UK government’s new plan to reach net zero goal faces criticism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The government has launched its revamped energy plan after being forced by the courts to do so by midnight tomorrow.
Why? Because their last plan didn't go far enough to deliver the UK's legally binding net zero goals.
So does the strategy add up?
What a mess ...we are stuffed with these clowns in charge. 🤬
I recently moved into social housing and asked about insulation grants , I was amazed to find out that there is a scheme that would pay for solar panels as i am in a one bed bungalow which is all electric . I later found out that the 4 similar properties adjoining me have since been visited and offered the same scheme . None of us was aware this scheme existed before , I was just asking because of the draughts that came in through windows and doors . Maybe if government advertised these schemes more people would take them up !
What's the name of the scheme, help us out then?!?
@@jabberjaw84 I have no idea , All I know is that I asked the housing association about if there was any grants available for insulation and they sent out an energy efficiency adviser . Wish I knew more but I don't !
@@jabberjaw84 you likely wont get it if you work.
No support for working people
Nicky,
perhaps it is because the government has finally woken up to how abysmally poor solar generation is.
It is the worst of the bad bunch that is renewables (hydro excepted)
You can not get to net zero without huge decreases in living standards and people who advocate net zero should tell people that you can not do it without huge cost.
Almost certainly in 2050 people will still be talking about net zero, this time aiming to achieve it by 2080. And even then it is unlikely, very unlikely that there will be zero carbon emissions by then.
Meanwhile countries like China are hugely increasing emissions, they do not seem to care tuppence about net zero and will make Britain does totally meaningless anyway.
And the double standards surrounding the issue is absolutely astounding, something that has been. Evident for a very long time.
Well said
Well said
Of course there's criticism, it's par for the course with any Govt but don't forget ultimately people pay for it either with taxes or utility bills
i doubt i will be around in 2050 (i'll be 98) so i object to being taxed more for the future generation's benefit
@@bertiebongobut your generation is the one most responsible for the co2... So really it is you who should pay for it not the next
Tree capture carbon, how many will be lost to print out this 'plan' ?
What a complete waste of time and money, just to fix a non existent problem.
No one wants pumps .
Every fitter has a diary booked for months or years.
Energy security? We need energy independence so we’re not reliant on others for own needs.
In Jun 2022, the SCOTUS ruled that the US EPA has no authority in the US Constitution to regulate carbon emissions of power companies, whether private or state company. Early in March 2023, the Biden administration greenlighted ConocoPhilip's Willow project, which will start drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska's Northern Slope region. China and India have done precious little to "decarbonise" their economies.
Net zero is headed for failure because collaborative efforts is conspicuously absent, so people need to disabuse themselves about all illusions of a decarbonised world.
No, we still need to work towards de-carbonization! Stay positive!
Solar Panels are the future but future what? is it the case that after 10-15 years they fail and need to be sent to landfill ? The problem is that they are more toxic than Nuclear waste. So we are looking to dispose of 800,000 tons per year by sending it to 3rd world countries can this be true? If they are recycled properly it will vastly increase the cost and so prohibit their use.
The numbers are rediculous. .40 million cars and lgvs replaced by EVs at the current levels will take 150 years. Heat pumps are the same. The whole grid will need replacing and the cost now is estimated at 3TRILLION POUNDS which we all know will rise to more and this is all money we haven’t got. Battery backup to wind is not feasible as the materials will be needed for cars. The whole thing is a shambles without retaining fossil fuels untill we have nuclear power on line. Forget wind and solar use the money for insulating and domestic solar and storage.and flood barriers and infrastructure.
It is a mistake for the OK to be a leader in net zero. UK citizens are only 14th in income and wealth and should not have to bear the economic burden of virtue signalling. Let other nations lead, and learn from their mistakes and improved technology with later generation devices.
Where is all the tax revenue coming from with no fossil fuels????? This is the question I want answering!! Can you imagine the price of renewables if they had the same amount of taxes lumped on them😮 this to me is the Elephant in the room and is why it's not talked about by the climate nutters.
Nuclear is green energy now according to the EU, let's do that instead, it'll work much better and be less polluting.
