UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: spidermonkey09 on March 14, 2024, 12:08:53 pm
-
https://calderdalewind.co.uk/
https://www.stopcalderdalewindfarm.co.uk/
I've been keeping a vague eye on this as it bubbles away. I'm finding it very hard to work out to what extent local opposition to this proposed wind farm is straightforward NIMBYism and how much of it would be classified as fair comment. I'd be interested in what insight people can add. I'm always deeply cynical of local opposition groups which say 'i support renewables/nuclear/new housing, just not here, where I happen to live' because that is the standard NIMBY calling card and lack of investment in pretty much anything infrstructure based is the biggest issue in the UK right now I think.
As far as I can see, the proposed wind farm is very big but not sure how size would affect much; if there is a wind farm of any sort there the view is obviously changed, and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure development. Its also Saudi backed; I would prefer all UK infrastructure to be state owned but that appears politically unlikely right now so I can't get too bent out of shape about foreign ownership.
Basically, help me out UKB! I'm willing to be open minded on it bit I am predisposed to be in favour of renewable infrastructure projects even if they aren't perfect.
-
Will be interesting to see how they get the windmill bits up there. Access from either side would be quite exciting.
Also be interesting to see more about the impact on flooding claimed.
-
I love how on the opposition page they state they will be way bigger than Blackpool tower. They wont be.
-
Is that a can containing worms I hear being opened?! :P
and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure
OK, a hypothetical. On that principle of 'not accepting spoiling the view being a reason to avoid infrastructure'. How would you feel if the infrastructure spoiling the view were, say, a modern open pit nickel mine instead of a wind farm? To directly provide the nickel for battery storage; or an open pit copper mine to provide the copper for electricity generation? In both cases using modern best-practise for tailings storage and other environmental protections being adhered to (no huge mine pollution disaster scenario envisaged)? Would you still not mind that spoiling the view? If you would, then it's not infrastructure per se it's 'particular infrastructure' i.e. a windfarm.
Not a dig at all btw. I think if you can honestly say you wouldn't mind the view being spoiled by an open pit mine, then you're likely in a small minority. That's one of the issues at the heart of the current pickle that Europe/UK finds itself in around energy security and building industrial infrastructure.
Personally, I'd be strongly against a windfarm going up on the hills and mountains around me (national park, hopefully it wouldn't happen), purely on nimby/aesthetic grounds. While I completely accept how hypocritical I am by feeling that way. It saddens me to see the huge concrete block of Trawsfynnyd nuclear power just sitting there not producing anything just sitting gathering dust like a big hulk of brutalist architecture smack bang in the middle of one of the nicest, quietest bits (the Rhinogs) of a beautiful mountainous area. But again I'm a total hypocrite for feeling that.
I do wonder if when you examine the lifespan of onshore wind farms (25-30 yrs? I dunno?), the # of Kwh's produced, and the visual impact they have on the wild landscapes loved by the people who visit and (unlike offshore wind) live around them; and compare versus the technical progress that's going to take place in other technology over the same timescale (small nuclear, battery, remote solar - e.g. N.Africa solar farms cabled vast distances to UK/Europe) whether it makes sense to create that visual impact. But then the wind farms could be dismantled, so maybe it's a nothing argument for the sake of 30 years of having to put up with it.
Within 25 years, will onshore wind really be essential to smooth running of the national grid? Maybe they still will be. Or by then will we have something better for generation with far less visual impact on wild areas? If it's likely we'll have progressed, then I don't see that it's worth the short term impact versus just having another gas turbine or two. The carbon difference is inconsequential in reality, if not politically/ideologically.
-
edit: can't be bothered arguing online
-
I love how on the opposition page they state they will be way bigger than Blackpool tower. They wont be.
Why? The proposal is for 150-200m. Assuming you think they'll be reduced under the EIA?
I see the Walshaw Moor estate will stop grouse shooting if it goes ahead. They've been under a lot of pressure for poor management over the years, makes you wonder why this site was chosen. Of course the cunt landowner wins either way.
Re: spoiling the view, this is one of the nicest bits of the South Pennines, and close to a lot of people. There are plenty of areas in the Yorkshire dales I'd value less, although they're more protected.
It's difficult. The temperature stats for the last 12 months are absolutely terrifying. The sensible response is probably a moratorium on a lot of travel, but I don't see much sign of that. The techno fixes are too far away.
-
I love how on the opposition page they state they will be way bigger than Blackpool tower. They wont be.
Why? The proposal is for 150-200m. Assuming you think they'll be reduced under the EIA?
They just dont need to be that height onshore. Even the biggest offshore ones are only getting to that height.
-
and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure development.
Reminds me of this great piece of writing by John Ruskin about the Monsal Dale Viaduct which is now considered a lovely and historic piece of the scenery:
"There was a rocky valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time, divine as the Vale of Tempe… You Enterprised a Railroad through the valley – you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale into its lovely stream. The valley is gone, and the Gods with it; and now, every fool in Buxton can be in Bakewell in half an hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process of exchange – you Fools everywhere."
-
It's difficult. The temperature stats for the last 12 months are absolutely terrifying. The sensible response is probably a moratorium on a lot of travel, but I don't see much sign of that. The techno fixes are too far away.
I'd choose a moratorium on bitcoin mining before travel JB.
Supply stagnates, price rockets, no more energy used. Win-win :P
-
Will respond more later, but I find Pete's argument hugely unconvincing! Waiting 25 years in case something better comes along is a terrible plan
-
If that was my argument I'd find it unconvincing myself!
That isn't my argument ::)
I'm not making a strong argument - relax I know it's the internet and ukb but not everything has to be an argument. I'm questioning the idea, implied in your post, that onshore wind - a generation tech which pisses off a great many people on aesthetic grounds due to the natural landscapes involved but is low carbon - is an essential contributor to the national grid for it to a; run smoothly without overload and b; prevent global warming due to reducing emissions of CO2e. In the context of what else we can do and how that balances against costs - social, loss of local goodwill, and otherwise.
Bit more nuanced. But that's not entertaining.
-
Is that a can containing worms I hear being opened?! :P
I hope so! :worms:
Re your hypothetical, good question. I found myself similarly conflicted over the Lake District coal mine. Ultimately I concluded that the reason I was instinctively against it was because it was in the Lake District, (if Cockermouth counts as the Lake District...) rather than because I was adhering to a maximalist 'no more coal ever' philosophy. If I accept the reality that we need coal for steel, then its a question of whether I think all that coal should be imported or whether it would be good to provide some internally. As such I am tentatively ok with the coal mine being approved now, although its taken a while. I suspect I'd eventually arrive at the same conclusion re your hypothetical nickel/copper mine, even if the thought of it does make me suck my teeth a bit! In both cases I'd be a lot happier if the infrastructure was state owned rather than private. I do also think that wind farms don't spoil the view at all, although thats obviously an aesthetic choice. I live very close to the wind farm at Scout Moor and I really like looking at them and walking the dog up there.
