Vocal Voices

According to Shell Chief Executive Ben van Beurden Europe's energy crisis is going to last for "several winters".
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-08-29/

According to the National Grid, it's going to last for three years.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/comp ... 90903.html

Oh, bl**dy tremendous.
How have we got here?
We have got here because the like of Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and similar have successively demonised coal, nuclear and gas. And our politicians have caved into them, every time. So now we have no coal, the last nuclear station was built in the nineties (and all the others are slated to close inside 10 years), fracking has been banned and we haven't exploited known gas fields in the North Sea. So now Putin turns off the gas taps and the price of gas goes through the roof. We can't fall back on coal, we don't have any. We can't fall back on nuclear, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station.

So what are the effects of three years of sky high energy prices going to be?
The extinction of small businesses.
The decimation of a private individuals savings.
Record profits for the oil and gas giants.
A massive increase in the national debt, with the government chucking bailout money in all directions.

This is all going to get blamed on Putin.
But in my mind Net Zero has way more to do with it. Coal and gas have to go, because of net zero targets. But renewables, we don't have enough of them to make up for the loss of coal and the planned loss of gas; and we don't have enough nuclear to make up the difference either.

So here we are - stuffed.
The media will try and keep net zero going.
But today in the Telegraph Boris Johnson is pleading with people not to "give up" on green energy. Because he knows that when those gas bills start landing on the mat then questions are going to be asked, and you can't go on blaming Putin forever.

Eventual the penny might drop - Net Zero is going to give people a worse life, and most certainly make them poorer.

It's going to need a massive media effort to keep the net zero scam going, but I'm fully expecting it.

Getting back to reality. If we had not had massive increases in both wind and solar, our energy mix would be about 75% gas and close to half of that gas would have come from Russia.

We can thank the 24% of energy provided by wind alone, over the year, for keeping energy costs lower than they might have been.

So if it had not been for Net Zero, we would have ben like Germany. Lambs to the slaughter of the energy markets. However with Net Zero, we have projects which will be bringing in energy from Morocco (1x nuclear plants worth), Hinckley point C (whilst going Reeeeeealy slowly), will be in place and Sizewell C will get the full go ahead as will the RR reactors. The additional 60GW of offshore wind planned will get a boost and will continue to build out over these several winters.

When we have weathered this massive energy crisis, we will be positioned such that a moderate build out of both Nuclear and renewable will bring us away from gas as a generating solution except for extreme emergencies.

The above will solidify our energy security and ensure that we don't get yet another energy crisis because someone decides to attack the gas and oil markets.

So you can look at it both ways. The negative and the positive.

It's all those B'stards with their heads in the clouds who caused this problem.

Had we listened to those B'stards 20 years ago and got off the fossil fuel train, we would be selling our surplus to Germany for a fortune, instead of paying a fortune for our own gas.

You can read it both ways. Both groups blame the government and both groups made it impossible for the government to do anything else at the time. Let's take an entirely different tack. Just as the 70's ushered in a whole new range of vehicles which could reach 50mpg at the best, instead of 25mpgh to 30mpg, this energy crisis will usher in a whole new world of renewable energy. Energy which is extremely cheap and, once the outlay is paid down, keeps on flowing money in the coffers for maintenance fees over the next 15 to 20 years. Or 40 to 50 years for solar.

This current crisis is a huge opportunity to get a major jump ahead of everyone else. Because nothing is more sure than continued burning of fossil fuels is going to kill off a few billion people. People who will fight and countries who will go to war, over food and living space. Ukraine will be a footnote on that history.

As for UK coal? Nobody wants to go there unless we buy the coal from Australia because there isn't a political party in the country that will give the miners any power over the generating infrastructure of the country. None. That was long dead before the Environ"Mental"ists started their fandango. Coal is dead and gone and good riddance, it's heavily polluting and we need better solutions. If we want to use our coal, we can wait till oil becomes so scarce that mining and converting coal to oil for the manufacturing businesses is profitable. Then we can dig it all up and use it.

