Global warming is happening. The only SLIGHT doubt is how much human activity is contributing. The consequences of a wrong decision could be a total calamity. It’s better to err on the safe side. There are other reasons to abandon fossil fuels (except for metal and cement production where they are unavoidable.) Eventually, they will run out. Nobody is quite sure when, predictions have been made for the last forty years at least, (all wrong.) However, they will become more expensive as they become harder to find and extract.
They are poisoning us, mainly by reason of air pollution. At least forty medical conditions ranging from Alzheimer’s to previously unknown childhood diseases. They may even be affecting our DNA, thus affecting our descendants. There are NO “clean technologies” to burn fossil. fuels, especially in the internal combustion engine These are an invention of the fossil fuel lobby. Fossil fuels can be burned in a more controlled way at power stations in that the combustion gases can be “scrubbed”, i.e., the pollutants removed. However, the detritus so collected still has to be disposed of as it contains heavy metals (including uranium), not so easy to permanently dispose of. (Yes, coal ash may be radioactive.)Years ago they made “cinder blocks” out of it. You might have radio-active walls in your house.
The extraction, preparation, and transport of fossil fuels are also extremely damaging and costly.
We depend increasingly on dodgy foreigners for our supply of all our fossil fuels; there is ample scope for hostile countries to cause disruption, leading to future energy wars: the Middle East, Russia, and South America spring to mind.
In the medium to long term, only renewable energy is pollution-free, endless, and can’t be taken away from us. It has massive disadvantages too, mainly in the matter of initial investment costs/times, intermittency, and utilisation factor.
However, it will provide thousands of jobs, and the primary fuel is free. It excites the NIMBYs who were happy to see coal mining and power stations away from their own localities but not to see renewable energy projects in their own neighbourhood (e.g. wind turbines). It’s important to note that renewable energy projects are not necessarily eco-friendly. There are some problems for which no solution is even on the horizon. (Eg aviation and agriculture) THE FUTURE IS ELECTRICITY.
Fossil fuels are described as primary fuels. Energy derived from them is deemed a secondary fuel, electricity is one of them. Electricity can be transported efficiently, i.e., with little loss.
By far, the most important aspect of future energy policy will be energy efficiency, domestic, commercial, and industrial.
It’s possible to build homes that are net energy neutral or even energy negative (i.e., export more energy than consumed.). I own such a house myself. As it’s energy negative, it profits me by £2500/year.
Domestic gas is to be banned from 2050. Gas will go instead to generate electricity as an intermediate solution before 100% renewable energy is achieved. This can be done in new technology power stations that are twice as efficient as traditional coal and oil-fired power stations with much less pollution.
We need to search for “frack gas”. There may not be any in the UK, but we need to know what our options are.
Instead of gas as at present, home heating will be done by heat pumps which you will already see on some new houses. These multiply the electricity used to power them by a factor of three or four depending on weather conditions (if they are “air source heat pumps”) so making them an economical proposition.
Also to be decided, what ratio of small and large scale electricity generation is desirable and technically achievable. Dispersed small electricity generation (e.g., domestic solar PV panels) has the advantage that electricity generated is used locally so obviating transmission losses.
Cars powered by internal combustion engines are also to be banned; this gets rid of fuel originated pollution at street level, though not the pollution arising from brakes and rubber tyres. The total energy needed is much reduced and can have multiple sources. The progress of electricity storage devices will be critical to future policy. (Here the future does not look good, there are numerous technical and financial problems.) With the increase of renewable energy comes increasing control and stability problems on the electricity grid.
There are lots of steps being implemented right now that are not understood by the population who are therefore hostile to them. (Eg smart meters, ending of domestic gas supplies, electric cars, etc.)The implementation of some of these projects has been less than perfect.
The 2050 zero-carbon target is unachievable. To get 75% of the way, there can be done using existing technology; the last 25% will need vast expenditure and new technologies. Far more will have to be done with tidal resources which are abundant in the UK.
Our nuclear industry was originally set up to facilitate the manufacture of nuclear weapons; electricity was a by-product.
Nuclear power stations are carbon-free in running cost (though not in the construction). Aside from the issues of nuclear leaks and terrorism, no-one has yet worked out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. If they had, they would be doing it, and they’re not. Instead, they are just stashing it away for future generations to deal with. Securely burying various toxic wastes (nuclear and non-nuclear) is not as easy as some people imagine.
All the nuclear promises have come to nothing; we were once promised that nuclear-generated electricity would be so cheap, it would not be worth metering. The pigeons have well and truly come home in the French nuclear industry with vast decommissioning costs. (And no money to carry out the work). Our own nuclear project at Hinkley Point is looking increasingly disastrous as time goes by.
