Gransnet forums

News & politics

What would a zero carbon economy look like?

(42 Posts)
Jane71 Thu 23-Sep-21 13:36:45

Not sure whether this is the correct section to post this under, but here goes.
With COP26 coming up soon, there is a lot of talk of a zero carbon economy, but no one has explained what they think this would look like. Presumably the world will produce less carbon that we can absorb? If we move towards natural forms of energy such as wind and solar to produce electricity, then presumably we need more and better battery technology, with the resultant effect on metal availability. I can't really see how it will all work without a serious depletion of the earths resources.

M0nica Sun 26-Sep-21 20:55:30

More hot air and airy persiflage. I want to see a carefully detailed and costed plan for any changes any party intends to implement.

I have searched and searched and have yet to find two quite simple graphs, 1) showing how demand for electricity is going to rise as transport, all heating, cooking etc etc goes electric and 2) a matching graph showing how electricity generating capacity is going to rise to match this demand. How much renewable and where the 40% base load is going to come from. Base load is the power that comes from a source that can generate power 24/7/365, which counts wind and solar out. The choice is massive investment in tidal power (Severn barrage, South Wales Lagoons) or nuclear power.

I have been waiting now for these graphs for several years during which I have read an awful lot of evasive, inaccurate and downright twaddle from all the most respectable sources.

Grany Sun 26-Sep-21 13:19:55

Interesting read.

AS THE Labour conference meets this week, and with Conservative Party conference the following week, it is more urgent than ever that serious discussion and attention is devoted to the need for radical action to tackle the deepening global climate catastrophe.
With the 2021 United Nations climate change conference (also known as Cop26) to be held in Glasgow between October 31 and November 12, the eyes of the world will be on whether an agreement can be reached by international governments on the scale and speed of co-ordinated action that is needed to tackle climate change.
As UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said this Tuesday, every day “we see the warning signs in every continent and region — scorching temperatures, shocking biodiversity loss, polluted air, water and natural spaces.”
This means that world leaders must now act together, or humanity is on track for a “hellscape” of temperature rise that will bring “catastrophe.”
The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a code red for humanity, but Boris Johnson’s government and too many others around the world are still unwilling to face up to the scale of the challenge we face, instead diverting vital resources to nuclear weapons we can never use or refusing to stand up to the fossil fuel global corporations.
A recent report from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change outlines that current nation state commitments for Cop26 will lead to a 16 per cent rise in emissions by 2030, when they actually need to fall by a minimum of 45 per cent.
To be clear, the only targets that count at the Cop discussions are those that are science-based and can save our planet.
We have quite simply run out of time for presidents and prime ministers to be negotiating over what is “possible,” “realistic,” “affordable” and all the other euphemisms for not doing enough.
Too many governments are distracting from the urgency of the issue by talking about targets for 2050 or 2060, when this will be too late.
The time then for excuses is over — so what action do we need?
In the wealthiest countries in the world, such as ours, that have primarily caused the climate emergency, we need immediate investment, legislation, and innovation to start cutting emissions at least 7 per cent next year and every year thereafter.
The government should immediately budget for a green new deal that can deliver this, at the same time as creating good jobs and boosting living standards at this vital time for the economy.
As part of this immediate action, investment in and from the public sector must lead climate action.
As Labour’s last two manifestos and plans for a “Green Industrial Revolution” made clear, the market has failed to do what is needed to tackle the climate emergency, and it will keep on failing.
Ever since Margaret Thatcher came to power, neoliberal and Conservative economists have told us that if everyone — meaning the wealthiest — is free to pursue their own material self-interests then everyone will be better off.
Climate change demonstrates just how big a fraud that right-wing ideology is.
We’re in a climate emergency not because everyone has behaved irresponsibly, but because a tiny minority have indulged in such huge levels of consumption and waste that it has tipped the whole planet into a new geological age.
Political leaders have hidden for too long behind the fallacy that governments should only intervene to “correct market failure” and that only the private sector can innovate.
By ignoring climate change and following the profit opportunities of fossil fuels, the whole neoliberal economic model has led humanity to the brink of extinction.
In the wealthiest countries of the world, the first test of any government when it comes to what they are doing in terms of climate action is how they are spending Covid stimulus and recovery packages.
In many countries, levels of public investment in the economy are higher than they have ever been outside of world wars, but too much of this spending goes straight into the pockets of big private companies rather than being used to help people and planet.
If — instead of outsourcing and further enriching the billionaires — all stimulus and recovery spending was focused on the rapid expansion of a truly green and caring economy, we would have a serious chance of overcoming climate breakdown and tackling inequality.
But to date barely 10 per cent of stimulus globally is in any way green.
US President Joe Biden is trying to get through a multitrillion-dollar green infrastructure package in the US, but the British government is bailing out companies without any strings attached to ensure their future development is greener.
It is time, then, for a radical green new deal based on massive investment, with tackling inequality and injustice at its heart, both here and around the world. Investing in global healthcare must also be a crucial part of this.
Climate action can be key to making the more equal society we need. There’s no choice between climate action and fairness — they’re one and the same thing.
We must use the upcoming Cop26 talks in Glasgow as an opportunity to make the case for governments that are driven by the need to help people and planet, that set out the clear goals for society to overcome the climate crisis, and create a better future, reshaping a new economy and society.