Re the opposition, all big infrastructure is unpopular, completely hypocritically and illogically so. The list is absolutely endless. The wind farm mentioned above was hugely unpopular initially (andy _e might remember!). My mum is against Sizewell C in Suffolk despite having benfitted from the construction of Sizewell B the last 20 years she has lived in Suffolk :slap: Even the Channel Tunnel was unpopular when it was proposed. I am definitely becoming more and more of a YIMBY because I am sick of the complete absence of development in the UK. The litmus test of this is that I would support plans to build houses on the green field behind my house, because as we all know its impossible to meet our housing needs by only building on brownfield sites, despite what politicians continue to imply. Starmer has come the closest to acknowledging this reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLHfjNTldQ&t=9s
I really rated this video if anyone is interested. Ignore the wideboyz esque clickbait thumbnail...
I'd also be interested in your view andy if you can summon the energy!
-
It's a good point you make about 'getting used to windfarms and now quite like seeing it'. I think people adapt and get used to a lot which at first can seem a threat. Natural instinct to dislike big changes, in anything.
I think I'm probably a bit biased from seeing how they plonked the huge Trawsfynydd concrete block right in the middle of the beautiful mountains I love. And it was only producing electricity for 26 years! So wasteful. Bit like the75-90% waste involved in digging up the mountains next to where I live for the slate. But I can see how I could get used to a windfarm and stop being bothered by it. Like I say I wonder about necessity in the big picture - AI datacentres alone use as much elec as Japan, BTC* also small country-scale, unnecessarily large cars, loads of other wasteful inefficiencies in the current system - versus the costs involve in building stuff that directly impacts on people, like onshore wind. I do think we're going down the road of pouring more electricity into a system of ever-growing demand to feed some v.questionable needs.
* I add gold mining into the same 'bonkers and wasteful' category. To use massive amounts of energy to dig out a gram of something we don't need except to be able to say that we own it and it's rare.
-
I do think we're going down the road of pouring more electricity into a system of ever-growing demand to feed some v.questionable needs.
I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.' Wouldn't the state directly mandating what is and isn't a necessary need run fairly counter to your generally liberal instincts as well? It wouldn't run particularly counter to mine but then again thats my inner authoritarian speaking! ;D
-
I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.'
Oh yeah totally. I'm not someone who believes we as individuals or even large groups of individuals can change much about that aspect of civilisation on a global scale. And I don't believe behaviour to do with energy use/demand scales up from the small scale - I think it probably needs to come from above. lAlso I've worked in and seen too many places such as Fort McMurray to not be a realist on energy demand/energy production and what we do to sustain lifestyles.
Wouldn't the state directly mandating what is and isn't a necessary need run fairly counter to your generally liberal instincts as well? It wouldn't run particularly counter to mine but then again thats my inner authoritarian speaking! ;D
Probably a bit, but I think I'm pretty sensible when it comes to energy use/energy conservation - I just naturally don't like waste and inefficiency! For e.g. I'm not too far off net zero energy use at my place, large 6.67kwp solar on the roof and good storage. More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.
-
I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.'
Oh yeah totally. I'm not someone who believes we as individuals or even large groups of individuals can change much about that aspect of civilisation on a global scale.
I took a lot of hope from the pandemic. In a lot of places sanctions were led by the general population en masse, often followed reluctantly by a dithering government. Whether climate will always move so slowly as to avoid similar panic, we'll see. Plus the changes in behaviours will need to be more or less permanent, although, as in the pandemic, we can probably ease into them by convincing ourselves it won't be for ever.
I'm not too far off net zero energy use at my place, large 6.67kwp solar on the roof and good storage. More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.
Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.
-
If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about:
(https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/2402%20CB/PR_fig4_timeseries_era5_sst_daily_60S-60N_1979-2024.png)
We're currently about 4 sigma above the average over the last 40 years.
Although comparing climate and weather is always risky, I doubt it is a coincidence that the last 18 months are the wettest England has ever experienced.
-
JB- what I don't get is that despite the temp rise you point out you don't seem to be in support of the project (apologies if wrong). If the situation is that bad surely we need ambitious projects like this? Thats not a dig :)
-
I’m absolutely in support of wind power.
Just sticks in the craw a bit when it’s going to make a grouse moor owner with a terrible record even more stinking rich, when I suspect there may be better locations not too far away. But that’s England for you I suppose.
-
Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.
It's certainly understood by me. I've been tracking the storms and rainfall and notice the extremes - I noticed how close the UK was in January to catching the 130mph+ hurricane 'Ingunn' that hit Norway and only by chance very narrowly missed us - pretty much unmentioned in the UK media.. it was about 3-4 days after worst of the winter storms that did actually hit us. Would have been devastating, and appears only a matter of time before we get one like that*.
You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.
* onshore wind turbines.. :-\
-
Not that i know anything about wind farms or energy production, but when i see the turbines dotted around my parents in SW Cumbria, I’m always in awe of how we can use our natural landscape to produce power. I think there are quite beautiful (though haven’t seen a huge concentration of them except for offshore farms).
If they impacted on someone’s peace, such as hearing them from their house, then i wouldn’t agree with the location. But otherwise i think they are great!
-
You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.
More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.
I thought that was a strange statement. I’ve not done a thorough audit of my footprint but I confident it’s below average for the Uk. Appreciate some signalling across the population would be involved driving societal change, but still, strange to me to suggest that’s what it’s about vs living a self-examined life. Simply curbing excesses would count for a lot.
-
If they impacted on someone’s peace, such as hearing them from their house, then i wouldn’t agree with the location. But otherwise i think they are great!
All infrastructure that we need for modern society to function impacts on peoples peace. Train lines, motorways, factories, power stations, electricity pylons, water treatment plants, substations...
Its all a question of what impact is acceptable, because infrastructure investment guarantees impact. I imagine you'd be able to hear this proposed wind farm from a very small number of houses up on the moor. Personally not convinced I'd cancel a project for that!
-
Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.
It's certainly understood by me. I've been tracking the storms and rainfall and notice the extremes - I noticed how close the UK was in January to catching the 130mph+ hurricane 'Ingunn' that hit Norway and only by chance very narrowly missed us - pretty much unmentioned in the UK media.. it was about 3-4 days after worst of the winter storms that did actually hit us. Would have been devastating, and appears only a matter of time before we get one like that*.
You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.
* onshore wind turbines.. :-\
Obviously climate change is a big part but hasn’t the El Niño event in 2023 also been a big driver in temperature rises into 2024 too? I’m assuming that’s what’s causing the water surface temp rises, correct me if I’m wrong though!
