Green Building Forum - £20 billion Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:34:28 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294524#Comment_294524 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294524#Comment_294524 Fri, 04 Feb 2022 09:17:23 +0000 fostertom Posted By: WillInAberdeenpeak demand in the UK (5-7pm UTC) is after nightfall in most of the Saharaduh - I never thought of that]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294527#Comment_294527 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294527#Comment_294527 Fri, 04 Feb 2022 11:59:29 +0000 WillInAberdeen
On the tidal lagoons, the proposed Swansea lagoon would generate 14 hours a day, but it was envisaged as part of a chain of at least six lagoons in Somerset, S & N Wales and Cumbria to give a continuous power supply as the tide moved up the Irish sea, with options for Kent and Lincolnshire. The total power from all the lagoons would be 3-5 GW (averaged over the cycle) which would be handy, but not on the same scale as offshore wind.

The Hendry review noted that lagoons can operate clever schemes with pumping between multiple compartments to give more continuous power, at the expense of less efficiency, so fewer MWh generated overall and less £ income. As the economics are very challenging anyway, the developers are not keen.

Lagoons are built in bays, so the habitat effects could be less severe than with dams built across estuaries, but would still be difficult to predict.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294547#Comment_294547 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294547#Comment_294547 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 13:00:52 +0000 djh https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4351 and PDF available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.06387 about methane emissions:

"One Sentence Summary: Ultra-emitters from oil and gas production amount 8-12% of the global oil and gas methane emissions, offering actionable and cost-effective means to mitigate the contribution of methane to climate change."]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294548#Comment_294548 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294548#Comment_294548 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:35:44 +0000 WillInAberdeen The emissions were overwhelmingly from Turkmenistan (who knew?) and Russia.
Followed by the US, Iran, Kazakhstan.

Rather surprisingly, the cost of fixing those leaks was estimated to be cheaper than the value of the methane saved, so not just "cost effective" but even "profitable"!]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294549#Comment_294549 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294549#Comment_294549 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:51:54 +0000 djh ]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294550#Comment_294550 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294550#Comment_294550 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 16:17:36 +0000 SimonD Posted By: WillInAberdeenAs the economics are very challenging anyway, the developers are not keen.

I think one of the biggest hindrances to these kinds of large scale infrastructure projects is the applied discount rate and term (i.e. delivery timescale). Often, this is calculated over just 25 years whereas we know these facilities generate review for much longer, as hydro projects have demonstrated and where this problem has historically been a factor. The need is to re-evaluate much of these to include longer and potentially multi-generational terms, which would dramatical help on the side of investment.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294557#Comment_294557 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294557#Comment_294557 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:28:46 +0000 WillInAberdeen
But they had assumed a 60-year fixed price CFD could be agreed for the power (versus the 15 years fix offered to wind farms), and that someone would lend money over that term.

Realistically the only place you can sell electricity 60 years ahead is to a government. Likewise the govt are the only people who can borrow 60-year financing for a risky project. (Or govt owned companies such as EDF and CGN.)

The UK govt used the Hendry data to compare the tidal lagoons project against wind and nuclear over a much shorter term, IE within the lifetime of the living electorate. They concluded it was too expensive and declined to fund it.

TBF government finances are heavily dependent on borrowing/printing money to support the present generation of voters, to be paid off by the next generation. Spending that money on a project that will provide power to generations yet unborn, kind of defeats the logic!]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294559#Comment_294559 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294559#Comment_294559 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 23:17:14 +0000 fostertom £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294563#Comment_294563 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294563#Comment_294563 Sun, 06 Feb 2022 00:08:53 +0000 WillInAberdeen
Printing banknotes and buying stuff from someone with them, is a disguised way of borrowing, you are promising to pay them in future for stuff you want today.

That's the vast majority of government borrowing since 2008 has been from the BoE, who just printed the money (QE).

The ideal is that the newly-printed money is spent in ways that cause the economy to grow faster (or at least not shrink), causing an upward spiral of economic growth enabling more printing/spending and more tax receipts to pay historic debt. Present generations are richer and future generations will have less debt to repay. But not too fast, boom-bust etc.

But if the gov prints too much money and spends it in ways that don't cause the economy to grow quickly enough now, then the prices of assets rise faster than their value rises (inflation). Govt has to borrow more, to buy the same level of services, and interest rates have to go up, further increasing debt for future generations.

The UK govt seems to think that printing money to buy nuclear power plants and tidal barrages that might provide power in future decades, will not cause commensurate economic growth today, so falls into the second category.

Otherwise, we could just print enough £20bn notes to buy a big fleet of nuclear power plants and tidal barrages. Hopefully the French (and Chinese?) governments will be willing to do that for us!

Edit: back on Simon's point: it seems that govt transport infrastructure projects are evaluated over 60 years, and may last for much longer. I heard that HS2 barely breaks even over 60 years, but looks much more attractive if they include revenue over 100 years, similar to the Victorian railways. It seems odd that hydro and tidal dams are not funded the same way. Crystal balls needed to put a price on energy and transport revenues a century from now.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294569#Comment_294569 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=294569#Comment_294569 Sun, 06 Feb 2022 11:33:58 +0000 fostertom
Posted By: WillInAberdeen"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ... "
is really antique, from early medieval merchants' promisory notes which meant exactly that, and got reconciled pretty quickly, like end of the day, or on an annual date agreed by society, or at a once-a-generation Jubilee on which all debts were extinguished to re-set accumulated inequality of wealth and associated power.

