The Government's New Net Zero Strategy By 2050

[Climate Man]

1 hour ago, Wheezer said:

Ok , I'll play along .  I believe all the models all the assumptions,  and all the science of climate past and climate cycles  and natural variability has zero to do with our climate today. Our climate today is 100% do to societies of the past depending on fossil fuel and its products for survival and advancement and less hardship.  

So called net zero is achievable some day for sure , although it's ridiculous to put a date on it. The problem is the effects on societies and  people's lives under the current plans of governments to achieve that will never , never survive the upheaval and chaos when economies suffer severely  .  What good is a fossil free world , when that world will be in utter chaos.  Oh, and we would still have the same weather extremes we have now and have had for millions of years past.

Beginning to see the chaos already. Yep, nothing wrong with net zero but we are nowhere near, as a world population, ready for it. Those not acting could cause a huge split internationally with even war a possibility. 

 

[knocker]

7 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

If it were a true "weaning " I wouldn't have that view.  The Net zero plan in its infancy , in my assumption, which I think I should be allowed to have, is already manifesting or festering in current economies.  Higher energy prices have a trickle down effect on every single thing associated with our lives. Foods, goods, transportation, inflation etc. Governments can blame covid for only so long. 

So glad you brought up the 8 billion nonexistent human beings.  That has been one of my points since the religion was started, being that , that is the biggest change that has happened,  not the climate.  More people and better observational technology make the climate seem more impactful than before

I was quite prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but the phraseology of the highlighted section rather gives your stance away. I shall desist from further discussion.

[Wheezer]

Oh brother, i didn't know that was a disqualifyer , there are so many,  I won't use that bad word again.. I don't run when you call me climate denier

Edited October 25, 2021 by Wheezer

[Wheezer]

2 hours ago, jonboy said:

This is a lack of understanding of what net zero is. We are off course along way from being a fossil free world as you state simply because so many products as based on 'fossil products'. That does not mean we should aim to do away with fossil products but rather we should aim to be a non burner of fossil products to provide heat and energy. As knocker say's the benefits of less pollution and over reliance on one source should be a driver towards net zero if nothing else.

Many on here know my underlying views but that doesn't mean I don't agree with net zero targets and societies will not fall over if it is done properly.

To be honest, I don't think anyone understands the current net zero policies.   Of course we need to keep fossil fuel products.  But tell that to a certain percentage(97%) of the AGW crowd . The problem is we were well on our way in the science field of fossil fuel burning to wonderful new technologies.  Cleaner burning energy efficiency was on the fast track , Auto fuel efficiency would be soaring, but those fields and technology will be afraid to or feebly underfunded to move forward or completely abolished because thats the MO of 97% of AGWs

Edited October 25, 2021 by Wheezer

[Mixer 85]

A worrying aspect of the net zero persuit is it’s involvement and implementation by greedy politicians, big business and lobbyists. The vast levels of public investment will have this lot locking their lips. Blue hydrogen appears to be a major scam when you look into the bones of it. 

I’m not at all opposed to the idea of net zero but by the time the greedy vultures are finished there’ll be a fortune of public money spent and probably not a lot to show for it. As the saying goes….follow the money.

A reasonable place to start would probably be nuclear. It’s pricey, but you know what you’re getting in terms of reliability and output. Large scale offshore wind farms, perhaps  for green hydrogen production. This could make a big difference in the short to medium term whilst battery technology for the transport industry improves. 

[knocker]

7 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

A worrying aspect of the net zero persuit is it’s involvement and implementation by greedy politicians, big business and lobbyists. The vast levels of public investment will have this lot locking their lips. Blue hydrogen appears to be a major scam when you look into the bones of it. 

I’m not at all opposed to the idea of net zero but by the time the greedy vultures are finished there’ll be a fortune of public money spent and probably not a lot to show for it. As the saying goes….follow the money.

A reasonable place to start would probably be nuclear. It’s pricey, but you know what you’re getting in terms of reliability and output. Large scale offshore wind farms, perhaps  for green hydrogen production. This could make a big difference in the short to medium term whilst battery technology for the transport industry improves. 

