Energy Security

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Energy Security

Post by KateR » Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:53 pm

for those remotely interested and a follow on from discussions we've had previously, hopefully thought provoking:

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.

The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity-related technologies.

The shift to a clean energy system is set to drive a huge increase in the requirements for these minerals, meaning that the energy sector is emerging as a major force in mineral markets. Until the mid-2010s, for most minerals, the energy sector represented a small part of total demand. However, as energy transitions gather pace, clean energy technologies are becoming the fastest-growing segment of demand. In a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals (as in the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario [SDS]), their share of total demand rises significantly over the next two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60-70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

As countries accelerate their efforts to reduce emissions, they also need to make sure that energy systems remain resilient and secure. Today’s international energy security mechanisms are designed to provide insurance against the risks of disruptions or price spikes in hydrocarbons supply, oil in particular. Minerals offer a different and distinct set of challenges, but their rising importance in a decarbonising energy system requires energy policy makers to expand their horizons and consider potential new vulnerabilities.

if you want to read the full report with pretty pictures:

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of ... ve-summary
These 3 users liked this post: Paul Waine Hipper bfcjg

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:53 pm

KateR wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:53 pm
for those remotely interested and a follow on from discussions we've had previously, hopefully thought provoking:

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.

The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity-related technologies.

The shift to a clean energy system is set to drive a huge increase in the requirements for these minerals, meaning that the energy sector is emerging as a major force in mineral markets. Until the mid-2010s, for most minerals, the energy sector represented a small part of total demand. However, as energy transitions gather pace, clean energy technologies are becoming the fastest-growing segment of demand. In a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals (as in the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario [SDS]), their share of total demand rises significantly over the next two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60-70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

As countries accelerate their efforts to reduce emissions, they also need to make sure that energy systems remain resilient and secure. Today’s international energy security mechanisms are designed to provide insurance against the risks of disruptions or price spikes in hydrocarbons supply, oil in particular. Minerals offer a different and distinct set of challenges, but their rising importance in a decarbonising energy system requires energy policy makers to expand their horizons and consider potential new vulnerabilities.

if you want to read the full report with pretty pictures:

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of ... ve-summary
Great post, Kate. Yes, the energy transition will be "tough." I'm sure there will be "bumps in the road" from both physical shortage of the minerals required to support the transition as well as price volatility and price shocks for many of these minerals. It is also very likely there will be social issues arising around the way some of the minerals are extracted. The current spikes in natgas prices could well be seen as "not much about anything" compared with price shocks in key minerals in the next 2 or 3 decades. Who'd chose natural resources for their career given this outlook?

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:15 am

Interesting that hydrogen seems to be a low user of these minerals.

Also of course this transition will lead to changing political and economic alliances with all the undesirable possibilities that this entails - economic hardship, unpleasant alliances, war etc..

Gordaleman
Posts: 3981
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
Been Liked: 853 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Gordaleman » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:25 am

Hipper wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:15 am
Interesting that hydrogen seems to be a low user of these minerals.

Also of course this transition will lead to changing political and economic alliances with all the undesirable possibilities that this entails - economic hardship, unpleasant alliances, war etc..
I mentioned hydrogen on here about a year ago. We already have hydrogen trains, buses and lorries, so why not extend that to cars? Electric cars need charging points all over the place, whereas hydrogen can be bought at existing petrol stations, so virtually no new infrastructure is needed. (Just adapt the tanks on the forecourt.) Also, with hydrogen, there is no need to wait hours while the car recharges. You just fill and go like petrol or diesel, but it's a lot cleaner.

bfcjg
Posts: 13151
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5000 times
Has Liked: 6715 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by bfcjg » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:44 am

Very interesting read, some real challenges coming up.

CaptainKirk
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:19 pm
Been Liked: 385 times
Has Liked: 16 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by CaptainKirk » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:56 am

All very interesting I am sure - but what 5 movies released in the last 10 years have you seen 6 times or more and why?
Also, which is your favourite holiday destination with a "W" in it and which places have you visited on a Thursday that you would not go to again?
This user liked this post: KateR

CharlieinNewMexico
Posts: 3109
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am
Been Liked: 815 times
Has Liked: 527 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by CharlieinNewMexico » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:17 am

CaptainKirk wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:56 am
All very interesting I am sure - but what 5 movies released in the last 10 years have you seen 6 times or more and why?
Also, which is your favourite holiday destination with a "W" in it and which places have you visited on a Thursday that you would not go to again?
???

Please explain

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:33 am

Great post.
I have read a lot of articles on this.
Based on this there is fund I bought called wisdomtree, battery solutions.

I have also been doing a lot of reading about hydrogen and have learnt about green and blue hydrogen. So green hydrogen is created by renewables and blue created by hydro carbons which kindoff seems pointless. Currently 95% of hydrogen is blue hydrogen.
Interestingly there is a new company who’s head quarters are in Leeds who have been set up to produce green hydrogen. It’s just about to do an IPO on the AIM stock market. Will be buy some of these, supporting the move to green energy.
It’s website explains way better than I could try to do on here.

https://www.atomeplc.com/

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by KateR » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:34 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:33 am
Great post.
I have read a lot of articles on this.
Based on this there is fund I bought called wisdomtree, battery solutions.

