The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Net ZERO by 2050
No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
Condi said:
This is a nice little graph showing quite how mad gas prices have been over the last 3 years. Covid did push them to unusually low levels, so the 2020 "baseline" is lower than "normal" prices are, but it still goes to show how high they have been.
What it doesn't show is forward prices, and so while this winter is comparatively quite cheap compared to where it was, until the EU has more LNG import terminals and importantly plenty of LNG purchases, there will be a big risk premium put into future winters. We have been comparatively quite lucky this winter, aided by a lot of demand destruction (not desirable from an economic perspective - factories shut down, industry not producing), but if 2023/4 winter is cold there will be the risk of further very high prices, and this is likely to continue for several years - this risk premium is passed to consumers in their bills. European economies are having to change dramatically to the new landscape, and economic growth and human progress has been built on cheap energy, so anything which increases energy costs is detrimental to the economies concerned.
We in the UK are comparatively lucky with our own gas production, Norwegian pipelines and 3 LNG terminals.
Until the 'lost' Russian gas is replaced, there will always be a risk premium in the winter.What it doesn't show is forward prices, and so while this winter is comparatively quite cheap compared to where it was, until the EU has more LNG import terminals and importantly plenty of LNG purchases, there will be a big risk premium put into future winters. We have been comparatively quite lucky this winter, aided by a lot of demand destruction (not desirable from an economic perspective - factories shut down, industry not producing), but if 2023/4 winter is cold there will be the risk of further very high prices, and this is likely to continue for several years - this risk premium is passed to consumers in their bills. European economies are having to change dramatically to the new landscape, and economic growth and human progress has been built on cheap energy, so anything which increases energy costs is detrimental to the economies concerned.
We in the UK are comparatively lucky with our own gas production, Norwegian pipelines and 3 LNG terminals.
We have gotten away withit big time this winter. Gas stocks at high levels, a mild winter (across most of Europe) and no sustained cold spell. Also the Chinese are not needing as much (economic downturn) and JKM is priced below Europe, so LNG cargos are heading to NWE.
Feb is looking to be warmer than average an dso we will end winter with high gas stocks (currently above 70% in Europe)
This in turn is reducing the demand doe gas storage over summer, and then next winter.
But the winter after that? and then in W25/26?
What is China / Japan / Korea have a really cold winter that is sustained (I know parts of Japan are really cold), then they will demand it (higher price) and the LNG heads there. We in NWE will have to up the price, and so the cycle continues.
Long term supply contracts will help.
Additional supply (not gas) will help
Demand destruction will help.
But none of these are accurately predictable in the long term, so the prices won't fall till you get closer to the time....
It's a crazy world out there....
Looks like the Norwegian parliament is passing laws to allow it's hydro produccers to cut exports if there is a risk of Norwegian supplies going low.
https://watt-logic.com/2023/01/30/norway-restricts...
https://watt-logic.com/2023/01/30/norway-restricts...
robinessex said:
Net ZERO by 2050
No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
You left out the small detail of him being a climate sceptic member of the discredited Global Warming Policy Foundation.No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
Hill92 said:
robinessex said:
Net ZERO by 2050
No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
You left out the small detail of him being a climate sceptic member of the discredited Global Warming Policy Foundation.No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
Hill92 said:
robinessex said:
Net ZERO by 2050
No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
You left out the small detail of him being a climate sceptic member of the discredited Global Warming Policy Foundation.No way
A video on what net zero really means, an engineer from Cambridge University explains all.
https://youtu.be/NkImqOxMqvU
Michael Kelly was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and Emeritus since 2016. His previous career in academia and industry concerned the physics of high-performance semiconductor devices and the manufacturability of nanoscale artefacts. His interest in climate science and mitigation was piqued by the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, where, as part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government for Her Majesty’s Government, he assumed a leading role in defining the need for a national retrofit programme for the UK’s building stock to help achieve a reduction in the 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions that came from heating air and water in buildings. During 2010-2016 he led the teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate engineers with a course ‘Present and Future Energy Systems, the study of how the UK get’s its energy now and how it might in 2050. It was here that he first appreciated the scale of the retrofit programme, and in later extensions, the cost in terms of finance, materials and human resources, of achieving a Net-Zero Economy for the UK by 2050.
Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
PRTVR said:
No comment on what he says just a personal attack...... do people not think a costing of net zero should be published?
Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
Climate change is a bit like Brexit in that regard:Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
- no one can calculate the cost accurately
- no one (supporting it) wants to know the cost anyway
- it is being done based in feelings (gut) and not a rational decision based on evaluating evidence.
We all know the cost of net zero is massive.
But I'm pretty sure some economist have already run the numbers on the cost of not acting, and it was bigger
xeny said:
PRTVR said:
No comment on what he says just a personal attack...... do people not think a costing of net zero should be published?
.
No possibility that what he says may be slanted by any agenda he might have?.
Do we just ignore the figures or do we have an adult discussion about the costs and how it will be paid.
Ian Geary said:
PRTVR said:
No comment on what he says just a personal attack...... do people not think a costing of net zero should be published?
Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
Climate change is a bit like Brexit in that regard:Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
- no one can calculate the cost accurately
- no one (supporting it) wants to know the cost anyway
- it is being done based in feelings (gut) and not a rational decision based on evaluating evidence.
We all know the cost of net zero is massive.
But I'm pretty sure some economist have already run the numbers on the cost of not acting, and it was bigger
How can not acting be bigger if we only control 2% of the worlds CO2 production and the likes of China and India are still building coal fired power stations ?
PRTVR said:
No comment on what he says just a personal attack...... do people not think a costing of net zero should be published?
Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
Some estimates have been made, just not really widely publicized or debated in parliament.Is not the public entitled to know the cost ?
It should be easy to refute his claims as it obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, perhaps some on here can put him right.
The National Grid estimated the costs at £3 trillion. The Office for budgetary Responsibility estimated it at £1.4 trillion, but I think there has been some criticism that this estimate both assumes that the government will pursue the most efficient path to net zero (very unlikely to be the case) and ignores CO2 embedded in imports.
PRTVR said:
How can not acting be bigger if we only control 2% of the worlds CO2 production and the likes of China and India are still building coal fired power stations ?
I don't like this argument... China are;
The biggest builders of new nuclear power in the world.
Have the single largest hydropower station in the world.
Produce the vast majority of the world's solar panels.
Have the world's largest wind turbine fleet.
Their power comes from a mix of sources, but they are moving (as we are) away from coal, the only difference is that whereas our electrical demand is falling away over time, their is massively increasing and so their newly installed renewable capacity is not keeping up with the increasing demand. There was a huge rush to sign off coal plants in the early to mid 2010's, and some of those are still being constructed, but very few are making a profit for their owners. In 2020 China installed 71GW of wind power, in one year! That is equivalent to 2.5 times the amount the UK has installed in total.
By all means talk about how much coal and thermal capacity China have, but you have to recognise the huge investments they have made in renewable power to balance the argument. They are moving towards decarbonisation as much as any other advanced economy, just starting from a very different place with very different needs.
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
How can not acting be bigger if we only control 2% of the worlds CO2 production and the likes of China and India are still building coal fired power stations ?
I don't like this argument... China are;
The biggest builders of new nuclear power in the world.
Have the single largest hydropower station in the world.
Produce the vast majority of the world's solar panels.
Have the world's largest wind turbine fleet.
Their power comes from a mix of sources, but they are moving (as we are) away from coal, the only difference is that whereas our electrical demand is falling away over time, their is massively increasing and so their newly installed renewable capacity is not keeping up with the increasing demand. There was a huge rush to sign off coal plants in the early to mid 2010's, and some of those are still being constructed, but very few are making a profit for their owners. In 2020 China installed 71GW of wind power, in one year! That is equivalent to 2.5 times the amount the UK has installed in total.
By all means talk about how much coal and thermal capacity China have, but you have to recognise the huge investments they have made in renewable power to balance the argument. They are moving towards decarbonisation as much as any other advanced economy, just starting from a very different place with very different needs.
they have chosen to carry on emitting large amounts of CO2, until they shut them down along with steel production and the rest of their CO2 producing industries then what we do is pointless and extremely costly.
PRTVR said:
But they are still building coal fired power stations and are still the biggest emitter by far,
As far as I could see a few months back, they are basically builiding every kind of power station they can as fast as possible.Per capita how do their emissions compare, as with the largest population in the world they're inevitably going to score highly in a per nation league table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by... only goes up to 2018, but puts them at about half of the US, and a little lower than Norway or Germany, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
PRTVR said:
But they are still building coal fired power stations and are still the biggest emitter by far,
they have chosen to carry on emitting large amounts of CO2, until they shut them down along with steel production and the rest of their CO2 producing industries then what we do is pointless and extremely costly.
Us buying so much tat from China is part of why they need the energy for said industries...they have chosen to carry on emitting large amounts of CO2, until they shut them down along with steel production and the rest of their CO2 producing industries then what we do is pointless and extremely costly.
JonnyVTEC said:
PRTVR said:
But they are still building coal fired power stations and are still the biggest emitter by far,
they have chosen to carry on emitting large amounts of CO2, until they shut them down along with steel production and the rest of their CO2 producing industries then what we do is pointless and extremely costly.
Us buying so much tat from China is part of why they need the energy for said industries...they have chosen to carry on emitting large amounts of CO2, until they shut them down along with steel production and the rest of their CO2 producing industries then what we do is pointless and extremely costly.
If China needs coalmpower to make cheap steel and other products why are we crippling our industry with high energy prices just so we can create the CO2 in embedded imports anyway.
All we are doing is exporting jobs and wealth to Chima without much net CO2 saving.
xeny said:
PRTVR said:
But they are still building coal fired power stations and are still the biggest emitter by far,
As far as I could see a few months back, they are basically builiding every kind of power station they can as fast as possible.Per capita how do their emissions compare, as with the largest population in the world they're inevitably going to score highly in a per nation league table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by... only goes up to 2018, but puts them at about half of the US, and a little lower than Norway or Germany, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
PRTVR said:
xeny said:
PRTVR said:
But they are still building coal fired power stations and are still the biggest emitter by far,
As far as I could see a few months back, they are basically builiding every kind of power station they can as fast as possible.Per capita how do their emissions compare, as with the largest population in the world they're inevitably going to score highly in a per nation league table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by... only goes up to 2018, but puts them at about half of the US, and a little lower than Norway or Germany, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
They are building nuclear, geo-thermal, wind and solar, but loads of new coal capacity too (275 gigawatts). They don’t want to be caught with their pants down again like they were last year I one province when the lights went out,
“ The Chinese officials were quick to try to downplay the scale of their own coal expansion plans, characterizing them as a short-term “Band-Aid” and reiterating their own longer-term carbon reduction goals. But, as Bloomberg notes, the 270 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity China plans to build in the coming years would vastly exceed the entire fleets of the biggest other coal-using countries. If fully realized, the additions would give China a coal-fired power plant fleet six times the size of current U.S. capacity.”.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2022/11...
And
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff