- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Drax
Old growth forests from North America, other side of the ocean. Use fossil fuel to cut down, move and process the timber.
Use fossil fuel to move that fuel across the Atlantic Ocean.
Use fossil fuel to cart it from the port in England to Drax.
This is sustainability, in action.
Quote BBC
“The Drax power station, a converted coal plant in North Yorkshire, generates approximately 6% of the U.K.’s electricity and has received billions of pounds in subsidies from the government and bill-payers because wood-burning is classed as a source of renewable energy.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxnpzzjed1oThis is like standing on your head to prove some point.
What is that point.Is that point box ticking to prove we have Green Energy?
“We have been lied to that Green Policies will reduce bills.
Bills are going up, continuously.”However, at the same time, 85% of our energy is fossil fuels. You can’t have it both ways.
Hello ET,
I would like some realism from our political leaders.
Half a century ago, 85% of World energy was from Hydrocarbons, today it is still 85%.
Yes, it is a good idea to have some renewable energy schemes but we should not pretend that in less than five years, the U.K. can produce 95% of our electricity from renewables.
The greater the proportion of renewables, the greater the size of the National Grid will need to be to balance.
10% of World Carbon use is in the Iron and Steel business. 5-8% of World Carbon is in Cement production and use.
We cannot do without Limestone, Coal, Iron or Steel.
I know there are Arc production systems for turning scrap steel into different steel but I believe it is still true that new steel needs to be made with Limestone, Coal and Iron.
Just because some Arc systems are running, does not mean we will no longer mine Iron ore.
We will still need to mine Limestone.
We will still need to mine Coal.The Unpopular Reality about Energy Transitions with Jean-Baptiste Fressoz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7MPU109fY&t=3743sMichael, the point of my previous post was to say that it’s the cost of fossil fuels (geopolitical reasons plus increasing cost to extract) that has driven up energy costs not renewables.
Also, however non-sensible government policies for the energy transition are, the fact that they are so and complaining about them being so doesn’t make the underlying issue of increasing green house gases in the atmosphere disappear.
You continue to state things like “we aren’t going to burn up in a fireball any time soon.” No climate science is saying that. Sensational exaggerated statement to attempt to ridicule.
The extra heat represents extra energy. Given the enormous volumes of the atmosphere and oceans small increases in temperatures implying gigantic extra energy. You can work this out using the physics of specific heat. That energy will alter things.ET crude oil is around $71 dollars for a barrel of West Texas crude.
That’s more or less normal.
In the U.K. we seem to be closing down the North Sea, so I expect we will import more North Sea Gas from Norway or the Netherlands.
I expect we will import more American Oil.
However, I do think the reason energy prices are reaching for the sky in the U.K. is Net Zero.
We will need to increase the size of the National Grid by four or five times, to cope with net Zero.B.P. to scale back on renewables as loosing money.
Quote BBC
“Oil giant B.P. has said it will “fundamentally reset” its strategy as profits dropped sharply last year.It is widely expected to say later this month that it will scale back renewable projects and increase oil and gas production following similar moves from rivals including Shell and Equinor.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30d4ernzqjoI am not sure if this is financial reality setting in or the reality of Donald Trump being president, again?
Michael – “However, I do think the reason energy prices are reaching for the sky in the U.K. is Net Zero.”
No. British energy prices are the highest in Europe due to decades of underinvestment in infrastructure. If the cause was net zero, Scandinavian and Chinese energy prices would be the highest, because they have the lowest emission generation systems.
Gas prices in Britain are high because Britain is the only country in Europe without a long-term gas storage facility. Britain had one called Rough, a depleted gas field in the North Sea, but Blair’s mob sold it off to Centrica Storage, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centrica Energy. The contract stipulated that Centrica had to maintain it as a “strategic facility of the UK”, i.e. as important as Britain’s nuclear weapons. But Centrica used it to play the market, pressurising it when European gas prices were low only to depressurise it a few days later when prices rose so the gas could be sold for more. Predictably, pumping it up and down like that wore it out, and a few years ago it failed. By then Cameron’s mob were in power. Centrica asked for billions to repair it. The British government should have sued Centrica, but back room deals were done and Centrica was let off the hook. If pensioners freeze, it’ll be Centrica and Westminster that killed them.