-
It's the 'my conscience' bit I was puzzled by. I'm less puzzled now you've said that you believe this:
'Simply curbing excesses would count for a lot'
We don't agree. Firstly the word 'simply' shouldn't appear in the same sentence as 'curbing excesses' when talking about energy use on a scale that's meaningful in global terms. Secondly I don't think they (individual actions) would 'count for a lot'. It needs engineering and top down change* imo. Based on that, I questioned where your 'conscience' comes into it, because using the word conscience implies you believe you can make choices that will make a meaningful difference - and being that I believe you aren't doing anything (because you can't) that will have any meaningful impact whatsoever, conscience doesn't come into it. I'd like to not make my tiny part of the world any worse for future generations (would hope better), but my individual choices around carbon emissions don't factor into that because the scale involved, even scaled up within realistic bounds, is inconsequential to the global issue of carbon emissions.
* for e.g. everyone being made (not politely encouraged) and paid to insulate, put up solar/wind, change to smaller vehicles, pay a realistic carbon tax on manufacturing from China (or anywhere else) so that people in the west are fully aware of the upstream reality of the stuff they buy, etc.
-
It needs both. Ultimately the population is composed only of individuals, the other entities are legal fictions, controlled by individuals. Change must come from them, because it can’t come from anywhere else.
Carlos, there was a massive (I.e. bigger) El Niño in 2015-6. Less than a decade ago. It didn’t put us out of ‘ordinary’ bounds. There has also been a big volcanic eruption, and some changes in shipping emissions. Hopefully they’ve all added up for a freak year. Or we’re entering a powerful feedback loop, the feared tipping point. Another 12 months and we’ll know.
-
If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about:
(https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/2402%20CB/PR_fig4_timeseries_era5_sst_daily_60S-60N_1979-2024.png)
We're currently about 4 sigma above the average over the last 40 years.
Although comparing climate and weather is always risky, I doubt it is a coincidence that the last 18 months are the wettest England has ever experienced.
Well that’s a terrifying graph!
-
Genuine question for those who know.
Is onshore wind not a quick and easy fix to electricity production that is also pretty temporary. If we come up with a better way in the future they can be just removed and the land put back to how it was with very little long term damage.
Or is this not true.
I don't mind them and wont ever sign a petition against them, can see the big Middle moor ones from my house. I can live with a bit of visual pollution for the greater good, if the top of stanage was proved to be the best site for them i wouldnt object.
-
Genuine question for those who know.
Is onshore wind not a quick and easy fix to electricity production that is also pretty temporary. If we come up with a better way in the future they can be just removed and the land put back to how it was with very little long term damage.
Or is this not true.
100%. The only lasting negative visual impacts are the roads, which can take many years to blend in again, oh, and siting them on deep peat - that should just be banned really! (it's becoming economically unviable anyway as it's such a pain the hoop to build on anyway.
Foundations, buildings, cables, buildings etc. all pretty easily removable and land reinstated. I'm working on various life extension and decommissioning projects at present.
It's nigh on impossible to get planning consent in England, and now the government has gone and put a surcharge on remote sites to pay for the infrastructure (fine) but also to encourage, via pricing signals, more development in the areas where....nimby's block them.
Offshore is clearly easier to digest, but it's most expensive, more dangerous, and quite a bit less carbon-saving (all those ships for survey, install, O&M).
We considering rooftop solar, but instead are looking to get in on the next round with Ripple - there you buy a chunk of the solar/wind farm and get fixed bills forever - without having to faff around with panels, maintenance, installs etc. (we're a block of 3 flats, so it would be complex).
-
Im no expert but broadly speaking yes, I’d agree. The main thing for me is they are proven technology that can be implemented now.
However some of the uplands targeted are among the small percentage of the country that hasn’t been developed before. Some of that is ecologically valuable, can’t simply be restored and I think it’s reasonable to think carefully before whacking them anywhere.
With so much of the country in private ownership, you’re also at the whims of individuals rather than being able to take a broader overview of where might be best. Planning obviously gives some control, but is purely reactive when a proactive approach would be better.
-
Additional thought. What do you think the grandchildren and great grandchildren will be more appreciative of - a nice view, or a functioning renewable energy system and hopefully a functioning ecological system,
If all is well, and the planet doesn't tip into disaster - they can always remove them and reinstate the land. They can then appreciate the nice view.
Pete - your mine analogy is a bit false - you can't reinstate an open pit mine.
And yes, JB, places of true ecological value should be protected.
Oh, and onshore they are can be up to 200m tip height, 250m+ offshore. Commonly 149.9m tip height onshore as it saves a load of hassle with radar etc. as far as I remember (I don't work in development)
-
Offshore is clearly easier to digest, but it's most expensive, more dangerous, and quite a bit less carbon-saving (all those ships for survey, install, O&M).
You're the windpower expert so I'm keen to learn.
To me, almost anything that displaces fossil fuels and eventually leads to more carbon being left in the ground seems a good thing so I'm in support of this Calderdale windfarm.
Looking more long term, my impression was that as we get ever higher penetration of renewables into the generation mix it will become ever more important to have generation that keeps working on the least windy days. Floating wind farms in exceptionally windy parts of the sea look to be great for that.https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
I'm totally in agreement with Pete's point about the need for mines. The proposed lithium mine in Serbia (for instance) really needs to go ahead IMO.
About the metallurgical coal mine in Cumbria that SpiderMonkey mentioned -don't we need to be investing in using hydrogen etc for reducing iron ore rather than in carrying on with high emitting steel production methods? I know steel is needed now (not least for windfarms etc) but we have to transition steel making technology ASAP too.
I also agree with the need for rapid build out of nuclear. Our failure on that is a travesty. It is so shameful considering how France and Sweden were able to build zero-carbon electricity grids 40years ago and only took 15years or so to do so.
Above all, I concur with everyone who has been saying how we all need to be consuming less crap. I'd be all for setting mandates on stuff such as fuel efficiency etc. There are a lot of private jet flights in the UK -shouldn't be happening IMO. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/uk-is-worst-private-jet-polluter-in-europe-study-finds
-
Carlos, there was a massive (I.e. bigger) El Niño in 2015-6. Less than a decade ago. It didn’t put us out of ‘ordinary’ bounds. There has also been a big volcanic eruption, and some changes in shipping emissions. Hopefully they’ve all added up for a freak year. Or we’re entering a powerful feedback loop, the feared tipping point. Another 12 months and we’ll know.
Makes sense and yeah the feedback loop is terrifying, once that permafrost is gone the leaking of methane is pretty much guaranteed we are so fucked. Truly terrifying… let’s hope it’s a blip like you say :(
-
Given the numbers going in offshore, do we really need onshore ones too? From my window I can see the 114 already in place for Seagreen on the horizon. https://www.sserenewables.com/offshore-wind/operational-wind-farms/seagreen/ with Berwick Bank and Marr Bank soon following.
Or is demand just going to hike as more people switch? Sad thing is it doesn't matter much what we do in the UK, there is a big island across the way full of people who don't even believe in climate change, and it looks like they may just be reloading to shoot themselves in the other foot. MADA.
-
My view is that we all have to go all in at avoiding climate change. That is our only hope. We may fail because people elsewhere continue to emit lots, but if we don't try then we certainly fail. In the UK we have plenty of the World's worst emitters (the private jet, super yacht massive). Just normal UK people like me are up there on a global scale of who is emitting the most. As a nation, we are making a political decision to not address this. If we were to turn that around, it could inspire the rest of the world.
