This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Energy and Climate paper - renewables, fossil, nuclear, hydro - the issues of dstribution

An interesting [long] read: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4839/htm


You might care to not read the opinion below (or the article). Sorry for the noise if so.


Opinion: I've always thought that #goinggreen was just an unacceptable 'cash cow' for vested interests to get rich on the back of poorly thought out political driven policies lacking in scientific rigour. If the 'planet is going to burn' without reducing fossil and moving to renewable, then anything 'we' do ought to be not for profit and for the world arguably.  PM Johnson's latest [and foolish?] bet on wind turbines (with all it's current and eventual revalations) and generally the pushing at all costs of  unfriendly battery EV and other tech (there must be better even if there are other challenges to over come) is just set to continue the ever increasing cost on the public purse for arguably little gain and more worryingly more 'damage' and for generations. It doesnt help when I recently read that there are surreptitious plans being considered to allow power gens. to turn off consumer power as and when they see fit  e.g. when it is likely many will be charging their EV cars  [rolls eyes in dismay].  They will do this by enforcing 3rd gen smart meters 'properly' connected up to allow this to happen.  If the current political nonsense and propoganda we have witnessed over the last 8 months or so relating to health, gets a hold in climate change (and how to address it and it probably already has) then perhaps the game is already up.


Rhetorically: Is nuclear the best bet for the planet at the moment (especially if ever they can crack clean[er] fusion). There are challenges to HFC based tech, but as it stands for EV and local power cell, it appeals more to me if the brilliant minds can sort it out. Is battery EV tech going to cripple us on many fronts. Can the UK grid cope. Wind turbines and solar come with so many ifs and buts they should not be relied on. Is this post in the wrong forum ! (apologies if it is - still the link above is related).


Best regards. Habs



Parents
  • All these are good points and we have a problem which can be solved by nuclear power. However, the "Greens" object to this too, and do everything they can to make it unavailable! It takes a huge length of time to build nuclear, partly because "proper" nuclear (the British type) has huge amounts of "safety" built-in, and is also hugely expensive to build. However, the cost of the power is low. Britain used to lead the world in nuclear reprocessing, but again this has been run down because the "Greens" (shorthand for the Marxist left environmentalists) want no nuclear bomb materials to be available to Britain, although they do not object to Russia and China having them! They object to reprocessing, storage, or anything else vaguely nuclear and Governments of all persuasions seem to become frightened they might lose votes.


    We must continue to use gas, oil, and coal (of which we still have large reserves, although little is mined due to H&S rules), and shutting down our very clean coal power stations is just plain idiocy. We get some very expensive electricity from wind and solar, but it is very unreliable and runs at very low capacity utilisation on average, because of the weather and seasons, which we cannot control.


    We need reliable power all the time to operate our society as it is. I know some people would like to wreck that too, but that is another story. I hate this new term, "demand management". That is simply code for restricting usage by some external power to wreck our society. The climate debate continues, despite Covid having given us solid proof that CO2 levels are NOT controlled by fossil fuel burning! The theory has never been very good, but it is the centre of a huge money grab industry, particularly by academics who just want the money. The same result can be seen with Covid, "give us money and we will cure all known ills". Someone might but it will take a long time, equals money forever for making out that it is extra serious, worth wrecking the economy for, it isn't. We need to start another 10 or more nuclear builds at once, sort out Sellafield and scrap HS2 to pay for it. That is how much HS2 is costing, our entire energy supply for the next 50 years. Get a grip, Boris!!!
Reply
  • All these are good points and we have a problem which can be solved by nuclear power. However, the "Greens" object to this too, and do everything they can to make it unavailable! It takes a huge length of time to build nuclear, partly because "proper" nuclear (the British type) has huge amounts of "safety" built-in, and is also hugely expensive to build. However, the cost of the power is low. Britain used to lead the world in nuclear reprocessing, but again this has been run down because the "Greens" (shorthand for the Marxist left environmentalists) want no nuclear bomb materials to be available to Britain, although they do not object to Russia and China having them! They object to reprocessing, storage, or anything else vaguely nuclear and Governments of all persuasions seem to become frightened they might lose votes.


    We must continue to use gas, oil, and coal (of which we still have large reserves, although little is mined due to H&S rules), and shutting down our very clean coal power stations is just plain idiocy. We get some very expensive electricity from wind and solar, but it is very unreliable and runs at very low capacity utilisation on average, because of the weather and seasons, which we cannot control.


    We need reliable power all the time to operate our society as it is. I know some people would like to wreck that too, but that is another story. I hate this new term, "demand management". That is simply code for restricting usage by some external power to wreck our society. The climate debate continues, despite Covid having given us solid proof that CO2 levels are NOT controlled by fossil fuel burning! The theory has never been very good, but it is the centre of a huge money grab industry, particularly by academics who just want the money. The same result can be seen with Covid, "give us money and we will cure all known ills". Someone might but it will take a long time, equals money forever for making out that it is extra serious, worth wrecking the economy for, it isn't. We need to start another 10 or more nuclear builds at once, sort out Sellafield and scrap HS2 to pay for it. That is how much HS2 is costing, our entire energy supply for the next 50 years. Get a grip, Boris!!!
Children
No Data