Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

He knows what he said was racist, otherwise why lie about it.

 

And again, he is banging the anti net zero drum whilst also saying we need to produce the cheapest most reliable energy we can, which net zero policies will do (yes we also need reform of energy taxes and markets) 

 

 

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

9 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

Kisin says himself that he’s ’brown skinned’, so why would be racist towards non whites. Your reasoning is a case of 2+2=5
 

If English is not an ethnic group then why is it in the census?

 

There are ethnic groups whether you like it or not. If I walked round a city filled with entirely Slavic peoples then I would realise it pretty quickly. Similarly if they were Latin or Asian or whatever. Stating the obvious doesn’t make someone a racist other than in the kind of someone who has already made their mind up. 

As someone who doesn't tick the A box, I heard Kisin'sdog dog whistle loud and clear. 

 

He said Sunak can't be English because he's a brown hindu. This despite Sunak being born in the uk and having about as English an upbringing as it is possible to have. Private schools, head boy at Winchester collage, Oxford University etc. 

 

None of that counts to Kisin, the brown skin and Hinduism overrule all of that. 

 

This is an ethno nationalist view - ie nationality is intrinsically tied to ethnicity and religion. 

 

This has led down very dark paths in the past and people who advocate it should be given the coldest of shoulders. 

[ProDave]

So you don't want to listen to an argument why net zero is not going to work so instead launch into a shoot the messenger rant.

 

Some people are just not open to reasonable debate.

[Oz07]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

OK first off, Kisin is a racist, lying s**tbag and I cannot believe (I can) QT had him on.

 

But he says we want to produce the cheapest possible, reliable abundant energy that we can. 

 

OK so wind and solar with battery for sub hour backup and gas for longer periods. 

 

Why is he racist? I see a clip where he is making the distinction between a British citizen and the English ethnicity. Is that what makes you think he is racist?

 

@ProDave seems to be one of the few not taken in by the ideology. Low energy house, sustainable pv ashp etc, but realises net zero is a joke. 

[Mattg4321]

24 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

As someone who doesn't tick the A box, I heard Kisin'sdog dog whistle loud and clear. 

 

He said Sunak can't be English because he's a brown hindu. This despite Sunak being born in the uk and having about as English an upbringing as it is possible to have. Private schools, head boy at Winchester collage, Oxford University etc. 

 

None of that counts to Kisin, the brown skin and Hinduism overrule all of that. 

 

This is an ethno nationalist view - ie nationality is intrinsically tied to ethnicity and religion. 

 

This has led down very dark paths in the past and people who advocate it should be given the coldest of shoulders. 

 

 

Here’s the longer version of the argument. It’s interesting to watch and both make good points. 
 

A quarter of my family is Arab Muslim and my mum was born in Baghdad and only came here when she was 7 years old. So what does she tick on the form? Probably whatever she feels comfortable with. Is she ‘English’? 
 

My friend was born in Kenya to white British parents. He lived there for the first 15 years of his life.  Can he call himself ‘Kenyan’?

 

It’s a grey area really and it people can obviously describe themselves as whatever they want, but other people are probably going to judge for themselves. Rishi Sunak is clearly not ethnically English, but if he wants to call himself English I have no problem with that. 
 

What this really seems to be about is that Kisin has a different view to you on net zero so you smear him as racist/sexist or some other ‘ist’. It’s been going on for so long now and it doesn’t really work anymore. Play the ball, not the man. 

 

[Roger440]

42 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So you don't want to listen to an argument why net zero is not going to work so instead launch into a shoot the messenger rant.

 

Some people are just not open to reasonable debate.

Good summary right there!

 

And pretty reflective of a large chunk of society now.

 

Net zero seems to have created a significant sized cult. No idea how it ends though..............................bankruptcy?

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

cheapest most reliable energy we can, which net zero policies will do (yes we also need reform of energy taxes and markets) 

 

 

 

 

 

No it wont. Not in any meaningful timeframe.

 

If you genuinely believe that, lets bet on it. 6 years from now, proceeds to charity of your choice.

 

As for reform of levy and taxes, Ed just added £300 per household per year with his latest grant harvesting scheme. That will help!!!!

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

So you don't want to listen to an argument why net zero is not going to work so instead launch into a shoot the messenger rant.

 

Some people are just not open to reasonable debate.

Nope, quite happy to engage facts, KK really shouldn't be given any space.

 

To address (factually) his arguments which I distill as (feel free to correct me if you think I misrepresented them) - some of these argument chain together but I have split them. 

