Climate change: Curbing methane emissions will 'buy us time'(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Climate change: Curbing methane emissions will 'buy us time'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58174111
72 comments
Natural gas displacing coal is good for CO2 emissions, but afaik methane leakage across the supply chain is not measured very well. I'm afraid that our usage of natural gas will continue to increase because it's so easy to greenwash. For example various lobbying groups try very hard to push for a Hydrogen economy that is largely based on natural gas.
Natural Gas is also being heavily lobbied by power corps right now with the upcoming reconciliation bill. Not surprisingly they are all in on electric cars ;)
I'm very concerned the bill doesn't prioritize enough %spend on climate and that those provisions will get watered down. anything will still be 10x or more than all previous efforts combined. Just not enough...
https://www.eenews.net/articles/industry-looks-to-shape-demo...
I'm very concerned the bill doesn't prioritize enough %spend on climate and that those provisions will get watered down. anything will still be 10x or more than all previous efforts combined. Just not enough...
https://www.eenews.net/articles/industry-looks-to-shape-demo...
Coal isn't exactly great in terms of methane emissions either. If I remember rightly, a bunch of unexplained methane in the atmosphere was tracked down to coal mining in China in particular.
There was an agreement between Canada and the US to go about measuring it well, but I think when trump got elected, it was canned.
Mind you, I think nat gas usage will increase, since it lets us get rid of coal without having to have solved the hard problems around energy storage.
Mind you, I think nat gas usage will increase, since it lets us get rid of coal without having to have solved the hard problems around energy storage.
Let say we succeed to stop methane leakage from cows (algae feed, etc.) and also leakage from coal, oil and gas extraction.
How are we going to stop Siberian permafrost melting (it has huge amounts of methane ice) it has potentially 100 to 1000Gt (currently 5Gt in atmosphere CH4) which is enough to tip the temperature to 2-3C?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/02/climate-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osmzTSYRJJE
This is from 8 years ago but it is very relevant today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ
How are we going to stop Siberian permafrost melting (it has huge amounts of methane ice) it has potentially 100 to 1000Gt (currently 5Gt in atmosphere CH4) which is enough to tip the temperature to 2-3C?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/02/climate-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osmzTSYRJJE
This is from 8 years ago but it is very relevant today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ
Cut down trees and introduce large fauna? With nothing to trample it down, the snow insulates the permafrost preventing it from cooling in the winter.
Not really a realistic suggestion though.
Not really a realistic suggestion though.
I read the other day that in recent wildfire in Siberia, burned as much trees as it was planted in the entire world. And planted trees are young saplings they do not have ability to sequester same amount of CO2 like full grown trees.
I think it is this one: 'Russian fires burned 4.7 billion trees, seven times more than were planted' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/11/siberia-fire...
Just for the comparison 1 trillion trees project as of 30 May 2021, 164 restoration projects participate in the campaign and 13.96 billion trees have been planted worldwide.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_Tree_Campaign
And if we take that idea was founded in 1977 that means 44 years ~320 million trees planted per year...
And that damage is only Siberia, what with Australia, Canada, California, Alaska, Amazon ...
I think it is this one: 'Russian fires burned 4.7 billion trees, seven times more than were planted' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/11/siberia-fire...
Just for the comparison 1 trillion trees project as of 30 May 2021, 164 restoration projects participate in the campaign and 13.96 billion trees have been planted worldwide.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_Tree_Campaign
And if we take that idea was founded in 1977 that means 44 years ~320 million trees planted per year...
And that damage is only Siberia, what with Australia, Canada, California, Alaska, Amazon ...
You're assuming that wildfires cause damage always, most of those places you listed purposefully burn huge fires to create humus in order to grow crops to feed the overpopulated Earth. I was watching a off-road 4x4 channel where there were indigenous Australians setting fire a huge grassfields in Kimberly outback because that's the way their ancestors always did it and there was no other way to clear 14 ft tall grass in the entire valley.
No, I am not assuming anything, I gave you the facts, so 4.7 bn trees was past year in Russia, Australia's 2019-2020 more than 10 million hectares of land burned, California 2020 4,397,809 acres (1,779,730 ha).
