UK Steps Towards Zero-Carbon Economy (bbc.com) 240
The UK is taking a tentative step towards a radical "green" future with zero emissions of greenhouse gases. From a report: The government is formally seeking Climate Change Committee (CCC) guidance about how and when to make this leap. If it happens it would mark an extraordinary transformation of an economy built on burning fossil fuels. The decision was prompted by last week's UN report warning that CO2 emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
UK Steps Towards Zero- Economy (Score:2)
Re:UK Steps Towards Zero- Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a step anyway, this is what the UK does went they don't want to do anything, they deflect criticism and say we're studying it, we're commissioning a report, which is nice for their think-tank friends who they pay millions for some report to get mostly written by some intern, whilst their school friend chum pockets some nice wedge, nudge nudge wink wink.
"But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced." AKA they're not actually doing anything meaningful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least knowing the things you can do and can't do is one step.. For the record, everyone used to be able to afford to live in a city, take a bus or walk to work and not need a car... but when the universities expanded to take in more international students, all those apartments and houses that used to go to first time buyers and young couples have gone to buy-to-let landlords instead. The most desirable properties are the Victorian townhouses in the cities which usually sell for around £50K per bedr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UK Steps Towards Zero- Economy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They actively stopped new on-shore wind farms. A very bad step.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has just reduced the tax break on electric cars by £1000 and removed it entirely for lower range plug-in hybrids. It's not serious about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The subsidies are to help the bottom end of the market. Someone buying a £80k Tesla won't care, but someone buying a £20k Zoe will.
When you look at how much it adds to finance deals on sub £35k cars like the recently released Kona it's quite a significant hit for people.
And the reason to subsidise them is that it's worked to drive the cost down quickly and get demand up, which increases the roll out of infrastructure etc. We need to get rid of most of the fossil vehicles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UK Steps Towards Zero- Economy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they can't be compared?
He needs to keep the UK in the EU totals to make the EU totals look better...
Can't trust this Govt (Score:5, Informative)
The Tories reversed the law on new homes needing to be zero carbon three years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And announced cut to grants on Electric and Hybrid vehicles a few days ago.
Not to mention recent budget changes to remove any tax benefits of zero and low emission vehicles.
Re: Can't trust this Govt (Score:2)
Can't trust this Govt
So they're a government?
Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis (Score:4, Interesting)
The means to get to a zero carbon economy exists today, nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I keep hearing about how if we don't reduce our CO2 immediately then we will create runaway global warming. We have a technology that can provide energy that is zero carbon (or rather closer to zero than wind and solar), plentiful, inexpensive (again compared to wind and solar), reliable, domestically sourced (no matter how you define "domestic"), and exists today.
Why don't we have more nuclear power? Because some nuclear waste is "scary"? You want me to believe that some nuclear waste is a greater threat to humanity than global warming? I'm not convinced. You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly. For an island nation like the UK the ability to meet their energy needs from wind and solar is likely impossible. Maybe they have enough friendly neighbors across the channel to get more wind and sun. What of Japan? They don't have any friendly neighbors, what should they do?
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK did a lot of that for it nuclear mil projects and for power generation.
Worked well while been supported with tax funded projects.
Then the real cost of keeping up with investing in new nuclear tech and later decommissioning gat factored in.
Low cost power from nuclear could not cover the build cost, the working costs, the later support cost and finally the decommissioning.
The only "win" in funds was the design and material needed for nuclear weapons producti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both. At this point, nuclear power is better than fossil fuel power.
But nuclear power is still plenty dangerous. The first problem is that it can provide the material to make nuclear weapons. Won't do us much good to avert Global Warming if some rogue nation starts World War III with nukes. The second, more insidious problem is that human corruption and incompetence is scarily likely to lead to another major accident such as Fukushima. We know how to operate nuclear power with reasonable safety, but
Re:Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis (Score:5, Insightful)
Both.
That's a non-answer as it tells me nothing on how to act. If this means we can't have nuclear power then you are by default kicking the problem down the path hoping for a solution to present itself before the problems of global warming are upon us. We can continue down this path, keep looking for a non-nuclear solution, but that is waiting for a ship that may never come to port.
But nuclear power is still plenty dangerous. The first problem is that it can provide the material to make nuclear weapons. Won't do us much good to avert Global Warming if some rogue nation starts World War III with nukes.
The material to make nuclear weapons is in the dirt and dissolved in seawater. Where do you think that the U-235 for the first nuclear weapons came from? They didn't need a reactor to make it, they just "distilled" it from the dirt. This was done with 1940s technology, repeating this with modern materials and equipment is becoming nearly trivial any more. The limitation is primarily the energy needed to enrich the U-235.