A reasonable overview of the current position. But I think it worth noting that for many years lobbyists and vested interests of the fossil fuel industry held sway resulting in little serious attention being given to the threat of global warming. Thus policies  using alternate energy sources, that could have been implemented over a more practical time scale; were put on the back burner, resulting in the position we are in now. Added to that the anti nuclear lobby  ensured that a coherent nuclear policy was off the table. And the irony of all this is that until only a few years ago, Johnson and many of his yes men, were publicly global warming deniers.

[Wheezer]

France could reach net-zero emissions by 2050 if it continues to keep a large nuclear generation fleet in the long term and develop significantly renewable energy sources, the operator of the French grid, RTE, said in a report on Monday on the pathways to reaching carbon neutrality.

Nuclear power generates most of France’s electricity. France currently gets more than 70 percent of its total electricity from nuclear power generation and is a major exporter of electricity, including to the UK.

France cannot meet its goals by nuclear energy alone, or by renewables only, the grid operator said. The country will need 14 new nuclear reactors and a lot more renewable energy developments if it is to reach net-zero by 2050 at the cheapest cost, it added.  

be feasible if access to financing for nuclear power doesn’t differ from the ease of funding for other low-carbon technologies, the French grid operator said.

Earlier this month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that France aimed to become a leader in green hydrogen production and reinvent nuclear power by building a small modular reactor by 2030 as part of a wider $34.6 billion (30 billion euro) plan to decarbonize industry and slash emissions.

France’s bet on nuclear power—unlike Germany’s decision to phase out all nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster—has been vindicated in recent weeks as Europe’s natural gas and power prices hit record highs. The gas and electricity crisis clashed with the net-zero pledges of the European Union and the United Kingdom as some utilities were forced to fire up mothballed coal plants as natural gas prices surged.

[Climate Man]

For me there are two major issues. Let's put aside climate for a second.

I can't see Russia,  China, India, or one or two others coming to the party. Instead I see them capitalising on cheaper carbon based products at the expense of  the economies of the west.  Hand in hand with this goes military expansion against our electric tanks.  When we discover we still need some carbon based fuel we will have to go cap in hand - entirely at their mercy.

If the public realised the true cost of Net Zero from a financial  point of view I am guessing many would sooner take their chances with the climate. 

Not saying there is no problem with climate or really with Net Zero but an panicked rush could spell a bigger disaster. 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Climate Man

[4wd]

There's quite a push to demand a referendum on the whole legitimacy of our supposed commitment to net zero by a set date, if it succeeds I know what the result will be because it has simply been railroaded through with almost no debate or consideration of the consequences - which will be quite simply devastating for this country.

The costs are simply not affordable, many of the required changes involve technology (e.g. Hydrogen) which isn't anywhere near ready to implement yet - and above all after spending countless trillions - surprise surprise the weather won't be changed to whatever they imagine it ought to be.
Not least because major emitters will emit more CO2 attempting to supply the world with products we will also have to import having shut ourselves down

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

There is of course another vitally important consideration here in terms of the 'costs' i.e. economic damage of racing to a low carbon world - there is much evidence that whatever we do the world is headed for a huge economic 'shock' (to put it mildly). A quick illustration - 20 years ago the energy required to extract and refine oil was 10% of the output, i.e. for every ten barrels extracted the equivalent of one barrel was used up to get those ten barrels; that figure is now 25%, so for every four barrels extracted one is used up just getting the four, and this is predicted to deteriorate over the next twenty to thirty years to the point where we will be expending as much energy extracting and refining as energy generated. It doesn't take a genius to work out what effect that will have on the global economy......... This isn't about 'peak oil', we're not talking about supply drying up, that won't happen, it's about the economic viability of the process of utilisation of a particular energy source.

So, there is in fact an entirely economic reason to get off our fossil fuel reliance asap, as the cost of failing to do so, even without climate change, is going to make the apparent costs of that transition seem inconsequential.

Here's a link to one article, which includes links to some very detailed academic research:

Oil System Collapsing so Fast it May Derail Renewables, Warn French Government Scientists – Byline Times

BYLINETIMES.COM

---

Forget ‘peak oil’. Nafeez Ahmed reveals how the oil and gas industries are cannibalising themselves as the costs of fossil fuel extraction mount

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

[Wheezer]

Do we know the cost of renewables and their future cost?  Seems that calculating these figures(for both) would be at the very least complicated , with estimates fluctuating wildly. Factors such as salaries,taxes, SUBSIDIES,  to name a few.  How the energies are delivered to the source or rather the calculations  for that would be incredibly complex with one small tweak creating rather noticeable outcomes.  Numbers continue to get thrown out as absolute when it is no such thing.

