The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
The EU is bringing in legalisation to address the imported carbon emissions issue, so imports will have a "carbon tax" the same as emitters here have to buy credits. But yes, it's very unreasonable that company in China can use coal and pollute as much as they like while EU countries have to pay to pollute.
Condi said:
The EU is bringing in legalisation to address the imported carbon emissions issue, so imports will have a "carbon tax" the same as emitters here have to buy credits. But yes, it's very unreasonable that company in China can use coal and pollute as much as they like while EU countries have to pay to pollute.
How wonderful. That’ll save planet. Diderot said:
Condi said:
The EU is bringing in legalisation to address the imported carbon emissions issue, so imports will have a "carbon tax" the same as emitters here have to buy credits. But yes, it's very unreasonable that company in China can use coal and pollute as much as they like while EU countries have to pay to pollute.
How wonderful. That’ll save planet. As the world's two largest markets they will have substantial impacts in terms of driving other producers to do the same.
If you didn't do this then stuff like hydrogen reduction steel making and similar will never get to the scale to become economic. You can also effectively double the impact by spending a portion of the tax revenue from this border tax on low carbon technology development.
Talksteer said:
Diderot said:
Condi said:
The EU is bringing in legalisation to address the imported carbon emissions issue, so imports will have a "carbon tax" the same as emitters here have to buy credits. But yes, it's very unreasonable that company in China can use coal and pollute as much as they like while EU countries have to pay to pollute.
How wonderful. That’ll save planet. As the world's two largest markets they will have substantial impacts in terms of driving other producers to do the same.
If you didn't do this then stuff like hydrogen reduction steel making and similar will never get to the scale to become economic. You can also effectively double the impact by spending a portion of the tax revenue from this border tax on low carbon technology development.
Talksteer said:
Eventually yes, in principle the US and EU are in favour of a border carbon tax to place an equivalent carbon tax on imports as would be placed on domestic production.
As the world's two largest markets they will have substantial impacts in terms of driving other producers to do the same.
presumably this also encourages the onshoring or retention of things like steel production as a handy side effect?As the world's two largest markets they will have substantial impacts in terms of driving other producers to do the same.
PRTVR said:
Talksteer said:
Diderot said:
Condi said:
The EU is bringing in legalisation to address the imported carbon emissions issue, so imports will have a "carbon tax" the same as emitters here have to buy credits. But yes, it's very unreasonable that company in China can use coal and pollute as much as they like while EU countries have to pay to pollute.
How wonderful. That’ll save planet. As the world's two largest markets they will have substantial impacts in terms of driving other producers to do the same.
If you didn't do this then stuff like hydrogen reduction steel making and similar will never get to the scale to become economic. You can also effectively double the impact by spending a portion of the tax revenue from this border tax on low carbon technology development.
EVs are a good example of this the most valuable car company (b4 anyone makes an inflated value argument Tesla earned 12b profit, Toyota the market leader earned 27b and Tesla doubles in size every 2-3 years) is a US start-up and the next most successful EV brands are the Chinese automakers.
It's perfectly feasible to drive change is standards by tax and incentives, its basically how every other regulatory change has been made over time. Every time we add seat belts, catalysts, NCAP safety standards carmakers complain that this will push up the cost of motoring, it never does because the cost increase is gradual and a car basically gets designed to an affordability standard anyway.
So if you add the border carbon tax, firstly it is unlikely to be a big bang, secondly product designers and supply chains will start to optimise around it. For example simply shifting to less carbon intensive materials choices, using less material, doing more on shoring in countries with greener grids. The results will also be slight diluted by more carbon intensive products being used internally in economies with less strict carbon targets or exported to similar economies.
That is however probably fair as those countries are likely to be poorer and have contributed less historic carbon. They will end up following by default10 years later as nobody replaces more carbon intensive manufacturing processes and they inherit a portion of the developed worlds lower embedded carbon durable goods.
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.
tamore said:
looking at UK at the moment and France in the run up and into winter, nukes don't seem to be that good a bet for totally reliable power. certainly not the behemoth types we have and are building/consenting.
Who would have thought that running down or cancelling longterm maintenance to save money and planning for early shutdowns would negatively affect reliability? Shocker. 
hidetheelephants said:
tamore said:
looking at UK at the moment and France in the run up and into winter, nukes don't seem to be that good a bet for totally reliable power. certainly not the behemoth types we have and are building/consenting.
Who would have thought that running down or cancelling longterm maintenance to save money and planning for early shutdowns would negatively affect reliability? Shocker. tamore said:
hidetheelephants said:
tamore said:
looking at UK at the moment and France in the run up and into winter, nukes don't seem to be that good a bet for totally reliable power. certainly not the behemoth types we have and are building/consenting.
Who would have thought that running down or cancelling longterm maintenance to save money and planning for early shutdowns would negatively affect reliability? Shocker. They were fortunate enough that this crisis hit while they still had a significant Nuclear sector and are now planning to build a number of new ones.
JagLover said:
tamore said:
hidetheelephants said:
tamore said:
looking at UK at the moment and France in the run up and into winter, nukes don't seem to be that good a bet for totally reliable power. certainly not the behemoth types we have and are building/consenting.
Who would have thought that running down or cancelling longterm maintenance to save money and planning for early shutdowns would negatively affect reliability? Shocker. They were fortunate enough that this crisis hit while they still had a significant Nuclear sector and are now planning to build a number of new ones.
But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
Gary C said:
Flammanville
But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
They will be no more or less problematic, which is not very problematic; the RR proposal is rather big and it doesn't really count as an SMR, although the 'onsite factory build' will swerve weather related delay and help with quality. True factory built SMRs offer the best potential for cost reduction and speed of installation, but there aren't any non-paper options yet. Everyone needs to hurry up and build one!But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
Gary C said:
Flammanville
But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
more about distribution of risk. biggun goes down, it's down and circa 2GW offline. dunno the proposed capacity of SMRs, but for argument's sake its 20 to make the same capacity… 2 go down, barely a blip.But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
Condi said:
JagLover said:
They were fortunate enough that this crisis hit while they still had a significant Nuclear sector and are now planning to build a number of new ones.
France for a while had the most expensive power in Europe (last July/Aug) because 50% of their nuke fleet was offline. tamore said:
Gary C said:
Flammanville
But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
more about distribution of risk. biggun goes down, it's down and circa 2GW offline. dunno the proposed capacity of SMRs, but for argument's sake its 20 to make the same capacity… 2 go down, barely a blip.But the suggested assumption by Tamore that SMR's would be trouble free compared to 'behemoths' is I think, flawed.
Certainly, when SZB came onto the bars, NGC were worried about the effect of a reactor trip, so much so that we started a project to install bypass dump tubes into one of our turbines to allow a level of frequency control (the AFRO project, automatic frequency responsive operation)
Never worked though.
tamore said:
more about distribution of risk. biggun goes down, it's down and circa 2GW offline. dunno the proposed capacity of SMRs, but for argument's sake its 20 to make the same capacity… 2 go down, barely a blip.
Modular Reactors aren't that small, I think they're circa 400MW on the Rolls Royce units, Hinckley's EPR is 1600MW per reactor.Evanivitch said:
tamore said:
more about distribution of risk. biggun goes down, it's down and circa 2GW offline. dunno the proposed capacity of SMRs, but for argument's sake its 20 to make the same capacity… 2 go down, barely a blip.
Modular Reactors aren't that small, I think they're circa 400MW on the Rolls Royce units, Hinckley's EPR is 1600MW per reactor.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff