Climate Emergency

Billy_Mix said:

swordfish said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

swordfish said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

Norway ‘fed up’ with net zero ‘nonsense’

1. Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
2. Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
3. Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
4. China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
5. Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives. 

The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy. 

Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.  

It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will
we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid;  b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.

Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?

I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.

FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.

They didn't do so bad following our lead with the industrial revolution though. Quick to follow us then, but I do take your point.

Point of order:
We proud adventurous generous Brits took the industrial revolution to the world! Johnny Foreigner didn't show up here and think "Good heavens that looks like fun, we'll do some of that when we get back to ...insert name of 'developing' nation here..."
As for the planet's most culpable environment trashers ever doing anything to moderate their environmental destruction, dream on, they don't give a shit, won't give a shit, we'll have to keep on doing things better because we can and we should.  The fat unsanitary sociopath sat next to you on the train is gonna fart, belch drop his beer can and pick his nose regardless of you and your fellow passengers, even if you ask him to stop, he'll probably light his fag just before he gets off the train too.  We don't do those things cos we're not scum

letthegoodtimesroll said:

cantersaddick said:

Me when people on this thread claim that renewables push up prices without any evidence or ability to back up that claim.

…when people think onshore and offshore wind farms and solar panels don’t cost anything to make, install and connect to the national grid without any need for infrastructure or sweeteners from the government (ie the taxpayer) and that they last forever, which in turn makes renewable energy cheap as chips…

cantersaddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

cantersaddick said:

Me when people on this thread claim that renewables push up prices without any evidence or ability to back up that claim.

…when people think onshore and offshore wind farms and solar panels don’t cost anything to make, install and connect to the national grid without any need for infrastructure or sweeteners from the government (ie the taxpayer) and that they last forever, which in turn makes renewable energy cheap as chips…

As Stig has posted above, why do you say people think any of that? They don't. It would be absolutely ludicrous to think anybody believed that were true. 

It's absolutely impossible to discuss this in any seriousness when you make posts like that. 

Genuinely can't get my head around the anti renewables mindset. 

Even when you take out the climate impacts (we absolutely shouldn't but let's do it for a second). Its still objectively better for energy security, less reliant on the world market, less susceptible to external shocks or geopolitical events, better for air quality and cheaper. 

The only thing it's not better for is the profits of the fossil fuel industry. And obviously I'm aware of their riches, the power that brings, the influence over politicians and the media they have. But apply the smallest amount of critical thought and even if you were a climate change denier I still can't see how anyone other than a massive investor in fossil fuels would be against the transition. 

If people think the green transition is costing them, then perhaps they'll be open to other solutions. Here's one, but on balance, I think sticking to 'net zero' plans might prove cheaper. Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion | Live Science

Interesting Panorama last night with the debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government, being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

cantersaddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

cantersaddick said:

Me when people on this thread claim that renewables push up prices without any evidence or ability to back up that claim.

…when people think onshore and offshore wind farms and solar panels don’t cost anything to make, install and connect to the national grid without any need for infrastructure or sweeteners from the government (ie the taxpayer) and that they last forever, which in turn makes renewable energy cheap as chips…

As Stig has posted above, why do you say people think any of that? They don't. It would be absolutely ludicrous to think anybody believed that were true. 

It's absolutely impossible to discuss this in any seriousness when you make posts like that. 

Genuinely can't get my head around the anti renewables mindset. 

Even when you take out the climate impacts (we absolutely shouldn't but let's do it for a second). Its still objectively better for energy security, less reliant on the world market, less susceptible to external shocks or geopolitical events, better for air quality and cheaper. 

The only thing it's not better for is the profits of the fossil fuel industry. And obviously I'm aware of their riches, the power that brings, the influence over politicians and the media they have. But apply the smallest amount of critical thought and even if you were a climate change denier I still can't see how anyone other than a massive investor in fossil fuels would be against the transition. 

Yep.

The only arguments against renewables that I can see any kind of logic to are those based on vested interests I.e. investments/NIMBYs. 

Other than that, it's "just" emotional/illogical.