30 years ago they were saying we going into a new Ice age now they're saying the planets heating up too much it's a load of rubbish
that's not true, get your facts right. it was in the 70s that a couple of scientists were warning of a possible ice age. They were soon proven wrong. While at exactly the same time 50 times the number of scientific papers were being published warning of global warming. They were proven right by the 80s.
No “they” weren’t. We’ve known about climate change for 50 years. Stop believing everything you hear and learn to read for yourself. I’d recommend Google Scholar.
We don't have time for that Chinese opening 10 new coal plants every yeah stop trying to make us poorer
Shame they are not so keen on net zero immigration
Renewables aren't a real option, ask Germany
Your mobile phone will be made of wood and will have nothing inside it.
Nice move there by Dishy. The carbon capture could be a real money spinner while Europe follows the piper. Nuclear is great, and the £160M for off-shore windmills shows we’re serious but not enough to bankrupt ourselves over the emperors new clothes.
160m is a drop in the ocean. Offshore projects are priced in billions these days. Happening despite Westminster
Wrong. That carbon credit will be just a tax revenue stream to be charged back to you / households by corporate. It's great scheme if you can afford Tesla etc. Basically the lower pyramid cost of living is set up to be enslaved by Net Zero only a few can really afford to earn the credits.
Carbon capture technology doesn't even exist yet, they're gambling our future on something that's not even been invented. Yeah 'nice move' ....smh
And nuclear? The waste it proudces lasts for tens of thousands of years and radiates whatever it comes into contact with. Great...
carbon capture will make existing fossil fuel power generation more expensive (if it can even be made to work at scale which it hasn't so far). It has to, because it's an extra highly complex process added onto an existing system. And renewables are already effectively challenging fossil fuel power on price and the cost of those renewables is constantly falling. So how does investing in a as yet nonexistent tech that will make out power more expensive while also keeping us tied to a obsolete technology and continue to expose us to unpredictable global oil markets a good idea?
Governments im paying 50 pounds a day to feed a prisoners for my delay good and no receipt from them that's how i pay for wrongs they do out of my sweat
Very few jobs very few energy saving for consumers growth at any cost will ruin the country
Never happen.
No to vaccine passports, mandates or lockdowns.
Here you are!
Did you recently wake up from a coma?
Nuclear power plants are basically giant, super expensive, controversial, high super long term risky, steam pumps!...Why not instead use all this investment into just tapping into the free safe ubiquitous, endless, underground carbon zero, geo thermal capacity's of mother earth???
Because in the U.K. we banned fracking and that is the most cost effective way of getting all that super underground energy.
Not talking about gas extraction from shale...
Southampton already has a pretty good geothermal based heating system. No Engineering reasons why nuclear couldn’t also provide cheap heating.
very expensive for UK. UK is not Iceland, where one will not need to drill much to get high temperatures. Solar seems not the solution for UK, I do not think so
@@gibranromeromujalli Designed and built correctly district heating systems can show an annual COP of 7:1, and last up to 80 years. Seems all good to me. Even incorporating heat rejected from the thermal side of nuclear. The main reason nuclear plants are built near large bodies of water are for cooling. As you may know.
Yet another benefit of Brexit!
More environmental bs
they are not legally binding because you do not have my signature
…Where to even begin
Just use neclear
The tyrants carry on abusing the familys of britian love love love
Goofy ahhh solar UK 💀
Germany has the same solar radiation levels as the UK, and without particularly focusing on solar has 30% of its electricity generated by solar alone.
typical dumb ameican sentence “goofy ahh” what is that.
Build a battery giga factory ASAP
Battery powered tractors and combined harvesters will save us once the oil stops....
If you are using a tractor on a farm a long cable is feasible. Large mining machines use that method today.
@@markgohl2660 - the only thing that is feasible is the already planned depopulation of the planet .
Less people...less power required.
Its a bit depressing really...
So it should there's no climate change
@sock Jenny saw Piers Corbyn explain it all really clearly. Jenny thinks the climate has always been changing, Jenny thinks the Sun is getting bigger. Jenny is a selfish old hag.
Oh & Jenny is a racist.. check her youtube favorites.. Tommy Robinson lolz.
There's ALWAYS climate change, the debate is our we affecting the process.
@plurabelle5 Fuzzy Wuzzy was a woman?
@@ianmangham4570 There’s no debate. You not understanding cold hard facts and numbers doesn’t constitute a “debate”.
