So The Times reports that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE refused to take calls from Biden yesterday about a short-term increase in oil production.
Quite apart from the fact that the West has been cheerfully supplying weapons to the Saudis in order that they indiscriminately wipe out Yemen, perhaps it's time to make the big push in the UK, Europe, and the USA to try to shelve our reliance on gas and oil going forward.
We're always going to need it (HGVs / aircraft / gas turbine power stations etc etc) but some changes could be made to reduce our reliance on it.
A good start might be to both subsidise solar PV installation, and prevent councils from denying planning permission on listed buildings. Likewise any council building or school should have solar PV as a matter of course. 0% loans for installations and batteries.
Take a serious look at scrapping diesel trains.
Perhaps consider basing an element of council tax on EPC rating.
Big investment into the RR modular nuclear plants.
All of these will take time and cost money to implement, but if at the end of it we only need to buy oil and gas by the thimble-full from Russia, and give OPEC the middle finger at the same time, it might be worth it.
Can't say I disagree with any of that really.
Unfortunatley, people in charge + brown envelopes = nothing will ever happen....
Diesel trains are timetabled for scrapping - different schedule in Scotland and England, and as with all rail timetables it may run late.
Council tax on EPC rating - interesting, bit like “road tax” 😉, but it tends to punish those who cannot or cannot afford to upgrade their property. That said I’d love to see the queen’s council tax on that basis (bet she doesn’t pay it).
We’re always going to need it (HGVs / aircraft / gas turbine power stations etc etc)
This one I’m not sure about. They are looking at catenaries on motorways for HGVs (M180 should be the first trial in the UK), and as an emigrant from Glasgow the former home of the trolley bus, I like the concept. The execution doesn’t look right at the moment to me.
The inter seasonal energy shift is the bit that concerns me most. Easy to harvest renewable energy in the summer, but you need it in the winter. Need some clever ideas. Hydrogen works, but is inefficient. LiIon batteries are more efficient on round trip, but maybe not for 3-6 months or storage.
Insulate housing stock.
Shift away from fossil fuels in domestic buildings.
Zero-carbon industrial clusters.
Grid digitalisation, demand-side response.
Grid capacity expansion to support electrification.
Massive increase in offshore wind, onshore wind and large scale solar.
SMRs, plus completion of existing large scale nuclear projects.
Hydrogen for industrial, some transportation, energy storage.
Other energy storage technologies.
Lots of stuff really. There are various competing opinions on different technologies but we'll probably need all of them to some extent.
With the increase in fuel, gas and electricity prices over the last six months and the possibility of the cap doubling again in October bringing it to around £4k then our reliance on fossil fuels will shrink considerably anyway as everyone cuts back.
I listened to a good radio program with Saul Griffith spruiking his book
Electrify Everything at the weekend. Very interesting.
Its a bit like the golden age of COVID, we had so many opportunities to change our lifestyles for the better, but ended up reverting to the line of least resistance soon enough.
without huge changes in lifestyle we cannot make any significant changes What is needed is a massive reduction in energy consumption and stopping moving folk around in 2 tonne metal boxes each
Electric cars for example do nothing significant to reduce pollution - just change where it occurs and do nothing for congestion.
Radical changes in lifestyle are needed. anything else is greenwashing. Until this is widely accepted then global warming will continue
The sad truth is that people just look at crude oil and think diesel, petrol and other fuels, but petrochemical products are vast, and support our every day life even more than the fuel in your car.
We'd (and i mean governments, industries and people) have to change how we manufacture and use products on a huge scale, weening ourselves off crude oil will not be a quick fix!
Massive switch of road infrastructure to cycling/walking infrastructure in urban areas so car use in towns/cities ceases to be default option. National speed limit switches to 50mph instead of 70/60mph -including Motorways. No overtaking of cyclists on roads that are shared with cyclists.
Big investment into the RR modular nuclear plants.
Remind me how many years UK Govts have been spending loads and talking lots but still haven't built a new nuclear power station...
Realistically? No chance.
We have an inept Gov that only thinks short term and unless they're led by the hand by our international partners they flounder at the first obstacle. Just look how they are handling the refugee crisis.
Starting tomorrow, if we were to start investing and constructing in other forms of energy sources, how long before we could claim to be self sufficient? I would guess a lifetime would be the correct answer.
Would nuclear be the obvious choice of our main energy source?
Remind me how many years UK Govts have been spending loads and talking lots but still haven’t built a new nuclear power station
It's ok we can get someone else to build them for us....like er oh I dunno China...then we won't be reliant for energy supply on other countries with appalling human rights records that the global community may impose sanctions on at the drop of a hat.