-
Just a dope on a rope but have spent 18 years in the energy sector, so I get a slightly different view than than average and have the same personal interest as any of you. I’ve worked coal, oil and gas and wind for extended periods of time.
Wind has its issues, the turbines fault out regularly (usually software, which is often a quick fix but mechanically too), they don’t produce a lot of power per unit and obviously are really variable in production. Generally the number of turbines required is double the max power production for the contracted power supply. E.g. if 100 turbines at max production generate the agreed upon power you will have to build 200 to allow for inconsistent production.
The positives of wind is that it can be expanded quickly, cheaply (relatively speaking) and incrementally. This is pretty important due to availability of funding and the disconnect between/differing interests of for profit corporations and governments.
A wind turbine costs between approx 2 and 10 million, which while a lot of money is relatively small compared to something like hydro or tidal (which would run into the billions). This allows renewable energy to slowly expand at the rate of available funding be it private or public.
The negative side of this is it allows the for profit entities to just expand incrementally just enough to keep in line with changing regulations. I’m in the US so (like with many things) a couple of steps behind Europe but I’m sure the underlying pattern is the same.
For profit entities are not dynamic or interested in the greater good as much as keeping shareholders happy. They knock up another wind farm while band aiding their existing non renewable facilities together waiting to see which direction energy production will take. Most existing infrastructure is well past its obsolescence date, upgraded only in the emission scrubbing to comply with regulation. This is one reason why countries such as China have far better fossil fuel technology. The big disconnect being that a lot of energy production research is heavily dependent on public money and not always in conjunction with the corporations that would ultimately have to implement it on a for profit basis.
As far as the bigger renewable picture goes there are quite a few options Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Wind, Solar. Most of these have variable production (and to a lesser degree huge upfront costs). This leads to a whole other problem, The Energy Grid. In order to allow for variable production (especially with the potential for increased demand from EVs) the Grid needs to contain an element of energy storage. This is again a huge upfront cost (how and who pays it?) and the current technology (and R+D funding) is behind where we need it to be to transition on mass to 100% renewables.
Obviously power production is one large piece of the puzzle along with transit. I’m yet to be convinced that EVs are scalable to even all of the passenger car market (aforementioned mining expansion, charging infrastructure, increased demands on the Grid) let alone air, shipping, freight, agricultural and plant.
The transit industry for me shares the same issues with the interests of corporations and the people/governments not being aligned. Solid state batteries will hopefully have a big impact but I’m not sure EVs are anything but a short term solution. Meanwhile who is working on the long term solution?
-
Ferret, my Dunning–Kruger style solution to intermittency would be to have loads of predominantly offshore wind (eg 150GW nameplate capacity for the UK), together with about 30GW of traditional normal nuclear (eg boiling water reactors as in https://euanmearns.com/the-hitachi-advanced-boiling-water-reactor/ ) and a massive liquid-air-energy-storage system in tandem with the nuclear. The waste heat from the nuclear would be used to boil off the liquid air to provide the required power boost whenever it wasn't windy enough. When there was excess wind, the excess energy would be stored as liquified air (as in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.077 ).
I'm puzzled as to why such a setup doesn't seem part of any public conversation I've come across. I'd love to have someone who knew about such things point out where I'm deluded from an engineering perspective. Obviously such an idea (like all sane electricity proposals) is only suited to a 1970s style regulated monopoly utility economic model. But it seems to me that the required political battle to get the required economic arrangements is contingent on having a compelling engineering model at the end of it.
-
Vaclav Smil is essential reading to understand this issue. Buy his 'how the world really works', read pages 189 - 204, feel sad, and move on with a greater understanding of the reality of what needs to be done versus what can be done, compared to the total bullshit regularly heard and reported. All you need to know about how absurd it is to think along lines of 'it's essential that we build onshore windfarms in the UK in the effort halt global warming' is there. In climbing training terms - it's like someone who climbs 6a sport, with a goal to climb 9c, thinking that buying a squeezy ball to work their fingers will make a meaningful contribution to the gainz required.
* I love renewable power btw.
-
There are theoretical solutions to the energy storage problem (splitting and recombining water being one of them).
Having a balanced portfolio of renewables that provide different energy variances instead of just banging up wind turbines would also reduce the storage needs.
Geo (where possible), hydro, wave all have the ability to produce electricity constantly all be it with a variable output.
I’m sadly with Pete in not being hopeful that governments globally (with differing priorities) can work with or enforce capitalist entities to produce a large scale solution in any meaningful timeframe
-
Vaclav Smil is essential reading to understand this issue. Buy his 'how the world really works', read pages 189 - 204, feel sad, and move on with a greater understanding of the reality of what needs to be done versus what can be done, compared to the total bullshit regularly heard and reported. All you need to know about how absurd it is to think along lines of 'it's essential that we build onshore windfarms in the UK in the effort halt global warming' is there. In climbing training terms - it's like someone who climbs 6a sport, with a goal to climb 9c, thinking that buying a squeezy ball to work their fingers will make a meaningful contribution to the gainz required.
* I love renewable power btw.
Which chapter Pete? ebook page numbers are all over the place.
-
Chapter 6, 'Understanding the Environment'.
I'll post pics of the relevant pages here, I think it's important enough to understand the issue and the numbers to do a bit of freeloading. The rest of the book is amazing and worth buying.
-
There are theoretical solutions to the energy storage problem (splitting and recombining water being one of them).
Having a balanced portfolio of renewables that provide different energy variances instead of just banging up wind turbines would also reduce the storage needs.
Geo (where possible), hydro, wave all have the ability to produce electricity constantly all be it with a variable output.
I’m sadly with Pete in not being hopeful that governments globally (with differing priorities) can work with or enforce capitalist entities to produce a large scale solution in any meaningful timeframe
I have done a fair bit of (ignorant amateur) tire-kicking of such ideas. My impression was the investment cost for water hydrolysis of the required scale was way worse than for air liquefaction storage.
For the UK there are hard geographical constraints for other types of renewables (see https://www.withouthotair.com/ ).
Tidal has the catastrophic issue of the bimonthly neap-tide spring-tide cycle.
(https://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/11-12/MORE/economic/img/1.png)
-
Chapter 6, 'Understanding the Environment'.
I'll post pics of the relevant pages here, I think it's important enough to understand the issue and the numbers to do a bit of freeloading. The rest of the book is amazing and worth buying.
Just scanned it. good read. If you are reasonably adept at internet scouring it can be found online with little fuss.