Oil and gas are too important to burn in a fruitless attempt to do the equivalent of one man emptying the desert with a shovel. All he does is wind up being buried in sand.

Time to take a different look at the world. Just like any crisis, this is a time of opportunity. Those who recognise the opportunity and embrace it will win. Those who decry everyone that "did them in", will wind up at the bottom of the pile when it is all over.

What is your opinion on the Rolls Royce modular reactors Suff? RR are trying to sell them to the Japanese.Allegedly they are tried and tested, the technology has been used to power the Navy's nuclear submarines.
Cheaper than a full on nuclear power station? Quicker to build? How many would we need?

cromwell wrote:How many would we need?

16 - to start with - and even they are not Net Zero or carbon neutral: nothing is.

We can get emissions free electrical energy at point of use and delivery, but the equipment and facilities made to produce and deliver it are not net zero. Never have been; never will be.

Nor are the things we employ to make use of it - from our water, our food, our clothes, transport or in our homes - microwaves, irons, washing machines, showers, plates, knives and forks. That goes for me, you, our houses, our cities, our countries and our planet - even us breathing.

The only way to achieve the illusion of Net Zero is to employ creative accounting of carbon credits and make everything form magic beans and angel breath. Spreadsheets, glossy brochures and "what ifs" don't cut it, no matter what the evangelists say in their gospels.

That is not so say that we should not do everything, world wide, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we should. However, it has to be done over time and not with some 'picked out of thin air' dates banning everything we now use.

cromwell wrote:What is your opinion on the Rolls Royce modular reactors Suff? RR are trying to sell them to the Japanese.Allegedly they are tried and tested, the technology has been used to power the Navy's nuclear submarines.
Cheaper than a full on nuclear power station? Quicker to build? How many would we need?

I am totally for it. It is quick, easy, regional and has a very good pedigree and working record. Works for me.

However I see them as over and above their larger brethren. Not in place of. There are times when you just need a LOT Of grunt on the grid to keep power stable. The modular reactors can balance and react for local power needs, the bigger reactors are needed for the nationwide scenario.

Workingman wrote:

cromwell wrote:How many would we need?

We can get emissions free electrical energy at point of use and delivery, but the equipment and facilities made to produce and deliver it are not net zero. Never have been; never will be.

99.5% net zero works for me. It's a hell of a lot better than 50% of 1990 levels. Which is no more than a rolling disaster anyway. Over and above it we get power which is not tied to the whiplash of fossil fuel prices.

Works for me too.

99.5% net zero works for me.

Does it now? There is no such thing. How are your shares in windmills and solar panels doing? Try a bit of logic, engineering and science for reality - not the brochures.

Workingman wrote:Does it now? There is no such thing. How are your shares in windmills and solar panels doing? Try a bit of logic, engineering and science for reality - not the brochures.

You're not still on about that "cost of build" stuff are you? You know that over 90% of a power stations emissions have nothing to do with build and are consumption of the fuel to provide power. Wind turbines have an initial cost and a maintenance cost for blades and generators.

Their fuel is emissions free!

You should look beyond the cripplingly negative news about our transition. Electric vehicles carry a one time cost of build and fossil fuelled vehicles carry this too. The mining of metals for FF vehicles is also damaging but is mixed up with other mining for other stuff so it is hidden.

EV's are about 98% recyclable. How recyclable is the fuel that FF vehicles run on? Zero, it is a one time shot, extract, burn, emit.

There are huge opportunities here. I thought VW had finally got it when Diess went "all in" on EV. Because if your competition doesn't engage and you make the transition early, you get a chance to hoover up their business. VW had a chance to remain the 1'st/2nd largest vehicle manufacturer by producing 20m vehicles per year (twice current), just like Tesla.

They sacked Diess and blew it. Opportunity lost.

Net Zero is a goal. We know it is not totally achievable, but the closer we get the better it is for our people and our biosphere. Denigrating it plays directly into those scumbags holding us to ransom for gas at prices which are, honestly, ridiculous.

I thought you weren't happy with them. Instead you present their arguments for them, arguments designed to delay so they can make an even bigger fortune.