 

And why not more shale and offshore drilling since these are more efficient, going forward during the so called "weaning process"

[Climate Man]

28 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

Do we know the cost of renewables and their future cost?  Seems that calculating these figures(for both) would be at the very least complicated , with estimates fluctuating wildly. Factors such as salaries,taxes, SUBSIDIES,  to name a few.  How the energies are delivered to the source or rather the calculations  for that would be incredibly complex with one small tweak creating rather noticeable outcomes.  Numbers continue to get thrown out as absolute when it is no such thing.

 

And why not more shale and offshore drilling since these are more efficient, going forward during the so called "weaning process"

If we had continued with shale we may have been self sufficient by now and making large profits from export.  No current energy shock.  A win for the green lobby but a huge issue for the public at large.

[Gowon]

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction

WWW.MSN.COM

---

There is a myth about human beings that withstands all evidence. It’s that we always put our survival first. This is true of other species. When confronted by an impending threat, such as winter, they invest great...

 

[Climate Man]

2 hours ago, D.V.R said:

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction

WWW.MSN.COM

---

There is a myth about human beings that withstands all evidence. It’s that we always put our survival first. This is true of other species. When confronted by an impending threat, such as winter, they invest great...

 

We are part of nature just like the other species on the planet.  Most put themselves first. We know that destruction of others is bad but our natural instinct is not this.  Hence there is is always a subconscious battle.

[Wheezer]

3 hours ago, D.V.R said:

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction

WWW.MSN.COM

---

There is a myth about human beings that withstands all evidence. It’s that we always put our survival first. This is true of other species. When confronted by an impending threat, such as winter, they invest great...

 

The author dusted off an oldie. Before fossil fuels became the golden child and sole reason for all of humanities woes, capitalism was the de facto default excuse used.  

[Gowon]

1 hour ago, Climate Man said:

We are part of nature just like the other species on the planet.  Most put themselves first. We know that destruction of others is bad but our natural instinct is not this.  Hence there is is always a subconscious battle.

Because it's the way we have  been conditioned.

The paragraph near end of the article sums it up:

In consenting to the continued destruction of our life-support systems, we accommodate the desires of the ultra-rich and the powerful corporations they control. By remaining trapped in the surface film, absorbed in frivolity and MCB, we grant them a social licence to operate.

[Derecho]

18 hours ago, Climate Man said:

If we had continued with shale we may have been self sufficient by now and making large profits from export.  No current energy shock.  A win for the green lobby but a huge issue for the public at large.

Transitions to new energy sources are always going to have a few bumps along the way but the net effect is something better in the long run. We need to transition away from fossil fuels, it is as simple as that. Those trying to say it will cause an economic collapse, well it may happen to countries who rely on fossil fuels hugely for their economy (not a good way to be, look at Venezuela) however to be sustainable in the long run we need better energy sources.

The economy is heading for a huge collapse at some point anyway so what difference does it make? (I'm pro capitalist but reform is needed).

We can't just carry on in the same way but some members on here just think we can carry on the same way and everything will be brilliant. However inaction on climate change is playing a game of Russian roulette, with the way things are now why take that risk unabated? 

The 'everyday Joe' thought covid was health and safety gone mad back in February 2020 but it gave a lesson. Yet the everyday Joe is convinced to hate scientists. Being a scientist is a lose-lose profession.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Wheezer]

Data obtained from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the official advisory body, following a legal battle, shows that a series of assumptions underpinning its advice to ministers included a projection that in 2050 there would be just seven days on which wind turbines would produce less than 10 per cent of their potential electricity output. So far this year, there have already been 65 such days, and in 2016 there were as many as 78.

On Saturday night the disclosure prompted questions over the accuracy of the CCC’s claims in 2019 about the feasibility of meeting a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Ministers rely heavily on the CCC’s advice and modelling, and last week its chief executive, Chris Stark heralded Boris Johnson’s new Net Zero Strategy as "largely mirroring the CCC advice".