We are behind on every front. We should be able to erect an apparatus to call an early general election
they sign away all your hard earned tax and your country is left with nothing all the wealth gets distributed away
"We have paid the price for not recognising the opportunity that onshore wind could have driven a reduction in fuel bills"
The onshore wind ban was the most obviously dumb government policy I have seen in my decades on this planet.
NIMBY pandering dictating policy, just like when Truss said she didn't want to see rural areas blighted with solar energy panels. Same reasons as to why we have a housing crisis!
No wind no power, dead birds , short lifespan of blades, high cost, non recycle.
@@pbysome Cheapest cost of electricity of any available technology and fast to build. There is a solution for the bird problem.
@@markgohl2660 no it isn't the cheapest that is a lie.
The cost of building them maintaining and their short life and no worry when no blowy makes them ridiculously expensive.
What is the solution to the bird problem? Harvest the corpses for food and mattresses?
@@pbysome en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
These people need to live in the real world,
Yet still they continue to build housing estates on farmland
Forgetting that crop foliage helps the planet plus the butterflies and bees
What ever money I could have spent on Solar/house battery 🪫 is going on my mortgage 💸 due to high inflation… I dont see the majority having the resource 💵 to adopt low carbon solutions for heating and transport to meet these targets… no doubt the gov will penalise people into oblivion who are stuck with gas heating and fuel cars unable to afford the move.
The whole point is that the government needs to foot the bill, and they’re not.
Scrap Net Zero
Scrap any future economic and, eventually, literal survival.
@@isolationnationn Get help
@@isolationnationn *more reading required
Are we still playing this charade? When are these eco warriors gonna pull China and Russia into line 😂
Every litre of oil imported is the issue not the oil taken from the UK oil deposits..
The are no "caverns" in the North Sea. Oil and gas is recovered from porous rock (usually sandstone). Removing the oil/gas involves pumping water under high pressure to "push" the oil out of the rock. In a depleted oil field the rock will be filled with water.
Yes CSS will work. That is not the question. The reality is that energy generated using CSS is likely to be even more expensive than just generating using gas as there are overheads in scrubbing out the gas, and pumping it under high pressure into depleted gas wells 10's or 100's of km from the power station. There is then there is question of whether the CO2 will ever escape in the future . There are other cheaper solutions. I expect this is just a greenwashing sop for the hydrocarbon industry, like oil from algae and other totally uneconomic ideas.
carbon capture has been the big solution pushed by oil and coal companies for the last 30 years. I remember George W Bush talking about it. But it still doesn't exist as a functional product. Want to know why? Because the only people invested in pushing it are also not interested in actually using it. Its oil and gas companies that are behind this idea, but actually installing it on fossil fuel power stations would massively increase their running costs, and they are already struggling to compete with renewables on cost. So it'll never happen. It's just blatant greenwashing. And the fact the tories are now pushing it as their big solution is proof they have no intention of actually sticking to these climate goals
‘you vill eat zee bugz und you vill be happy vit your nothing’
$LAVA THE WEF 6UILD 6ACK 6ETTER
Any net zero solution that requires us to use less energy or more expensive energy will require us all to accept being poorer, yet the response to high fuel prices this year led to demands for fossil fuel subsidies from the groups that are normally complaining about such things and public sector works walking off the job because they think only those of us in the private sector should have to foot the bill.
What this tells us is that any net zero solution that requires the average citizen to be poorer though higher energy prices is ultimately politically undeliverable and as much as I wish it was not the case, I have yet to see any net zero policy that doesn’t make the average person a lot poorer.
Going down this road will lead to the return of fascism across Europe, as people reject being poorer to save the planet.
*Every* single green plan for net zero across western countries, which actually aims for net zero, also boosts economic growth.
The USA “green new deal” alone adds £40 billion to the economy every year, so what exactly are you talking about? I’m sorry to say that it seems you’ve been mislead.
And to add some context, we’re not trying to save the planet, we’re trying to save ourselves. You think green policies cost money? Have a look at the projected costs of climate change from infrastructure damage and mass migration *alone.*
@@isolationnationn you are failing to understand the connection between the cost of energy and wider macroeconomics. Whilst borrowing a load of money to invest in making energy more expensive, does provide a short term boost the green energy sector, it does so at the expense of the wider economy, where those higher energy cost create inflation and cause otherwise viable businesses to fail.