So, yes indigenous people used those techniques, to replenish forest but biologist say that 2019-2020 was not normal event. Especially considering number of animals burned was around 3 billion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53549936
So, of course they will stop burning when there is nothing to burn anymore, they will stop burning. Also our ability to plant new so far was not exemplary, and as I said, ability of sapling to sequester CO2 is very small. And each tree needs 15-20 years to grow to full size that can sequester more considerable amounts of CO2.
One more issue with trees worth mentioning is that past certain temperature, trees like humans, suffer a heat shock so they start dying. Which is again complication for growing new forest as saplings get exposed to higher temperature (not having collective cooling effect of fully grown forest) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pce.12417
So, yes indigenous people used those techniques, to replenish forest but biologist say that 2019-2020 was not normal event. Especially considering number of animals burned was around 3 billion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53549936
So, of course they will stop burning when there is nothing to burn anymore, they will stop burning. Also our ability to plant new so far was not exemplary, and as I said, ability of sapling to sequester CO2 is very small. And each tree needs 15-20 years to grow to full size that can sequester more considerable amounts of CO2.
One more issue with trees worth mentioning is that past certain temperature, trees like humans, suffer a heat shock so they start dying. Which is again complication for growing new forest as saplings get exposed to higher temperature (not having collective cooling effect of fully grown forest) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pce.12417
Damn fuck that’s depressing.
The five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance... so depression is not bad, many are still in denial phase.
I look all those facts in a different way - not as a source of fear, but more in the way when you know facts that is it. I mean after acceptance, we can start thinking how can we improve things a bit, and maybe something good can come out of it.
I do not know, maybe like a cancer patient, they can choose not to know or to know, and then either do something about it or nothing about it. And only very narrow path can lead to recovery, but only, and only if they have a will to live.
I do not know, maybe like a cancer patient, they can choose not to know or to know, and then either do something about it or nothing about it. And only very narrow path can lead to recovery, but only, and only if they have a will to live.
I personally think the only way to handle climate change will be to force the more selfish US citizens to change their lifestyles. Just being realistic I don't think they will change without a civil war type scenario. Or the threat of a war.
They won't listen unless they are forced to. Period.
They won't listen unless they are forced to. Period.
its NOT individual person's fault. Its large dirty businesses that create majority of the pollution. Only way to fight global warming is to target them to pay for their externalities.
You can help, you can recycle. But all of the businesses could be forced to use environmental responsible packaging. Thats the kind of externalities I am talking about.
How come when a tanker spills oil in gulf we as tax payers pay for the clean-up, how come when a power lines start forest fires we have to pick up the bill?? And so on...
You can help, you can recycle. But all of the businesses could be forced to use environmental responsible packaging. Thats the kind of externalities I am talking about.
How come when a tanker spills oil in gulf we as tax payers pay for the clean-up, how come when a power lines start forest fires we have to pick up the bill?? And so on...
Energy consumption per unit GDP tells a different story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity_by_country
Except we use that efficiency to consume more, hence increasing GDP. We have also been picking the low hanging fruit. It is going to get progressively more difficult.
Is there a marine biologist here?
Would it help to genetically modify plankton so that multiply more and sequester more CO2 than usual?
But again having some kill switch after x number of generations so it does not causes other issues?
> after x number of generations so it does not causes other issues?
That’s the core trouble with everything isn’t it, and what got us into this mess in the first place.
That’s the core trouble with everything isn’t it, and what got us into this mess in the first place.
At some point (now) we have to consider birth control as an answer to global warming.
Edit: my point is that we cannot feed the same food (rice, meat) an ever growing population and reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time.
Edit: my point is that we cannot feed the same food (rice, meat) an ever growing population and reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time.
The countries with the highest emissions have already embraced that. Birth rates are well below replacement rates in the developed world.
OTOH one American's share of US CO2 emissions is 7 times that of one Indian's share of India's CO2 emissions.
Even before you take into account billing emissions to the consumer, where they rightfully belong!
Even before you take into account billing emissions to the consumer, where they rightfully belong!
