Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pipnasty

COP21 - Paris France Sustainable Innovation Forum 2015

Recommended Posts

if youve worked in the industry then you will possibly have more information, but FWIW this is one bit of cost info that suggests the price changes i'm getting at.... "PV has seen dramatic drops in module prices since 2008. In late 2011, factory-gate prices for crystalline-silicon photovoltaic modules dropped below the $1.00/W mark. The $1.00/W installed cost, is often regarded in the PV industry as marking the achievement of grid parity for PV. Technological advancements, manufacturing process improvements, and industry re-structuring, mean that further price reductions are likely in coming years.

1051953-13649193321115432-zjkiss.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if youve worked in the industry then you will possibly have more information, but FWIW this is one bit of cost info that suggests the price changes i'm getting at.... "PV has seen dramatic drops in module prices since 2008. In late 2011, factory-gate prices for crystalline-silicon photovoltaic modules dropped below the $1.00/W mark. The $1.00/W installed cost, is often regarded in the PV industry as marking the achievement of grid parity for PV. Technological advancements, manufacturing process improvements, and industry re-structuring, mean that further price reductions are likely in coming years.

1051953-13649193321115432-zjkiss.png

 

 

Very interesting. A bit speculative maybe. I hope it comes true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

 

 

 

Edit - both shipping and aviation appear to have been left out of any COP21 text! With many prominent climate change scientists saying that the draft is 'neither acceptable or consistent with climate science.'

 

A reliance on technology that we done't have yet i.e. negative emissions technology.

 

A removal of 'and keeping with the science' from any draft.

 

Weaker than Copenhagen agreement and has left us somewhere between 'dangerous and deadly'

Edited by Pipnasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scary stuff indeed. Sadly politicians rarely look beyond 4-5yrs (term in office).Scientists will have to save us, not politicians.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the scientists are being removed from this process now. At the same time, a lot of them need to grow a pair and speak up about this. But with a compliant media, it is difficult for them to make themselves heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists in the form of them delivering newer, cheaper technology as ultimately money talks for politicians and the majority. Agree that they need to speak up more forcefully as climate change is still seen as a far-off, abstract threat by too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My figures were from memory, so not 2500 :)

 

But, 16 reactors currently generating a very small percentage of UK's total energy (currently 18% of total electricity) with around half of them to close by 2023. Still a very considerable amount of nuclear power plants to build in a very small amount of time. £24 billion to build Hinkley Point C with it expected to produce 7% of UK's total electricity. And electricity only amounts to a relatively small amount of our total energy use. 14 more Hinkley's just to cover our current electricity use with a lot more to cover out total energy use. Then you have got to factor in the rise in co2's used in building them, which would be considerable. And as SteveT says, you've got the issue of what future generations do with the waste. Nuclear doesn't add up as an option especially when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere.

How material are the CO2 emissions involved in building a nuclear power plant compared to, you know, building anything of a similar size? How does it compare to a coal or gas plant CO2 emission per day for example?

 

Solar power has a huge hidden environmental impact. Mining rare earth metals, co2 emissions in production, large amounts of toxic chemicals and pollutants that are known to poison rivers and ground water, fresh water usage, non-recyclable etc etc. By comparison modern thorium reactors are clean with minimal waste, highly fuel efficient (in terms or ore to fuel) and therefore environmentally low cost, short half life, non-weaponisable, effectively meltdown proof and raw materials are effectively unlimited.

 

The fear of nuclear stops us making the right decision on this.

Edited by boohog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

 

 

 

Edit - both shipping and aviation appear to have been left out of any COP21 text! With many prominent climate change scientists saying that the draft is 'neither acceptable or consistent with climate science.'

 

A reliance on technology that we done't have yet i.e. negative emissions technology.

 

A removal of 'and keeping with the science' from any draft.

 

Weaker than Copenhagen agreement and has left us somewhere between 'dangerous and deadly'

 

 

'In accordance with best available science' inserted into final draft - that is good and very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been getting some criticism from scientists. It's not perfect but it is pretty good from what I hear considering this is a global agreement.

