Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I await your explanation of how it will cost upwards of £300K to install your heat pump........

I have about 30 properties to install them in and assume about £10k per property.

 

30 x 10 = 300

[Beelbeebub]

31 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So you really don't give a chuff about what is correct climate wise, so what are you trying to achieve?

I do give a chuff - though this thread is specifically about the non-climate related reasons for needing net zero policies.

 

But the idea of comparative advantage extends to carbon as well. There are some items that can be produced and shipped for less CO2 than being produced here.

 

Aluminium from Canada being an example that springs to mind.

 

For jackdaw gas Vs LNG gas the difference is relatively small - about 0.3% of UK emissions and even smaller if the gas is sourced from Norwegian pipeline (which it will be this winter as LNG from Quatar is not available)

 

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, -rick- said:

Agree with this. We have already cut our emissions substantially from prior levels, but any serious analysis just shows we've exported the emissions (and to some degree damaged our future economy by doing so).

Here is the serious analysis

 

 

It is true that upto 2005 the idea that we were merely exporting emissions was mostly true, but since then even our footprint emissions (which includes the footprint of stuff made abroad) have fallen.

 

2 hours ago, -rick- said:

In international forums now we are among examples of 'how not to decarbonise',

I'd be very interested to see which "international forums".  The UK is generally considered to be a leader in the field of transition policy (at least regarding generation).

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, -rick- said:

A good example of decarbonisation would be an economy that has shifted away from carbon emissions without changing the domestic industry mix.

Why? Why is the domestic industry mix of UK 2025 inferior to 2000? Or 1975? Or 1950 or 1850?

 

Name a country that has had the same industrial mix that it did in 2000?

 

Certain people have nostalgia for manufacturing but the fact is the UK was always going to have to transition away from labour intensive industry because the world marches on.  If we still built cars the way we did in 1970 the cars would be more expensive and poorer quality than competitors who used modern, lower labour, plants.  Arguably it's part of the reason out motor industry failed - not modernising.

 

China's industrial mix has massively changed. Has their policy failed?

 

A far better measure is the impact on the economy and living standards of decarbonisation.

 

This is going to be hard to disentangle from the other things that have happened over the last 2 decades that have also impacted out economy and living standards.

 

2008 crash

Brexit

COVID

Ukraine invasion

Hormuz

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

If your properties are all electric, let all your tenants to choose there own tariff and add a battery

 

The best solution would be a heat pump and possibly a battery 

 

EPC regs don't reward that (zero for batteries and a heatpump yields a couple of points over the existing storage heaters).

 

Plus there are planning and install issues (5 stories, conservation area, AONB).

 

The best solution. The one we are going with is to swap the heaters for new HHR storage heaters.

 

If I can get solar fitted I will - and probably a battery.

 

As for the gas properties the issue is not making it more expensive for the tenants (plus the EPC issue).

 

Right now I can't make the bus case stack up despite trying many permutations.

 

Again solar is the current front runner.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

I suggest that you all get together and come up with a coherent plan as why we should drop the policies and just carry on as normal, rather than divert the climate change debate to one about personal finances.

The problem is the reason we should drop the policies is that "they cost too much and we should use the vast reeves or North sea gas and oil to make ourselves energy independent"

 

Which is all bollocks.

 

But sticks in certain minds alongside "we are being invaded" and "the most pressing issue facing our nation is where somebody takes a piss" 

[JohnMo]

5 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Aluminium from Canada being an example that springs to mind.

Although for many years it was all made in Scotland from hydro power so zero carbon.

[Beelbeebub]

16 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Although for many years it was all made in Scotland from hydro power so zero carbon.

And they still do. https://alvancebritishaluminium.com/

 

The problem is it can only produce about 50,000 tons a year whilst the UK demand is around 1.2 million tons a year - so about 4%.