I have also been doing a lot of reading about hydrogen and have learnt about green and blue hydrogen. So green hydrogen is created by renewables and blue created by hydro carbons which kindoff seems pointless. Currently 95% of hydrogen is blue hydrogen.
Interestingly there is a new company who’s head quarters are in Leeds who have been set up to produce green hydrogen. It’s just about to do an IPO on the AIM stock market. Will be buy some of these, supporting the move to green energy.
It’s website explains way better than I could try to do on here.

https://www.atomeplc.com/

Sorry but blue hydrogen is used very little today! Gray/Brown hydrogen accounts for 95% which is used in refineries/Ammonia/methanol production globally.

Gray hydrogen is from natural gas, Brown black from coal & oil.

Blue hydrogen is just gray & brown hydrogen where you add a CCSU unit to capture the carbon produced, utilize it or store it, today there are not very many around but at the end of the day it's still producing CO2 and a CCSU unit will only capture 80% of the carbon at best, so it's a Band-Aid/plaster on a hemorrhaging wound. Yet it's better than nothing because these gray brown hydrogen producing plants are not going anywhere. For a rough guide, if you wanted to replace the gray hydrogen producing with green you would need to have 42 of the largest green hydrogen plants in production in the world today - never going to happen.

There are other ways to produce green hydrogen than from renewable but yes today this is the most popular way, but it's also a very uneconomical way to produce it.

As noted previously the issue with hydrogen for transport is the infrastructure to distribute it, that is at the stage electric charging was 15/20 years ago, but as I've said many times, EV's are just a stepping stone and hydrogen HFCV's will replace long term; if interested in how the work please review:

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do ... -cars-work

I am actively involved in developing numerous green hydrogen projects globally, but few of them from renewables

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by KateR » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:59 pm

additionally it should be noted that for heavier vehicles batteries will not work and hydrogen testing is going on in many places, including a hydrogen drive train in the UK, but ships/trains and heavy road, buses/garbage trucks, etc. are already going hydrogen. Aberdeen for example uses hydrogen driven buses and this is a growing area for hydrogen fuel vehicles.
Potential Hydrogen plant going in Port of Rotterdam, because there is going to be a hydrogen backbone pipeline going across Europe, plus there is already a CO2 pipeline there, which is going to be extended into Southern North Sea, converting a defunct/depleted oil field that will be converted into a CO2 capture storage area. Ports are very popular for hydrogen facilities.
Picture provides a few details as to why regarding hydrogen winning out over electric/battery driven:
Attachments
Heavy Duty Utilization.jpg
Heavy Duty Utilization.jpg (64.79 KiB) Viewed 4956 times

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:53 am

In The Netherlands, Den Haag/The Hague (and quite likely other locations) they have electric buses which recharge from overhead gantries:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/0 ... -edda.html

The Hague has a large tram system so whether that is a factor in the easy availability of high power electricity I don't know.
This user liked this post: KateR

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by KateR » Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:32 pm

plenty of places with overhead lines for trams/trains/metro but was talking about battery systems for electric drives, not direct electric, that works well but doesn't help on motorways/freeways, so many lines don't have overhead lines and diesel is something to try and displace as early as possible.

Taffy on the wing
Posts: 4600
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
Been Liked: 1019 times
Has Liked: 3162 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Taffy on the wing » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:06 am

Gordaleman wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:25 am
I mentioned hydrogen on here about a year ago. We already have hydrogen trains, buses and lorries, so why not extend that to cars? Electric cars need charging points all over the place, whereas hydrogen can be bought at existing petrol stations, so virtually no new infrastructure is needed. (Just adapt the tanks on the forecourt.) Also, with hydrogen, there is no need to wait hours while the car recharges. You just fill and go like petrol or diesel, but it's a lot cleaner.
Depends on how you produce the Hydrogen.......if you make it by burning coal it's a waste of everyones time.
Make it using renewable energy .......wonderful. The World is going to need a combination of CLEAN ENERGY to get us out of our impending doom.

Gordaleman
Posts: 3981
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
Been Liked: 853 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Gordaleman » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:12 pm

Taffy on the wing wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:06 am
Depends on how you produce the Hydrogen.......if you make it by burning coal it's a waste of everyones time.
Make it using renewable energy .......wonderful. The World is going to need a combination of CLEAN ENERGY to get us out of our impending doom.
It's becoming clear that 'Green' hydrogen will soon be able to be produced at high levels. Ask yourself this. How much carbon is being produced manufacturing and running hundreds of thousands (If not millions eventually.) of charging points all over the country? No need for that with Hydrogen. Just adapt the existing filling stations to hold gas.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:50 pm

Hipper wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:53 am
In The Netherlands, Den Haag/The Hague (and quite likely other locations) they have electric buses which recharge from overhead gantries:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/0 ... -edda.html

The Hague has a large tram system so whether that is a factor in the easy availability of high power electricity I don't know.
Those that are old enough may recall the trolley buses in Manchester that got their electric power from overhead wires. Before that there were lots of towns and cities that had electric trams in their streets. The difference between trolley buses and trams was that the latter ran on rails, just like they do today, whereas the trolley buses ran on the roads, the same as ICE vehicles - but got their power from the overhead wires. I've got (distant) memories of travelling to Belle Vue Zoo and watching the trolley bus be turned around, which involved disconnecting from the overhead cables and re-connecting to another set for the return journey to Piccadilly.

