Their credibility has just gone out the window. Talking about a carbon tax, it is just another scam. We don't need to decarbonize or reduce our output.
If the world had a 400% growth rate the last 80 years and a 40% growth rate the next 80 years would an expectation of lower or non existent growth be ok? Last year the world produced enough food for all the world to gain weight, if farming is just a job and growth has stopped, 23 countries are supposed to lose 50% of their population, China 600 million, Japan another 50 million, if growth has stopped and we have enough of almost everything, why shouldn't we reduce output?
CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in the 1840's so why do you still deny this? What is your evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere does not act as a greenhouse gas? You have none.
We know that there is NO SUCH THING as man-made global warming, it is all a huge fraud, so why are the evil UN allowed to publish lies at the bottom of these videos?
Hear hear. These three people started off sounding like they had enough common sense to dig deeper but half way through it was depressing to realise they'd done no research whatsoever.
What past energy transition are you talking about ? The world burns twice as much wood and biomass, including dung, today than in 1900. The use of coal, oil, gas continue to rise even though the world has spent $5T on weather dependent electricity generation. Energy use is additive; we have not eliminated the use of any form of electricity or heat generation that I can think of.
China is decarbonising at a blistering rate. Renewables are now so ridiculously cheap and batteries are finally matching that it is very possible, they're only getting cheaper and better.
Does anyone know what net zero actually means? It is a con. An overflowing bath with the taps blasting out as much water as the plug hole is removing. Result: the bath remains overflowing. Net zero even allows the taps to be turned on even more! So long as initiatives are made to make the plug hole wider, which will take time when the taps can be turned up instantly.
It's not complicated. It simply means that human activities do not emit and increase the existing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Your bath analogy does not make any sense in this context.
Try an air tight cigarette smoke filled room with a small crack in a window, let’s only smoke enough cigarettes to replace the smoke lost through the crack. Insanity! Your going to be breathing that smoke ad infinitum. We need to reduce emissions already in the atmosphere.
@@turquoiseowl Clearly you have not seen the plot of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere measured in Hawaii. Here you will see that the level goes up and down. It goes down in the northern summer when the majority of Earth's flora is sequestering CO2 and back down in the northern wintter when sttuff is decaying. Superimposed on that is a persistent small trend that steadinly adds up. That is anthropogenic CO2 emissions and every year they inexorabltty add to the total and that is disaster.
The important question is not ‘is climate change real’ but ‘what proportion of climate change is man made’. Another one is ‘is CO2 the main culprit of all negative consequences, or might it actually be good for the planet’ Here’s another one ‘should we be concentrating on stopping the overfishing and pollution of our oceans’
A more interesting question is how levels of CO2 were an order of magnitude higher than they are today when man did not even exist, and how or why the same could not happen again.
The warming is man made due to the rise of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Solar output cycles about every 11 years and has shown a slight downward trend in the last 50 years. Likewise Milankovich cycles (the shortest has a 26k year period) aren't responsible and are again in a cooling phase. Yes, a bit more CO2 would have helped plant growth but plants don't thrive in floods, drought or fire. The speed of change isn't good for the natural world in general. It'd be a good idea to stop over fishing and the pollution of the oceans. Net zero is unlikely to happen while we think economic growth is the cure for everything. Nature can't keep up.
Who decided that we should cut carbon emissions to zero in the hope of stopping climate change? Should we cut our carbon emissions by de-industrialising in the hope of mitigating the change or should we follow a strategy of adaptation? Net Zero is like King Canute trying to stop the tide, yet I have never heard any government or politician even contemplate a policy of adaptation.
100% of the acceleration of climate change and the direction is man made, the earth would have been going into another ice age by the looks of history Co2 and any greenhouse gas, like nitrogen fertiliser offgassing and is 300 rimes worse than carbon isn't good for planet or bad, just all life as we know it for thousands of years, it will be the speed this time which is why it is called accelerating global warming, so the last time it was as warm we are going to 86% of all species died out, that time it took 700,000 years and we might do it in 1000. The issue is the thing we have that cools the planet, ice, has been left out in the open, added carbon which slows down the heat transfer to space, increases heat and in coming years, maybe not the next 100 but flood pulses of metres per decade could happen after that, until eventually in around half the time since Jesus was born we could see 72 metres higher sea levels. When Co2 levels were higher humans have never experienced those temperatures, no species of human has ever experienced it warmer than today as we are warmer now than the last 3 million years. For humans we aren't much good above 33-35 degrees and 100% humidity, for longevity and with an average of 14c now globally one person I have seen says we could have a global average of 30c which makes for hot days. As CO2 is 80% of our emissions then yes it is the main culprit and unless we find a way to take it out using less energy than it took to put it in, then as it is being put in four times as quick as it is absorbed by the planet, the carbon we emit to go for a drive will be in the system for 10,000 years, and we are increasing the amount by the second. This ppm of 430 parts for every million sized parcel of air means quite a few trillion upon trillion of them are around you and above you and as we now they absorb and trap radiant heat, melting that ice, but we should be careful with the term zero, it's not cit carbon to zero, it's cut it to the level the earth absorbs it through oceans, soils etc which is about as I say 25% of our current.
Here in Ireland we have a carbon tax which is increasing. It was railroaded through by the Green Party which was part of the last government. That party lost 11 of its 12 seats in Parliament and were detested by the people. Many scientists say that CO2 is not the driver of changes to the earth's climate.
Please give names of your "many scientists." Bet you cannot. There are just one or two climate scientists who maintain this and they are regarded as being plain bonkers for ignoring the evidence in plain sight.
To me this is just a bunch of rich blokes agreeing with each other on how to make all the cost fall on those less well off than themselves. Have I missed something?
Not really. Those questions are already answered, just a lot of people are not listening. It might seem expensive now, but its way more expensive when you are repairing damages from natural disasters. Even just a mild increase in global temperature is going to cause large increases to the frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes. Just look at the recent flash floods in Valencia. Estimated damage is 20 billion USD. Hurricane Helene caused nearly 50 billion of damage. That's just physical damage. In a couple of generations time you'll see the climate migrants coming out of south Asia as sea levels rise and peoples homes are destroyed and places become uninhabitable.
@@Alex-ni2ir The IPCC report correlates CO2 with average global temperatures from data and modelling but the section 12 on runaways is expert judgement. There is always extreme weather, pointing to examples proves nothing. The actual solution has to include cost benefit which the IPCC report does not address.
@@alanrobertson9790 I'm pointing to recent examples of damages and how much these damages cost to repair. I'm not suggesting these are specifically because of recent climate change. The indicator of that would be the frequency of such events and on the relative size of them.
@Alex-ni2ir I'm yet to read anything that proves the hypothesis but shelving that for a moment what if human emissions is not related and weather is just becoming extreme. We are actively crippling our ability to build the infrastructure to protect ourselves.
How can anyone sustain the grid with green electricity when we rely on gas and other energy sources in the winter dark months and when the wind doesn,t blow. To say nothing of our total power demands.