If we had 0 babies for next 10 years population would reduce only 700 million which is again 7 bn or level Earth had in 2011. But further down the line that 10 year gap would create devastating knowledge transfer impact and also economic impact 20 - 50 years later.
Absolutely!
I don't have anything to add but this is the be all, end all.
I don't have anything to add but this is the be all, end all.
Yeah, of course, less humans = less problems for the planet. But that's an extremely unpopular idea, so you won't find any politicians to support it. Plus, the current growth-based economy (which BTW is also a major obstacle for long-term sustainability) is much harder to keep up with a shrinking population.
Less humans, not so much.
Less rich humans, maybe? At this point, just getting rid of people probably still leaves the earth in a tailspin of overheating
Less rich humans, maybe? At this point, just getting rid of people probably still leaves the earth in a tailspin of overheating
Richest 1% (> $100,000 income) emit 50% of the emissions according to Oxfam: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
Unless you want to reduce the population to ca. 0 by 2035, I don't see how population control can get us carbon neutral.
We could just wipe out the populations in the developed world since thats where most of its coming from.
Who is using all the fossil gas? Where is demand coming from? Residential? Is it a common source of heating for private residences in some countries? Which ones? If these countries are signatories of climate agreements should they not subsidize (with help from those of us that don’t need it) the phasing out of it?
Is electricity so expensive in some countries that burning fossil fuel for heat is cheaper than using an electrical heat pump? If that’s the case - wouldn’t a solution be to switch that around by taxes and subsidies so burning fossil fuels for heat is more expensive? (This of course assumes such countries can quickly switch electricity production if it’s using fossil to supply the electricity from renewable or nuclear).
Is electricity so expensive in some countries that burning fossil fuel for heat is cheaper than using an electrical heat pump? If that’s the case - wouldn’t a solution be to switch that around by taxes and subsidies so burning fossil fuels for heat is more expensive? (This of course assumes such countries can quickly switch electricity production if it’s using fossil to supply the electricity from renewable or nuclear).
> Is electricity so expensive in some countries that burning fossil fuel for heat is cheaper than using an electrical heat pump?
Yes. I can't remember the exact source but this charity covers it well. Up to 30% of Africa still burns kerosene for light.
https://solar-aid.org/news/black-carbon-and-the-kerosene-lam...
Yes. I can't remember the exact source but this charity covers it well. Up to 30% of Africa still burns kerosene for light.
https://solar-aid.org/news/black-carbon-and-the-kerosene-lam...
Something that shoudln't be unterestimated is vested interests in gas grids, particularly local gas grids.
Lots of municipalities own gas grids or companies partly owned by the municipality own them. Your local major probably doesn't like the idea that this gas distribution grid which is a source of income for your town is likely worthless scrap in the not so far future.
This is also the reason why some grid operators push for hydrogen heating, with the idea that at some point in the future the gas grids will be coverted to hydrogen. Most experts in the space don't think this is very plausible, because it's unlikely that such a huge amount of green hydrogen will be produced and using fossil gas based hydrogen doesn't really make much sense. Also converting a grid from methane to hydrogen isn't trivial, there are safety concerns and compared to a heat pump this is excessively inefficient. But if you own a gas grid you may see things differently.
Lots of municipalities own gas grids or companies partly owned by the municipality own them. Your local major probably doesn't like the idea that this gas distribution grid which is a source of income for your town is likely worthless scrap in the not so far future.
This is also the reason why some grid operators push for hydrogen heating, with the idea that at some point in the future the gas grids will be coverted to hydrogen. Most experts in the space don't think this is very plausible, because it's unlikely that such a huge amount of green hydrogen will be produced and using fossil gas based hydrogen doesn't really make much sense. Also converting a grid from methane to hydrogen isn't trivial, there are safety concerns and compared to a heat pump this is excessively inefficient. But if you own a gas grid you may see things differently.
Electricity generation, residential (space heating, hot water heaters, cooktops), and as a feedstock for hydrogen, fertiliser, etc. production.