The sad truth is that people just look at crude oil and think diesel, petrol and other fuels, but petrochemical products are vast, and support our every day life even more than the fuel in your car.
Whilst true, there's a huge asymmetry.
The fraction used to make plastics is small.
The fraction used to provide energy to industrial processes (Ti Oxides, fertilizer, etc) is small and mostly down to cost as refineries always have something in excess (often hydrogen) that is dumped to the fuel gas system. Those processes could be done electrically if you could provide the energy cheaply enough.
With the increase in fuel, gas and electricity prices over the last six months and the possibility of the cap doubling again in October bringing it to around £4k then our reliance on fossil fuels will shrink considerably anyway as everyone cuts back.
This I think will have a larger impact than any government policy.
£2/litre for diesel will finally make car use around the same cost as getting the train. And air travel needs taxing at the same rate as road fuel.
Higher gas prices will force energy efficiency on people. Yes being poor sucks, but being poor and paying off a loan on cavity wall insulation whilst buying less fuel is better than just buying more fuel. And there are allsorts of grants for allsorts of people, even we qualified for free wall cavity insulation recently. And for those not on the breadline it moves from a "I might get around to it at some point" to something they act on now.
...perhaps it’s time to make the big push in the UK, Europe, and the USA to try to shelve our reliance on gas and oil going forward.
I thought we had a big conference about that in Glasgow at the tail end of last year? All this does is give an extra reason to get on with it.
A good start might be to both subsidise solar PV installation, and prevent councils from denying planning permission on listed buildings. Likewise any council building or school should have solar PV as a matter of course. 0% loans for installations and batteries.
Where do the panels and their raw materials come from? Do we shift dependence from one material to another? In principle though I agree but some things worth considering. There's an inequality - different parts of the UK get more sunshine, and they probably have lower energy demand too. The early schemes also heavily incentivised the capital rich to buy pannels, and then pay them a premium for their generation - that premium is essentially paid for by "the poor" - those who don't have capital and in particular those who don't own the property etc. So what you seem to have is wealthier people in the SE of the country being subsidised by the poorer in the N whilst the N also need more power just to heat and light their homes...
that sort of inequality would make this sort of thing wrong:
Perhaps consider basing an element of council tax on EPC rating.
this penalises those who either don't have the capital for upgrades or don't have the authority (or longevity of tenancy) to make them.
The sad truth is that people just look at crude oil and think diesel, petrol and other fuels, but petrochemical products are vast, and support our every day life even more than the fuel in your car.
We’d (and i mean governments, industries and people) have to change how we manufacture and use products on a huge scale, weening ourselves off crude oil will not be a quick fix!
Although increasing Raw Material price will presumably mean that process efficiency and recycling become more attractive. The reason our oceans are full of plastic is because its cheap enough to throw away.
Electric cars for example do nothing significant to reduce pollution – just change where it occurs and do nothing for congestion.
Some of your sentiment is right - but its not true that EV's don't reduce pollution. Pollution isn't just CO2. PM10s, NOx etc are issues that even if the power for EVs came from carbon cleaner generation systems (you can't scrub an exhaust pipe and power station chimneys aren't at ground level/built up areas!) you still potentially have less pollution. However *correctly designed* the Grid should be making it really attractive to plug in EVs and changed them when there is excess renewables and less attractive to charge when its coming from carbon. I know some energy providers already have this type of pricing in place. Of course it won't help congestion and does nothing to make people question if they really need to make the journey at all.
Necessity is the mother of invention as they say. Maybe when change is forced then there has to be a reaction to that and new/better/greener options will get better funded.
I remember in the 70's the rise in fuel prices made even the American's buy smaller and more economical cars (for a while).
Unfortunatley, people in charge + brown envelopes = nothing will ever happen….
Get better people in charge. There seem to be more people aware that something needs doing urgently, certainly among younger folk. Hopefully they can vote with the future in mind.
So much can be done just by changing our own behaviour. I was reading the other thread yesterday and was really shocked by what is apparently normal these days. People heating their houses to 22', driving at 85mph, washing machines and tumble driers on pretty much permanently etc.
My DD for electricity has just been reduced to £30/month. If we are asleep or out of the house then EVERYTHING except fridge/freezer is switched off at the plug. No smart gadgets, no wifi, nothing. Clothes are washed when they need washing, not just because they have been worn for a couple of hours. That means with two of us the washing machine runs twice a week at the most and that includes bedding and towels. Clothes are dried outside when it's warm, or inside on a drier when it's not. We don't own a tumble drier. If there is no-one in the room, then there is no light in that room. No hall lighting etc. Kettle boils only what is required and nothing more. Computers all turned off when not in use, my phone and tablet gets charged in the car.
I've had my car for 3 months, according to the computer I've not been over 65mph yet and that includes driving from Perth to Kent and back. I park at least 4km from where I work and ride a bike for the last bit (in the better weather, I'll ride a lot more than that). That saves me km driving a day that alone saves me at least 1800km of driving a year compared to parking at work and takes no longer.
The house is mostly heated with foraged wood. I know this is contentious, but are nearest neighbours are 150m away and there's only 5 houses within a a km. I firmly believe that collecting wood for burning with an axe, saw and wheelbarrow is better environmentally than oil which needs oil rigs, helicopters, tankers/pipelines, refineries and road tankers to get to me.
If we can all cut our energy use by 10% - and I bet most could do a lot better than that, then we can forget about Russian oil.
Get people to turn their heating down.
Electric cars for example do nothing significant to reduce pollution – just change where it occurs and do nothing for congestion.
A lot of people don't agree with you. However, the thread is about reducing oil and gas dependency, and they will help to do that because you can generate electricity renewably and in most countries from a variety of sources, you aren't dependent on oil and gas.
So much can be done just by changing our own behaviour.
The house is mostly heated with foraged wood.
Hmm yeah not really a large scale solution that, is it?
Maybe the fuel hike will push more people to work from home again?
There are a huge number of unnecessary car trips. At work, somebody has just been complaining how much it's costing them to drive their BMW M3 to work for a 1 mile each way trip. The frustrating thing is they go to they go to the gym to walk/jog on a treadmill before work.
Whilst I don't like the idea of a nanny state, high performance cars and large SUVs could be more heavily taxed or even restricted from being used on the public highway.
The government solutions, electric cars and heat pumps for new builds avoid tackling the underlying issues of poor public transport and poorly insulated housing stock.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/france-introduces-suv-tax-to-curb-sales-of-heavier-cars/
All for this.
but its not true that EV’s don’t reduce pollution
However, the thread is about reducing oil and gas dependency, and they will help to do that because you can generate electricity renewably and in most countries from a variety of sources, you aren’t dependent on oil and gas.
While we are still dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation in part each kw of electricity in cars used is an extra kw of electricity produced by fossil fuel - and don't forget transmission losses. You also have to figure in the pollution from raw materials
Name me one country that does not rely on fossil fuel for a significant part of its energy mix
Stop greenwashing - start accepting that major lifestyle changes are needed. Electric cars are a great symbol of greenwashing in that they make folk feel like they are doing something while doing nothing to change behaviors that have to change to make a differnce
Massive reductions in energy usage are needed, not fiddling around the edges
There seem to be more people aware that something needs doing urgently, certainly among younger folk. Hopefully they can vote with the future in mind.
I really hope this is the case.
We’re getting an EV and I reckon I can fit enough PV to power it day to day. Might need a battery to time shift the production. And probably not G83 / G98, but the sums will tell.
Can’t do that with diesel.
Toying with an ebike to may the two days a week bike commute more practical 5 days a week - but currently I’m not going in to the office for the tyre “car” days.
Remind me how many years UK Govts have been spending loads and talking lots but still haven’t built a new nuclear power station
RR have built 7 PWR2s since the nineties, they just need a shed to stick a few in rather than submarines
Stop greenwashing
And stop being belligerent - please!
I'm well aware of all the things you said, I am thoroughly against greenwashing (as any conscientious thinker will be) and I am most emphatically not suggesting that EVs are the solution to everyone's problems and life can continue as it is now but with EVs instead of ICEs. That would be ridiculous, and as an intelligent person I do not believe ridiculous things so let's nip that in the bud straight away.
I was addressing your point that EVs don't reduce pollution, whereas they do reduce significant forms of pollution. And there are quite a few economics based reasons why they are advantageous when compared with ICEs. And they can enable the reduction on oil and gas dependence, because if everyone has an EV then it only takes central planning to make a decision and everyone's oil usage would go down without them having to do anything. It's a lot easier to make central decisions than to try and persuade millions to make individual decisions.
Of course, we need far fewer car journeys, this is obvious, but it's also obvious that we cannot eliminate them all. What is also very important to remember is that you cannot simply berate people into making these changes. Other options need to be made more attractive. Over-simplifying the problems we face is unproductive because it reduces the credibility of the side we are both on.
igm - still means more fossil fuels burnt in power stations tho as otherwise that eleccy could be doing something other than more one person and a two tonne box around
Move closer to where you work? About 20 years ago I worked out how much more I could spend on a house if I moved closer, must be more true now. I know some folk like where they live and not the area they work but it seems daft to spaff on fuel when it could go towards property.
Name me one country that does not rely on fossil fuel for a significant part of its energy mix
Name a country that's significantly reducing its fossil fuel consumption year-on-year.
