Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

buying a betamax player in 2001.

I bought a second hand one in 1984, it was good.

The video rental shop owner had a Betamax, so loads of choice.

[Marvin]

2 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Personally I think we need much more gas storage and more gas plants as backup for the times when renewables are low.

Absolutely, and purchasing of gas when supplies are cheaper...

[Beelbeebub]

45 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I bought a second hand one in 1984, it was good.

The video rental shop owner had a Betamax, so loads of choice.

They were great, and in 1984 it wasn't an unreasonable decision. 

 

But by 2001 it was clearly a technogy with no future. 

 

Much like gas boilers. Thry are fantastic. A small box on the wall that will provide heating and hot water on demand for an entire house with almost no effort on the occupants part. Brilliant. 

 

But their time is coming to a close and in 2035 even more so. 

 

I remember when incandescent light bulbs were phased out and lots of people moaned about it.  

 

Anyone moaning now? I can light an entire house of about what it cost to run a single light bulb and the (decent) ones last years. 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

more gas storage

I just done a quick search to see how much gas storage, as a service, costs, seems to be about £0.00167/kWh ($0.64/MCF), so quite expensive.

May have got the conversions wrong and the original data may be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage

If it is even a factor of 10 out, it is still expensive, possibly why we don't store that much.

Edited 1 hour ago by SteamyTea

[Beelbeebub]

13 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I just done a quick search to see how much gas storage, as a service, costs, seems to be about £0.00167/kWh ($0.64/MCF), so quite expensive.

May have got the conversions wrong and the original data may be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage

If it is even a factor of 10 out, it is still expensive, possibly why we don't store that much.

I think it is, though not as expensive as the country going dark! 😁 

 

I wonder how much gas storage is on board a LNG tanker. Could the UK Gov just buy and operate a bunch and use those as a dual use transport /buffer

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

gas storage is on board a LNG tanker

https://www.oftrb.com/archives/39898

 

• Small-scale LNG Carriers: Around 3,500 to 20,000 cubic meters.
• Medium-sized LNG Carriers: Approximately 20,000 to 90,000 cubic meters.
• Large LNG Carriers (Q-Max and Q-Flex classes): Between 210,000 and 266,000 cubic meters.

[Spinny]

Europe stores gas of course, gets them through every winter.

 

The Rough facility is off the coast of East Yorkshire, and accounts for about half of the capacity the UK has to store gas. It was closed in 2017, but then partly reopened in October 2022 following the energy crisis triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

 

Even the US has a strategic oil reserve.

 

And you can follow summary of the gyrations and commentary on natural gas supply and demand here...

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

Edited 1 hour ago by Spinny

[Spinny]

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

gas storage is on board a LNG tanker

A juicy target in a hot war, especially if in port.

[Beelbeebub]

42 minutes ago, Spinny said:

A juicy target in a hot war, especially if in port.

Very much so.

 

Which is worse

 

A) losing storage site/vessel that provides a fuel for a small proportion of your demand and is mainly a backup reserve. 

 

B) losing storage site/vessel that provides a fuel you were relying on burning next week. 

 

Again, pick one. (you haven't picked which choice from the last time...) 

 

(for context the uk currently gets 25% of all it's gas via LNG) 

Edited 9 minutes ago by Beelbeebub

[Spinny]

10 hours ago, Mike said:

Clearly not an expert in climate science then.

'Appeal to authority' as an argument is fallacious anyway. The truth is not determined by any 'authority' no matter his position or the number of letters after his name. Neither is it determined by popular vote, nor by the vote of those paid to promote narratives regardless of objective truths. Nature is as she is.

 

As Rutherford said 'All science is either physics or stamp collecting'. I'd argue physicists generally have the most objective and questioning perspectives. They grow up with the motivation to find truths - nobody can really work as a physicist without both a capable mind and a passionate curiosity for truth. Climate science is more of a job - barely existed 40 years ago - now massively expanded as a result of climate alarm - turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

We miss him still...

https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY?si=vYOWFRolyMaOzxvQ