This is an era of plentiful, cheap, renewable energy, but the fossil fuel dinosaurs can’t admit it

[Radian]

Just read this comment piece by Zoe Williams, a  Guardian columnist. At the end of the article she poses this question:

 

So the question is, how have we allowed a sense of hardship and doom to define our energy debate, when we’re on the brink of an entirely new future? We’re partly suffering from collapsing faith in institutions and government. It’s genuinely hard to imagine constructive, farsighted decisions coming out of an administration whose core priority is stamping out wokery in higher education. Perhaps even suggesting limitless cheap energy sounds woke to Rishi Sunak.

 

Yet the more proximal cause of our malaise is that the advances in renewables aren’t reflected in our energy prices, which are set by the gas price. A UCL report noted that fossil fuels set the electricity price most of the time, at levels that are now much higher than the green sources that constitute at least half of the load: so renewables can get ever cheaper and more efficient, and we won’t feel it in our bills. Energy markets must be broken up into clean power and fossil power.

 

Finally, there is a drumbeat of despair that even when inflation has subsided, even after the war in Ukraine comes to an end, high energy prices are here to stay. Oil and gas companies, bemoaning the windfall taxes and green investments required of them, predict prices that are elevated, if less volatile, for ever. “We need to treat energy as something that is not abundant,” said Anders Opedal, chief executive of Norway’s state oil producer, Equinor, this week.

 

The cynicism is jaw-dropping: the fossil fuel industry situates its problems in the green investments that are, in fact, our only salvation. And Conservative politicians and commentators parrot them, through some combination of lobbying and lack of imagination which would be unedifying to pick apart. We will not grasp the scale and plenty of the green revolution until we treat vested interests who naysay it with the scepticism they deserve: and we need to grasp it, if we’re going to make it happen.

 

I'm looking for balance. Is there any comeback at all that can be justified here or is this the slam dunk it appears to be? 

[nod]

The problem is We are lowing our imitations But globally they are still riding 

 

Not far from me in Cumbria a coal mine is being reopened to service a local steel plant with fuel

Had it not been reopened creating 150 plus jobs The fuel would have likely been brought in from China 

lots of opposition from Greens 

I can’t see how transporting goods all that way can be considered better

 

I also think that due to the cost of living crisis Reducing the reliance on coal and gas has gone out of the window 

The ban on gas boilers in new homes won’t happen anytime soon 

OK they may decide to call them something else But the use of gas in new properties will carryon 

 

Heats pumps in new properties are the way forward 

But not if the energy that runs them is reliant on Fossil fuel 

As it is now 

[SteamyTea]

23 hours ago, Radian said:

I'm looking for balance.

It really comes down to the general publics ignorance and gullibility.

It is what politicians and journalists rely on, it allows them to pull the wool over people's eyes.

 

When it comes to deploying RE, it is not the technology, or the power companies, it is our hopeless planning system, that is what has to change.

[Roger440]

The second paragraph is the most important one for me. The government is allowing the price to remain artificially high by pegging the price of renewable to gas.

 

Thats an articificial construct that could be removed overnight almost. However, they choose to leave it in place.

 

The question is why. Doesnt take a genius to work out.

 

I see on here, people often saying electricity/energy is too cheap. Cheap, abundant energy is what we should be aiming for, for the benefit of everyone. Why people believe we should deliberatly push people into poverty, i dont know. Maybe you should examine your morals?

[Radian]

36 minutes ago, nod said:

Not far from me in Cumbria a coal mine is being reopened to service a local steel plant with fuel

Had it not been reopened creating 150 plus jobs The fuel would have likely been brought in from China 

lots of opposition from Greens 

I can’t see how transporting goods all that way can be considered better

 

Opposition is understandable as is this particular case for reopening. However, either way, it shouldn't have a bearing on the issues surrounding the future of renewable energy.

 

38 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It really comes down to the general publics ignorance and gullibility.

 

 

I wonder how long it will be before the general public start to take notice of the growing capacity for renewables as opinion pieces like these become more visible?

 

4 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

I see on here, people often saying electricity/energy is too cheap.

 

I didn't know we had Tory donors on these forums 😁

[nod]

11 minutes ago, Radian said:

 

Opposition is understandable as is this particular case for reopening. However, either way, it shouldn't have a bearing on the issues surrounding the future of renewable energy.

 

 

I wonder how long it will be before the general public start to take notice of the growing capacity for renewables as opinion pieces like these become more visible?

