Net Zero - its over.

soapsud said:

To add to this and not anything to do with the political wishful thinking of Net Zero but the practicalities of needing fossil fuels for decades to come, I watched a youtube vid of austrailan academic Simon Michaux (based in Finland) and he had something interesting to say about BRICS:

He said the BRICS, being the raw materials suppliers of our western energy needs, are starting to tie their respective currencies to their commodities. So, since the Ukrainian invasion and sanctions, Russia is only accepting payment in rubles for its oil and China aren't accepting payments in petro-dollars but their own currency because of the US interest in Taiwan.

China's current deflation worries and Russia's losses in the war mean this is much bigger than just politics.

He contrasted this with the West's QE-boosted fiat currencies that have no material backing and how it wont be good for us little people in the West.

He seemed serious so I'll make light of it and ask is it time to start stocking on bog roll again?

Click to expand...

Russia and China can do whatever they want- ultimately the value of their currencies are subject to the same factors any other currency is and they are not the only game in town.

Everyone seems to think China is all powerful. They are a developed country now and are no longer the cheapest place to have something made. They have the same problems that face any developed country, a standard of living to maintain, a populace to manage and diplomatic ties to think about. They can bluster and bump gums all they want about the South China sea, it's not theirs and neither is Taiwan. It's tough luck. The biggest threat to both China and Russia is one posed by simple democracy and the rise of an effective opposition or even a separatist movement.

ollie989898 said:

Russia and China can do whatever they want- ultimately the value of their currencies are subject to the same factors any other currency is and they are not the only game in town.

Everyone seems to think China is all powerful. They are a developed country now and are no longer the cheapest place to have something made. They have the same problems that face any developed country, a standard of living to maintain, a populace to manage and diplomatic ties to think about. They can bluster and bump gums all they want about the South China sea, it's not theirs and neither is Taiwan. It's tough luck. The biggest threat to both China and Russia is one posed by simple democracy and the rise of an effective opposition or even a separatist movement.

Click to expand...

My post was about international economics and flying currencies coming down to earth. This has a bearing on food prices and therefore on international agricultural produce trading.
It's not about political narratives.

So how are we getting to net zero now a lot of wind turbine production /installations are reducing due to spiralling costs ?

br jones said:

So how are we getting to net zero now a lot of wind turbine production /installations are reducing due to spiralling costs ?

Click to expand...

Same way most high minded govt schemes go, they’ll keep moving the goalposts.

wanton dwarf said:

Fossil Fuels are required for everything including Renewables - Mining, Smelting, Manufacture, Transport, Insulation, Seals, Lubricants, Paint, Steel, Copper, Concrete, Ships - Renewables are swimming in CO2

The need for Fossil Fuels will not end for a long long time to come - everyone including the IPCC knows this

Western governments are removing democracy, freedoms & installing massive taxes THAT is the goal of IPCC & all Western Governments

Carbon Credits produce nothing, literally are nothing - EU market for Carbon Credits in 2021 was 760+ BILLION Euros all of which is paid for by poor people giving money to rich politicians

CO2 is just an excuse

The market for Carbon Credits is forecast to be 10x the size of the current Fossil Fuel market

I fear there is no stopping the sheer size & greed involved - Millions of people can be bought using this level of money

Property will be forced out of the hands of the public into the hands of "Responsible Caretakers" - we are living in an era bringing about a new form of Totalitarianism using models of Financial Markets as the stick & Environmentalism as the excuse

Click to expand...