Taffy on the wing
Posts: 4600
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
Been Liked: 1019 times
Has Liked: 3162 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Taffy on the wing » Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:33 pm

Gordaleman wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:12 pm
It's becoming clear that 'Green' hydrogen will soon be able to be produced at high levels. Ask yourself this. How much carbon is being produced manufacturing and running hundreds of thousands (If not millions eventually.) of charging points all over the country? No need for that with Hydrogen. Just adapt the existing filling stations to hold gas.
The giant oil companies supply the filling stations and already control the price.......get ready for a gouging.

I love the freedom of charging at home from renewable energy, i'm free from those price fixing, gouging bastards!

As long as it's cheaper to make Hydrogen from fossil fuels expect more of the same.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:06 pm

This is taken from the new companies prospectus for Atome. Plc.
2F071A94-DB82-4D43-A1CE-2B28AD6A1FBC.png
2F071A94-DB82-4D43-A1CE-2B28AD6A1FBC.png (592.33 KiB) Viewed 4522 times
49CE32EF-8438-418D-8F1C-2BEFB988E72F.png
49CE32EF-8438-418D-8F1C-2BEFB988E72F.png (1001.08 KiB) Viewed 4522 times
7ECAF629-6E34-40E1-9F79-5EB559075EFB.jpeg
7ECAF629-6E34-40E1-9F79-5EB559075EFB.jpeg (573.72 KiB) Viewed 4522 times

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:06 pm

97FF4DCF-7572-4DED-B331-FABB93F42267.jpeg
97FF4DCF-7572-4DED-B331-FABB93F42267.jpeg (568.1 KiB) Viewed 4521 times

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by aggi » Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:19 pm

Gordaleman wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:12 pm
It's becoming clear that 'Green' hydrogen will soon be able to be produced at high levels. Ask yourself this. How much carbon is being produced manufacturing and running hundreds of thousands (If not millions eventually.) of charging points all over the country? No need for that with Hydrogen. Just adapt the existing filling stations to hold gas.
It's not that clear. It's certainly the hope but at the moment it's only about 1% of hydrogen that is "green" and there is no real consensus on how that figure is going to change in the short term. Certainly whilst the grid is still not 100% renewable it's not going to be economic to make green hydrogen.

I'd agree that the real solution isn't loads of charging points though, it's persuading (and enabling) people to stop using cars and move onto public transport, cycling, walking, etc. Can't see that happening though.

ClaretCliff
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:13 pm
Been Liked: 187 times
Has Liked: 135 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by ClaretCliff » Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:29 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:50 pm
Those that are old enough may recall the trolley buses in Manchester that got their electric power from overhead wires. Before that there were lots of towns and cities that had electric trams in their streets. The difference between trolley buses and trams was that the latter ran on rails, just like they do today, whereas the trolley buses ran on the roads, the same as ICE vehicles - but got their power from the overhead wires. I've got (distant) memories of travelling to Belle Vue Zoo and watching the trolley bus be turned around, which involved disconnecting from the overhead cables and re-connecting to another set for the return journey to Piccadilly.
I used to go to Derby regularly as a child and I remember trolley buses running there. Just checked and they ran there until 1967. The last trolley buses in the UK were in Bradford and ran until 1972.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

AfloatinClaret
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 7:16 pm
Been Liked: 559 times
Has Liked: 1392 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by AfloatinClaret » Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:52 pm

ClaretCliff wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:29 pm
...The last trolley buses in the UK were in Bradford and ran until 1972.
I remember those. We had a weird/old/smelly relative who lived in Bradford and the best way to get us to go there for a visit and not whine (much) was to bribe us with the trolley-bus: We'd visit her for half an hour or so (long enough for tea and a biscuit), then mum take us out and put us on the trolley bus to ride back and forth to the route end, until she collected us at the original stop a couple of hours later for more tea and biscuits before going home; I suspect the conductor was tasked with keeping an eye on us? We'd have still been primary school age, so I suspect that even if they were still running that'd be frowned upon nowadays?

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:47 am

KateR wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:32 pm
plenty of places with overhead lines for trams/trains/metro but was talking about battery systems for electric drives, not direct electric, that works well but doesn't help on motorways/freeways, so many lines don't have overhead lines and diesel is something to try and displace as early as possible.
Understand the issue with heavy vehicles and capacity taken up by batteries. Of course this is a question of range - the more batteries the longer the range - so if there were more frequent very fast charging points that might help the situation.

I can imagine, for example that agricultural tractors could be charged every two hours or so if there were charging points nearby. Likewise HGVs might be similarly accommodated. I suppose it's a question of balancing the costs, of charging points versus wasted space/weight on the HGV.

The alternative would be to invest more in electric railway freight and reduce/discourage as much as possible HGV use - and perhaps bring back the commercial use of canals and rivers.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:48 pm

Hipper wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:47 am
Understand the issue with heavy vehicles and capacity taken up by batteries. Of course this is a question of range - the more batteries the longer the range - so if there were more frequent very fast charging points that might help the situation.

I can imagine, for example that agricultural tractors could be charged every two hours or so if there were charging points nearby. Likewise HGVs might be similarly accommodated. I suppose it's a question of balancing the costs, of charging points versus wasted space/weight on the HGV.

