Cop 29

[Spectric]

People keep saying nothing is happening, near the top of this thread China generating 35% from renewables.

But look at what is not from renewables, it sounds a lot and would be for many countries but China produces huge amounts of energy so still a lot of dirty energy and also places like India. To solve this global issue then it has to be done fully otherwise it is nothing more than putting out half a fire.

 

[Ozi]

I know some us want to think back to these days…but life changes

What we run on now is lower than 2* and compare the miles per gallon you get!

 

[Ozi]

But look at what is not from renewables, it sounds a lot and would be for many countries but China produces huge amounts of energy so still a lot of dirty energy and also places like India. To solve this global issue then it has to be done fully otherwise it is nothing more than putting out half a fire.

65%. Very true but my point is change is happening and it would not have happened if it didn't start somewhere. It's similar to the capital punishment argument if you don't make a stand you have no voice.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There's a huge difference between what is needed and what is available NOW!
You simply don't discard the current solutions unless the alternatives are available in sufficient quantities and economically viable, none of which currently meets those criteria so as not to disproportionately and negatively affect our economy and wellbeing of the people of this nation.

Before any further commitments are made to this net zero virtue signalling, the first thing to do is ensure that there is an abundance of clean and cheap renewable energy to power the alternatives otherwise they won't be affordable.

Legislation is needed to initiate changes which short term appear economically non-viable. The alternative, for understandable reasons, is the continued pursuit of the cheapest.

We accept regulation, for instance, for animal husbandry, drugs trials, car emissions kit, food safety, health and safety etc etc. They come at a cost to the consumer who mostly support the rules - the alternative is a race to the financial (and quality) bottom.

If the overwhelming evidence is that climate change is a real threat, forcing consumers to change behaviours makes sense. It is an opportunity to lead the world in green energy, not reluctantly trail the rest.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Lead the world in green energy by all means but don't expect the world to follow - the rest of the world won't subsidise it as we are forced to.

 

[Croolis]

This victimhood thing is pretty tedious to listen to. Something else being done to us, isn't it? It's this sort of nonsense that's slowly murdering this country.

We, and I mean the British, bear large responsibility for industrialising the world, creating globalisation, consumer society. We are still, despite the abysmal last 10 years or so, way up in the top percent of living standards. I have no expectation of ever starving to death, no matter how inactive I get, and if I get sick, no matter how long the queue for it, I'll get treated. All of this on the back of mass production, horrendously wasteful consumerism, ridiculous lifestyle choices, an economic system that demands population increase, when the overwhelming evidence is that the people of developed countries graduate naturally towards not increasing their population, paving over every last bit of green you can find, be unable to live anywhere that you can't hear the hiss of traffic on yet another fooking dual carriageway, environmental decimation. P-p-p-p-put up a parking lot.

But apparently we're the ones getting screwed over so don't do anything folks. Behave.

 

[RobinBHM]

And there's no earthly point in believing that if Britain does something successfully others will follow. They'll all do what suits them. Every last one of them.

Your energy bills more or less doubled because the price of fossil fuel gas went up.

But you think you’ve been subsidising renewables ….despite the fact solar and wind EP produced electricity are cheaper

 

[Scruples]

Look at products around you, it is a bit late for that as everything seems to be made in China or asia.

China are building their economy on manufacturing and supplying to the west. They are, as has been said before, tuning to other forms of power generation and away from fossil fuels. We are becoming more dependent on their technology. Will they use that against us one day? Or will they feel that they would be cutting off their economy them?
Interesting times.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Your energy bills more or less doubled because the price of fossil fuel gas went up.

But you think you’ve been subsidising renewables ….despite the fact solar and wind EP produced electricity are cheaper

So why are they subsidised? 25% of our bills subsidise "cheap" power, thanks to the gurning moron Ed Davey.

 

[RobinBHM]

So why are they subsidised? 25% of our bills subsidise "cheap" power, thanks to the gurning moron Ed Davey.

They aren't subsidised by 25%

Green subsidy is 11% average for dual fuel but that includes grants for better insulation on homes, heat pumps etc.

How much have bills gone up due to fossil fuels? A = upto around 70%



Our electricity would be cheaper if its price wasn't tagged to gas power stations

 

[selectortone]

thanks to the gurning moron Ed Davey.

Don't be coy, say what you really think

 

[Trevor Molyneux]

That’s why we need to increase renewables and electricity storage.

Renewables are cheaper than gas or nuclear.

And the old argument about intermittency is not true, battery storage is growing exponentially

It is true wind and solar are cheaper but that is only true if it is windy and sunny. It costs around £500M to build a 1MW gas power station but about £3,000 M (£3B) to make 1MW of wind turbines. The wind turbines last about 20 years and a gas turbine last nearly 40 years. When a wind turbine only generates about half the year the cost of the hardware (that has to be backed up with gas) is effectively 24 times that of gas for the lifetime of the turbine.

The total energy consumption of the UK by electricity is about 20%. So to have it all as electricity you need an electricity infrastructure 5 times what it is now which will cost around £3T, or more than the GBP of the UK.
Although the cost of gas is more expensive than the wind your bill is paid at the marginal cost of generation (ie gas) so you don't benefit from the lower cost of wind generation but you have to pay for the cost of the wind turbines as a green levy.

And speaking of green, do you know we actually employ people to collect up all the dead birds and bats struck by wind turbine blades?

Where is all the copper going to come from?

