The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[PushedDover]

PRTVR said:

Quite the opposite, I see it as a futile costly exercise,
we appear to have no problem celebrating when renewables pass a milestone, but choose to ignore the problems associated with them, mainly that a real power station is required for times like this and that has a cost associated with it that we all pay for.

What is the point if it makes no difference to global CO2 levels?

Do we now do expensive things to make us feel as we are doing something but are irrelevant?

Rather disingenuous - you positively post with glee any story where Coal is burnt.

slick note with the "real power station" comment too. 10 smug points to hufflepuff.

[PRTVR]

PushedDover said:

PRTVR said:

Quite the opposite, I see it as a futile costly exercise,
we appear to have no problem celebrating when renewables pass a milestone, but choose to ignore the problems associated with them, mainly that a real power station is required for times like this and that has a cost associated with it that we all pay for.

What is the point if it makes no difference to global CO2 levels?

Do we now do expensive things to make us feel as we are doing something but are irrelevant?

Rather disingenuous - you positively post with glee any story where Coal is burnt.

slick note with the "real power station" comment too. 10 smug points to hufflepuff.

But back to the real world, what is keeping the lights on when wind goes absent. ?

My glee as you call it is nothing of the kind, I lost a friend to lung problems because he was a coal miner, the stories he told of working a small seam in the pitch dark I wouldn't wish on an enemy, let alone a friend,
My point is that when renewables go missing something has to replace them, and has to be paid for, be it gas , coal or nuclear.

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

What is the point if it makes no difference to global CO2 levels?

Ummmm.... But every GWh generated by wind or solar displaces the need for a GWh generated by coal or gas. You can't argue that "it makes no difference to CO2 levels" because there is heaps and heaps of data to show that it does, and that we have made huge strides in decreasing the carbon intensity of the Grid, more so than almost any other country in the world.

And global CO2 continues to rise...........

[Condi]

PRTVR said:

And global CO2 continues to rise...........

Of course it does, nothing we are doing is taking carbon out the atmosphere, we're just reducing the impact of our activities.

Surely you can see that - you can't be that obtuse or thick? Its really very basic logic/science.

[Jambo85]

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

And global CO2 continues to rise...........

Of course it does, nothing we are doing is taking carbon out the atmosphere, we're just reducing the impact of our activities.

Surely you can see that - you can't be that obtuse or thick? Its really very basic logic/science.

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

This is not unexpected either as the UK is only about 1-2% of global energy consumption, and one of the few countries doing anything meaningful about it. And electricity is one of the smaller parts of the pie.

[Evanivitch]

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

This is not unexpected either as the UK is only about 1-2% of global energy consumption, and one of the few countries doing anything meaningful about it. And electricity is one of the smaller parts of the pie.

Made easier by off-shoring a lot of our heavy manufacturing and consumer goods production.

[dickymint]

Evanivitch said:

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

This is not unexpected either as the UK is only about 1-2% of global energy consumption, and one of the few countries doing anything meaningful about it. And electricity is one of the smaller parts of the pie.

Made easier by off-shoring a lot of our heavy manufacturing and consumer goods production.

You say that as if it's a good thing

[Evanivitch]

dickymint said:

Evanivitch said:

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

This is not unexpected either as the UK is only about 1-2% of global energy consumption, and one of the few countries doing anything meaningful about it. And electricity is one of the smaller parts of the pie.

Made easier by off-shoring a lot of our heavy manufacturing and consumer goods production.

You say that as if it's a good thing

Not intended. Like a lot of things, sending it abroad to be manufactured to a lower environmental standard isn't good for anyone.

[Condi]

Evanivitch said:

Not intended. Like a lot of things, sending it abroad to be manufactured to a lower environmental standard isn't good for anyone.

The EU are bringing in a carbon tax on imported goods, to level the playing field with EU based manufacturers who do have to buy carbon allowances, which should help in that regard. No idea if the UK will do the same, but one would expect so.