Much though i hate to do it, i'm going to have to extend the mortgage, make some cuts elsewhere and get some solar + storage sorted out very soon.
Its a bit like the golden age of COVID, we had so many opportunities to change our lifestyles for the better, but ended up reverting to the line of least resistance soon enough.
Yeah, we were promised full hybrid working with minimal controls by management.
We've now been told it's got to be a 70/30 split in favour of the office and any changes to that approved by a director.
Name a country that’s significantly reducing its fossil fuel consumption year-on-year.
Scotland,. One of the highest amounts in the world
Move closer to where you work?
I don't think there are enough situations where that is feasible to make a large dent in usage. People don't spend an hour commuting for fun. Here in Cardiff people are driving in from the surrounding area because there either aren't the jobs where they live or they can't afford a house in Cardiff. Houses in Cardiff are more expensive precisely because they're closer to the jobs. If everyone moved into Cardiff, well, they couldn't, because there aren't enough houses here.
Scotland,. One of the highest amounts in the world
Exactly. It's not difficult to find one. Which backs up my point.
So now we're on the brink of War with Russia it seems like a good idea to reduce dependence on their greatest export? We're about 20 years behind the times, has no one been reading the non-Covid/Brexit/War news for the last few years?
We're on a road-map towards the end of the Petrol / Diesel powered car, and a simular one to the end of the gas powered home boiler. There have been grants and tax breaks lower carbon production and reduce fossil fuel use for years, decades even.
The end-game might even be Fusion Power Stations, we might just get our first in 2040.
It's happening now, it's been happening for decades, but change takes time.
Which backs up my point.
What point? all it does is shows how daft it is to be thinking electric cars reduce pollution significantly Even in Scotland which has a good record on alternatives or in germany where they have a lot of nuclear every KW used byy an electric car is an extra kw produced from fossil fuels. its a basic fact that you cannot refute. Alternatives do not and cannot supply 100%. Everything using electricity means more fossil fuels as that is the only way we have of increasing generation
But once again you refuse to accept that the only solution is major lifestyle changes and that includes commuting.
The end-game might even be Fusion Power Stations, we might just get our first in 2040
Not a chance!! We'd struggle to build a new conventional nuclear power station from scratch in that timescale, and that's tried-and-tested technology.
No overtaking of cyclists on roads that are shared with cyclists.
That'll teach 'em.
The end-game might even be Fusion Power Stations, we might just get our first in 2040.
As a friend in the nuclear industry says, fission is always 30 years away.
Is anyone on this thread actually arguing electric cars are a great way of reducing oil/gas dependence??
I plan to insulate our house as best as possible this year. Got someone coming around in a week to quote for the loft and walls. Might do the loft myself.
Solar panels are a possibility, as we are on the south coast, and south facing. However, it seems you need either a large battery or some way of using the power in the day to get the most out of them, which makes things more expensive.
But once again you refuse to accept that the only solution is major lifestyle changes and that includes commuting.
No, I literally put that in my post.
Pretty obvious to say that we need major lifestyle change, everyone knows this. The real question is how to actually achieve this in a way that people will vote for. That is what I am concerned with.
Also - if, as per the being nice thread we recently had, let me give you a tip. Don't ever say this:
its a basic fact that you cannot refute
Adds nothing to the discussion except aggro.
We have an inept Gov that only thinks short term
The long term failures of successive governments, of all colours, has got us here. It was being g talked about when I was at secondary school in the 80s FFS.
My employer has just brought in 60% office attendance, so 3 days out of 5. Petrol and parking is at least £15 a day for me. That's going to cripple some of our staff. More working from home will become an economic necessity.
Solar panels are a possibility, as we are on the south coast, and south facing. However, it seems you need either a large battery or some way of using the power in the day to get the most out of them, which makes things more expensive.
We had a 4.2kWh install just over three years ago, south facing in Cheshire and it's made a significant dent in our electricity bill (I was going to say usage but that would be wrong, usage is the same we just don't pay for a chunk of it 😀 )
However my wife is at home all day so dishwasher and washing machine etc use is always done throughout the day, if the house is empty then battery storage is the only way to get the best from it.
With the way prices have gone recently our predicted break even point has dropped steadily from 14yrs down to around 10 and the numbers are looking a lot better for a 10kWh+ battery store. They didn't make financial sense when we had the panels fitted.
No, I literally put that in my post.
Pretty obvious to say that we need major lifestyle change, everyone knows this. The real question is how to actually achieve this in a way that people will vote for. That is what I am concerned with.