The alternative would be to invest more in electric railway freight and reduce/discourage as much as possible HGV use - and perhaps bring back the commercial use of canals and rivers.
Hi Hipper, I fear you've got the wrong ideas on scale and timings. I'd imagine the farmer would need two tractors for every job, the first running round the fields weighed down by a big battery while the second is back in the farm yard on a "fast charge" charging up its similarly very big battery. Similarly, all HGVs would be running round with half loads, because the rest of the space is taken up by the battery... maybe it will work if the HGVs can be connected together in an HGV train, with just one driver at the front (because there's not enough HGV drivers to go around).

Hydrogen is more likely the fuel of the future for all heavy vehicles, including JCB's back-hoe loader, HGVs, trains (where the line isn't electric) and shipping.

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:47 pm

I would have thought it depends on how fast the charging is. I was thinking five minutes or so. How feasible that is I don't know.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:46 pm

Hipper wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:47 pm
I would have thought it depends on how fast the charging is. I was thinking five minutes or so. How feasible that is I don't know.
I have followed JCB’s progress through This issue, They did manufacture an electric digger, from memory I think it lasted about an hour when charged and then took 6 hours to charge up. There were some photos circulating showing it being charged by Diesel generator. As we know diggers are used in remote places and move very slowly.
JCB came to the conclusion electric was never going to work on heavy machinery, batteries would be way to big, not last long enough and take waay to long to charge back up. Plus they cost double the price to purchase.

They have designed a new Internal Combustion Engine that runs on hydrogen due to finding trying to convert a petrol or Diesel engine just ended u with an inefficient engine. They suggest a hydrogen version of an existing diesel JCB should be very similar in price instead of double for an electric version.

So a blend of electric cars, vans etc and hydrogen buses, trucks and heavy equipment is kind off looking like how it’s going to go at the moment.

Lucid in America will launch its SUV with a 500 mile range next year, its current models are showing its range claim of 500 miles is looking like its real.
Then they intend to build a cheap car for the all with similar range.
This user liked this post: Hipper

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:18 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:46 pm
I have followed JCB’s progress through This issue, They did manufacture an electric digger, from memory I think it lasted about an hour when charged and then took 6 hours to charge up. There were some photos circulating showing it being charged by Diesel generator. As we know diggers are used in remote places and move very slowly.
JCB came to the conclusion electric was never going to work on heavy machinery, batteries would be way to big, not last long enough and take waay to long to charge back up. Plus they cost double the price to purchase.

They have designed a new Internal Combustion Engine that runs on hydrogen due to finding trying to convert a petrol or Diesel engine just ended u with an inefficient engine. They suggest a hydrogen version of an existing diesel JCB should be very similar in price instead of double for an electric version.

So a blend of electric cars, vans etc and hydrogen buses, trucks and heavy equipment is kind off looking like how it’s going to go at the moment.

Lucid in America will launch its SUV with a 500 mile range next year, its current models are showing its range claim of 500 miles is looking like its real.
Then they intend to build a cheap car for the all with similar range.
Thanks for post, Lowbank, Great details on what JCB has been doing. I didn't know all those details, though it is in the ballpark of what I was thinking.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:08 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:18 pm
Thanks for post, Lowbank, Great details on what JCB has been doing. I didn't know all those details, though it is in the ballpark of what I was thinking.
https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/campaigns/hydrogen
Have a read.
What we need is cheap green hydrogen to fuel the revolution.

Not easy when the oil and gas industry still gets 11 trillion in gov tax breaks.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:25 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:08 pm
https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/campaigns/hydrogen
Have a read.
What we need is cheap green hydrogen to fuel the revolution.

Not easy when the oil and gas industry still gets 11 trillion in gov tax breaks.
Where do you get "11 trillion gov tax breaks" from? Source? How does it compare to all the gov subsidies and tax breaks provided for the renewables sector?

Don't you think it will be the "oil and gas industry" that will provide the zero-carbon energy of the future? These large firms, with lots and lots of energy processing experience, are the ones that will develop the ways to make all the zero-carbon energy of the future (except for nuclear - they've all learnt to keep well away from nuclear).

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:33 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:25 pm
Where do you get "11 trillion gov tax breaks" from? Source? How does it compare to all the gov subsidies and tax breaks provided for the renewables sector?

Don't you think it will be the "oil and gas industry" that will provide the zero-carbon energy of the future? These large firms, with lots and lots of energy processing experience, are the ones that will develop the ways to make all the zero-carbon energy of the future (except for nuclear - they've all learnt to keep well away from nuclear).
It was quoted several times at COP 26.I watched it all as an old retired git I could do.
This user liked this post: KateR

Taffy on the wing
Posts: 4600
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
Been Liked: 1019 times
Has Liked: 3162 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Taffy on the wing » Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:50 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:25 pm
Where do you get "11 trillion gov tax breaks" from? Source? How does it compare to all the gov subsidies and tax breaks provided for the renewables sector?

Don't you think it will be the "oil and gas industry" that will provide the zero-carbon energy of the future? These large firms, with lots and lots of energy processing experience, are the ones that will develop the ways to make all the zero-carbon energy of the future (except for nuclear - they've all learnt to keep well away from nuclear).
They've been lying about EVERYTHING since the 1950's ......why trust them now?

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:56 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:25 pm
Where do you get "11 trillion gov tax breaks" from? Source? How does it compare to all the gov subsidies and tax breaks provided for the renewables sector?