[Condi]

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

Maybe so. In the UK emissions are about 1/3rd below their 1990 level, mainly due to the change in the energy sector.

Someone has to do something, if nobody ever starts then nothing will change. The Paris agreement holds all developed economies to reduce their CO2 emissions, so over time worldwide emissions will fall.

[robinessex]

Condi said:

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

Maybe so. In the UK emissions are about 1/3rd below their 1990 level, mainly due to the change in the energy sector.

Someone has to do something, if nobody ever starts then nothing will change. The Paris agreement holds all developed economies to reduce their CO2 emissions, so over time worldwide emissions will fall.

Do you believe in fairy tales as well?

[Evanivitch]

Condi said:

Evanivitch said:

Not intended. Like a lot of things, sending it abroad to be manufactured to a lower environmental standard isn't good for anyone.

The EU are bringing in a carbon tax on imported goods, to level the playing field with EU based manufacturers who do have to buy carbon allowances, which should help in that regard. No idea if the UK will do the same, but one would expect so.

Good to know. Hopefully it's not just pumped into dubious carbon offset projects.

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

Jambo85 said:

Suspect PRTVR meant annual emissions continue to increase, rather than cumulative, the latter being, as you say, blindingly obvious.

Maybe so. In the UK emissions are about 1/3rd below their 1990 level, mainly due to the change in the energy sector.

Someone has to do something, if nobody ever starts then nothing will change. The Paris agreement holds all developed economies to reduce their CO2 emissions, so over time worldwide emissions will fall.

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

[Condi]

PRTVR said:

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

But that's not what he says. It's literally there, on the screen, his exact words. "We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn't solved".

Well, no, of course it's not solved. It's not solved if the UK goes to zero tomorrow either, but he doesn't say that "it will not change the global situation". One country cannot solve the problem, but all countries working together can. Hence the Paris agreement a few years ago and the meeting in Glasgow later on this year.

I don't agree its symbolic at all, it's quantitively NOT symbolic because you can measure it. On a global scale, it's not a big change, but it is a change, and that is an indisputable fact.

Do you have any evidence it is making the poor, poorer? Do you know how much it is costing? I can see a point in time not that long into the future whereby electricity is quite cheap. The cost of installing new wind and solar plants has fallen to the point at which even offshore wind is pretty much economic without subsidies. The last round of offshore wind CfDs cleared at a price which is almost below baseload power price, which means the amount required from the billpayer will be next to nothing. Onshore wind has been economic without support from a number of years. We have already had entire weekends for which the wholesale price of energy is negative - something which is impossible under your old model of burning coal. I accept there have been some expensive days earlier this year as well, but that is to be expected and just shows that more long term storage is required.

[PushedDover]

PRTVR said:

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

Costing in 'real money' or costing in jobs? Costing ? WTF do you mean by that - other than emotional twaddle.


By 2030 it is projected that offshore wind in the UK will support 27,000 jobs.

[robinessex]

PushedDover said:

PRTVR said:

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

Costing in 'real money' or costing in jobs? Costing ? WTF do you mean by that - other than emotional twaddle.


By 2030 it is projected that offshore wind in the UK will support 27,000 jobs.

Are they extra jobs, or just re-assigning redundant fossil fuel workers?

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

But that's not what he says. It's literally there, on the screen, his exact words. "We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn't solved".

Well, no, of course it's not solved. It's not solved if the UK goes to zero tomorrow either, but he doesn't say that "it will not change the global situation". One country cannot solve the problem, but all countries working together can. Hence the Paris agreement a few years ago and the meeting in Glasgow later on this year.

I don't agree its symbolic at all, it's quantitively NOT symbolic because you can measure it. On a global scale, it's not a big change, but it is a change, and that is an indisputable fact.