Our grid is sized for peak demand between 4-7pm, overnight we use around 20% of it's total capacity I have a home solar battery system which puts me off grid during 4-7pm for that I get 50% discount during the night if I need it, if I had an EV I could get even lower tariff for overnight of 70% off. My system is big enough to supply the house for 10 out of 12 months of the year and is new installed this year with a capital payback of 6 years tops and a projected saving over its lifetime of 45k. Things move on at a rapid pace the same system I priced up 3 years ago at a capital repayment of 16 years, reasons are falling battery prices, increased efficiency and good old inflation and rocketing fossil prices + more always on wind generation giving spare overnight capacity.
@@SlowhandGregThank you. What a practical, positive, informed and realistic comment, to combat my negative cynicism. Helpful to know that solar plus battery is of real benefit.
Only nuclear, gas and coal can provide enough reliable energy for our baseload power requirements. The more windmills you see the poorer we will all get and the more power cuts we can expect.
Have you tried using public transport lately ? I waited nearly an HOUR the other week for a bus that is on a route that the timetable says is supposed to arrive 4 TIMES IN EVERY HOUR ! Normally there are cancellations throughout the day so how they expect use to use busses when they have extracted us from our only means of transport , our cars ! It is all a scam anyway to get us to part with our hard earned money !
One of the largest councils un England has been duscussing limiting personal car use to permitted activities only as they are fully aware there will never be enough electricity to facilitate car driving in its current form.
Brexit, uncontrolled immigration, fiscal borrowing, net zero targets. Self inflicted troubles every single one of them. We dig a hole a little deeper for ourselves each time. Who's to blame..?
When past governments pitched their energy policies based on the rantings of a teenage , Swedish girl with no discernible grasp of the subject , everyone was on a path to disaster . Is there any way back ?
"Crunch the numbers" - What numbers mate? "Reality" - It's more expensive to manage the consequences (globally and locally) of >2C . (IPCC AR6) "Air flight" - 2% of global emissions. "Heavy industry" - Hydrogen, biofuels (suck in what you put out), ammonia (technically H2 again), liquid natural gas. All applies to flights as well.
Command economies: Where Governments/Regimes assert control over the production and pricing of goods. However, command economies do not have a good track record - eg collapse of USSR, desperate state of Venezuela. The UK vehicle mandate is an example of a command economy action perpetrated by a socialist government. We, the government, will tell you what to produce on pain of sanctions (fines). We are now seeing the unintended consequences in the Luton van manufacturing closures.
CO2 and energy supply is so central to industrialised societies I never thought these ideas would gain any traction. I think the reason they did is that being green was fashionable. and originally the associated costs were decades away so it was attractive for politicians. But now with the Labour term in government the chickens have come home to roost but the conservatives played the same ruinous game.
Time index 10.40 "If climate change is real it means I have to do things I don't want to do therefore it does not exist" is not illogical because doing those things in UK will make no measurable difference to the climate but wrecking the economy will be very clear to all.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it -- Alan Kay (inventor of the computer GUI) Also, the only people who don't make mistakes are the people who make nothing. So, IEA, the future is coming, either help or get out of the way.
The only #NetZero we should be striving for is #NetZeroGovernment #NetZeroPoliticians #NetZeroGlobalists #NetZeroWEF #NetZeroWHO #NetZeroSocialism #NetZeroCommunism
In addition: EVs don't save the climate, unless they are charged with mostly emission free energy and are driven about 100k km before scrapped; and even then they are damaging several ecosystems.
It's never been about emmissions it's mission creep and control how much has automotive industry spent on cleaning air EVs = full control Why are they being fitted with remote kill switches
How on earth do you "modernise the housing stock" given that much of it is privately owned and individuals are heavily invested in it .... other than in the very long-term ? The only way to do it rapidly would be by expropriation and compulsory resettlement or by the "disappearance" of those owning the property ...... neither option seems particularly palatable, other than to an economist or a politician.
I know, I know @@alanrobertson9790 ... but I find it rather alarming that the prospect of it isn't exactly inconceivable. The right to hold property inalienably seemed unchallengeable even a decade ago .... but then so did freedom of association, movement and speech, so maybe we ought not to be too surprised.
This is such a wasted opportunity. We need details of labour,materials numbers extent of electrification,quintrupling the elec supply by 2050. How many cars, commercial vehicles,trains , planes industry and plant , All this worldwide not just this country. All moronic to think this can be done.
I just did it to my house with a capital payback of 6 years so why can't it be done on a GRID scale and grants for more domestic installs. An interest free loan scheme over 8 years would see a massive domestic takeup of solar battery systems easing the demand on the grid overnight
Taxing the public is NOT THE WAY TO GO as all it does is removes cash from their pockets and is then wasted by politicians who do not know what they are doing! As they HAVE BEEN SO USED TO BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO OVER THE LAST 45 YEARS BY THE EU they have forgotten how to think for themselves! Now they are under the spell of the WEF which is an even harder task master than the EU!
I just have to ask what is the point of being economists like yourselves if you can't draw important conclusions from the fact that everything in life is energy any if you put carbon taxes on it everything will cost more and there will be less economic activity people will be poorer in fact the only people making money will be those holding the carbon credits in escrow for the trees
We can do a lot to achieve net zero. The cost is construction after all we contribute 40% of the UK’s Carbon emission, not planes or cars. We should look at design Construction and accurate reporting of the Cost & Carbon for all attributes, labour, plant, materials, both direct and via the supply chain. This is best practice, both during construction and focus on its life cycle and whole lifecycle. We need to stop importing Liquified Gas, and drill for our own, it’s cheaper, lower carbon footprint and it will help pay for our transition. As any business knows you just can’t switch over from fossil fuel to Low Carbon until the infrastructure is in place and that includes Nuclear energey, this is available 24hrs per day 7 days per week. Look at the SMR solution from Tolls Royce, it’s a no brainer if built next to the old power stations using the existing infrastructure. This again will reduce carbon. Just expand your horizons, do it right and not become a greenwashing organisation
When renewable energy became cheaper than gas back in 2020 The problem is lack of investment in the grid and switching to mass storage instead of standby Gas generation We also have the worst insulated homes in Europe and the most inefficient heating systems
When we are carbon neutral what will the world PPM be given that China and India are not unlimited. Plus is carbon the bad boy or just a 'nice little earner for the 'great and the good'.
Arguing it is "impossible" because of air travel, logistics, and public transport is a straw man I think. Don't agree net zero is impossible - costly, requires much planning, will still require gas for load balancing etc and won't be done by 2030. However if where we still need fossil fuels I'd wager we'll be able to do that via direct air capture which will be carbon neutral. Also, there is simply no way that solar would be as cheap as it is now without Chinese state investment. I seriously doubt a carbon tax would have been able to do that.
It's not costly prices have fallen in real terms, batteries alone fell by 20% in 2023. Just had a solar battery system installed the payback on capital has plummeted to under 6 years for me a few years back it would have been 15+
Net Zero is based on shifting electricity production to renewables and making everything powered by electricity. There are not enough raw materials on the planet to make that possible. Apart from the rare earth minerals required for batteries there isn't enough copper. The more you use the higher the costs will be based on supply and demand . At the moment we are one of the few countries that are so advanced in this self defeating desire to destroy our own way of life. Who will benefit, certainly not us.