It wont happen, the general public aren't interested in making the changes as it will upset their lifestyle. the only way it will happen is if legislation forces it on everyone or energy becomes eyewateringly expensive.........oh
We have an inept Gov that only thinks short term
The entire (near enough) populace thinks short-term. The changes that are needed require deep, difficult, probably expensive, changes to the (mostly) very comfortable lifestyles that everyone (near enough) is used to and enjoys, and will result in those lifestyles being, probably, 'worse' than they are now. Who's going to vote for a party that says that's what should be done?
We are f___d. Don't get me wrong, I will do my bit, I'll try and use less energy, I'll reduce/reuse/recycle, I'll buy organic food, all that guff, but it's all pissing in the wind.
It wont happen, the general public aren’t interested in making the changes as it will upset their lifestyle.
Well, you don't have to actually upset people's lifestyles, necessarily. Take my earlier example. It takes an hour or so to get from Merthyr to Cardiff at rush hour. So let's make a train that only takes 20 mins, let's make it free, regular and reliable. Let's make it so that when you get to Cardiff you can change and get to your final destination in 10 mins.
Make the alternatives better. People use PT in other countries not because they are worthier than Brits, but because PT is good.
Miolgrips - what do I say then? When people are making easily disproved statements over and over again?
Electric car usage does not make any significant reduction in energy usage or co2 production overall
Well, you don’t have to actually upset people’s lifestyles, necessarily.
Yes you do - thats the point. We cannot make the major reductions in energy usage without massive changes to peoples lifestyles and people will not vote for that.
Miolgrips – what do I say then? When people are making easily disproved statements over and over again?
You say 'I'm not sure I agree that..' or 'there is actually some uncertainty over this..'
You are taking the view that it's absolutely obvious that EVs don't reduce carbon over their lifetime. However, there is a lot of debate over this and what we see on the internet is fraught with problems. All reports contain assumptions, this is necessary in a subject like this. There are lobby groups working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry that write reports with bias hidden in those assumptions, and there are reports made by people who want to support the technology that have similar bias in the opposite direction.
However there are many reports that say the lifetime CO2 of an EV is significantly lower than an ICE. But in my view there are also a few key advantages to the concept of EVs:
1. If everyone has an EV then it would be much easier to decarbonise transport usage because you can change the generation mix (which we are doing, see your own example) and the public doesn't have to do anything.
2. The EV industry will drive development of battery technology that will benefit other areas such as energy storage. I was initially doubtful of this but I am reading stories every day of developments in increasing capacity and longevity, and importantly reducing the environmental impact of battery manufacture.
3. If EVs are widespread then in the future they could well be used as electricity storage for renewable generation. This is already possible, AIUI, and it could become mainstream.
Now, don't get me wrong - I am not saying that changing to EVs will solve everything. That's absurd, of course it is. I absolutely despise car commuting, and I mourn the impact it has on our landscape and our lives. That's one reason I don't do it.
But most people hate it. But they do it because they feel there's no better option. So the discussion needs to be on how to make the other options better. I've been saying on here for a decade or more that we need to reduce the need for people to commute into offices. Yes, the pandemic did it, but we're not following up on the progress we made so now (see above) bosses are just reverting to their old ways. If working in the office is better than remote working, then make remote working better. But this kind of action requires a massive governmental shift. I don't know how to make that happen.
If everyone has an EV then it would be much easier to decarbonise transport usage
How can it when its still relying on fossil fuel generation?
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels. Wind can never cover 100% nor can PV
think of the winter high pressure events
I've just ordered some copper pipe and some sheet ally and I'm going to have a go at making a solar water heater which should sit on our shed roof and (hopefully) heat the water enough for home brewing and probs washing the dishes, in the late spring to early autumn anyway.
I'm always curious in a 100% EV future what the roads will be made from. Very heavy cars with loads of torque is likely to need as much if not more road material than we use now. The road material is bound with bitumen which is available at low cost and scale as by product of making transport fuels. I know folk have tried bio binders but nothing commerically viable or at any scale. It doesn't seem to add up that we could go from ICE to EVs at the same scale - something has to give in terms of flying about in big heavy boxes just being a bad idea.
How can it when its still relying on fossil fuel generation?
Well now it's partially from fossil fuels, but that percentage is decreasing and will decrease further.
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels. Wind can never cover 100% nor can PV
If we have a 50% renewable mix then one kWh in an EV means 500Wh from fossil fuels no? Or am I missing something? Not counting transmission losses, but according to Wiki they are about 7.7%
But the point is that whatever the generation mix, if it changes, then everyone's EV usage mix also changes at the same time. You don't have to get consumers to do anything or buy any new stuff.
Very heavy cars with loads of torque is likely to need as much if not more road material than we use now.
I'd guess the extra weight of an EV vs a normal car is not significant compared to the weight and torque of all those HGVs on the roads, but it's a guess.