I'm in Australia, and we export most of the gas we produce - mostly for power stations in Japan and other places in the region I believe. We actually burn more gas to compress (liquefy) other gas for export than we use for electricity generation or in homes locally.
But yeah, it's really good to replace gas hot water, heating and cooking with heat pumps and induction stoves. Way more efficient and a good induction stove is just as good or better than gas (even though people who haven't used them will swear it can't be true). Heat pumps tend not to be able to fill your house with poisonous carbon monoxide (as can happen with gas heaters) or leak methane into your living space (which can be bad for a lot of reasons).
I'm in Australia, and we export most of the gas we produce - mostly for power stations in Japan and other places in the region I believe. We actually burn more gas to compress (liquefy) other gas for export than we use for electricity generation or in homes locally.
But yeah, it's really good to replace gas hot water, heating and cooking with heat pumps and induction stoves. Way more efficient and a good induction stove is just as good or better than gas (even though people who haven't used them will swear it can't be true). Heat pumps tend not to be able to fill your house with poisonous carbon monoxide (as can happen with gas heaters) or leak methane into your living space (which can be bad for a lot of reasons).
In this case, burning the natural gas is the lesser evil, the unburnt methane that gets into the atmosphere is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. But of course, if you have natural gas pipes going into every building, that will also lead to emissions of unburnt gas. However I don't think the problem is that huge, because methane gas leaks are an explosion hazard, so it's in everyone's interest to keep them to a minimum...
Yes, flaring gas is a slightly lesser evil. But I think it's the gas that misses being captured (even when they're trying) from the gas wells, the big pipelines and industrial facilities that are the real big problem sites for fugitive emissions.
I read a report that claimed that properly accounting for fugitive methane emissions (which have tended to be massively underestimated) actually brings gas back to being just as bad as coal in terms of global warming cost. But coal plants do emit huge quantities of other nasty pollutants apart from CO2, so gas is still slightly better in that way.
I read a report that claimed that properly accounting for fugitive methane emissions (which have tended to be massively underestimated) actually brings gas back to being just as bad as coal in terms of global warming cost. But coal plants do emit huge quantities of other nasty pollutants apart from CO2, so gas is still slightly better in that way.
Per kWh gas heating is about ⅓ the cost of electric, unless you already have a heat pump. And fitting a ground source heat pump costs about £15k, so most people don't have the spare cash to switch over. We need government subsidies to make it happen generally.
Also, the running costs of a heat pump are reasonably comparable to gas heating, so you don't even really save money by doing this. (Plus they're more complex and expensive to replace when they break, the installation process is really disruptive and not practical for everyone, etc.) On top of that, a lot of the electricity to run them is going to come from burning gas anyway in most countries. They mostly seem to have caught on in places where gas wasn't plumbed out to so many homes, there are good reserves of dispatchable renewable sources like hydropower, or both.
A combined cycle gas plant has an efficiency of 50-60%, pipe that electricity into a heat pump with a COP of around 3 and you're well ahead of burning the gas directly for heat.
Only if you've fitted each house with a heat pump. Which is expensive.
Even I have trouble motivating the investment in a ground source pump in a really cold climate in Sweden. My regular air-water pump is around £4-7k and has a thermal efficiency (COP) of over 4 (so 1kw electricity is more than 4kw heat) and that’s with no digging or expensive installation.
I get that there is no way Central Europe will switch to ground source, but regular heat pumps should be cheap enough to subsidize.
I get that there is no way Central Europe will switch to ground source, but regular heat pumps should be cheap enough to subsidize.
Heat pump water heating system with simple air outside unit (similar to mini-split A/C), tank, and remote control is about 300k-500k JPY in Japan including construction cost.
Russian gas is what keeps large parts of Europe warm in winter. Retrofitting heat pumps into buildings is quite expensive, which is why homeowners are reluctant to do it.
Quite expensive? That's understated. My understanding now is that it comes at the cost a modest new house.
Our family bought a house in the immediate periphery of a smaller city. Since most city housing here is old, the consequence of that decision is that our modest city home has abysmal energy efficiency.
I have wanted to renovate ever since we bought it, in order to cut down on our carbon footprint before 2030, but I have given up on the idea that we'll be able to afford a heat pump before then.
