Why we need "Net zero"

[SimonD]

24 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Think we are well capable, but politics gets in the way

 

I think this is akin to the general excuse that regulation gets in the way of projects, but it goes far further than that. It's not necessarily the regulation itself, it's more the interpretation of the policy and regulation and the processes put in place, often with incorrect interpretations of the policy and regulations.

 

It's also that in the UK we typically see these large scale projects as technical/engineering projects rather than larger social ones, which leads to mass hysteria, misunderstanding, resistance and a lack of support. In the UK I think there is a cultural tendency to spend more time and effort trying to avoid or circumvent regulations than just go with them and do it - I see this all the time in construction, from small businesses to large scale developer. But it's also about how the 'experts' in the system can continue to apply out of date or irrelevant models used to understand the projects and on which to base decisions. For example, the use of 25 year discount rates when building infrastructure that lasts and provides positive cash flow for a lot longer than that. Or we have the known issue of optimism bias.

 

A good few years ago I looked at doing another Master's degree and looked at the areas of sustainable energy/engineering and the environment and I looked at both UK and overseas Universities. It struck me then that the perspectives of the UK and USA courses tended to focus more on the issues we're facing as being engineering ones, whereas European Universities took at more balanced view considering the social aspect to a greater extend. This seems to me to reflect the problems we're actually facing as we have all the technology we need already, we don't need to rely on new uninvented technology, we just need to learn how to apply it in a way that people can go along with and also, from a political perspective, we actually need to tell companies how and what they're going to do for us and that's where we need politics to step in rather than step out.

 

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

It's also that in the UK we typically see these large scale projects as technical/engineering projects rather than larger social ones, which leads to mass hysteria, misunderstanding, resistance and a lack of support

This was something the Danes realised decades ago, at least for wind turbines. Their introduction, back in the 70s & 80s, was partly driven by local energy co-operatives, allowing local citizens to invest in and profit from their local wind turbine(s). I just went looking for some stats and, from here, in 2016, more than half of Denmark’s installed wind capacity was owned by citizens, rather than private companies. That's a lot of citizen involvement in a country where nearly 60% of electricity generation comes from wind power.

 

There are similar schemes in France, allowing local citizens to invest and profit from local solar farms.

 

[Beelbeebub]

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)

 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Mw/km

MW

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

MW

mW per kM 

[JohnMo]

12 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

mW per kM 

Milliwatts per km? That will be lots and lots.

 

Think you mean MW per km

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Milliwatts per km? That will be lots and lots.

 

Think you mean MW per km

mm per kw?😁

[JohnMo]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

mm per kw?😁

[Gus Potter]

Hello all.

 

I have a technical background as the day job. As quick rundown. I worked at Torness Nuclear Power Station in my late teens early twenties, then became a local builder for 20 years, that was when Chernobyle accident happened and the Ayrshire farmland got potentially contaminated, that was a worry,  went to uni to become an Engineer. That was 20 years ago. My Master's degree group project was on energy, at that time Fuchishima happened. I got into cold formed steel and ended up designing a structure that sat over the cooling ponds on the Bradwell Nuclear power station at the decomissing stage. My litle bit was to do the structure that house the ventiulation units.. but it had to be lightweight.. but blast protected.. so a bit of a challenge, h3ence the cold formed steel.

 

But for fun to design this building we have to look back an understand how it was built in the first place, how far we could drill into the lid to stop radiation getting out. Below is a photo of the cooling ponds during construction. Check out the bowler hats! When I was at uni I got a summer job for McAlpine as a project Engineer.

 

I'm not going to go into my own political views but as an Engineer I think the UK is a bit (expletive deleted)ed as we are living from day to day essentially. We use to be an Empire, strong, we made war and more often than not we won, you don't go to war to lose! . But remember the British ended slavery for example, we paid for that as it was the right thing to do. 

 

For me national security has to come first. There are many countries in the world that do not share out values. Appeasment will not work, yes we would like it to,  but lots of young folk just don't understand that there are a lot of bad folk in the world. 

