Moderator: Peak Moderation
So how does that work? The Barrage will doubtless take more than 4 years to build but its future renewable energy production gets counted in the 2020 target.* Installation of the Severn Barrage, half of which would count towards the 2020 target provided construction begins before 2016.
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
Yep, I heard the same on the radio this morning and swore at it!Andy Hunt wrote:It seems very ambitious, whether or not it is practically realisable in view of lead times for wind turbine manufacture/purchase etc remains to be seen.
The gov't seem to be saying that building all these new renewables will push energy prices higher, but that's a price we will have to pay for tackling climate change.
Seems a bit disingenuous somehow - energy prices are rising because of scarcity in the face of high demand. I haven't heard any mention of the energy security aspect of the proposed new renewables (although Keepz would doubtless say that's because there isn't any).
) (my emphasis)Ladies and gentlemen can I start by thanking Sir Tom McKillop and the Royal Bank of Scotland for co-hosting this event and congratulate him for the excellent work which RBS is doing to finance investment in low carbon projects and support research into new technologies, particularly renewables. You really are a testament to the ways in which business can be energized by a low carbon strategy and a model for the businesses represented at this summit today.
When I first proposed holding this conference - last November - the price of oil was $90 dollars a barrel, up from just $60 dollars a year before. Today it is over $130 dollars.
The resulting energy and fuel price rises are hurting families and businesses - and pose a real risk of increased instability and damage to the global economy.
This makes our summit today particularly well timed. For every country of the world is having to face up to the consequences of this global change. And I want to tell you today what I believe this means for us here in Britain.
Our response must have two elements. First, we need to facilitate a reduction in short-term global oil prices through commitments to greater investment and transparency in the market.
Got that? Progressively over time. No rush then, take it easy, lets have a consultation.Second, we must set out a clear strategy to reduce, progressively over time, our dependence on oil.
Erm . . . aren't we supposed to have been doing that for decades, as part of our climate change strategy?Second, we must set out a clear strategy to reduce, progressively over time, our dependence on oil.
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
NIMTOO - Not In My Turn Of Office. or 'If in doubt do nowt'Adam1 wrote:Why are we having another consultation?
Yeah, you may be right. It is odd that there have been so many announcements by the government in the last few months. It is almost as if they think that if they announce it often enough, it will magically happen.skeptik wrote:NIMTOO - Not In My Turn Of Office. or 'If in doubt do nought'Adam1 wrote:Why are we having another consultation?
Its how ministers and senior civil servants work. The idea is to push any possibly shit generating decision into the future and onto the next guy in office. Tony Blair has managed this brilliantly as far as lumbering G.Brown with the collapse of the UK bubble economy.
Ideally one never makes any decisions at all. The name of the game is to preserve 'a clean slate' and a reputation for having a 'safe pair of hands' . That's how to progress up the ministerial ladder. Create a fuss by taking a controversial and possibly vote losing decision - even if it is in retrospect the correct decision - and it's back to the back benches at the next ministerial re-shuffle.
Unfortunately in the wider scheme of things (apart from that cushy pension and a handful of juicy non-executive directorhips) this means that political decision making descends to perpetual crisis management. Nothing gets done in a timely fashion. Joe Public suffers accordingly.
Fred Pearce wrote:There are plenty of reasons to be cynical. Twenty years ago Chris Patten, the then Tory environment secretary, promised a renewable Britain. A decade ago Labour's Michael Meacher pledged 10% renewable electricity by 2010.
So why the optimism this time? Why should we believe ministers' promises to deliver 15% of all our energy (not just electricity) from renewables by 2020, and to construct7,000 wind turbines ? an enterprise they say will cost ?10bn?
Three reasons. First, the announcement comes from the business department, which is in charge of keeping the lights on, and not the environment ministry. Second, there are signs of joined-up thinking, for example in how to connect all those turbines to our homes. Earlier this week ministers announced plans for a new offshore national grid, costing ?3bn, to collect the 10%-15% of our power they say will be generated by offshore wind turbines by 2020.
And third, as John Hutton, the business secretary, puts it, there is no alternative. Britain is committed, as a downpayment on decarbonising the EU, to that 15% target. And with transport mired in biofuels controversy, the strategy document suggests 30%-35% of our electricity generation will have to come from renewables: mostly wind, but with walk-on parts for solar and perhaps tidal and wave power.
I dont think that will be universally admitted until the global total hydrocarbon liquids graph looks like the current UK North Sea graph - i.e once we've come off the current plateau of 85MBD (plus or minus a million or so) and have seen about a decade of continual decline. Until then there will be all sorts of excuses for the 'temporary difficulties' in supply. I think there's going to be a prolonged argument, much like that about global warming, with 'peak oilers' on one side and economists on the other. The decline will be undeniable, but it's causes, and whether it can be reversed, will generate terabytes of hot air.landyowner wrote:
I wonder when we will see "The world has now passed its peak of oil and gas supply"?
I would say the reason you haven't heard any mention, is that what you hear is what the media chooses to pass on to you; the consultation document itself, if you can stay awake long enough perusing it, does look at the security of supply aspects.Andy Hunt wrote:The gov't seem to be saying that building all these new renewables will push energy prices higher, but that's a price we will have to pay for tackling climate change.
Seems a bit disingenuous somehow - energy prices are rising because of scarcity in the face of high demand. I haven't heard any mention of the energy security aspect of the proposed new renewables (although Keepz would doubtless say that's because there isn't any).
Not if we get a gut wrenching economic collapse. In that case nobody will bother much about oil. If "the machine" start to sputter or even stops, gasoline prices might even decline significantly despite declining extraction rates.skeptik wrote:I dont think that will be universally admitted until the global total hydrocarbon liquids graph looks like the current UK North Sea graph - i.e once we've come off the current plateau of 85MBD (plus or minus a million or so) and have seen about a decade of continual decline. Until then there will be all sorts of excuses for the 'temporary difficulties' in supply. I think there's going to be a prolonged argument, much like that about global warming, with 'peak oilers' on one side and economists on the other. The decline will be undeniable, but it's causes, and whether it can be reversed, will generate terabytes of hot air.landyowner wrote:
I wonder when we will see "The world has now passed its peak of oil and gas supply"?
