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
  • Jon Steward:

    Coilin

    I agree with you

    Andy doesn't mention that all the new tech uses masses of fossil fuels to manufacture and deploy and will do again in the future when it comes to disposal. And makes no case for the poor souls mining the Cobalt and Lithium

    I'm no expert but my gut feeling tells me this whole CO2 reducing tech is bonkers and one day will be seen as exactly that. Anyway I read that by far the largest green house effect comes from water vapour.


    But the "masses" of fossil fuels required to create wind turbines or solar panels are vastly less that the fossil fuels that would be burned to generate the equivalent amount of energy.

    But the people who hate renewables will keep coming up with bogus statistics in order to justify their hatred.


Reply
  • Jon Steward:

    Coilin

    I agree with you

    Andy doesn't mention that all the new tech uses masses of fossil fuels to manufacture and deploy and will do again in the future when it comes to disposal. And makes no case for the poor souls mining the Cobalt and Lithium

    I'm no expert but my gut feeling tells me this whole CO2 reducing tech is bonkers and one day will be seen as exactly that. Anyway I read that by far the largest green house effect comes from water vapour.


    But the "masses" of fossil fuels required to create wind turbines or solar panels are vastly less that the fossil fuels that would be burned to generate the equivalent amount of energy.

    But the people who hate renewables will keep coming up with bogus statistics in order to justify their hatred.


Children
No Data