The second, more insidious problem is that human corruption and incompetence is scarily likely to lead to another major accident such as Fukushima.
This again? All a bunch of bullshit based on 50 year old nuclear technology. Nobody builds reactors like those any more.
We know how to operate nuclear power with reasonable safety, but can we do so, for all nuclear power plants, for decades?
Yes, we do in fact know how to operate nuclear power plants safely for decades. There are over 400 operating commercial nuclear power reactors on this planet. There's at least 100 military nuclear power plants in ships at sea as well. We know how to make this work. Bringing this up as scaremongering for not implementing what is demonstrably the safest energy source we have today is unbelievable.
You want me to fear nuclear power more than global warming? Really? Then tell me that global warming isn't the threat it's been made out to be, because I'm really thinking that we are running out of options right now and nuclear power it looking really nice by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Cooling is more harmful.
If you over compensate and cause cooling, thats worse.
You can grow food if its sub zero C. Its frozen solid.
Short term frost can kill plants.
In all history, short term cooling has been a real bad things for human populations, causing massive dissease and crop losses. Heat has been a positive to cause great thriving populations.
Re: (Score:3)
But nuclear power is still plenty dangerous. The first problem is that it can provide the material to make nuclear weapons. Won't do us much good to avert Global Warming if some rogue nation starts World War III with nukes.
Given this is an article bout the UK: that's not relly much of a problem since the has at the best estimate a few hundred warheads already.
The second, more insidious problem is that human corruption and incompetence is scarily likely to lead to another major accident such as Fukushima.
Tha
Re: (Score:2)
how many natural disasters do you suppose there will be in the next 500 - 1000 years, how much human incompetence. It is utterly unpredictable, with the exception that there will certainly be some. The consequences of which, when mixed with nuclear power, will be horrendous. The reality is that as long as we keep creating nuclear fuel it is only a matter of time before something worse then Chernobyl happens either through accident, or by human malice.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest incident relted to nuclear power was the 2005 leak at the reprocessing plant where a 20 tons of nuclear fuel disolved in acid leaked out of a pipe and into a containment vessel. ...
You must be very young
The biggest incident was Sellafield/Windscale, which nearly lead to a Chernobyl like disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
You can google easily for more about this incident ... youtube is full with videos about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a non-answer as it tells me nothing on how to act. If this means we can't have nuclear power then you are by default kicking the problem down the path hoping for a solution to present itself before the problems of global warming are upon us.
Surely it's the exact opposite. Nuclear takes so long to build, and you have to dedicate yourself to maintaining the supply of fuel and the processing of waste for many decades, it's a long term commitment to emit more CO2. Depending on where you get your fuel from nuclear can be up to 110g/kWh [www.ipcc.ch].
On the other hand we have proven low emission technologies that can be built up much faster than nuclear. Best of all they provide a decent return on that investment, rather than being a money sink. People are lining
Re: (Score:3)
First nuclear weapon. Only one (1) nuclear weapon has ever been made using U235. That was the Hiroshima bomb. The rest have been made with Plutonium, which requires a specially designed reactor to make. Which is why there are so few countries with nukes. Civilian reactors won't get you there....
Yeah, Fukushima was such a major accident that it killed almost as many peo
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the number of people killed it's the territory made uninhabitable for 10000 years. Let's just say we have 2 Chernobyl every century.
The habitable area of the earth is around 900000 sq/m and the area poisoned is around 10000 sq/ miles, however , the are where radiation is elevated in quite a bit larger area, and when you count radiation poisoning if there was two areas near each other things would get considerably worse so if you figure half the livable land was poisoned that would probably be enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it is not the safest. Not even if you use your idiotic "death per TWh" metric.
Then what metric would you like to use? If we want to establish the safest energy source then we need something on which to make this decision, no? Tell me how to make that decision and then let's go about collecting data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Banqiao Dam death toll: 230,000 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties
Fukushima Daiichi death toll: 50 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
Clearly we can never build another hydroelectric dam with deaths per accident like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok.... In the US there are about 35 coal miners killed each year.
Wikipedia lists total nuclear accidents deaths at around ~90-120 depending on the counter. So 3-5 years of coal.... And thats worldwide nuclear vs US coal.
Re:Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis (Score:4, Insightful)
Chernobyl killing a million people is a totally unsupported claim. No one anywhere claims that. The WHO estimates a total of 4000 extra cancers using a method that provably over estimates the impact.
Also I'm not an american, and germany has the grand total of 6 coal mines. A quick search also turned up 57 miners dying in a german coal mine in '88. So it depends how old you are....
Re: (Score:2)
Give me some numbers to convince me of what energy source we should be using then. Pick a metric to rate the danger of each energy source and then put numbers to them. Imagine I'm the government regulator that will be issuing permits to allow these energy sources to put energy to the electrical grid. Convince me that nuclear power is dangerous. Show me how dangerous nuclear power is to society and how much safer the alternatives are by comparison. Give some numbers and cite some sources.
Certainly you m
Re: (Score:3)
Fukushima's biggest problem, for example, was that they stored 20 years of spent fuel rods in a "temporary" holding area that was only designed to hold a few month's worth.
Thorium is plentiful, has been used for decades, and with newer designs is impossible to melt down.
It also has the advantage that it produces far less waste, with greatly reduced half-life.
Further yet, it can use long half-life waste as part of its
Re: (Score:3)
Due to inadequate training.
The point is: in every case of nuclear accident on this scale, it was invariably due to human error.
Every damned time.
Newer designs, with redundant systems that eliminate such errors, are nothing like those old piles of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
A great reason for not having nuclear, human fallibility.
Re: (Score:2)
And how EXACTLY do you propose to eliminate human error? or worse yet intentional Destruction?
Also , we have already had these serious problems in less then 200 years. How many 'unexpected' things can happen in 10,000 years. Wars, governments collapsing, famines, etc, this stuff, and it's waste last a LONG LONG time and when it poisons an area it is on that kind of time scale.
Re: (Score:2)
All old plants, old designs, and in every case used outside of spec guidelines.
And how can we guarantee that people will never again run old plants, old designs, or outside of spec guidelines ? Japan is a modern industrialized country, so how come they were running an unsafe plant ?
The reality of human nature is that every year without an accident leads to slight less safety awareness. All existing plants get older and worn down, but few people want to shut down old plants that are still working without issues and generating a steady stream of profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Or when did you actually hear a solar plant go boom? Or a coal pant for that matter? How often do or did dams break?
Dam breaking: August 1975: The Banqiao Dam flooded in the Henan Province of China due to heavy rains and poor construction quality of the dam, which was built during Great Leap Forward. The flood immediately killed over 100,000 people, and another 150,000 died of subsequent epidemic diseases and famine, bringing the total death toll to around 250,000—making it the worst technical disaster ever. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were made homeless
Coal plant: no
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about the safety of power plants.
Not about the safety of MINES!!!
So: Coal plants according to you seem to be much safer than nuclear plants, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily due to accidents, but if you look at the whole of chain of energy production:
for coal: by-products storage and disposal - https://content.sierraclub.org... [sierraclub.org]
for dams: large populations have been moved, and agricultural lands are now underwater so the impact is not exactly 0.
Look, I am not saying that nuclear energy is the cleanest, but if you take into account externalities the picture for nuclear is less dark than what people think. The problem with nuclear accidents is that they are dra
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, no. None of them "went boom". No, there have been no nuclear explosions in any nuclear power plants, ever.
Note that of the three, one had no (zero) casualties, one had one (1) casualty, and the third had a hundred or so (mostly firefighters).
Note that the one that had a hundred or so casualties was a result of a deliberate attempt to simulate a meltdown. So they tried really hard to get to a condition that acted like a meltdown, succeed
Re: (Score:2)
"went boom" is figurative speak, idiot.
If I had wanted to say: "they exploded" I had said so.
And strictly speaking: Chernobyl did explode, idiot.
we haven't had three hundred deaths as a result of nuclear power in all the time we've had nuclear power (70 years or so)....
Because Ukraine does not belong to your world? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The wiki article speaks about 25,000 dead. German reports about the 600,000 liquidators speak about 450,000 confirmed dead. The death toll estimated to "civilian
The Waste isn't what's scary (Score:3)
What you need to do to get folks like me to buy into nuclear is convince me it's cheaper to run a safe plant than an unsafe one. And not just because "We'll be sued". Fukushima has more or less proved that there's no real consequences for the folks in charge. They'll be dead b
Re: (Score:2)
Because some nuclear waste is "scary"?
Yes, precisely because it's "scary" -- in financial terms. The free market has pretty much definitively said that a financial investment in nuclear power has too low a rate of return. I think that's because the cost to build a plant is so great that it spends too much of its operating lifetime servicing its debt, and then the decommissioning costs are uncertain but large. That's why we've only seen nuclear power used when supported by large government subsidies.
Nuclear power is a shell game, been done before (Score:2)
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
Nice job with the scare tactic - nuclear power or we all die! The sky is falling! And nice try in your post below, in using the very specialized case of the US Navy in their attempt to project power around the globe with boats. Fortunately US consumers have a few more choices and a little more flexibility than the Navy.
