RSPB and renewable energy

[Gervase]

Not with me and jerusalem artichokes, it ain't

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, whichever end it emanates from, it can still be taxed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7646857.stm

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Well, whichever end it emanates from, it can still be taxed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7646857.stm

That was widely reported as the ridiculous extreme of the green taxes lobby, but (at least in the West) it isn't really - tax the gassiest animals, the price of their meat goes up, consumers switch to less expensive foods, the pretty baa lambs and moo cows are all got rid of, together with their methane, problem solved.

Unless everyone switches to a high-lentil diet, of course.

 

[Pford75]

And the small issue that farmers and certain rural communities would face poverty and destitution.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think the point about it being a 'ridiculous' tax was that New Zealand is already a very low per capita emitter of greenhouse gases; the implication being that if all countries had the same level of emissions then there would be no problem. But when they looked at reducing things they found their biggest source was livestock, hence that was the main target for reduction.

What I find interesting (ridiculous?) is that NZ lamb can be twice as expensive as Welsh lamb in our shops. How can that be?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I think the point about it being a 'ridiculous' tax was that New Zealand is already a very low per capita emitter of greenhouse gases; the implication being that if all countries had the same level of emissions then there would be no problem. But when they looked at reducing things they found their biggest source was livestock, hence that was the main target for reduction.

What I find interesting (ridiculous?) is that NZ lamb can be twice as expensive as Welsh lamb in our shops. How can that be?

Might it be too much to hope that the price reflects the fact that, at considerable energy cost, it's been refrigerated and shipped 12000 miles round the world, rather than trucked a couple of hundred miles?

 

[wobs]

Its a professional magazine that deals with all energy technologies fairly. That's not fairyland.

But you haven't said where in TCE Magazine. Quote source?

An article on "Tomorrow's Energy". Looks at all the major technologies in a balanced approach.

I believe its from an AEA report.

But like I said, such numbers will vary from site to site, as more modern plants are more efficient, and designed with decommissioning in mind, and can use much more high level waste already in stock.

 

[wobs]

Another environmentalist breaks rank and decides nuclear is a viable option:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4836556.ece

"the Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma. My tipping point came when I discovered just how much nuclear power has changed since I first set my mind against it. "

 

[biffvernon]

Its a professional magazine that deals with all energy technologies fairly. That's not fairyland.

But you haven't said where in TCE Magazine. Quote source?

An article on "Tomorrow's Energy". Looks at all the major technologies in a balanced approach.

I believe its from an AEA report.

So first it was in TCE Magazine, now it's from 'an AEA report'.
It was from Fairyland. I rest my case.

 

[wobs]

But you haven't said where in TCE Magazine. Quote source?

An article on "Tomorrow's Energy". Looks at all the major technologies in a balanced approach.

I believe its from an AEA report.

So first it was in TCE Magazine, now it's from 'an AEA report'.
It was from Fairyland. I rest my case.

It is in a TCE magazine that is currently sat on my desk. As I've already said, it looks at all the major energy technologies in a balanced way. I believe the numbers I quoted come from an AEA report.

What case have you made exactly?

 

[MdB]

I believe the numbers I quoted come from an AEA report.

I think the problem here is which AEA you are talking about.

If it is these people http://www.aeat.co.uk (whoever they are) then the report might be slightly different from one produced by these people http://www.ukaea.org.uk

There are also lots of other AEA's http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/aea

 

[Flyfisher]

There was a brief bit on R4 today about E.On's plans to build a new coal-fired power station somewhere in Kent and opposed by a very nice-sounding 'green' lady saying it should be be stopped and renewables used instead. Both sides were in agreement about the greenhouse gas issue but only the E.On spokesman seems to be concerned about 'keeping the lights on', as he put it. Apparently, 40% of our generating capacity is being decommissioned in the next 7 years and it's simply not possible to fill the resulting gap with renewables. The nice green lady did not seem to dispute this point but merely started on about demand reduction and the importance of insulating our homes etc etc.

Does anyone seriously believe that reducing our electricity demand by 40% over the next 7 years is anywhere near a realistic possibility (except by enforced power cuts of course)?

 

[biffvernon]

What case have you made exactly?

I regard one of the figures you quoted as originating in Fairyland, but just to be sure I asked for the source so that I could check it. To do that I would need to know the name of the author and details of the journal it was published in.
So far all I know is that it is sitting on your desk with numbers that you believe come from an AEA report. That's all still rather too close to Fairyland to be independantly verified.

 

[biffvernon]

Does anyone seriously believe that reducing our electricity demand by 40% over the next 7 years is anywhere near a realistic possibility (except by enforced power cuts of course)?

The stark truth is that you can't use electricity that is not generated. We have a huge energy gap developing in the next few years - something I have been pointing out on this forum and many other places for a few years. Lots of other people are now also recognising this reality. This morning we had a new satement from the Climate Change Commitee,the UK government's official climate change advisers led by the former CBI head Lord Adair Turner, calling for a cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 80% by 2050 and now saying that it should include international aviation and shipping. New coal-fired power stations such as Kingsnorth are not compatable with this policy. Carbon Capture and Storage is not a large scale practical reality yet and if it ever becomes technically feasible will come with enormous financial and energy costs.

