Government Policies Will Not Get UK To Net Zero, Warns Damning Report (theguardian.com) 96
The government is failing to enact the policies needed to reach the UK's net zero targets, its statutory advisers have said, in a damning progress report to parliament. From a report: The Climate Change Committee (CCC) voiced fears that ministers may renege on the legally binding commitment to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, noting "major policy failures" and "scant evidence of delivery." Lord Deben, the chair of the committee and a former Conservative environment secretary, said the government had set strong targets on cutting emissions but policy to achieve them was lacking. "The government has willed the ends, but not the means," he said. "This report showed that present plans will not fulfil the commitments [to net zero]."
He said net zero policies were also the best way to reduce the soaring cost of living. Average household bills would be about $151.3 lower today if previous plans on green energy and energy efficiency had been followed through. "If you want to deal with the cost of living crisis, this is exactly what you need to do," he said. The greatest failure was the insulation policy. Britain's homes are the draughtiest in western Europe, heating costs are crippling household budgets, and heating is one of the biggest single sources of carbon emissions, but the government has no plans to help most people insulate their homes.
He said net zero policies were also the best way to reduce the soaring cost of living. Average household bills would be about $151.3 lower today if previous plans on green energy and energy efficiency had been followed through. "If you want to deal with the cost of living crisis, this is exactly what you need to do," he said. The greatest failure was the insulation policy. Britain's homes are the draughtiest in western Europe, heating costs are crippling household budgets, and heating is one of the biggest single sources of carbon emissions, but the government has no plans to help most people insulate their homes.
The plan was never to reach net zero (Score:2)
The plan (for every country mind you, not just the U.K) was always to talk about Net Zero, while taking as much money from taxpayers as possible and lining the pockets of companies who donate lavishly to politicians.
They will keep doing this until enough people complain, luckily for them that's at least a few years off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, pretty much. They will probably do this until the people with the torches and pitchforks come to get them. By then it will be far to late to save most of the useful space of the planet though. We are just seeing what a small war in the Ukraine does to food supply. Imagine the same thing, much worse and globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your pathetic clinging to the sides you are being told exist, is exactly why you don't understand what is really going on. "King Boris" indeed, when all politicians are cut from the same cloth and all playing a role, but all working towards teh same goal.
We're fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
On this side of the pond, the SCOTUS ruled that the EPA has no authority to regulate carbon emissions. On the bright side, when humanity destroys itself by rendering our home planet ill-suited for sustaining life, that kinda solves all those pesky culture war issues. It's like the "Sweet Meteor O' Death", only slower and with more wars over resources/non-flooded land/etc.
Sorry future generations, some of us tried.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep wondering what it will take to wake up humanity. A field of dead animals? Oh, we had that recently [npr.org] but in the news cycle it barely made a blip. I think the frog in the p
Re: (Score:2)
"A person is smart, people are dumb." Because everyone expects someone else to be the lookout for them.
Re: We're fucked (Score:2)
We donâ(TM)t need a central government policy. Put solar panels on your roof and buy a battery and stop whining for some theoretical person to do something. Stop whining about your cheapness and lack of will to change your behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
No humans certainly are capable of dealing with slow moving threats, we (the US) simply refuse to do so for political convenience.
Nope. The USA has been sold the idea that to "do something" they'll all have to drive tiny cars and become vegetarians (or something like that).
People like Elon Musk are doing more to save the world that any American politician ever will - eg. by making electric cars that blow people's minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is to blame every bit as much as Putin. Putin's expansionist agenda has been well known to basically the entire world going back to his first presidential term in the early 2000s. The understanding of the modern Russian economy as a petrol-state goes back that far too. If EU leaders did not know where a large portion of their oil and gas come from over the past decades well that was wilful ignorance. The EU's 'green electric' plan has basically been swap coal for nat-gas (much of which was coming fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're fucked (Score:5, Interesting)
Stuff like extreme weather that renders MAJOR coastal cities uninhabitable. Damaged-but-habitable will simply be ignored. Think a major super-hurricane that slows down and sits over Mumbai , NYC or Shanghai for a full week. Complete loss of power generation, major roads washing away, whole neighborhoods of apartment buildings collapsing and no emergency services to dig people out. Multiple entire neighborhoods beyond salvaging. Not just a few poor spots like New Orleans. Something that requires a city-wide abandonment.