And it’s all fuelled by the demand and need to use fossil fuels.
Just think about that.
Offsets exist because companies want to use fossil fuels. Or green wash there companies etc etc.
What happens to offsets when an industry no longer using fossil fuels etc? And are net zero, are they still buying them?

look at the end game it doesn’t look like you think it will, only those that hold on to burning stuff are buying offsets. Those that are net zero are not, those like farmers are selling offsets etc.

why do you think the rich are buying land they can see how things are going. With food demand increasing and net zero or credits to sell a positive. And land a good way to get one or the other. . .
why boot lots of farmers off there land that are in animal production. This is politics of the rich.
I do know that, but move to net zero and you side step them.
That goes for everyone if you think you will be immune to carbon tax think again. If you burn stuff you will end up paying tax it will be the replacement to fuel duty, you have been warned.

fossil fuel companies are playing for time there asset now has a shelf life at some point the demand for it will fall or profits will be taxed away, so they are gaming the system to delay that point arriving, as you said we currently still need them and until we don’t they are safe so they game the system slow down the transition because it’s in there best interests to do so, they could have invested profits in renewables and moved us forward but no they see that as counter productive because the longer we need them the better it is for them, and if they can muddy the waters around climate change to dampen the resolve of others making the expensive transition then all the better.

politics and greed drive the world, sense is sadly in last place.
In every sense, the world will be a better place if we do the transition yet a lot fight it or want to slow it down.
It’s a sad world we live in.

Problem is that to actually achieve the renewables you need fossil fuels.

Top Tip. said:

Problem is that to actually achieve the renewables you need fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

At some point when the grid is largely renewable/nuclear then the energy will be renewable. We're in a transition period and will be for some time... but it is energy which is important and we don't have to be wedded to hydrocarbons.

HatsOff said:

At some point when the grid is largely renewable/nuclear then the energy will be renewable. We're in a transition period and will be for some time... but it is energy which is important and we don't have to be wedded to hydrocarbons.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that one, nobody living now will see it. Along with the fact that people will have realised by then the huge con being foisted on society.

If we're serious about deeply decarbonising the Western way of life we need to be getting into nuclear on the kind of scale fossil fuel use is at today and we need a national long term nuclear spent fuel storage facility. A place deep underground where material can be stored for long periods and monitored and eventually retrieved long term when newer technologies allow us to transmute or reuse the stuff.

Only nuclear power can offer up the kind of process heat we are going to need to make liquid hydrocarbons from scratch using sea water and carbon dioxide from the air. There is no other energy source available on the kind of scale we are talking about.

The UK has a plan to ship in electricity from Morocco- that's near on 4000km of undersea HVDC cable to import electricity from a country where half the population probably don't have electricity of any kind, much less carbon neutral kinds.

Of perhaps equal concern is the fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and it looks likely that a number of regions on Earth will become hotter. That will demand for electricity and more importantly potable water, which is going to have to come from desalination, a hugely energy intensive process. That's another slot for nuclear power right there.

China are making big strides in the molten salt reactor field and intend to become dominant in this technology in time. The UK, France and USA need to be hot on their heels as we have experience of nuclear power stemming back many decades.

Dave645 said:

And it’s all fuelled by the demand and need to use fossil fuels.
Just think about that.
Offsets exist because companies want to use fossil fuels. Or green wash there companies etc etc.
What happens to offsets when an industry no longer using fossil fuels etc? And are net zero, are they still buying them?

look at the end game it doesn’t look like you think it will, only those that hold on to burning stuff are buying offsets. Those that are net zero are not, those like farmers are selling offsets etc.

why do you think the rich are buying land they can see how things are going. With food demand increasing and net zero or credits to sell a positive. And land a good way to get one or the other. . .
why boot lots of farmers off there land that are in animal production. This is politics of the rich.
I do know that, but move to net zero and you side step them.
That goes for everyone if you think you will be immune to carbon tax think again. If you burn stuff you will end up paying tax it will be the replacement to fuel duty, you have been warned.

fossil fuel companies are playing for time there asset now has a shelf life at some point the demand for it will fall or profits will be taxed away, so they are gaming the system to delay that point arriving, as you said we currently still need them and until we don’t they are safe so they game the system slow down the transition because it’s in there best interests to do so, they could have invested profits in renewables and moved us forward but no they see that as counter productive because the longer we need them the better it is for them, and if they can muddy the waters around climate change to dampen the resolve of others making the expensive transition then all the better.

politics and greed drive the world, sense is sadly in last place.
In every sense, the world will be a better place if we do the transition yet a lot fight it or want to slow it down.
It’s a sad world we live in.