Now I’m sure your going to claim wind and solar provide cheaper energy, but this requires false accounting to reach that conclusion. Once you factor in the additional costs of seasonal energy storage, they become more expensive than nuclear.
I want us to succeed in the energy transition, but for this to happen we need green energy sources that provide reliable 24/7 energy at price that is competitive with fossil fuels. Currently that is hydro and thermal which are both dependent on geography. Beyond that modular nuclear is probably the best hope, but not before the end of this decade.
@@isolationnationn I agree with wind power off the ocean and land. And using tidall movement to make power. And solar panels across water that's not being used and on buildings top's. But not on ground level land. Wasting food production land. But I don't agree with the £40 m as it goes in to the business making energy components and most are in China India. And most these big companies pay their taxes and incomes in other countries. (The greed behind pushing green energy. ) these companies don't care about green energy. They just want the huge amounts of money involved in doing it. And they don't care about what pollution they generate by making green energy...
all youll find here is a lot of hot air.
Nah, it just requires initial investment. If you have the money to buy a new electric car and simple home power generation (solar/mini turbine), then you can drive 150 miles a day without paying for anything other than replacement car parts when they wear out.
Having the money up front to set up is the difficulty
How is it "legally binding"?.
We signed it, so international law, then we signed it into our law, so we’re also bound by national law.
@@isolationnationn when did that go through the house?
@@isolationnationn ‘we’ ???
Produce less oil & gas and just import it at much higher prices. Only geniuses could hatch such a clever plan.
Renewables have increased German electricity prices by 500%
Clown Show
It's not possible but your not the problem it's India China Russia central America so why are you spending so much time on it to take the focus of the terrible leadership
Noble intent but cost really is the issue, and I think that the cost of net zero goes off the scale to get that last 20% so making this country into a poor third nation. Ady
the grid cannot cope with an all electric society. there will be powers cuts. back to good old early 1970s
We plan 4 Times the elec with only the grid for 1.
It's good that people are getting serious and challenging government through official channels. I've always said if you don't ask you won't get.
It's all very well venting frustrations through civil disobedience but unless you've exhausted all other approaches and gone through official legal channels (officially requesting action before making demands) then it's just showing off.
You can't just jump steps and claim no one is listening when you haven't worked through the proper protocols because opposition can and will just turn around and claim ignorance. 'We didn't know anyone wanted to save the planet they didn't tell us'.
It's sad that we're now at the point where doing nothing is what will destroy us. For humanity (+ most other life on Earth) to survive we can either work to build a sustainable civilization or we can abandon civilization and fight it out but business-as-usual will kill the species.
Building a sustainable civilization is preferable. I think a lot of people appreciate civil amenities. Healthcare, protection from crime, food security etc.
Come on government it's not difficult. You know it's not difficult so stop making it difficult.
HOW???
Miles behind on production🤔 wasn't it British jobs for British workers. Please don't say we don't work as hard.🙄
UK will import all the sunshine from the new Pacific trade bloc. Simples....😂😂
Take us out of Net Zero, the Paris Climate Conference, Davos and COP whatever, and it would be a gigantic step in the right direction... More fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro, supplemented with wind and solar as they are a niche offering..., and we can all start living again, instead of existing...👍
These green zealots will ruin us all, an empty virtue signal by people who haven't even bothered to investigate climate science for themselves, but live off the words of "experts". Computer modelling will be the end of us!
All the time China. India. Indonesia and others keep pumping out CO2 there is little point in beggaring ourselves in trying to get to net zero The legal obligation should be scrapped.
Too many people in this country are gullible idiots when it comes to this "climate crisis"! Even the IPCC don't think the outlook is so bad.
If you want more bang your buck on strategy’s that actually work Bjorn Lamborghini is your go to.
They can start by legalizing electric scooters
what? so more idiots can kill and injure people by riding recklessly? until they are taxed, insured and have to display some identification they should be scrapped
@@bertiebongo ye about 4 people have died so far 66 people die everyday in a car
Carbon capture does not seem reasonable unless it is directly from handling carbon fuel smokestacks, and since there will be no more smokestacks carbon capture does not make sense.