Oh... and I am finally realising that there is some kind of semi coherent conspiracy style thinking that a hazy global elite is manipulating everybody into believing that there is a climate crisis when there isn't. Their objective? To somehow enslave us all in the name of saving the world and instal harsh living conditions.  Oh.. and they also want to increase mass migration, but I forget why that is supposed to be happening as part of it all. I try and find reasons to take it seriously and give it a fair crack with an open mind...but... it just doesn't stack up. 

Leroy Ambrose said:

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

cantersaddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

cantersaddick said:

Me when people on this thread claim that renewables push up prices without any evidence or ability to back up that claim.

…when people think onshore and offshore wind farms and solar panels don’t cost anything to make, install and connect to the national grid without any need for infrastructure or sweeteners from the government (ie the taxpayer) and that they last forever, which in turn makes renewable energy cheap as chips…

As Stig has posted above, why do you say people think any of that? They don't. It would be absolutely ludicrous to think anybody believed that were true. 

It's absolutely impossible to discuss this in any seriousness when you make posts like that. 

Genuinely can't get my head around the anti renewables mindset. 

Even when you take out the climate impacts (we absolutely shouldn't but let's do it for a second). Its still objectively better for energy security, less reliant on the world market, less susceptible to external shocks or geopolitical events, better for air quality and cheaper. 

The only thing it's not better for is the profits of the fossil fuel industry. And obviously I'm aware of their riches, the power that brings, the influence over politicians and the media they have. But apply the smallest amount of critical thought and even if you were a climate change denier I still can't see how anyone other than a massive investor in fossil fuels would be against the transition. 

Yep.

The only arguments against renewables that I can see any kind of logic to are those based on vested interests I.e. investments/NIMBYs. 

Other than that, it's "just" emotional/illogical.

Oh... and I am finally realising that there is some kind of semi coherent conspiracy style thinking that a hazy global elite is manipulating everybody into believing that there is a climate crisis when there isn't. Their objective? To somehow enslave us all in the name of saving the world and instal harsh living conditions.  Oh.. and they also want to increase mass migration, but I forget why that is supposed to be happening as part of it all. I try and find reasons to take it seriously and give it a fair crack with an open mind...but... it just doesn't stack up. 

I know it's pointless trying to find any semblance of coherence of thought in conspiracy theories - they're rooted, after all, in the conclusion that anything you say to refute them is what 'they' (ie: the unseen controlling power) want you to say - but I've always found it especially lunatic to suggest that the Climate Change Cabal are lying about climate change to increase migration... When preventing man made climate change is the very thing that is likely to stem the immigration flow. 🤪

Air Busan Flight 391, an international passenger service operated by Air Busan, was scheduled to fly from Gimhae International Airport in Busan, South Korea, to Hong Kong International Airport. On January 28, 2025, the aircraft caught fire just before takeoff at Gimhae International Airport, leading to the evacuation of passengers and crew. 

The cause of the fire is suspected to be a battery that had been placed inside a carry-on bag in an overhead compartment. 

Batteries overheat.  Especially damaged ones.  How many times have we all seen someone drop a phone down a crack in the seats on an aircraft?  Or, while searching for a dropped phone, adjust their seat, crushing it? Or forgetting the phone or laptop or tablet or MP3 player and leaving it on-board?  

Thankfully all 176 passengers and crew survived, although there were seven injuries.  Imagine what might have happened if the fire hadn't started until after take-off.  

N01R4M said:

cantersaddick said:

swordfish said:

If people think the green transition is costing them, then perhaps they'll be open to other solutions. Here's one, but on balance, I think sticking to 'net zero' plans might prove cheaper. Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion | Live Science

Interesting Panorama last night with the debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government, being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?

I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc. 

Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.

I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.

We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. 
However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW
Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.

There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW.  (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023)  On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030.
Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030
Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published.
Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary/United Kingdom 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Nuclear power in the United Kingdom generated 16.1% of the,PWR)), producing 5.9 GWe.

This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer.  At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs.  Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/ 

Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here?  It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options. 

That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.