Beelbeebub

Again - this is exactly the point of my orginal post. Using figures from the oil and gas industry itself, I did a quick calculation and if we were to magically snap our fingers and be able to extract all the gas the most optimistic oil industry projections estimate is availible - we could maintain our current rate of production for another 15 years and then it woikd all be gone. But that rate is only 50% of our current demand. If we extracted (again magically) at a rate that made us self sufficient for gas, we could do that until around 2033 and then be totally out. This is the core of my argument, any gas plant generating today (and I do think we shoukd squeeze as much use out of already paid for assets as we can) and any you build will be almost wholly dependent on imported gas within the decade. (oil is in basically the same situation)

mm per kw?😁

mW per kM

Regarding the cost of pylons vs underground. The 4.5x figure is from this study by the IET & Mott Macdonald. https://www.theiet.org/media/axwkktkb/100110238_001-rev-j-electricity-transmission-costs-and-characteristics_final-full.pdf It's extremely comprehensive but the TLDR is Pylons are £1-1.5k per Mw/km lifetime cost (so including capital, maintenance, lifetime etc) depending on the distamce and capacity. Underground is £4.5-6.5k per Mw/km, again depending on distance and capacity. So at best 3x at worst 6.5x - 4.5x being a nice central estimate. Offshore cable is even more expensive at £9k per Mw/km and up. It's worth noting an older 2010's) consultation reply by the CPRE put the cost differential, based on case studies in Europe (Denmark IIRC) at 3.5x and they had every incentive to pick the lowest figure possible as thry were arguing for more underground cable. Unless someone can come up with a better study (not handwaving or "well it should be simple to....") we can take it as fact that underground transmission is about 4x the cost of overhead. So, there is a compelling cost argument to go with pylons. Obviously the people who see them would prefer underground,but we must be aware of the strategy of those who oppose something to insist that a more costly approach be taken, then point to the high cost as a reason not to do the thing. IIRC national grid has a £35bn plan over the next 5 years to upgrade the grid Note that the vast majority of new lines are offshore (so more costly) which was no doubt done to reduce the impact of the lines. There is also a lot of upgrading existing lines with new conductors. (also this is the transmission network, the local distribution network has it's own set of upgrades)

Good bit of AI generated slop there.😁 Ironically it's the sort of crap that we should be looking to stop as it probably took a good couple of kwh to generate.

I mean, yes.... 😁 I'm not saying that climate change isn't a good reason to: - improve insulation - electrifying heating and transport - increace renewable generation etc Just that it isn't the only reason. If climate change didn't exist (as some people argue) then it would still be sensible to do the above purely from the perspective of reducing the vulnerability of our economy to external shocks. And I agree that we have sleepwalked into this situation. We should have been taking action earlier and we should be doing more now. But there are multiple groups (ironically both fossil fuel and some misguided and overzelous "greens") who are dragging us back. This thread is an attempt to answer the "Net zero is threatening our energy security - we must drill more for energy independence!" lobby by pointing out that is a fantasy and the only beneficiaries of slowong net zero are the fossil fuel companies and foreign powers who would like to see the UK even more exposed to outside shocks.

This is exactly the point of my orginal post. We do not have "... mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations..." For shale, our geology is different from thr US (who do have quite a bit) and the gas has already leaked out millions of years ago. For the north Sea - it is tapped out. I did a quick calculation and if we were to magically snap our fingers and be able to extract all the gas the most optimistic oil industry projection estimate is availible extract at a rate that satisfied our current rate for another 15 years. But that rate is only 50% of our current demand. If we extracted (again magically) at a rate that made us self sufficient for gas, we could do that until around 2033 and then be totally out. This is the core of my argument, any gas plant generating today (and I do think we shoukd squeeze as much use out of already paid for assets as we can) and any you build will be almost wholly dependent on imported gas within the decade. If a significant portion of put generation relies on this imported gas we are extremely vulnerable to supply shocks beyond our control. On the other hand of we get more of our energy for heating, transport and elecreicty from renewables *which are.cost competitive with well utilised CCGT* then we are less vulnerable to these shocks.

