Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025

[John Brown]

No, it's not like that because the situation doesn't change in minutes and we will be more motivated to act base on discomfort. But I think we'll act long before then, anyway. What if scenarios that are only negatively biased with catastrophic uncontrollable outcomes are the hallmark of cognitive traps with anxiety. Ask me how I know this. They can prevent you from taking positive measure action or even understanding what it should be because measured pragmatism and rationality is never as attractive.

Sorry, but a lot of people(scientists) disagree with you. It's an old and tired analogy, I know, but you can't wait until the last minute to stop a super-tanker. Unless crashing it into the shoreline is acceptable.

 

[TominDales]

How much is all this 'decarbonisation' going to cost the average person? From this article by Steve Baker MP, it seems Whitehall's estimate is about £100,000 per household.

It’s alright for some | Steve Baker | The Critic Magazine

As for global warming, I've just come back from doing my mum's weekly shop. Everybody I saw was muffled up in woolies and winter coats - and it's damn near the end of May. I can't recall a colder spring for many a long year. If the climate is in run-away warming mode, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it - I can detect precious little evidence of it.

As far as 'scientists say' - yeah, I've looked in some depth at climate science, and once you get past the media rhetoric, there's not much evidence of runaway warming there, either. The climate warmed until the late 1990s, since when it's rate of warming has slowed almost to flat - which does seem to bear out personal experience.

I suspect that all this government zeal is one of those establishment fashions that's about to reach 'peak w*nk'. When the Red Wall voters discover that they'll be expected to pay about £100,000 a household for all this fancy climate mitigation stuff, there will be loud rumblings - and Whitehall and government will have to have some pretty convincing evidence to back up their policies. From what I've seen of climate science, I don't think that evidence exists.

Matthew Goodwin (political scientist and commentator) said a few months ago that post Brexit, he thought the next big political theme would be policy around climate. I think he may be right.

This article from Steve Baker seems very dated in its details. Firstly the myth that the rate of warming has slowed almost flat. This came out about 10 years ago when there had been four years of little increase in global temperature. However analysis showed that el nino accounted for it. It caused a high for a couple of years that exaggerated global warming and then the La nina caused a cooling, once that's taken into account global warming was comprehensibly shown to continue and 10 years later all the temperature measurements show it. here are the actual measurements from the well respected US National data, (US goverment).

Steve Baker is right to highlight there will be costs to consumers in adapting to climate change, but his figures are way out. Projections for EVs and heat pumps show that when the change is compulsory ie by 2030 to 2035 the costs will be in line with existing technology. Today with low production numbers its expensive new tech. Remer the cost of TV in 1952 and how its fell, same with all tech as its industrialised the cost falls.

As for the weather, the warming atmosphere does not lead to uniform rises in surface temperature in the UK or anywhere. Its really extra energy in the systems and this extra energy causes more water vapour and more violent wind. Our current weather is a consequence of the extra energy in the atmosphere compounded with a low pressure systems in the Atlantic. expect more cold and wet summer months and heat waves as the system gets more energetic. Why has May been so wet? - BBC Weather

Politicians on both side of the climate debate tend to pick data to suit their arguments, which makes it hard for us to follow. Its best to look for the consensus scientific arguments that do get into the mainstream media. The advantage of this is the scientific review method weeds out biased data sets. This topic is quite fast changing so quite hard to follow.

The commentator Matthew Goodwin is spot on, with the UK government hosting COP26 in November these topics will be in the new from now until then. If BJ thinks he can emulate Thatchers tour de force at the UN Montreal CFC conference expect a lot of publicity on this topic. To quote from the UN write up on the Protocol: 't and then prime minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, of the situation’s severity. The speech she made to bring the world together on this issue is still worthy of the most globally-minded eco-warrior today. “We carry common burdens, face common problems and must response with common action,” she told the UN General Assembly in 1989, when the agreement was on the brink of disaster.
The resulting Montreal Protocol not only banned CFCs but also ensured that rich nations would help developing countries to pay for the greener alternatives. The cynic in me suspects there will be similar grand words from the current government.

The Montreal protocol has some similarities to todays debate, The alternative to CFCs were about 10 times the cost of CFS in 1986 when they were first developed, but since they were industrialised the cost of fridges are hardly risen despite the complexity of the new refrigerants. The latest generation of wind turbines produce electricity that is cheaper than coal fired generation. So yes there will be costs, but £100k is way over.