While I am sorry for the British workers who will lose their jobs, the loss of carmaking in the UK isn't a real tragedy because it's all owned by foreign actors and world venture capital fundholders. We can de-carbonise by recycling old i/c vehicles which have no carbon footprint despite polluting. EVs ruin the planet. All their manufacture, marketing and sales use zillions of gallons of diesel fuel and the plastics ensure the continued use of Saudi crude with the problems of Islamism that brings. Also EVs use rare earth metals such as Lithium and Cobalt that have to be mined and cause massive social problems. When nobody wants to but a new car and the value of used i/c cars rockets, British industry will step up to the plate restoring and overhauling existing cars and engineering companies will find it economically viable to produce spare parts for older cars. It might just be a golden era for clued up motorists as well as curbing emissions. I look forward to Milliband being on the dole after the 2029 election. He should be restricted to a push bike and the electric bus for the rest of his life.
They may be foreign owned but the wages are good and they cascade money to the local area , take these away and it would be like the pit towns losing the mines. We cannot all work for the state and someone needs to pay their gold plated pensions and high salaries.
The cost of renewable energy keeps falling while the cost of fossil energy keeps going up we hit the event horizon back in 2020 Last year battery prices fell by 20% and there expected to halve in the next 5 years Cobalt got phased out a year or so ago Your arguments are at least 5 years out of date
Before I listen too much further, reminder what the costs and benefits of increasing CO2 emissions are? Also, if Britain reduces emissions by deindustrialisation and sends manufacturing to Asia, how does that impact on the world climate? And has the world become more prosperous, longer life expectancy thanks to fossil fuels? What will be the impact on health and prosperity of the world's poorest people by trying to reduce carbon emissions. This panel is assuming CO2 emissions are bad for society z without quantifying the impact. If crop yields have increased and plants are more drought resistant to higher co2 levels, then what is all the fuss about? I'm not denying climate change, however it is surely necessary to educate us all about the benefits of cos, and the damage of going without coal, oil and gas
No one is ready for the turmoil being forced upon us. The real tragedy is it's all so unnecessary. There may be some climate change but there is no climate crisis. Those pulling the policy levers would do well to listen to the many scientists who support this approach.
Renewable energy is just cheaper nowadays and I'm on a tariff which gives 50% discount overnight and a premium rate for 4-7pm usage I've got battery storage so never pay the standard daily rate or the premium rate. Reason for the cheap overnight rate is wind energy is always on so it pays the supplier to get people to time shift consumption away from the evening peak.
The net zero agenda is a bit like a religion. So if you don't understand you have to have faith. I don't run my life in that way, I am far more pragmatic. We should be moving in that general direction, but far more cautiously and carefully.
Were going net zero because of economics The cost of renewables has fallen by 95% over the last decade I sized up a domestic solar and battery system 3 years ago it was uneconomic due to capital payback of around 15 years+ I had a installed a domestic solar and battery system this year with a projected payback of 5+ years so why the dramatic decrease in Payback? Battery prices fell by 20% last year and are expected to halve in the next 5 years Solar efficiency is up Domestic suppliers have incentivised time shifting consumption away from 4-7 and offer very low overnight rates to the point that if I had an EV I would save £2,000 a year on petrol. I have a solar diverter which is IOT for free hot water reducing my gas bill Every year this stuff gets cheaper and every year fossil gets more expensive yet these people reckon fossil is the future why is that are they closed minded or just funded by the fossil industry?
Glad i ditched diesel , petrol and gas. When gas prices shot up thanks to Putin and global pricing it affected me less. PV saves me money. Shame people are happy to buy imported fossil fuel even though it means money leaving the UK.
The companies involved in renewables are all receiving subsidies. As a result they are required to be transparent on their costings. I'm sorry to have to inform you but the reality is that the cost of renewables has been increasing from day 1 and shows no sign of stopping. A thinking person might have wondered why there were no takers for the new windfarms contracts until the subsidies were massively increased. Sorry to pee on your fireworks but your personal situation does not align with national energy production.
@@terrytheoldgoat The way the energy market works is you bid on a forward contract price with some index linking. The forward contract for Dogger bank was below gas when it was built. Forward contract price for Hinkley C Nuclear is around 2.5 times the price of Dogger bank Offshore Still not up and running delayed till 2028 So no there not subsidies
@@waynecartwright-js8tw We have been and will continue to be charged in our energy bills for the nuclear cleanup following 1950s early nuclear power production. Apart from Hinckly Point C being a typically badly managed Government project where magical thinking again thought that they could get someone else to pay for it, long term it may pay for itself. If it functions as advertised it will start to produce cheap electricity around the same time that the entire fleet of windfarms reach the end of life and need replacing. Nuclear starts very expensive but is cheap to run for the output that it provides eventually since they have a long lifespan. De-comissioning is another question altogether.
"Politically, it feels like support is starting to dry up a little bit..." No... there was never Popular Political Support from the vast majority of the voting public. Because contrary to 'Progressive' belief, the working public are not stupid and could see from the start that this was all... Pie in the Sky. This is what happens when the People in Charge start to believe in Their Own Propaganda...
Then there's no incentive to get your ar5e into gear and do it Payback on capital cost of renewables keeps falling The cost of fossil generation always goes up because of inflation extraction and transport costs
@ so whats the point in doing it any way the UK produces so little carbon it will make NO difference to the world carbon output and whatever will be will happen anyway, the only difference we will see in the UK is we will all be poorer due to the ridicules cost the renewable profit scam!
I still haven't found answers to some questions I have. Is CO2 really the cause of climate change? I don't think so. Everything I've seen suggests that increased CO2 is a by-product of natural temperature increase and good by-product at that. Is it possible to live with 'renewable' energy, alone? It seems not. No matter how many solar panels and wind turbines you have, there will always be the days and, more often, the nights, when the wind does not blow. Can the government and/or the private energy sector provide all the required increase of infrastructure at a cost that does not cripple our economy? I think not. I've seen commentary that suggests that, should all private transport (if we're allowed to keep private transport) become electric, then every power supply will need to be upgraded to account for the increased demand. New supply lines, new transformers and new local supply lines. Essentially, dig up very street in the country to replace the power supply lines. The increased demand for copper, alone, should this goal be chased, will probably lead to mineral wars. I think the likes of Ed Miliband are chasing a dream, an impossible dream. It doesn't help that they're trying to force it. Listen to Bjorn Lomberg and his no nonsense commentary on net zero, rather than the hysterical, the world is going to end, crowd.
Renewable energy is capital cost high input energy free + maintenance Fossil energy is capital cost low input energy medium to high The point on the graph where the capital cost reduces to the point where over 10 years it's cheaper to build a renewable grid is already here, people are just bitchin over the initial capital outlay. There are ways round this an interest free loan over 8 years for domestic battery solar installs and say VAT free on cooperative ownership of a wind farm Free up some of that 3/4 trillion in ISA savings the country has
Nobody is talking about what is happening to the world's climate and it's dire. The planet is warming faster than anybody projected and the warming is still increasing and scientists are unsure why? Meanwhile we argue about what to do when in reality the world should have done something about 40 years ago.