Absolutely, for projects commissioning in 2030 the price per. Mwh for solar and onshore wind is basically £60, offshore is about £100 Gas is at best (93% utilisation) a match for offshore wind. If the utilisation falls it gets more expensive (I guess because of amortisation of the same construction cost over fewer mwh) One thing to note is that in this report the carbon price looks pretty hefty (pale blue bar) somewhere around £30, visually a little bit (say 80%) of the gas price* If you remove that then well utilised gas is a match for solar and onshore wind. *I'm not sure how that chimes with figures I saw that had carbon price of around 30% of the gas price, so I have used the most favourable to gas assumption. And the sensitivity of gas to price rises. This shows the response to higher and lower gas prices - note including the carbon price discussed above. It loos like a +/- of about £25 of on the overall cost, which if we put back into our eaelier graphs means ccgt might be cheaper than solar/wind *if* gas prices were to end up being lower than expected *and* we removed carbon costs.

My point is "chasing net zero" isnt (in the main)" to our detriment. The whole crux of the anti net zero argument is that it somehow is worse than the alternative, that is carrying on burning FF as our main energy source and not moving to a more advanced technological system. If we stay"as is" or worse yet go backwards we will be shooting ourselves on the foot whilst China and the developing works eat our lunch. China already has a massive lead on us. PV is the cheapest electricity source available, especially towards the equator. African countries have worked this out and are jumping straight to electrification. We are going to have to face economies with lower energy costs than us because they are either in renewables or have vast quantities of their own fossil fuels (or ones from countries they invaded) The countries at the bottom of the heap will be the idiots who have set their economy to rely highly on imported energy

You paid your electricity bill and taxes right? There you go. You paid for the coal fired power stations. (well actually taxpayers pre 1980's did as the big coal stations were built under nationalised industry. - private generators only came after the 90's.)

I quite agree a ma@ive 122kv pylon in a garden is unacceptable. But are they doing that? Is someone proposing planting an actual 100ft multi phase 120kv transmission pylon (as opposed to a wooden pole) in your garden? And the lines could be underground but A) underground is roughly 4-5x the cost of overhead. B) underground is much more disruptive to install as you have to (effectively) dig a continuous trench the entire length of the route - which adds to the cost. Yes, there will be local impacts in places that historically haven't had any. But then, once upon a time, large parts of the Midlands had to accept not only the visual disruption of coal plants in their rolling hills but the impact on air quality - all for power that was sent to rural Wales etc. The power lines running out from the magnox stations stretch our across the rural visas of the Severn Valley to disappear across the cotswolds.

You're right, discounting per unit could lead to unintended consequences. More like if you live in the area affected you get a 10% discount on standing charge - standing charges vary by location anyway. Not split by how many people just everyone in postcode gets a % reduction.

On a serious note, there should be "business rates" (for want of a better word) on solar/onshore wind and possibly even pylons to feed money into the local area. Even down to parish level. Say your parish council got a couple of grad each year for 4 or 5 pylons in the parish. Say there was a discount on every household per unit elecy cost in the effected post codes.

There's a golf course on the Scottish coast that I would *love* to see surrounded by wind turbines....

Nimbyism is a massive issue. Near me there is a proposal for a fairly large solar farm. People are losing their minds over "the damage to the view from the AONB". The park will barely visible as a sliver of dark blue/black from the AONB in question. The biggest impact will be the brief periods in the morning where there may be some chance of glare reflecting off the panels for anyone standing on higher ground. Of course you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the glare from the solar panels and the glare from the big river and numerous lakes and ponds (not to mention flooded fields at various times if the year) that already make up the landscape. The local pressure group has made all sorts of noises about the "10ft high security fence" (in an area defined by 10 ft high hedgerows and tree lines even higher. They are also incensed by the "giant substation" needed. Turns out it's about the size of a shipping container.

Yes but then people say this

I find it useful as whenever I hear someone say "two tier keir" it's sign they're going to spout a load of twaddle

The "stop oil use" targets are pretty tied to shifting road transport to electric as that is the majority (3/4) use for oil. I prefer "stop burning oil" to "stop oil" - as I've said there are some things we need oil for and even some sectors which we will ha e to keep burning fossil fuels for (aviation is a big one)

As I said, it's charging anxiety. But crucially, EVs don't need oil. They can run off whatever you make your electricity from. And with V2G tech finally starting to happen your car battery becomes your house battery or even a grid battery when plugged in.

