Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, -rick- said:

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.

Yes.

Biomass production, which is really just solar energy collection (as is wind power) has a very low efficiency, somewhere around 0.25%. PV is reliably over 10% for the finished product, electricity.

To turn biomass into electricity, the efficiency would be even lower, around 0.12% overall.

 

A slightly off tangent, but related example, came up at work the other day.

We have a chef that always wants more, and better, equipment in the kitchen.  The financial director (a very smart woman) suggested, because of the new rules about environment and safety, that an induction hob would be best. This was music to my ears.

The chef, said they are 'not powerful enough'. So, just to show him that I am bright, and he is thick, I asked him how powerful the current gas hob was.  He, predictable, had no idea. So I told him (7 kW per burner). I then asked him how much of that energy actually went into heating the food. Again, no idea, so I explained that to him (roughly 30% when up full on a small pan).

I then asked him what experience, in a commercial environment, he had with induction hobs, none was answer. He had used a small, 2 kW, portable one once, at a friend's house, and could not 'control' it and it took ages to heat up some water. Asked if he had read the manual. I don't think he can read to be honest.

So how is that related to the above.

Simple, the end users often have no idea, and even less interest in, how things really work, but spout old memes as if they are gospel, and sadly, usually get away with it as they are preaching to the converted.

 

Those of us that think that rapidly moving away from fossil fuels is a good idea have to keep banging on about it, those that don't, judging by the obfuscating, really know they are wrong.

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

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. 
 

🎉👏🎉👏🎉

😁 Thank you! 😁 

 

This is 100% my point (aside from net zero being "a con") 

 

You and I may disagree about the need to address climate change but that is irrelevant. 

 

The core tasks of diversifying energy sources, improving air quality and trying to lower/stabilise energy prices are all things we need to be doing regardless of any individual options on carbon emissions!

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

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

This is correct. It isn't quite as simple as saying "let's ditch the marginal pricing model"

 

However it is undeniable that the current model does still link the day to day energy price to gas prices. 

 

Moving away from this to some other method (which absolutely would need to price in the "standby" costs of any low utilisation generators) would help lower the enrgy cost. 

 

It is arguable that the current model does generate healthy profits for renwable generators and so encourages the build out. 

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

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?

I think it does. 

 

To a certain person "Net zero" provokes rants a but "Greta" and "ULEZ" etc.

 

Almost inevitably a (parroted from some blue tinged or red hatted politician) rant about "Net zero is stopping us using the vast reserves of fossil fuels in the north Sea to achive energy independence" follows. 

 

Which sort of was my reasoning behind this thread - energy independence via domestic fossil fuel production is not possible for the UK. 

[Oz07]

I am skeptical the reserves of north sea oil and gas are as low as you make out. I have zero knowledge on this though. I suspect you could find sources which confirm whatever views one has. Some will say decades left, some will say not much. 

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, Oz07 said:

I am skeptical the reserves of north sea oil and gas are as low as you make out. I have zero knowledge on this though. I suspect you could find sources which confirm whatever views one has. Some will say decades left, some will say not much. 

A reasonable suspicion. 

 

I could have used the figures from greenpeace or "just stop oil" which you would suspect "lowball" the figures. 

 

However I used the estimates from this report commissioned by a body that represents the offshore oil and gas industry (please click) and bear in mind that the Uk's current production is only 50% of our consumption. 

 

One wouldn't expect them to under count the reserves, but in any case I used their "high case" and "no constraints" cases for my argument and in no cases does production rise above today's level.

 

 

The *only* sources I could find that claimed the UK could become energy independent were politicans and pundits. 

 

So we can choose who to believe. 

 

The upper estimates of an industry with a vested interest in talking up the reserves 

 

Or politicians and newspaper columnists. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Beelbeebub

[Roger440]

9 hours 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. 

 

And this is why prices wont come down. The status quo suits everyone involved, all printing money as fast as they can.

 

The rest of your 3 monthly, near identical posts isnt really relavant, nothing will change unless some structural changes to the market are made. They are not likely (putting it mildly) to be made, so prices just keep going up.

 

Prices wont come down unless some action to do so takes place. That will impact someones profit somewhere. So isnt going to happen. Indeed, Ed just ADDED £300 a year to everyones bills just 2 weeks ago.

 

You clearly dont think so either, given your refusal to demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

 

In the meantime, you can continue to discuss the same theoreticals over and over. Wont make a blind bit of difference.

 

When serious changes are made to the market, that will be a great time to discuss.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Roger440

[Beelbeebub]

52 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Indeed, Ed just ADDED £300 a year to everyones bills just 2 weeks ago.

Sorry, you've mentioned this a couple of times... what are you actually referring to? The infrastructure investment? 

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

And this is why prices wont come down. The status quo suits everyone involved, all printing money as fast as they can.

Yes, without some changes to both our physical infrastructure (generation transmission and storage etc) and our regulatory environment prices will remain high and probably rise in the medium to long term. 

 

And yes, vested interests are printing cash. 

 

I'm not sure what your point is. 

 

Staying as now, won't being down prices and will actually increace them. 

 

Increacing our reliance on fossil fuels ("cutting the green crap") will likewise increace our exposure to imports and higher prices even more. 

 

So we are left with reducing our exposure amd the cheapest way to do that is renewables (specifically solar and onshore wind - but if the public don't want the cheap option they can go for the slightly more expensive option of offshore wind) 

 

Like it or not the era of cheap North Sea gas is drawing to a close and we have to deal with it. What is it the right wing snowflakes lime to say? "facts don't care about your feelings"