One point I'd make is that In the medium term the desire for a strong economy and for a low carbon economy should be the same thing rather than being opposed.
However, I work in the energy transition and agree that the 2030 figure is "challenging"! In reality it's probably not possible though the scale and increasing speed of the transition around the work is often surprising, for example, the growth of solar PV has consistently outstripped predictions.
The UK electricity grid and associated generation assets are a different matter though, the scale of the infrastructure and the transition creates logistical and supply chain scaling realities that we will struggle to overcome.
I do wonder why this target has been selected as for the majority of the public I fail to see the difference between a 2030 and a 2035 target. When I see these kind of targets I am reminded of Extinction Rebellion and their 'net zero by 2025' demand which was scientifically illiterate and disingenuous and ultimately self defeating, good at rallying people in 2019, making them look stupid in 2024.
As someone who works in climate change we need to be both more ambitious and more realistic which is why I like the work of Hannah Ritchie who manages to walk this balance.
That's certainly fair and a good point about the medium term, yes. I'm sure that in due course a lot of this stuff will pay for itself, but there seem to be a lot of hard questions about intermittency (and long runs of still days) that I haven't really seen very convincing answers to yet.
I agree with you that I can't see wind and solar providing the full solution to net zero, because I can't see that there is a feasible energy storage capacity on the horizon that would be capable of bridging periods of low wind and low sunlight. It's a pity we're starting from where we are, because nuclear power is a viable technology and does have the technical capability to supply our total base demands, with France being a good example of what has been technically possible. The trouble is that building new large reactors takes a long time because of planning issues and we don't know how quickly small modular reactors could be rolled out. Opposition to nuclear at a political and social level has always been a drag on its progress, because fears over the dangers haven't been rationally based on hard numbers. The world has seen far more deaths by orders of magnitude due to fossil fuels, and hydroelectric dam failures, than have ever resulted from nuclear accidents. The problem is that the development of nuclear power has been as a parallel to development of nuclear weapons and we have reactors based on Uranium and Plutonium. However we've also been using other radioactive sources for many decades in medicine and these materials are widely distributed in hospitals and Universities and in industry with social acceptance of the risks. Power reactors using isotopes that are not associated with weaponry could have been developed, a missed opportunity.
However we are, where we are, and we need technologies to provide the base load requirements when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
I am hopefull that new ways of storing energy will become pratical once we have many weeks a year of practically free electricity that can be stored. There is still much gas usage that cam be replaced with wind/solar before long term storage becomes the primary limiting factor.
Over the next few years as wind/pv increases in UK, we will be using less gas so our storage capacity will last longer and our exposure to LPG price volatility will reduce. (Batteries have allready solved storage for a day's electricity, economicsis now driving installing much increased battery capacity. )
It does not seem impossible that in a few years time it will be practical to use excess electricity to create LPG from carbon capture from the air. But companies will not invest in the research until it becomes normal for the marginal electricity cost to be for zero for much of the year.
Not my area but mine is also in an area that is reliant on a lot of sixes being rolled on government policy, technology, consumer response, corporate strategy to get where people suggest for 2050.
I guess there's nothing wrong with optimism, and like I say, sometimes setting targets can be a roadmap in itself. But I tend to feel like it would be good if the optimism can at least be based on something a bit concrete so that I can believe in it
I think that's more or less what Sunak is hoping for, yes! I think this election is gone, but it might be a question of whether it's a historic marmalizing, or the sort of margin that can be turned around in one term with a following wind.
"For me, the key one is our ongoing energy supply, and how we balance the need to act on climate change with the desire for a strong economy"
We know that many wind/solar projects with full funding from private sector are delayed/stopped due to our planning system putting a few people's views of the countryside and a few hedges ahead of reducing energy imports and reducung climate change. Yet none of the political parties are willing to commit to radical reforms of the planning system. It is often Green Party and Libdems councillor creating these issues!
There is also so much money wasted on 1001 reports and then legel action trying to stop new roads, mew railway lines and house building when they don't charge the outcome and only creates delays. Yet none of the political parties are willing to do anything about this unproductive use of national resources.
One point I'd make is that In the medium term the desire for a strong economy and for a low carbon economy should be the same thing rather than being opposed.
However, I work in the energy transition and agree that the 2030 figure is "challenging"! In reality it's probably not possible though the scale and increasing speed of the transition around the work is often surprising, for example, the growth of solar PV has consistently outstripped predictions.
The UK electricity grid and associated generation assets are a different matter though, the scale of the infrastructure and the transition creates logistical and supply chain scaling realities that we will struggle to overcome.
