8 ms·

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fos

by belorn 6y ago

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively wind farm to charge them, and have enough capacity to carry through any weather, then cheaper is better. If someone can more cheaply drill into the earth core and use thermal heat (an other promising technology) then great! If the whole UK energy grid could become fossil free, and the only cost would be a 2x increase in costs, then that would be to me a fair price to pay. It is costly, and by the look from the private companies involved a bit financially risky, but continuing burning fossil fuels is bad enough that all alternatives should be used until the last fossil fueled power plant get demolished.

rllearneratwork 6y ago
If only countries could work together to institute a global carbon tax. Pollute too much - pay the tax. Don't pollute - great and, if you are poor/developing, here is help (funded by polluters) to stay that way while still being able to develop.
- withinboredom 6y ago
  It’s amazing they could all come together to make sure people couldn’t pirate movies and music and video games. But save the planet? Nah.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  We don't need anywhere near global consensus, a small group of nations can start. The idea is called a "climate club", and it won William Nordhaus a Nobel Prize. https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  The problem is the largest CO2 polluting country is unwilling to join any such agreements. This is true now and it was true 30 years ago.
  - vkou 6y ago
    So levy punitive tariffs against it, and anyone else who does not sign onto a carbon tax.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
      I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US. Basically, Germany is the weak spot in this. They are an export driven economy and a US embargo on Germany would be devastating.
      - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
        The US isn't the largest CO2 emitter, though it used to be. China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing.
        seanwilson 6y ago
        > China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing. China's population is 1.4 billion compared to 330 million for the US though. Surely you should be comparing this relative to population size (China is four times bigger) and countries with smaller emissions per person should be recognised as doing well?
        wahern 6y ago
        China's per capita CO2 emissions are still 1/2 that of the U.S. More importantly, neither the Chinese government nor powerful Chinese politicians deny anthropogenic climate change. And they've recently recommitted to nuclear energy expansion despite growing public fear after Fukushima and a subsequent rise in costs as Chinese regulatory policies became more strict. Part of the reason for the gap in nuclear construction in recent years, separate from Fukushima, seems to have been growing trade tensions with the U.S. Now that construction and approvals have resumed, it seems like China has decided to ditch almost all foreign designs and only build their "homegrown" AP1000 derivative. Unlike American politicians, Chinese politicians haven't forgotten the art of turning lemons into lemonade. Nuclear, solar, electric cars--they're using the transition to bolster and develop their industrial sectors. As countries should be making many of these investments anyhow to hedge and supplement the often myopic and short-sighted pursuits of the free market, the net costs to abandoning the fossil fuel economy can be significantly reduced. (In retrospect the contracts for American nuclear plants were probably handouts, anyhow, intended to mitigate balance of trade tensions. But with all goodwill having been burned to ash by the current administration, not to mention the collapse of the American nuclear construction industry, it became a pointless gesture.)
- jnxx 6y ago
  Each country can do this on their own and tax fossil energy imports at the border. This should include embodied energy, or "gray energy", in materials like steel, aluminum and cement.
Reason077 6y ago
The UK grid is on track to eventually becoming fossil free, although there will likely be a long 'tail' period where natural gas backup plants still operate during periods of unusually high demand and/or restricted supply. 2020 will very likely be the first year that renewables overtake fossil fuels in total electricity generated. Here's a satisfying video of UK coal-fired power plants being demolished: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-52985841 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-52985841
lostlogin 6y ago
> Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Maybe it won’t be a lot once built, but fuel extraction and processing are energy intensive. Also, 10 years of construction and the vast quantity of steel and concrete are going to burn one hell of a lot of fossil fuel. It would be interesting to compare the lifetime fossil fuel usage of all power generators, including construction and disposal (and waste storage).
- korantu 6y ago
  Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1] Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. [2] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#3de9a2a2a027 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to... [2] https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/
  - stinos 6y ago
    Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options The sibling post seems to indicate otherwise though and mentions they're about the same? Any idea where that difference in numbers come from?
    - korantu 6y ago
      I was specifically referring to energy spent to build and operate / energy actually generated over lifetime, so called EROI. My post refers to the sources of the info
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Nuclear is not orders of magnitude better in EROI, so I don't know what you think you were claiming.