The Rough storage facility protected Britons from peaks in gas prices, which can be thirty times the average. Now, without Rough, bills have to be higher to cover those inevitable peaks.
British electricity is the most expensive in Europe because of bottlenecks in the grid and stupid contract laws. The former is also the reason for falling load factor of wind farms. Frequently, due to the stupid contract laws, British customers are obliged to pay wind farms not to generate electricity, because there’s insufficient grid capacity to accept it and move it to where it can be used. That’s because the east coast HVDC interconnector is ten years behind schedule, in fact, despite the west coast interconnector being complete years ago, east coast construction hasn’t even begun. Frequently, Britain could be selling that electricity to EU countries, making a profit that brings British prices down, but there’s insufficient east coast grid capacity to get it to the cross-channel HVDC interconnectors.
Michael, you’re being misled by the ‘news’ media you use. Energy traders are fleecing British energy customers. Bribing ‘news’ media to blame net zero for their own profiteering is small change to energy traders. For instance:
– GB News is funded by private investors. It received an initial £60 million in funding from the American multimedia channel Discovery, British investor Sir Paul Marshall, and the United Arab Emirates-based private investment firm Legatum, which founded the Legatum Institute think tank. [citation 17] The Legatum Institute has previously received donations from a foundation linked to the US-based Koch Industries fossil fuel dynasty. [citation 18]– A further £60 million in investment was announced in August 2022, with Legatum and Sir Paul Marshall buying the stake previously held by Discovery. [citation 19]
– GB News made a loss of more than £30 million during its first year on air. [citation 20]
– A DeSmog investigation revealed that Paul Marshall’s hedgefund, Marshall Wace, holds at least $2.2bn in fossil fuel investments in 2023. [citation 21]
Clark if the G.B. National Grid was just about good enough, when we were mainly using Coal and North Sea Gas and Nuclear as our base load – why would we have needed to increase the Grid by four or five times?
The answer is to include renewable electricity, to have masses of new Data Centres, have all electric railways, have all electric vehicles and have on street EV charging and all electric steel making and have all electric new houses ( one and a half million).
It is going to be phenomenally expensive to increase the capacity of the grid by four or five times.
Our future is going to be rather pricey.Michael, the great coal-fired power stations were built in the industrial heartland of Britain, near where the coal was mined and the electricity was to be used. The wind-generated electricity of course comes from either offshore, or from the remote and sparsely populated high places, generally far from population centres and industry.
It’s going to be pricey whichever route is taken. You wrote that the North Sea hydrocarbons had been abandoned. Not so; they’ve been used up. North Sea production peaked in 1999, and has been in decline ever since, which is the natural way of hydrocarbon wells – see the 1950s work of US geologist and geophysicist M King Hubbert. The new licenses that the previous government granted are all more distant, or further north and in more inhospitable conditions, or under deeper water, or all three. Most gas burned in Britain now comes from Norway.
Then there are the costs of coping with climate change. Masses of work has been put into estimating this. You could start with the Stern Review from the early 2000s, though much has been learned since then. In short, it is far cheaper to decarbonise than to cope with the consequences of emissions. Or it would have been – decarbonisation has been left far too late, and the longer its left the more it will cost.
Are you aware that climate change is likely to cause European temperatures to plunge due to the AMOC (of which the warm Gulf Stream is a component) shutting down? It is already showing signs of doing so, caused by the Arctic ice melting. We really are in the shit. We need to persuade the rest of the world to decarbonise, but if we don’t do so ourselves we’re going to look like utter hypocrites and everyone will ignore us.
I have an idea about data centres. Think how long an Android or iPhone computing device runs on a battery, and how little heat it produces. Yet it is a powerful computing device, easily capable of running a browser and processing video simultaneously. How many would it take to produce a kilowatt of heat? Dozens? Hundreds? OK, so let’s build computing devices out of hundreds of such processors, enough to make a few kilowatts of heat, and install them as heating devices in people’s homes. The supercomputing power that comes with each one is effectively a by-product! Use modern encryption so they can securely carry out remote processing for third parties; the processing is worth far more money than the electricity they run on, so the householder can be paid handsomely for hosting them.
See? All we really need is a change of thinking.
The United States of America, is going to be re-industrialising.