Then, as usury was taboo to Christians, to finance their wars the princes of Europe forced Jewish goldsmiths, despite their own taboo, to write them interest-bearing promisory notes against the stock of customers' gold deposited with them, soon for multiple times the gold's value, which made nonsense of "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ... ". That's how Jews - farmers and craftsmen - were forced to learn to become Europe's bankers, as a royalty-enforced fraud and a religious outrage, needed, enriched, envied, resented, judged for violating their taboo and for the heartless avarice that usury creates, blamed, persecuted; accompanied by regular 'bank failures' when the promise couldn't be fufilled and/or by princes reneging on their debts.

It wasn't till early 20C that the theory of why this kinda worked became fully formed
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6917403.pdf
enabling the fraud to be more glossed over than ever, but the usury taboo remains to this day, taken seriously only by Muslim banks which require convoluted rationalisations to function.

So "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ... " is a meaningless nostalgia today and only appears on banknotes, which make up only a few % of total money. Though it (debts must be honoured) holds good for individuals, corporations and banks, it need not apply when govts 'print money' (except as self-inflicted unnecessary free gift to the private sector), especially to govts that issue independent currencies, like dollar, euro, pound, yen, renmimbi (lesser govts' currencies are only rebranded dollars, euros (the EU member states) or soon renmimbi). It is very far from being the self-evident principle of Will's first two paras above.

2nd para should read
"Central banks creating money by computer keystrokes, helicoptering same into the community which buys stuff with it from same community, is a completed transaction, with no further obligations."
No debt is (or need be) promised or implied to anyone. It may be true that an excess of spending over tax receipts may accumulate but so what - it's just a number which in a way is a measure of historic healthy vitality in an economy, that it can sustain injections of 'tokens of liquidity' (money creation) with less need for 'putting the brakes on' (taxing money back out of the economy).

However, Will's central two paras, starting 'The ideal' and 'But if' are perfectly correct. Just as much skill and judgement as ever, pacing the money creation, targeting initial recipients of the created money without political favoritism, and ensuring the money stays liquid, not just siphoned into spiraling barely-liquid (tokens of power) stock market 'wealth', is needed, otherwise the classic danger of inflation will soon arise and wealth inequality will accelerate.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295180#Comment_295180 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295180#Comment_295180 Tue, 08 Mar 2022 18:13:57 +0000 WillInAberdeen https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/08/severn-estuary-tidal-energy-plan-back-on-agenda-amid-ukraine-crisis

Odd how these ideas pop up again...]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295183#Comment_295183 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295183#Comment_295183 Tue, 08 Mar 2022 22:10:48 +0000 fostertom But Thomas said: “The changing landscape of the climate emergency, energy insecurity, rising costs, and rapid technological improvements, indicate that many of these policy, cost and environmental barriers may no longer be as significant.”

So this is of a piece with the (mainly Tory) gang who want CoP's green impetus watered down, in UK, first because of rising gas price, and now for energy independence from Russia etc. Estuarine ecological catastrophe? never mind.
"More than £25bn and 10 years or more to come to fruition" is perverse, when the path of least resistance is actually to just let rip the extraordinary impetus and quick results of renewables.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295184#Comment_295184 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295184#Comment_295184 Tue, 08 Mar 2022 22:45:44 +0000 WillInAberdeen
But otherwise, yes, that's right.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295187#Comment_295187 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295187#Comment_295187 Tue, 08 Mar 2022 23:19:06 +0000 fostertom
Far better that their
"Western Gateway “powerhouse”, a coalition of politicians, business and public sector leaders and academics covering an area stretching from Swansea to Swindon and straddling the Severn, designed to rival the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine"
should wholeheartedly embrace environment, ecology, climate etc as both the end and the means to the prosperity they desire. How refreshing that would be! Instead of
"At its inaugural conference, delegates were told a Severn estuary tidal project could provide up to 7% of the UK’s energy needs"
- same old ...]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295196#Comment_295196 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295196#Comment_295196 Wed, 09 Mar 2022 09:43:54 +0000 WillInAberdeen https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1044890069658669056

I doubt this commission will find a way round the environmental aspects of a Severn dam, but the tidal lagoons ideas do seem to have some legs, particularly the ones much further to the West off Swansea and Exmoor.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295198#Comment_295198 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295198#Comment_295198 Wed, 09 Mar 2022 10:15:24 +0000 fostertom Posted By: WillInAberdeenI don't think Jeremy Corbyn sees his support for tidal power as an "extreme libertarian endpoint"!Probably not! The old left, from Lenin on, loves its heroic socialist-infrastructure fix-its just as much as Boris loves his ego-boosting ditto. The 'extreme libertarians' have no particular love of infrastructure, except as part of general scope for unfettered, untaxed money-making for their paymasters the rich and powerful. They want no restraints to that such as environmental/ecological/climate considerations, and adopt any available pose, such as false concern for citizens' cost-of-living, to 'temporarily' postpone 'green' policies. I'm saying that the traditional left (as is well rooted in Wales) easily allies itself with that same tactic, for its own quite different reasons, in this case adopting the available pose of energy independence, and hang the estuary's ecology.]]> £20 billion http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295202#Comment_295202 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17252&Focus=295202#Comment_295202 Wed, 09 Mar 2022 10:58:15 +0000 WillInAberdeen
https://northerntidalpowergateways.co.uk/about/]]>