Don't you think it will be the "oil and gas industry" that will provide the zero-carbon energy of the future? These large firms, with lots and lots of energy processing experience, are the ones that will develop the ways to make all the zero-carbon energy of the future (except for nuclear - they've all learnt to keep well away from nuclear).
Should have googled it before posting, it’s 11 million a minute and a total of 5.9 trillion.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... SApp_Other

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:57 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:56 pm
Should have googled it before posting, it’s 11 million a minute and a total of 5.9 trillion.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... SApp_Other
Thanks, Lowbank. It makes a little more sense, now.

Quoting Guardian article:

"The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

"The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

"Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

"Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November."


I've added the underlines to indicate the 4 components that the IMF identifies to arrive at $5.9 trillion.

I'm guessing the Guardian (or another media publisher) came up with the $11 million a minute. (I assume the calculation is 60 mins in an hour, 24 hours a day and 365 days in a year and 1 extra day because 2020 was a leap year).

Subsidies reducing prices account for $472 billion (8%);
Tax "breaks" account for $354 billion (6%)
Pollution accounts for $2.5 trillion (42%)
Climate change accounts for $1.7 trillion (29%).

Would we all be happy to pay $2.5 + $1.7 = $4.2 trillion every year to get rid of fossil fuels and the pollution and climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels? I would. If we split the cost between, let's say, 4 billion adults around the world it would only be a little more than $1,000 per year. Or, maybe put the costs on adults in the western/developed world only, let's say 800 million adults, we are only talking of $5,000.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:57 pm
Thanks, Lowbank. It makes a little more sense, now.

Quoting Guardian article:

"The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

"The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

"Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

"Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November."



Would we all be happy to pay $2.5 + $1.7 = $4.2 trillion every year to get rid of fossil fuels and the pollution and climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels? I would. If we split the cost between, let's say, 4 billion adults around the world it would only be a little more than $1,000 per year. Or, maybe put the costs on adults in the western/developed world only, let's say 800 million adults, we are only talking of $5,000.
Many many activists and representatives from African and small nations called for the removal of all subsidies on fossil fuels. They argued that the move would make the move to renewables more economically viable.
It was also pointed out that the biggest delegation at COP 26 was from the oil and gas industries.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:32 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:07 pm
Many many activists and representatives from African and small nations called for the removal of all subsidies on fossil fuels. They argued that the move would make the move to renewables more economically viable.
It was also pointed out that the biggest delegation at COP 26 was from the oil and gas industries.
I've not seen the analysis of CPO26 attendees. I saw reports that Shell was not allowed to send anyone, something to do with UN not having approved something with respect to Shell.

My guess is that a lot of the "oil and gas" were Aramco, Saudi oil & gas company, Gazprom, Russian gas company, Qatar gas and so on and so on; lots of state owned oil and gas companies. Yes, there will also be private sector companies, BP, for example. Maybe also some of the US majors.

Of course, oil and gas companies will be part of the solution. I would have been worried if they'd all stayed away. (Shell wanted to be there - see above).

Most of the price reduction subsidies are in the developing world, btw. I think the Guardian article referenced.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:54 pm

Steering the world away from fossil fuels is going to a hard ship to steer.

COP 26 claims it has got agreement that many funds across the world are going to stop funding fossil fuels.

Let’s see how that turns out.

Interestingly I know my pension fund has bought three Solat Pv fields, one in Italy two in America. It now receives the revenue for generating the green energy.

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:22 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:57 pm
Thanks, Lowbank. It makes a little more sense, now.

Quoting Guardian article:

"The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

"The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

"Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

"Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November."


I've added the underlines to indicate the 4 components that the IMF identifies to arrive at $5.9 trillion.

I'm guessing the Guardian (or another media publisher) came up with the $11 million a minute. (I assume the calculation is 60 mins in an hour, 24 hours a day and 365 days in a year and 1 extra day because 2020 was a leap year).

Subsidies reducing prices account for $472 billion (8%);
Tax "breaks" account for $354 billion (6%)
Pollution accounts for $2.5 trillion (42%)
Climate change accounts for $1.7 trillion (29%).

Would we all be happy to pay $2.5 + $1.7 = $4.2 trillion every year to get rid of fossil fuels and the pollution and climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels? I would. If we split the cost between, let's say, 4 billion adults around the world it would only be a little more than $1,000 per year. Or, maybe put the costs on adults in the western/developed world only, let's say 800 million adults, we are only talking of $5,000.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission

This article from 2019 talks about the UK's subsidies. It says UK subsidies were £10.5 billion. However I consider the article clearly biased as it does not mention the total raised in taxes collected from fuel sales. It says that the then Chancellor said 'The fuel duty freezes since 2011 have meant that the exchequer has forgone around £46bn in revenues through to 2018-19'. So in eight years four times the annual subsidy has been lost. It does not tell us what amount is collected.

This link says £28 billion.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-b ... el-duties/

I mention this for balance, not because I'm pro fossil fuel - I'm not.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:28 pm

Hipper wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:22 am
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission

This article from 2019 talks about the UK's subsidies. It says UK subsidies were £10.5 billion. However I consider the article clearly biased as it does not mention the total raised in taxes collected from fuel sales. It says that the then Chancellor said 'The fuel duty freezes since 2011 have meant that the exchequer has forgone around £46bn in revenues through to 2018-19'. So in eight years four times the annual subsidy has been lost. It does not tell us what amount is collected.