 

 

I didn't know we had Tory donors on these forums 😁

I would be surprised if anyone would admit to supporting labour 😂

[SteamyTea]

22 minutes ago, Radian said:

40 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

I see on here, people often saying electricity/energy is too cheap.

 

I didn't know we had Tory donors on these forums

It is cheap, so cheap that we throw it out the windows of our homes, drive 500 metres to a takeaway, where they have a 100 kW range burning most of the day, and an extractor to suck all the air out the building at a rate of tonnes/hour.

A Big Mac costs £5/kWh (2.3kJ and £3.19).

Now that is value.

Edited January 20, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Kelvin]

Energy in just about every form has been heavily subsidised by Governments around the World. Therefore, it has been historically cheap. The consequence of this is that little effort has been put into conserving it. This is less of a problem when it cleaner renewable energy sources but is a problem when it’s fossil fuel derived. But necessity is the mother of invention so the energy crisis might end up being a positive thing in the long run. 
 

I was reading the other day about gravity energy stores which look really interesting. If you don’t know what they are they use disused mine shafts where excess renewable energy is used pull a weight up the shaft and then when the energy is needed the weight is released that drives a turbine. 

[markc]

Assuming we get to 100% renewables, we (as far as my chemistry knowledge goes) will still need oil to make many of the plastics we are dependant upon.

iron ore will always need smelting and that requires coal/coke although you could probably use charcoal.

Energy shortage, fuel shortage, food shortage, toilet roll shortage …. We still need to cut the population!

[larry]

I highly recommend the BBC "How they made us doubt everything" podcast. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1    - the essential argument is that oil and CO2 today is the smoking of 20 years ago - with oil companies making huge active efforts to sow doubt about a causal connection between our lifestyles and climate change. It's depressing listening, but well done. 

 

Also, if you want current data about grid electricity CO2 impact, look at this app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.carbonintensityapp&hl=en_GB&gl=US&pli=1 - 

 

 

[larry]

1 hour ago, nod said:

 

 

Heats pumps in new properties are the way forward 

But not if the energy that runs them is reliant on Fossil fuel 

As it is now 

 

I'm not sure about the maths on this. Obviously reducing the amount that fossil fuels conribute to the grid will improve the beneift of the heat pump, but I had thought there was still a benefit even with the current grid mix. But I say that without any maths and no disagreement with your main point!

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, markc said:

Assuming we get to 100% renewables, we (as far as my chemistry knowledge goes) will still need oil to make many of the plastics we are dependant upon.

Yes, but the emissions will be a lot lower. Small emissions are easier to clean up, why there is all this talk of turning a third of the planet's surface area back into wilderness.

Many plastics can be made from non fossil fuel sources, cellulose is one, polyurethane is another.

Smelting iron (and other common ores) predominately  requires thermal energy, that can come from RE.

Change common ore to virgin steel requires physics and chemistry, so can probably become much more efficient.

There is an old joke about the metallurgist professor knowing the difference between the common ore and the virgin steel in his lectures.

Edited January 20, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Roger440]

28 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is cheap, so cheap that we throw it out the windows of our homes, drive 500 metres to a takeaway, where they have a 100 kW range burning most of the day, and an extractor to suck all the air out the building at a rate of tonnes/hour.

A Big Mac costs £5/kWh (2.3kJ and £3.19).

Now that is value.

 

Its not cheap. And now its even less cheap.

 

I fail to see any down sides to cheap abundant energy. Onlt that current thinking is that way because we burn fossil fuels. If we didnt, wheres the problem?

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, larry said:

 

I'm not sure about the maths on this. Obviously reducing the amount that fossil fuels conribute to the grid will improve the beneift of the heat pump, but I had thought there was still a benefit even with the current grid mix. But I say that without any maths and no disagreement with your main point!

 

What benefit do you percieve? Its certainly not cost.

 

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Its not cheap. And now its even less cheap.

 

I fail to see any down sides to cheap abundant energy. Onlt that current thinking is that way because we burn fossil fuels. If we didnt, wheres the problem?

It is the burning of hydrocarbons that is the main global problem. The secondary problem is the geo politics. 

 

If energy was as expensive as many claim, why are there so many cars, and large cars, on our roads?

I just filled up with diesel at £1.69/litre, roughly 16p/kWh.

Am now having a coffee, it has 0.021 kWh of energy, cost £2.95. £140/kWh.

I really am a (expletive deleted) for buying it.

Edited January 20, 2023 by SteamyTea

[larry]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

What benefit do you percieve? Its certainly not cost.

