• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Wind Power and UK Energy Use

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,031
Location
Surrey
The rapid deployment of BESS systems will start to eat away at curtailment payments over the next few years. Quite a few large ones are planned in Scotland as well as Northern England.
They regularly constrain off over 80GWh in a day so whilst there some chunky sized batteries coming at best they might soak up 10GWh of it.
I believe it's being discussed for the next auction round to reduce curtailment payments for new renewable generators in a bid to encourage co location with BESS or other energy storage systems to make most use of new grid connections. Essentially a wind operator would store excess at times of over supply but supply it from the BESS at times of under supply. Payments would need to be structured right to get this outcome.
This is precisely whats wrong with whole renewables strategy in the UK it’s full of sticking plasters rather than a joined up strategy and it’s in danger of undermining itself. It’s been blatantly obvious that for sometime that it’s economic madness to keep building more renewables in Scotland. There should be a five year moratorium on renewables up there to give transmission time to catch up. Then at least constraint payments won’t worsen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
They regularly constrain off over 80GWh in a day so whilst there some chunky sized batteries coming at best they might soak up 10GWh of it.

This is precisely whats wrong with whole renewables strategy in the UK it’s full of sticking plasters rather than a joined up strategy and it’s in danger of undermining itself. It’s been blatantly obvious that for sometime that it’s economic madness to keep building more renewables in Scotland. There should be a five year moratorium on renewables up there to give transmission time to catch up. Then at least constraint payments won’t worsen.
Whilst I agree that there has been an endemic problem of piling bodge on top of bodge in an attempt to preserve a broken electricity industry model.... I don't think strangling the growth of wind output is a good plan.
Thats about the only part of decarbonisation that is actually going well.

In my view, the issue is that the transmission operators of today have failed to match the achievement of the CEGB in the 1960s, when power demand grew 10% per annum and they kept up.
Fundamentally, we are not going to solve this by adding 2.5GW HVDC links a couple at a time. Especially considering the global supply crunch on material for offshore HVDC links.

A pair of 1000-1200kV class power lines across the borders would put export capacity up 20GW or so, exact value depending on if GIL or overhead lines. Obviously the lines would have to extend further north and south to make full use of that capacity, but still.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,924
Location
UK
With one of the biggest drains of power in the future being data centres, I was thinking - why doesn't the Government require these to be built in locations where there's excess generation and no ability to move it (until the grid is improved)? I know this is already happening, but I also keep hearing about data centres in or near city locations - and surely they could be remote? Obviously they need some staffing for maintaining the servers and replacing drives, but if they were near offshore wind that currently can't be fully used, why not have them there? They could also use the sea water to keep equipment cool, rather than employing expensive air conditioning (well, a combination of the two).

Obviously councils are desperate to attract the likes of Google, Microsoft etc to build in their districts - but it seems that this would be a very good solution unless I'm missing very obvious gotchas?

[It's worth noting that there are signs of the AI bubble bursting one day and demand falling, but for now every tech company is heavily invested in it.]
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,899
With one of the biggest drains of power in the future being data centres, I was thinking - why doesn't the Government require these to be built in locations where there's excess generation and no ability to move it (until the grid is improved)? I know this is already happening, but I also keep hearing about data centres in or near city locations - and surely they could be remote? Obviously they need some staffing for maintaining the servers and replacing drives, but if they were near offshore wind that currently can't be fully used, why not have them there? They could also use the sea water to keep equipment cool, rather than employing expensive air conditioning (well, a combination of the two).

Obviously councils are desperate to attract the likes of Google, Microsoft etc to build in their districts - but it seems that this would be a very good solution unless I'm missing very obvious gotchas?

[It's worth noting that there are signs of the AI bubble bursting one day and demand falling, but for now every tech company is heavily invested in it.]
It depends on the particular application, but latency matters too. There's the infamous stories of traders buying the building right next door to make sure their connection is a short as possible. Less extreme is wanting to have good connectivity to the rest of the world, the UK's major internet exchanges are in the big cities, it's an awful lot easier to get an ISP to hook you up than if you have to dig up miles of countryside to put it next to a wind farm.
 