 

[Rorschach]

You all might find a listen to Bjorn Lomberg very interesting.

 

[D_W]

Sorry, but a lot of people(scientists) disagree with you. It's an old and tired analogy, I know, but you can't wait until the last minute to stop a super-tanker. Unless crashing it into the shoreline is acceptable.

Perhaps they should spend their efforts working on sequestration, or are they chasing money right now? I don't care if they disagree with my assessment - the narrative for near 20 years now has mirrored cognitive thinking traps. The idea that we cannot innovate as AI becomes more common and a larger menu of options becomes available, I'm not buying it.

I don't think you could show me a reliable source showing that personal energy consumption differs significantly on a per capita basis based on what each group believes, either, and I think that is an enormous problem. Who is leading the way?

Also, don't confuse me with a denier. I am not and never have been. I'm an observer. I solve problems for a living and don't have a lot of patience for people who can't define problems well enough to solve them and won't lead the way.

 

[mikej460]

Other vectors are being researched, the main one being hydrogen, Ammonia is being considered (electrify, hydrogen and air being the raw materials), and turning electricity and hydrogen into some sustainable hydrocarbons using CO2 sequestered from the air, .aviation fuel being a likely early use. The overall concern is about storing energy in the form of electricity in batteries, pump storage etc and how to power ships across the oceans. You need enough storage to cope with unusual weather events when there is less wind or sun, hence the nuclear options.

The problem with hydrogen is that you need electricity to split it from water and the only proposed solution to this is to use night time generated electricity from wind turbines or solar parks but you need to be close enough to these sources to make it viable - or am I missing something?

 

[D_W]

The problem with hydrogen is that you need electricity to split it from water and the only proposed solution to this is to use night time generated electricity from wind turbines or solar parks but you need to be close enough to these sources to make it viable - or am I missing something?

It's far off. It's cheaper to reform hydrogen from methane at this point than it is to use electrolysis. As in, natural gas is the feed stock of hydrogen.

 

[mikej460]

It's far off. It's cheaper to reform hydrogen from methane at this point than it is to use electrolysis. As in, natural gas is the feed stock of hydrogen.

or the local waste tip or biodigester

 

[D_W]

wherever you can get methane. Methane capture has been used for electricity generation here for a long time (at least that I can remember 15 years or more). I googled to find out how many dumps (most of the dumps here are regional and large unless they are a community dump - for building materials, etc - those probably just charge a premium to then haul to a regional dump).

Without spending more energy, there were 455 dumps generating electricity in the US in 2008. It must be more now. Methane here at well sites is often flared off - not sure if that's still the case as I live in gas territory, but not oil territory - there is pipeline infrastructure here so that younger wells don't have to flare off gas and capture only oil.

 

[Jameshow]

Electric cars, non gas heating,renewable energy, aiming for carbon neutral, all very good on paper.

But we'll be importing a great deal of foodstuffs from places like south America or Australia, consumer goods from Asia. Diesel powered container ships sailing thousands and thousands of miles.

Add in biomass for drax from USA/ Canadian forests!!

 

[D_W]

biomass is getting the negative press it deserves here. It's not energy dense enough and the particulate emissions from it are terrible. It leads to a decline in air quality and an increase in respiratory problems.

Unfortunately, our school districts and other public buildings have been incented to install biomass instead of burning natural gas or oil, and they get a particulate or emissions waiver (for no good reason). I'm sure, as mentioned above, enormous amounts of fossil fuels are used to harvest and haul and handle the stuff.

 

[John Brown]

The problem with hydrogen is that you need electricity to split it from water and the only proposed solution to this is to use night time generated electricity from wind turbines or solar parks but you need to be close enough to these sources to make it viable - or am I missing something?

But isn't that the whole point? Utilizing wind or solar generated electricity to produce hydrogen (and oxygen of course) is seen as a viable way to "store" that power.

 

[John Brown]

d_W said: "I don't care if they disagree with my assessment "
I'm prepared to bet that they don't give a tinker's cuss, either.

 

[mikej460]

But isn't that the whole point? Utilizing wind or solar generated electricity to produce hydrogen (and oxygen of course) is seen as a viable way to "store" that power.