Click to expand...

Carbon Credits are for Governments - they are the ultimate beneficiary.

How do they get created ? Governments create them adhoc - there is no associated DeCarbonisation.

The Rich don't need to bother - they are registered in Monaco, Luxemburg etc. Can live anywhere in the world away from the insane.

Corporations manufacturing in the UK is a different matter. They can create Carbon Credits by fudge but it's a lie - again there is no DeCarbonisation, perhaps some delay to rotting by a few decades.

Carbon Credits will Decimate the West - everything that is being done is inflationary & unproductive.

The infatuation with "Fossil Fuel Companies" - literally it's laughable, everything in the Renewables industry totally depends on Fossil Fuels. Literally neck deep in Propaganda telling me "Fossil Fuels" are demons whilst not a single Renewables can exist without them. The UK will end up producing less & less - Fossil Fuel companies don't need to use the West at all & Renewables can't compete.

There is no transition, it's a reduction that is increasing costs & decreasing productivity.

Poor people are not greedy, they've got very little & demand not very much. Again you've grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick.

Renewables is totally about making the Rich & Powerful a lot more Richer & Powerful = legislation, regulation & surveillance.

Totalitarianism exists today in the West in the guise of "Environmentalism".

Top Tip. said:

Problem is that to actually achieve the renewables you need fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

Plastics, seals, lubricants, coolants, insulation, off grid commercial ICE, chemical reactions & heat - the last 2 are as big in Fossil Fuels usage as Domestic Heat/Transport - in other words current Renewables is less than 10% of what is required. And offgrid fuels have yet to be found for Commercials that is viable.

And that doesn't include imports of the same manufactured materials - mined materials, finished goods, vehicles, food etc.

All the time costs are increasing & productivity reducing.

Top Tip. said:

Problem is that to actually achieve the renewables you need fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

Yes when you start from a base where everything uses fossil fuels it’s inevitable we need them to build the transition. but on a reducing scale, as time goes on that drops away as more of our industry converts to renewables, some will be harder than others but there are ways most can move away from fossil fuels even the mining industry are moving to electric trucks. Power in the grid is far better already.

The transition is not the problem it’s our existing use of fossil fuels.
We use more fossil fuels in 6 months than the next 30 years of transition to renewables will require.
Only a tiny fraction of our fossil fuel use is dedicated to the transition the majority is just to keep the system going as it is. Transitioning will pay for its self many times over for its up front cost.

wanton dwarf said:

Carbon Credits are for Governments - they are the ultimate beneficiary.

How do they get created ? Governments create them adhoc - there is no associated DeCarbonisation.

The Rich don't need to bother - they are registered in Monaco, Luxemburg etc. Can live anywhere in the world away from the insane.

Corporations manufacturing in the UK is a different matter. They can create Carbon Credits by fudge but it's a lie - again there is no DeCarbonisation, perhaps some delay to rotting by a few decades.

Carbon Credits will Decimate the West - everything that is being done is inflationary & unproductive.

The infatuation with "Fossil Fuel Companies" - literally it's laughable, everything in the Renewables industry totally depends on Fossil Fuels. Literally neck deep in Propaganda telling me "Fossil Fuels" are demons whilst not a single Renewables can exist without them. The UK will end up producing less & less - Fossil Fuel companies don't need to use the West at all & Renewables can't compete.

There is no transition, it's a reduction that is increasing costs & decreasing productivity.

Poor people are not greedy, they've got very little & demand not very much. Again you've grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick.

Renewables is totally about making the Rich & Powerful a lot more Richer & Powerful = legislation, regulation & surveillance.

Totalitarianism exists today in the West in the guise of "Environmentalism".

Click to expand...

I can power an EV without fossil fuels I can make hydrogen without fossil fuels, while currently fossil fuels are king they will not be king forever.
You can make steel without fossil fuels you can recycle steel without fossil fuels.

as the grid gets cleaner indusrty that only require grid energy become free from fossil fuels.

it’s the end game not the start that is important.
Where we are today will not be where we are in 20 years, unless we stick our heads in the sand and go back to fossil fuels, and wait for them to get into short supply.