Long haul air travel is the least of the problems. The reality is to have a net zero, by that it means only using 'clean' electricity we are going to have to spend a unimaginable amount of money to achieve nothing. For example around 70% of UK house holds use gas for heating and cooking. To replace that your going to have to increase the amount of electricity we currently generate by at least 5 times. Add in replacing cars with EV's. Each EV is the equivalent of adding a new house to the local power grid. Again will need to increase the the amount of power we generate currently to cover that. Add in to deliver that we are going to have to update the delivery system from the central power grid right down to the cables to each house to be able to cope with the increased loads. With the above in mind let talk about reality in green power generation. To provide the power we are going to have to redesign our current simple on demand power grid and add complexity to it to handle power generation that is no longer on demand and you have no idea when you will it will generate power or how much. So the national power grid will need 'firmers' to allow the constant frequency for the whole system to work and back stops when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. That back stop which is current Gas generated will need to be there to cover 100% of our requirements. Now instead of a power grid made up of on demand sources only we now have a power grid that not only has the required on demand source but in parallel green generation. more expensive, harder to manage and all that cost will be in our bills. If you don't believe that then not that over the last 3 months our main source for power generation within the UK has been Gas. Even today on a clear cold winters day it's current providing 60% of the UK's power requirements with solar and wind combined at 12%.
My house is a net contributor to the grid 10 out of 12 months and I only use grid electric overnight which costs 50% less than standard rate. Our GRID system is sized for peak demand 4-7pm, overnight you have at times 80% spare capacity If you want to reduce energy demand insulate homes to an A+ standard my gas consumption is for the pilot light for 8 out of 12 months and even when the heating is on I have underfloor which uses 40% less gas than a conventional radiator system.
I have gone gas and petrol+diesel car free , how much extra electricity did it need ? how much did i reduce demand by adding PV to my house ? I have Evidence and i'm an electrician. It pays , that's why i did it and that's why others are doing it. My day job at work is reducing electric and gas usage , have reduced my companies by 60%.
@@SlowhandGreg Over night you may have 80% spare capacity now. In the future no. the government wants to make a switch to EV's. Those EV's are going to want to be able to charged overnight. That's a possible extra load of around 30 million cars (that's assuming that there is going to be a lot of homes that won't be able to charge them). There won't be a 'off peak' as we see today.
@@roger_welco I don't get what your reasoning is here due to falling costs and improving battery tech this stuff gets cheaper year on year. while Fossil gets more expensive year on year That's before you take into account the next gen batteries that are coming onstream this year.
@@SlowhandGreg they scrapped pilot lights on boilers years ago , waste of gas. We have an old heating boiler at work that has one , it saves 3kwh a day turning it off in the summer. I've owned my home for 37 years , my electrical consumption from the grid is up 60% but spread throughout 24hrs. My gas consumption was 12000kwh and is now nothing and we run 2 EVs that save 20000kwh equivalent in liquid fuels. The efficiency of this is a huge gain especially on fuel imports and the resulting balance of trade.
I seldom get to see as much self reinforcing negativity as these gentlemen exhibit. Be decent and balance your panel. The energy transition will take place without you.
renewable energy has been the cheapest on the grid since 2020 I can get a 70% reduced overnight tariff from my supplier Octopus who contract mostly wind
What's your basis for accepting that there is a real problem with climate change? And are you also proposing that the main driver of the change is carbon emissions from man-made utilities? The climate is a lot more complicated than that! All climate models to date have been considerably wrong and the one currently used by commentators and the media (RCP 8.5) assumes a dramatic increase in fossil fuel use, whereas this has been going down over the last 10 years. Nowhere in the latest IPCC report do they talk of a 'climate crisis'. Why should a slightly warmer planet be a major problem. The Earth has seen a 15% greening since 2000, and this means crop yields have increased. I'm sure the freezing pensioners in the UK would welcome a slightly warmer world!!
At the START you sounded like sensible people who'd looked into things more than the average Guardian reader then half way through you all revealed yourselves to be as scientifically and historically ignorant as they come. At the bare minimum you could have actually read page 1856 and if I have to tell you what of then I'm tempted to give up, you're beyond hope but hopefully your grand children aren't, so I can't give up.
Joys no carbon no trees no oxygen no people. Think about that. While e m bringing in extra money into his own bank accounts with him in charge of a company making money out of this 😮
Their credibility has just gone out the window. Talking about a carbon tax, it is just another scam. We don't need to decarbonize or reduce our output.
If the world had a 400% growth rate the last 80 years and a 40% growth rate the next 80 years would an expectation of lower or non existent growth be ok?
Last year the world produced enough food for all the world to gain weight, if farming is just a job and growth has stopped, 23 countries are supposed to lose 50% of their population, China 600 million, Japan another 50 million, if growth has stopped and we have enough of almost everything, why shouldn't we reduce output?
This discussion revolves around CO2 is the problem, it is not.
Blasphemer !!!! Your opinions are dangerous your freedoms will be curtailed untill you complete your reeducation.
CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in the 1840's so why do you still deny this? What is your evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere does not act as a greenhouse gas? You have none.
We know that there is NO SUCH THING as man-made global warming, it is all a huge fraud, so why are the evil UN allowed to publish lies at the bottom of these videos?
actually the planet could do with a bit more co2 at the moment!
Hear hear. These three people started off sounding like they had enough common sense to dig deeper but half way through it was depressing to realise they'd done no research whatsoever.
"dishonest" is certainly the correct word to use!, our MP's know EXACTLY what they are doing!, WEF puppets the lot of them!
I think that 'dishonest' is the right word.
Energy transitions take decades- they don’t happen quickly and cheaply just because you change the law.
Left,
it won't happen at all with renewables, they cannot replace conventional power plants for several reasons, practical and technical.
What past energy transition are you talking about ? The world burns twice as much wood and biomass, including dung, today than in 1900.
The use of coal, oil, gas continue to rise even though the world has spent $5T on weather dependent electricity generation.
Energy use is additive; we have not eliminated the use of any form of electricity or heat generation that I can think of.
China is decarbonising at a blistering rate. Renewables are now so ridiculously cheap and batteries are finally matching that it is very possible, they're only getting cheaper and better.
And they usually happen to advance society, not take it back to the dark ages
Does anyone know what net zero actually means?
It is a con.
An overflowing bath with the taps blasting out as much water as the plug hole is removing. Result: the bath remains overflowing.
Net zero even allows the taps to be turned on even more! So long as initiatives are made to make the plug hole wider, which will take time when the taps can be turned up instantly.
It's not complicated. It simply means that human activities do not emit and increase the existing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Your bath analogy does not make any sense in this context.
I'd say the analogy is too complicated it's more like the bath is overflowing but don't worry I have a bit of paper that says it won't be in 50 years
Try an air tight cigarette smoke filled room with a small crack in a window, let’s only smoke enough cigarettes to replace the smoke lost through the crack. Insanity! Your going to be breathing that smoke ad infinitum. We need to reduce emissions already in the atmosphere.
