[Metrobeans]

B342 - Carbon Free Energy Bill, TSR Centre Party

Energy is vital to us all. Imagine a world where you can't just flick a switch for light and for warmth. That is reality for many people in the world, and in the West we've taken this for granted for too long. So far we've relied almost solely on burning things to produce our energy but that isn't sustainable as coal, oil and gas are not infinite. This bill will recognise that our current means of obtaining energy are unsustainable and will thus revolutionise the way in which it is produced, which will also have a positive effect on climate change.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1) No new power stations using oil, natural gas or coal shall be constructed.

2) Current oil, gas and coal plants shall be phased out and replaced with either renewables or nuclear plants.

3) The timeframe for this is estimated to take between 30 and 50 years in order for a comfortable transition to occur.

4) The government is to stop funding carbon capture schemes.

[simontinsley]

Oh dear, on content and delivery.

[Smack]

Thanks for that wonderful criticism.

[Wednesday Bass]

What an incredibly vague bill.

[Rhadamanthus]

Very vague indeed.

[Smack]

(Original post by Wednesday Bass)
What an incredibly vague bill.

It is quite the opposite - apart from 3), each point is exact.

[Thunder and Jazz]

Well, no. I like the principled stance taken by the Centre party, in fact I like it a lot, but this is just silly.

You're banning the building of new coal plants without providing a proper framework for replacing them properly. Seeing as how this country will begin experiencing blackouts within a decade, isn't this a bit of a silly thing to do? Further to this, while nuclear energy is definitely a primary route we need to be taking, renewable energy is in no way up to the task of fuelling our nation yet. Without major investment it isn't likely to be in thirty years. Thus you are actually compounding the energy problem by removing what would be a useful mid term solution to the problem of energy shortfall.

Moving from energy to climate, this is more credible, since it actually does something concrete, but it's still not really a very large step considerign the new technology that makes coal fired plants less of an issue.

Try again, Centre.

[Wednesday Bass]

(Original post by Smack)
It is quite the opposite - apart from 3), each point is exact.

Well, not really. I can understand the reasoning behind the bill but it requires a bit more thought that saying "no more fossil fuel power plants".

You've given no real plans of how to replace the current FF plants, or how much the introduction of the new renewable energy/nuclear power plants will cost or how much it will cost to safely shut down current power plants.

Yes, we need to focus on renewable and nuclear energy, but to say no more coal/oil/gas plants is irresponsible seeing as the country is expected to experience blackouts in the future as the situation stands.

EDIT: I think T&J's post sums up what I'm trying to say.

[Smack]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
Well, no. I like the principled stance taken by the Centre party, in fact I like it a lot, but this is just silly.

You're banning the building of new coal plants without providing a proper framework for replacing them properly. Seeing as how this country will begin experiencing blackouts within a decade, isn't this a bit of a silly thing to do?

We're banning coal (and oil and gas) power stations because we can build nuclear ones instead. I don't think it's as silly a thing to do as it would to be continue to have our heads in the sand about the fact that we in Britain don't live sustainably. The longer it takes for something to get done, the more chance there is of us unloading our energy problems onto the next generation.

Further to this, while nuclear energy is definitely a primary route we need to be taking, renewable energy is in no way up to the task of fuelling our nation yet. Without major investment it isn't likely to be in thirty years. Thus you are actually compounding the energy problem by removing what would be a useful mid term solution to the problem of energy shortfall.

Renewables are certainly up to the task. People often like to say that the technology is not up to the task but that is a load of rubbish: we've been utilising wind power in some form for thousands of years, we know pretty much everything that we need to know about it. Tidal is also remarkably simple.

The problem is that we're not building enough of it because it's too expensive. And it's probably going to get more expensive in the next decade as major energy companies are dropping or deceasing their renewables activities because they can't make enough profits from it.

Moving from energy to climate, this is more credible, since it actually does something concrete, but it's still not really a very large step considerign the new technology that makes coal fired plants less of an issue.

Try again, Centre.

Enlighten me on this new technology please.

Also, I'm slightly less concerned about climate change now than I am about living sustainably. Climate change could easily be solved by stopping deforestation and living more sustainably. In Britain at least, we'll be back to living around a stove long before we're drowned by increasing sea levels due to melting ice caps.

[Peachz]

Although a good idea, you have proposed no way on how they're going to phase fossil fuels. Current nuclear/renewable technology is not sufficient enough to sustain the entire British population. Adding in a timeframe of 30-50 years but providing no obvious funding into new technology is a bit presumptious that the technology will have progressed sufficiently.

[Ocassus]

What puzzles me is the fact that we are simply postponing one problem and bringing to light another. Nuclear power plants as I am sure you are aware produce dangerous waste.