I do wonder why this target has been selected as for the majority of the public I fail to see the difference between a 2030 and a 2035 target. When I see these kind of targets I am reminded of Extinction Rebellion and their 'net zero by 2025' demand which was scientifically illiterate and disingenuous and ultimately self defeating, good at rallying people in 2019, making them look stupid in 2024.
As someone who works in climate change we need to be both more ambitious and more realistic which is why I like the work of Hannah Ritchie who manages to walk this balance.
That's certainly fair and a good point about the medium term, yes. I'm sure that in due course a lot of this stuff will pay for itself, but there seem to be a lot of hard questions about intermittency (and long runs of still days) that I haven't really seen very convincing answers to yet.
2030 or 2035 aside, what is going to be the zero carbon storage solution that we need for the current wind generation we have?
I agree with you that I can't see wind and solar providing the full solution to net zero, because I can't see that there is a feasible energy storage capacity on the horizon that would be capable of bridging periods of low wind and low sunlight. It's a pity we're starting from where we are, because nuclear power is a viable technology and does have the technical capability to supply our total base demands, with France being a good example of what has been technically possible. The trouble is that building new large reactors takes a long time because of planning issues and we don't know how quickly small modular reactors could be rolled out. Opposition to nuclear at a political and social level has always been a drag on its progress, because fears over the dangers haven't been rationally based on hard numbers. The world has seen far more deaths by orders of magnitude due to fossil fuels, and hydroelectric dam failures, than have ever resulted from nuclear accidents. The problem is that the development of nuclear power has been as a parallel to development of nuclear weapons and we have reactors based on Uranium and Plutonium. However we've also been using other radioactive sources for many decades in medicine and these materials are widely distributed in hospitals and Universities and in industry with social acceptance of the risks. Power reactors using isotopes that are not associated with weaponry could have been developed, a missed opportunity.
However we are, where we are, and we need technologies to provide the base load requirements when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Yes, I totally agree with all of that. I'm actually reasonably optimistic in the medium term about nuclear, because there seem to be things like new Korean designs that might work out cheaper https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/12/south-korean-nuclear-developer-kepco-wylfa-newydd-anglesey-talks But obviously you'd have to be *seriously* optimistic to think any of that would be contributing power to the grid by 2030!
I am hopefull that new ways of storing energy will become pratical once we have many weeks a year of practically free electricity that can be stored. There is still much gas usage that cam be replaced with wind/solar before long term storage becomes the primary limiting factor.
In the UK specifically? imho just looking at the outputs it seems like gas is very much the current storage system for wind?
Over the next few years as wind/pv increases in UK, we will be using less gas so our storage capacity will last longer and our exposure to LPG price volatility will reduce. (Batteries have allready solved storage for a day's electricity, economicsis now driving installing much increased battery capacity. )
It does not seem impossible that in a few years time it will be practical to use excess electricity to create LPG from carbon capture from the air. But companies will not invest in the research until it becomes normal for the marginal electricity cost to be for zero for much of the year.
As the late David Mckay once said - you need to be "pro maths" on sustainable energy
Not my area but mine is also in an area that is reliant on a lot of sixes being rolled on government policy, technology, consumer response, corporate strategy to get where people suggest for 2050.
Nice Suede reference too.
I guess there's nothing wrong with optimism, and like I say, sometimes setting targets can be a roadmap in itself. But I tend to feel like it would be good if the optimism can at least be based on something a bit concrete so that I can believe in it
Milliband is a fool that will kill our economy whilst China, Russia, USA, India and Africa laugh at us.
I’m no fan of the current government and voted labour in 97 but not this time. The Labour front bench isn’t fit to put the bins out.
I think it’ll be a labor win but a lot closer than the polls suggest as when many get into the polling booths like me they’ll see sense.
I think that's more or less what Sunak is hoping for, yes! I think this election is gone, but it might be a question of whether it's a historic marmalizing, or the sort of margin that can be turned around in one term with a following wind.
"For me, the key one is our ongoing energy supply, and how we balance the need to act on climate change with the desire for a strong economy"
We know that many wind/solar projects with full funding from private sector are delayed/stopped due to our planning system putting a few people's views of the countryside and a few hedges ahead of reducing energy imports and reducung climate change. Yet none of the political parties are willing to commit to radical reforms of the planning system. It is often Green Party and Libdems councillor creating these issues!
There is also so much money wasted on 1001 reports and then legel action trying to stop new roads, mew railway lines and house building when they don't charge the outcome and only creates delays. Yet none of the political parties are willing to do anything about this unproductive use of national resources.