That broadly chimes with my understanding of the issue as well (especially having come back from India a few months ago!). I guess the practical takehome is that if we accept that the solutions are likely to be costly, inefficient and unlikely to produce rapid results, we have two choices; do nothing because its pointless or try some things anyway. Obviously these things have to cohere with domestic/local priorities as well as big picture stuff. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see it being pointless to move towards EVs or a broadly renewable energy sector in the short to medium term, even if China/India/other outside factors make such changes relatively meaningless in the medium term. I think it would actually make more logical sense to object to an onshore windfarm on the grounds of 'its totally pointless cause of wider geopolitics' than on the grounds that NIMBY groups tend to rely on; namely, wildlife and spoiling the view.
-
Tidal has the catastrophic issue of the bimonthly neap-tide spring-tide cycle.
(https://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/11-12/MORE/economic/img/1.png)
Getting a bit off topic, but why is this catastrophic? Naively, I'd assume that a constant power output is the ideal but output that is predictable with confidence over long-ish time spans is also pretty good i.e. you turn down the arc furnaces when it's a neap tide then turn em back up again on a spring.
-
Stone, I was referring to wave as opposed to tidal. I don’t follow too close but there has been gains in development here recently from varying designs/sources. Not sure how scalable it is in practically but you are harnessing say 1% of the energy of every wave, so near constant output if small per unit. Would be interesting if it could share some infrastructure with offshore wind.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see it being pointless to move towards EVs or a broadly renewable energy sector in the short to medium term, even if China/India/other outside factors make such changes relatively meaningless in the medium term. I think it would actually make more logical sense to object to an onshore windfarm on the grounds of 'its totally pointless cause of wider geopolitics' than on the grounds that NIMBY groups tend to rely on; namely, wildlife and spoiling the view.
I'm struggling to get a sense of which direction you are arguing.
For myself, it seems very difficult to sympathise with the view that what we do is immaterial because of "India&China".
It is somewhat arbitrary where you draw a catchment to then describe a subset of the 8B people we have on Earth. You could say a district China needn't do anything because its emissions are immaterial in comparison to "the western world" or whatever.
Like I said, we as the UK public have political power over many of the most egregious excessive emitters in the world https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/uk-is-worst-private-jet-polluter-in-europe-study-finds
If, in the UK we were to demonstrate that we could implement a prosperous zero-carbon economy, then people in India and China (and elsewhere) would take note and might endeavour to emulate that.
-
I think it would actually make more logical sense to object to an onshore windfarm on the grounds of 'its totally pointless cause of wider geopolitics' than on the grounds that NIMBY groups tend to rely on; namely, wildlife and spoiling the view.
Yeah agree. When I said I'd object to an onshore windfarm going up on the hills opposite me because of the aesthetics, I internally know it's a totally meaningless contribution to solving the issue (and actually I think this sort of scheme risks being a setback not a step forward - in the sense it distracts people to thinking we're doing something useful on a meaningful scale towards making reductions). But I tend not to express that bit because .. you know people.., oh and the aesthetics are shitty in wild areas so that's easy!
-
I’m in the US so (like with many things) [...]
For profit entities are not dynamic or interested in the greater good as much as keeping shareholders happy. They knock up another wind farm while band aiding their existing non renewable facilities together waiting to see which direction energy production will take. .
A lot of developers in the US are not the same companies that own the fossil generators (although some are) - those would generally love to smash out more projects but grid interconnection is a big (and growing) issue as you say.
Pete - of course onshore wind isn't essential, but it is likely to be important in the context of delivering a decarbonised grid at anywhere close to the lowest cost. As an example, the power and economics team at our parent company does some modelling on this - the grid they think is optimised for the lowest cost in Europe as we move away from fossil fuels has a bewildering amount of wind in it. But maybe people will be prepared to pay to put it offshore, or pay more for a higher % of solar (needing more storage)? There was an interesting paper in nature where they adjusted LCOEs with a non-financial fudge to produce a model that could predict the past few years of installations (how much wind vs solar vs gas etc), and that predicted a huge amount more solar and less wind than is likely to be the lowest cost solution, so to some extent we're on that trajectory already.
-
Stone, I was referring to wave as opposed to tidal. I don’t follow too close but there has been gains in development here recently from varying designs/sources. Not sure how scalable it is in practically but you are harnessing say 1% of the energy of every wave, so near constant output if small per unit. Would be interesting if it could share some infrastructure with offshore wind.
This is great about the geographic max possible for wave power https://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml
-
I'm struggling to get a sense of which direction you are arguing.
I think the UK should invest heavily in renewables because I think its the right thing to do. I'm aware its not a magic bullet and that there are wider structural issues that would quite possibly make it pointless, but I don't personally like the idea of not doing anything and as Smil says in his book, forecasts are fairly limited in their usefulness because we can't predict how the world will change. I also fucking hate nimbyism and if anything am more likely to want to build something where there are strong local objections as a form of punishment :P I just see it as, not always but all too frequently, a fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical point of view which heavily rely on sophistry and generally amounts to older generations pulling the ladder up behind them.
-
For myself, it seems very difficult to sympathise with the view that what we do is immaterial because of "India&China".
It is somewhat arbitrary where you draw a catchment to then describe a subset of the 8B people we have on Earth. You could say a district China needn't do anything because its emissions are immaterial in comparison to "the western world" or whatever.
Like I said, we as the UK public have political power over many of the most egregious excessive emitters in the world https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/uk-is-worst-private-jet-polluter-in-europe-study-finds
If, in the UK we were to demonstrate that we could implement a prosperous zero-carbon economy, then people in India and China (and elsewhere) would take note and might endeavour to emulate that.
I've got sympathy with the notion that setting an example and leadership matters. But you're naïve. The atmosphere reacts to the emissions numbers. Not leadership or setting an example. The numbers are gigantic, and a lot of it is not under the west's control. If you truly believe the developing world inc. China and India don't want economic/societal progress that we've enjoyed and are prepared to forego that, for the sake of 'the EU and UK are cutting their emissions more than us so we better follow', then you're even more naïve. Much of the west isn't even following the good leadership examples! US/Canada/Aus for e.g..
If 'slowing and eventually halting global warming' is your goal, then the numbers emitted by the largest emitters are too gigantic for your ideology to make any sense as a solution. If your underlying goal however is to end capitalism in the west (which I suspect you and many love the notion of, in theory) as an ideological win, with the benefit of eventually - within 100 years say - have halted global warming then yeah it makes sense. But that's a whole other topic.
-
Tidal has the catastrophic issue of the bimonthly neap-tide spring-tide cycle.
(https://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/11-12/MORE/economic/img/1.png)
Getting a bit off topic, but why is this catastrophic? Naively, I'd assume that a constant power output is the ideal but output that is predictable with confidence over long-ish time spans is also pretty good i.e. you turn down the arc furnaces when it's a neap tide then turn em back up again on a spring.
I'm not sure about arc furnaces but lots of energy intensive industries have to run 24/7. Having twice as many factories etc (and somehow staffing them) so they can run half the time is tough. I suppose like how hard it is when a big storm shuts things down. I'm sure demand response will need to play a role though. I googled found this https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111963
-
If you truly believe the developing world inc. China and India don't want economic/societal progress that we've enjoyed and are prepared to forego that, for the sake of 'the EU and UK are cutting their emissions more than us so we better follow', then you're even more naïve. Much of the west isn't even following the good leadership examples! US/Canada/Aus for e.g..
