@dudeinvegas @steggy21 @afneil Air-source heat pumps work fine in Detroit.
And if you really want reliability overkill, you can always choose ground source.
English
Daniel Barkeley
500 posts
@danielbarkeley @steggy21 @afneil Lol, thanks for that pearl of wisdom.
Heat pumps in Detroit would be absolutely brilliant wouldn't they.
English
All that’s impressive is that your energy policies — supported by all major parties — have decimated our energy-intensive industries, thanks to giving us the most expensive industrial energy costs in the world. Well done. Quite an achievement.
Daniel Barkeley@danielbarkeley
@afneil Maybe the timescale of the previous chart is confusing you. 10% in ten years is impressive. And the tech is getting better. It'll be 20% next decade, and 40% the decade after. And don't blame Green Energy for Brexit and the Conservatives shit industrial policy.
English
@loganb Sure but one must assume the "upfront costs" includes the capital costs?
English
Very cool, but the question is whether solar’s capital costs (amortized) beat out fossil plants’ variable costs (fuel).
That’s the condition under which it’s cheaper to still build both the fossil plants and the solar and run the solar.
If it’s more expensive than the fuel cost, the mix of fossil and solar generation can be more expensive than fossil alone because the fixed costs of the fossil plants have to be covered even if they’re almost never used.
Nicolas Fulghum@nicolasfulghum
The next tipping point in the energy transition is approaching. Overall, solar has already been cheaper than fossil power for a while, but upfront costs used to be higher. That's no longer the case. Solar is now competitive upfront AND has vastly lower operating costs (no fuel)
English
English
@steggy21 @danielbarkeley @afneil How many gas boilers would your wind run????
I know I'm a genius, but thanks for the compliment.
Have a good day.
English
@SwissAlps888 I don't think pigs live under rocks - but thank you for the elevated, enlightening discourse on this topic!
English
@danielbarkeley Don’t worry, you’re too pig ignorant stupid to understand life. Do shuffle back under your rock
English
Wow that’s it. After spending tens of billions on renewables and running down our energy intensive heavy industries, some to zero?
Daniel Barkeley@danielbarkeley
@afneil It's already happening.
English
China doesn't use all it's coal capacity. The plants are used to back up wind and solar.
This is China Energy 101.
Stokdog@stokdog
In 2025, China commissioned approx 78 GW of new coal-fired power capacity, the highest annual total in over a decade. Meanwhile, other countries are committing energy suicide by relying heavily on the weather to power their economies, all for net zero. Complete madness
English
@IsaInvestor @afneil How are billions being wasted on renewables if Britons are getting cheaper energy, cleaner air, a more geopolitically secure energy supply, and a more stable climate?
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil Complete waste of money - next to zero affect on global emissions and billions wasted.
English
You are aware that oil and gas together still account for 73–75% of the UK's total primary energy consumption (which covers all energy needs across electricity, heating, transport, industry and other sectors, measured in primary energy terms)? So explain to me exactly how ‘you will make it happen’ that we don’t use fossil fuels.
Tris Osborne MP@TrisOsborneMP
Let’s make it happen…
English
I think you could make a case that the term "electrostate" fits a place like Iceland - which "exports" its surplus electricity via products like aluminum.
But, yea. Nowhere else as of yet.
Skanda Amarnath@IrvingSwisher
“Petrostate” has a good meaning even tho it’s overused, but not a fan of the term “electrostate” Norway continues to be a leading producer of oil and gas. It also has a diversified economy and is leading the world in EV adoption The contrast is imprecise & misses the tradeoffs
English
@Calum92Stevens @afneil I don't think anyone is calling for fossil fuels to be phased out of plastics, synthetic rubber, nylon, or pharmaceuticals. (though plastic use could be reduced).
It's the energy sector we're talking about.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil So you tell me. And then tell me if it's good value. And tell me how we make plastic, rubber, steel, fuel, nylon, pharmaceuticals... And pretty much everything. The world is made up of balls of carbon that we process into stuff. It's that simple.
English
@rchrdsut76 @afneil This big problem with this argument is that China is decarbonizing faster than the rest of the world...
Emissions may have already peaked there. If not, they will soon.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil yes but we have nothing left. net zero means you’ve still bought your iphone to post on from
china but not accepted the carbon footprint. as long as you can’t see it, literally you must think it doesn’t happen. heavy industry left to china, no jobs, no energy but graphs works!!
English
@SwissAlps888 Please expand on this argument. Doesn't sound very persuasive so far.
English
@Electrofountain @afneil What you're saying just isn't true.
Post-transition energy prices will be lower than they are now.
Look at countries like Spain, Chile, or Denmark where the transition is further along.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil I wonder how you sleep at night, cheerleading higher energy prices that mean poor people can't heat their homes and industry continues to shut down.
English
@ChrisEngland81 @afneil Yes, they did. But they also hurt the UK economy with Brexit and an industrial policy that allowed heavy industry to pack up and leave.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil Doesn't that graph suggest that the Conservatives had a pro green agenda?
English
English
The goal is not zero and can never be. You need reliable base load and wind/solar can't provide that. The green lobby don't like nuclear either. Net zero is about emissions, and its bollocks anyway, because the emissions just get displaced to other countries, and increased due to shipping the goods here. Net zero is a fraud.
English
@OhNoezzz @JonjoBamjo @afneil Sure, but it should be as close to zero as possible in the energy sector as non-energy emissions are harder to abate.
I don't think any environmentalists is going to complain if we're at 7% fossil fuels in primary energy in 2050. 0% is the goal, and we'll get very close.
English
@danielbarkeley @JonjoBamjo @afneil You do realise that "net zero" by 2050 doesn't mean or refer to zero% fossil fuels by 2050?
English
@TisDeanoPVFC @afneil Enjoy the ever-cleaner, ever-cheaper energy.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil What do we did in the interim decades
English
This is why progress on climate won't be linear and net zero is still achievable.
So many economic tipping points yet to be unlocked in the coming decades.
Nicolas Fulghum@nicolasfulghum
The next tipping point in the energy transition is approaching. Overall, solar has already been cheaper than fossil power for a while, but upfront costs used to be higher. That's no longer the case. Solar is now competitive upfront AND has vastly lower operating costs (no fuel)
English
@WatsonNeil3 @afneil No...are you that sort that wants to return to the 19th century when coal mining was the only job outside farming a man could find?
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil Are you are the type of heartless ghoul that laughs at miners, shipyard workers, steelmen, etc etc losing their homes when they cant pay their mortage?
English
@DagenhamMKIII @afneil Wow....that's a bold statement that contradicts all available evidence. Recent trends show renewables making massive progress in penetrating the energy mix.
What's the evidence for your claim that progress will halt and go into reverse?
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil But it won’t.
This is bollocks.
Maybe the timescale of Real Life is confusing you.
English
@JonjoBamjo @afneil "Peak renewables" is pretty laughable tbh.
English
@danielbarkeley @afneil Won't even be 50%.
We're at peak renewables now and the rest of the economy won't cope with anything less
English