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.