Thats before you get on to the fact that the way India's politics is currently aligned, there is significant political benefit derived from Modi totally ignoring what the West, and the UK in particular, thinks about pretty much everything.
-
I’m in the US so (like with many things) [...]
For profit entities are not dynamic or interested in the greater good as much as keeping shareholders happy. They knock up another wind farm while band aiding their existing non renewable facilities together waiting to see which direction energy production will take. .
A lot of developers in the US are not the same companies that own the fossil generators (although some are) - those would generally love to smash out more projects but grid interconnection is a big (and growing) issue as you say.
Pete - of course onshore wind isn't essential, but it is likely to be important in the context of delivering a decarbonised grid at anywhere close to the lowest cost. As an example, the power and economics team at our parent company does some modelling on this - the grid they think is optimised for the lowest cost in Europe as we move away from fossil fuels has a bewildering amount of wind in it. But maybe people will be prepared to pay to put it offshore, or pay more for a higher % of solar (needing more storage)? There was an interesting paper in nature where they adjusted LCOEs with a non-financial fudge to produce a model that could predict the past few years of installations (how much wind vs solar vs gas etc), and that predicted a huge amount more solar and less wind than is likely to be the lowest cost solution, so to some extent we're on that trajectory already.
Sure, but that's answering a completely different question: 'what grid delivers the required power, for the lowest cost, given it cannot include coal, oil, or gas because emissions'. (ignoring the fact that the difference in emissions from just about any UK power grid we can possibly contsruct won't even be a rounding error in the actual problem of total emissions).
If you want the lowest cost grid, nothing else, you use coal - as China, India and many other places still do.
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
-
If your underlying goal however is to end capitalism in the west (which I suspect you and many love the notion of, in theory) as an ideological win, with the benefit of eventually - within 100 years say - have halted global warming then yeah it makes sense. But that's a whole other topic.
I'm not anti-capitalist. I want a mixed economy. I actually said that sane electricity systems require a regulated monopoly arrangement. That includes share-holder-owned regulated monopoly utilities as they had in the USA in the 1970s and which built more nuclear power than in any country in the world (though nationalised utilities in Sweden built most per capita and in France the highest as percentage of generation). I would probably prefer a nationalised electricity supply but I care vastly less about that than about having any system that could work.
-
Chapter 6, 'Understanding the Environment'.
I'll post pics of the relevant pages here, I think it's important enough to understand the issue and the numbers to do a bit of freeloading. The rest of the book is amazing and worth buying.
I can't find it online. I have found some pretty unimpressed reviews.
His discussion of global warming was cavalier to the point of angering me. Most of it focused on "who discovered global warming," to make the point that we have known for a long time, with the secondary focus being on the fact that we need some GHG's to keep the earth from freezing. Eventually he gets to discussing the effects and threats, beginning with the non-story that we will still have enough oxygen to breathe. This is followed by assurance that rising demand (due to rising incomes and population) threatens fresh water supplies by much more than global warming does. Unless you have wondered about comparative supplies of blue, green and grey water, the discussion is not very illuminating.
Eat less meat, but other than that, we will have to make do and get more efficient in order to keep feeding the planet. That is his conclusion. Beyond a few allusions to hysteria in predictions, and a single paragraph in which he acknowledges temperature rise and coastal inundation, most of his discussion is useless.
In the final section he addresses climate policy and prognosis. He correctly observes that we are leaving immense benefit on the table by ignoring the financial benefit of insulation and other conservation, benefits that are already available with no subsidies or other policy changes if people would respond. He takes an additional swipe at SUVs, well-deserved in my view, He concludes that we probably cannot avoid passing the mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius that delimits the amount we can absorb without catastrophic effects.
He wastes considerable ink on the uncertainties of prediction, with snide comparisons to Covid and our failures to respond to the threat with preparedness, and, almost in so many words, concludes that no predictions of global warming effects should be taken seriously because the problem of decarbonization is difficult and the uncertainties too substantial. After all, as he observes, greening has increased the net amount of vegetation, serving as a carbon sink.
Pete,
with the benefit of eventually - within 100 years say - have halted global warming then yeah it makes sense.
That's the end goal yes, although we need to do it more quickly. If the warming trend isn't halted by then the earth will likely be uninhabitable. I don't think that idea is somehow tied to anti-capitalism, although I can see from some angles it might look like the shortest route.
I've got sympathy with the notion that setting an example and leadership matters. But you're naïve.
It's not naive, it's pragmatic. That's the only course of action we have open.
Taking a step back, a 'fair' approach would be to work out the overall carbon budget we can allow humans to release, divide it by people alive in that period. In the west we've already burnt through our allowance. India and China haven't. We already have a higher standard of living. So, yes, the onus is on us to lead. Meanwhile, their journey to greater affluence will be a lot less polluting than ours, so they'll have the moral high ground for a while yet.
-
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
What would your answer be?
-
I've got sympathy with the notion that setting an example and leadership matters. But you're naïve.
It's not naive, it's pragmatic. That's the only course of action we have open.
Taking a step back, a 'fair' approach would be to work out the overall carbon budget we can allow humans to release, divide it by people alive in that period. In the west we've already burnt through our allowance. India and China haven't. We already have a higher standard of living. So, yes, the onus is on us to lead. Meanwhile, their journey to greater affluence will be a lot less polluting than ours, so they'll have the moral high ground for a while yet.
Yes, and this is the approach written into the various accords at the various COPs - the historical budget idea. And it is fair. The developing world will be 'allowed' to grow and emit vast quantities of ghg. While the west will not. Most general public in the west are currently unaware of the small print and ideas behind the accords but I think they sort of suspect.
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it. So it isn't pragmatic at all, it's ideological nonsense that will fail the reality test in terms of making the required reductions in ghg to slow and then halt warming by 2050. In my opinion.
You and loads of others with good intentions are hanging your hopes on an academic theory based on models that will not work - is not working - in reality. How dumb is that? What's that definition of insanity again...
-
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
What would your answer be?
Dyson sphere
-
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it.
Wait, you just told me we don't need to worry too much about optimizing the grid for costs, but are also saying people won't accept going green (presumably because it will cost them money). Surely these are in contradiction?
-
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it. So it isn't pragmatic at all, it's ideological nonsense that will fail the reality test in terms of making the required reductions in ghg to slow and then halt warming by 2050. In my opinion.
Even while other countries were locking down, people told me 'it won't happen here, we wouldn't stand for it'. Turns out we absolutely would. People are quite capable of making big changes that require limiting personal behaviour, and surveys show the sentiment is already there. Most people are ready to change, they just need leadership and confidence that they aren't making pointless personal sacrifice. I think the scenario that we might almost wish for is something pretty catastrophic in the short term, e.g. summer 2028 where millions die in an equatorial heatwave and multiple hurricanes drift into temperate latitudes and wreck several unprepared western cities. A lot of excess behaviour would become socially unacceptable, and governments would increase the pace of change tenfold.