After having spoken with several architects, the building cost alone will eat up €200K without any frills. This will make our house smaller, by replacing poorly built annexes with a more compact and thus thermally efficient cube shaped annex. This comes on top of the mortgage that we took out.
So ironically, in making our home more energy efficient, we would also be making it smaller and less desirable in this regard, at a great expense. Tacking on a heat pump and PV panels would inflate the cost by another 10%.
That is the very real cost of making a home suitable for low energy heating systems.
Don't get me wrong, I'm counting my lucky stars that I'm able to consider such an undertaking, but going through this exercise myself is just a reality check of how dire the situation really is.
If we want to achieve net zero in housing, can we really do so at the cost of conventional building practices?
Talking about the local situation, less than a third of homes are from after 1981 [1]. That's millions of homes slated for a similarly-priced revamp. Who is going to foot the bill? Even with government incentives, some owners don't want to spend all that money on something as intangible as low energy housing, and others simply can't afford to.
[1] https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/housing/building-stock
Our family bought a house in the immediate periphery of a smaller city. Since most city housing here is old, the consequence of that decision is that our modest city home has abysmal energy efficiency.
I have wanted to renovate ever since we bought it, in order to cut down on our carbon footprint before 2030, but I have given up on the idea that we'll be able to afford a heat pump before then.
After having spoken with several architects, the building cost alone will eat up €200K without any frills. This will make our house smaller, by replacing poorly built annexes with a more compact and thus thermally efficient cube shaped annex. This comes on top of the mortgage that we took out.
So ironically, in making our home more energy efficient, we would also be making it smaller and less desirable in this regard, at a great expense. Tacking on a heat pump and PV panels would inflate the cost by another 10%.
That is the very real cost of making a home suitable for low energy heating systems.
Don't get me wrong, I'm counting my lucky stars that I'm able to consider such an undertaking, but going through this exercise myself is just a reality check of how dire the situation really is.
If we want to achieve net zero in housing, can we really do so at the cost of conventional building practices?
Talking about the local situation, less than a third of homes are from after 1981 [1]. That's millions of homes slated for a similarly-priced revamp. Who is going to foot the bill? Even with government incentives, some owners don't want to spend all that money on something as intangible as low energy housing, and others simply can't afford to.
[1] https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/housing/building-stock
What is it that would make it so expensive? (edit: ah you meant the renovation not the heating system) A good heat pump for a large house is sub €10k. Of course you need some way of distributing the heat in the building too (water radiators or in floor heating). Is it that the houses completely lack radiators? Retrofitting a heat pump to a home that has a water radiator system and with fossil burning boiler is cheap.
I’m replacing my 20 year old heat pump now with a new one and it’s around €8k installed. At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
I’m replacing my 20 year old heat pump now with a new one and it’s around €8k installed. At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
> What is it that would make it so expensive?
I know €200K sounds like a lot, but if you strip out unavoidable costs such as VAT, architect's fees, misc hidden fees, what you are left with is a whole lot less.
Let's say they account for 20% of your project cost, that leaves you with 160.000 EUR to buy materials and pay craftsmen.
> Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
Where is that?
Laissez faire was the norm until the 90s here. Urban planning, zoning, and building codes might have theoretically existed before, but enforcement was nonexistent. Energy efficiency regulations are newer still.
As a result, insulation in most homes from before 1990 is severely lacking (if not entirely absent).
> At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
So, to give you an example: I'll also install heated floors since they are the most suitable heat delivery system for heat pumps and so the most future proof, but first I'll have to excavate 55 cm so I can fill it back up with insulation mostly so as not to lose all of the heat to the bare soil.
I know €200K sounds like a lot, but if you strip out unavoidable costs such as VAT, architect's fees, misc hidden fees, what you are left with is a whole lot less.
Let's say they account for 20% of your project cost, that leaves you with 160.000 EUR to buy materials and pay craftsmen.
> Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
Where is that?
Laissez faire was the norm until the 90s here. Urban planning, zoning, and building codes might have theoretically existed before, but enforcement was nonexistent. Energy efficiency regulations are newer still.