I was an energy efficiency engineer in the NHS for twenty years prior to retirement.
Lots of well reasoned arguments here. Since there are obviously so many knowledgeable folk on here could anyone of you please tell me how installing smart meters will reduce electricity consumption? I already know that my kettle uses about 20 or 30 times as much as a 100 watt lamp (back when we had 100 watt lamps) but having a smart meter doesn’t make me boil a cupful of water any quicker (and I always measure the water I put in the kettle since I don’t want to pay to heat water I am not going to use). I guess the real advantage of having smart meters is that the energy companies don’t need meter readers any more.
When I get totally stuck with a mathematical puzzle it is usually because a mistake has been made. Very often the hardest problems to solve are the ones we create ourselves. The problem is then compounded when we make incorrect assumptions.
In your article you have posed the problem. But then you go on to discuss an array of apparently unsuitable solutions. May I put my oar in and suggest that you have made some incorrect assumptions?
Risk and hardship are relative concepts. Cost therefore means nothing unless put into context and perspective. How easy it is to ‘not see the wood for the trees’. An industry was built on thermionic valves but that was washed away with the advent of solid state switches. How important it is to raise your awareness of purpose. One perspective of a complex system is to another a mechanical means to an end.
Separate the problems in this Gordian Knot.
The conflict, controversy and confrontation appears to be whether CO2 is a pollutant or not! The question that echoes through the argument is, can we trust the science, can we trust the politicians and even can we trust our own judgement or gullibility?
The balance of clear historical evidence suggests that CO2 is not the problem. We do not need wall to wall PhDs to tell us that life on our planet has developed and adapted around the absorption of CO2, any more than we need an ‘expert’ to tell us that the sun shines.
Are my actions harming others? Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Follow the money. Is the fear of AGW like Dr Strangelove’s rebellious hand? Is it the fear, like a religious retribution, that is the problem?
Animal life on our planet was initially made possible on an “absorption” of CO2 mostly in the carboniferous era.
Now it relies on a balance between absorption and emissions.
Mature forest for example has a net zero effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is absorbed by shellfish, converted to limestone and subducted at tectonic plate boundaries only to be re-emitted among volcanic gases. The total effect once again is net zero.
We disturb the balance at our peril by “de-absorbing”
the buried carbon as carbon dioxide.
I thought this may be of interest from David Craig’s daily blog earlier this month.
The rest of the world is building coal fired power stations he reports
China has 2,363, building 1,171 more… Total 3,534
South Korea has 58, building 26 more… Total 84
Japan has 90, building 45 more… Total 135
The EU has 468, building 27 more… Total 495
Turkey has 56, building 93 more… Total 149
South Africa has 79, building 24 more… Total 103
India has 589, building 446 more… Total 1,036
Philippines has 19, building 60 more… Total 79
That’s 5,615 projected coal powered plants in just 8 countries.
Britain has 0, building 0 more… Total 0”
I suppose if we don’t want to burn it we could start digging it up again and export to the E.U. or will Poland and Germany be the main supplier.
An invitation to the real world!
Errr.. Drivel.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/31/japans-environment-minister-to-oppose-any-new-or-expanded-coal-fired-power-plants
https://unfccc.int/news/european-energy-producers-commit-to-no-new-coal-plants-after-2020
The others are countries where most people die of various pollution related diseases because they have no say in the matter or are ignorant of the health effects.
“I own such a house myself. As it’s energy negative, it profits me by £2500/year.”
I’m not sure how this is reckoned in the UK but I’ve read that in Australia energy tariffs are structured incentivising customers to install solar panels on their rooves. This is done by spreading out the additional cost of installation and maintenance, which would not otherwise exist and imposing them on all other consumers.
The scheme is structured to hide this cost and delay the rise in domestic electricity prices that such schemes inevitably bring, presumably for reasons of political expediency.
The raw cost of fuel is but one part of the total cost associated with the generation and distribution of electricity. Currently clean coal-fired electricity generation is by far the cheapest method of electrical energy generation, even when the plant is newly built*. That is presumably why, in recent times, EVERY YEAR Communist China has been building new coal-powered generating capacity that exceeds the US’ TOTAL EXISTING installed coal-powered generating capacity.
*Energy generated by existing clean-coal powered plant (i.e. that is not newly built) is even cheaper still.
In the light of this, it can be clearly seen that any curtailment of fossil-fuel burning in the West, unless it is applied equally IN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, especially Communist China, will have no appreciable effect on the release of human-caused carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which will continue unabated.
