Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Climate Emergency

1…6364666869…79

Comments

  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    N01R4M said:
    swordfish said:
    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.

    Yes, the unit cost of under-sea turbines is currently high, as I'm sure were the costs of the initial experimental wind turbines.  At the moment they are only being produced in very small numbers to prove the concept is viable, does not cause wholesale massacre of fish & dolphins, can withstand the rough waters of the Pentland Firth, etc.  The costs are a classic chicken & egg situation.  There is zero economy of scale at present, it will need a big investment to change that, and investment is discouraged by the current high unit costs.  We need to replace bespoke "Rolls Royces" with mass-produced "Fords"!

    It would be interesting to know how the cost (and expected life) of 3.2 GW worth of mass produced tidal stream generators would compare with the total cost of building and decommissioning Hinkley Point C.  Nuclear is certainly not a cheap option when decommissioning is factored in.  

    Bearing in mind the aim to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 & make the UK carbon neutral by 2050, the demand for electricity is only going to grow.  As shown in my previous posts, along with grid capacity, the elephant in the room is that nuclear power will be pushed to maintain even its existing levels through to / beyond 2030.  On land, additional wind power will doubtless make a contribution, but it is far less productive per wind turbine than those out at sea.  I would prefer solar panels to be on the roofs of all suitable buildings, rather than covering farmer's fields.  Pump- storage hydro stations are a good way of storing excess energy for later instantaneous demand, but the total capacity is low, with geographically limited scope to build new schemes. 

    I feel we cannot afford to ignore any source of green energy, yet mention tidal energy and most people I know think only of the discredited tidal barrage schemes for Morecambe Bay and the Severn Estuary - they are unaware of the possibilities of tidal stream turbines.  Hopefully Ed Miliband is better informed, and not subject to any conflicts of interest.
    Completely agree. 

    One point about the bit in bold. It's got quite a lot of negative attention over the last year but there are a few misconceptions out there about it. First thing is this isn't a one or the other, solar vs farming choice there are plenty of examples of the 2 working well together with both animals and crops with minimal loss of farming capacity. There are even some benefits of the 2 working together in the same space - shade for animals to utilise on hot days, similarly helping prevent soil erosion and prevent crops for scorching in heat (requires some quite specific spacing). Probably a few other benefits I can't remember. 

    I have a friend (more acquaintance through cricket) who is a farmer (has taken over his dad's business) who has done them and its the most profitable part of his business. He's gradually covered every barn and chicken shed with them and now a couple of fields have them working in conjunction with the animals and crops. And before anyone accusing me of only having lefty friends - he votes reform, me and him had a disagreement on a WhatsApp chat about inheritance tax, he's pretty big in the protests against that and has appeared on GB news a few times about it! 


    Not saying there aren't better places for them - providing shade or cover over car parks, warehouses etc. But farmers shouldn't  be prevented or discouraged if they are on board.
  • N01R4M
    N01R4M
    @cantersaddick
    No one can blame your farmer friend for making the best of any legal financial opportunities open to him and I have seen examples of combining solar panels with grazing near where I live - as well as fields disappointingly devoted entirely to solar panels and weeds. The source of the situation of farmers struggling to make more income from food production than energy generation lies elsewhere, and I'm sure climate change plays a part.

    I firmly believe the country should strive where possible to be self-sufficient in basic foods as well as energy.  By all means import to extend short seasons or to bring in things like citrus fruits which we cannot grow commercially in the UK, but let's reduce food-miles (and carbon emissions) where possible.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    edited February 4
    N01R4M said:
    @cantersaddick
    No one can blame your farmer friend for making the best of any legal financial opportunities open to him and I have seen examples of combining solar panels with grazing near where I live - as well as fields disappointingly devoted entirely to solar panels and weeds. The source of the situation of farmers struggling to make more income from food production than energy generation lies elsewhere, and I'm sure climate change plays a part.

    I firmly believe the country should strive where possible to be self-sufficient in basic foods as well as energy.  By all means import to extend short seasons or to bring in things like citrus fruits which we cannot grow commercially in the UK, but let's reduce food-miles (and carbon emissions) where possible.
    Completely agree farming is important and also adfected by climate change but also a significant contributor to climate change (land use, monocultures, pesticides etc.). Don't want us to end up with a US like system with large corporations farms but we do need to find a way to invest in technology like hydroponics and vertical farming which can produce more food in less space. Farming (and our eating) needs to become part of the solution. More organic, insect corridors, promoting biodiversity. I don't want to mention the V word as I know some get triggered but moving our meat consumption per head nearer to what it was in 1970 would massively reduce land use for farming.

    Oligopoly power of supermarkets is the problem for farmers. 98% of the profit margin on food is made by them and only 2% left for farmers, distributors, processors to share.

    BTW solar and weeds in fields is actually great for bio diversity, the insects that pollinate the crops, soil quality etc. In the long run the farm and other local farms will benefit.
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive

    Polluted rivers of London.