Scare tactics and false dichotomies aside, there's a long history behind the two old arguments you are making, now cleverly rolled into one. And they're both a shell game. Where's the p
Re: (Score:2)
George Monbiot, in a column in The Guardian, some years ago, wrote about his debate with Caroline Lucas (I think, then leader of the Greens), about her rejection of nuclear.
He'd realised himself that nuclear was the only solution to the sheer scale of the problem, and yet all along, Lucas would insist that the alternatives would continue to develop and advance and improve etc., yet she rejected the notion that nuclear could develop and advance and improve. I don't think he managed to get to the bottom of wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for nuclear power. Build away!
But damnit, don't make me pay £0.092 per kWh at 3 am in the morning for electricity I don't need or want. Wind and solar can do it for less than half the price. And if you order a new off-shore wind farm today, it'll be installed in 3 years. If you order a new nuclear reactor today, it might be installed in 10 years, if you're lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why don't we have more nuclear power? because no matter how well you build a nuclear reactors you can know 100% for certain that you will have planned for accidents and what percentage of them will make large area's of the earth uninhabitable. over enough time ( 1000, 10000, etc. years is hard to say) you virtually guaranteed to make large parts planet uninhabitable and poison significant portions of the res
Re: (Score:3)
Why should anyone believe this next version will be different?
You are absolutely right, why should I believe the next version will be cheaper? We've dumped all kinds of money into research and development for decades, and for what? It's still more expensive than coal, less reliable than natural gas, uses all kinds of resources with the mining for ores and such. Why should I believe the next version of wind and solar should be cheaper than the last?
Oh, wait. You were asking about nuclear power? My mistake.
I guess we assume the next version of nuclear will be diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
just look at all the graphs of costs for renewable costs,, cheaper and cheaper with improving tech every year as technology improves.
How did that happen? I have a good idea. We saw governments dump all kinds of money into research and development. Governments encouraged private investment through tax breaks and laws preferential to their use. Governments bought energy from these sources, often at prices far higher than market rates. Most importantly the government issued permits for the construction of facilities producing power using these technologies.
How is nuclear power treated by comparison? Few to zero permits issued for cons
It would be great if the US would do the same. (Score:3)
Even if you don't believe in climate change wouldn't it be nice to enjoy cleaner air and purer water? It sure would make those hunting and fishing trips much more enjoyable now wouldn't it? No matter which side of the great "climate debate" you fall on, it makes no sense to be against improving the environment we all have to live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, fossil fuels are not forever. The best time to switch to alternatives is when they are still cheap and reliable.
Re:Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you're stupid.
Neat trick. Do you do animal impressions as well ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
This is very true. I just wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as beachfront property and a property on the water in general is something that only the wealthier parts of the population can afford, and they are more politically connected than ever.
Re: Too late (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
And this is why so many people end up being skeptical. Fear-mongering.
The worst storm I've witnessed in my life was during the 90s. Most people around here would agree with me.
I'm not a denier, at all. But telling all of us "do this or else it'll get worse!" when nobody truly knows for sure, is why there are still a lot of people who dismiss climate change.
Average people are really fucking sick of the whole "the sky is falling!"
Re: (Score:2)
Fear-mongering.
The worst storm I've witnessed in my life was during the 90s
Define "witness"?
You mean caught into it, or saw on news?
The biggest storm in mankind's recorded history was January/February 2016. It spanned more or less the whole north atlantic. Obviously it was not in the news in the US. Perhaps because it only made partial landfall in north UK?
Anyway, thousands of ships got rerouted, hence we had no losses.
Average people are really fucking sick of the whole "the sky is falling!"
It is just water
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a sensible part of the country that isn't hit with those storms.
My house is over 100 years old. It isn't just 'part of the country' it's also where you build. The crappy land is the open land that nobody has built on, or is 'cleared' by nature every decade or so. Nobody should build there.
If you want a 'scenic' dwelling right adjacent to the ocean, you should pay the penalty for living there, not the entire rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me quess: Trump said it's so.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing ... except a future.
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
You mean China? China was essentially exempted from the Paris Accord until 2030. They can continue to be the worst polluter for another 14 years, that was all A-OK. In fact, the US was supposed to pay China to continue polluting...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too late (Score:2)
Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions. It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
Re:Too late (Score:4, Informative)
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is the latter (and you know it is) ... and we all know that except you.
No it is not
As you are the 3rd or 4th worst polluter in total, who cares anyway? You have a long way to go ... but you don't want to admit it.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US.
No, not double of it as it neighbours, only France is "cheaper" but electricity there is heavily subsidized.