This renders recent actions such as the blowing up of a perfectly serviceable power station in East Tilbury, for all practical purposes, COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Realistically, the only notable effect of this action will have will be to permanently increase the cost of Electricity in the UK. Furthermore, it will reduce the stability of the grid as this capacity will be increasingly replaced by unreliable renewables and will be yet another causative effect of rapidly rising electricity prices in the UK in the very near future.
Coupled with this, as our understanding of climate variability and it’s many causes grows, evidence is mounting that the effect (if any) of any human-induced increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is extremely small. (Presumably this is why neither the Chinese nor anybody else seems particularly interested in taking EFFECTIVE steps to do anything significant about it.)
Are we being had?
Yes,we’re being had. At least the gullible ones.
There is no such thing as “Clean Coal” and never will be.
Plus.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2019/07/?fbclid=IwAR1mjK0FA7Vrfl1STL0FAd4UyjkfaNeB44s9X0GG12hdIbIdUy617u33PCA
Stromboli is one of the most active volcanoes on Earth and has been erupting for at least 2,000 yrs and more recently almost continuously erupting since 1932.
Stromboli’s most recent eruption took place on 3 July 2019 – a couple of weeks ago.
So these nasty volcanoes (that we don’t talk about) spew thousands upon thousands of tons of CO2 and H2S into the atmosphere all around the World every year. Just how many tons of CO2 did it produce a couple of weeks ago? And that is equivalent to the production of how many expensive eyesores for how many years?
How about legislation or tax on these inconsiderate mountains. To use a crude comment to sum up the situation – you are farting against thunder!
London buses, forty years old, causing the majority of the pollution and particulate problems in London. Most, if not all cars with filters and catalysts take in filth and eject much cleaner air. Don’t forget to change your pollen filter on the car.
And tell me what is to be done to prevent the two a week NEW Chinese coal fired power stations? Penny wise pound foolish.
Air
– approx 800,000 parts per million Nitrogen
– approx 200,000 parts per million Oxygen
The one percent (rounding error) are other inert gasses, mainly argon, neon, xenon and at the bottom of the list carbon dioxide.
– approx 500 parts per million is carbon dioxide.
My geology and Stratigraphy texts, before CO2 was fashionable (and causing recent rewrites no doubt), told me that in the Carboniferous era when coal was being laid down, CO2 was orders of magnitude higher.
And my point is? IF YOU BELIEVE CO2 is a problem, go for the important parts (big stuff) first. And I suppose before that, get everyone on board – uSA, China and so forth.
Leave the nit picking till last. Preventing Ethiopians burning twigs and wood to cook with, may not be a good start.
But what of Brexit lies?
Whilst agreeing with your argument, I think a small error was made regarding the constituent parts of the planet’s air. 800,000 (N) +200,000 (O) + 500 (CO2) = 1,000,500. Therefore, your figures are per 1,000,500, not per million. This may appear to be splitting hairs on my part, but it would be jumped on by some snotty environment activist who would ask loudly and disparagingly, “If the simple arithmetic is so wrong, then how can we take the figures seriously?”
In the begining…The Earth’s atmosphere was CO2 and nitrogen. In the carboniferous era much of this CO2 was converted to coal.
When enough Chinese and Indians have died of their atmospheric pollution, they too will give up on coal/oil.
(Why do you suppose Indians are fleeing India and the Chinese need exit visas).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration
To a large extent the errors in this post have been addressed in The End is Nigh, published a few weeks ago. Let me briefly address some of the points made here with which I disagree.
“The only SLIGHT doubt is how much human activity is contributing.”
Let us be clear about this: pursuing a zero(ish) carbon dioxide emission future is to risk destroying civilisation — we depend on energy for everything. However, we do not know how high that risk is. Ten percent? One percent? How low a risk are we prepared to accept? Does our ‘slight’ doubt mean that we’d take the upper bound, or the lower? Or should we wait until the risk of global warming becomes quantified?
There are several ways in which humankind could be affecting global temps. Black carbon reducing albedo. Nitrate run-off altering plankton populations, reduced DMS production, less stratocu, lower albedo. Oil smoothing of ocean surface — lower albedo. Dissolved silica from huge expansion of powered farming leading to diatom blooms persisting longer, late increase in DMS-producing phytoplankton, see above. (I like this one, it explains the cod fishery collapse on the Grand Banks.) Etc.
Nuclear waste can be contained or ‘burnt’* if required. Large nukes are a failing technology, Rolls Royce can build you a small modular reactor in their factory and ship it to where you want.
Tidal barrages are an ecological disaster and produce expensive, intermittent energy.
Solar panels which export to the Grid do so at the expense of the price of power — the old, the poor and the sick pay that price in increased bills. Incidentally, there seems to be no monitoring that the subsidies haven’t been gamed in the past — I can’t find no check in the system to see if the sub-500kW turbines have anomalously high capacity factors.
