Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

Economics to the rescue:

Solar and wind less than half the cost of fossil fuels as price falls continue

https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-w ... -continue/

The cost of both solar and wind energy continue to fall, with both technologies less than half the price of competing fossil fuels – based on a global average – and offering compelling socio-economic and environmental benefits.

A new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023, finds that renewable energy remains competitive even as fossil fuel prices have returned to more historically traditional cost levels.

Ssolar energy and onshore wind remain the cheapest renewable technology, with the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) for solar falling by 90 per cent between 2010 and 2023.

The LCoE of solar PV has now fallen to $US0.044/kWh, or around $A0.064/kWh, and is beaten only by the more mature technology of onshore wind, which finished 2023 with an LCoE of $US0.033/kWh, or around $A0.048/kWh. (These are global averages).

When compared to fossil fuel and nuclear options, solar PV’s global costs in 2023 were 56 per cent lower, while onshore wind’s costs were 67 per cent less than fossil fuel and nuclear. This compares favourably to the respective technology costs in 2010, when solar PV was 414 per cent more expensive than fossil fuel and nuclear options.

[Lost]

I really, really hope the UK continues to try lower its carbon footprint. We're literally killing the world. If anyone has a smidgen of conscience on this island, they'll move into tents and live off the land.

20241209_181356.jpg (46.78 KiB) Viewed 6538 times

[STEVE G]

^The UK hardly manufactures anything anymore, so having lower emissions because you buy everything from China isn't really significant.

[pharvey]

Whilst it seems a fairly pointless exercise with the likes of China, India, the US and others (2023 figures show China emitting 32.88% of the Global total, whilst the UK emits 0.88% https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... y-country/ ), it is never-the-less an interesting concept.

Project to Suck Carbon Out of Sea Begins in UK

"A ground-breaking project to suck carbon out of the sea has started operating on England's south coast.

The small pilot scheme, known as SeaCURE, is funded by the UK government as part of its search for technologies that fight climate change.

There's broad consensus among climate scientists that the overwhelming priority is to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the chief cause of global warming.

But many scientists also believe that part of the solution will have to involve capturing some of the gases that have already been released.

These projects, known as carbon capture, usually focus either on capturing emissions at source or pulling them from the air.

What makes SeaCure interesting is that it is testing whether it might be more efficient to pull planet-warming carbon from the sea, since it is present in greater concentrations in water than in the air.

SeaCURE processes the seawater to remove the carbon before pumping it back out to sea where it absorbs more CO2."
.

Seacure.jpg (42.99 KiB) Viewed 5655 times

.

Full Report @ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr788kljlklo

[STEVE G]

^Something needs to be done because parts of the world are becoming increasingly at risk from extreme weather:

The Allianz Group's board member has issued a stark warning regarding the escalating risks posed by climate change, emphasizing that a world plagued by extreme weather events is becoming increasingly uninsurable. The warning comes amidst a surge in incidents such as wildfires, floods, and storms, which threaten to trigger far-reaching economic and societal disruptions.

Günther Thallinger, a key figure at Allianz, expressed his concerns on LinkedIn, highlighting that many climate-related risks may soon become unaffordable to insure. He pointed to alarming trends already observed in regions like California, where insurers are retreating from certain areas due to the heightened risk of wildfires. Following devastating fires in 2017 and 2018, some insurers ceased to offer new policies or renew existing ones, resulting in significant financial repercussions.

According to analysis from Moody's, the current wildfire crisis in California is projected to cost around $20 billion, impacting major insurance companies including Allstate, Travelers, and Chubb. Meanwhile, Munich Re reports that natural disasters in 2024 caused global damages estimated at approximately $320 billion, with only about $140 billion of this amount insured.

Thallinger cautioned that as global temperatures rise towards critical thresholds of 1.5°C, 2°C, and even 3°C, many insurance providers will find it increasingly difficult to cover numerous risks. This situation could lead to a domino effect where the lack of insurance coverage makes financing options like mortgages and investments unsustainable.

https://themunicheye.com/allianz-execut ... isks-17421

[pharvey]

^Something needs to be done because parts of the world are becoming increasingly at risk from extreme weather:

There's no question that something needs to be done - my point was that the likes of China, India and the US need to be doing more (admittedly, China seem to be trying, though a long way to go).

The UK (and Labour) are making a huge push towards "Green Energy", increasing our costs dramatically whilst other nations are far, far bigger emitters of CO2 and as such having a far greater impact on "Climate Change".

My previous post was to highlight the technology available - I for one am more than happy for the North Sea Oil/Gas Fields to be re-opened/expanded (cheaper energy, more jobs, less reliance on other nations (notably US)).

[STEVE G]

^That technology refers to using renewable energy to power a process to remove carbon from the ocean. There might be some use to that for removing emissions from the past but for future energy it would surely be way more efficient to just directly use the renewable energy.

[STEVE G]

With respect to high UK energy costs, it's apparently fossil fuels that are the culprit:

Great Britain’s dependency on gas imports has been the most important factor behind higher gas and power prices in the market,” Kate Mulvany, the principal consultant at the energy advisory company Cornwall Insight, said.

Prof Michael Grubb of the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources said in a recent research paper that, although fossil fuels used to be cheaper than renewable energy sources, “that has turned on its head as gas prices shot up and the cost to produce renewables such as wind and solar power has plummeted”.

He said: “If we actually paid the average price of what our electricity now costs to produce, our bills would be substantially cheaper.”

However, gas-fired power plants in effect set the market price for electricity – meaning costs are substantially higher than they could be. In simple terms: the price in the electricity market on any given day is dictated by the most expensive source of generation available, which in the UK would be its gas-fired power plants.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... e-about-it