The true costs of using gases and oils can never be established due to the medical impacts of air pollution never being considered. Millions of people are now ill and as many are already dead from being subjected to climate changes. Adults cause the air pollution and their own kids suffer the consequences.

www.obese-girls.uk

Coronaviruses have not yet finished with us.

Dave645 said:

Yes when you start from a base where everything uses fossil fuels it’s inevitable we need them to build the transition. but on a reducing scale, as time goes on that drops away as more of our industry converts to renewables, some will be harder than others but there are ways most can move away from fossil fuels even the mining industry are moving to electric trucks. Power in the grid is far better already.

The transition is not the problem it’s our existing use of fossil fuels.
We use more fossil fuels in 6 months than the next 30 years of transition to renewables will require.
Only a tiny fraction of our fossil fuel use is dedicated to the transition the majority is just to keep the system going as it is. Transitioning will pay for its self many times over for its up front cost.

Click to expand...

You really do talk a lot of nonsense, everything is wonderful if only we do what we’re told and the promise of jam tomorrow when the truth is that energy from renewables will be more expensive than fossil fuels ever was they certainly are at the moment so if you think that renewables will get cheaper you are quite simply delusional.

Dave645 said:

I can power an EV without fossil fuels I can make hydrogen without fossil fuels, while currently fossil fuels are king they will not be king forever.
You can make steel without fossil fuels you can recycle steel without fossil fuels.

as the grid gets cleaner indusrty that only require grid energy become free from fossil fuels.

it’s the end game not the start that is important.
Where we are today will not be where we are in 20 years, unless we stick our heads in the sand and go back to fossil fuels, and wait for them to get into short supply.

Click to expand...

Every part that is within a Renewable, infrastructure, transport vehicles, installion vehicles, installation fuel, grid, transformers, wires, insulation, lubricants - all made using Fossil Fuels

Even if the energy was provided by Renewables in the first place - all the plastic & lubricants & steel requires Fossil Fuels.

You've also got to face the fact that ALL synthetic compounds require far more time, mining, energy & resources to create than Fossil Fuels.

The total energy input is far higher and the cost is far higher - I wouldn't be surprised to find costs muliplying over and again especially with Hydrogen - Hydrogen is required to replace all chemical processes where Methane is used such as Ammonia for lots of base chemical processing.


The end game is irrelevant & what comes across is you are a slave to concept - cost bedamned.

What will happen instead is importation of everything - whilst UK industry dies, of course it probably won't be your job or livelihood.

dave78+ said:

The true costs of using gases and oils can never be established due to the medical impacts of air pollution never being considered. Millions of people are now ill and as many are already dead from being subjected to climate changes. Adults cause the air pollution and their own kids suffer the consequences.

www.obese-girls.uk

Coronaviruses have not yet finished with us.

Click to expand...

Fossil fuels are a ready made resource that can then be manufactured from.

Renewables require resources to be MADE BEFORE similar or the same Manufactured process can be used.

There will be more Air Pollution from Renewables for Chemical processes - it's unavoidable.

Regardless, pollution will continue with EVs because break pads, clutches, tyres, waste fibres, rubbish, bearings & environmental road dust will still exist. Everything wears.

It will be interesting to see if this Particulates ill health is true or not, statistics haven't shown any link to dementia & worklife for example. Dementia is a modern disease which didn't supposedly occur when our ancestors worked close to heavy industry. People do wonder if it's linked to some Foods we eat.

wanton dwarf said:

Every part that is within a Renewable, infrastructure, transport vehicle, installation fuel, grid, transformers, wires, insulation, lubricants - all made using Fossil Fuels

Even if the energy was provided by Renewables in the first place - all the plastic & lubricants & steel requires Fossil Fuels.

You've also got to face the fact that ALL synthetic compounds require far more time, mining, energy & resources to create than Fossil Fuels.