Best way is to prepare various technologies and wait until the doubt — no, it is not slight — is resolved. Then if CO2 really is the cause we will have the ability at hand to address the problem. If not i’d like a cut of the money saved — I’ll rub along on a tenth of one percent. When you’re talking trillions it’s not difficult to be modest in one’s demands.
JF
*Actually used to produce energy.
The old adage applies – when stuck in a hole stop digging.
So, as for anthropomorphic global warming we should be looking to the cause of the problem. To tackle only the symptoms will not work.
“Global warming is happening. The only SLIGHT doubt is how much human activity is contributing. The consequences of a wrong decision could be a total calamity. It’s better to err on the safe side.” A new analysis by Finnish scientists concludes that the human induced proportion has contributed just 0.1deg. C of the increase of global temperatures observed to date. Politicians are in panic mode as they are totally signed up to the climate change religion such that they would not dare to oppose the antiques of Extinction Rebellion eco-fascists who are intent on causing chaos in towns and cities across the country. Police stand by to allow these ignorant lunatics to hold up people going about their lawful business which is an absolute outrage; not to mention holding up emergency services with the consequent result of causing unnecessary deaths.
We are expected to adhere to the “precautionary principle” whereby we are expected to abandon our normal processes of obtaining our electricity from conventional means in favour of “intermittent” unreliable sources. Construction of wind generators relies totally on fossil fuels for the manufacture of the steel that goes into them and the concrete foundations with serious damage to the environment as they are placed in remote areas where they decimate the wildlife, killing raptors, birds and bats, upsetting the balance of nature. Power losses in transmission are in the order of 10%.
“The extraction, preparation, and transport of fossil fuels are also extremely damaging and costly”. So is the extraction of cobalt and lithium ores and other rare earths required for the manufacture of batteries. It is estimated that the total energy required for the manufacture of an electric only car battery is similar to running a normal car for about 8 years! Yet exhaust gases from vehicles are cleaner by some 90% since the 1970’s. Claims that they are killing ever more people is bogus. We are simply being plagued by mass immigration which is unsustainable.
The demonising of the benign, beneficial plant food gas – carbon dioxide – which makes up for just 0.04% of the atmosphere is the cause of all this rot and there is no reliable scientific proof that it is causing climate change. We are being fed a blatant lie by politicians.
PMB to Rowland P Hear Hear.
There is every reason to work steadily towards a cleaner, healthier environment, evolving and implementing solutions on a practical scale as they arise. So why* always link it to panic and spurious claims about man-made global warming, and even more spurious claims that any action man might take could possibly affect the inexorable (on a geological time scale) alternating climate caused by the Milankovich cycles?
Putting even recent historical temperatures into context ought to give pause for thought, in general and particularly about the claimed effects of industry.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/07/16/antarctica-was-warmer-one-thousand-years-ago/
*That was rhetorical. We know why. Three main reasons. So that some ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ (do not believe the fake news that there is consensus) can live off lucrative grants; so that so-called sustainable green energy purveyors can make fortunes, whilst impoverishing consumers through technologies that currently and ironically are not sustainable financially without vast public subsidies, and will always need constantly running conventionally powered back-up for when the sun goes in or the wind abates (or gets too strong); and last but not least, so that globalists, political activists and virtue-signalling politicians – making use of the first two – can better impose their ideologies on the rest of us.
According to Milankovich, we should be on a cooling cycle, ie heading back to the next ice age.
Back in the 1970’s it was discovered we were warming up.
This was when the CO2/AGW effects were discovered.
ie man made activities were overriding the cooling cycle.
Good article. But I don’t like smart meters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(Elsberg_novel) Is a good read.
And do readers know that that in a crisis or disagreement, the government or electricity can ration or stop supplies to individual properties without accessing the premises? Very 1984!
” in a crisis or disagreement, the government or electricity [company] can ration or stop supplies to individual properties”
That’s the whole point. Do as you’re told or freeze in the dark.
JF
It’ll be cash next….that will go in about 10 years. In China all drivers are obliged to register their ‘phones and licence plates so that as soon as they infringe regulations ( such as traffic lights )’ they hear a ‘ping’ on their ‘phones as the fine is automatically deducted from their bank accounts.
Creepy.
Sadiq Khan wants it here too.
No doubt he’ll get it
It’s quite likely that option will be open.
But their primary purpose is “Demand side Energy Management”.
Needed due to the intermitancy of renewable energy.
ie, when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine, they will instantly be able to raise tariffs, encouraging you to turn things off. Probably this will be part of the weather forecast in future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management