Look forward to your answer to Alex. 'There's no point in acting' is incredibly short-termist.
-
Even while other countries were locking down, people told me 'it won't happen here, we wouldn't stand for it'. Turns out we absolutely would. People are quite capable of making big changes that require limiting personal behaviour, and surveys show the sentiment is already there. Most people are ready to change, they just need leadership and confidence that they aren't making pointless personal sacrifice.
The obvious difference here is that people were largely prepared to lock down on the basis it was temporary. I certainly was, and began to chafe against it very fast. I am unconvinced there is a widespread sentiment for permanent change to peoples quality of lives.
-
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
What would your answer be?
Dyson sphere
I'm guessing you're joking but really there is plenty of dithering attributable to people waiting for techno-fixes
I'd much rather we stuck to relatively pedestrian technology and just cranked it out by duplication and learning-by-doing. That was what enabled the USA to build all those battle ships in WWII (despite not having the shipyards nor the trained workers at the start) and enabled the Messmer Plan in France in the 1970s.
I just remembered about this awesome set of presentations for anyone with any interest in energy transition issues https://science-and-energy.com/les-houches-2016/
-
Wait, you just told me we don't need to worry too much about optimizing the grid for costs, but are also saying people won't accept going green (presumably because it will cost them money). Surely these are in contradiction?
Huh? I think we're talking past each other. I said optimising the UK grid for costs - within the boundaries we've set ourselves that excludes a high mix of fossil - from where the UK grid currently stands, will do essentially nothing to alter the path of climate change. That isn't saying we shouldn't optimise the grid for costs for other great reasons. One obviously being cost!
-
The obvious difference here is that people were largely prepared to lock down on the basis it was temporary. I certainly was, and began to chafe against it very fast. I am unconvinced there is a widespread sentiment for permanent change to peoples quality of lives.
There absolutely is, because the alternative is to hand your kids an uninhabitable planet.
But also the restrictions would be nothing like lockdown. It would be limiting flying - maybe issue a (tradable) allowance of 2? flight hours per year. It would be crippling taxes on inefficient vehicles (already doing that to Sheff taxis). It would be less beef (sorry dave, but decent lab meat isn't far away) etc. Plus massive investment in insulation, heat pumps, electrifying public transport.
-
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it. So it isn't pragmatic at all, it's ideological nonsense that will fail the reality test in terms of making the required reductions in ghg to slow and then halt warming by 2050. In my opinion.
...
Look forward to your answer to Alex. 'There's no point in acting' is incredibly short-termist.
This is the inevitable outcome of discussing this. You come out with slurs like 'you're saying there's no point in acting'.
I'm actually far more extreme in my views than you - I'm in favour of 'acting' far more than we (UK, the west, the world) are doing. I just think what we're currently doing is pathetic and the path being suggested will miss the target massively to the downside. There's no point in acting ineffectively for the long term whilst also causing negative short term impacts. We'd be better to cause negative short term impacts by acting in ways that will actually achieve the aims, or close to.
-
It's not a slur, it's exactly how your posts are coming across. You may be meaning to express something different, but in that case several of us don't seem to be easily able to extract what you're actually trying to say from your posts...
This is my real question remains unanswered:
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
What would your answer be?
-
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
What would your answer be?
Dyson sphere
I'm guessing you're joking but really there is plenty of dithering attributable to people waiting for techno-fixes
I'd much rather we stuck to relatively pedestrian technology and just cranked it out by duplication and learning-by-doing. That was what enabled the USA to build all those battle ships in WWII (despite not having the shipyards nor the trained workers at the start) and enabled the Messmer Plan in France in the 1970s.
I just remembered about this awesome set of presentations for anyone with any interest in energy transition issues https://science-and-energy.com/les-houches-2016/
Of course it’s a joke seeing as a Dyson Sphere is nothing more than science fiction at this point.
What we need to be doing is plowing more money into nuclear energy and continue the push for fusion reactors imo.
-
Alex, easier if you just read something like Smill's pages on what's possible, than me type endless pages.
Then I'd add to his conclusions that the way we think about the financial system will need to change. In ways currently incompressible to most of us. Money and financial cost were a root of the problem of climate warming, and are currently at the root of the hurdle we need to surmount to solve the issue. But money is a construct, not a fundamental reality, and so 'cost' in monetary terms is a construct not a fundamental reality. None of that has ever mattered before, we've allowed the illusion to work for our benefit, except during the fundamental reality of huge wars which require a minor suspension of normal monetary policy. But existential risk from the climate is a fundamental reality on global scale, and I think a key to solving the engineering problems will be decoupling the artificial concept of money/cost from the fundamental problem of climate. While trying not to destroy wider societies' faith in the concept of money. Because it's so powerful a positive force for society.
-
Alex, easier if you just read something like Smill's pages on what's possible, than me type endless pages.
Then I'd add to his conclusions that the way we think about the financial system will need to change. In ways currently incompressible. Money and financial cost were a root of the problem of climate warming, and are currently at the root of the hurdle we need to surmount to solve the issue. But money is a construct, not a fundamental reality, and so 'cost' in monetary terms is a construct not a fundamental reality. None of that has ever mattered before except in minor ways during the fundamental reality of huge wars which require suspension of normal monetary policy. But climate is a fundamental reality on global scale, and I think a key to solving the engineering problem will be decoupling the concept of money/cost from the problem of climate. While trying not to destroy wider societies' faith in the concept of money. Because it's so powerful a positive force for society.
You might be interested in this post all about those issues https://jwmason.org/slackwire/thirteen-questions-about-money/
There are very mundane ways to reduce financing costs massively. The cost the public pays for HinkleyC electricity goes 80% to financing costs and only 20% to building and ongoing costs. That's because instead of paying for the power station upfront it is being paid for via payments for the electricity. So if some Angela Merkle type policy were to close it as soon as it were built, the financiers would lose out. So they need that vast overpayment to cover that political risk that they have no control of. Total moronic madness IMO.
-
Yeah but I don't mean tweaking the UK financial system, as I've said about a hundred times what the the UK does about its power grid - taking its current total emissions as the start point - is inconsequential in solving the issue of global warming. I mean the global financial system will need to be reimagined as it relates to projects to lower global ghg emissions. But doing that, without destroying all of the beneficial parts and faith in the illusion of money... ?
-
But doing that, without destroying all of the beneficial parts and faith in the illusion of money... ?
That's what the link is about. https://jwmason.org/slackwire/thirteen-questions-about-money/
Sorry that I confused things by getting sidetracked.
-
I'm actually far more extreme in my views than you -
Lol, you don't know that!
I'm in favour of 'acting' far more than we (UK, the west, the world) are doing.
Yep, I think we're all agreed there.