M0nica Sat 25-Sep-21 18:33:48

Sorry to depress you further Jane71, but the batteries in electric car are full of rare and highly poisonous metals, often mined in areas using child labour and the amount of emissions emitted in their manufacture is the equivalent of driving a petrol fuelled car 100,000 miles. The electricity it consumes will probably be made in a gas-fired power station.
Better just run your existing car as long as you can. I have an 18 year old car that I have owned for 14 years. That is at least one new car (of any kind) that hasn't been built because I will drive this car until it becomes so unreliable it has to be scrapped, that could be 25 years or more.

Electric cars are ideal for inner city area with very poor quality air. They will certainly reduce the pollutants in the air by having the electricity made elsewhere.

I have just resurrected a book I bought and read over ten years ago Prosperity without Growth, economics for a finite planet by Tim Jackson and I will reread it.

The changes he suggests require major changes of mind set, but it does not mean retreating to some basic life of mung beans and sackcloth.

One of the things that puzzles me is the way people say with horror 'The next generation will not have a better standards of living than their parents' Why should they? why should this be desirable? I can see the point when many people lived quite simple or restricted lives and to know that your children would move further from the breadline was a real gain, but we have already reached an age that is an age of excess (I know some people live in poverty, but I am talking on average here). The head of the Fashion Council said this week that the average person bought 60 new items of clothing each year and this must reduce. I do not know whether this includes underwear and night attire, but it is a classic example of excess.

Now I know most of us would say 'we don't' but that doesn't matter, it is the average and some are buying much more, Likewise people constantly update their phones, computers, and other electronic equipment and most homes, and tips are full of good workable discarded equipment.

The same applies to almost everything we can think of. I know obesity is a lot more complex than just eating too much, but I grew up when we didn't eat between meals, our parents couldn't afford it, sweets were a treat and soft drinks even more so.

There are an awful lot of things we can cut back on without reducing our standard of living. In their places a more circular economy based on green industries can provide a living for those displaced if sweet and biscuit manufacturers had to close a few factories.

Jane71 Fri 24-Sep-21 20:36:13

Thanks for all your interesting and thought provoking responses. Monica said 'what is your solution', and I assume she means me. I don't have a solution, as it all seems to complicated.
I've heard some Green people talk about a zero growth economy, and again I've no idea what that would look like. Sustainability is another buzz word: I suppose that means living without using any more of the earths resources that we can't replenish within a reasonable short time.
I'm just hoping that cleverer people than me can find a way through this, and in the meantime we should all try to think about what we can do as individuals. We're vegetarian, and try to reduce dairy consumption. We don't have an electric car, but will buy one when our existing car packs up. We think about air miles when at the supermarket, so no wine from Australia, or beans from Kenya. It means buying seasonally, so no asparagus all year round.
They all seem so trivial when compared to the problem we face. If I dwell on this for too long I end up depressing myself, which makes my husband worried. Optimism!

M0nica Fri 24-Sep-21 16:01:51

Increased population is not caused by excessive births, Two thirds of all countries have birthrates around replacement level //data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN the exception is Africa.