    Live broadcast from city hall of the London Assembly Environment Committee investigation into the mayor's pledge for swimmable rivers. A ding dong between River Action and Thames Water is underway

    https://webcasts.london.gov.uk/Assembly/Event/Index/b522f4aa-2493-4dea-a57c-ec433c8e8d66
  • swordfish
    swordfish
    edited February 6
    So much for the effect of cleaner fuels being used if the theoretical explanation offered for January''s higher than forecast temperatures is true, that emitting less sulphur reduces how much sunlight clouds reflect.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-heat-record-january-us-weather-la-nina-b2693153.html

    We're comprehensively failing to prevent global warming and should be focusing more on the cure, drawing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentration.

    In addition to trying to lower our carbon footprint, I suggest planting more trees, ripping up plastic lawns and paving where possible, rewilding because we need a much bigger natural sponge.
  • Chippycafc
    Chippycafc
    Feargal Sharkey offers Thames Water boss £1,000 to drink from his own river - YouTube
  • swordfish
    swordfish
    Chippycafc said:
    Feargal Sharkey offers Thames Water boss £1,000 to drink from his own river - YouTube
    Not only is it full of all kinds of crap, the level must be rising too with the sea level rises, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    So if Feargal we're to go for a walk beside the Thames today, he'd soon discover that a good path these days is hard to find.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Rob
    Rob
    swordfish said:
    So much for the effect of cleaner fuels being used if the theoretical explanation offered for January''s higher than forecast temperatures is true, that emitting less sulphur reduces how much sunlight clouds reflect.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-heat-record-january-us-weather-la-nina-b2693153.html

    We're comprehensively failing to prevent global warming and should be focusing more on the cure, drawing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentration.

    In addition to trying to lower our carbon footprint, I suggest planting more trees, ripping up plastic lawns and paving where possible, rewilding because we need a much bigger natural sponge.
    That is the crux of the problems. We’ve destroyed too much of the rainforest. You’ve got to go some to replace/replenish that to the levels that are needed. 
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive
    Rob said:
    swordfish said:
    So much for the effect of cleaner fuels being used if the theoretical explanation offered for January''s higher than forecast temperatures is true, that emitting less sulphur reduces how much sunlight clouds reflect.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-heat-record-january-us-weather-la-nina-b2693153.html

    We're comprehensively failing to prevent global warming and should be focusing more on the cure, drawing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentration.

    In addition to trying to lower our carbon footprint, I suggest planting more trees, ripping up plastic lawns and paving where possible, rewilding because we need a much bigger natural sponge.
    That is the crux of the problems. We’ve destroyed too much of the rainforest. You’ve got to go some to replace/replenish that to the levels that are needed. 
    Regarding the need for the 'bigger natural sponge' - this is widely acknowledged to be vital as part of the carbon sink of course, i.e. soaking up and storing carbon to mitigate climatic shifts; but also for cooling, and as part of defences against flash flooding, particularly in urban areas. So more greening and blu-ing (grass/ trees/ restored rivers and waterways) and all the other benefits that can bring for biodiversity, human well-being, including health and recreation.

    Then i see my bill from Thames Water today (incidentally twice what the last bill was) and notice that they seem to have initiatives to promote channeling rainwater away from the sewer system. I hadn't known of this before. It should be exactly beneficial for expanding the sponge, in diverting more water away from sewers and into soakaways, groundwater and local channels.

    This is also potentially, highly relevant, in preventing run off to the sewer system where excess of rainwater is a cause of sewage outfall when the (Thames water 'maintained') system cannot cope. In central London postcodes the sewer and drainage systems are combined. In outer London we mostly have a drainage system separate to the sewers so are not the area that originates this particular sewer overflow problem. the Thames Tideway project (super-sewer) is online now and about to help greatly with this in respect of the Thames at least.

    But it is still a good thing to discourage the paving over of everything and local retention of rainwater. has anyone else heard of these initiatives by Thames Water and has anyone requested the rebate? Would also be interesting to know if similar schemes exist with other water companies outside of the Thames catchment;

    • "Could you save on your wastewater? You could save £xx.xx a year on your wastewater fixed charge (about 50% the wastewater charge on my bill)  if all the rainwater from your property drains into a soakaway, stream or river instead of our sewer. Find out more at https://thameswater.co.uk/swd
    • You could also make savings if more than 10% of the water you use doesn’t return to our sewer system. Find out more at https://thameswater.co.uk/abatement
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66
    Story today on the BBC news about sustainable dog food no less  to do something positive for the climate 

    https://www.doghouse.co.uk/blogs/doghouse/cultivated-meat-for-pets-legalised-in-the-uk-bbc-visits-doghouse?srsltid=AfmBOopIwEVg_cCaUuAqALXqwlPdprbTJCeHcKDazZ_QpZtqPrsrkENR

  • MrWalker
    MrWalker
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Rob said:
    swordfish said:
    So much for the effect of cleaner fuels being used if the theoretical explanation offered for January''s higher than forecast temperatures is true, that emitting less sulphur reduces how much sunlight clouds reflect.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/earth-heat-record-january-us-weather-la-nina-b2693153.html

    We're comprehensively failing to prevent global warming and should be focusing more on the cure, drawing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to reduce their concentration.