@@custossecretus5737 trees, rain, oceans, etc. already take CO2 from the atmosphere
@@turquoiseowl Clearly you have not seen the plot of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere measured in Hawaii. Here you will see that the level goes up and down. It goes down in the northern summer when the majority of Earth's flora is sequestering CO2 and back down in the northern wintter when sttuff is decaying. Superimposed on that is a persistent small trend that steadinly adds up. That is anthropogenic CO2 emissions and every year they inexorabltty add to the total and that is disaster.
The important question is not ‘is climate change real’ but ‘what proportion of climate change is man made’.
Another one is ‘is CO2 the main culprit of all negative consequences, or might it actually be good for the planet’
Here’s another one ‘should we be concentrating on stopping the overfishing and pollution of our oceans’
A more interesting question is how levels of CO2 were an order of magnitude higher than they are today when man did not even exist, and how or why the same could not happen again.
The warming is man made due to the rise of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Solar output cycles about every 11 years and has shown a slight downward trend in the last 50 years. Likewise Milankovich cycles (the shortest has a 26k year period) aren't responsible and are again in a cooling phase.
Yes, a bit more CO2 would have helped plant growth but plants don't thrive in floods, drought or fire. The speed of change isn't good for the natural world in general.
It'd be a good idea to stop over fishing and the pollution of the oceans.
Net zero is unlikely to happen while we think economic growth is the cure for everything. Nature can't keep up.
Who decided that we should cut carbon emissions to zero in the hope of stopping climate change? Should we cut our carbon emissions by de-industrialising in the hope of mitigating the change or should we follow a strategy of adaptation? Net Zero is like King Canute trying to stop the tide, yet I have never heard any government or politician even contemplate a policy of adaptation.
@@ronmatthews1738 It's nothing more than a cult/mental illness. They cannot reason about it because it is so absurd that it is beyond any reasoning.
100% of the acceleration of climate change and the direction is man made, the earth would have been going into another ice age by the looks of history
Co2 and any greenhouse gas, like nitrogen fertiliser offgassing and is 300 rimes worse than carbon isn't good for planet or bad, just all life as we know it for thousands of years, it will be the speed this time which is why it is called accelerating global warming, so the last time it was as warm we are going to 86% of all species died out, that time it took 700,000 years and we might do it in 1000.
The issue is the thing we have that cools the planet, ice, has been left out in the open, added carbon which slows down the heat transfer to space, increases heat and in coming years, maybe not the next 100 but flood pulses of metres per decade could happen after that, until eventually in around half the time since Jesus was born we could see 72 metres higher sea levels.
When Co2 levels were higher humans have never experienced those temperatures, no species of human has ever experienced it warmer than today as we are warmer now than the last 3 million years. For humans we aren't much good above 33-35 degrees and 100% humidity, for longevity and with an average of 14c now globally one person I have seen says we could have a global average of 30c which makes for hot days.
As CO2 is 80% of our emissions then yes it is the main culprit and unless we find a way to take it out using less energy than it took to put it in, then as it is being put in four times as quick as it is absorbed by the planet, the carbon we emit to go for a drive will be in the system for 10,000 years, and we are increasing the amount by the second. This ppm of 430 parts for every million sized parcel of air means quite a few trillion upon trillion of them are around you and above you and as we now they absorb and trap radiant heat, melting that ice, but we should be careful with the term zero, it's not cit carbon to zero, it's cut it to the level the earth absorbs it through oceans, soils etc which is about as I say 25% of our current.
Here in Ireland we have a carbon tax which is increasing. It was railroaded through by the Green Party which was part of the last government. That party lost 11 of its 12 seats in Parliament and were detested by the people. Many scientists say that CO2 is not the driver of changes to the earth's climate.
Please give names of your "many scientists." Bet you cannot. There are just one or two climate scientists who maintain this and they are regarded as being plain bonkers for ignoring the evidence in plain sight.
The elephant in the room is carbon isn't a problem we could do with more of it not less' the truth always outs in the end.
try watering your plants with your boiler condensate or seeing what happens if your boiler fills up with it or it drains on roof tiles.
Hi guys, just wondering if you might be so kind as to disclose who funds the IEA? 👀
US based Libertarian billionaires, big Pharma, the Tobacco industry and Multinational Oil and Gas giants
Ahh the home of Trusanomics
The IEA is a charity, funded by donation.
@ lol, and if you believe that, I’ve got some magic beans to sell, are you interested?
@@LeoSavanttWho or what is donating?
@@matthewkeith8605 It's a charity, so you're not going to find out.
To me this is just a bunch of rich blokes agreeing with each other on how to make all the cost fall on those less well off than themselves. Have I missed something?
Yes you have. Please pay attention: withoutt net zero your grandchildren will be toast and curse you for your ignorance.
The attempt to bring all cars to EV is an example of how non-professionals solve a purely technical issue.
I am intrigued by how Angela Rayner is going to build 1.5 million houses without emitting any carbon emissions.
Huge questions on whether CO2 massively influences climate and whether all of these taxes are needed in the first place.
Not really. Those questions are already answered, just a lot of people are not listening. It might seem expensive now, but its way more expensive when you are repairing damages from natural disasters. Even just a mild increase in global temperature is going to cause large increases to the frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes. Just look at the recent flash floods in Valencia. Estimated damage is 20 billion USD. Hurricane Helene caused nearly 50 billion of damage.
That's just physical damage. In a couple of generations time you'll see the climate migrants coming out of south Asia as sea levels rise and peoples homes are destroyed and places become uninhabitable.
Apparently the scientists are all in agreement ...... which automatically makes me suspicious.
@@Alex-ni2ir The IPCC report correlates CO2 with average global temperatures from data and modelling but the section 12 on runaways is expert judgement. There is always extreme weather, pointing to examples proves nothing. The actual solution has to include cost benefit which the IPCC report does not address.
@@alanrobertson9790 I'm pointing to recent examples of damages and how much these damages cost to repair. I'm not suggesting these are specifically because of recent climate change. The indicator of that would be the frequency of such events and on the relative size of them.
@Alex-ni2ir I'm yet to read anything that proves the hypothesis but shelving that for a moment what if human emissions is not related and weather is just becoming extreme. We are actively crippling our ability to build the infrastructure to protect ourselves.
How can anyone sustain the grid with green electricity when we rely on gas and other energy sources in the winter dark months and when the wind doesn,t blow. To say nothing of our total power demands.
Our grid is sized for peak demand between 4-7pm, overnight we use around 20% of it's total capacity
I have a home solar battery system which puts me off grid during 4-7pm for that I get 50% discount during the night if I need it, if I had an EV I could get even lower tariff for overnight of 70% off.
My system is big enough to supply the house for 10 out of 12 months of the year and is new installed this year with a capital payback of 6 years tops and a projected saving over its lifetime of 45k.
Things move on at a rapid pace the same system I priced up 3 years ago at a capital repayment of 16 years, reasons are falling battery prices, increased efficiency and good old inflation and rocketing fossil prices + more always on wind generation giving spare overnight capacity.
@@SlowhandGregThank you. What a practical, positive, informed and realistic comment, to combat my negative cynicism. Helpful to know that solar plus battery is of real benefit.
Carbon and co2 are differant elements!
Carbon is a solid and co2 is a trace gas !
So they need to get this right .
Carbon is in every thing .