This will call for masses more electricity, which at least in the medium term will be based on Coal and Methane.The USA is going to try to re-industrialise. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re (cough) less than fully successful. The USA is trillions in debt from its multiple Forever Wars. They’ve just changed captains from the senile Biden to the deluded and barely literate Trump. The USA is an empire in decay, the decadence is unmistakable. Much of their population is obese, unhealthy and undereducated – not to mention unhinged. The US government has made friends only with fascists, all over the world – neither the most rational nor the most helpful of people. The USA may not be dead yet, but it smells very odd.
Trashing their own economy by imposing tariffs on imports wasn’t the most inspiring start.
Trumps idea, is using American workers, mine Coal in America.
Mine Limestone in America.
Mine Iron ore in America.
Make Steel in America.
Frack for Methane in America.
Make steel pipes in America.
Using American labour, lay pipes lines in America.
Using American workers construct Electricity plants that burn Methane.
Shift the Methane in the American pipes.
Build L.N.G. plants in Texas/ Louisiana.
Move that L.N.G. to Europe and sell that Methane.
Mine Aluminium ore in America, same with Lithium, Copper.
Stop buying cheap stuff from China and make cheap stuff in the U.S.A.You get the picture.
Get American people off their arses and put them to work, hard physical work, then they will lose weight.Shortage of Tungsten. China to restrict export of critical Tungsten.
90% of World supply comes from China, North Korea and Russia.
Yet we have a Tungsten/Tin mine in Plymouth, England, that hardly ever functions?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUkm8mPRUBw
Geopolitical Earthquake: China’s Tungsten Export Ban Shakes Global MarketsYes I know what the idea is. I think he’ll have trouble implementing it though. He’s also opposed to public education and healthcare.
Did you know about the potential impending north European “ice age”? I see it hit the papers today. It’s not news to me.
And you’re suddenly in favour of mining now, are you? It’s just copper you don’t want mined?
Lincolnshire Natural Gas Field discovered.
Quote BBC
Mark Abbott, the chief executive officer at Egdon Resources, said: “Modelling estimates that if this was developed it would generate a GDP contribution of £140bn and up to 250,000 direct and indirect jobs.”
Sounds too good to be true.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74mpylzmpeo“Sounds too good to be true”
It does if all you consider is money and jobs. Try putting that awesome intellect to good use and factor in the other side of the equation. What environmental impact from emissions…. Risks and impact of ground leaks…. How long these reserves are expected to last…. Remember, the gas will be sold on the international market by the energy companies and will not directly reduce the cost of gas to the UK consumer.
Hello Shibboleth.
I can not imagine how a gas field could generate 250,000 jobs.
However the country is currently under a failing management.
This government almost certainly will do their best to stop it happening as they are very keen on Net Zero.
They hate Gas, they hate Coal and they hate Oil.
They do like concrete and they do like air transport and new runways.Ok. Very good.
Hey Mods: Any chance of a mute button?
Mute as in stopping people express their views?
I do hope that is not what you are suggesting,
ShibbolethNo you can express your views, but I can choose whether to read them or not.
Michael, DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPENDING NORTH EUROPEAN “ICE AGE”???
And I’ll add to that; are you happy to see Palestine wiped out so that yet more gas and oil can be appropriated by Western companies? Or didn’t you know that was happening?
(Mods, apologies for shouting but it seems a very one-way “discussion” with michael; he just ignores all other contributors. It’s more like corporate propaganda really. The only reason it isn’t spam is that it isn’t tied to one specific company.)
C: “… it seems a very one-way “discussion” with michael…”
It rather baffles me why he posts at all. There are no discussions, just a load of simplistic PR talking points that do the circles amongst stooges of corporate interests.
Even a gesture at a reply is abandoned past a depth of one. Wonder if MN is like this in real life? Someone observes the queue is a bit long in the Post office, and they’re given a series of GB News talking points about Ed Milliband by way of reply?
So MN is not here to discuss. Certainly not here to learn anything. Perhaps he’s just here to give us the benefit of his wisdom? 🙂
This one is for you Michael. It happened recently in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
A garbage truck’s CNG cylinders explode after (probably) lithium-ion battery fire. Who’s to blame? The dumb resident, the lithium-ion battery or the compressed gas tanks?
