to be sceptical about man made climate change

[Brioche201]

.. to a layperson like myself the evidence does not seem robust (record antarctic ice caps) .Even if it were true 'the climate' is such a complicated thing affected by thousands of factors.Is it likely that changing just one or 2 of the factors that are within out control would make a difference (or even that the difference would be in the right direction)
Do you still believe in man made climate change or think it is mainly rooted in politics?

Jassy - I mention wind in the main because most of the UK renewable response has been in the wind sector. I live in the UK but have of course studied other renewable technologies in other countries

However your point wasn't about the inherent nature of wind - it was about public policy and dithering/incoherence and perceptions of same deterring investment.

It will take hold and the world energy system will become largely gas based in the next 100 years. If then gas becomes hard to find or demand is far outstripping supply no doubt renewables will come forward to meet demand for energy.

Or if the true cost of gas starts to be priced in, which would be the sensible approach to market design.

Most people who witter on about future generations do neither of the above but feel a virtuous glow by writing fine words.

Yes, I'm so incredibly glad as a taxpayer that in the 50s to 80s people didn't 'witter about future generations' but instead piled up nuclear waste leaving us with an incredibly expensive and potentially dangerous legacy that would have been cheaper and safer to deal with at the time.

So very, very grateful for their short-termism.

I'll be honest. I'm also concerned about my generation, but looking more than 20 minutes ahead. I'm self-interested. I do not wish to live in a world with more extreme and dangerous weather, less secure and more expensive food supplies, greater risk of resource-inspired conflicts and sky high insurance premiums.

If it is real and we do something about it we save the earth and everyone on the planet.

If it isn't real and we take the same actions the world will be a less polluted and pleasant place to live for everyone on the planet.

If it's real and we don't do anything - well we are fucked.

And regardless of whether it is true or not fossil fuels are running out, the places we can get mineral oil are becoming more remote and inhospitable which means more expensive and harder to get at, with more chance of problems such as Deep water horizon.

If it is real and we do something about it we save the earth and everyone on the planet.
If it isn't real and we take the same actions the world will be a less polluted and pleasant place to live for everyone on the planet.
If it's real and we don't do anything - well we are fucked.
ABSOLUTELY

'Use less energy. use energy more efficiently, don't waste energy in energy inefficient processes and that has to be a good thing.'

Electricity is an amazingly effective way of transferring energy. On the other hand it is not v efficient and you will always have losses at every stage. Still prefer to have electricity than not have it, personally.

Electricity is an amazingly effective way of transferring energy. On the other hand it is not v efficient and you will always have losses at every stage. Still prefer to have electricity than not have it, personally.

That said, lots of homes and especially businesses are hopelessly inefficient in the way they use the electricity they pay for. A lit of businesses could increase their productivity by investing in energy efficiency - but of course the up front cost is beyond the reach of some.

Demand reduction should be the cornerstone of any sensible energy mix.

Jassy -on the nuclear waste issue. It was the stupidity picking winners and socialist economics in nationalised electric industry that ignored true cost of nuclear that led to the disasterous decision to build nuclear power stations. The renewable lobby would have us picking winners again and shutting CCGT power stations if it had its way. Polticians never learn.

Yes, I'm so incredibly glad as a taxpayer that in the 50s to 80s people didn't 'witter about future generations' but instead piled up nuclear waste leaving us with an incredibly expensive and potentially dangerous legacy that would have been cheaper and safer to deal with at the time.

That was the fault of politicians who had to have nuclear weapons.

If there had been no market for Plutonium, there are other ways to generate electricity from nuclear reactions which don't involve radioactive pollution - the Thorium cycle for one. If subsidies or investment are needed, then there would be a good place to start.

And of course, fusion research is ongoing, although that is more of an engineering challenge.

We'll disagree on whether first fleet nuclear was disastrous then.

What was disastrous was the short termism combined with lack of appropriate regulation (and later rampant profit-driven approach) taken to dealing with nuclear waste - a good example of the problems with short-termism that leads to greater expense for future generations than would have been incurred by dealing with the waste sooner.

Lurking, that's my point. By criticising those who say 'hey, maybe we should consider future generations', one promotes political short-termism which is hopeless when it comes to long-term engineering challenges.

See also: deferring decisions on the new nuclear fleet until we were almost certain to have a problem with margins; those who would put off dealing with emissions reductions 'until it's cheaper', regardless of the indirect costs that would be incurred.

A lit of businesses could increase their productivity by investing in energy efficiency

Turning off advertising hoardings at night, and lights in empty shops would be a start.

And as long as such idiocies abound, it will be very hard to convince me there's anything serious going on elsewhere.