Including Humans 🤣
@richardphillips6971 that's right it is the most common element
Carbon is just short for CO2 when the context is very clear.
@rogerphelps9939 mabe so .
But some people think that carbon is the problem .
I love the sound of net zero when nothing will grow.
Only nuclear, gas and coal can provide enough reliable energy for our baseload power requirements. The more windmills you see the poorer we will all get and the more power cuts we can expect.
Co2 is not the big bad bogey man they claim it is.
Taxation revenue maker.
Simple as that.
Nett Zero is the greatest act of self harm ever perpetrated by a Government on its people
The energy discussion lacks detail and evidently knowledge. Get Michael Liebreich on.
Can anyone explain how cap and trade is going to reduce the consumption of fuel by a transport company?
We're poor. We cannt afford fancy cars. Most of us are broke.
Have you tried using public transport lately ? I waited nearly an HOUR the other week for a bus that is on a route that the timetable says is supposed to arrive 4 TIMES IN EVERY HOUR ! Normally there are cancellations throughout the day so how they expect use to use busses when they have extracted us from our only means of transport , our cars ! It is all a scam anyway to get us to part with our hard earned money !
One of the largest councils un England has been duscussing limiting personal car use to permitted activities only as they are fully aware there will never be enough electricity to facilitate car driving in its current form.
Brexit, uncontrolled immigration, fiscal borrowing, net zero targets. Self inflicted troubles every single one of them. We dig a hole a little deeper for ourselves each time. Who's to blame..?
Canada has a carbon dividend system
Canada is a woke greenie nightmare
If EVs were practical why haven’t emergency services converted to EV Police vehicles, Ambulances and Fire Trucks?
MILLIBAND. TOTAL AND UTTER PRAT.
why is that
Going net zero saves money on energy and disconnects our economy from world commodity prices
When past governments pitched their energy policies based on the rantings of a teenage , Swedish girl with no discernible grasp of the subject , everyone was on a path to disaster . Is there any way back ?
"Crunch the numbers" - What numbers mate?
"Reality" - It's more expensive to manage the consequences (globally and locally) of >2C . (IPCC AR6)
"Air flight" - 2% of global emissions.
"Heavy industry" - Hydrogen, biofuels (suck in what you put out), ammonia (technically H2 again), liquid natural gas. All applies to flights as well.
"Rent-seeking" always sounds so benign.
Command economies: Where Governments/Regimes assert control over the production and pricing of goods. However, command economies do not have a good track record - eg collapse of USSR, desperate state of Venezuela. The UK vehicle mandate is an example of a command economy action perpetrated by a socialist government. We, the government, will tell you what to produce on pain of sanctions (fines). We are now seeing the unintended consequences in the Luton van manufacturing closures.
CO2 and energy supply is so central to industrialised societies I never thought these ideas would gain any traction. I think the reason they did is that being green was fashionable. and originally the associated costs were decades away so it was attractive for politicians. But now with the Labour term in government the chickens have come home to roost but the conservatives played the same ruinous game.
Time index 10.40 "If climate change is real it means I have to do things I don't want to do therefore it does not exist" is not illogical because doing those things in UK will make no measurable difference to the climate but wrecking the economy will be very clear to all.
The tories brought it in
The best way to predict the future is to invent it -- Alan Kay (inventor of the computer GUI)
Also, the only people who don't make mistakes are the people who make nothing.
So, IEA, the future is coming, either help or get out of the way.
The only conclusion I can come to is that our leaders are mentally ill. I can not see any other possibility. The policies are mad.
Farming vehicles? Shipping?
Net Zero jobs.
Hope Red Ed is listening to this podcast
The only #NetZero we should be striving for is #NetZeroGovernment #NetZeroPoliticians #NetZeroGlobalists #NetZeroWEF #NetZeroWHO #NetZeroSocialism #NetZeroCommunism
In addition: EVs don't save the climate, unless they are charged with mostly emission free energy and are driven about 100k km before scrapped; and even then they are damaging several ecosystems.
It's never been about emmissions it's mission creep and control how much has automotive industry spent on cleaning air
EVs = full control
Why are they being fitted with remote kill switches
Five year plans, hmmmm, where have I heard that before?
Wow! Who knew?
How on earth do you "modernise the housing stock" given that much of it is privately owned and individuals are heavily invested in it .... other than in the very long-term ? The only way to do it rapidly would be by expropriation and compulsory resettlement or by the "disappearance" of those owning the property ...... neither option seems particularly palatable, other than to an economist or a politician.
Don't give them ideas. You may have noticed that being unpalatable is no impediment to this lot.😂
I know, I know @@alanrobertson9790 ... but I find it rather alarming that the prospect of it isn't exactly inconceivable. The right to hold property inalienably seemed unchallengeable even a decade ago .... but then so did freedom of association, movement and speech, so maybe we ought not to be too surprised.
We are putting 1% out of the global output is it worth it i think not
There's a bit more to it than that. If our companies can be at the forefront of renewable technologies there is plenty of money for them to make.
We are the carbon they want to reduce.
The oil agenda says thanks 🙏
This is such a wasted opportunity. We need details of labour,materials numbers extent of electrification,quintrupling the elec supply by 2050. How many cars, commercial vehicles,trains , planes industry and plant , All this worldwide not just this country. All moronic to think this can be done.
I just did it to my house with a capital payback of 6 years so why can't it be done on a GRID scale and grants for more domestic installs.
An interest free loan scheme over 8 years would see a massive domestic takeup of solar battery systems easing the demand on the grid overnight
Wow, expecting a Politian to be logical about implementing change or applying a neutral 'tax credits ' system with all the lobbing (corruption)
Taxing the public is NOT THE WAY TO GO as all it does is removes cash from their pockets and is then wasted by politicians who do not know what they are doing! As they HAVE BEEN SO USED TO BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO OVER THE LAST 45 YEARS BY THE EU they have forgotten how to think for themselves! Now they are under the spell of the WEF which is an even harder task master than the EU!
I just have to ask what is the point of being economists like yourselves if you can't draw important conclusions from the fact that everything in life is energy any if you put carbon taxes on it everything will cost more and there will be less economic activity people will be poorer in fact the only people making money will be those holding the carbon credits in escrow for the trees
It incentives people like me to buy a solar battery system given that the capital payback has plummeted
We can do a lot to achieve net zero. The cost is construction after all we contribute 40% of the UK’s Carbon emission, not planes or cars.
We should look at design Construction and accurate reporting of the Cost & Carbon for all attributes, labour, plant, materials, both direct and via the supply chain. This is best practice, both during construction and focus on its life cycle and whole lifecycle.
We need to stop importing Liquified Gas, and drill for our own, it’s cheaper, lower carbon footprint and it will help pay for our transition.
As any business knows you just can’t switch over from fossil fuel to Low Carbon until the infrastructure is in place and that includes Nuclear energey, this is available 24hrs per day 7 days per week. Look at the SMR solution from Tolls Royce, it’s a no brainer if built next to the old power stations using the existing infrastructure.
This again will reduce carbon.
Just expand your horizons, do it right and not become a greenwashing organisation
No £££ in that for millipede.