But as we said the number of miles driven needs to go through the floor. What we do now is madness on many levels not just from an ecological perspective.
If we have a 50% renewable mix then one kWh in an EV means 500Wh from fossil fuels no? Or am I missing something?
What you are missing is this is EXTRA demand. Non fossil fuel sources are limited and at max ( generally) so for every EXTRA kw of electricity used in a car then that KW has to come from 100% fossil fuels as all non fossil are already maxed out so they only way to get that extra kw is burning fossil fuels
Well isn't the answer to increase non fossil fuel generation then?
If your only plan is that everyone should stay at home then you're not really helping
No - my aim is to get folk to understand that reducing CO2 output requires large changes in lifestyle
Wind generation as more than a % of the energy mix is problematic anyway as you need reserve to be called upon at short notice - which needs you guessed it - fossil fuels! Nucler can never be a major player - not enough fuel - its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %. tidal looks promising for the UK but not much use in landlocked countries or those on the med and baltic
The only answer is to use significantly less energy overall and that requires major lifestyle changes.
What you are missing is this is EXTRA demand. Non fossil fuel sources are limited and at max ( generally) so for every EXTRA kw of electricity used in a car then that KW has to come from 100% fossil fuels as all non fossil are already maxed out so they only way to get that extra kw is burning fossil fuels
Either burning more fossil fuels or installing more renewables. I think the amount of fossil fuel usage is still going down despite the increase in EVs..? But given the amount of new EVs being sold we will have to see if that changes. I suspect not.
Don't forget that diesel still takes a shitload of energy to even get to your petrol station from a hole in the ground in the middle east before the at best 33% efficiency of your car comes into play.
More renewables - more wind? what happens in a winter high pressure event? the higher the % of wind the less reliable the generation is as wind fluctuates so much and as above - yo still need fossil fuel top up and always will
No – my aim is to get folk to understand that reducing CO2 output requires large changes in lifestyle
Most people involved in this kind of discussion already know this, to be fair.
Wind generation as more than a % of the energy mix is problematic anyway as you need reserve to be called upon at short notice – which needs you guessed it – fossil fuels!
No, we will have storage before too long. Ironically, this could be done with cars.
The only answer is to use significantly less energy overall and that requires major lifestyle changes.
Not the only answer - we need to BOTH use much less energy via lifestyle changes (and others) AND the energy we do use needs to be from sustainable sources. So the discussion needs to be on both.
Nucler can never be a major player – not enough fuel – its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %.
Not sure on those numbers... I think that things like fast breeder reactors render that argument invalid, however for me the main argument against nuclear is complexity, safety and the waste problem.
yo still need fossil fuel top up and always will
To be fair neither of us are renewable energy engineers, however given a wide enough range of renewable energy sources (e.g. tidal, wave, wind, solar and so on) over a wide enough range, some biofuel, a lot of storage of various types, and serious reductions in consumption, I don't think you can say that some fossil fuel usage is inevitable.
@tjagain I think you are taking 2+2 and making 5.
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels.
I think you are assuming that we are utilising every kW from non-fossil fuels and so the only type of power we can turn a tap on and increase the supply on is fossil? I think you are mistaken - we don't use all the potential output from every other source just now (even when its windy and sunny) - there are times of the day where we have too much power and the grid wants to dump that so some providers incentivise charging EV's on that cheap power, and effectively penalise for charging when demand is higher than capacity (= bring on more gas). My understanding is much of this excess power is renewables/nuclear, e.g. when its windier than average, or when its particularly sunny and all those home PVs make power but households are using less. But also that predictable demand is good for nuclear - we aren't typically running nuclear at 100% capacity, but we don't know what will be needed and its quite hard to throttle nuclear. Good demand management from EVs could actually increase nuclear output without building new stations (if you know there are always going to be empty batteries to dump excess supply in you can turn it up, if you know that there will be a million vehicles plugged in overnight which just need to be full by 6am but are flexible which 3 hrs between 2200 and 0600 actually does the charging the owner doesn't care about (this technology is already in use in the UK but not that widely used).
You are right that there are times when its dark, there's no wind and so we need other sources of power. There are even some initiatives to use EVs a grid connected batteries though - charge my car when its sunny, then trickle that back into the grid when its dark if I tell my car/charger that I'm not going to be driving it or I'll only be doing 150 miles tomorrow so you can take the rest out. Essentially each EV becomes like a mini Cruachan powerstation. Not all cars support it, and certainly not many UK energy companies support it, but its more than just a concept. Of course we should also be heavily investing in tidal and wave energy to diversify the mix and waste to energy, biomass etc are often overlooked as stable "green" energy sources.
... or in germany where they have a lot of nuclear every
Eh? Germany has been phasing down nuclear since Fukishima and panned to be nuclear free this year - this is part of the reason they use so much russian gas.