As a result, insulation in most homes from before 1990 is severely lacking (if not entirely absent).
> At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
So, to give you an example: I'll also install heated floors since they are the most suitable heat delivery system for heat pumps and so the most future proof, but first I'll have to excavate 55 cm so I can fill it back up with insulation mostly so as not to lose all of the heat to the bare soil.
For old houses were retrofitting is not possible, a district heat network can help. But yes, housing is really hard to get to net-zero. What I don't understand is why it's still legal to build new houses with fossil fuel heating.
Talking about Belgium, 40.000 additional homes are being connected to the gas grid every year (2020/2021). That's astounding.
We stopped mandating new connections. Great. Insidiously, though, Big Gas successfully lobbied for a price cap of 250 EUR for new connections to the gas grid.
So not only are we still allowing new housing to be heated with gas, we're saying that that's a-ok you can do it on the cheap.
It's almost as if politicians actively want their voters to feel disenfranchised. Who's going to tell those households in a few years that, "Whoops we made a mistake--so maybe this natural gas thing for heating wasn't such a good idea after all"?
At the same time, households who are leading the charge in the energy transition with heat pumps pay full cost, get no rebates, and, cherry on top, pay through the nose for per kWh surcharges on electricity that don't exist for natural gas.
We stopped mandating new connections. Great. Insidiously, though, Big Gas successfully lobbied for a price cap of 250 EUR for new connections to the gas grid.
So not only are we still allowing new housing to be heated with gas, we're saying that that's a-ok you can do it on the cheap.
It's almost as if politicians actively want their voters to feel disenfranchised. Who's going to tell those households in a few years that, "Whoops we made a mistake--so maybe this natural gas thing for heating wasn't such a good idea after all"?
At the same time, households who are leading the charge in the energy transition with heat pumps pay full cost, get no rebates, and, cherry on top, pay through the nose for per kWh surcharges on electricity that don't exist for natural gas.
The electrical grid also cannot handle all-electric heating for all households, at least in Germany. France is different because of their big nuclear fleet.
Very often, green energy discussions forget that doing everything (heating, traffic, industrial processes) electrically needs an increase in electric capacity by a factor of 2 or 3 at least.
Very often, green energy discussions forget that doing everything (heating, traffic, industrial processes) electrically needs an increase in electric capacity by a factor of 2 or 3 at least.
Luckily switching to all electric heating will take long enough to give us time to increase generation capacity sufficiently. Everybody except the politicians setting the targets for renewable energy knows that electricity demand will be much higher in the future when everything runs on electricity.
In Italy and Spain electricity is very expensive, so many people uses natural gas for everything but lighting.
And the situation seems that it's going to increase even more.
And the situation seems that it's going to increase even more.
Belgium chiming in. For the longest time, the electricity bill was this kind of back door for politicians to sneak in stuff they wanted to keep out of the General Budget.
It started harmless enough, but it has spiraled out of control. Of course distribution and transmission need to factor into the energy price somehow, but unfortunately for our friend, the electricity bill, stuff got out of hand.
Government after government tasked transmission and distribution network companies with ever more duties.
In addition to the core business of running their networks, their obligations include, but aren't limited to: acting as the social energy provider of last resort, running the street lights, building and maintaining EV charging infrastructure, buying green energy certificates at predetermined prices, financing offshore wind interconnection, etc.
In light of these extended duties, the DSOs and TSOs then went to the energy market regulators and asked if they could raise prices. Of course, the regulators decided in their favor, or they'd be guilty of systematically underfunding the companies they're supposed to regulate.
The situation now is that 35-44% of the electricity bill is directly earmarked for these so called Public Service Obligations. Add some excise taxes, miscellaneous fees, sum them all up, add VAT to the subtotal, and you end up with a grand total of ⅔ of your electricity bill being spent... not on electricity.
Don't get me wrong: We should be subsidizing most of these things, but in light of the energy transition, the electricity bill is just about the worst place to hide the cost.
Meanwhile, the gas bill has only a fraction of these Public Service Obligations factored into them. How on earth is that right?