    In addition to trying to lower our carbon footprint, I suggest planting more trees, ripping up plastic lawns and paving where possible, rewilding because we need a much bigger natural sponge.
    That is the crux of the problems. We’ve destroyed too much of the rainforest. You’ve got to go some to replace/replenish that to the levels that are needed. 
    Massively accelerated by good old Bolsonaro. Cunt. 
    Plus meat eaters, soy consumers and population growth.

    So if you are vegetarian, eat meat or have children, you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

    BBC today claimed pets eat 30% of meat consumed in the UK. So add pet owners to the list.

    The sanctimonious amongst us go free.
  • letthegoodtimesroll
    letthegoodtimesroll
    And in the no shit Sherlock category, if it comes to between Green v Growth…


  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    letthegoodtimesroll said:
    And in the no shit Sherlock category, if it comes to between Green v Growth…


    It's not a choice of green vs growth though is it. There will be and already is massive green tech led economic growth around the world. We were well placed with our tech economy to be a leader in this. Unfortunately over the last 10 years UK givernments partly funded by the fossil fuel industry and worried about the threat from another party that's basically fully funded by the fossil fuel industry have cut and cut and cut anything even semi related to "green" including numerous research projects. I'll keep going on about the public private research into solid state batteries because its the one I know most about but there are so many like this. If they do what is expected solid state batteries could have been a UK based breakthrough with UK government owning a small share and sold worldwide. This could well have added 5%ppt to UK growth over 5-10 years. Instead that projects benefits will be to China. Many others have gone to South America. That is anti growth and anti green.

    Also that quote you've screenshotted is saying that oil and gas will be part of the mix while we transition. Which no one has disagreed with. That doesn't mean we need to be drilling for more and increasing the share of gas in that mix which is what you've been advocating for.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    Back in the real world.


  • MrWalker
    MrWalker

    Nothing but cuts?
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    MrWalker said:

    Nothing but cuts?
    You do realise that energy generation is a  completely separate thing from research into green tech right? 
  • Sponsored links:


  • MrWalker
    MrWalker
    cantersaddick said:
    MrWalker said:

    Nothing but cuts?
    You do realise that energy generation is a  completely separate thing from research into green tech right? 
    So they don’t go hand in hand then?
  • MrWalker
    MrWalker
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-race-to-net-zero-tracking-the-green-industrial-revolution-through-ip
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    edited February 7
    MrWalker said:
    cantersaddick said:
    MrWalker said:

    Nothing but cuts?
    You do realise that energy generation is a  completely separate thing from research into green tech right? 
    So they don’t go hand in hand then?
    Not really no. Most of the tech used currently and over the time period shown on that chart in green energy production has been around for decades. The research would mean future decarobisation would go hand in hand with the research yes.

    What I was talking about is research into new tech with some element of government funding/support which has pretty much all been cut over the last decade. Thay research is what is needed to bridge the gap between where we currently are and where we need to be. That the grid has continued to decarbonise at the same time is great but 2 points, it's using existing tech not the new tech that was being researched and its mostly driven by non-profits and the private sector not government support. So again yes its been cut.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    MrWalker said:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-race-to-net-zero-tracking-the-green-industrial-revolution-through-ip
    Again all about the private sector nothing to do with government cutting funding for research which was my point about driving future growth.
  • MrWalker
    MrWalker
    edited February 7
    Well I'm impressed the growth in all 10 sectors has been achieved despite a decade of cuts to research.
    It's almost unbelievable.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    MrWalker said:
    Well I'm impressed the growth in all 10 sectors has been achieved despite a decade of cuts to research.
    It's almost unbelievable.
    If you can't see how growth in use and takeup of existing tech is separate to funding research into new tech then I'm afraid I can't dumb it down any more for you. 
  • Chizz
    Chizz

  • MrWalker
    MrWalker

  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick
    MrWalker said:

    Yes again it's use of existing technology. It's a good thing that we are increasing this. But to link it back to my original point this is using old tech, that is mostly imported and the majority isn't govt funded/subsidised. It also doesn't do all that much to drive economic growth, it helps but most of the benefits go abroad. 

    We are doing relatively okay in the use/increase in existing tech but that doesn't mean we haven't been economically negligent over the last decade in cutting research funding for future technology that we need to actually hit net zero. There are so many missed opportunities both to make massive improvements in decarbobisation but also in owning the tech in the UK and therefore bringing economic growth as part of that. The investment embitonment set by governments over the last decade have had a big impact on that and their anti green attitude has massively driven this away. 

Categories

“Marketplace”

Sponsored links: