrong I will happily respond to these as well.

[howey_ducky]

2 minutes ago, Stoke_Gifford_Red said:

Apologies if you didn't like the way I wrote the little post. 

I do not disagree that based on the projections the UK will have a larger per capita installed capacity than China, the purpose of my post was merely to point out that those who claim China (and India and USA) aren't doing anything are wide of the mark . By installing the largest amount of renewable energy capacity globally China clearly is attempting to clean up their act, whether this matches other countries in percentage or per capita was not the point I was trying to make.  If I was attempting to choose a country doing much more than the UK I would choose somewhere like Uruguay (95% rerenewable electricity), Iceland (practically 100% renewable heat and electricity), or Costa Rica which went about 3 months earlier this year without resorting to fossil fuels to generate electricity. Also, I was referring to installed capacity, not  production since there was no "time frame" to my units.  

As an aside, as the per capita annual electricity consumption in China is lower than in the UK, by 2020 the percentage of power  generated from renewable sources will be relatively similar in both places. 

If you wish to point out any of the further "numerous" points where you believe I am wrong I will happily respond to these as well.

Your response is enough.  Thanks.

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

On 05/12/2015, 21:49:17, howey_ducky said:

Your post comes across as though you are an educated individual however I must question the direction you are trying to put your point across in.  I have highlighted the most glaringly obvious statement that is worded to give the impression that China is doing something about cleaning up how it produces energy.

For us to produce 15GW (using your figures) and China to produce 200GW, that would make the UK the winner when it comes to solar and wind energy production per head.

You have written the whole post with an agenda, you're completely wrong on numerous points and it annoyed me, enough that I have felt the need to pull you up on one of said points.

Just to point out that China is doing something to alter how it produces electricity, today a peer review journal has an article which indicates that the global carbon emissions have fallen slightly this year, all because China is moving away from coal.

[Nibor]

One answer would be a mix of renewable and thorium molten salt nuclear reactors for generation and household battery technology to even out the grid (i.e. efficiently storing energy generated by solar).  

Interestingly India has a shit tonne of Thorium so if we were to develop the technology I'm sure they'd trade willingly for the raw material. 

Electric cars are making great progress both on cost and range (performance already being well beyond fossil fuels) driven by better battery tech.  Hybrids are a poor compromise but pure electric can work with the right incentives.

A government willing to look 20-30 years out rather than 4-5 could help create a few new industries we could lead in, reduce emissions drastically, fix the economic dependency on north sea oil and reduce reliance on Russia and the middle east for strategic resources substantially as well.

No chance of that then.

[...]

16 minutes ago, Nibor said:

One answer would be a mix of renewable and thorium molten salt nuclear reactors for generation and household battery technology to even out the grid (i.e. efficiently storing energy generated by solar).  

Interestingly India has a shit tonne of Thorium so if we were to develop the technology I'm sure they'd trade willingly for the raw material. 

Electric cars are making great progress both on cost and range (performance already being well beyond fossil fuels) driven by better battery tech.  Hybrids are a poor compromise but pure electric can work with the right incentives.

A government willing to look 20-30 years out rather than 4-5 could help create a few new industries we could lead in, reduce emissions drastically, fix the economic dependency on north sea oil and reduce reliance on Russia and the middle east for strategic resources substantially as well.

No chance of that then.

So, reading between the lines, you don't make it obvious if Colin is going to be our new manager or not.

Could you be any more vague on the subject?

 

Uncle TFR

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

11 hours ago, Nibor said:

One answer would be a mix of renewable and thorium molten salt nuclear reactors for generation and household battery technology to even out the grid (i.e. efficiently storing energy generated by solar).  

Interestingly India has a shit tonne of Thorium so if we were to develop the technology I'm sure they'd trade willingly for the raw material. 

Electric cars are making great progress both on cost and range (performance already being well beyond fossil fuels) driven by better battery tech.  Hybrids are a poor compromise but pure electric can work with the right incentives.

A government willing to look 20-30 years out rather than 4-5 could help create a few new industries we could lead in, reduce emissions drastically, fix the economic dependency on north sea oil and reduce reliance on Russia and the middle east for strategic resources substantially as well.

No chance of that then.

After the oil crisis in the late 1970s a lot of governments supported wind power development, including in the UK where the large industrial companies (Rolls Royce, BAE etc) were given financial support. However, once oil prices fell the UK government quickly ended support. However, in Denmark support continued and now Vestas (a Danish wind turbine manufacturer) is the largest of its kind in the world and one of Denmark's largest companies and exporters. Denmark is also the home of the second largest wind company, Siemens Wind Power, which was formed when the Siemens conglomerate bought Denmark's Bonus A/S. It has taken 20-30 years of government assistance, but Denmark is now the true leader in wind power; which considering the geographic and population size of the country and its general manufacturing base just shows what can be done when the government supports an emerging industry over the mid term.