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 11 hours 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 11 hours 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" 

 

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

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

 

The new 13bn grant/subsidised loan wheeze to fit heat pumps, batteries and solar. More grant harverters incoming.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

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" 

 

 

 

My point is, you, and others, including government, keep saying renewables is going to bring prices down. Its not.

 

Why cant we be honest and say, electricity prices are going to go up, probably a lot. Possibly cripplingly so. The effects of which are going to be widespread and painful.

 

 

[Crofter]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

My point is, you, and others, including government, keep saying renewables is going to bring prices down. Its not.

 

Why cant we be honest and say, electricity prices are going to go up, probably a lot. Possibly cripplingly so. The effects of which are going to be widespread and painful.

 

 

Why do you think this is a given? 

It's easily established that rooftop PV can have a payback time of 5yrs or less, and a lifespan of 25yrs or more. These systems are being bought by private individuals out of their own pocket in order to enjoy lower bills. Nobody would be doing this if it didn't make economic sense.

I don't understand why switching to systems that produce essentially free energy, after installation costs are paid off, is a bad thing.

 

And yes it's going to be necessary to run gas power stations to fill the gaps, but is there something fundamentally different about the cost of burning gas intermittently vs burning it as the primary means of generating electricity?

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

The new 13bn grant/subsidised loan wheeze to fit heat pumps, batteries and solar. More grant harverters incoming.

Granted (ha) the issues with grant harvesting will be ongoing but I don't see how you get your claim "Ed just ADDED £300 a year to everyones bills" from?

 

Admittedly information is thin on the ground but it doesn't seem as if this funding comes from bills like the ECO funding did.

 

Indeed the ECO program is being scrapped and the funding that would have come being from the levy on bills will be sourced direct from the treasury.

 

The main source of the funds seems to be the treasury or general taxation rather than bills, so this measure would seem to be reducing the burden of "green stuff" on energy bills. 

 

But if you have any links to the contrary please post them

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, Crofter said:

but is there something fundamentally different about the cost of burning gas intermittently vs burning it as the primary means of generating electricity

To be fair the cheapest way per kwh to run a gas plant is at near maximum rate, all the time. 

 

The capital cost of the plant is spread over more kwh and thr fixed operational costs (staff, insurance etc) is also spread likewise. 

 

If you imagine buikding, mantaining and staffing a gas plant that onky produce 1mwh over it's life, it would be very expensive per Mwh! 

 

However, even with the higher costs of low utilisation gas, the overall power bill would be lower the more the grid uses cost renewables (solar and onshore wind currently cost the same as a high utilisation gas plant even after excluding carbon costs) 

 

[Gus Potter]

On 30/01/2026 at 20:30, Mattg4321 said:

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’?

 

Ok I use my own name so have to be very careful about what I say. Someone could report me for "hate crime" this is the way we have to live at the moment.

 

My Dad took our family to Kenya when I was 4. The primary school I went to was a mix of every nationality. We then went to Uganda, Idi Amin came to the swimming pool but he stopped that when he took over the country and murdered most of the oppsition politicialns. We got "booted" out and went back to Kenya. The Asians got booted out and the UK took them in, the Kenyans did not want them, Indians etc , (note their religions), they integrated well in the UK, some are leading now leading politicians! ... so were the Kenyans racist! 

 

I suspect that a lot of folk, even some on BH are arm chair warriors! 

 

To add a bit.. my Dads job entailed us moving about in the middle east. I remember as a kid landing in Beruit airport when there had been.... a religious attack / or similar.. they used genades.. the blood was all over the floor, shoes and stuff. 

 

I have made posts before where I apply common sense, I have no time for woke and have no respect for folk who have not even understood about how the second world war started!

 

Probably at least a year ago I exlained about West of Shetland crude, the price, the difference between heavy and light cude oil, how you process it. I also explained about Gulf crude.. but still the eco fannies just can't get their heads around the way world economics work and the hard reality of global politics. @JohnMo and other have picked this up. 

 

As an Enginneer that also understands risk I despair! I do chip in from time to timea bout my basic ideas on underfloor heating. But I just don't have time in my day to argue with eco zelots that want to spend every elses money apart from their own. I live and work just south of Glasgow.. folk are skint! 

 

I think the big problem is that we have a generation of folk now that are frankly ingonant.. they are the TIK TOK generation, they pretend they know it but they have not spent the time looking at history, analysing and digesting.

 

As an SE I can tell you these are the kind of folk you do not want anywhere near your job!