 

1. Net zero destroys our industry, we cannot do both 

2. It does 1 because power is expensive (he doesn't say this but he implies it is why NZ destroys industry) 

3. NZ is pointless because uk is only 1% of CO2 globally and... 

4... We ship activities (implied as manufacturing) to China where they are dirtier. 

5. China isn't stupid so they aren't doing NZ and so are beating us. 

 

The central argument is 1.

 

Argument 2 is evidence for 1.

 

1 and 3 are seperate arguments 

 

4 is a statement intended to back up 3 and 1

 

First off, 3 and 4

China is taking net zero pretty seriously. They are the biggest installers of renewable on the world by miles. At this point someone raises the fac ttgier carbon emissions are rising (which thry are just) or that they are still commissioning coal. 

 

So yes they are rising but thry are close to the top - their economy is still in the growth phase and that lead to rising energy use and (for now) rising carbon.  However the carbon intensity of the grid (which I argue is a better measure of intent) is falling. It is currently around 550g/kwh,which is about where the UK was in the mid 00's and falling. 

 

Yes they are building coal plants, but as cleaner replacements for older ones that are being decommissioned and, crucially, the utilisation of coal is dropping ie they are being used less. 

 

And, they are adding renewables at a much greater rate than coal (or other fossil fuels) - of the 540Gw of capacity added in 2025, 430Gw were wind and solar. 

 

So China is expanding with a renewables first approach whilst still building out some fossil fuel (mainly coal). 

 

The sheer size of China means it's total carbon output will always be huge in comparison to the Uk's. 

 

To move onto 2: power is expensive in the UK but not because of NZ, or specifically not because of the underlying technology of wind and solar.  There are issues around the pricing structure (electricity price basically being thr gas generated price even though most of the electricity generated is from cheaper wind and a tiny bit of solar). There are also issues with policy costs around (say) insualating homes being loaded onto electricity prices which drive UK the cost. So there is a grain of truth in "High prices because of NZ" - but these are not things intrinsic to NZ, they are the result of specific approaches to NZ.

 

Now to 1. Which is more on this thread topic. 

 

Our manufacturing industry has shrunk but it is still very large. It is just less visible now and employs fewer people. Gone are the days of giant factories employing thousands of overall clad men to bash metal making pots and pans. 

 

Now we have anonymous industrial units employing a couple of dozen people to churn out industrial machines most of us will never see. We are still in (and this does depend a bit on how you measure it) the top 10 countries being China, Japan, USA, Germany, S Korea, India, Mexico and mixing it with Italy and France. 

 

Our economy isn't focused on manufacturing we major in services, particularly financial. Now you can argue this isn't necessarily a good thing (I argue it isn't) - but this focus is another reason put manufacturing isn't as large a portion of our economy as Germany, Japan and Skorea who have all explicitly targeted this sector.

 

High energy prices are bad for manufacturers though. But thr point I argue in this thread that abandoning NZ to focus on fossil fuels as our main power source will ultimately result in greater supply uncertainty and higher energy costs which will have a knock on effect to industry (and households) 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

It’s a grey area really and it people can obviously describe themselves as whatever they want, but other people are probably going to judge for themselves. Rishi Sunak is clearly not ethnically English, but if he wants to call himself English I have no problem with that. 

Ethnicity is something relatively clear cut. Sunak clearly has (very recent) ancestry from the Indian subcontinent region.

 

But skin tone, hair, eyes etc are not reliable indicators of enthicity. My sister can (and regularly does) pass for ethnically 100% white whilst I do not. We both have the same ethnic background yet look very different.

 

The circles KK moves in are apt to tie nationality hence citizenship and hence rights to ethnicity. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

What this really seems to be about is that Kisin has a different view to you on net zero so you smear him as racist/sexist or some other ‘ist’. It’s been going on for so long now and it doesn’t really work anymore. Play the ball, not the man. 

No, I dislike KK because of his views on race and other things. 

 

I disagree with his views on NZ because I think his arguments are unsound.

 

 

[Nestor]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

Net zero seems to have created a significant sized cult. No idea how it ends though..............................bankruptcy?

War.

It's a cult.

Let's get back to weather compensation.

[Beelbeebub]

51 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

No it wont. Not in any meaningful timeframe.

 

If you genuinely believe that, lets bet on it. 6 years from now, proceeds to charity of your choice.

 

As for reform of levy and taxes, Ed just added £300 per household per year with his latest grant harvesting scheme. That will help!!!!

There is a link in this thread already to a report on the levlised cost of generation for various technologies. 