The requirements to address global warming, fossil fuel depletion and generating capacity are converging.

It doesn't really matter whether one believes that reducing electricity demand 'is anywhere near a realistic possibility '. It is going to happen whatever one's beliefs.

 

[Pford75]

I hear what you are saying Biff and I don't know enough about the subject to debate the accuracy of the claims.....but I think the point being made was that in the scenario you describe...several things will happen:

1. Wholesale economic and social failure (you can't reduce the needfor electricity overnight, even if there are challenges with generation)

2. The poorest members of society hit hardest. Any scarce good rises in price and will for some become unaffordable

3. Gov'ts will come under enormous pressure to increase supply of electricity and will turn to the cheapest short term solutions (most probably coal and nuclear)


I'm not disputing what you say....just pointing out that no Government will allow this to perpetuate (if they don't avoid it in the first place). The consequence is most likely that there will be the need for some short term measures. These short term measures are unlikely to be renewable.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's all very well to call for an 80% cut in greenhouse emissions by 2050 but where's the plan to make sure it actually happens? A plan that would have to recognise the political and economic issues, not just the technical ones. As for aviation and shipping, last figures I heard was that these accounted for 2% and 1.5% of global emissions so even if we completely abolish both these global industries it's not going to make much of a contribution to an 80% reduction. Every little helps, perhaps.

Of course we can't use electricity that's not generated, which is why plans are being pushed forward to build new (replacement) capacity. Does anyone seriously believe that any government is going to sit back and refuse permission for new power stations knowing it will lead directly to power cuts? As for fossil fuel depletion, we might be at/near/past peak oil but the UK is sitting on coal reserves that could last for hundreds of years. I just can't see this being allowed to stay in the ground, so there isn't really any 'fossil fuel depletion' to worry about for a few hundred years yet. Consequently, I doubt that Kingsnorth will be the last new coal-fired power station to be built.

I'm not, by any means, trying to deny that global warming/climate change is not a problem but we're all energy-dependent junkies; we know it's bad for us, it might even kill us all in the end, but while we can get it life is good. So, while we might like to talk about how beneficial it would be to cut down on our energy consumption, a myriad of political and economic circumstances conspire to somehow prevent it from actually happening. Theoretical solutions are easy, practical ones are rather more difficult and governments around the world don't seem to have a good track record of planning for events that are decades, maybe centuries, away.

 

[Pford75]

Theoretical solutions are easy, practical ones are rather more difficult and governments around the world don't seem to have a good track record of planning for events that are decades, maybe centuries, away.

Look at the uncoordinated response of govts to the recent financial crisis. If we can't even resolve this in a coordinated fashion, what hope something far more complex? As Flyfisher points out, I believe that Energy scarcity and prices will work against the 'green' agenda. People try hard to be 'green' in what they do.....but if coal-fired power stations can dramatically reduce the price of electricity, then that's a pretty compelling proposition to families living in poverty in the UK

 

[shelli]

PLANT TREES ! PLANT THEM NOW!! GO ON, WHAT ARE YOU ALL WAITING FOR !

If we pay farmers subsidies to not grow food and not graze animals and not produce milk - they could use the time they save and (an alternative) subsidy from the government to plant trees, with broad leaves to soak up some carbon - up on our fells they could start at the bottom and spiral their way up saving our topsoil from sliding down into the river valleys and out to sea, silting up estuaries on the way.

They could return to coppicing on the odd acre for fuel for heating and anyone who could have a wood burner installed would be encouraged to get one - with a back boiler - even town and city properties could do this

If someone could invent a CFC filter to fit into a flue system we could also burn more of our rubbish at home - polystyrene goes up a treat :shock: :shock:

I read all these posts with immense interest by the way - one question - If reducing the load came down to power cuts - who would decide whose power gets cut off ?? - would it be the poorest members of society to suffer them? - Inner cities / Rural areas - I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the wealthy

Shelli X

So - Why are you still reading this ? Why aren't you out in the garden? - October is perfect time to plant trees you know

Get on with it

 

[biffvernon]

I hear what you are saying Biff and I don't know enough about the subject to debate the accuracy of the claims.....but I think the point being made was that in the scenario you describe...several things will happen:

1. Wholesale economic and social failure (you can't reduce the needfor electricity overnight, even if there are challenges with generation)

2. The poorest members of society hit hardest. Any scarce good rises in price and will for some become unaffordable

3. Gov'ts will come under enormous pressure to increase supply of electricity and will turn to the cheapest short term solutions (most probably coal and nuclear)


I'm not disputing what you say....just pointing out that no Government will allow this to perpetuate (if they don't avoid it in the first place). The consequence is most likely that there will be the need for some short term measures. These short term measures are unlikely to be renewable.

Spot on. Trouble is that point #3 and the short term measures won't work so #1 and #2 are inevitable.

 

[skier-hughes]

I've planted 124, Oak, Ash, Cherry, Chestnut and Birch.
This year I'll be planting about 50m of hedgerow