Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it's economically viable to extract it.

It is when the price rises, yet still stays cheaper than russian gas or nuclear energy.

said that there was a minimum of 20 years worth of coal deposits left on the site.

I guess you could read that two ways .... either we could keep extracting just as fast as before for at least 20 years, or what little is left is so hard to get out it'll take us at least 20 years to do it. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

The other side of the coin is that once a mine is shut down (and the pumps switched off and so the mine is flooded and more than likely partly collapsed) it takes a huge investment to get it going again - what are the chances that such an investment could be paid off in such a short time as 20 years? - less than the lifetime of many of the wind turbines already in service, and with less reusable infrastructure and recyclable materials left at the end of it.

   - Andy.

To which I would ask, What is the brink point whereby we NEED to extract the coal or go back to living in caves with candles? Or worse, relying upon a benevolent dictator to sell us the energy we will need in future?

If we do things right, never.  Other countries don't have any coal, but they survive.

How do they survive Simon? Which ones and how? Because it looks as if most of Western Europe is kow towing to Putin for his gas. Is this what you mean?

The if we do things right comment from Simon suggests that an answer to the end of fossil fuels is available.

It most certainly is only a Nuclear answer as renewable energy is impossible.

www.thegwpf.org/.../Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf

I think this free electricity offer may collect you, and the company providing this "service", may collect you a conviction under Section 13 of The Theft Act 1968.

It most certainly is only a Nuclear answer as renewable energy is impossible.

www.thegwpf.org/.../Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf

Humm, What's the opposite of cherry pick? - i.e. to select the worst little bits? Probably not the phrase I'd need anyway as Mr Menton seems to have strayed a little beyond that even to arrive at his starting point. Li-Ion batteries can only last 4 hours? The only renewables are wind and solar - so no hydro, tidal, pumped storage, or biomass? New Nuclear "all but impossible" - yet we have Hinckley Point C actually under construction at the moment. He claims there have been no small scale 'demonstration; projects, but ignores the experiences of thousands of 'off grid' installations going back decades. I dare say there are some sensible points in there somewhere - I certainly agree that storage will be a challenge for a 100% renewable grid, but with his starting points so over-egged, it's difficult to take any of his actual numbers seriously.

Probably worse is the implication that if we can't be assured that the entire target can be reached in a single step, that the entire journey is ill-advised. For me even without any storage we could supply perhaps 80% of our electricity from renewables - and even in the worst possible case we still had to fill in the remaining gaps using entirely fossil fuels, that would still leave us in a much better position than we are now - not only from a CO2 stance, but on energy security as the much smaller amount of fuel required could be sourced domestically, at least in the medium term.

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Probably worse is the implication that if we can't be assured that the entire target can be reached in a single step, that the entire journey is ill-advised.

I couldn't agree more. We have to make a start and we are heading in the right direction. Locally, this week has been particularly poor with dark grey skies and no wind (until today) so some emissions (even from locally grown trees) are inevitable.

A fundamental problem with renewables is storing the summer excess for the winter. We (i.e. Mrs P and I) could possibly depend entirely upon PV in the summer, but not a chance right now!