Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

42 minutes ago, Crofter said:

We'll probably still need some gas generation to plug the gaps

1 tonne of bio digestible waste produces about 400 cubic metres of gas, half of that is methane.

200 m³ of methane has around 2 MWh of energy. If a third of that was converted to electricity, and the UK produced about 35 million tonnes each year, so about 23 TWh of power.

Or, oddly enough, about what Hinckley C will churn out in a year.

 

(The use of fuel cells, rather than turbines would up efficiently significantly, but that would require more development)

 

Edited 10 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Ed_]

25 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I live in the SE but do think that it is a resource for the areas it comes from and there should be recompense. A very big meter at Dalwhinnie, or Banchory or wherever.

Totally agree. It is not fair that the same areas get all the pain.

 

[JohnMo]

Wind wonderful stuff, just charged the battery from the grid.

 

In Singapore, there a law which means "for the greater good" so basically NIMBY's, just get ignored. We on the other hand engage with them and listen, which just encourages them to be more vocal.

[SteamyTea]

37 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

roads run both directions. bringing services and selling goods. Pylons tend to be sending energy  in one direction.

They are multi directional. Our electrical grid is similar to a house ring main.

It is designed this way to make it more robust and capable of dealing with unexpected large generation plants shutting down.

It is the small (but still large) spurs that need an upgrade to cope with more distributed capacity. But that is nothing compared to the local 'last mile' upgraded that are needed.

 

Map_of_the_National_Grid_in_Great_Britain.svg

[jack]

4 hours ago, markc said:

moving our industries overseas to reduce our emissions may work out as Net but disastrous for the planet and our country

 

100% 

 

For the most part we've just exported our dirty industries to places like China. They then got a lot better at it, provoking Jevons Paradox, and here we are:

 

 

Look at the UK, saving the world with its carbon reductions.

 

 

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

But the gentle people of SE England don't want to see turbines or pylons but do want the energy. Some power somewhere is keeping it that way.

 

And the transmission lines really do disfigure vast areas of beauty and wilderness,  The residents, through whose areas they pass, get no recompense.

Yes, that is the issue.  the South want the power, and while the good people of Scotland have been having all these wind farms and pylons built (in spite of objections) the good people in the Cotswolds can have their green power without having to see it.

 

THAT HAS TO CHANGE.

[Beelbeebub]

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

[Crofter]

27 minutes ago, jack said:

 

100% 

 

For the most part we've just exported our dirty industries to places like China. They then got a lot better at it, provoking Jevons Paradox, and here we are:

 

 

Look at the UK, saving the world with its carbon reductions.

 

 

This is a little misleading, because China of course are manufacturing the whole world's goods.

And there is more manufacturing being done in general.

[Beelbeebub]

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. 

[Nestor]

Per Capita.

Edited 8 hours ago by Nestor
Per capita

[SteamyTea]

47 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Say there was a discount on every household per unit elecy cost  in the effected post codes. 

Would have some people trying to move into the area, bit like having a 'good school' nearby.

 I am one of 6 houses in my post code area, would be get a discount based on the number of turbines/pylons/hectares of PV, slip 6 ways, so a good discount.  What if there were 600 houses i.e. a small discount.

Discounting peoples energy is a recipe for disaster, no incentive to do the right thing and use less.

[Beelbeebub]

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Would have some people trying to move into the area, bit like having a 'good school' nearby.

 I am one of 6 houses in my post code area, would be get a discount based on the number of turbines/pylons/hectares of PV, slip 6 ways, so a good discount.  What if there were 600 houses i.e. a small discount.

Discounting peoples energy is a recipe for disaster, no incentive to do the right thing and use less.

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. 

 

 

[Mike]

5 hours ago, jack said:

The UK is one of the most expensive places in the world to build nuclear power stations. I understand why it's cheap to build them in China, but there's no good reason why somewhere like Finland or France is able to build so much more cheaply and quickly than the UK.

France certainly can't build them cheaply. Flamanville 3 was due to be completed in 2012 for €3.3 billion. It opened at the end of 2024 and cost €19.1 billion (in French).

 

In Finland, Olkiluoto 3 was expected to open in 2009 for €3 billion, but opened in 2024 for an estimated € 11 billion.

 

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

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. 

 

This is the nonsense currently being spouted by Plaid here in wales.

 

Its NEVER going to happen.

 

But, regardless, i dont want a few quid, i dont want a pylon in my garden. Nobody wants a pylon in their garden. Seeing as we are going to spend trillions and bankrupt the country anyway, for the negligible extra cost, they could underground the cables. Then everyone would be happy. But there might be a hit to shareholders, who probably mostly live in the cotswolds!

[Beelbeebub]

21 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

This is the nonsense currently being spouted by Plaid here in wales.

 

Its NEVER going to happen.

 

But, regardless, i dont want a few quid, i dont want a pylon in my garden. Nobody wants a pylon in their garden. Seeing as we are going to spend trillions and bankrupt the country anyway, for the negligible extra cost, they could underground the cables. Then everyone would be happy. But there might be a hit to shareholders, who probably mostly live in the cotswolds!

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. 

[jack]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

France certainly can't build them cheaply. Flamanville 3 was due to be completed in 2012 for €3.3 billion. It opened at the end of 2024 and cost €19.1 billion (in French).

 

In Finland, Olkiluoto 3 was expected to open in 2009 for €3 billion, but opened in 2024 for an estimated € 11 billion.

 

I didn't say they could build cheaply, I said more cheaply and quickly than the UK.

 

How much are the two most recent UK nuclear plants costing? £40 billion each by the time they're finished?

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, jack said:

How much are the two most recent UK nuclear plants

£xx on every electrical bill for ever more

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

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. 

 

 

In fact, there are subsidies paid to the "community".  It turns out our local community council receives payments from at least one of the nearby wind farms.  I don't know of the history if how or why these are paid.

 

The money is supposed to be used for the community good.  One of the things they spend it on is a modest annual payment to each household to help with energy bills, with a higher amount paid if you are over state pension age.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

£xx on every electrical bill for ever more

It's funny how the cost of new energy infrastructure is added to energy bills like that.  I don't recall in days gone by paying a levy to pay for all the coal fired power stations?

[jack]

4 hours ago, Crofter said:

This is a little misleading, because China of course are manufacturing the whole world's goods.

And there is more manufacturing being done in general.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

We, and much of the west, exported our manufacturing (and energy/fossil fuel consumption) to China. I posted the chart to show that we're chasing net zero to our detriment while China forges ahead. 

 

What's misleading about that?

[Beelbeebub]

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

It's funny how the cost of new energy infrastructure is added to energy bills like that.  I don't recall in days gone by paying a levy to pay for all the coal fired power stations?

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.)

[Beelbeebub]

17 minutes ago, jack said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

We, and much of the west, exported our manufacturing (and energy/fossil fuel consumption) to China. I posted the chart to show that we're chasing net zero to our detriment while China forges ahead. 

 

What's misleading about that?

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 e onomy to rely highly on imported energy