Do you have any evidence it is making the poor, poorer? Do you know how much it is costing? I can see a point in time not that long into the future whereby electricity is quite cheap. The cost of installing new wind and solar plants has fallen to the point at which even offshore wind is pretty much economic without subsidies. The last round of offshore wind CfDs cleared at a price which is almost below baseload power price, which means the amount required from the billpayer will be next to nothing. Onshore wind has been economic without support from a number of years. We have already had entire weekends for which the wholesale price of energy is negative - something which is impossible under your old model of burning coal. I accept there have been some expensive days earlier this year as well, but that is to be expected and just shows that more long term storage is required.

If we had tenfold number of wind turbines over the last week it would not have changed the output, another means of electricity generation was required, and had to be paid for by the consumer whose bills will rise to pay for the infrastructure required along with standby costs and shut down costs, if the wind blows when the electricity is not required,
Long term storage is another capital expense that will be passed on to the consumers
( is something like that possible to keep the UK grid going for 7 days.)
Who suffers most when energy prices rise ? The poor , a larger part of their income is set aside for energy bills.

There is a difference in that something can be measured ie the UK reduction in CO2 production, and the actual CO2 in the atmosphere that continues to climb, the only one that matters is the latter, so as changes go it is symbolic.
Remember sending production offshore doesn't reduce your CO2 production ,just moves it to another country's statistics, if you consume you generate.

[PushedDover]

PRTVR said:

If we had tenfold number of wind turbines over the last week it would not have changed the output, another means of electricity generation was required, and had to be paid for by the consumer whose bills will rise to pay for the infrastructure required along with standby costs and shut down costs, if the wind blows when the electricity is not required,
Long term storage is another capital expense that will be passed on to the consumers
( is something like that possible to keep the UK grid going for 7 days.)
Who suffers most when energy prices rise ? The poor , a larger part of their income is set aside for energy bills.

There is a difference in that something can be measured ie the UK reduction in CO2 production, and the actual CO2 in the atmosphere that continues to climb, the only one that matters is the latter, so as changes go it is symbolic.
Remember sending production offshore doesn't reduce your CO2 production ,just moves it to another country's statistics, if you consume you generate.

Where ?

In your prediction where is the tenfold of turbines positioned ?
Same place as the existing ? Or elsewhere?

[PushedDover]

robinessex said:

PushedDover said:

PRTVR said:

So we are in agreement that the UK reducing CO2 will not make a difference to global CO2,
It is only symbolic,
How much is this symbolism costing in real money and jobs along with making the poor poorer ?

Before you answer it best you understand that the American climate envoy believes that America going Carbon free will not change the global situation.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions...

Costing in 'real money' or costing in jobs? Costing ? WTF do you mean by that - other than emotional twaddle.


By 2030 it is projected that offshore wind in the UK will support 27,000 jobs.

Are they extra jobs, or just re-assigning redundant fossil fuel workers?

Does it matter ?

But I would suggest seeing the intake it is new jobs. Offshore they are younger fitter types : leaner and keener.
From a marine perspective a lot of ex-fishermen initially now supplemented by mariners from all walks (cvs on my desk say so). The blade factories are also new trained staff. Some of the little fabrication workers may have some fab experience from O&G but unlikely.
Of course the cabling and HVDC stuff will not be ex-coal miner neither- but of course this is all irrelevant as you are just sat thrown glass half full quips and negativity rather than having a constructive conversation.

[Talksteer]

PushedDover said:

the people (companies) pushing H2 are those with a vested interest / infrastructure they need to sweat for years (pipelines, shoreside receiving plants, filling stations with shops etc).

And those that are in the O&G game not wanting to believe the game is changing.

Yep:

There is two separate solutions being tied together.

1: Co-fire NG with 20% volume H2 for a potentially impressive sounding big number CO2 saving nationally which is pretty trivial as a %.
2: Fire 100% H2

The first solution will allow you to keep a lot of the existing infrastructure, the second will require more pipes due to volume difference and a route and branch upgrade of all valves, seals, pumps etc and so will never happen.

Belief that H2 in gas pipes will lead to a sustainable solution is all its advocates need to justify keeping natural gas around that little bit longer.