socialdemocrat 6y ago
Cost matters. If you can build renewable power at a fraction of the price, why go nuclear? We can keep gas as backup until storage solutions are better developed. If money was no issue you could just build a ton of pumped hydro in Scotland and or batter storage. And if you absolutely want to spend on nuclear power, spend it in SMRs and molten salt reactors. ThorCon is probably not that far from a working solution if given enough funding.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > If money was no issue you could just build a ton of pumped hydro in Scotland and or batter storage. Wikipedia says "The potential for further practical and viable hydroelectricity power stations in the UK is estimated to be in the region of 146 to 248 MW for England and Wales,[4] and up to 2,593 MW for Scotland.[5] However, by the nature of the remote and rugged geographic locations of some of these potential sites, in national parks or other areas of outstanding natural beauty, it is likely that environmental concerns would mean that many of them would be deemed unsuitable, or could not be developed to their full theoretical potential." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United... Pumped-hydro storage doesn't need existing water, but the national grid averages 30GW and peaks at 40GW ( http://grid.iamkate.com/ http://grid.iamkate.com/ ) are there enough places to build "a ton of pumped hydro" for that kind of size which are suitable for the above criteria as well?
  - skitout 6y ago
    There are many other solutions than traditional pumped hydro when it comes to electrical storage : new pump hydro on isolated reservoirs (eg gordon butte), battries (eg flow batteries), compressed air, liquid air, stacked bloks, heat to energy come in mind And you can store energy as heat or cold, which is easier and cheaper, with a bigger potential And you can have an impact on the demand side, with energy efficiency and demand-response
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
onion2k 6y ago
If the whole UK energy grid could become fossil free, and the only cost would be a 2x increase in costs, then that would be to me a fair price to pay. A large number of people would die as a result of such a policy. Fuel poverty is already a significant problem, the UK government gives out 'winter fuel payment' benefits to some, but doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes. This idea would need to come with nationalised energy costs for it to work.
- stinos 6y ago
  doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes 2x increase in cost doens't necessarily directly translate to doubling the price for everyone. For example it could be coupled with a scheme where consuming way above average makes the part which is above much more expensive, depending on income, to yield the ones consuming less and/or low income not having to pay double. Plus taxing overconsumption could be an incentive to getting rid of some needless energy usage.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    And yet it's often the people on smallest income who consume the most for heating because their houses as unlikely to be insulated well. The government is giving out grants to improve insulation/boiler efficiency, but if you live in council housing you're screwed again.
    - CodeGlitch 6y ago
      In the UK homes are heated with gas, not electricity.
      - gambiting 6y ago
        Yes, have you replied to the wrong comment? Besides, very soon all new construction in the UK will be required to be heated exclusively by electricity, so for new housing heating costs will be absolutely huge compared to gas.
konschubert 6y ago
The easiest way to implement your policy is an emissions trading scheme, where the amount of issued certificates is reduced every year.
- jnxx 6y ago
  Emissions trading is a single gigantic failure. What we need is a stiff carbon tax.
LatteLazy 6y ago
If its like the other projects, it may never generate a single kWh when it gets cancelled. Also, it will be much too late to avoid massive climate change so its a bit mute. And that's assuming we also cut all our other emissions and every other country on earth cuts theirs... Plus "no matter what the cost" is a pretty weird attitude if you don't mind me saying. If we can save more carbon by spending the same money elsewhere, shouldn't we do that instead?
- mikro2nd 6y ago
  s/mute/moot/
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Damn, too late to edit!
jnxx 6y ago
If we want to speed up the end of fossil fuels, while not increasing poverty, and not artificially distorting markets and technological developments by politically meddling with costs, we have to do these 3 things: 1. Introduce a substantial carbon tax on extraction and import of any fossil energy source. This should include embodied energy, like aluminum. 2. Pay back part of the tax gains to the poorer population in form of a universal basic income (it could be some other scheme but I think this is the best one). 3. Subsidize any form of non-fossil energy generation, INCLUDING STORAGE, from the carbon tax. This subsidy MUST be non-discriminatory, it must not depend on promised future efficiencies in a technology but what it actually delivers, today. And it must give incentive to make any technology, and also energy distribution, consumption and storage, more efficient. It could be, for example, night time storage heaters (which were heavily promoted in the 1950s / 1960s to make nuclear more economical). What we should NOT do is to subsidize some technology which has been making fancy promises since five decades, without really delivering them. Among other things, this would be market distortion, and precisely because it would reduce our effectiveness in fighting climate change, it would be very harmful. At worst, it would result in that we do effectively nothing, while pretending we do.