This link says £28 billion.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-b ... el-duties/

I mention this for balance, not because I'm pro fossil fuel - I'm not.
Thanks, Hipper.

Quoting from Guardian 2019 article: "A significant part of the UK fossil fuel subsidies identified by the commission is the 5% rate of VAT on domestic gas and electricity, cut from the standard 20%."

It's an interesting one re freezing of road vehicle fuel duties. I can see the argument where taxing something less than other things can be deemed a subsidy - hence 5% VAT on gas and elec for residential purposes is a subsidy compared with 20% VAT for gas and elec for non-residential consumers - (or is it 5% VAT on gas and elec compared with 20% VAT on other things that consumers consume? Does that mean that things that don't pay any VAT receive even bigger "subsidies?"

But, can a "tax" that hasn't been charged on anything be deemed a subsidy when no tax has been charged? And, is that the same as leaving road vehicle fuel duty at the rates they were when the decision was made to freeze the previous decision to automatically increase - and, so is not increasing the duties annually an increase in the deemed "subsidy" when it hasn't been increased, and this duty is specific to one item and not charged on anything else?

It's all "angels on the point of a needle" type discussions. Does it really matter whether something is receiving a "subsidy" if we have to stretch the meaning of "subsidy" to prove it?

More important, in my view, to do something about reducing carbon emissions, including replacing fossil fuels with sources of clean energy. Of course, let's be very clear apart the arguments. Logically "clean" energy is more expensive than fossil fuel energy: if it wasn't more expensive we would be using clean energy already.

And, yes, the Chancellor will need to find other sources of tax to replace the taxes currently collected on our use of fossil fuels.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by KateR » Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:07 pm

loving the discussions :)

timshorts
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 410 times
Has Liked: 307 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by timshorts » Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:19 pm

CaptainKirk wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:56 am
All very interesting I am sure - but what 5 movies released in the last 10 years have you seen 6 times or more and why?
Also, which is your favourite holiday destination with a "W" in it and which places have you visited on a Thursday that you would not go to again?
I like antWerp. I've been there way more than 6times in the last ten years including on a Thursday, and it has a system of blue trolleybuses operating in the city centre with overhead cabling. Think that covers everything. Alsjeblieft.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:12 am

Call for higher tax on household gas to meet Cop26 carbon pledge
Climate Change Committee says ministers should ‘walk the talk’ to cut emissions


Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Thursday December 02 2021, 11.25am, The Times

Tax on gas used for home heating and cooking should be increased to help the UK fulfil commitments made at the Cop26 climate conference, according to the government’s climate change advisers.

The Climate Change Committee said the government must “walk the talk” and introduce policies to meet its targets for cutting emissions.

In a report on the outcome of the Glasgow conference, the committee called on the Treasury to review the role of the tax system in delivering the UK’s legally binding target of net zero emissions by 2050.

The review should consider “the role of tax in achieving a higher and more consistent carbon price across the economy”, the committee said.

It made clear it considered the reduced rate of 5 per cent VAT on gas for heating buildings to be a subsidy that should be removed.

It also recommended a tax on aviation fuel, which is currently untaxed, and said the government should act to reduce meat and dairy consumption.

“Reduced VAT and the lack of a carbon price on gas and other fossil fuels used for heating buildings, and the lack of VAT or a carbon price on aviation fuel are all post-tax subsidies.

“If the tax system is to support the transition as it should, a higher and more consistent carbon price across the economy will be needed, which would also remove post-tax subsidies.”

The committee also called for tariffs to be imposed on imported goods made by foreign companies which did not face the same high carbon costs as UK industry.

The committee said the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed at Cop26 required the UK, along with all other countries, to strengthen its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) for 2030 by the end of next year.

Countries are required to submit NDCs under the Paris Agreement on climate change but collectively they fall far short of the overall goal of limiting global warming to below 2C and trying to keep it at 1.5C.

The committee said there was a risk that the 1.5C target was “slipping out of reach”.

“Unless much greater emissions reductions can be achieved by 2030, the world is very unlikely to be able to meet the 1.5°C goal, even if all net zero ambitions are delivered in full, and replicated by countries yet to set a net zero goal,” it said.

The UK already has one of the world’s toughest emissions reduction targets of a 68 per cent reduction by 2030 on 1990 levels. The committee said the target was appropriate but key policies to deliver it were missing.

Lord Deben, the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, said: “The next year is critical for climate action in the UK and internationally. At home, we need to walk the talk and urgently deliver actions in the net zero strategy.

“Globally, the UK must continue to encourage stronger action on climate and insist on rapid emissions reductions and stronger adaptation through all diplomatic channels.

“The ultimate success of the Glasgow Climate Pact will be measured by climate risks averted, not words on a page.”

The committee said the UK could strengthen its NDC next year by doing more to help other countries adapt to climate change, including restoring the aid budget to 0.7 per cent of GDP “as soon as possible”.

*************************

Tough call to increase VAT on gas from 5% to 20% at any time. A very, very, tough call to increase it when gas prices are at a record high, though one that we aren't experiencing at the moment with the energy price cap. In addition to increasing VAT the price cap would need to be removed to follow this "target net-zero" policy.

Similarly, a very tough call to add VAT and fuel duty to aviation fuel, just when the airline and travel sector has experienced the worst part of 2 years shut down in responding to the pandemic.