Wakey wakey Engurlund, Scotland wokup to this a decade ago. Your our only hope
NET ZERO 😂😂😂. They are trying to persuade carbon based beings that carbon is the problem. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Germany can't produce that stuff because they don't have the power because they went to renewables.
can i ask why the government is spending billions of our taxes on that outrageous waste of money that is HS2? vastly over budget, gr8ly behind schedule and tearing up large swathes of our beautiful countryside. and for what? so people can save a few minutes getting into and out of London. if that isn't a reason never to have started in the 1st place i don't know what is!!!!
Story of UK -great science very bad production. Really? The solar panel scientist was not even British origin!
❤❤❤
UK is poor and have no money to invest.
We pay oil and gas companies £9billion a year in subsidies and they pay negative values in tax.
There’s money right there we could use better, no?
I still don't do what the queen said electric scooters the Queen woud rolling in her grave
I remember hearing that Africa has enough solar energy to fuel the whole of Europe. Why have they not sorted this out and developed a means of transporting it to provide energy for Europe?
Solar is a dreadful source of electricity for many reasons, practical and technical. Transmitting it from Africa is uneconomic.
And am not sure, that could work, better Go.
1984 is coming, and people still sleeping
Fishy Sunak looks like supermarket manager 👨💼
"THE science".....
Google Scholar. Try reading.
@@isolationnationn?
Avoid more nuclear. Too long to build, too costly to dismantle when it's lifespan ends.
Sellafield is costing the taxpayer at least 121billion pounds to fully decommission it.
That explains the rise in our energy bills...
It is a low carbon source of energy and without nuclear power any attempt to get to net zero will fail, certain,y for the foreseeable future.
Bills are rising because of subsidies for stupid wind turbines and having to IMPORT coal and gas because we don't mine our own anymore!
Statement about not making wind turbine blades isn't true. Siemens Gamesa makes them in Hull - UK.... Fake news!
Not the ones we use clever clogs.
Net zero equals end of world
💯
Do you breathe Co2 or something?
Look at the places in the world which have invested most of all in trying to replace hydrocarbons with major move to wind and solar include Germany, Denmark, Texas, California.
These places all share one thing in common- energy crises directly as result of falsely believing that they can replace hydrocarbons with wind and solar. Texas and California have energy blackouts, exactly when they need electricity most of all such as winter storms and summer heatwaves. Like Denmark & Germany, they also have much higher energy costs to consumers than peer states or nations.
Denmark's wind turbines require back up using gas and coal as when the energy demand is highest, the wind turbines can't meet the demand. Denmark for a long time was selling its wind generated electricity at a loss to its neighbours.
Germany has seen what happens, when you pretend that you can turn off nuclear and just rely on wind power.
There is so much utopian thinking going on amongst politicians. The more you actually delve into studying how reliable and how efficient, each specific energy source provider is, the wake up call comes that we are being pushed a lie.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 net zero 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 rishi private jets are run by his poo 😂😂😂😂😂
Solar and wind won’t fix things without seasonal energy storage, which is even further out than carbon capture
Tidal is coming through in Scotland.
Then there is heat from old mines.
actually grid scale energy storage already exists and is right now being used in several contries around the world. How is that "even further out than carbon capture" given that no large scale carbon capture and storage currently exists anywhere. Also there are a myriad of new, cheaper, more efficient and more effective grid scale energy storage projects in the pipeline right now. while there are no such equivalent in carbon capture and storage. Maybe get your info from the real world, not media funded by oil billionaires
@@WhichDoctor1 current tech is only designed to store energy for a fer hours to cover the evening peak.
Storing enough energy to cover just the winter demand of the U.K. using current tech would require 8 times the known global reserves of unmined lithium.
@@julianshepherd2038 hardly, have you seen how little that tidal plant puts out? I always thought tidal in the Bristol Channel would be a thing, but then I discovered that on a neap tide the plant will only generate 25% of the power you get on a spring tide and that pretty much kills the idea.
Renewable energy is not cheap.
It’s 30% cheaper than *any* other source of energy. Soooo…
Catalytic converters was designed and built in the 60s by quinton Hazel at squires Gate Blackpool, BP was the main fuel provider of fuel in the UK, Who stopped the Catalytic converter being used in the UK ? BP
god bless uk🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