When renewable energy became cheaper than gas back in 2020
The problem is lack of investment in the grid and switching to mass storage instead of standby Gas generation
We also have the worst insulated homes in Europe and the most inefficient heating systems
Decarbonization? Humans are carbon based life. See the point.
When we are carbon neutral what will the world PPM be given that China and India are not unlimited. Plus is carbon the bad boy or just a 'nice little earner for the 'great and the good'.
How stupid is the elected government, the civil service? Complete idiots.
Net zero is political
No, the worlds nor ready, the technology and infrastructures are not there yet!!
Arguing it is "impossible" because of air travel, logistics, and public transport is a straw man I think.
Don't agree net zero is impossible - costly, requires much planning, will still require gas for load balancing etc and won't be done by 2030. However if where we still need fossil fuels I'd wager we'll be able to do that via direct air capture which will be carbon neutral.
Also, there is simply no way that solar would be as cheap as it is now without Chinese state investment. I seriously doubt a carbon tax would have been able to do that.
It's not costly prices have fallen in real terms, batteries alone fell by 20% in 2023.
Just had a solar battery system installed the payback on capital has plummeted to under 6 years for me a few years back it would have been 15+
Net Zero is based on shifting electricity production to renewables and making everything powered by electricity. There are not enough raw materials on the planet to make that possible. Apart from the rare earth minerals required for batteries there isn't enough copper. The more you use the higher the costs will be based on supply and demand . At the moment we are one of the few countries that are so advanced in this self defeating desire to destroy our own way of life. Who will benefit, certainly not us.
While I am sorry for the British workers who will lose their jobs, the loss of carmaking in the UK isn't a real tragedy because it's all owned by foreign actors and world venture capital fundholders. We can de-carbonise by recycling old i/c vehicles which have no carbon footprint despite polluting. EVs ruin the planet. All their manufacture, marketing and sales use zillions of gallons of diesel fuel and the plastics ensure the continued use of Saudi crude with the problems of Islamism that brings. Also EVs use rare earth metals such as Lithium and Cobalt that have to be mined and cause massive social problems. When nobody wants to but a new car and the value of used i/c cars rockets, British industry will step up to the plate restoring and overhauling existing cars and engineering companies will find it economically viable to produce spare parts for older cars. It might just be a golden era for clued up motorists as well as curbing emissions. I look forward to Milliband being on the dole after the 2029 election. He should be restricted to a push bike and the electric bus for the rest of his life.
They may be foreign owned but the wages are good and they cascade money to the local area , take these away and it would be like the pit towns losing the mines. We cannot all work for the state and someone needs to pay their gold plated pensions and high salaries.
The cost of renewable energy keeps falling while the cost of fossil energy keeps going up
we hit the event horizon back in 2020
Last year battery prices fell by 20% and there expected to halve in the next 5 years
Cobalt got phased out a year or so ago
Your arguments are at least 5 years out of date
What, it won't all be public transport, that's total rubbish, that's what electric cars are for
Before I listen too much further, reminder what the costs and benefits of increasing CO2 emissions are?
Also, if Britain reduces emissions by deindustrialisation and sends manufacturing to Asia, how does that impact on the world climate?
And has the world become more prosperous, longer life expectancy thanks to fossil fuels?
What will be the impact on health and prosperity of the world's poorest people by trying to reduce carbon emissions.
This panel is assuming CO2 emissions are bad for society z without quantifying the impact.
If crop yields have increased and plants are more drought resistant to higher co2 levels, then what is all the fuss about?
I'm not denying climate change, however it is surely necessary to educate us all about the benefits of cos, and the damage of going without coal, oil and gas
No one is ready for the turmoil being forced upon us. The real tragedy is it's all so unnecessary. There may be some climate change but there is no climate crisis. Those pulling the policy levers would do well to listen to the many scientists who support this approach.
Renewable energy is just cheaper nowadays and I'm on a tariff which gives 50% discount overnight and a premium rate for 4-7pm usage
I've got battery storage so never pay the standard daily rate or the premium rate.
Reason for the cheap overnight rate is wind energy is always on so it pays the supplier to get people to time shift consumption away from the evening peak.
co2 is the gas of life
made from oxygen , are you a plant?
The net zero agenda is a bit like a religion. So if you don't understand you have to have faith. I don't run my life in that way, I am far more pragmatic. We should be moving in that general direction, but far more cautiously and carefully.
unfortunately guys climate change will dictate events not politics- interesting discussion about the deck chairs though!
Were going net zero because of economics
The cost of renewables has fallen by 95% over the last decade
I sized up a domestic solar and battery system 3 years ago it was uneconomic due to capital payback of around 15 years+
I had a installed a domestic solar and battery system this year with a projected payback of 5+ years
so why the dramatic decrease in Payback?
Battery prices fell by 20% last year and are expected to halve in the next 5 years
Solar efficiency is up
Domestic suppliers have incentivised time shifting consumption away from 4-7 and offer very low overnight rates to the point that if I had an EV I would save £2,000 a year on petrol.
I have a solar diverter which is IOT for free hot water reducing my gas bill
Every year this stuff gets cheaper and every year fossil gets more expensive yet these people reckon fossil is the future why is that are they closed minded or just funded by the fossil industry?
Glad i ditched diesel , petrol and gas. When gas prices shot up thanks to Putin and global pricing it affected me less. PV saves me money. Shame people are happy to buy imported fossil fuel even though it means money leaving the UK.
The companies involved in renewables are all receiving subsidies. As a result they are required to be transparent on their costings. I'm sorry to have to inform you but the reality is that the cost of renewables has been increasing from day 1 and shows no sign of stopping. A thinking person might have wondered why there were no takers for the new windfarms contracts until the subsidies were massively increased. Sorry to pee on your fireworks but your personal situation does not align with national energy production.
@@terrytheoldgoat Whats your take on the price for Hinckley point C generation ? do you call that subsidies and will it increase bills ?
@@terrytheoldgoat The way the energy market works is you bid on a forward contract price with some index linking.
The forward contract for Dogger bank was below gas when it was built.
Forward contract price for Hinkley C Nuclear is around 2.5 times the price of Dogger bank Offshore
Still not up and running delayed till 2028
So no there not subsidies
@@waynecartwright-js8tw We have been and will continue to be charged in our energy bills for the nuclear cleanup following 1950s early nuclear power production. Apart from Hinckly Point C being a typically badly managed Government project where magical thinking again thought that they could get someone else to pay for it, long term it may pay for itself. If it functions as advertised it will start to produce cheap electricity around the same time that the entire fleet of windfarms reach the end of life and need replacing. Nuclear starts very expensive but is cheap to run for the output that it provides eventually since they have a long lifespan. De-comissioning is another question altogether.
All this will be amazing until we get a good cme that fries all the electronics.
That will be pretty disastrous either way.
"Politically, it feels like support is starting to dry up a little bit..." No... there was never Popular Political Support from the vast majority of the voting public. Because contrary to 'Progressive' belief, the working public are not stupid and could see from the start that this was all... Pie in the Sky.
This is what happens when the People in Charge start to believe in Their Own Propaganda...
The mandate needs to be moved to 2050 to make it more of a reality !