The idea battery technology is ever going to be sufficient to store enough energy to run 5 times our current energy needs for possibly 3 weeks in January or February when it is dark and no wind is never going to happen. Even with the huge improvements in battery technology your mobile phone still lasts less than 48 hours with many less than 24.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

They aren't subsidised by 25%

Green subsidy is 11% average for dual fuel but that includes grants for better insulation on homes, heat pumps etc.

How much have bills gone up due to fossil fuels? A = upto around 70%



Our electricity would be cheaper if its price wasn't tagged to gas power stations

Yes I was wrong, it's 16% on mine - no gas.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Khan wants to run the underground on renewables. An industry expert pointed out that the largest offshore windfarm in the world took nine years from the inception to the coming on line. Khan would need one every five weeks for several years. He's as deluded as the communist Milibrain.

 

[Windows]

It is true wind and solar are cheaper but that is only true if it is windy and sunny. It costs around £500M to build a 1MW gas power station but about £3,000 M (£3B) to make 1MW of wind turbines. The wind turbines last about 20 years and a gas turbine last nearly 40 years. When a wind turbine only generates about half the year the cost of the hardware (that has to be backed up with gas) is effectively 24 times that of gas for the lifetime of the turbine.

The total energy consumption of the UK by electricity is about 20%. So to have it all as electricity you need an electricity infrastructure 5 times what it is now which will cost around £3T, or more than the GBP of the UK.
Although the cost of gas is more expensive than the wind your bill is paid at the marginal cost of generation (ie gas) so you don't benefit from the lower cost of wind generation but you have to pay for the cost of the wind turbines as a green levy.

And speaking of green, do you know we actually employ people to collect up all the dead birds and bats struck by wind turbine blades?

Where is all the copper going to come from?

The idea battery technology is ever going to be sufficient to store enough energy to run 5 times our current energy needs for possibly 3 weeks in January or February when it is dark and no wind is never going to happen. Even with the huge improvements in battery technology your mobile phone still lasts less than 48 hours with many less than 24.

I’ve got no idea if your raw figures are correct, but you seem to have omitted the cost of the gas.

The government produces fully loaded cost analyses so you don’t need to do the maths where you multiply a number by two because it’s only windy six months of the year or whatever. Can you point to govt figures that show that wind is more expensive than gas?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I’ve got no idea if your raw figures are correct, but you seem to have omitted the cost of the gas.

The government produces fully loaded cost analyses so you don’t need to do the maths where you multiply a number by two because it’s only windy six months of the year or whatever. Can you point to govt figures that show that wind is more expensive than gas?

Also - around 50% of our gas consumption arrived as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) on large ships - not flowing through pipelines. The costs of shipping omits the CO2 associated costs involved.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The normal convention is for the measurement of whole life energy costs through calculation of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE).

The attached is one report for the UK I found online LCOE. There may be later versions overing all possible energy sources.

Calculation involves a large number of assumptions which can change the conclusions:

• the fuel costs for gas could change very materially over the 25 year life of the plant
• wind or solar investment cost is much higher than gas - but running costs much smaller
• on-going costs for gas make up most if the lifetime costs - solar and wind is low
• risks can be uncertain - eg: nuclear waste and decommissioning, future gas prices

IMHO it should be treated as a guide rather than a work of precision - although gas at around double the cost of onshore wind or solar is fairly convincing.

 

[woodieallen]

Not true

 

[woodieallen]

The following list of 10 countries between them contribute a total 68.8% of world Co2...
China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, Germany, South Korea & lastly Saudi Arabia.
The UK in contrast contributes 0.88% or #17 in the world pollution table.

I am a strong believer in cutting down on atmospheric and biospheric pollution for obvious reasons but I'm also a realist and pragmatist and not delusional like most militant Friends of the Green Freaks who simply don't comprehend what they're actually asking people to do and give up.

We have our resident JSO lunatics causing chaos but if we actually just stopped oil as they would have us do, the UK's economy would tank in a matter of weeks and even if we stitched off UK PLC tonight, it would be unlikely that the results of this extreme action would actually be measurable in the grand scheme of things in 12 months time.

I'm not saying they're wrong but we as a nation can't simply destroy our economy or get left behind in order to virtue signal to the rest of the world and set us up as an example unless our competitors act likewise. It's completely irrational irrespective of which side of the fence one sits.

The UK simply can't unilaterally save the planet with it's silly net zero aspirations, all that will accomplish is to harm the British economy and create a huge drop in living standards.
There is a plan to ban installation of gas in new properties from 2025. Fair enough I can understand why but I recently had to replace my aging gas boiler and the cost of replacing that with such as a heat pump was effectively prohibitive and from an economic POV where my funds are concerned and my brief attempts at research showed they would be simply unsuitable for the UK unless the costs of production and electricity needed to run heat pumps drops dramatically so for that reason I believe we are still a long way from implementing such laws which will harm our economy and ultimately the people of this country.

The whole issue of net zero needs a responsible re-think unless it's in synchronisation with the rest of the world otherwise we are just going to hamstring our own economy going forward and we already have enough issues without adding yet more.

At last. Someone posting something that reflects reality and no wishful thinking.

 

[woodieallen]

There's a huge difference between what is needed and what is available NOW!
You simply don't discard the current solutions unless the alternatives are available in sufficient quantities and economically viable, none of which currently meets those criteria so as not to disproportionately and negatively affect our economy and wellbeing of the people of this nation.

Before any further commitments are made to this net zero virtue signalling, the first thing to do is ensure that there is an abundance of clean and cheap renewable energy to power the alternatives otherwise they won't be affordable.

Agreed. remind me...just how much energy did we get from renewables over the last week or so? Note to self....buy more candles.