Why we need "Net zero"

[-rick-]

14 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Yep, that was exactly my point 😊 As I was attempting to explain that simply measuring the eco credentials of something purely on CO2 grounds is simplistic. I'm certainly not advocating against the use of renewables, just that we all need to see the full picture and from this we can make properly educated decisions about the compromises we need to make. It's all about balance, me thinks.

 

Sure. I started replying because it sounded like you were against using concrete because it wasn't renewable which is true but the decision is much more nuanced.

 

14 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Interestingly, there was a leading academic in Sweden many years ago who very successfully demonstrated the problem with embodied carbon used in building to passivhaus levels on a full life-cycle basis and then the poor payback of this - so it was essentially a poor environmental decision. Back then, though, electricity generation, for example, was much dirtier, so within 15 years the basis of the decisions would change. It's the same for any of our technologies so we have to move with the times and review our choices regularly in light of progress. 

👍

[Beelbeebub]

18 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

only if i sold osme -wind men get money when the turbines are sitting doing nothing --thats the difference 

They aren't turning because there is no capacity to transport the power they were contracted to (and are able to) produce.

 

If I hire a bunch of workmen for a job but they can't do anything because the materials I ordered didn't arrive they still hat paid (at least if I want to keep my teeth). They turned up, ready to work and it's my fault they can't actually build anything.  So yes, they are getting paid for sitting around but if I started sending labourers and trades home without pay because *I* effed up, i"d quickly find nobody would want to work for me. 

 

Again, the curtailment issue isn't unique to wind and the bulk of the cost is actually going to gas generators for turning up production. 

Edited 54 minutes ago by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

7 hours ago, LnP said:

Nice post and I love the pictures but please can we kill the myth that renewables are not eco friendly because of the materials used in their construction. The data speak for themselves. See my earlier post. CO₂e, per kWh of energy produced over the life of the asset for your onshore turbine is 12 g CO₂e and to produce the same energy from e.g. natural gas it's 458 g. That includes the embedded carbon in the concrete.

Even of the calculations were a fsctornof 10x out for wind turbines they would still be way better than gas plants. 

 

But the eco credentials of wind/solar are somewhat moot for this thread (though important of course). 

 

The argument this thread started with was that the "Net zero policies" like increacing renewable generation and electrifying heating and transport were worth doing from an economic and energy security perspective as they reduced the impact of world gas and oil prices on our economy. 

 

Subsequent events seem to be bearing this out. 

 

I listened to a podcast where the head of OFCOM was saying the impact of rising gas prices on electricity prices is less now than in 2022 because of the extra renewables. Electricity still rises but not as much. 

[SteamyTea]

41 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

They turned up, ready to work and it's my fault they can't actually build anything. 

Common practice in hospitality to send people home if it is quiet.

Part of the reason for the very high staff turnover.