Current population growth is caused by the fact that we are all living longer. So the solution to that is everyone over 60 committing suicide.

Katy59, where on earth did you get your population figures? Current data shows population growth stabilising by 2070. Certainly not 50% growth [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth]]

Many countries in Europe and elsewhere already have birthrates below replacement level.

Katie59 Fri 24-Sep-21 15:53:33

Gwyneth

We have to reduce World population. The more people there are the more resources are needed. Waste has to stop and be managed far more effectively than it is currently. A lot of packaging is still not recyclable especially supermarket packaging.

Not only is the global population set to rise by 50% by the end of this century, they are going to want an increased lifestyle, just like us.
Nobody cares because there are no votes to be won.

Gwyneth Fri 24-Sep-21 11:54:40

We have to reduce World population. The more people there are the more resources are needed. Waste has to stop and be managed far more effectively than it is currently. A lot of packaging is still not recyclable especially supermarket packaging.

ayse Fri 24-Sep-21 10:43:21

Repair, reduce and re-cycle. Stop making goods that break, forget ‘fashion’ and of course renewable energy. Ensure all old homes are properly insulated. Much greater use of public transport, eat less meat, reduce food miles etc. etc. Returnable bottles, far less plastic….

It’s not rocket science but the oligarchs and dictators in this world and their cronies do not want to give up their massive profits and indulgent way of life.

I despair

Alegrias1 Fri 24-Sep-21 10:28:47

The abandoned mines and currently easily accessible sources would do us for a century The earth's going to stay hot for quite a bit longer than that. wink

MaizieD Fri 24-Sep-21 10:25:43

More on geothermal:

www.durham.ac.uk/research/institutes-and-centres/durham-energy-institute/research-profile/current-projects/geothermal-energy/

It does sound promising, but strangely short term compared with fossil fuels:

The UK's geothermal resources could meet the UK heat demand for over a century.

maddyone Fri 24-Sep-21 10:04:58

I think I need a teeny weeny medal as although I’m not officially a vegetarian, I eat almost no meat. But I love cheese and dairy products.

I’m thinking of possibly buying a new car in the next year or so, and wondering which type to buy. Maybe a hybrid is the way to go at the moment. I remember us all being told that diesel was the way to go but has now been shown to be even more polluting. As I have asthma I certainly know when I’m near a diesel car as I start coughing immediately. I hate the stuff.

Alegrias1 Fri 24-Sep-21 09:38:12

M0nica, I'm not muse but I'm going to answer.

I listed at least six alternative types of renewable energy. Let's look at your objection to solar and wind; think geothermnal. The earth is always hot, it never cools down Hence, reliable. Germany use it to heat houses that then draw much less power from the grid.

What's needed is a complete re-think of how we generate power for the grid and locally, its not just a case of replacing (e,g.) coal with (e.g.) wind.

Looking at today's performance and saying that it will never be viable in the future because it doesn't work today is not going to get us anywhere. And we seriously need to stop thinking that fusion will help us out any time soon.

M0nica Fri 24-Sep-21 09:31:18

muse Did you look at the link I gave and how variable wind power and solar can be? The problem is that no matter how much the installed capacity of wind power there is, it is how much power it produces that matters - and that depends on the wind. Weather systems tend to be British isles wide and no matter how much capacity you have, no matter how far offshore the wind farms are. You cannot guarantee that it will produce 40% of power demand steadily. And as Gridwatch shows, on a good day current capacity can produce up to 30% of our power requirements, but on still days it can be under 5%.

You cannot meet base load from wind and sun, they are too unreliable.

Whitewavemark2 Fri 24-Sep-21 08:50:46

Delabole in Cornwall had the first wind farm - been quietly not polluting for years now ??

Katie59 Fri 24-Sep-21 07:46:10

I’m not happy with the”Net” Carbon concept because that just means we can continue to consume resources with a clear conscience, we must reduce consumption, particularly imports.

Hetty58 Fri 24-Sep-21 00:48:27

vegansrock, I'm vegan too - as I really don't want any animal to suffer because of me. Yes, it's very environmentally friendly and I feel much healthier than when I was vegetarian.

