Why we need "Net zero"

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, dpmiller said:

tread lightly on the earth"

Yes I guess that works as the principle.

Except no targets.

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

We need to focus on what IS the cheapest way to generate the energy we need to grow our economy and remain competitive in the world

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

If we want to keep the cost down, we could extract the mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations that we are stupidly leaving in the ground, whilst importing from elsewhere. Just to 'look green'.

 

Actually lowering energy costs significantly is not only possible, but would be the best way to raise living standards. Don't destroy economically viable generation. Do drill for oil and gas so we are again self sufficient in fossil fuels - what's the point in importing it?? Do build as much renewable generation as we can, only in the places that can utilise it without turning off baseload generation, that will only need to be kept on standby at great cost.

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. 

[ProDave]

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

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..."

And instead of being up front and saying that, we are going down the renewables route only under the guise of "net zero"

 

We have been sleepwalking into this situation without a plan for what to do when our own oil and gas runs out and no preparation for that event.

[Beelbeebub]

20 minutes ago, ProDave said:

And instead of being up front and saying that, we are going down the renewables route only under the guise of "net zero"

 

We have been sleepwalking into this situation without a plan for what to do when our own oil and gas runs out and no preparation for that event.

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. 

[Crofter]

Would this be a good point to trot out this perennially relevant cartoon?

 

 

[Onoff]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/181Lr65LTX/