UK Steps Towards Zero-Carbon Economy (bbc.com)

The UK is taking a tentative step towards a radical "green" future with zero emissions of greenhouse gases. From a report: The government is formally seeking Climate Change Committee (CCC) guidance about how and when to make this leap. If it happens it would mark an extraordinary transformation of an economy built on burning fossil fuels. The decision was prompted by last week's UN report warning that CO2 emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption.

Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"

Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.

Comments

Re:UK Steps Towards Zero- Economy

[MrL0G1C]

It's not a step anyway, this is what the UK does went they don't want to do anything, they deflect criticism and say we're studying it, we're commissioning a report, which is nice for their think-tank friends who they pay millions for some report to get mostly written by some intern, whilst their school friend chum pockets some nice wedge, nudge nudge wink wink.

"But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced." AKA they're not actually doing anything meaningful.

Re:Too late

[Joce640k]

But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that

Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.

Can't trust this Govt

[UpnAtom]

The Tories reversed the law on new homes needing to be zero carbon three years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Re:Can't trust this Govt

[DarkLordBelial]

And announced cut to grants on Electric and Hybrid vehicles a few days ago.

Not to mention recent budget changes to remove any tax benefits of zero and low emission vehicles.

Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis

[blindseer]

The means to get to a zero carbon economy exists today, nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I keep hearing about how if we don't reduce our CO2 immediately then we will create runaway global warming. We have a technology that can provide energy that is zero carbon (or rather closer to zero than wind and solar), plentiful, inexpensive (again compared to wind and solar), reliable, domestically sourced (no matter how you define "domestic"), and exists today.

Why don't we have more nuclear power? Because some nuclear waste is "scary"? You want me to believe that some nuclear waste is a greater threat to humanity than global warming? I'm not convinced. You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly. For an island nation like the UK the ability to meet their energy needs from wind and solar is likely impossible. Maybe they have enough friendly neighbors across the channel to get more wind and sun. What of Japan? They don't have any friendly neighbors, what should they do?

Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.

Re:Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis

[blindseer]

Both.

That's a non-answer as it tells me nothing on how to act. If this means we can't have nuclear power then you are by default kicking the problem down the path hoping for a solution to present itself before the problems of global warming are upon us. We can continue down this path, keep looking for a non-nuclear solution, but that is waiting for a ship that may never come to port.

But nuclear power is still plenty dangerous. The first problem is that it can provide the material to make nuclear weapons. Won't do us much good to avert Global Warming if some rogue nation starts World War III with nukes.

The material to make nuclear weapons is in the dirt and dissolved in seawater. Where do you think that the U-235 for the first nuclear weapons came from? They didn't need a reactor to make it, they just "distilled" it from the dirt. This was done with 1940s technology, repeating this with modern materials and equipment is becoming nearly trivial any more. The limitation is primarily the energy needed to enrich the U-235.

The second, more insidious problem is that human corruption and incompetence is scarily likely to lead to another major accident such as Fukushima.

This again? All a bunch of bullshit based on 50 year old nuclear technology. Nobody builds reactors like those any more.

We know how to operate nuclear power with reasonable safety, but can we do so, for all nuclear power plants, for decades?

Yes, we do in fact know how to operate nuclear power plants safely for decades. There are over 400 operating commercial nuclear power reactors on this planet. There's at least 100 military nuclear power plants in ships at sea as well. We know how to make this work. Bringing this up as scaremongering for not implementing what is demonstrably the safest energy source we have today is unbelievable.

You want me to fear nuclear power more than global warming? Really? Then tell me that global warming isn't the threat it's been made out to be, because I'm really thinking that we are running out of options right now and nuclear power it looking really nice by comparison.

Re:Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis

[Anonymous Coward]

Banqiao Dam death toll: 230,000 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

Fukushima Daiichi death toll: 50 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

Clearly we can never build another hydroelectric dam with deaths per accident like this.

Re:Nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis

[Harlequin80]

Chernobyl killing a million people is a totally unsupported claim. No one anywhere claims that. The WHO estimates a total of 4000 extra cancers using a method that provably over estimates the impact.

Also I'm not an american, and germany has the grand total of 6 coal mines. A quick search also turned up 57 miners dying in a german coal mine in '88. So it depends how old you are....

Re:But what about exhaling humans?

[blindseer]

The US Navy figured this out. All we have to do is scale it up and deploy it widely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Problem solved!

Re:An Enemy Not Seen

[serviscope_minor]

To be for CO2 control while wanting economic growth is simply not possible.

Don't worry, we have Brexit, so the latter won't be a problem.

Re:Too late

[Kiuas]

The 1.5 degrees C goal is an arbitrary line that humans drew

Yes.

it doesn't come from any science.

Wrong. The limit was chosen based on modelling climate change and estimating its effects with different amounts of warming. We know for a fact thanks to climate related sciences that 1,5 degrees of warming is better for us and the planetary ecosystem as whole than say 2 or more degrees, and we also know that if rapid action is taken, the 1,5 degrees is still attainable.

That's why it was chosen. It represents the best-case scenario with the data we currently have. It's still not great, but it's the least bad alternative going forwards, and that's an estimate based entirely on science(s) and what we know 2+ degrees will do to the planet/us.

Re:But what about exhaling humans?

[AmiMoJo]

Nice idea but let's look at the reality of commercial SMRs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Lots of paper designs ranging from concept to detailed plans, that for some reason were all abandoned. A couple of Russian ones actually entered service, but proved to be extremely expensive.

Re:Too late

[Joce640k]

Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? No, but they still do it.

How about for just one year they use the money to install renewable energy instead? See what happens.

Re:Too late

[Joce640k]

Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.

They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.

Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.

Re:Too late

[AmiMoJo]

Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions. It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.

Re:Too late

[LynnwoodRooster]

Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.

Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...

It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.

Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.