 

So we either have to build another 24 such plants, decrease UK industry until demand is 4% of current, import from abroad (ideally, Norway and Canada as they use a lot of hydro for their smelting)

 

Again, though I fully support the Scottish plant, it doesn't make a huge difference to the prices of our aluminum or the security.  It, again, is a question of relative scale - which the British public seem to be bad at grasping 

 

i.e. £350 million a week sounds like a huge amount of money - except in the scale of a government that spent £14,000 million a week (2.5%)

 

Edited yesterday at 10:37 by Beelbeebub

[-rick-]

On 06/09/2026 at 13:43, Beelbeebub said:

Why? Why is the domestic industry mix of UK 2025 inferior to 2000? Or 1975? Or 1950 or 1850?

 

Name a country that has had the same industrial mix that it did in 2000?

 

I think that's missing the point. If all countries deindustrialise to decarbonise then there is no industry and that's not going to work. It's not that what we did was necessarily wrong for us (debatable point) it's that what we did is not a useful guide for a large part of the remaining emissions we need to get on top of.

 

Edit: and even if you think we are a good guide overall, the way we chose to do things has proven very expensive. So from that POV other countries are a better guide even if your goal is to end up in the same sort of situation we are in now.

Edited 8 hours ago by -rick-

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, -rick- said:

If all countries deindustrialise to decarbonise then there is no industry

Generally, manufactured goods are now of better quality and last a lot longer. So 'industry' can produce more with less.

Vehicle manufacturing was at all time records untill 2016, don't think the decline has anything to do with 'net zero', energy prices or lack of investment.

Trying to think what happened 10 years ago, seem to remember that we were going to become world leaders.

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

4 hours ago, -rick- said:

 

I think that's missing the point. If all countries deindustrialise to decarbonise then there is no industry and that's not going to work. It's not that what we did was necessarily wrong for us (debatable point) it's that what we did is not a useful guide for a large part of the remaining emissions we need to get on top of.

 

Edit: and even if you think we are a good guide overall, the way we chose to do things has proven very expensive. So from that POV other countries are a better guide even if your goal is to end up in the same sort of situation we are in now.

Decarbonising doesn't mean stopping - merely removing (where possible - see pt 2). There are plenty of industries which burn gas and sometimes oinnthat can switch. Paper making, brewing, wood work and countless others use steam. Often generated by a gas boiler. Those processes can be replaced by electric heating - they can even be replaced by heat pumps in some situations.

 

Secondly, there will always be some processes that just require gas (or oil or coal) normally because they are being used as much as a chemical feedstock as for heat (or even entirely as a feedstock). These processes will have to remain as fossil fuel consumers - it is net zero not absolute zero. Aviation is a classic example. I cannot see long haul aviation get away from fossil fuels for quite some time. We would need to have a significant surplus of electricity to begin to start making sufficient quantities of synthetic fuels (I don't think bio fuels from current farm practices will cut it).

 

But my point was that industry changes all the time due to different pressures. Energy prices are part of the mix but probably don't affect a bespoke sports car maker as much as skilled labour and parts availability. I don't think Burberry and Mulberry are as bothered by the price of electricity as they are the availability if leather and skilled leather workers (and probably most importantly the whims of international fashion)

 

 

[-rick-]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

Decarbonising doesn't mean stopping

 

Agree, but that's not what I was responding to.

 

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

But my point was that industry changes all the time due to different pressures. Energy prices are part of the mix but probably don't affect a bespoke sports car maker as much as skilled labour and parts availability. I don't think Burberry and Mulberry are as bothered by the price of electricity as they are the availability if leather and skilled leather workers (and probably most importantly the whims of international fashion)

 

We have been somewhat talking past each other. I responded to you saying the UK is a good example of decarbonisation and that by extracting more oil/gas we are risking that. My response is that while we have achieved a significant reduction in our emissions, a significant proportion of that is because we decided (intentionally or indirectly by actions) to just stop doing a lot of high carbon things.

 

We aren't a good example of transitioning existing industry to low carbon, industries in this country are shutting down because they can't operate in our business environment*. Other countries have done a much better job of that. Talking about Burberry and Mulberry is a distraction. They are relatively small components of our economy that are not generally replicable.

 

* Mainly it's electricity/gas prices (which we could have addressed in a different way) but it's also a general complication of rules over the last few decades (and Brexit) that adds friction. When other countries have adopted holistic carbon reduction schemes that encourage and support companies through the transition with active government support (and in doing so have achieved some great results) and we don't, we really can't claim to be a good example.