Full collapse and desertification of several major breadbasket regions. Picture the full US midwest turning into a near-desert. The current food crisis because of Russia has raised prices around 10%. Picture a doubling or tripling of food costs. Whole countries starving.
Heat waves so intense that they collapse a large-area power grid and melt the roads at the same time. With no way to get out and no power grid, large regions experience a 90% mortality rate as entire populations slowly turn into pot roast. Because above a certain wet-bulb temperature, human life is literally impossible no matter how tough you are or how much faith in god you have. This could easily happen to a large city if average temperatures climb just 5 or 6 degrees above where they are currently.
From the science I’ve seen, we’re probably going to avoid these scenarios. We’re not doing great but the worst-cases seem to be unlikely. The CO2 emissions curve is actually starting to bend and maybe, just maybe, we can keep it from climbing again. Ive given up trying to convince the climate deniers. Any progress will happen in spite of them and they will never, EVER be part of the solution. They get dragged along kicking and screaming.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep wondering what it will take to wake up humanity.
More people dying than can be replaced, from heat, cold, hunger. That will do the trick. Well, humanity will wake up, some really evil people may get a well-deserved lynching, but it will be far too late to do anything effective. Maybe some pockets of humanity will make it here and there, but civilization will be done for. Obviously, as a whole, humanity does not have the skills to survive in a somewhat fragile environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the US congress should start doing its job rather than fob off the passing of unpopular measures to unelected bureaucracies with poor democratic control.
Or alternatively, if you think its so important to bypass democratic institutions just make the president dictator for 4 years and forego the charade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The EPA still has considerable authority to encourage lowering CO2 emissions, and the SCOTUS opinion points to state governments having authority to regulate CO2 emissions. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfra... [cbsnews.com]
If it is really that important that the EPA be granted the authority to regulate CO2 emissions then there needs to be a law passed in US Congress to grant that authority. The EPA assumed it had the authority to regulate CO2 and attempted to do so, then was taken to court over it. The EPA lost, which me
Re: (Score:2)
Right, "nobody wants nukes" which is why President Biden signed a law putting billions of dollars into keeping nuclear power plants open.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/n... [cbsnews.com]
California "wants nukes" too.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
Awww, Anonymous Coward just got pwned. So sad.
Re: We're fucked (Score:2)
Re: We're fucked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So, you are telling me we solved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Thank you for verifying my point. Now, lets get everyone to calm down.
If you believe BEVs will have a TCO and performance advantage over ICEVs and synthesized fuels then the only disagreement is how we solve the problem, not if the solution exists or if the solution would ever happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Supreme Court specifically said [supremecourt.gov] that the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions, including CO2. What the Court said is that the EPA doesn't have the authority to order power plants to subsidize their competitors under a law about regulating emissions from particular sources. Congress could give the EPA the authority to decide how much electricity should be generated by different types of power plants, which historically would fit more in the Department of Energy than the EPA, but Congress has
no, we're not (Score:2)
Do you understand that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, and that federal agencies (like the EPA) only have the authority granted to them by law, NOT whatever powers the bureaucrats who work there imagine they have?
The Supreme Court properly ruled that nobody gave the EPA any legal authority to regulate carbon emissions. If we want to have the EPA regulate carbon emissions, then we need the congress to write a law granting the EPA that authority and we need a president to sign it into law. Oh,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the SCOTUS ruled that the EPA has no authority to regulate carbon emissions.
No it did not rule that at all - it ruled the EPA does not have the authority to dictate energy policy or whatever other industries should or should not exist. Which of course it does and never did.
It did not however rule Congress could not give it such authority just that it has not done so. Obama tried to do and end run around this and kill of the coal fired electrical generation by implementing the "Affordable Clean Energy" rule which was essentially an impossible to meet standard crafted to eliminate t
Build nuke plants (Score:5, Insightful)
Renewables wont do the job
Re: (Score:3)
This guy nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
This! Why is the obvious answer not obvious...
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is obvious only if you ignore time. We can't build a nuke plant (any, let alone the many we need) in the time frame required to have an impact on preventing the target temperature rise.