KW used byy an electric car is an extra kw produced from fossil fuels. its a basic fact that you cannot refute. Alternatives do not and cannot supply 100%. Everything using electricity means more fossil fuels as that is the only way we have of increasing generation
So I guess I am refuting it! It is possible to increase demand AND use less fossil fuel at the same time. Its counter-intuitive - but its possible if the type of demand is well managed, and clearly we haven't reached the limits for renewable capacity building either. Indeed demand in the UK has generally fallen over the last few years despite EV uptake.
But once again you refuse to accept that the only solution is major lifestyle changes and that includes commuting.
I think you are shouting at seagulls here! Almost everyone thinks lifestyle change will be key to reducing energy demand/waste, the question is - if there's not an immediate economic or security driver to make that happen quickly, how are government going to encourage it? Frankly, if EVs weren't part of that it would seem to be an error.
No, we will have storage before too long.
Really - Its been the holy grail for renewables for years and nothing on the horizon looks at all likely. What is the answer that will be here soon?
I think that things like fast breeder reactors render that argument invalid
Its a shame no one has been able to produce a breeder reactor that works on a commercial level despite decades of trying. Lithium looks hopeful but again is a long time in the future
We need solutions now. the only solution available now is reduced energy usage
So I guess I am refuting it! It is possible to increase demand AND use less fossil fuel at the same time.
Not at the levels needed to convert all UK transport to electric. Yes car batteries could be used for smoothing demand but its an edge effect.
EVs allow people to think they are doing something to help when really its not. thats why evs are greenwash. They do not reduce energy usage
If everyone knows huge lifestyle changes are the only option why do so many refute this - on this thread as well?
Nucler can never be a major player – not enough fuel – its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %. tidal looks promising for the UK but not much use in landlocked countries or those on the med and baltic
where do you get the 40 years number from? This report suggest current supplies and technology would service 230 years of current reactors, although fast breader reader reactors could make that 30,000 years and novel extraction methods might get 60,000 years event without fast breaders. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
this source quotes different numbers but still a minimum of 80 years:
Globally you may be right - and from a CO2 perspective it probably is right to think globally, but I'm guessing the trigger for the thread was actually about energy security which very much is a local issue [there may be other issues with Ur security if you aren't extracting from sea water]. Nuclear actually produces about 15-20% of UK demand, so it shouldn't be dismissed.
If your only plan is that everyone should stay at home then you’re not really helping
Hmm. You don't need to stay at home to reduce your oil and gas dependence, just walk or cycle when you go out.
40% what was what we found last time we did this
Even at 80 years supply when nucler is providing only a few % of worldwide energy we do not have enough fuel to make it a majr player - like 25% of the worlds energy - that would see the fuel gone in a decade or so
anyway nuclear takes too long to build. we need serious action now
And yes - i am looking globally - this is a global issue. I lead low energy lifestyle for the west having made compromises most of you would never do - and if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle guess what - runaway global warming. I bet I use 1/4 the energy of most of us on here
This is the scale off the problem - we need to be using 10 - 20 % of the energy we use now in the west not a reduction of a few % but massive wholesale reductions.
If everyone knows huge lifestyle changes are the only option why do so many refute this – on this thread as well?
I don't think anyone did! You argued with Mols partially quoting him when he said he "didn't think Lifestyle changes were needed" but left off the rest of his post which then described things I think most people would call lifestyle changes - a massive shift to public transport subsidised by the state. Or are you actually suggesting that people shouldn't leave the house?
All modern countries should have switched over a combination of nuclear and green fifty fricking years ago.
Those are minor changes compared to what we need to do.
I suggest you look at this sort of calculation to see just how huge the issue is. According to that my low energy lifestyle ( for the west) still requires 4 earths !
You argued with Mols partially quoting him when he said he “didn’t think Lifestyle changes were needed” but left off the rest of his post which then described things I think most people would call lifestyle changes – a massive shift to public transport subsidised by the state
Quite, what I meant was that you could still go to work in different places, you could still commute to your normal job - just via PT rather than car. I don't call this a major lifestyle change, just a small one. It doesn't change what you do or where you live.
A major change would be changing careers just so you could live closer to work etc.
anyway nuclear takes too long to build. we need serious action now
and therein lies the problem - we are only interested in instant fixes and there are none which are going to be acceptable, so the easy answer seems to be to say "do nothing and hope some magic solution comes along in the future".
And yes – i am looking globally – this is a global issue.
that's also the reason why lots of people do nothing - ah it won't matter what I do china will blow my contribution out the water. BUT I think there is a difference between climate and energy security - each country really does need its own strategy for energy security.