by belorn 6y ago

rllearneratwork 6y ago

If only countries could work together to institute a global carbon tax. Pollute too much - pay the tax. Don't pollute - great and, if you are poor/developing, here is help (funded by polluters) to stay that way while still being able to develop.

withinboredom 6y ago
It’s amazing they could all come together to make sure people couldn’t pirate movies and music and video games. But save the planet? Nah.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
We don't need anywhere near global consensus, a small group of nations can start. The idea is called a "climate club", and it won William Nordhaus a Nobel Prize. https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
The problem is the largest CO2 polluting country is unwilling to join any such agreements. This is true now and it was true 30 years ago.
- vkou 6y ago
  So levy punitive tariffs against it, and anyone else who does not sign onto a carbon tax.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US. Basically, Germany is the weak spot in this. They are an export driven economy and a US embargo on Germany would be devastating.
    - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
      The US isn't the largest CO2 emitter, though it used to be. China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing.
      - seanwilson 6y ago
        > China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing. China's population is 1.4 billion compared to 330 million for the US though. Surely you should be comparing this relative to population size (China is four times bigger) and countries with smaller emissions per person should be recognised as doing well?
      - wahern 6y ago
        China's per capita CO2 emissions are still 1/2 that of the U.S. More importantly, neither the Chinese government nor powerful Chinese politicians deny anthropogenic climate change. And they've recently recommitted to nuclear energy expansion despite growing public fear after Fukushima and a subsequent rise in costs as Chinese regulatory policies became more strict. Part of the reason for the gap in nuclear construction in recent years, separate from Fukushima, seems to have been growing trade tensions with the U.S. Now that construction and approvals have resumed, it seems like China has decided to ditch almost all foreign designs and only build their "homegrown" AP1000 derivative. Unlike American politicians, Chinese politicians haven't forgotten the art of turning lemons into lemonade. Nuclear, solar, electric cars--they're using the transition to bolster and develop their industrial sectors. As countries should be making many of these investments anyhow to hedge and supplement the often myopic and short-sighted pursuits of the free market, the net costs to abandoning the fossil fuel economy can be significantly reduced. (In retrospect the contracts for American nuclear plants were probably handouts, anyhow, intended to mitigate balance of trade tensions. But with all goodwill having been burned to ash by the current administration, not to mention the collapse of the American nuclear construction industry, it became a pointless gesture.)
jnxx 6y ago
Each country can do this on their own and tax fossil energy imports at the border. This should include embodied energy, or "gray energy", in materials like steel, aluminum and cement.

Reason077 6y ago

The UK grid is on track to eventually becoming fossil free, although there will likely be a long 'tail' period where natural gas backup plants still operate during periods of unusually high demand and/or restricted supply. 2020 will very likely be the first year that renewables overtake fossil fuels in total electricity generated. Here's a satisfying video of UK coal-fired power plants being demolished: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-52985841 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-52985841

lostlogin 6y ago

> Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Maybe it won’t be a lot once built, but fuel extraction and processing are energy intensive. Also, 10 years of construction and the vast quantity of steel and concrete are going to burn one hell of a lot of fossil fuel. It would be interesting to compare the lifetime fossil fuel usage of all power generators, including construction and disposal (and waste storage).

korantu 6y ago
Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1] Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. [2] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#3de9a2a2a027 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to... [2] https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/
- stinos 6y ago
  Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options The sibling post seems to indicate otherwise though and mentions they're about the same? Any idea where that difference in numbers come from?
  - korantu 6y ago
    I was specifically referring to energy spent to build and operate / energy actually generated over lifetime, so called EROI. My post refers to the sources of the info
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Nuclear is not orders of magnitude better in EROI, so I don't know what you think you were claiming.

socialdemocrat 6y ago

Cost matters. If you can build renewable power at a fraction of the price, why go nuclear? We can keep gas as backup until storage solutions are better developed. If money was no issue you could just build a ton of pumped hydro in Scotland and or batter storage. And if you absolutely want to spend on nuclear power, spend it in SMRs and molten salt reactors. ThorCon is probably not that far from a working solution if given enough funding.