Considering that a German only needs a 6th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the climate cares not one whit about how much each person emits - it cares about the TOTAL emissions.
If you want to solve CO2 emissions, you have to start with the biggest out there - China.
Oh, if *that* is how you reason, then the solution is simple - split China into smaller countries and the problem is solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions?
No, which is why the US is bad because it's both wasteful AND large. However, the population of Earth between the alternatives is fixed. If you covered the Earth with Chinas to match the current population, it would better emissions-wise than covering it with USes.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive
Germany's high prices are caused by paying for OLD technology. Costs of future installations CAN'T be extrapolated from German payments to operators of OLD equipment with grandfathered feed-in tariffs.
Re:Too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? No, but they still do it.
How about for just one year they use the money to install renewable energy instead? See what happens.
Re: (Score:3)
The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense [defense.gov]. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum [europa.eu] from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East [eia.gov]. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military sp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The same reasoning could be used to never get insurance.
The same reasoning could be used to never get vaccinated.
The same reasoning could be used to never wear a condom.
The list goes on...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up" the renewable source as needed - but do not include the costs of that backup source.
"Most don't include"? You must be reading some crappy studies. Not to mention the fact that most grids are overprovisioned with generator capacity. My country already has generator capacity equal to around 200% of the average consumption. I'd be surprised to see a stable large grid that is significantly less provisioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up"
Ha ha ha.
There are no such "studies". We perfectly know what a wind mill costs. Hint: google General Electric or Siemens or Vestas. Some of them publish the prices in the web site.
So we perfectly know how much $ / kWh you have to pay.
"Back up" is a stupid american conception. At night you only need about 50% of the power as during day time: so you don't need back up for solar, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, photovotaic solar, is the absolute highest priced option out there.
That "highest price" is getting pretty low these days. [pv-magazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BREXIT will leave the UK in poverty.
Just like south Italy, parts of Portugal or Greece.
They won't be in any position to work on CO2 emissions.
They simply will be another poor neighbour of the EU wanting to be dragged around and spoon fed.
Sad, sad, Sad!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, the UK (at the moment at least) doesn't seem to want either of those models either. Norway has adopted about 75 % of EU regulations as part of its trade agreements with the EU, maintains an open border and pays about 2/3rds of what the UK does no to the Union.
In essence, Norway (and Switzlerland) are basically pretty much quasi-members of the EU: the pay slightly less than they would were they full members but that co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
Wrong. The limit was chosen based on modelling climate change and estimating its effects with different amounts of warming. We know for a fact thanks to climate related sciences that 1,5 degrees of warming is better for us and the planetary ecosystem as whole than say 2 or more degrees, and we also know that if rapid action is taken, the 1,5 degrees is still attainable.
That's why it was chosen. It represents the best-case scenario with the data we currently have. It's still not great, but it's the least bad alternative going forwards, and that's an estimate based entirely on science(s) and what we know 2+ degrees will do to the planet/us.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw another article that said we're past the point of no return, so there is no use trying at this point.
So it's straight to point 13 [rationalwiki.org] these days?
Re:But what about exhaling humans? (Score:4, Interesting)
The US Navy figured this out. All we have to do is scale it up and deploy it widely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
And here I was thinking I was about to watch a Trident II SSBN launch video.
Re:But what about exhaling humans? (Score:4, Informative)
Nice idea but let's look at the reality of commercial SMRs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lots of paper designs ranging from concept to detailed plans, that for some reason were all abandoned. A couple of Russian ones actually entered service, but proved to be extremely expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has done a good job reducing emissions since 2012. Unfortunately the EU has not, and has been increasing their emissions.
Nitpicking very mich?
We had a bad winter, idiot. So we used more oil and gas and coal to heat houses. And that was in a single year: 2017. Before that the EU just did reduce as much as the UK did.
And in the year 2017, the UK increased their CO2 emissions, just like the rest of the EU did.
And: UK are still in the EU ... which makes comparisons a bit more complicated. Especially if s
Re:An Enemy Not Seen (Score:4, Funny)
To be for CO2 control while wanting economic growth is simply not possible.
Don't worry, we have Brexit, so the latter won't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, wealthier people will take a harder hit than the poor.
And this is why any plan you have for doing so will fail, because the opposite is true. While the wealthy may lose MORE wealth in such a plan, the poor will lose enough wealth to go from "poor" to "subsistence", and those who are already at "subsistence" will die.
The other thing worth noting is that the greater wealth, the slower population growth. Also, the greater wealth, the more people work to reduce pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
population decrease? whom do you wish to kill ? You first , then well talk ;)