It's not that difficult to make the change, either, and I don't miss the stuff I used to eat.

muse Fri 24-Sep-21 00:37:53

MOnica. Cornwall has done just what you say. 40% of energy produced is from wind and solar. Much could be learnt by the rest of the UK by looking at what is happening in that county where the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership are working towards being net zero carbon by 2030, a full 20 years ahead of the UK. However, the council do admit that local change won't happen there unless national and global systems change as well but it isn't stopping them providing evidence that is it is achievable. It's worth while reading what their solution is MOnica. It does however take 78 pages to explain their solution. www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/yyaheyho/uoe-cornwall-climate-emergency-scenario.pdf

In the last eight years, Cornwall has cut its carbon footprint by almost a fifth, and two-thirds of emissions reductions have been achieved by decarbonising electricity.

The wind does blow MOnica. The further you go off shore, the greater the force wind is. It is also more consistent. That where current innovation and investment is going. There will be inconsistency, as in the graph, if we just rely on onshore wind farms. More far off shores ones are needed.

GrannyGravy13 Thu 23-Sep-21 21:18:07

Renewables yes, along with a total rethink of cheap is good, paying the going rate for the job and a reset of the throwaway society

Alegrias1 Thu 23-Sep-21 21:06:38

Solar, wind. Tidal barrage, heat pumps, geothermal, biofuels, hydro. Hydrogen.

Battery storage.

And, of course, an understanding that the renewables and storage systems we are using today can be developed and improved to be more efficient.

So you can ask as often as you like, but the answer is always "renewables".

M0nica Thu 23-Sep-21 20:31:10

What renewables can be managed to provide a steady baseload equallying 40% of total demand. Certainly not wind or solar. It doesn't matter how many windfarms we have in these islanda and off shore, if the wind aint blowing, the wind ain't blowing.

Look at gridwatch.co.uk/ Second row of graphs. Compare wind output for this month and last.

So what is your solution? I have asked that once already.

Alegrias1 Thu 23-Sep-21 19:51:59

According to the link, The electricity generated from nuclear reactors results in small amount of waste and has been managed responsibly since the dawn of civil nuclear power.

They used to throw it down a deep hole near Dounreay, until it exploded and showered radioactivity everywhere. Hardly responsible.

So when the nuclear industry tells me that its only a small amount, it will be fine, I'm sorry, I'm not convinced. Any more than I'm convinced that it can be disposed of easily

The only answer is proper renewables. If we move to nuclear we are only substituting a carbon based fuel for a radioactive one and kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.

M0nica Thu 23-Sep-21 19:40:08

What shall we do if we are unable worldwide to provide enough power to support the world population. All lie down in our beds and lie there until we die? Start mining coal and extracting gas, cut down trees to fuel power stations?

Most of the waste is not radioactive for 40,000 years. Most of it can be disposed of easily. world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

What is your solution?

Alegrias1 Thu 23-Sep-21 17:52:43

Well, given that fusion is still not available as an option, what shall we do with the fission waste that's radioactive for 40, 000 years?

M0nica Thu 23-Sep-21 17:49:33

The answer is nuclear, preferably fusion but if all else fails the small modular fission systems being developed by companies like Rolls Royce, which are cheaper and easier to control and produce less radioactive waste. Do away with these huge nuclear stations like those the chinese are building and are only good for holding us over a barrel, until such time as fusion stations are developed, they will be - finally, but when...... Your guess is as good as mine.

muse Thu 23-Sep-21 16:55:40

Lead-acid batteries used in cars and PV panels can be recycled and used to produce other solar batteries.

VW recently announced a pilot plant for battery recycling which will work towards a target of recycling 97% of battery components. In this process, batteries will be shredded, dried, then sieved to recover valuable materials that can be used to make new batteries.
www.greencarreports.com/news/1131521_vw-to-recover-95-of-ev-batteries-raw-materials

GrannyGravy13 I'm sure I've read somewhere that the life span of an electric car battery is probably be about 8 years.

Katy59 Norway is close to having all renewable power now, their imports won’t be. Maybe the UK will be able to achieve that by the end of this century.
I would like to think this too but doubt it. We don't have the hydro potential that Norway has but we could have more solar farms and off shore wind farms but both these cause controversy. I live close to a solar farm and didn't object to its installation. I would only object to more being installed on good agriculture land and this one wasn't.