jodrellblank 6y ago
> If money was no issue you could just build a ton of pumped hydro in Scotland and or batter storage. Wikipedia says "The potential for further practical and viable hydroelectricity power stations in the UK is estimated to be in the region of 146 to 248 MW for England and Wales,[4] and up to 2,593 MW for Scotland.[5] However, by the nature of the remote and rugged geographic locations of some of these potential sites, in national parks or other areas of outstanding natural beauty, it is likely that environmental concerns would mean that many of them would be deemed unsuitable, or could not be developed to their full theoretical potential." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United... Pumped-hydro storage doesn't need existing water, but the national grid averages 30GW and peaks at 40GW ( http://grid.iamkate.com/ http://grid.iamkate.com/ ) are there enough places to build "a ton of pumped hydro" for that kind of size which are suitable for the above criteria as well?
- skitout 6y ago
  There are many other solutions than traditional pumped hydro when it comes to electrical storage : new pump hydro on isolated reservoirs (eg gordon butte), battries (eg flow batteries), compressed air, liquid air, stacked bloks, heat to energy come in mind And you can store energy as heat or cold, which is easier and cheaper, with a bigger potential And you can have an impact on the demand side, with energy efficiency and demand-response
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

onion2k 6y ago

If the whole UK energy grid could become fossil free, and the only cost would be a 2x increase in costs, then that would be to me a fair price to pay. A large number of people would die as a result of such a policy. Fuel poverty is already a significant problem, the UK government gives out 'winter fuel payment' benefits to some, but doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes. This idea would need to come with nationalised energy costs for it to work.

stinos 6y ago
doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to stop heating their homes 2x increase in cost doens't necessarily directly translate to doubling the price for everyone. For example it could be coupled with a scheme where consuming way above average makes the part which is above much more expensive, depending on income, to yield the ones consuming less and/or low income not having to pay double. Plus taxing overconsumption could be an incentive to getting rid of some needless energy usage.
- gambiting 6y ago
  And yet it's often the people on smallest income who consume the most for heating because their houses as unlikely to be insulated well. The government is giving out grants to improve insulation/boiler efficiency, but if you live in council housing you're screwed again.
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    In the UK homes are heated with gas, not electricity.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Yes, have you replied to the wrong comment? Besides, very soon all new construction in the UK will be required to be heated exclusively by electricity, so for new housing heating costs will be absolutely huge compared to gas.

konschubert 6y ago

The easiest way to implement your policy is an emissions trading scheme, where the amount of issued certificates is reduced every year.

jnxx 6y ago
Emissions trading is a single gigantic failure. What we need is a stiff carbon tax.

LatteLazy 6y ago

If its like the other projects, it may never generate a single kWh when it gets cancelled. Also, it will be much too late to avoid massive climate change so its a bit mute. And that's assuming we also cut all our other emissions and every other country on earth cuts theirs... Plus "no matter what the cost" is a pretty weird attitude if you don't mind me saying. If we can save more carbon by spending the same money elsewhere, shouldn't we do that instead?

mikro2nd 6y ago
s/mute/moot/
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Damn, too late to edit!

jnxx 6y ago

If we want to speed up the end of fossil fuels, while not increasing poverty, and not artificially distorting markets and technological developments by politically meddling with costs, we have to do these 3 things: 1. Introduce a substantial carbon tax on extraction and import of any fossil energy source. This should include embodied energy, like aluminum. 2. Pay back part of the tax gains to the poorer population in form of a universal basic income (it could be some other scheme but I think this is the best one). 3. Subsidize any form of non-fossil energy generation, INCLUDING STORAGE, from the carbon tax. This subsidy MUST be non-discriminatory, it must not depend on promised future efficiencies in a technology but what it actually delivers, today. And it must give incentive to make any technology, and also energy distribution, consumption and storage, more efficient. It could be, for example, night time storage heaters (which were heavily promoted in the 1950s / 1960s to make nuclear more economical). What we should NOT do is to subsidize some technology which has been making fancy promises since five decades, without really delivering them. Among other things, this would be market distortion, and precisely because it would reduce our effectiveness in fighting climate change, it would be very harmful. At worst, it would result in that we do effectively nothing, while pretending we do.