InTheEastMids

Established Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
1,399
In my view, the issue is that the transmission operators of today have failed to match the achievement of the CEGB in the 1960s,
The regulatory model was designed for steady-state system of 1998 and in that world nobody wanted networks building stuff willy-nilly to swell their regulated asset base.

My personal bugbear is that by around 2015, it was pretty obvious obvious that offshore wind was going to be a major player in a decarbonised energy system. However the RIIO transmission settlements seem not to have foreseen this and allow construction ahead of need. I do wonder if Ofgem was asleep at the controls at this point.

Eventually the ASTI programme appeared (which is enabling a lot of the new transmission schemes) at the end of 2022. That it was done outside the normal RIIO period model is (to me) and admission of the failure of RIIO model in transmission. The Rapid Charging Fund may point to a similar perception that distribution investment was problematic (although RCF has since closed and isn't currently needed).
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,264
The regulatory model was designed for steady-state system of 1998 and in that world nobody wanted networks building stuff willy-nilly to swell their regulated asset base.

My personal bugbear is that by around 2015, it was pretty obvious obvious that offshore wind was going to be a major player in a decarbonised energy system. However the RIIO transmission settlements seem not to have foreseen this and allow construction ahead of need. I do wonder if Ofgem was asleep at the controls at this point.
They were ;)
Eventually the ASTI programme appeared (which is enabling a lot of the new transmission schemes) at the end of 2022. That it was done outside the normal RIIO period model is (to me) and admission of the failure of RIIO model in transmission. The Rapid Charging Fund may point to a similar perception that distribution investment was problematic (although RCF has since closed and isn't currently needed).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
The regulatory model was designed for steady-state system of 1998 and in that world nobody wanted networks building stuff willy-nilly to swell their regulated asset base.

My personal bugbear is that by around 2015, it was pretty obvious obvious that offshore wind was going to be a major player in a decarbonised energy system. However the RIIO transmission settlements seem not to have foreseen this and allow construction ahead of need. I do wonder if Ofgem was asleep at the controls at this point.

Eventually the ASTI programme appeared (which is enabling a lot of the new transmission schemes) at the end of 2022. That it was done outside the normal RIIO period model is (to me) and admission of the failure of RIIO model in transmission. The Rapid Charging Fund may point to a similar perception that distribution investment was problematic (although RCF has since closed and isn't currently needed).
Well even those new schemes are ordering capacity in penny packets, far later than it should be ordered.

The system is still trailing in a manner that makes the kind of problems we have even worse. I'm afraid it's not doing much to change my mind on the idea that the vertically integrated monopoly is the only sensible way to run an electricity system!
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,031
Location
Surrey
The regulatory model was designed for steady-state system of 1998 and in that world nobody wanted networks building stuff willy-nilly to swell their regulated asset base.

My personal bugbear is that by around 2015, it was pretty obvious obvious that offshore wind was going to be a major player in a decarbonised energy system. However the RIIO transmission settlements seem not to have foreseen this and allow construction ahead of need. I do wonder if Ofgem was asleep at the controls at this point.

Eventually the ASTI programme appeared (which is enabling a lot of the new transmission schemes) at the end of 2022. That it was done outside the normal RIIO period model is (to me) and admission of the failure of RIIO model in transmission. The Rapid Charging Fund may point to a similar perception that distribution investment was problematic (although RCF has since closed and isn't currently needed).
NG requested funding for Eastern Green Links back in 2016, but OFGEM refused time and time again due to increased impact on TNuoS charges.

Their failure to do that has allowed constraint costs to spiral, and they will increase further, as every turbine added in Scotland is almost pointless now until transmission capacity is increased.

Yes, OFGEM have now agreed to ASTI and also Advanced Procurement Mechanism and are in danger of flipping the other way and over building before it’s clear wind farm developments will actually take place.

We only have to see what happened with Hornsea 4 being cancelled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
NG requested funding for Eastern Green Links back in 2016, but OFGEM refused time and time again due to increased impact on TNuoS charges.