 

So in the round. Yes we need to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our usage but there those that say that our oil and gas industry is kaput are talking out of political nonsence. The West of Shetland fields contain lots of oil. There are plenty on BH that advocate this. I disagree with you on a strategic basis. 

 

You see lots of folk on BH that are really invested and have made a good go of making their houses "say a bit passive" but they have enough money to do this. They can afford to be that way! Your average punter is just trying to make ends meet! You have some on BH making eco arguments.. but do not look at how things work in the wide world and their actual carbon footprint. Many on BH are just enthusiasts, just like car enthusiasts when it comes to energy usage, there is no harm in that. But that comes at a price.

 

I actually grew up in Africa..been in the middle east.. so I am not some daft "gammon" as many may assume I am. 

 

In the round I feel that UK energy policy should be driven by say a 50 year plan ( I wish) that means exploiting our own oil and gas, digging some coal! , using that money to innovate. The Chinese think we are all soft, trying not to offend religions, woke.. well we are let's face it, about half our politicial representatives don't know what a woman is! 

 

I despair as an Engineer and am very worried about the future of our kids. 

 

Anyway I hope the photo of Bradwell lets everyone see how a plant like this was constructed at the time. Even if you disagree with me then that's ok, just enjoy how these guys constructed a plant that operated safely and is still, to this day, getting decomissioned.. at losts of cost mind. But hey ho just admire what these guys did. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crofter]

Analysis without numbers is merely opinion. 

 

The West of Shetland oil and gas won't keep the lights on for very long. Less than a decade if we extract everything. And some of this is likely to be uneconomic due to conditions.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Crofter said:

The West of Shetland oil and gas won't keep the lights on for very long. Less than a decade if we extract everything

Utter nonsense, currently working part time on a new field 20+ years design life, financially its a go, politically it may be stopped. Plenty of other proven reserves, but stopped mostly for political reasons. Same in the north sea. This will the third project I have worked on in the last couple of years, good production rates, all the others stopped due to politics.

 

Existing field development has stalled also due to politics.

 

Anyway most of the oil produced in the UK is mostly sold abroad.

 

UK Production 31 million tonnes

Imports 42 million tonnes

Exports 25.4 million tonnes - we can't refine it

Consumption ~60-70 million tonnes

 

[markc]

@JohnMo we had an engineer from the rigs in our place last week and he said pretty much the same regarding the politics and lack of refining

[SimonD]

10 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

In the round I feel that UK energy policy should be driven by say a 50 year plan ( I wish) that means exploiting our own oil and gas, digging some coal! , using that money to innovate.

 

We can live in hope. This is one of the reasons China has developed as it has - their leadership develops longer term plans. But that's inherent in Chinese culture where they have a saying that you plant a tree so your ancestors can sit in the shade. We plant a tree, calculate its cash flow and roi and plan on when we can cut it down and burn it in the stove. And from a national security perspective China has to develop its renewable energy infrastructure as it is so dependent upon external supply of fossil fuels.

 

And I think this is our problem with fossil fuels lies. We devour it wastefully as if it had an infinite supply, which we all know it doesn't. The debate surely needs to be more around how we conserve the use of a finite resource such that it supports essential use that cannot be supported through other means. This means a careful and strategic approach to using low grade renewable energy as much as possible where best applied. Unfortunately for many, that does mean a fundamental change to how we view, use and distribute energy. But it doesn't mean that energy necessarily has to be more expensive. The expense of renewables and electricity is down to policy, not the technology as like I've said, we don't count the fossil fuel externalities and if we really did, I think we'd be shocked by the total cost and be shocked by the politics, policy and regulatory costs associated with this.

 

Until the argument/discussion actually includes all these externalities there is no proper comparison.

[Crofter]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Utter nonsense, currently working part time on a new field 20+ years design life, financially its a go, politically it may be stopped. Plenty of other proven reserves, but stopped mostly for political reasons. Same in the north sea. This will the third project I have worked on in the last couple of years, good production rates, all the others stopped due to politics.