Yes I agree with the logic but apparently there are practical hurdles which result in hydrogen power being only available to certain regions. This confuses me as my understanding is that renewable power is added to the grid and monitored so surely any additional or 'spare' night time electricity could be used to produce hydrogen in any region?

 

[mikej460]

Ignore hype over hydrogen heating, government told - BBC News

 

[John Brown]

Yes I agree with the logic but apparently there are practical hurdles which result in hydrogen power being only available to certain regions. This confuses me as my understanding is that renewable power is added to the grid and monitored so surely any additional or 'spare' night time electricity could be used to produce hydrogen in any region?

I take your point, and confess that I missed it initially. I don't understand that either. Maybe someone will be along shortly to explain...

 

[TominDales]

The problem with hydrogen is that you need electricity to split it from water and the only proposed solution to this is to use night time generated electricity from wind turbines or solar parks but you need to be close enough to these sources to make it viable - or am I missing something?

That is what is being considered, experimental contracts have been let in Humberside and Teesside to test out exactly this concept. Hydrogen will be generated by electrolysis of water either on-shore where the power comes ashore, or even offshore. Its one reason ITM power has been in the headlines as they have one of the most efficient electrolysis going. At present during periods of low electric demand the 'government' (actually its through the grid market) pays producers not to produce electricity. In effect it creates a system where there is surplus supply in the system for when its needed. At present the goal and gas suppliers turn down during these times. Nuclear cant so continues to run and they pay a price for this.
In the future the idea is that nuclear, (solar during the day) and nuclear would continue to run at high rates and the surplus turned into hydrogen (or stored in batteries). This hydrogen could then be converted by into electricity during peak consumer demand or turned into chemicals etc.
Its also why nuclear is seen as more attractive than it was. During periods of low electric demand the power can be sold to hydrogen electrolysers by the nuclear industry.
There is still quite a bit of uncertainty about the economics of doing these things at scale hence the large pilot schemes. ITM power claims that in a few years time cheap wind power and their efficient electrolysis will make the cost of green hydrogen compatible to conventional hydrothermal methane derived hydrogen (often called grey hydrogen in environmental speak).

 

[John Brown]

Ignore hype over hydrogen heating, government told - BBC News

Thanks. That's interesting.

 

[Spectric]

The process is electrolysis, two electrodes in water with a current flowing and you get hydrogen from the negative electrode and oxygen from the positive one. A very explosive mixture and any plant undertaking this will not be cheap as its construction comes under the ATEX regs in order to meet the requirements of DSEAR.

 

[John Brown]

The process is electrolysis, two electrodes in water with a current flowing and you get hydrogen from the negative electrode and oxygen from the positive one. A very explosive mixture and any plant undertaking this will not be cheap as its construction comes under the ATEX regs in order to meet the requirements of DSEAR.

Thanks. I can't speak for everyone, but I've known about electrolysis for 60 years or so. I believe one has to add something to the water, as pure water is not a good conductor. Is that right? I think in my "The boy electrician" book, it was sodium chloride, and chlorine was an undesired side effect.

 

[TominDales]

Yes I agree with the logic but apparently there are practical hurdles which result in hydrogen power being only available to certain regions. This confuses me as my understanding is that renewable power is added to the grid and monitored so surely any additional or 'spare' night time electricity could be used to produce hydrogen in any region?

The big regions for hydrogen are where the existing infrastructure is ie around the big petrochemical complexes and also near to power sources. Electricity losses down power cables mean its best to make hydrogen as close to the generator as possible. At the moment hydrogen pipelines are costly, this is because hydrogen being a small molecule penetrates steel and embrittles it so specialist steels are needed. Hydrogen also permeates plastic pipes, so research is ongoing into special linings for pipes. The first areas considered for hydrogen networks are, Cheshire - near the old Shell Thornton refinery - hydrogen is made by reforming and used to modify petrochemicals and the Old ICI / Ineos Chloralkai cell rooms (hydrogen is a by-product), in Grangemouth in Scotland - Ineo ex BP and ICI sites, Redcar - Wilton (ex ICI) and Humber - Saltend, Philips refinery and Equinor.
There is talk of a hydrogen pipeline/ grid, but that is still speculative due to many techno economic uncertainties. The UKs biggest pipeline was between the ICI plants in Billingham where methane is reformed and the petrochemical complexes in North Tees and Wilton I seem to remember it cost £1m per miles to build. That is just one of the challenges.