Their failure to do that has allowed constraint costs to spiral, and they will increase further, as every turbine added in Scotland is almost pointless now until transmission capacity is increased.

Yes, OFGEM have now agreed to ASTI and also Advanced Procurement Mechanism and are in danger of flipping the other way and over building before it’s clear wind farm developments will actually take place.

We only have to see what happened with Hornsea 4 being cancelled.
I think that just underlines my point that generation and transmission are intimately connected and cannot easily be uncoupled from one another.
The current system also produces serious perverse incentives that make it very difficult to trust that all involved are acting in good faith.

Transmission operators are essentially incentivised to spend as much money as they can convince the regulator to let them spend, because that improves their permitted returns.

It doesn't seem likely that Scottish onshore and offshore wind growth is going to stop any time soon, and the population centre of the UK continues to move south and east. Transmission requirements north-south are just going to keep growing. It's not as if the distances are particularly large by global standards - if the UK was Quebec it'd basically involve all the generating plant being at Dounreay, whilst the vast majority of the population lived in Brighton.
 
Last edited:

Technologist

Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
467
With one of the biggest drains of power in the future being data centres, I was thinking - why doesn't the Government require these to be built in locations where there's excess generation and no ability to move it (until the grid is improved)? I know this is already happening, but I also keep hearing about data centres in or near city locations - and surely they could be remote? Obviously they need some staffing for maintaining the servers and replacing drives, but if they were near offshore wind that currently can't be fully used, why not have them there? They could also use the sea water to keep equipment cool, rather than employing expensive air conditioning (well, a combination of the two).

Obviously councils are desperate to attract the likes of Google, Microsoft etc to build in their districts - but it seems that this would be a very good solution unless I'm missing very obvious gotchas?

[It's worth noting that there are signs of the AI bubble bursting one day and demand falling, but for now every tech company is heavily invested in it.]
Trying to get data centres to go where the power is cheapest is a bit like suggesting that you personally move 300 miles away to get a cheaper electricity bill. I suspect that you value your friends and family more than your power bill, same is true for data centres. Building proper grid interconnection is ultimately cheaper than moving demand.

Moore's law and associated other observations tell us that over supply of anything in IT (apart from obsolete equipment) is temporary.

Company valuations might crash but actual usage isn't going to fall, we have moved from a perspective of no mass entertainment - mass entertainment - mass entertainment of ever higher bandwidth - mass entertainment broadcast specifically for every user (today)- individually created entertainment for every user (soon) - individually created 360 deg, photo realistic entertainment for every user (next 5-10yr). That's just entertainment, we need to add enormous amounts of compute time being spent on training AI to do a vast number of tasks.

I'd say the impact of AI on economies could well be underwhelming but the power demand won't be!
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,924
Location
UK
Data centres storing data won't go away but the power needed for AI may slow down as more and more people realise it isn't the perfect utopia. Of course the industry relies on more and more investments and growth.

I think siting facilities near power (and perhaps water) is a bit different than you or I moving. There are benefits in having potentially extremely cheap, even free, energy that is currently wasted. Internet connectivity isn't a major hurdle although I'll admit latency is a valid issue.

Latency will be a factor for AI and virtual machines, but less important for storage.

Security already requires multiple sites so many would still remain near cities and near large businesses, but mirroring and redundancy makes remote sites even more beneficial.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,163
Location
Elginshire
I'm probably at risk of going off-topic here, but doesn't it make sense to place data-centres near population centres so that the generated heat could be used to warm homes?
 

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,047
Location
UK
The current system also produces serious perverse incentives that make it very difficult to trust that all involved are acting in good faith.
The system is out of date, sure. But the incentives I’m aware of, payment is given when supply isn’t wanted, isn’t perverse, and still isn’t when combined with oversupply in the north. It’s unideal through inaction. I wonder whether austerity or similar slowed down these two undersea connectors that appear to solve the issue. Once they are in operation, we want to have encouraged wind farms in the windy places all along, and the current system becomes good again.
Trying to get data centres to go where the power is cheapest is a bit like suggesting that you personally move 300 miles away to get a cheaper electricity bill.
Various tech data centres in America were built on the site of former aluminium smelters, next to a hydro power plant in the middle of nowhere. After those sites ran out, they’re now building small nuclear power stations with their data centres, I hope they aren’t in the city.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,895
In other news, the UK‘s largest (to date) Battery storage system is now fully funded, with construction to start imminently for commissioning in mid 2027.