You're standing on a train track with a train coming towards you. The answer is to look at ways of stepping off the train track, not starting a civil project to reroute the train track around you knowing you have only 30 seconds to implement your solution.
Re: Build nuke plants (Score:2)
We could build a nuke plant that quickly but we have slapped layers of red tape on the process that are completely unnecessary. Meanwhile Germany shut down all its nuke plants in favor of renewables only to dig more coal out of the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is obvious only if you ignore time. We can't build a nuke plant (any, let alone the many we need) in the time frame required to have an impact on preventing the target temperature rise.
Don't do something that will help because it doesn't solve a problem that is based on an arbitrary and ever changing time scale?
Re: (Score:2)
If you solve the problem, they have to find another crusade.
Re: Build nuke plants (Score:2)
BS. We went from basically zero nuclear power plants in 1950 to 30 in the span of 20 years, and that included a lot of research and development and lessons learned along the way. The limitations are largely not technical but political. Subsequent generations have opted to just throw their hands in the air and say "it can't be done!"
Re: (Score:1)
All actual Science says it is exactly the other way round. Do you _want_ to kill the human race?
Re: (Score:2)
All actual Science says it is exactly the other way round. Do you _want_ to kill the human race?
Who is this Science you speak of? My phrenologist has said nothing on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you do not look for facts, you will not find them. "Stupid" is not the new smart, a fact you apparently missed as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nuclear won't do the job.
Firstly, we can't afford it. The price is insane and consumers are already being crippled by high energy bills.
Secondly, it takes at least 20 years to build. We can't wait that long, sales of fossil fuel cars are due to end in 2030 and we need to be well on the way to transition away from gas for heating/cooking by then too. Otherwise 2050 is an impossible goal, so not having the nuclear power plants come on until the mid 2045s isn't going to work.
The UK has vast offshore wind resou
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear won't do the job.
Firstly, we can't afford it.
This is the environment MoJo, we can't afford not to do it!
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables wont do the job
You won't even get a single nuke plant up and running in the time frame required even if you break ground on it today. Let the fantasy go. You need something you can build now, not something that will be online after its too late. Additionally all models for climate change require a *steady ramp* down in emissions, not turning on the magic solution the day before the deadline. If that were model you'd need to bring the deadline forward by 10 years, at which point you're still pouring cement at your nuclear
Net Zero? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
LOL So what. Slashdot has a heavy left bias so me being modded down is only to be expected. I'm correct, though, and out in the real world that's all that matters.
Isn't that the truth. Getting moderated down on Slashdot has become a badge of honor. People with moderation points are using moderation as a "-1, disagree" or "+1, agree". There's nothing really wrong with marking comments with agree/disagree but the system needs to point out that is what is actually happening. I'll see on StackExchange what are clearly wrong, sometimes even dangerous, answers getting high marks. People that are looking for good information need to be able to sort out the bad argument
Re: (Score:2)
The new small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) being developed in the UK by Rolls-Royce look like they're the next step forward and the way to start up new plants relatively quickly, cheaply and cleanly.
Everything looks cheap, quick and clean until you actually do it. This is technology worth exploring, of course. But whether it is the or part of the end solution, well, rather too early to tell.
Dash for Gas was a big mistake (Score:3)
They are planning to build an interconnector between UK and Morocco though [cleanenergypipeline.com]. Which is an ambitious enough project. If it's a success they could just build a few more.
Re: (Score:3)
Gas has its uses ...
Natural gas can synergize with renewable technologies to balance intermittent electricity outputs and provide uninterrupted energy even during peak hours with their flexible on-off cycles.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
In continental Europe, gas-fired power plants are used to offset the fluctuations in wind and solar energy production.
Gas-fired power plants are flexible and can quickly produce the needed amount of electricity, e.g., in freezing weather or when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Gas power makes a sufficient amount of balancing electricity available, so more fluctuating renewable energy, like wind and solar power, can be built.
https://www.fortum.com/about-u... [fortum.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Runny thing about Thatcher, those that hate her with a passion, are the same people who hate on coal. And yet she did more than anyone to reduce UK coal consumption.