How about housing ? Quite apart from the issue of building (or uprating) eco homes, we have a benefits system which allows under-occupancy (with the associated energy wastage and CO2 emissions).

Here is a radical idea.

Remove all kinds of energy taxes and subsidies. There is an immense regulatory burden of conflicting energy tax and subsidy Then impose a simple efficient £25 - 50 per metric tonne CO2 tax regardless of whether it is petrol, diesel, fuel oil, coal, natural gas so that when the fuel is burned its calculated CO2 emission is taxed identically regardless of how it is used and what fuel it is. Its the total CO2 emitted when fuel burns that matters and taxing it in the same way is economically sensible.

Then we should allow the private sector to decide what it wants to invest in and which energy source it wants to use. We should not care what technology is invested in - only that CO2 emissions go down.

Bet you no one would invest in renewables. They would stop using coal and switch to natural gas immediately. Renewables lobby would scream blue murder because they would no longer be getting a subsidy. CO2 emissions would go down though.

Then as the evidence grows of climate change impact or as the evidence fails to appear we can raise or lower the carbon tax and the economy adjust accordingly.

Never going to happen. Too many political interest groups making too much money out of the great climate change scam.

I think your carbon price is on the low side - I'm in favour of the CCC's scalable one, based on what I've seen. But that model works on the assumption that the purpose of subsidies is to prop up technologies permanently, which is a false premise. It assumes that long-term CCGT is in the public interest rather than a transitional technology, bringing down the cost of low carbon electricity constitutes a public good, Where the clear purpose of subsidies is to get new technologies to a competitive state. I favour tiered auctions for these, as under the recent CfD regime, to differentiate between newer and more established technologies, rather than the RO regime. Even so there are failures in the current system, such as the fact that the predicted efficiency of new design offshore turbines was underestimated in modelling - leading to higher subsidy costs than necessary. However subsidies should skew to new and significant technologies. For example, a proper carbon price would see solar at or near grid parity.

I agree that would happen a hell of a lot sooner if we had a proper carbon price.

I've just been looking at the tables for levelised costs of various technologies, which includes the cost of carbon as £19/MWh for CCGT. With current strike prices for onshore and solar and predictions that they'll tumble further (rumours that some onshore and solar generators are going to proceed without subsidy), CCGT doesn't look like the saviour after all...

Too many political interest groups making too much money out of the great climate change scam.

+1.

Turning off advertising hoardings at night, and lights in empty shops would be a start.

Yes on the latter, for the former I guess it depends on what the data shows them I when they get the best ROI on their ads. (Though I suspect that's limited at 3 in the morning.)

Changing lighting systems would be massive. Upfront cost, but savings delivered relatively quickly. I'd love to see demand reduction projects. included in future capacity market auctions, it makes so much sense.

It's also an area where regulation plays a huge role. Most households are using less electricity now than a decade ago, in large part because houses are more energy efficiency and particularly because electrical products are so much more efficient. I'm unconvinced the free market would have delivered that.

I guess it depends on what the data shows them I when they get the best ROI on their ads

So ROI on ads trumps the future of mankind ?

That's the message I'm taking away - hence my continued (and unshaken) scepticism.

As my Dad said (roughly translated) "do as the priest does, not as he says" ....

Jassy - if solar PV could compete with CCGT in the UK I would be very surprised. Can you link the figures you are looking at?

If renewables of any kind can match UK CCGT at current gas and carbon price and with no subsidy and paying the full cost of building the transmisison lines and paying full cost of interruptibilty (i.e Balancing costs) I am all for it.

Figures I have seen in the past tended to use very high caron costs and missed out transmisison costs and balancing costs - which of course makes renewables look roughly equivalent to CCGT. Remember also that levelised cost calculations do no discounting and unfairly skew the analysis in favour of projects with high upfront construction costs - i.e nuclear, solar, wind, hydro.

Jassy - if solar PV could compete with CCGT in the UK I would be very surprised. Can you link the figures you are looking at?

On my phone and out and about so will link later, but both onshore and solar PV came in below £80 in the February CfD auction. (One came in at £50 but I think that's an outlier, I'm not sure they'd get finance at that price currently.)

Fuel costs obviously vary, but the cost of CCGT including carbon I referenced earlier was £80. The remaining £61 was based on capital, O&M and fuel costs.

So ROI on ads trumps the future of mankind ?

I'm not saying it's right, but it's how businesses often operate - what makes sense on the immediate balance sheet. That pesky short termism again. If only there was some mechanism for encouraging a longer-term view.

Too many political interest groups making too much money out of the great climate change scam.

I'm often curious about why those who use this line don't appear to be equally sceptical about the motives of the fossil fuel lobby and industry?