And it is certainly needed. Right now the wholesale spot price for electricity is -£20/MWh, when demand is almost 34GW.




Battery energy storage system (BESS) developer Fidra Energy has announced it has received up to £445 million in new equity investment to fund the Thorpe Marsh BESS.

Funding comes from institutional investor EIG, which launched Fidra Energy in October of last year, and the UK’s National Wealth Fund (NWF). With this, Fidra Energy has reached financial close on its Thorpe Marsh BESS project, located in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.

The Thorpe Marsh BESS is a 1.4GW/3.1GWh project which, once completed, will be the UK’s largest BESS and one of the largest in Europe. Construction is set to begin imminently, and the site is expected to be operational from mid-2027.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,924
Location
UK
I'm probably at risk of going off-topic here, but doesn't it make sense to place data-centres near population centres so that the generated heat could be used to warm homes?

That's a good idea and has been done in some places, but even in a rural location it might be able to run a communal heating system for a village or small town?? (It is probably off topic, although technically data centres are going to become ever larger consumers of energy so I think it's okay to talk about them in more general terms, same as EV charging demands, heat pumps etc).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
The system is out of date, sure. But the incentives I’m aware of, payment is given when supply isn’t wanted, isn’t perverse, and still isn’t when combined with oversupply in the north. It’s unideal through inaction.
I was referring to the system used for transmission system operators more than payments to wind farms.
They are incentivised to spend as much money as they can get the regulator to let them spend, not to necessarily solve problems in an efficient manner.

And as noted, this whole mess is a result of splitting generation and transmission.
The government is desperate to avoid nationalisation, but something will have to be done. Honestly I suggest 1923 Railways Act style grouping of everyone who is not involved in a fixed price power purchase contract (like a CfD).

I wonder whether austerity or similar slowed down these two undersea connectors that appear to solve the issue. Once they are in operation, we want to have encouraged wind farms in the windy places all along, and the current system becomes good again.
My understanding is that ihere are major shortages in the global HVDC supply chain, especially for converters and cables suitable for undersea projects like this one. That is what is slowing down the schemes.
Those underway schemes will not do that much to solve this in the long run, they only amount to a handful of gigawatts.
After those sites ran out, they’re now building small nuclear power stations with their data centres, I hope they aren’t in the city.
Well, they are claiming they are going to do that in the hopes of getting federal money from somewhere!
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
I'm probably at risk of going off-topic here, but doesn't it make sense to place data-centres near population centres so that the generated heat could be used to warm homes?
That's never really worked in practice - you need really hot water to go into a district heating system, and the outflow from data centres can't get anywhere near that. Ultimately in data centres your heating element is a really expensive piece of insanely precision engineered silicon which you don't want getting above about 80 degrees.

There have been some schemes mangled something together when companies wanted to do a spot of greenwashing, but I'm not aware of anything that's showed any real promise.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,348
That's never really worked in practice - you need really hot water to go into a district heating system, and the outflow from data centres can't get anywhere near that. Ultimately in data centres your heating element is a really expensive piece of insanely precision engineered silicon which you don't want getting above about 80 degrees.

There have been some schemes mangled something together when companies wanted to do a spot of greenwashing, but I'm not aware of anything that's showed any real promise.
I believe there was a scheme that managed to get usable hot water out of a supercomputer by using an ultra pure water circuit that got exceptionally close to the actual dies, but that was a one off at a University.
 

