Why we need "Net zero"

[saveasteading]

13 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

Let them try and extract it if they want. 

Do you know if they "want"?

Do you know where it would be processed and into what products?

 

It is my impression that they don't "want", and that the product would go to South America to make fertiliser.

 

But I'm here to learn.

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

I have just signed up for a virtual power plant scheme - doing my bit and getting paid for it.  For those not aware when grid is in short supply they pull on your battery and 100/1000s of others. Taking a few kWh and pay me £1 per kWh. Expect to receive £10 a month minimum - but will see how it goes. If anyone wants a referral and get £25 credit to there account send me a message.

First ive heard of it.

 

£1 a kWh? Why isnt everone with batteries doing it?

[SteamyTea]

40 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

£1 a kWh? Why isnt everone with batteries doing it?

The price would drop to 3p/kWh if they did.

[JohnMo]

57 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

First ive heard of it.

 

£1 a kWh? Why isnt everone with batteries doing it?

I only stumbled across it at the weekend, think the schemes have been running a year or so.

 

18 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

The price would drop to 3p/kWh if they did.

Not convinced by that statement, but the £1 per kWh is in addition to the normal export rate you get from the utility company. So my real rate is £1.12 per kWh.  If they lowered the pay out much, the advantages start to disappear and people drop out of the scheme. 

[Mattg4321]

3 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Do you know if they "want"?

Do you know where it would be processed and into what products?

 

It is my impression that they don't "want", and that the product would go to South America to make fertiliser.

 

But I'm here to learn.

If the oil producers/exploration companies are not interested then fair enough. In that case though, why bother banning it

[Mattg4321]

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The graph is relevent because it makes the argument that more drilling will have any benefit beyond higher profits for oil companies irrelevent. 

 

We are already on course to extract the vast majority of our remaining* reserves. Extracting that little bit more won't make us richer (unless you own an oil company) or more secure. 

 

The only thing that will make us more secure are the policies that reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, the majority of those policies come under the "Net Zero" umbrella. 

 

 

*as reserves are calculated on the basis of economic viability the volume will fluctuate with World price. If the world price dipped to $10 a barrel the uk's reserves would be zero. Likewise if it shot up to $200 our reserves will seem to increace. 

There’s no benefit to the treasury then?
 

And no potential to increase our energy security. 

[saveasteading]

47 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

why bother banning it

I don't think it is banned so much as it is no longer within the energy strategy.

 

And with refineries bring closed and dismantled... by the oil companies... it seems terminal.

[Mattg4321]

13 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I don't think it is banned so much as it is no longer within the energy strategy.

 

And with refineries bring closed and dismantled... by the oil companies... it seems terminal.

 

No longer within the energy strategy is another way of saying banned. It's banned in corporate speak. Why say one word when you can say 10.

 

Here's an excerpt from Labour's 2024 manifesto

 

"We will not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis. In addition, we will not grant new coal licences and will ban fracking for good."

 

It's banned. By the government who think they know best. Ideology before reality always.

 

If you try to issue new licenses and nobody wants them, then fair enough. But banning is different.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

There’s no benefit to the treasury then?

Not really. In pure revenue terms it's abiut £5bn a year. To be fair, I'm not sure if that includes the windfall tax which might add another £2.5bn a year.  Note there are also costs to the taxpayer on costs associated with decommissioning. These are dependent a fair bit on how you view them (is a tax break on decommissioning costs a cost to the tax payer?) but also run to the billions. 

 

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

And no potential to increase our energy security. 

None - or as near as practical to none. 

 

Firstly the current model is the oil/gas extracted is sold on the international market to the highest bidder.  So cost wise, uk consumers will have to pay the market price. We see this now where very little our oil comes from the gulf but the people who did source from there (China etc) are now buying from the same people we buy from (USA etc) so our price goes up.  The price of petrol and diesel in Texas, which produces vastly more oil than it consumes, has risen. 

 

Secondly, because of a mismatch entween the oil we extract and the oil our refineries can accept we.tend to send out oil aboard to where it can be refined and either buy the resulting refined product back or we import oil suitible for our refineries and then sell the resulting products to the highest bidder who may be a UK consumer or not.  So even in terms of "can we physically get hold of the substance we need" more production will not help us. 

 

However, if a significant portion of our current demand for oil (cars etc) and gas (home heating) were to convert to electricity and we increace our non fossil fuel generation capacity (ie solar, wind, nuclear) - then we could be more energy secure. 

[Gone West]

3 hours ago, JohnMo said:

I only stumbled across it at the weekend, think the schemes have been running a year or so.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/london-pioneers-first-virtual-power-station

 

Looks like it started around six years ago.