 

 

Total CO2e/kwh is lower than (say) gas. 

[larry]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is the burning of hydrocarbons that is the main global problem. The secondary problem is the geo politics. 

 

If energy was as expensive as many claim, why are there so many cars, and large cars, on our roads?

I just filled up with diesel at £1.69/litre, roughly 16p/kWh.

Am now having a coffee, it has 0.021 kWh of energy, cost £2.95. £140/kWh.

I really am a (expletive deleted) for buying it.

 

Good job we don't run our cars off coffee, I guess

[Roger440]

20 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is the burning of hydrocarbons that is the main global problem. The secondary problem is the geo politics. 

 

If energy was as expensive as many claim, why are there so many cars, and large cars, on our roads?

I just filled up with diesel at £1.69/litre, roughly 16p/kWh.

Am now having a coffee, it has 0.021 kWh of energy, cost £2.95. £140/kWh.

I really am a (expletive deleted) for buying it.

 

Agreed. Hence my statement. Whats the downside to cheap abundant energy?

 

All i see is people and governments saying its too cheap. Its not. Its the method of production thats the problem

 

So, as normal, instead of fixing that, just drive the price up, make everyone suffer, and do very little to solve anything.

 

Imagine a world where energy was cheap or free.

[Roger440]

22 minutes ago, larry said:

 

Total CO2e/kwh is lower than (say) gas. 

 

So what you are saying is you are sufficently wealthy that you can afford to pay MORE to heat your house than you actually need to?

 

And thats its sufficently well insulated  that a heat pump will work efficently.

 

That is excellent news. For you. Sadly, not everyone, indeed, the vast majority are in that position.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

16 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Whats the downside to cheap abundant energy

For the climate, not much.

There would still be environmental problems, mainly conservation of nature, but that is a problem we will always have.

 

I did work out how much heating of the atmosphere our current global energy use would increase it by, pretty sure I posted it up.

I can't be bothered to find it though.

[SteamyTea]

40 minutes ago, larry said:

Good job we don't run our cars off coffee, I guess

There are a lot of 'deep greens' that think we should, and other biomass.

They are the ones that did not study science, but quote it a lot.

 

[Ralph]

2 hours ago, nod said:

Not far from me in Cumbria a coal mine is being reopened to service a local steel plant with fuel

Had it not been reopened creating 150 plus jobs The fuel would have likely been brought in from China 

lots of opposition from Greens 

I thought that most of the coal produced from that mine had already been rejected by the steel industry as being too high in sulfur.  My understanding is that most of the coal produced will be exported. 

[nod]

3 hours ago, Ralph said:

I thought that most of the coal produced from that mine had already been rejected by the steel industry as being too high in sulfur.  My understanding is that most of the coal produced will be exported. 

I’m not sure where you heard that 

It’s supplying coking Cole to the steel industry 

It nearly didn’t go ahead 

It definitely wouldn’t go ahead if they where mining for export 

I’m not even sure how a relatively small coking mine could even compete with Chinese imports 

 

This has to be better than importing 

Certainly no worse 

We where importing a million tons of coking coal from Russia alone

 

 

[Ralph]

3 hours ago, nod said:

I’m not sure where you heard that

This from The Guardian.

 

[larry]

19 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

So what you are saying is you are sufficently wealthy that you can afford to pay MORE to heat your house than you actually need to?

 

And thats its sufficently well insulated  that a heat pump will work efficently.

 

That is excellent news. For you. Sadly, not everyone, indeed, the vast majority are in that position.

 

 

Ouch? 

In the context I was talking about the general benefits to the world/society. I don't think it's too contentious that an ASHP will produce a unit of heat for less CO2 than a fossil burner. And I don't think it's wrong to consider that a benefit. 

 

But, no, that's not my situation. I don't have an ASHP. In fact I first started asking questions on forums when I was considering getting one. The advice I was given was completely sound. Don't, until you've done as much insulating as you can do. That was a few years ago and since then "operation insulation" has been in play. I work full time and my budget is not huge, so I'm doing most of the work and learning as I go, whilst living in the house, and life is busy, so the pace is slow, and there is loads to do... And lots of unexpected issues... but I'm pleased that our gas consumption has already decreased from approx 24000 kWh/year to about 10000 kWh/year. Of course I'm pleased for both the cost benefit and the environmental one. 

 

I know in the grand context of things such a saving is a drop in the ocean, but it's the drop that I have control over!