 

It shows that solar and onshore wind are already the cheapest only matched by high utilisation ccgt assuming central or lower future gas prices (andignieing the carbon cost). If we are looking further out (1 to 2 decades) then solar and onshore are the cheapest full stop. 

 

Gas still has it's place as last generator but as capacity increaces the times when we run with no gas at all will become more frequent.

 

In 2012 coal was the largest electricity source 40%

In 2015, gas overtook it.

In 2017 we had our first coal free day

In 2024 we closed out last coal plant. 

 

Now gas is unlikely to totally disappear. It is an excellent backup for dark still times, but I think it likely we will see a gas free day before the end of the decade and they will become more and more common after that whilst the overall % of gas will fall even further

 

[Roger440]

43 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

There is a link in this thread already to a report on the levlised cost of generation for various technologies. 

 

It shows that solar and onshore wind are already the cheapest only matched by high utilisation ccgt assuming central or lower future gas prices (andignieing the carbon cost). If we are looking further out (1 to 2 decades) then solar and onshore are the cheapest full stop. 

 

Gas still has it's place as last generator but as capacity increaces the times when we run with no gas at all will become more frequent.

 

In 2012 coal was the largest electricity source 40%

In 2015, gas overtook it.

In 2017 we had our first coal free day

In 2024 we closed out last coal plant. 

 

Now gas is unlikely to totally disappear. It is an excellent backup for dark still times, but I think it likely we will see a gas free day before the end of the decade and they will become more and more common after that whilst the overall % of gas will fall even further

 

 

Lots of words. Ignores my point entirely. When will my electricity prices go down?

 

Odd you ignored my generous offer. I wonder why?

 

[-rick-]

2 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

 

@Mattg4321 Not quoting what you said because I'm not directly replying to your points but this is in response.

 

Firstly, this I find this topic difficult to discuss, both because it is an emotive one with lots of strongly held views which means I want to be careful not to be misunderstood and also it's one where I have more casual knowledge. With some topics I dive into the detail and can feel relatively confident talking about them (I have a reasonable idea of what I know and what I don't). Here I don't. I've had to look up the definition of 'racist' and 'ethnicity' and neither precisely aligns with the common usage of the terms in my experience. Frankly from my perspective the precise definition doesn't matter but it's difficult to have the discussion without that.

 

Looking at the definitions I still don't feel I can talk confidently about what an ethnic group is (the word is often used linked to race but the definitions focus far more on culture). My statement on english ethnicity doesn't necessarily stand up and should be read as a statement that there is no defining genetic/biological grouping for 'English'.

 

Because I can't talk confidently about the topic I can only talk from my personal perspective. From that perspective Rishi Sunak was born in England and has a British passport, therefore he is English (and also British). Someone who says that because he has brown skin he is not English is being racist. I know KK is talking ethnicity and could argue that my definition above is about nationality but that doesn't hold up if you deny someone the ability to call themselves English or claim English nationality because of the colour of their skin which KK is effectively doing by saying Sunak can only be British. In my book, you can say Rishi Sunak is not 'White English' as per that form but you can't say he is not English.

 

This is also quite off-topic and I've gone beyond my comfort level talking about this subject so this will be my last contribution here. It's debatable whether this adds anything of value and I almost didn't post but I didn't want to leave my previous statement without further explanation.

[Oz07]

English is most definitely an ethnic group. You are making a fool of yourself if you seriously believe Rishi Sunak is ethnically English. If any other ethnicity was misappropriated like the english are there would be uproar. Is Joanna Lumley ethnically Indian?! Would I be Chinese if born on a holiday in China. Would I be aboriginal if born in Australia?

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/ethnic-groups/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

[SteamyTea]

11 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

English is most definitely an ethnic group

The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common ancestry, history, and culture.^[8] The English identity began with the Anglo-Saxons, when they were known as the Angelcynn, meaning "Angle kin" or "English people".^[9] Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who settled in Britain around the 5th century AD

 

Or German.

 

What the (expletive deleted), has reducing CO₂ emissions become an ancestor issue.

[Oz07]

Not sure, I didn't derail it. Think it was bought up by one of the net zero cult defenders 🤣

[SteamyTea]

 

[Beelbeebub]

12 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

Not sure, I didn't derail it. Think it was bought up by one of the net zero cult defenders 🤣

The point of the thread is that policies like electrification of heat and transport, increacing solar and wind capacity, reducing heat demand, traditionally described as "Net zero policies" are sensible things to do even if you don't believe in the rationale for reducing carbon emissions.