Hopefully soon. I maintain people don't have range anxiety with electric cars They have recharging anxiety. My (3l petrol auto) work car has a 200mile max range, but that doesn't worry me becahse A) I do about 1200 miles a year B) I know I'm probably never more than 30 miles from a filling station and when I get there there will be a pump free for me with a man wait of maybe 5 minutes, it will take me 5 minutes to fill up and will cost me between 135 and 150p per liter. If electric cars could boast the same (albeit with maybe a more relaistic 10 minute charge time) then 200 miles range ( and all the benefits of lower mass, cost etc) would be ample for an ev

The UK has done spectacularly well on increacing renwable generation. That should be celebrated - as you say. But we do need to keep up our momentum, and that does mean continuing to install capacity. That means more offshore, more onshore, more transmission lines (or more accurately upgrading some and adding some) and more solar. But current right wing media is against all of these. "valuable farm land being taken over by solar farms" - the majority of the land going for solar farms isn't top grade. It's the lower grade stuff you graze livestock on or have lower rates anyway. That's why it's available to lease! If it was growing vast quantities of grain etc the farmer would keep doing that.

I get your point but I do think we could transition a little faster *if* the naysayers who would like to "cut the green crap" got back in their box. I have been somewhat out off by the antics of extinction rebellion, just stop oil and insulate Britain. I think they are broadly correct (caveat: as mentioned I don't think we should or could stop using oil derivatives but we should stop burning the stuff unnecessarily) but agree many of their methods are somewhat counter productive. Absolutely, hence this thread. There is more to "Net zero" than tree hugging. Yes but there are many naysayers out there saying that HPs won't work, they can't heat old houses, they cost a fortune to fit, they cost a fortune to run etc. Whilst some of those criticisms have some basis in fact, none are insurmountable. Our biggest barrier is a skilled workforce. HPs require somewhat more skill to install effectively than a "bung a 30kw combining there and bugger off" gas install. There are many examples out there of old buildings fitted with HPs without extensive replumbing and upgrading functioning well. Of course there are plenty of horror stories as well. For the majority (statistically speaking) of people who use thier car for short commutes or city driving etc EVs function perfectly. For some people who travel long distances regularly or (in particular) tow long distances (caravans being thr classic case). 2nd cars (1/3 of households) are a fertile area for EVs as are commercial vehicles in urban areas (trades and delivery) which also provides air quality benefits. More importantly EVs are ultimately the future. In 30 or so years ICE vehicles will be specialist vehicles, for heavy haulage, long distances, remote working etc and most other cars will be electric. The problem is of we transition to gradually our auto sector risks being left behind. They are lazy buggers intent on wringing every last drop of value out of the ICE technologies thry have developed. The Chinese and Koreans have stolen a march and are dominating electric vehicle production. Our about makers need demand now to get them to switch.

Again to get this thread back on track - My argument that we need many of the policies described as "Net zero" is agnostic to climate change. It is purely rooted in the fact our reserves of oil and gas are running out.

The same applies, if you are regularly getting measurements that you would normally expect infrequently (eg every 100 years) then the system has changed. It is irrefutable fact that the climate is changing at a rate not seen before. From NOAA As for the medieval warm period - that was mainly concentrated in the North America, North Atlantic and Europe. Globally the average temp rose by less than 1C, ie less than now

I'm not saying we should abandon the remaining reserves. What we shouldn't do is dig them up at great expense in order to burn them to heat our homes and driven our SUVs because we are too stubborn to use a near infinite energy source to accomplish those things. The oil industry projects that we could extract as much as 3x more oil and gas as we are currently set to do. The problem is that our current "withdrawal rate" is equivalent to maintaining our existing levels of extraction for 5 years. Then that's it. All gone. So taking the oil industry's best projection - which includes not only us coming up with ways to extract more oil from existing sites but also discovering some new sites - is 3x or our existing rate (which is only 50% of demand) for 15 more years before we have used every last drop.