MicroLithium

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2024
Messages
109
Location
UK
There are cold district heating systems being developed now, which use near ambient cooling water pumped from industrial buildings and data centres as the heat source for water-to-water heat pumps. You get the multiplying performance advantage of the heat pump without the seasonal variations in efficiency, in theory
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
There are cold district heating systems being developed now, which use near ambient cooling water pumped from industrial buildings and data centres as the heat source for water-to-water heat pumps. You get the multiplying performance advantage of the heat pump without the seasonal variations in efficiency, in theory
I like the principle, but data centres are still on the low end of temperature outputs. Obviously you have to work out all the trade-offs, but there's an awful lot to be said for having your data centre located somewhere with plentiful water and clean power, and I suspect that's always going to trump any benefits of playing around with a bit of lukewarm water.
 

Class 317

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2020
Messages
569
Location
Cotswolds
That's never really worked in practice - you need really hot water to go into a district heating system, and the outflow from data centres can't get anywhere near that. Ultimately in data centres your heating element is a really expensive piece of insanely precision engineered silicon which you don't want getting above about 80 degrees.

There have been some schemes mangled something together when companies wanted to do a spot of greenwashing, but I'm not aware of anything that's showed any real promise.
There has been talk of using a heat pump connected to the outflow of heat to boost it up to more reasonable levels. Their is a scheme in West London being worked on to use the boosted heat to power a low heat industrial process in this case a brewery.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

In other news, the UK‘s largest (to date) Battery storage system is now fully funded, with construction to start imminently for commissioning in mid 2027.

And it is certainly needed. Right now the wholesale spot price for electricity is -£20/MWh, when demand is almost 34GW.



Indeed BESS capacity is starting to really surge and over the next couple of years will make a massive impact in reducing gas usage.

Several schemes are in development for locating 1GW /4GWH schemes or higher on sites with existing grid connections like redundant coal power stations but also old industrial sites.

In regards to the discussion above about replacing all petrol with electric the refineries, storage and pumping of petrol / diesel and aviation fuels uses a surprising amount of energy. From memory it's something like circa 7% or so of UK demand.

In terms of transmission capacity their are a few schemes to repower existing connections with higher capacity wires and associated assets to increase capacity.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,264
In other news, the UK‘s largest (to date) Battery storage system is now fully funded, with construction to start imminently for commissioning in mid 2027.

And it is certainly needed. Right now the wholesale spot price for electricity is -£20/MWh, when demand is almost 34GW.



Both that and their West Burton projects are vaguely sensibly located but will still need big grid upgrades to get the most out of them.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,520
Location
Taunton or Kent
According to research by the UCL, wind power has cut £104bn from UK energy costs since 2010, mostly due to lowering gas prices compared to if wind power wasn't lowering demand for gas:



Wind power has cut £104bn from UK energy costs since 2010, study finds​

Reduction comes from energy generated from windfarms and lower cost of gas owing to lower demand

Wind power has cut at least £104bn from energy costs in the UK since 2010, a study has found.
Users of gas have been among the biggest beneficiaries, the research suggested.

Research by University College London found that from 2010 to 2023, energy from windfarms resulted in electricity bills being lower by about £14.2bn than they would have been if gas had been needed to generate the same amount of power.
However, the reduction in the cost of gas that could be attributed to wind generation – owing to the cut in demand and not needing to build new infrastructure – was much greater, at about £133.3bn.

Over the same period, consumers paid about £43.2bn in green subsidies, levied on electricity bills rather than gas bills. The net result was a reduction of £104.3bn in UK energy bills over the 13-year period, according to the researchers.
Surging renewable energy generation across Europe made demand for gas – and thus gas prices – lower than they would otherwise have been, and meant electricity companies had less need to build costly new gas-fired power stations, according to the analysis. The way that the UK’s energy market works also means gas-fired power stations are in effect allowed to set the price of electricity.
The analysis applied to 2010-23, leaving out the lingering impacts of the leap in gas prices in early 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Colm O’Shea, a former hedge fund manager, now a master’s student at UCL and lead author of the report, said: “Far from being a financial burden, this study demonstrates how wind generation has consistently delivered substantial financial benefits to the UK. To put it into context, this net benefit of £104bn is larger than the additional £90bn the UK has spent on gas since 2021 as a result of rising prices related to the war in Ukraine.
“This study demonstrates why we should reframe our understanding of green investment from costly environmental subsidy to a high-return national investment.”
Mark Maslin, a professor of Earth system science at UCL, said the UK’s consumers would benefit to a greater extent if the electricity market were reformed to reflect the reality that wind generation was reducing bills. “At some stage, the UK government must decouple gas and electricity prices,” he said. “That would mean gas prices would reflect the global markets, while the electricity price would reflect the savings from wind and solar.”