 

It's worth pointing out that clinging to a belief and course of action despite evidence that it is incorrect is cult like behavior and I have brought evidence that the UK does not have the fossil fuel reserves to continue at current consumption levels without becoming almost entirely dependent on foreign imports

 

So those clinging to the idea that we can have energy security via continuing to use fossil fuels as out primary enter source are the cult members. 

 

You can argue that continuing to depend on fossil fuels and thus becoming more exposed to import prices is a good thing for the UK, I'm all ears, but you cannot argue that the UK can reduce said dependence without pursuing a many of the "Net zero" policies 

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Lots of words. Ignores my point entirely. When will my electricity prices go down?

 

Odd you ignored my generous offer. I wonder why?

 

OK, no bets as I don't gamble and there's zero chance an Internet bet will be honored either way, but they will probably* fall over 2026 by around 4% overall (dip over spring summer, rise towards winter) 

 

*this is dependant on the price of gas over the next few months,which is predicted to fall. However, should something major occur to move gas prices, say - to pluck an example entirely at random - a war breaking out in a major oil and gas producing region - then gas prices could surge as they did in 2022 and the UK price cap will rise. 

 

This is the central point - UK energy prices are most affected by the price of gas and not the % of renewable capacity (which has been steadily rising even as prices fell back from the 2022 peak).

 

The more we depend on imported gas and oil the more our economy is subject to those price movements. 

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

Of course one of the issues with UK electricity pricing is the process where gas almost always sets the price electricity even though it is often a small proposition of the mix. 

 

This is a policy and market mechanism issue which needs to be addressed. If we only paid the average price for electricity then the price would be considerably cheaper. 

[Beelbeebub]

There is the suspicion that renewables operators might be gaming the system. 

 

If I were a renwable operator and I know that I could dispatch 5GW and that is likely to be the last bid and thus set the price for everyone, I might be tempted to only bid 4Gw so that a gas plant could be the last bid and I make more from selling 4gw at gas prices than 5gw at my prices. 

 

A good friend used to work for one of the big producers and they had a small MW range oil plant nicknamed "the rain maker" - it was maintained and staffed all year round and would run for a day or two, but when it did they got paid the super high rates for all the energy (gas, renwable, nuclear) they produced and made a shed load.

 

There are definitely slightly diverging incentives in the current market setup. 

[Mattg4321]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Of course one of the issues with UK electricity pricing is the process where gas almost always sets the price electricity even though it is often a small proposition of the mix. 

 

This is a policy and market mechanism issue which needs to be addressed. If we only paid the average price for electricity then the price would be considerably cheaper. 

It’s not as simple as that, or it would have been done already. People have been banging on about changing the pricing mechanism for years now. It has to be viable for the gas generation to remain on standby for use in times of dunkelflaute. Renewables can’t be relied upon 24/7/365 yet. So we need to pay for a backup. If the cost per unit to generate don’t take account of it (they don’t), they are false. 
 

I’m all for diversifying away from FF for our energy security and cleaner air. On that we totally agree. It has to be done in a sensible way to protect what tiny industrial capacity we have left, not to mention consumer prices. 

 

Energy security, cleaner air/less pollution and prices as low as possible are the reasons to change our energy mix, not net zero, which is largely a con. 
 

 

[SteamyTea]

Is it the term 'net zero' that some people have a problem with?

Do people understand what the 'net' actually means in this context?

Have people also forgotten what the end products are that the consumers use?

[-rick-]

13 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

It’s not as simple as that

 

Nothing is ever simple. But plenty of other countries have more sensible models for their energy pricing proving that moving to a more sensible model is possible. Any change takes effort and time though and with politics here being what it is, that has been in short supply.

[-rick-]

Related to this thread Alec from Technology connections just posted a long video on justifying the move to 100% renewables in economic and security terms (in the context of the US not UK). Not strictly the same point as @Beelbeebub is making but similar.

 

Unless you have watched his videos before I wouldn't recommend watching. It's long and most of his points are likely well known to people on this forum but I still learned things. Stand outs:

1. For the amount of money spent on fuel to drive a petrol car during it's life he could buy multiple times (6?) the amount of solar panels needed to generate enough electricity to run the car in Chicago in winter time.

2. If you take the land area currently used in the US to produce corn that is used to make ethanol to go into fuel and covered it in solar panels you'd produce a multiple of the existing US annual electricity produce from just that area.

3. In terms of of how far you can drive a car, a wind turbine operating is outputing equivalent energy to a shower head flowing petrol.