 

Carbon sequestration is one huge tipping point. When they nail this it will be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been getting some criticism from scientists. It's not perfect but it is pretty good from what I hear considering this is a global agreement.

 

 

 

I think you are right - I think it offers some hope and that should be enough for people to start changing things. I may change my mind when I have read and, more importantly, understood the small print.

 

Cameron and the Tories will be interesting now and let's see if they still view this as purely 'green crap'. They've put this country back decades with their all out attack on anything remotely renewable. To be fair, I've yet to see anything from Corbyn and co that inspires me either. As for the right of the Labour Party - see the Tory Party, although Ed Miliband is potentially worth watching.

 

We need complete decarbonisation by 2050 and I still stand by my opinion that only renewables can remotely get near to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be interesting to see if this comes into conflict with TTP and TTIP.

If coal companies, oil companies, manufacturing, cement production, global agribusiness etc want to continue in the same vein, who will be powerful enough to stop them.

Like, its not just about how we fuel our cars, its just by eating meat and putting cement in the concrete. Much of what we do won't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, its not just about how we fuel our cars, its just by eating meat and putting cement in the concrete. Much of what we do won't change.

 

Yeah, pretty much everything we do on a daily basis is on the table.

Edited by D.Boon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been agreed that £100 billion total will be given to the poorer countries of the world to help them mitigate the impact of global climate change. The oil industry currently receives £5.3 trillion a year in subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement yesterday relies Biomass Energy Carbon Capture and Storage technology - a technology that doesn't currently exist and may never exist. With BECCS, we grow plants and trees in an area roughly the size of India each year that will suck carbon out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, we then burn those trees in power stations to create electricity, capture harmful gasses including carbon dioxide in the chimneys , liquify this carbon dioxide and then store it underground for 1000 years. This is not being made explicit in todays press.

 

Most emissions come from very few emitters - we have to challenge this and we still haven't. Emissions have to be significantly reduced in the short term - flights need to be drastically reduced for example. So, if you are planning on going on a few long haul flights next year - then good luck wth that. Both flight and shipping emissions aren't included in this agreement. We have to do our part - we have absolutely no choice in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm reading between the lines of what you are saying Pip, and tying that in with my own cynicism of the way this will be circumvented by capitalist forces and trade. My opinion is that its a sham and that not much will change, quickly enough.

Flights for example, people wont stop using airplanes unless the cost of flights is suddenly taxed very severely. The airlines would fight that tooth and nail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me feels like this, yes. But, as I have said all along, if you just leave this to governments, it will go to s***. And yesterdays text only confirms this. The whole thing is based on pledges and nothing is actually binding at all.

 

But, and this is the first time I have actually felt this, we now have something to hold governments to because they have all signed up to it. So it is up to us to make sure that our government keeps its part of the deal. It is also up to us individually to do what we can and our lives will have to change quite drastically in some cases.

 

We went to see our local Tory MP a few weeks ago and ended up being escorted out of his surgery before our 20 mins was up. So, we wrote him a letter and got a few hundred people to sign it. When we were getting people to sign it, most people were saying that they were incredibly concerned about the future but felt that they could do nothing about it. The text from yesterday means that it is back in our hands and not being able to do anything about it is no longer a valid excuse. Sure, some people simply don't want to do anything about it. We also have a meeting with our local council about them divesting all funds from fossil fuels and that looks like it is going to be positive. Small steps, yes, but lots of small steps can make this happen. If business feels that fossil fuels are becoming a dead end in terms of investment, then it will only take one or two big businesses to change and the whole thing could snowball. Who knows?

 

But do people really need to fly? Is it desirable or necessary? These are things that are in our own hands.

Edited by Pipnasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Heathrow expansion is being pushed through as well. Apparently because the pollution will be offset as we will all be driving vehicles that will comply with new European emission standards applied to them. Yes, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...