Meeting our climate change aims will be expensive. However, I'd argue it won't be as expensive as not tackling climate change.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by aggi » Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:57 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:28 pm
...
Logically "clean" energy is more expensive than fossil fuel energy: if it wasn't more expensive we would be using clean energy already.
...
As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a lot of nuance in "more expensive". Are we looking at running costs, total infrastructure costs, infrastructure costs going forward, R&D, etc

Fossil fuels obviously have the benefit that a lot of the investment in R&D and infrastructure has already happened.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:04 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:57 am
As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there's a lot of nuance in "more expensive". Are we looking at running costs, total infrastructure costs, infrastructure costs going forward, R&D, etc

Fossil fuels obviously have the benefit that a lot of the investment in R&D and infrastructure has already happened.
Hi aggi, about 30 years ago I was a member of the finance team managing Shell's global R&D activities. Yes, I know how much has gone into R&D with respect to all aspects of using fossil fuels.

We shouldn't think of R&D expenditure as being exclusively in support of one sector and excluding gains also in other sectors. All the R&D performed at Shell with respect to constructing oil rigs and production platforms in the North Sea also provides the know how to install wind turbines in the north sea. Similarly, all the work done by businesses in the electricity transmission and distribution sectors also applies to the same transmission and distribution to deliver renewable energy to our homes. We can take this further, Shell and others in fossil fuels also have experience in manufacturing and distributing hydrogen.

Whether we are considering wind turbines, photovoltaic farms or wave energy all of the engineering materials R&D performed by Shell et al whether for their oil production side or their refinery and chemical plant operations applies equally in to these renewables. (When I was involved in Shell's R&D they also owned Billiton - which later became part of "BHP Billiton" and now just "BHP" - so there was also knowledge in metals).

The big issue for renewables is that the sun's energy is delivered as wind or sunlight. No amount of R&D can make the wind blow all the time we need wind power, similarly, the sun only shines during the day. These are the biggest issues that makes renewables more expensive. Storing this energy when it is produced, whether in batteries (whatever form the battery takes) or as hydrogen, adds another step in the process and another set of costs.

Of course, when we introduce the externalities, whether it is carbon emissions or diesel air pollution, we start to change the cost advantages. The world started to consider GHG/carbon emissions with Kyoto. That's when we saw the first steps with things like climate change levies on major energy intensive industries and carbon trading schemes, fuel efficiency targets for cars and other road vehicles and renewable obligations introduced for energy supply companies.

I'm sure Shell, BP and all the other oil and gas majors will continue their R&D into their fossil fuel activities - it will be important that these continue to make as many gains as possible as the consumption of fossil fuels is set to decline. Equally, I'm sure a lot of their R&D will be in pursuit of their net-zero goals and in support of all the developing "new energy" technical expertise.

I think it was a representative of the Saudi oil sector who once said the stone age didn't end because the world ran out of stone. Similarly, the world is now looking for ways to consume energy that doesn't have the disadvantage of emitting too much carbon. If we go back a few centuries we got our energy from streams and rivers via water wheels and by wind whether in the sails of a windmill or a sailing ship. Then we learnt about burning coal and generating steam, followed by similar development of oil and natural gas. Each step in development was seen as giving advantages over what came before. It will be the same again when he cost of carbon emissions is included in the price we pay for fossil fuels - and the cost advantage will then lie with renewable energy.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:02 pm

Interestingly She’ll pulled out of the Developement of the ne oil field in the North Sea.
Now I have no idea why.
But does the fact that many financial institutions agreed to stop supporting new oil fields at COP26 with cheap money.

Now what I don’t want is the Uni being beholden to Russia for gas in the transition to green.

Should we drill this new oil and gas and be more self sufficient and use the revenue to invest in green, or put the profit in Russian oligarchs pockets.
Not an easy choice

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:28 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:02 pm
Interestingly She’ll pulled out of the Developement of the ne oil field in the North Sea.
Now I have no idea why.
But does the fact that many financial institutions agreed to stop supporting new oil fields at COP26 with cheap money.

Now what I don’t want is the Uni being beholden to Russia for gas in the transition to green.

Should we drill this new oil and gas and be more self sufficient and use the revenue to invest in green, or put the profit in Russian oligarchs pockets.
Not an easy choice
Times on Line, today

Sturgeon faces backlash after Shell pulls out of North Sea oilfield
Ben Webster, Friday December 03 2021, 12.00pm, The Times

Nicola Sturgeon is facing a backlash over her stance on the Cambo oilfield after Shell pulled out of the project and business leaders warned that jobs were being put at risk.

Scotland’s first minister made a U-turn on her position last month, saying that she did not want to see the project proceed.

Last night it emerged that Shell, the oil giant, was no longer participating in the development. The move could spell the end for oil production in the UK. However, Siccar Point, which owns the majority of the Cambo field, says that it intends to press on.

This morning Sir Ian Wood, one of the UK oil and gas industry’s most respected leaders, urged politicians “to reflect carefully on their public statements” and the impact they had on investment in the industry.

He said: “We must not create an adverse investment environment at this crucial moment in our energy transition journey. The future prosperity of our region and the country’s ability to meet net zero depends on it.

“It has been made patently clear for some time we cannot put ourselves in the position of reducing domestic production only to increase carbon heavy imports from overseas. This would be entirely counterproductive, both environmentally and economically.