 

Existing field development has stalled also due to politics.

 

Anyway most of the oil produced in the UK is mostly sold abroad.

 

UK Production 31 million tonnes

Imports 42 million tonnes

Exports 25.4 million tonnes - we can't refine it

Consumption ~60-70 million tonnes

 

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this, I was just going from what I could find as a lay person when googling the question. 

 

Numbers vary a bit but I'm getting estimates from 450-670m barrels between Rosebank and Cambo. So that's less than a decade at the consumption figure you've given above.

[JohnMo]

As a country we seem to do A or B, it all too binary. Heat pump or gas, best bang maybe hybrid for a lot of the existing housing stock, 90% of the time running a heat pump, almost zero plumbing changes.

 

Oil & gas, yes or no, we close refineries, export what we produce, then buy it all back at inflated prices. We just import  a pretend net zero from somewhere else.

 

The politicians all need a good sacking and be replaced by people with common sense.

[saveasteading]

6 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

people with common sense.

That's us lot. Pragmatic, reasonable, logical. We wouldn't get elected because our campaigns would say .....it's not that simple and we need a middle way. 

That's not what wins elections.

[Beelbeebub]

19 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

So in the round. Yes we need to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our usage but there those that say that our oil and gas industry is kaput are talking out of political nonsence. The West of Shetland fields contain lots of oil. There are plenty on BH that advocate this. I disagree with you on a strategic basis. 

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) 

[Beelbeebub]

I am using actual projections by industry experts, for both the industry and government and they say that "energy security via fossil fuels" is a fantasy for the UK.

 

So, if we wish to insulate ourselves (ha!) against future shocks from being dependent on a substance we have to import the we must reduce our fossil fuel demand. 

 

My question to those that oppose "Net zero" policies such as electrification of road transport can d heating, increace on renewable generation capacity etc is

 

"how do you propose the UK improves it's energy security situation?" 

 

And the answer "drill for more gas" - isn't a valid answer because it won't achieve that goal. 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

A good review of the world's energy is here.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html

 

I know it is published by an oil company, but it is about as good as one will get.

For a more UK based one.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes

 

One of my favourites.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

 

Worth a look here.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025

 

Best to avoid this one though, was good, not now.

https://www.energy.gov/

 

 

[SteamyTea]

This week's comic has been running a series on 'best ideas'.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2511326-new-scientists-guide-to-the-21-best-ideas-of-the-21st-century/

 

The electrification of everything: Best ideas of the century

Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable power is crucial. The opening of Tesla's first "gigafactory", which used economies of scale to electrify our transport and energy systems, marked a turning point in this endeavour

By Chris Stokel-Walker

19 January 2026

Stephan Walter

 

Batteries and the harnessing of solar energy have been around in one form or another for centuries, but only in 2016 did these technologies, arguably, become world-changing. This was when Elon Musk, before his controversial political career began, opened the first “gigafactory” in Nevada, producing advanced battery technology, electric motors and solar cells on a massive scale – giga meaning 1 billion, or “giant”.

You could fairly describe the amount of renewable energy – in the form of solar, wind and hydropower – available to extract on Earth as gigantic too. In just a few days, the sun delivers more energy to our planet than is in all the reserves of fossil fuels we have ever discovered.

 

Reliably harnessing that power is another matter. Even though the photovoltaic effect, where light energy produces electrical current, was discovered in 1839 by Edmond Becquerel, and the first practical solar panels were made in the 1950s, it wasn’t until the 2010s that technology had advanced enough for solar electricity to become competitive with fossil fuels. Parallel to this, the invention of lithium-ion batteries in the 1980s provided somewhere to store this energy.

The gigafactory certainly helped advance these solar cell and battery technologies too. Yet its impact was less down to any specific invention and more in how it brought all the parts of electric car production under one roof. This supply-chain integration reflects what Henry Ford did a century earlier – just populating the planet with Teslas instead of fossil fuel-powered Model Ts. “It gave us dispatchable solar thanks to batteries, and it gave us electric vehicles,” says Dave Jones at Ember, an energy think tank in the UK.

