You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion
What is net zero and why is it necessary?
Former Community Member
Decarbonising quickly and effectively to hit our net-zero target by 2050 requires urgent, clear and decisive leadership. Our short video looks at the skills requirements for delivering this target and breaks down the results from our recent Skills for net zero and a green recovery survey. Watch the video and sign in to let us know your thoughts in the comments!
What an incredibly woolly piece of virtue signalling, full of confabulation. We apparently have a ‘Climate Crisis’ We also have ‘Pollution’ are they the same thing or different sorts of problems? We need to reach ‘Net Zero’ to solve these problems. ‘Net Zero’ in what CO2, Everything?
Engineering can apparently solve these problems if we pour enough government (taxpayers) money in to reskill the UK.
Firstly what is the problem to be solved? What does ’Net Zero’ mean? Is it the same as ‘CO2 Neutral’? Is it:
1) Don’t burn anything that contains carbon?
2) Burn things containing carbon and then stick the carbon back in the ground somehow?
3) Burn things containing carbon and buy carbon credits (indulgences)?
The technology for 2) does not exist in an industrial form yet and probably won’t by 2050. It might be available by 2100. If the whole world is trying to become CO2 neutral there won’t be enough carbon credits to go round for 3) to be practical so that leaves 1).
1) means don’t burn coal, oil or gas (possibly wood as well) for: a) Electricity generation b) Process heating c) Domestic heating d) Transport So what can we do?
I fully agree with minimising our impact on our planet, reducing the consumption of finite resources and reducing our emissions of actual pollutants. I am not, however, convinced that CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be and it is now a political tool rather than anything scientific. The CO2/Global Warming/AGW etc. thing has been going for some 40 years now. How many of the predictions have been validated by observation (standard scientific method)? None. Where is our ‘Climate Crisis’?
I'm not interested in getting into an argument but you can check the first assessment report of the IPCC and compare its predictions with today's observations. They match reasonably well. And that's all from me on the subject :)
Roger Bryant: What does ’Net Zero’ mean? Is it the same as ‘CO2 Neutral’?
Yes, they are much the same thing. It's not a difficult concept, though some people like to pretend it is. If you want to do something that emits CO2, then you also need to do something else that absorbs CO2.
In an attempt to detect the ‚Greenhouse Effect‘ they have set a criteria of an additional 0.5°C rise over the 1990 temperature, itself a 0.5°C rise over the 1900s temperature. Depending on the strength of the effect (forcing) the 0.5°C threshold could be reached by 2002 (obviously not) or not until 2047 (probably will).
The latest data set I can find (most seemed to stop updating in 2010) is this:
It is borderline as to whether we have reached the 0.5°C rise over 1990 yet but we are still within the range of the prediction so it has not yet been invalidated.
Simon, As you say the concept is simple, it is the implementation, especially in the current expected time frames that is difficult. What techniques do we have to absorb CO2?
1) Plant trees. This works but on a decade time scale. Bigger trees obviously absorb more CO2 than saplings.
2) Capture and store CO2 from flue systems. A few pilots exist but they are all energy intensive. Our local Refuse Incinerator has an experimental CO2 capture/concentration system. The CO2 is then piped to some nearby greenhouses (which are also heated with waste low grade heat from the incinerator) to enhance the growth of the plants. Does it work, yes. Does it make any sense financially or in the total energy balance, probably not.
3) Capture CO2 from the air and store it. Very energy intensive due to the low concentration compared to flue gas. Will it ever achieve a positive balance?
4) ???
Suppose I want to erect a wind turbine to power my hospital (2MW?). I will probably need a 6MW turbine given a 30% capacity factor. I will ignore energy storage for the moment, SEP (Somebody Else’s Problem).
What do I need for this? (All guesstimates) 1000 tonnes of concrete for the base. 300 tonnes of steel for the tower, housing, etc. 50 tonnes of oil based products for the composite blades, lubricants, seals, cable insulation, paint, etc. We will still need an oil and petrochemical industry. 10 tonnes of copper for the generator and connecting cables. All sorts of materials for the magnets, inverters etc.
I will emit a significant quantity of CO2 in making these materials and assembling them into a working turbine. What do I do about this CO2? If I plant an appropriate number of trees they won’t have absorbed the CO2 for a couple of decades so I have contributed to a net increase for a period of time.
I can say that I have stopped fossil fuels being burnt to generate this electricity which doesn’t reduce the amount of CO2 I have released by building my turbine but reduces future emissions. Once again this takes time.
When can I say that I am ‘Carbon Neutral/Net Zero’ according to your criteria?
Now add more energy and materials for some energy storage to keep the ICU running when the wind stops. When do reach ‘Carbon Neutral/Net Zero’ now. Is it a useful or even sensible criteria?
Climate change is controversial and the subject of huge debate. Complex climate models based on maths helps us understand. How do these models work? A lecture by Chris Budd OBE, Gresham Professor of Geometry 13 November 2018. Skip to 35:00 if you want only to see the maths behind the need to capture and store away the GHG :-)
You might want to read the comments left by many viewers that they don't agree with Chris Budd and the outputs of the models put forwarded by different countries.
'Climate and finance think-tank Carbon Tracker has found that the world’s biggest oil companies are trailing behind where they need to be on their decarbonisation commitments, with many being unhelpfully selective in how they define ‘net zero’'
If your business is fossil fuels, you have a vested interest in confusing things as much as you can. The tobacco industry managed to do it for years, as did the asbestos miners.
The 'Renewables' industry is doing exactly the same with biomass. How does transporting wood chips from the USA and burning them here fit into your definition of 'Net Zero'? Michael More made an interesting film on the subject, you might have heard of 'Planet of the Humans'
'And the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, which represents Europe’s top scientists and Britain’s Royal Society, says woody biomass ‘may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change’.'