The end game is irrelevant & what comes across is you are a slave to concept - cost bedamned.

Click to expand...

I know the savings will be greater than the cost, the reduction in deaths and general health benifits alone is a greater saving than the cost.
Something you keep losing sight of very conveniently.

yes you can recycle steel and make new without fossil fuels, there are lots of things we can do differently and do without fossil fuels, it’s only when we look for them we find them, from the looks of things finding an alternative to our addiction to plastics would also be a good thing as it’s now in our food chain.
Micro plastics are seemingly everywhere, we had packaging well before plastic was commonly used.

the fact you think the transition is expensive shows how little you value life and health of the millions effected by our use of fossil fuels every year.

having a child die from asthma aggravated by air pollution is not something anyone wants to experience.
Yet a lot do.

and the final benifit it will hopefully slow climate change and let our civilisation continue, so not trigger food shortages due to extreme weather etc etc. no one ever said the higher average temps would be our down fall it’s the effects on our environment. Effecting our ability to farm and grow crops.
The reduction in farmable land area etc etc.

your very short sighted to the values of renewable energy and our transition to sustainable.
Theare many and massive, and there are so few benifits to saying as we are, until fossil fuels dwindle already the uk has become a net importer of fossil fuels our production has fallen from its production high points, and they are only set to fall
When you rely on extracted and burned you have to keep replacing it, when you go renewable that extracted element reduces not increases.

I built myself a passive house the cost was greater than just a standard house the detailing was hard to do and elements needed pushed up the price to build it, but I also knew that once done the saving would repay me which they have, my heating is on only on, 4 months of the year, and I only use electric and my bills are less than an average house that’s half the size. This increased costs were mostly windows and doors and execution of detailing air tightness etc and the required heat recovery to allow for air tight. So maybe £10k extra labour and materials.
I save £2k a year on average for my property size to heat it etc, so it was well worth the up front cost. it’s the same for renewable energy and sustainable transition.
It’s well worth it when you factor in all the benefits.

Dave645 said:

I know the savings will be greater than the cost, the reduction in deaths and general health benifits alone is a greater saving than the cost.
Something you keep losing sight of very conveniently.

yes you can recycle steel and make new without fossil fuels, there are lots of things we can do differently and do without fossil fuels, it’s only when we look for them we find them, from the looks of things finding an alternative to our addiction to plastics would also be a good thing as it’s now in our food chain.
Micro plastics are seemingly everywhere, we had packaging well before plastic was commonly used.

the fact you think the transition is expensive shows how little you value life and health of the millions effected by our use of fossil fuels every year.

having a child die from asthma aggravated by air pollution is not something anyone wants to experience.
Yet a lot do.

and the final benifit it will hopefully slow climate change and let our civilisation continue, so not trigger food shortages due to extreme weather etc etc. no one ever said the higher average temps would be our down fall it’s the effects on our environment. Effecting our ability to farm and grow crops.
The reduction in farmable land area etc etc.

your very short sighted to the values of renewable energy and our transition to sustainable.
Theare many and massive, and there are so few benifits to saying as we are, until fossil fuels dwindle already the uk has become a net importer of fossil fuels our production has fallen from its production high points, and they are only set to fall
When you rely on extracted and burned you have to keep replacing it, when you go renewable that extracted element reduces not increases.

I built myself a passive house the cost was greater than just a standard house the detailing was hard to do and elements needed pushed up the price to build it, but I also knew that once done the saving would repay me which they have, my heating is on only on, 4 months of the year, and I only use electric and my bills are less than an average house that’s half the size. This increased costs were mostly windows and doors and execution of detailing air tightness etc and the required heat recovery to allow for air tight. So maybe £10k extra labour and materials.
I save £2k a year on average for my property size to heat it etc, so it was well worth the up front cost. it’s the same for renewable energy and sustainable transition.
It’s well worth it when you factor in all the benefits.

Click to expand...

So you are safe from abnormally low barometric air pressures?