 

The economies of scale unleashed by the gigafactory had knock-on effects beyond electric cars, too. “That battery unlocks all kinds of new things: the phone, the computer and the ability to have relatively low-cost, high amounts of energy you carry around,” says Sara Hastings-Simon at the University of Calgary in Canada.

In fact, in recent years, the cost of these technologies has plummeted so much that many experts say electrification of our energy systems is inevitable. In California and Australia, solar energy is so plentiful that grid operators give it to people for free. Commensurate with that, batteries are getting closer to storing energy as densely as fossil fuels do, so we can start to build solar airplanes, ships and long-haul trucks – and completely detach our transport and energy systems from their centuries-long dependence on fossil fuels.

[Beelbeebub]

OK this is from the website of Ithaca energy, the developers of rosebank. 

 

For context, the UK oil consumption at the end of 2025 was around 1.4million barrels a day amd Aberdeen City has a population of around 200k.

 

https://www.ithacaenergy.com/assets/rosebank

 

 

The Rosebank field has recoverable resources estimated at around 300 million barrels of oil from phase 1 and 2, with Phase 1 targeting an estimated 245 million barrels of oil. The field will be developed with subsea wells tied back to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO), with first production expected in 2026-2027. The Rosebank field will produce in excess of 21 MMSCF of natural gas every day, the equivalent to the daily use of Aberdeen City.

Edited 11 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

20 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

In the round I feel that UK energy policy should be driven by say a 50 year plan ( I wish)

Indeed, I wish that too. 

 

20 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

that means exploiting our own oil and gas, digging some coal!

Yes, with the caveat that, as a precious resourcr, we shouldn't be going to the trouble of getting it out of the ground just to burn it to go a few miles down the road. 

 

20 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

The Chinese think we are all soft, trying not to offend religions, woke.. well we are let's face it, about half our politicial representatives don't know what a woman is! 

Rather irrelevant, except to say it's odd how often views on the rigidity of gender go with views against "Net zero" given there should be zero correlation.

 

But on China, they are indeed very hard nosed and yet these ultra pragmatists, in moved by any notions of "wokeness" are building out wind and solar at a frankly astonishing rate. They are electrifying industry at speed - nearly 1/4 of heavy trucks (not cars, not vans but freight trucks) sold in chain last year we electric.  Remember this I'd supposed to be the hard to electrifying sector in a country not exactly known for being compact. 

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

21 MMSCF of natural

Or in derived SI units, 6,154.49 MWh.

 

I use about 25 MWh/year in my car.

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Mattg4321]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

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) 

 

I don't agree with that analysis. I'm not an expert, but I do have some experience in the oil and gas sector. UK oil and gas production and to an even greater extent, exploration, has pretty much been taxed and regulated out of existence in the past 15-20 years (maybe more than that, but before my time). You can't book more reserves if you don't drill the wells. And it just hasn't been happening for a long long time now.

 

I still keep in touch with people in the industry and they tell me (perhaps overoptimistically?) that it's out there, there's just the wrong environment in place to go looking for it/extract it.

 

We were all told when we were at school that oil would run out in 20 years, or we're now at or very close to peak oil production. Both predictions have proven to be way way wide of the mark.

 

 

 

[Crofter]

2 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

I don't agree with that analysis. I'm not an expert, but I do have some experience in the oil and gas sector. UK oil and gas production and to an even greater extent, exploration, has pretty much been taxed and regulated out of existence in the past 15-20 years (maybe more than that, but before my time). You can't book more reserves if you don't drill the wells. And it just hasn't been happening for a long long time now.

 

I still keep in touch with people in the industry and they tell me (perhaps overoptimistically?) that it's out there, there's just the wrong environment in place to go looking for it/extract it.

 

We were all told when we were at school that oil would run out in 20 years, or we're now at or very close to peak oil production. Both predictions have proven to be way way wide of the mark.

 

 

 

So why isn't the industry making this case? The figures were seen in this thread area from the industry, and are likely on the optimistic side.