Beelbeebub

The problem is the reason we should drop the policies is that "they cost too much and we should use the vast reeves or North sea gas and oil to make ourselves energy independent" Which is all bollocks. But sticks in certain minds alongside "we are being invaded" and "the most pressing issue facing our nation is where somebody takes a piss"

The best solution would be a heat pump and possibly a battery EPC regs don't reward that (zero for batteries and a heatpump yields a couple of points over the existing storage heaters). Plus there are planning and install issues (5 stories, conservation area, AONB). The best solution. The one we are going with is to swap the heaters for new HHR storage heaters. If I can get solar fitted I will - and probably a battery. As for the gas properties the issue is not making it more expensive for the tenants (plus the EPC issue). Right now I can't make the bus case stack up despite trying many permutations. Again solar is the current front runner.

Why? Why is the domestic industry mix of UK 2025 inferior to 2000? Or 1975? Or 1950 or 1850? Name a country that has had the same industrial mix that it did in 2000? Certain people have nostalgia for manufacturing but the fact is the UK was always going to have to transition away from labour intensive industry because the world marches on. If we still built cars the way we did in 1970 the cars would be more expensive and poorer quality than competitors who used modern, lower labour, plants. Arguably it's part of the reason out motor industry failed - not modernising. China's industrial mix has massively changed. Has their policy failed? A far better measure is the impact on the economy and living standards of decarbonisation. This is going to be hard to disentangle from the other things that have happened over the last 2 decades that have also impacted out economy and living standards. 2008 crash Brexit COVID Ukraine invasion Hormuz

Here is the serious analysis It is true that upto 2005 the idea that we were merely exporting emissions was mostly true, but since then even our footprint emissions (which includes the footprint of stuff made abroad) have fallen. I'd be very interested to see which "international forums". The UK is generally considered to be a leader in the field of transition policy (at least regarding generation).

I do give a chuff - though this thread is specifically about the non-climate related reasons for needing net zero policies. But the idea of comparative advantage extends to carbon as well. There are some items that can be produced and shipped for less CO2 than being produced here. Aluminium from Canada being an example that springs to mind. For jackdaw gas Vs LNG gas the difference is relatively small - about 0.3% of UK emissions and even smaller if the gas is sourced from Norwegian pipeline (which it will be this winter as LNG from Quatar is not available)

I have about 30 properties to install them in and assume about £10k per property. 30 x 10 = 300

The economic theory of comparitive advantage says otherwise. Easy for you to say, but when it will cost upwards of £300k, be extremely hard to physically achieve and you will see zero financial payback it's a harder question. Again, 2% will make zero difference to the price or energy security. As I have repeated, it makes no difference to our prices or energy security if we do or don't licence Rosebank/Jackdaw. There is a narrative pushed by some parties that going all in on the North sea will solve all of the UKs energy issues and obviate the need for "stupid net zero". People need to understand our problems (and need to transition away from oil and gas) will not disappear or even slacken one iota if we licence them. In one sense it is good of they are licences because it will end the discussion, except I worry the next stage - when the promised rewards don't appear - will be to argue "ah, that's because we didn't do a proper job! We need to go even further!". We have seen this tactic for the exact same parties in other areas.

As a side note the "it's green washing - all we've done is shoo emissions abroad and decimated our industry" is straight up FUD from the fossil fuel industry. It sits alongside "the UK is only 1% so nothing we do makes a difference" It is in the fossil fuel industry's interes to make us think we cannot achieve anything so it's not even worth trying. It's stage 3 of the 4 stages

If we are going to tackle a global issue we need to work with other countries. It's really hard to encourage other countries to cut emissions or not start more fossil fuel exploration when we are granting drilling licences - it's not a good look. And as for the argument "we are just green washing, by importing everything that look CO2, oil, gas, bricks, most out goods come from other countries..." It s true that the 50% fall in our "Territorial" emissions measure excludes goods and services from abroad, But our "footprint" emissions which includes that, plus aviation and shipping and pretty much everything else has also fallen albeit not by as much- but still over 20% down from the peak (just under 1bn to just over 750bn). Given you describe 2% as a "good proportion" what would you describe +20% as? "Very good proportion", "Bloody good proportion"?

The direct jobs are not substantial - 27 according the the owners. A further 250 or so will be more secure at the hub. Again the issue with jackdaw is that it doesn't do much either way. It's a sideshow. Whilst I think it would be better if we didn't licence it and spent our efforts elsewhere (transitioning) I'm not that bothered of we do - part of me thinks it might be a good idea because it will shut up all the idiots who think it'll sort all out problems and the UK will become the Saudi Arabia of Europe. It does if you mostly type on a screen. What unit do you think I am describing when I say "an average home uses 10 kwh a day"? Unless it genuinely causing you to think of another unit it's just pedantry. Says it all! It says that,like the majority of the country, my houses use gas. I'm trying to electrify but am being stymied by regulations, cost and the biggest issue is I don't want to spend money to make it more expensive for my tenants. Ideally an air to air alongside the current gas system would be the safest but I won't get a grant, I need planning for the outdoor units and in the case of all electric flats I get fewer points than swapping to modern storage heaters. All of the above doesn't invalidate my arguments any more than you being on mians water prevents you from complaint about water companies Only if you define 2% (at best) as a "good proportion". If you got a 2% bonus would you describe that as "a good proportion of my salary"? If you lose 2% of your body weight would that be "a good proportion of my bodyweight"? This is the point I keep trying to drive home. Jackdaw (and Rosebank) will make no discernable difference to: - energy prices - energy security - job figures - CO2 emissions* - tax revenues** It does send the wrong message though. It will make i harder for the UK to pressure other countries to live up to their commitments. *This is a point that can be used to justify licencing despite the climate situation. ** I would like to see what the net tax revenue situation actually is. Hopefully it is positive but I have a suspicion that once tax deductions are included the net position will be much smaller than trumpeted and possibly even negative