Nuclear materials are not infinite either, all we are doing is providing a temporal solution and possibly bringing another, very serious problem to the front. Furthermore, Nuclear power stations are very risky to build, communities do not like them and the public opinion of them is not all that great.
You are dropping a massive bombshell on the power industry on the basis that it is 'helping the environment' but in effect all it is doing is perhaps buying us a little more time.

Yeah, I think we need more detail, and more focus on perhaps developing more efficient forms of harvesting renewable power energy sources.

[Smack]

(Original post by Wednesday Bass)
Well, not really. I can understand the reasoning behind the bill but it requires a bit more thought that saying "no more fossil fuel power plants".

There is plenty of thought behind this bill. I study and will be making a career out of this stuff, after all.

However, no one is interested in reading a whole screen of data about oil, gas, nuclear, energy, etc. This role playing game is meant to be fun, after all. No one's interested in getting a technical lecture or reading a serious report on the situation. This was meant to be short and slightly vague so it generates discussion. I don't think anyone would have really paid any attention had I done what the libertarians do and write a million words and draw a thousand graphs ... well, certainly not with this subject.

Although this is only the first reading, due to the feedback in the next reading I'll go a bit more in depth.

You've given no real plans of how to replace the current FF plants,

I'm pretty sure 2) says exactly how they will be replaced.

or how much the introduction of the new renewable energy/nuclear power plants will cost

Changes all the time, so can't really say.

Although I'd like to think that the cost of keeping people's lights and heaters on was worth paying regardless.

or how much it will cost to safely shut down current power plants.

The bill doesn't say that they are being shut down. They are being phased out, and what that means is that they when they come to the end of their operational life cycle they won't be replaced. Well, they will be replaced, but by nuclear ones, if needed.

Yes, we need to focus on renewable and nuclear energy, but to say no more coal/oil/gas plants is irresponsible seeing as the country is expected to experience blackouts in the future as the situation stands.

It'll experience blackouts in 2016. We're already too late.

[Anony mouse]

(Original post by Smack)
what the libertarians do and write a million words and draw a thousand graphs

It's our forté.

I wonder if the entire basis of your Bill is wrong. Energy consumption has become less polluting and more abundant and reliable especially in market settings. The empirical record contradicts your view of predicted increasing scarcity and physical shortages.

A study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a study group established in 1988 by the United Nations and other world organisations to study the climate issue, estimates that total consumption of carbon energies in the period 1860–1998 totals just 1.1% of what physically remains in the ground pending future production and consumption.

It is anticipated that improving performance can win over diminishing returns even as the absolute energy consumption and market share of oil, gas and coal are expected to rise. The burden of proof is therefore for you to show that the trend, not a point estimate, is negative, and differentiate between ‘market failure’ and the problems caused by government ownership and intervention in markets.

[Smack]

(Original post by Peachz)
Although a good idea, you have proposed no way on how they're going to phase fossil fuels. Current nuclear/renewable technology is not sufficient enough to sustain the entire British population.

See my response to T&J's post.

Adding in a timeframe of 30-50 years but providing no obvious funding into new technology is a bit presumptious that the technology will have progressed sufficiently.

I'll be honest here and admit that I pulled the timeframe out of my ass. But it's only a guideline, though. We'll inevitably overshoot it, but if it makes us pull our fingers out, then good.

(Original post by Ocassus)
What puzzles me is the fact that we are simply postponing one problem and bringing to light another. Nuclear power plants as I am sure you are aware produce dangerous waste.

So does modern living as a whole, though. I think it's unfair to single out nuclear power stations when the only reason we need to use them is because we'll have almost exhausted many of our planet's other fuel sources and can't be bothered to invest in renewables enough.

Nuclear materials are not infinite either, all we are doing is providing a temporal solution and possibly bringing another, very serious problem to the front.

Yes, I know, although I don't think nuclear is really that serious a problem.

Furthermore, Nuclear power stations are very risky to build, communities do not like them and the public opinion of them is not all that great.

Renewables also suffer from NIMBYs and NOTEs.

You are dropping a massive bombshell on the power industry on the basis that it is 'helping the environment' but in effect all it is doing is perhaps buying us a little more time.

Yes, that's the point of this bill.

[Peachz]

(Original post by Smack)
See my response to T&J's post.



I'll be honest here and admit that I pulled the timeframe out of my ass. But it's only a guideline, though. We'll inevitably overshoot it, but if it makes us pull our fingers out, then good.

Doesn't seem very well thoughtout that's all.

[toronto353]

The Bill is incredibly vague. However, let me be more precise in my criticism:

(Original post by TSR Centre Party)

B342 - Carbon Free Energy Bill, TSR Centre Party

Energy is vital to us all. Imagine a world where you can't just flick a switch for light and for warmth. That is reality for many people in the world, and in the West we've taken this for granted for too long. So far we've relied almost solely on burning things to produce our energy but that isn't sustainable as coal, oil and gas are not infinite. This bill will recognise that our current means of obtaining energy are unsustainable and will thus revolutionise the way in which it is produced, which will also have a positive effect on climate change.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1) No new power stations using oil, natural gas or coal shall be constructed.