Then there's no incentive to get your ar5e into gear and do it
Payback on capital cost of renewables keeps falling
The cost of fossil generation always goes up because of inflation extraction and transport costs
@ so whats the point in doing it any way the UK produces so little carbon it will make NO difference to the world carbon output and whatever will be will happen anyway, the only difference we will see in the UK is we will all be poorer due to the ridicules cost the renewable profit scam!
Every time you vote labour you reduce the temperature in 100 years time by .o2 degrees
I still haven't found answers to some questions I have. Is CO2 really the cause of climate change? I don't think so. Everything I've seen suggests that increased CO2 is a by-product of natural temperature increase and good by-product at that. Is it possible to live with 'renewable' energy, alone? It seems not. No matter how many solar panels and wind turbines you have, there will always be the days and, more often, the nights, when the wind does not blow. Can the government and/or the private energy sector provide all the required increase of infrastructure at a cost that does not cripple our economy? I think not. I've seen commentary that suggests that, should all private transport (if we're allowed to keep private transport) become electric, then every power supply will need to be upgraded to account for the increased demand. New supply lines, new transformers and new local supply lines. Essentially, dig up very street in the country to replace the power supply lines. The increased demand for copper, alone, should this goal be chased, will probably lead to mineral wars. I think the likes of Ed Miliband are chasing a dream, an impossible dream. It doesn't help that they're trying to force it. Listen to Bjorn Lomberg and his no nonsense commentary on net zero, rather than the hysterical, the world is going to end, crowd.
Renewable energy is capital cost high input energy free + maintenance
Fossil energy is capital cost low input energy medium to high
The point on the graph where the capital cost reduces to the point where over 10 years it's cheaper to build a renewable grid is already here, people are just bitchin over the initial capital outlay.
There are ways round this an interest free loan over 8 years for domestic battery solar installs and say VAT free on cooperative ownership of a wind farm
Free up some of that 3/4 trillion in ISA savings the country has
Sorry, got to say it. WE NEED THE BLOODY CO2!!!
We need MORE CO2, not LESS! Everything that the grifters tell us is the complete opposite of what we really need!
Oh look, my original comment has been deleted. What a surprise!
Call a spade a f*cking shovel ! It is all b s and we know it !
Nobody is talking about what is happening to the world's climate and it's dire.
The planet is warming faster than anybody projected and the warming is still increasing and scientists are unsure why?
Meanwhile we argue about what to do when in reality the world should have done something about 40 years ago.
Bollocks
What total nonsense!
Long haul air travel is the least of the problems. The reality is to have a net zero, by that it means only using 'clean' electricity we are going to have to spend a unimaginable amount of money to achieve nothing. For example around 70% of UK house holds use gas for heating and cooking. To replace that your going to have to increase the amount of electricity we currently generate by at least 5 times. Add in replacing cars with EV's. Each EV is the equivalent of adding a new house to the local power grid. Again will need to increase the the amount of power we generate currently to cover that. Add in to deliver that we are going to have to update the delivery system from the central power grid right down to the cables to each house to be able to cope with the increased loads.
With the above in mind let talk about reality in green power generation. To provide the power we are going to have to redesign our current simple on demand power grid and add complexity to it to handle power generation that is no longer on demand and you have no idea when you will it will generate power or how much.
So the national power grid will need 'firmers' to allow the constant frequency for the whole system to work and back stops when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. That back stop which is current Gas generated will need to be there to cover 100% of our requirements. Now instead of a power grid made up of on demand sources only we now have a power grid that not only has the required on demand source but in parallel green generation. more expensive, harder to manage and all that cost will be in our bills.
If you don't believe that then not that over the last 3 months our main source for power generation within the UK has been Gas. Even today on a clear cold winters day it's current providing 60% of the UK's power requirements with solar and wind combined at 12%.
My house is a net contributor to the grid 10 out of 12 months and I only use grid electric overnight which costs 50% less than standard rate.
Our GRID system is sized for peak demand 4-7pm, overnight you have at times 80% spare capacity
If you want to reduce energy demand insulate homes to an A+ standard my gas consumption is for the pilot light for 8 out of 12 months and even when the heating is on I have underfloor which uses 40% less gas than a conventional radiator system.
I have gone gas and petrol+diesel car free , how much extra electricity did it need ? how much did i reduce demand by adding PV to my house ? I have Evidence and i'm an electrician. It pays , that's why i did it and that's why others are doing it. My day job at work is reducing electric and gas usage , have reduced my companies by 60%.
@@SlowhandGreg Over night you may have 80% spare capacity now. In the future no. the government wants to make a switch to EV's. Those EV's are going to want to be able to charged overnight. That's a possible extra load of around 30 million cars (that's assuming that there is going to be a lot of homes that won't be able to charge them). There won't be a 'off peak' as we see today.
@@roger_welco I don't get what your reasoning is here due to falling costs and improving battery tech this stuff gets cheaper year on year.
while
Fossil gets more expensive year on year
That's before you take into account the next gen batteries that are coming onstream this year.
@@SlowhandGreg they scrapped pilot lights on boilers years ago , waste of gas. We have an old heating boiler at work that has one , it saves 3kwh a day turning it off in the summer. I've owned my home for 37 years , my electrical consumption from the grid is up 60% but spread throughout 24hrs. My gas consumption was 12000kwh and is now nothing and we run 2 EVs that save 20000kwh equivalent in liquid fuels. The efficiency of this is a huge gain especially on fuel imports and the resulting balance of trade.
I seldom get to see as much self reinforcing negativity as these gentlemen exhibit. Be decent and balance your panel. The energy transition will take place without you.
Back to the Horse and Cart for us country bumkin's
Electric cars catch fire.
Our govt. has decided to lead the world on addressing perceived climate change.Does that smack of supremicism and racism?
renewable energy has been the cheapest on the grid since 2020
I can get a 70% reduced overnight tariff from my supplier Octopus who contract mostly wind
Eh?
What a boring man.
Heist
Electric vans? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Actually great progress is taking place in converting buses, and delivery vehicles to electric.
It's fascinating listening to people who appear to live in a fantasy land. 🤣
What's your basis for accepting that there is a real problem with climate change? And are you also proposing that the main driver of the change is carbon emissions from man-made utilities? The climate is a lot more complicated than that! All climate models to date have been considerably wrong and the one currently used by commentators and the media (RCP 8.5) assumes a dramatic increase in fossil fuel use, whereas this has been going down over the last 10 years. Nowhere in the latest IPCC report do they talk of a 'climate crisis'. Why should a slightly warmer planet be a major problem. The Earth has seen a 15% greening since 2000, and this means crop yields have increased. I'm sure the freezing pensioners in the UK would welcome a slightly warmer world!!
At the START you sounded like sensible people who'd looked into things more than the average Guardian reader then half way through you all revealed yourselves to be as scientifically and historically ignorant as they come. At the bare minimum you could have actually read page 1856 and if I have to tell you what of then I'm tempted to give up, you're beyond hope but hopefully your grand children aren't, so I can't give up.
Joys no carbon no trees no oxygen no people. Think about that. While e m bringing in extra money into his own bank accounts with him in charge of a company making money out of this 😮