If you have a battery and smart tariff you don't even need a spark gap of 2, and that's without taking into account the boilers efficiency of around 85% and gas standing charge. Our current tariff (runs out in October) we only pay 10p for electricity per kWh, taking into account standing charge and boiler efficiency we only need a CoP of just over 1 to break even. But the press don't talk about that. 100%

No argument there - bringing down the spark gap is a primary task. If that drops below about 3 then all the payback calculations tip in favor of electrification and we're off to the races. This is a bit contentious - first off - what do you mean by better? Cheaper? More secure? Lower CO2 per kwh? For cost and security - Jackdaw will make zero difference to the price or security *because the volumes are so small*. It would be like arguing that sticking an 80w* solar panel on your house will make a meaningful difference to your energy costs or your ability to keep the lights on. As for CO2 (which is the argument the oil industry is suddenly extremely keen in) - yes, the Co2 per kwh of LNG is higher than NS gas. How much cleaner? about 15% (https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-north-sea-gas-is-not-four-times-cleaner-than-lng-imports). So Jackdaw will save (or generate) 15% of 2% of the UK's gas emissions - about 0.3% of total CO2 emissions. This is also an argument as to why opening Jackdaw isn't a directly catastrophic for the climate . I mean, great, but it doesn't work like that. You don't get to draw ever smaller boundaries around things to claim you don't have to do anything. If you want to play it that way then Scotland is also responsible for around 1/3 of UK CO2 emissions** I can see this for the daft argument it is but - good god, no. They are mostly gas and mostly less than EPC C - though to be fair mostly over 150 years old But you have just popped up out of the well: I assume you aren't arguing that nobody on mains water can have any say in the UK water industry? * Average house of 10kwh/day so 2% of demand would be 200wh per day which is would roughly be the average output from an 80w solar panel ** calculated from combustion of the O&G extracted, mostly from Scotland, are around 18bn tons and historic coal emissions are around 36bn tons (assume most of the coal was not Scottish) - very crude estimate

Just realised my "tipex" comment has massively dated me! 😁

Except we aren't even repainting the ceiling. We're dabbing a bit of tipex on 2% of the ceiling.

[emphasis mine] But it's not a lot of gas - that's the point. It was more to illustrate the relative size of the change ie not alot It would take some time, true. So the argument goes - "well those things would be great but we have a supply problem NOW, so we must do this less ideal thing as it will help NOW" But the magnitude of the output means there will be absolutely no discernable change to prices or energy security. So it won't help now, or ever. But starting to install HPs and insulate will have a small and growing effect that will compound over time. To paraphrase "the best time to have started the energy transition was a decade ago, the second best time is today" But I am interested in the overall net effect on tax revenue. Yes tax revenue will be created from various oil taxes and corporation taxes plus keeping people in work (the net increase in jobs is around 25 although it will assure some 200 or so current jobs). But my understanding (and this is why a proper analysis by non-partisan experts like the HoC library would be good) is that the pio companies can use the costs of this venture to offset revenue elsewhere potentially lowering their tax bills. So the question is whether the increase direct tax revenue are greater than the decreased tax revenue elsewhere. If (and it is a big if) the net effect is negative then not only are we not doing anything to help out current and imminent situation (high energy prices) but we are actively hampering the deployment of solutions that will help. Again the relative size is important UK consumption is approximately equivalent to 1 LNG tanker a day. The 2% of UK demand that jackdaw might provide is therefore 2% of a LNG tanker. So the worst case 7 LNG tankers a year out of 120 or so. Bear in mind the majority of LNG effectively ends up as export (the volume of UK gas exports being broadly the same as UK LNG imports) - we are in effect one of Europe's main LNG terminals Again, the main point is that jackdaw will do jackshit (sorry) about our prices or energy security. What it will do is make a bunch of cash for oil companies and use that reserve of gas up for the future. Imagine and alternate path.... We don't licence jackdaw - yet. We transition away from gas for heating etc to electricity. Of course our electric generation needs to go up, which we do via renewables. However, as the deniers delight in crowing, we will probably still need gas for the few times it's dark and still and for some balancing and backup. The gas use will be a fraction of current use. Maybe 10% maybe even less over time. At this point the government reactivates jackdaw but as the exclusive supplier for the national gas stockpile to power the thermal power stations in emergencies This will provide genuine price benefits (the gas bit being open market) and genuine security if supply (the gas being exclusively used for UK emergency generation). Of course all of this relies on the gas being there rather than having been already extracted for zero before to anyone but the oil companies.