No wonder people are reluctant to install heat pumps. It makes no financial sense!
It started harmless enough, but it has spiraled out of control. Of course distribution and transmission need to factor into the energy price somehow, but unfortunately for our friend, the electricity bill, stuff got out of hand.
Government after government tasked transmission and distribution network companies with ever more duties.
In addition to the core business of running their networks, their obligations include, but aren't limited to: acting as the social energy provider of last resort, running the street lights, building and maintaining EV charging infrastructure, buying green energy certificates at predetermined prices, financing offshore wind interconnection, etc.
In light of these extended duties, the DSOs and TSOs then went to the energy market regulators and asked if they could raise prices. Of course, the regulators decided in their favor, or they'd be guilty of systematically underfunding the companies they're supposed to regulate.
The situation now is that 35-44% of the electricity bill is directly earmarked for these so called Public Service Obligations. Add some excise taxes, miscellaneous fees, sum them all up, add VAT to the subtotal, and you end up with a grand total of ⅔ of your electricity bill being spent... not on electricity.
Don't get me wrong: We should be subsidizing most of these things, but in light of the energy transition, the electricity bill is just about the worst place to hide the cost.
Meanwhile, the gas bill has only a fraction of these Public Service Obligations factored into them. How on earth is that right?
No wonder people are reluctant to install heat pumps. It makes no financial sense!
In spain, the actual price of electricity is about 20-30% of the final bill. The rest is regulated costs and taxes.
It's true that the spanish grid very very rarely has problems, but still seems a lot compared to other countries.
It's true that the spanish grid very very rarely has problems, but still seems a lot compared to other countries.
How can it be so expansive?
Norging stands out in the stats.
Is this because people who use electric heating have old direct electric radiators? Don’t most homes in Spain or Italy these days have AC? Those are heat pumps so should be able to provide (some) heat in winter with reasonable efficiency.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...
Norging stands out in the stats.
Is this because people who use electric heating have old direct electric radiators? Don’t most homes in Spain or Italy these days have AC? Those are heat pumps so should be able to provide (some) heat in winter with reasonable efficiency.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...
You're looking at the pool prices. That accounts only for 20-30% of the final bill people has to pay. The rest is taxes (and even taxes over taxes) and regulated costs, which by the way are quite opaque, despite they make some cosmetic effort of transparency.
The rationale, they say, is that the spanish grid is "solid" and we rarely have problems, which is true but I don't know to what extent this explains the prices, or if cheaper countries do really have much more problems than us, which I highly doubt.
The rationale, they say, is that the spanish grid is "solid" and we rarely have problems, which is true but I don't know to what extent this explains the prices, or if cheaper countries do really have much more problems than us, which I highly doubt.
What are some examples of final cost including taxes for customers? I pay 0.1-0.2€ per kWh after massive taxes
Electricity price (A)
+ Distribution network fees (B1)
+ Transmission network fees (B2)
+ Excise taxes on electricity (C)
────────────────────────────────
Subtotal
+ 21% VAT (D)
────────────────────────────────
Electricity price on bill
It sums up to somewhere between €0.23 and €0.28 per kWh for a cheap energy provider.
From my last bill (Finland):
Electricity: 0.053 €/kWh Transfer fee: 0.043 €/kWh Electricity tax: 0.028 €/kWh VAT: 0.023 €/kWh
So, about 0.146€ per kWh. The transfer fee is to the local utility company, and we can't avoid that, nor the taxes.
We're paying extra for having power generated by solar/wind only, but the cost of the electricity is only about 1/3 of the actual price.
Electricity: 0.053 €/kWh Transfer fee: 0.043 €/kWh Electricity tax: 0.028 €/kWh VAT: 0.023 €/kWh
So, about 0.146€ per kWh. The transfer fee is to the local utility company, and we can't avoid that, nor the taxes.
We're paying extra for having power generated by solar/wind only, but the cost of the electricity is only about 1/3 of the actual price.
"will buy China time"
The niche between current temperature and end of the world temperature will be exploited by growing nations until something is done about rich countries exploiting their low cost production to work around green laws
I'm done recycling, reusing and downsizing until legislation is enacted to prevent my effort toward the environment to become someone else profit.