Re: Dash for Gas was a big mistake (Score:2)
Re: Dash for Gas was a big mistake (Score:2)
Re: Dash for Gas was a big mistake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Improving the connectivity to France would also be sensible. I'm not sure that level of sense will prevail, sadly.
France's nuclear industry is so badly run and inefficient that the UKFrance connection is currently exporting from UK into France most of the day.
We need nukes but we mainly need nukes that work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three years ago it was the largest exporter of electricity in the EU. Why the big change so quickly?
My understanding is mismanagement. A mix of poorly managed maintenance pre-covid coupled with deferred maintenance during covid, and now the bill is coming due at the worst possible time. I imagine they're getting hit a fair bit by retirement and industry knowledge bleed too, like everywhere else.
One thing people consistently fail to understand about nuclear power is the most important resource, bar none, is the human resource in that industry. When the industry begins to downsize without a knowledge pip
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect closing the gas storage facilities up and down the country was a worse move than moving to gas. The Conservatives closed a load of gas storage, so even though we produce the stuff, we have to buy it from Europe after previously selling it to them.
In fairness, probably any government would have closed the gas storage facilities. They all needed some work to remain useful, and at that time, no one with half a brain could have predicted Russia might mess with the gas supply. Ergo, no one in the gover
Dr. David MacKay gave us the solutions. (Score:3, Informative)
Years ago Dr. David MacKay gave us, and specifically the United Kingdom, the solutions to our energy problems. He laid them out nicely for us, in ways that someone with a high school education should be able to understand.
He did a TED Talk on this: https://www.ted.com/talks/davi... [ted.com]
Wrote a book, which gives considerable detail on the issues: http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
And then shortly before his death gave an interview where he decided to be far more blunt on the problems and solutions than before: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Dr. David MacKay was the chief science advisor to the UK department on energy and climate change. He showed his work, and so if anyone has a problem with his recommendations then this person should be able to point to the errors in his calculations or measurements.
Dr. MacKay is not alone in what needs to be done. Many others have validated his work. The article mentions a need for better insulation on UK homes, and Dr. MacKay pointed to this as a solution in his TED Talk. What was not in the article, but should have been, is the need for more nuclear fission power. UK needs more nuclear power plants. The world needs more nuclear power plants. Dr. MacKay, and so many others, show the math that we won't solve this problem without nuclear power. We will need better insulation, more onshore windmills, more geothermal power, more so many other things. What is vital to solving our future energy needs is nuclear fission power.
The UK government has been talking about nuclear powered shipping for at least a year now, it can't come soon enough. https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Is this one anonymous coward following me around? If so that is a rather pathetic life you live. Keep posting replies though, it helps my "karma" and gets more views. This is a public forum where public debates are held constantly. If you had any data to show I'm full of shit then share that publicly. If I'm wrong then it should be easy enough to prove. It's not like this is some kind of new debate that nobody has heard of before. This has been debated for decades actually. Each time someone takes a
Re: (Score:2)
Its the feverish option for Macunt to dribble his delusion.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you people keep pushing nuclear? Nuclear is _over_. It never got industrialized to the point were it could compete. There is no time left to do that now. Do you want to kill the human race?
Re: (Score:1)
I could say the same thing about solar. Why do you people keep pushing solar? Solar power never got industrialized to the point where it could compete. There's no time to ramp up solar power now. Do you want everyone to die?
Nuclear power produces 10% of the electricity in the world and about 5% of all primary energy. This is a viable industry, and has been for decades. We've been coasting on the successes of nuclear power since the industry came to a near stop in the 1980s. Since then only a handful
Re: (Score:2)
I could say the same thing about solar.
Only if you are a complete idiot. Which you may well be.
Re: Dr. David MacKay gave us the solutions. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are free to add any links you like to fill in where you believe my comments are lacking. In fact I'd much rather you do that than comment without links. If you have no data to add then why post a reply at all?