[/quote]I just think what we're currently doing is pathetic and the path being suggested will miss the target massively to the downside. There's no point in acting ineffectively for the long term whilst also causing negative short term impacts. We'd be better to cause negative short term impacts by acting in ways that will actually achieve the aims, or close to.[/quote]
Can you spell these out?
Money and financial cost were a root of the problem of climate warming, and are currently at the root of the hurdle we need to surmount to solve the issue. But money is a construct, not a fundamental reality, and so 'cost' in monetary terms is a construct not a fundamental reality. None of that has ever mattered before, we've allowed the illusion to work for our benefit, except during the fundamental reality of huge wars which require a minor suspension of normal monetary policy. But existential risk from the climate is a fundamental reality on global scale, and I think a key to solving the engineering problems will be decoupling the artificial concept of money/cost from the fundamental problem of climate.
Amen, brother.
While trying not to destroy wider societies' faith in the concept of money. Because it's so powerful a positive force for society.
I'm not so concerned about this. Because it's so powerful a negative force for the planet.
I think we might need an alternative, but not sure what and given all this is quite a long way from fruition, I do think it's worth doing whatever is possible at the present time. Which is where we seem to differ?
-
Where we mostly differ I think is how we view the priority of allocating resources and time to doing some of the things that are possible to do at the present time. I see almost zero virtue, in fact I see it as a negative, in sticking up some onshore windfarms in the UK. For a mix of reasons including creating the idea among the public that some onshore wind in the UK is somehow changing anything, when it isn't. I think too much is about the optics.
Also, not pissing off people and losing good faith, for no 'real' net impact i.e. no meaningful reduction in global ghg. Or spoiling natural beauty - but I accept this bit is a subjective point and wind farms are able to be accepted as normal with time. But at core because it's tinkering and pretending to act, while not addressing the issue.
Your 'doing whatever is possible' currently includes loads of things that are more impactful than some onshore wind farms which mostly won't get past objections. can't spend any more time on this.. will look back next week.
-
As with so much, this link has handy numbers about the potential for UK onshore windpower https://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml
-
As with so much, this link has handy numbers about the potential for UK onshore windpower https://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml
Bit short on time, so just a couple of quick things. Withouthotair was a great resource in its day but totally outdated by the pace of change.
China has installed the most wind turbines and nuclear power of any country globally.
China’s total electricity generation capacity surged by 13.9% to 2.92 TW. Thermal power grew by 4.1% to 1.39 GW. Wind jumped almost 21%, a record 75.9 GW, to 441.3 GW. BloombergNEF estimated that China accounted for 60% of new wind and 58% of newly installed solar power capacity in the world in 2023
.
Stone - the beauty of tidal is that, at any one time you have a steady output if you have around 6 sites spread around the UK. Yes, neeps/springs, but tidal is so variable (in flow velocity) anyway that a lot of the time you will be running above rated power, so it it does make a lot of difference. Also, just over install...
And this:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-biggest-smelter-to-launch-massive-wind-and-solar-tender-says-nuclear-too-costly/
Agree with Pete on the system being not optimised towards the correct outcome - also see AI paperclip theory.
The problem with humanity, as evidenced by this thread, is our endless ability to discuss the *best* option, while Rome burns waiting for any fucking option to get built...
Just bloody get on with it already!
Wave sounds good in theory. I was quite involved for a while at uni and other things, but it's just incredibly difficult to actually build and run as you basically need to shove equipment in very hostile environments (the best sites are the worst sites for access / install / maintenance) I predict fusion or end of huminty come first.
-
Just noticed a typo I think in my copy paste, surely china thermal is TW, not GW?
-
You’ve hit the nail on the head there Fultonius. The perfect solution is just to get on with building as many imperfect solutions as we can as quickly as we can.
In the end some will become redundant but as long as they’re moving us away from fossil fuels in the meantime then they’re doing their job.
-
Fultonius, I'm interested that you're a fan of tidal. My understanding was that putting systems around the UK (and mixing tidal flow with barrages etc) dealt with the intra-day variability but did nothing for the spring-neap issue. So basically tidal gave you lots of power every second week. That's a very tough thing to integrate with everything else.
The bits of Withouthotair that I thought most useful were those about geographic potential. Stuff like how much energy is actually in the tidal flow around the UK or in the wind blowing over it etc before we try to invent a technology to extract it. That is timeless isn't it?
I'm totally behind building anything now that displaces fossil fuels though.
Whilst we do that, we also need to be getting on with stuff that actually gets us to zero-C too though.
-
You’ve hit the nail on the head there Fultonius. The perfect solution is just to get on with building as many imperfect solutions as we can as quickly as we can.
In the end some will become redundant but as long as they’re moving us away from fossil fuels in the meantime then they’re doing their job.
100% this
It needs both. Ultimately the population is composed only of individuals, the other entities are legal fictions, controlled by individuals. Change must come from them, because it can’t come from anywhere else.
And this.
Been reading the thread with interest. I'm kind of surprised by Pete's position that it's all a bit pointless what we do, as it ignores the potential for compounding. Yes in isolation each little act has no effect, but they build over time and compound into something far greater.
I also have to believe it requires both top down and bottom up action, and those things are not mutually exclusive. As a for instance, my firm is about to move buildings, going from a massive, old, inefficient, sprawling place into a brand new office which is supposedly highly energy efficient. That change could be considered top down (massive corporation consolidating its office presence), or bottom up (employees of massive corporation looking for cost effective sustainable solutions that help us meet net zero). The new building is going to be more difficult for people to drive to (very limited on site parking) which is a top down decision around sustainable travel, but any benefit in people using more sustainable / active commuting options will require bottom up decision making from each individual (i.e. choosing to use the park and ride, train, cycle, etc. instead of belligerently driving to the nearest car park and hoping for the best).
-
One way to look at this is in terms of a global carbon budget. If we burn all the fossil fuels on Earth we could get 8oC warming and v tough consequences. Burn less and it is less tough. Assuming we eventually transition away from fossil fuels (before we have to anyway because they are used up) anything that leaves more fuel in the ground is good. So banning private jets today has big advantages over banning them in ten years time or whatever. Likewise with windturbines.
-
Vaclav Smil is essential reading to understand this issue. ....... 'it's essential that we build onshore windfarms in the UK in the effort halt global warming'
I'm intrigued by this. UK average current (2022 electricity demand is 36GW. The installed capacity of onshore wind as of 2023 was around 12GW.
Now, installed capacity only gives and average of about 30-40% of that, and electricity demand will go up as we heat our homes, fuel our industry and charge our EVs with it, but don't get how that's not a useful contribution?
It's easy just to say "go offshore" but we have a massive ship supply issue ATM, which doesn't so much affect onshore.
Also, for grid stability see California:
https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1769493892955844807 running on 100% renewables for periods up around 4 hours per day and their grid ism essentially (i.e. very minimally, giving very little stability support), not interconnected to other US grids.
@Stone, I'll look a bit more into tidal before replying - bit out of touch these days on that.