I lead low energy lifestyle for the west having made compromises most of you would never do
comes across as a little preachy! However, I agree I almost certainly am worse than you. But if you want to tackle the problem I think you need a more realistic solution than just ride your bike everywhere. I WFH so I don't commute anyway. What other big lifestyle changes do you think I should make so I can feel superior to other people in the country and claim I did my bit?
This is the scale off the problem – we need to be using 10 – 20 % of the energy we use now not a reduction of a few % but massive wholesale reductions
well anyone who's using the internet to argue with people is almost certainly wasting energy pointlessly. If they are doing it on STW with its tendency to make my phone overheat they are doing it even worse than on other sites.
And there in lies the problem - that sort of measure will not make the reductions needed. Its pretending there is another solution that does not require massive change in lifestyles
We need our energy consumption down to 10 or 20% of what it is now. Not 95%
You wouldn't be happy with my lifestyle ( no car, no flights, no kids, no pets, very little out of season food, no buying of consumer electronics etc etc etc and my lifestyle is still unsustainable by a long way
Molgripos and Poly - try that calculator.
What is the answer that will be here soon?
Widespread EV adoption will drive huge advances in battery production. This will make batteries far cheaper, and much less polluting to produce given the advances I am reading about. Once they are cheap enough then battery storage in your house would also be cheap and straightforward to install. Then if battery storage takes off we will be able to move to renewables further.
the only solution available now is reduced energy usage
As I said, this is essential regardless. We need hugely reduced consumption AND renewable generation AND storage AND electric vehicles AND a public transport overhaul.
Molgripos and Poly – try that calculator.
Done those things endlessly in the past, it's not new.
EDIT did it for a laugh, I got 1.7 Earths, no idea how you got 4! But it's American so most of those answers will be tailored for the US.
POly - I do not know you well enough to know but the big ones that i am sure you know
Stop breeding
do not use a car,
do not fly for holidays
Never "upgrade" only replace when worn out
Eat local food only
Keep your house cold(er)
No pets
MOlgrips - it is pointless to say we will have these things in the future.
We do not have anything in line for energy storage, batteries are becoming better yes but nothing like the scale of energy density needed
EVs make no significant difference to energy consumption thus are part of the problem not part of the solution.
edit - I usually get just over one on those calculators - it didn't seem to like no car and never drive ( almost) - not been in a car for 10 weeks)
MOlgrips – it is pointless to say we will have these things in the future.
We will have them. But remember, I'm not saying 'everything's going to be fine we can carry on as we are'. I am absolutely not saying that. I'm saying that we need to do ALL the things ASAP, and storage is one of them.
Not exactly sure how your point is really any different to mine.
Stop breeding
You don't have to stop, just don't have more than two kids.
We do not have anything in line for energy storage, batteries are becoming better yes but nothing like the scale of energy density needed
I would disagree with that based on the research articles I am reading daily.
Re EVs - bear in mind that people are buying new cars anyway. Given the choice, would you rather that new car be EV or ICE? Of course it would be better if they didn't drive at all, but that change cannot happen overnight and we're not politically in a position to mandate it, nor are we socially in a place where everyone will do it voluntarily.
Given the two options, I vote for EV because of all the reasons outlined above.
Not exactly sure how your point is really any different to mine.
Its because you are planning on having all these pie in the sky things that will apparently happen in the future. We have to work with what we have now. None of the things you mention will be able to make a significant difference in the timescales available
so where is this storage for GW of energy? What form? Where is the battery with even ten times the energy density let alone 100 times thats needed
You don’t have to stop, just don’t have more than two kids.
You really do . Bringing two more humans onto the planet is about the worst thing you can do for future energy consumption. This really shows that yo uare not prepared for the changes needed
bear in mind that people are buying new cars anyway.
I would prefer ICE because they are taxed on pollution whereas EVs are not and also have low additional energy costs so used more. EVs increase private car mileage and do nothing for congestion. either that or start taxing EVs fairly ( ICE cars are not taxed enough anyway)
stop the massive subsidy to drivers and EVs get even more of it.
None of the things you mention will be able to make a significant difference in the timescales available
Ok, you're the boss.
also have low additional energy costs so used more.
You have a source for that?
Scotland reducing oil and gas consumption? Well it still makes up 78% of our energy consumption.
2019-20 stats. Page 11 at
Im poor so cant afford to have the heating on all day, even in winter, and no kids needed to run to school, holidays, and only have a bike for transport. I think im quids in and can keep on the same without having to make any changes 😀
Changes mean no more what car threads(unless they're EV), and for sure no more what camper/van.But i think this forum being representative of the general public, how we see reactions here, actual changes and not just talk, is how it will go with the general public as a whole.