I like the replies, it helps my "karma" and gets me more views. This is a public forum so I'm trying to make a point to all the lurkers. If you think I'm full of shit then convince all the lurkers with data. Data carries a lot more weight than some rando claiming they have a better idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I can't "take on board" the information you talk about if you don't provide it to me. I still have no idea what you refer to because I'm not going to dig through your comment history for something that I believe is not there. If you don't want me leading people astray then you need to make your argument to the lurkers. As I recall what you provided was older than what I provided, therefore it was not more recent information. If you do in fact have more recent information then provide it for the lurkers
Re: (Score:2)
for something that I believe is not there
You responded to some of the posts in which I provided it, and then argued about it! I give up. You are going to do what you do whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you considered I don't care enough about what you post to commit it to memory? Have you considered that this is a public forum where people reading aren't going to dig through your comment history either? If you have an argument to make then make it. If you truly are giving up on me then that is fine by me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, MacKay was a great loss. Practical and realistic. His estimates of what it would take to provide enough hydro storage for the UK are eye-opening. Basically, turn the whole of Wales and the Lake District into pumped storage.
The great thing that has happened recently is that storage is now getting serious attention. Previously you would read in places like the Guardian, Washington Post or Ars Technica that intermittency is not an issue, or is something that is only raised by people who are in denial
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, long ago nuclear would have been a solution. In 2022 it is no longer a solution. A solution that only goes online after a problem has escalated beyond control is not a solution.
Give it up. We can't build nuclear to achieve CO2 goals even if we had the willpower. The timeframes do not make sense. In other news if my flight leaves in 5 minutes and I'm still at home, no amount of willpower will get me on that plane.
Re: Dr. David MacKay gave us the solutions. (Score:1)
So then what is your solution? In the 60s and in China today it takes 6 months to build a nuclear reactor. Calculate how much solar panels and wind turbines you need and how long it will take to mine the resources, clear out the forests and install them. I guarantee you it is a lot longer than 20 years.
Australian story (Score:2)
CSIRO (the Australian government research organization) has released its annual report about getting to net zero by 2050. They are proposing the usual mix of gas in the short term, and wind solar and storage (without actually specifying where this storage comes from). Cost is around $500 billion. That sounds like a lot but is rather less than government borrowed to fund its reaction to covid. Nukes seems to cost about $10 billion per GW, so the bill if it were to be done by nukes would be about half that.
Re: Australian story (Score:2)
Elected politicians can't implement long term plan (Score:3)
If you care to look at the history, even if only for the last 50 years, it is blatantly obvious that elected politicians simply cannot implement any long term plans. Come next election and they have the choice of either sabotaging the long term for short term gain so they can be re-elected, or stick to the long term plan and then lose the election.
Everybody knew the supposed target for being carbon neutral in 2050 was just hot air. By 2030 it would be blindingly obvious the target won't be met, and by 2040 the target will be revised to 2070 (again 30 years later), then the whole thing repeats.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Although by 2040 there will already be a lot of people dying and moving.
But essentially we see that democracy does not work for any longer-term problem solving because the voter does not get it and hence the politicians that could do it have no chance of getting elected.
The problem is intermittency and storage (Score:2)
The UK Net Zero proposals are essentially to convert almost all power generation to wind and solar, while at the same time converting all vehicles to EVs and converting home heating to electricity - to heat pumps, in particular.
There is also some discussion of converting gas natural gas supply for heating to hydrogen, but this is a fantasy. There is no source for it, there is no storage for it, and the grid pipework, pipework in houses, boilers and cooking appliances would all have to be replaced. Which w
Low-E glass not allowed in London (Score:1)
A friend in London is not allowed to upgrade her windows. They are very cold to the touch in the winter. The issue is that the building is "historical", and so any upgrade that would change the appearance is not allowed.So she burns gas to run the hot water heat, which then leaks out the windows to heat London.
Net Zero is Not Zero (Score:2)
If you rely on the government yo'll be disapointed (Score:2)
You can't rely on the government to solve issues. You can push the government to make sure roadblocks that are preventing you from solving the issue are taken away.
I have an Electric Car, and I got it when Gas Prices were lower, and while I believe in Man Made Climate change, my decision, as about getting a better performing car, with less maintenance, and the general convince of charging every night, and leaving to work with a "full tank".
Until recently there were a lot of road blocks towards getting an El
Who cares? (Score:2)
Showing that an obvious delusion is in fact a delusion is only useful to those who are deluded, but religious fanatics do not change their views based on evidence.