B342 - Carbon Free Energy Bill, TSR Centre Party

Ok, that's fine, but let's look at the problems with this. This means that, while the new technologies are being developed, we are not allowed to construct new non-renewable fuel based power plants. So we risk blackouts. Also you are a little hypocritical here. You don't allow fossil fuel based power plants for their damaging nature to the environment. Nuclear fuels may have some damaging effects and cost a lot of money to decommission, but you are fine with that. I'm not opposed to nuclear fuels, but they are also eventually unsustainable, so why do you not mention this in the Bill. The whole argument is rather shambolic.

2) Current oil, gas and coal plants shall be phased out and replaced with either renewables or nuclear plants.

See above points, but also where do you suppose this money is coming from? Government or the private sector either way, there's little money available. You can't simply expect the power plant fairy to magic up these new energy supplies from nowhere.

3) The timeframe for this is estimated to take between 30 and 50 years in order for a comfortable transition to occur.

Where are these estimates coming from? What factors are involved? Would you care to actually expand more upon this? What are your priorities? This section is woefully inadequate.

4) The government is to stop funding carbon capture schemes.

Why? They remove the immediate effects of CO2. You're more than happy for nuclear waste to be stored underground, so why have a problem here?


I will be honest, this is shambolic, fanciful and hypocritical. In it's current format, I can not support this and will not support it until it is greatly expanded upon.

[Smack]

(Original post by toronto353)
Ok, that's fine, but let's look at the problems with this. This means that, while the new technologies are being developed, we are not allowed to construct new non-renewable fuel based power plants. So we risk blackouts.

We have all the technology that we need, it's just that no-one is actually constructing them because coal and gas remain the cheapest options.

[quote[
Also you are a little hypocritical here. You don't allow fossil fuel based power plants for their damaging nature to the environment. Nuclear fuels may have some damaging effects and cost a lot of money to decommission, but you are fine with that.[/quote]

This is not about the environment, more about the atmosphere. Although nuclear plants are not so bad for the environment as having thousands and thousands of wind turbines and tidal barrages dotted over our countryside and rivers, as you can build a nuclear plant on scrub-land that no-one uses.

I'm not opposed to nuclear fuels, but they are also eventually unsustainable, so why do you not mention this in the Bill.

Because I'm tired.

See above points, but also where do you suppose this money is coming from? Government or the private sector either way, there's little money available. You can't simply expect the power plant fairy to magic up these new energy supplies from nowhere.

Money will have to come from both the public and private sector. We already know that only state intervention will prevent power cuts and blackouts, so it'll have to be a major source of money, but the private sector will also do its best to meet the challenge because there's lots of money to be made in energy (see: 38% increase in utility company's profits this year). It'll be very costly initially but but they'll raise the capital for investment and construction the same way that capital is raised for major pipeline constructions (I actually read about this in a book but I feel asleep because this sort of thing makes me yawn).

Where are these estimates coming from? What factors are involved? Would you care to actually expand more upon this? What are your priorities? This section is woefully inadequate.

Basically it's the quickest realistic time-frame I could think of.

Why? They remove the immediate effects of CO2. You're more than happy for nuclear waste to be stored underground, so why have a problem here?

There is a host of reasons why CCS is not a good idea and should be scrapped immediately.

Firstly, the energy required to pump the CO2 will increase the energy required by the plant by 30-90%, therefore just to power it we'll need to construct at least 50 new, large power stations, and itself it will add another 100 billion m^3 of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.

Secondly, the volume of CO2 that will need to be stored underground is much, much, much greater than required to store nuclear waste. Therefore, we'll need some extremely, extremely large holes to store it.

Thirdly, what happens if it leaks?

[Teaddict]

That was amusing -_-

[simontinsley]

(Original post by Smack)
Thanks for that wonderful criticism.

The Bill has no sections, no short title and semantically is very poor - that's the delivery side of it.

The content is that its based upon the fact that government knows best for the planning of power stations when the market is not one that fails here. The price of certain inputs (oil, coal and gas) will rise as the supply runs out. Companies that run power stations appreciate this, and will invest in the one that is cheapest (since the power they sell isn't differentiated whether produced by water or coal). As things run out, they become more expensive and so will stop being the cheapest. No problems there, no need for this intervention and what's needed it to stop the interventions we have currently. That deals with the energy side of things.

On climate, it's far, far more effective to tax the pollution in terms of a carbon tax, both allowing you to reduce other taxes and to price in the pollution and still find the best solution with that priced into the market.

[sandys1000]

I actually quite like this, and certainly support the principle behind it. I'm still a bit wary about the scrapping of funding for carbon capture though, are you sure that enough research has been done on the technology to rule it out completely? In addition, I'm concerned that the energy companies may use this as a reason to add significant amounts to already high fuel bills.