“The skills, experience and infrastructure of a world-class oil and gas industry will play a crucial role in accelerating energy transition and meeting net zero.”

Russell Borthwick, the chief executive at Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said: “Oil and gas will continue to be required throughout the transition to net-zero carbon, and new fields will be required to meet our domestic supply needs in the meantime.

“The alternative is importing oil and gas from other parts of the world, which would increase the carbon footprint of our energy use. This would be madness. We need our government, industry, and politicians of all parties to make this get our transition steps in the right order to protect jobs, provide retraining opportunities and create new ones.”

Shell has a 30 per cent stake in Cambo. Its decision to pull out raises questions over whether the offshore oil and gas industry will be able to develop any new sites. Green groups have been campaigning to block the project, which was expected to extract up to 170 million barrels of oil over 25 years.

Wood, one of Scotland’s most successful businessmen, described Sturgeon’s U-turn last month as “counterproductive and damaging”. He said that there was evidence that hydrocarbons would be needed to meet energy needs until at least 2060, and that prematurely ending operations would place up to 100,000 jobs at risk.

Shell said in a statement: “After comprehensive screening of the proposed Cambo development, we have concluded the economic case for investment in this project is not strong enough at this time, as well as having the potential for delays. However, continued investment in oil and gas in the UK remains critical to the country’s energy security.”

Jonathan Roger, the chief executive of Siccar, said: “While we are disappointed at Shell’s change of position, we remain confident about the qualities of a project that will not only create over 1,000 direct jobs as well as thousands more in the supply chain, but also help to ease the UK’s transition to a low-carbon future through responsibly produced domestic oil instead of becoming even more dependent on imports with a relatively higher carbon intensity. We will continue to engage with the UK government and wider stakeholders on the future development of Cambo.”

Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Greens, who serves in Holyrood as minister for zero carbon buildings, was accused of cheering on potential job losses. He told BBC Radio Scotland that it was “great the the Cambo project looks like it’s on the skids”.

Liam Kerr, the Scottish Conservatives shadow minister for net zero, described Harvie’s stance as “shameful” and said: “The Cambo project not going ahead would risk Scottish jobs, risk our energy supply, and risk our ability to meet net zero targets.

“Patrick Harvie wrongly brands supporters of Scotland’s oil and gas industry as ‘hard right’, which is insulting to the tens of thousands of workers in our North Sea sector. Nicola Sturgeon must distance her government from these comments quickly. Her opposition to future oil and gas projects seems to be discouraging investment already. It won’t help if she lets government ministers take pot shots at everyone who works in oil and gas.”

A recent YouGov poll for The Times found that 38 per cent of voters in northeast Scotland backed drilling off the west coast of Shetland, while 27 per cent were opposed. The rest were unsure.

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:12 am

What we need are some facts.

How much oil/gas/coal do we need to sustain us with energy until we become net zero (bearing in mind we also need oil for plastics etc.).

How much energy will come from from nuclear and renewables as we progress to net zero.

Factors will be population growth, efficiency improvements in existing housing and work places, new housing and other construction, transport, agriculture etc..

This paper written before COP26 suggests some answers:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... o-strategy

The 'Charts and Tables' offers answers to my questions.

In chart 5 it shows the current energy supplies and uses. The later charts describe the proposed situation in 2050 depending on three scenarios - high electrification, high resource, and high innovation. All three leave some input from coal, gas and oil as well as biofuels, and also lead to carbon emissions which will be 'removed'.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:24 pm

What we need is a full strategic plan, something a politician has never done and is not capable off.
The point about not drilling and getting out this oil and then importing oil and gas is well made and it’s madness to have a country like a Russia holding us to ransom in winter.

I watched a debate on the new coal field they want to open, I was dead against it until an ex miner pointed out the coal was off a specific grade to used in the manufacture of steel. Not to burn to create electric. Now we need steel, even electric cars are made from it. So it’s pointless importing coal from China to make steel.

We need all the information to support different projects and not just knee jerk reactions.

Nicola backed herself into a corner at COP because she was having many photo opportunities with activists.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:00 am

Huge $2.6 billion green hydrogen project planned for Europe

Interesting and relevant information green hydrogen in Spain in this CNBC news report:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/03/iberdro ... -plan.html

The plan is to produce green hydrogen from renewable power supplied by Iberdrola. This green hydrogen will then be used to produce "green steel."

But, the project isn't commercially competitive without green subsidies.

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Hipper » Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:32 pm


dougcollins
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
Been Liked: 1778 times
Has Liked: 1773 times
Location: Yarkshire

Re: Energy Security

Post by dougcollins » Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:23 pm

Each water molecule contains two Hydrogen atoms.

If only.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Energy Security

Post by Lowbankclaret » Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:35 pm

Gordaleman wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:25 am
I mentioned hydrogen on here about a year ago. We already have hydrogen trains, buses and lorries, so why not extend that to cars? Electric cars need charging points all over the place, whereas hydrogen can be bought at existing petrol stations, so virtually no new infrastructure is needed. (Just adapt the tanks on the forecourt.) Also, with hydrogen, there is no need to wait hours while the car recharges. You just fill and go like petrol or diesel, but it's a lot cleaner.
Toyota already sell a hydrogen car, check out ex top gear presenter. Captain slow.

Post Reply