It comes as an analysis by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank warns that the "quality of the CCC’s advice is questionable", particularly in relation to the 2050 target adopted by Theresa May in 2019.

"[The CCC] advised that this target was feasible but refused to disclose the calculations on which its costs figures were based, and it became clear that the scale of the challenge of net zero was not well understood when the target was passed into law," states the report, which is published today. The IEA report also accuses the body of having expanded an initial remit as an independent advisory body delivering balanced advice, to becoming a "pressure group".

[Captain Shortwave]

The problem with the economic argument to opposing a transition to cleaner, renewable source, is that the problems won’t magically go away and the longer we wait, the more expensive not only transitioning will be, but also the status quo will only get more expensive as certain resources get more and more scarce.

Some of the comments on here are quite difficult to stomach for me because it gives the impression that at the end of the day the system is essentially rigged so that the majority are always going to lose and secondly that a very long and drawn out operata from the fat lady might have already begun.

[Derecho]

14 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

Data obtained from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the official advisory body, following a legal battle, shows that a series of assumptions underpinning its advice to ministers included a projection that in 2050 there would be just seven days on which wind turbines would produce less than 10 per cent of their potential electricity output. So far this year, there have already been 65 such days, and in 2016 there were as many as 78.

Bear in mind 2016 had less wind turbines and 2021 has been one of the least windiest year on record, so not really a valid comparison. We can't just say specifically what 2050 will be like in terms of wind, only that under their plans the average would be 7 percent. Also provide a link to sources, the IEA is a right-wing think tank so there are going to be fossil fuel lobbyists with vested interests trying to undermine transitions to better technologies.

[Wheezer]

28 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Bear in mind 2016 had less wind turbines and 2021 has been one of the least windiest year on record, so not really a valid comparison. We can't just say specifically what 2050 will be like in terms of wind, only that under their plans the average would be 7 percent. Also provide a link to sources, the IEA is a right-wing think tank so there are going to be fossil fuel lobbyists with vested interests trying to undermine transitions to better technologies.

[Derecho]

3 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

Is that really a surprise? That's why energy storage is needed to cover less windy days but the IEA are just going to publish that anyway as a way of undermining the transition, lobbyists know they are fighting a losing battle.

[Wheezer]

3 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Is that really a surprise? That's why energy storage is needed to cover less windy days but the IEA are just going to publish that anyway as a way of undermining the transition, lobbyists know they are fighting a losing battle.

Not a bit surprising to either of us , but seems to be for governments 

[Climate Man]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Transitions to new energy sources are always going to have a few bumps along the way but the net effect is something better in the long run. We need to transition away from fossil fuels, it is as simple as that. Those trying to say it will cause an economic collapse, well it may happen to countries who rely on fossil fuels hugely for their economy (not a good way to be, look at Venezuela) however to be sustainable in the long run we need better energy sources.

The economy is heading for a huge collapse at some point anyway so what difference does it make? (I'm pro capitalist but reform is needed).

We can't just carry on in the same way but some members on here just think we can carry on the same way and everything will be brilliant. However inaction on climate change is playing a game of Russian roulette, with the way things are now why take that risk unabated? 

The 'everyday Joe' thought covid was health and safety gone mad back in February 2020 but it gave a lesson. Yet the everyday Joe is convinced to hate scientists. Being a scientist is a lose-lose profession.

My point is that if 70% of carbon emissions are not reduced as those countries don't join in, setting an example is pointless.  These countries will grow rich whilst our economy tanks.  Once the west is broken they others can transition.  Thus this only works the majority comply.

[Derecho]

2 minutes ago, Climate Man said:

My point is that if 70% of carbon emissions are not reduced as those countries don't join in, setting an example is pointless.  These countries will grow rich whilst our economy tanks.  Once the west is broken they others can transition.  Thus this only works the majority comply.

Not if the benefits of new technologies outweigh the old and we reallign our economy towards something better long term. Like I said our economy is doomed the way things are anyway. Change the fundamentals of the economy however and other things will change.

You're assuming fossil fuels equate to automatic wealth which isn't true. Just because that is where the money has flowed in the past doesn't mean that's where it will in the future. Are we really held to ransom by a few fossil fuel overlords?