The niche between current temperature and end of the world temperature will be exploited by growing nations until something is done about rich countries exploiting their low cost production to work around green laws
I'm done recycling, reusing and downsizing until legislation is enacted to prevent my effort toward the environment to become someone else profit.
You should call your political representatives and ask for a carbon tax with tariffs on imports then.
Sure thing, and whose carbon numbers should I tell them to use when they calculate the tariff? The figures reported by the PRC’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment?
There are people who determine whether other countries are price dumping to advise setting up protective tariffs. Why don't you believe that there are people who can produce reasonably accurate estimates for the amount of CO2 it took to produce something? I'd assume that politicians would start by asking domestic producers of stuff what they think. The tariffs are for their protection after all.
ahahahahahahahahah, you're a riot
Which part of by comment do you find so amusing?
both part, that I have access to my political representation (which is a very American thing, not so much around here) and that a single government has nowaday the agency to impose tariffs irregardless of what wto, eutc and whatnots allows
Is this China you speak of located on another planet?
no, and that is the point, until we put pressure there, all effort done here is worthless.
How well do you think it will work to try to pressure China into cutting their emissions before you've made at least some effort to clean up your own? Effort done here is not worthless at all.
I've been recycling, downsizing and cutting waste the last thirty years, all the while industry just moved around to sidestep legislation, in a two punch combo of increasing the local cost of living and destroying the local economy, so fuck that, effort done here had been worthless globally and damaging locally.
The "you" in my comment is intended at country level. It basically means: your elected representatives.
It's true that individual actions to help the climate may not help a lot, immediately and in practical terms, if there's no bigger policy movement.
Then again, seeing that people are willing to take costly individual actions is a strong signal to elected representatives that their electors care about this stuff. So it still may not be worthless.
It's true that individual actions to help the climate may not help a lot, immediately and in practical terms, if there's no bigger policy movement.
Then again, seeing that people are willing to take costly individual actions is a strong signal to elected representatives that their electors care about this stuff. So it still may not be worthless.
Sure, let's ignore China.
China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceeded the Developed World: https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-...
China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceeded the Developed World: https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-...
I'm not ignoring China. I'm saying: if you're asking China to change its behaviour, I doubt you'll get very far unless you begin by showing willing to change your behaviour too.
Let's take some other anti-social behaviour as an analogy. Imagine person A is in their car, idling their engine, outside an elementary school at pick-up time[1]. Now imagine person B comes up and asks them to stop. How well do you think that works if person B gets out of a car which is also idling its engine when they come and make the request?
Your argument seems to be that person B's car is smaller. I don't think that helps much, but it's also not in any meaningful way true. China's emissions are large only because China is large. Per-capita emissions are what matter here (otherwise it would solve the problem of China being a large emitter if China were to split itself into a dozen smaller countries — which is clearly nonsensical). China's per-capita emissions are less than half those of the US[2], and some of them are emitted in producing goods for export to the US.
[1] I live opposite an elementary school, and this is sadly not unusual.
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Let's take some other anti-social behaviour as an analogy. Imagine person A is in their car, idling their engine, outside an elementary school at pick-up time[1]. Now imagine person B comes up and asks them to stop. How well do you think that works if person B gets out of a car which is also idling its engine when they come and make the request?
Your argument seems to be that person B's car is smaller. I don't think that helps much, but it's also not in any meaningful way true. China's emissions are large only because China is large. Per-capita emissions are what matter here (otherwise it would solve the problem of China being a large emitter if China were to split itself into a dozen smaller countries — which is clearly nonsensical). China's per-capita emissions are less than half those of the US[2], and some of them are emitted in producing goods for export to the US.
[1] I live opposite an elementary school, and this is sadly not unusual.
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
I guess it is complex issue, especially as most of the goods we import from Chine so in the sense we have outsourced our CO2 to China, it would be excellent if they could switch 100% renewable, and recently I read news that they are close with Thorium reactors... so, I guess they working on it but as everywhere else progress is not as fast as we need it to be...