Ana Musat, the director of policy at RenewableUK, the trade body for the wind sector, said: “This research highlights the long-term economic benefits for UK plc of investing in renewable energy generation. The only way to reduce energy costs for good is to minimise our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel prices and increase the share of electricity generation from clean homegrown sources.”
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,341
Location
Nottingham
Yesterday at 1110h gas generation dropped to the lowest I've ever seen it, at 1.55GW.

Which means that the majority of spinning inertia in the system was coming from nuclear (3.9GW) and biomass (1.36GW).
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,895
Yesterday at 1110h gas generation dropped to the lowest I've ever seen it, at 1.55GW.

Which means that the majority of spinning inertia in the system was coming from nuclear (3.9GW) and biomass (1.36GW).

The lowest gas generation we have seen in recent times was mid afternoon on 5 April last year, at 0.74GW
 
Last edited:

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,350
It must be fake news, just more "Green crap" and all that rubbish!
(Of course it is not, renewables are obviously the future - unless you have lots of money invested in FF or the people who have money in old technologies are paying you to look the other way.)
See https://www.theguardian.com/environ...anet-safe-climate-spaces-oxfam?CMP=GTUK_email

America’s super-rich are running down the planet’s safe climate spaces, says Oxfam​

Exclusive: Data shows wealthiest 0.1% of the US burn carbon at 4,000 times the rate of the world’s poorest 10%

The US’s super-rich are burning through carbon emissions at 4,000 times the speed of the world’s poorest 10%, according to an analysis provided to the Guardian.
These billionaires and multimillionaires, who comprise the wealthiest 0.1% of the US population, are also running down our planet’s safe climate space at 183 times the rate of the global average.
The data, produced by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute ahead of the Cop30 climate summit, highlights the chasm between the carbon-guzzling rich, who are most responsible for the climate crisis, and the heat-vulnerable poor, who suffer the worst consequences.
At one end, the wealthiest 0.1% emit an average of 2.2 tonnes of CO2 every day, equivalent to the weight of a rhinoceros or an SUV.
At the other, a citizen of Somalia burns off just 82 grams of CO2 each day, barely the mass of a single tomato or half a cup of rice.
Rhetorical question: How do you discuss this without getting into politics?
 

BlueLeanie

On Moderation
Joined
21 Jul 2023
Messages
723
Location
Haddenham
It must be fake news, just more "Green crap" and all that rubbish!
(Of course it is not, renewables are obviously the future - unless you have lots of money invested in FF or the people who have money in old technologies are paying you to look the other way.)
See https://www.theguardian.com/environ...anet-safe-climate-spaces-oxfam?CMP=GTUK_email

Rhetorical question: How do you discuss this without getting into politics?
You can't. Politics is completely interwoven.

So when you pop the cap off the bottle of beer with your supper, you should feel guilty that there's almost a Kg or Carbon embedded or 12x the daily burn-off of a Somalian.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,376
Location
belfast
So when you pop the cap off the bottle of beer with your supper, you should feel guilty that there's almost a Kg or Carbon embedded or 12x the daily burn-off of a Somalian.
Or more productively, think about what you can do to reduce emissions, like political action to tax billionaires, or insulating your home, or going vegan, or something else entirely
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,595
Location
Wales
So when you pop the cap off the bottle of beer with your supper, you should feel guilty that there's almost a Kg or Carbon embedded
Won't bother my Dad then, he's from rural Somerset so wouldn't be seen dead drinking gassy urine. Flat, cloudy cider only!
 

Top