The Origin of our Energy.

Some guys (retired) have had a look at the cost of wind, solar and storage costs for New York.

The official 'scoping plan' say about $310 Billion, One retired guy says $4 Trillion and another retired guy say $30 Trillion

So which is it?

More Focus On The Impossible Costs Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Battery Energy System – Watts Up With That?

I am not convinced that nuclear is the best option, simply because of the unknown future risks and costs of storing/disposal of waste. Nuclear is not cheap whichever way you cut it, and if our Govt won't fund it I don't want the Chinese involved.

Unfortunately there is little choice if you want green dependable and affordable energy. Burying the waste underground for decades is an uncomfortable byproduct for some, as is chucking spent wind turbines and solar panels in landfill. 

You seriously think that these Top 100 companies are changing their business model to one in which they acquire taxpayer money from governments, rather than selling what they own?

(That would be extraordinary. If I was a shareholder in any company that did this, I'd move to fire the executive and the board; or sell my shares; or both.  So would every other shareholder.)

Exactly what might you think a multiple-trillion dollar company such as Saudi Aramco could get from, for example, the UK government? For anything (let alone foregoing selling it fossil fuel)? 

How about you substantiate whj Point Number 3: Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, BHP, Rio Tinto and Royal Dutch Shell are .....

whjohnson said:

redirecting their funding into energy sources other than fossil fuels because this attracts massive Govt subsidies

I hope we are not going just to continue to collect whj Points without reaching any answers.......

That's the weather.  Climate is not today's weather.

BTW, I should make it clear I am not necessarily negating whj Point Number 3. In Germany currently, per litre of gasoline, 93.2 cents is State-mandated cost and 77.8 cents the price https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29999/umfrage/zusammensetzung-des-benzinpreises-aus-steuern-und-kosten/ There is good reason why a supplier might wish to partake of that 93.2 cents ..... without necessarily giving up any of that 77.8 cents.

I think an embarrasiing amount of the "1000 year old" German forest was decimated by acid rain from UK coal burning landing on Germany in the mid 1900s to about 1980. Due to such historic pollution there is sadly very little old forest anywhere, just mono-culture of christmas trees that have grown in the last 50 years or so. Please do not believe all of the most shrill hysteria.

Mike.

Apparently not in Hesse.

Green Wrecking Ball: Germany Clearing “Undisturbed” 1000-Year Old Forest, Make Way For Massive Wind Park (notrickszone.com)

It's not serious. It is just some entity trying to drive traffic to yet another climate-denialism WWW site.

Yep, far too much "let's leave this decision to the next government because it won't be popular".

We should also have been developing fast breeder technology so that 97% of the waste becomes fuel.

In terms of nuclear power I could  not agree more - we should have built some already,  but folk panic about things they cannot see, despite the science of radio activity  being extremely well understood.

Yes we should not be building open top reactors like at Chernobyl, but that fact was known at the time it was built, but the politics of the totalitarian state drove that. And before we get complacent there are parallels with how folk were paid to snip cooling fins off fuel rods at Windscale, to increase the plutonium production , but the politics of the race for a bigger better bomb drove that ,and a whole load of additional shortcuts were taken to push the design hotter than it was really supposed to run. I suppose we should be grateful that someone thought filters on the chimney tops was a good idea, as it was by no means universally thought to be necessary - until afterwards . (link BBC article about to that)

The take-home lesson, to me at least is nuclear power is fine, if you actually listen to your own engineers and scientists, and do not compromise.  it is allowing politicians and bean counters to run the programme that introduces  the main risks.

As I find myself complaining quite often these days, leave the hard stuff  to the engineers, the mere neuro-typical brains cannot handle it.

Mike.

In terms of nuclear power I could  not agree more - we should have built some already,  but folk panic about things they cannot see, despite the science of radio activity  being extremely well understood.

Yes we should not be building open top reactors like at Chernobyl, but that fact was known at the time it was built, but the politics of the totalitarian state drove that. And before we get complacent there are parallels with how folk were paid to snip cooling fins off fuel rods at Windscale, to increase the plutonium production , but the politics of the race for a bigger better bomb drove that ,and a whole load of additional shortcuts were taken to push the design hotter than it was really supposed to run. I suppose we should be grateful that someone thought filters on the chimney tops was a good idea, as it was by no means universally thought to be necessary - until afterwards . (link BBC article about to that)

The take-home lesson, to me at least is nuclear power is fine, if you actually listen to your own engineers and scientists, and do not compromise.  it is allowing politicians and bean counters to run the programme that introduces  the main risks.

As I find myself complaining quite often these days, leave the hard stuff  to the engineers, the mere neuro-typical brains cannot handle it.

Mike.

mapj1 said:

The take-home lesson, to me at least is nuclear power is fine, if you actually listen to your own engineers and scientists, and do not compromise. 

As we have discussed before, I differ. I am one of those "scientists and engineers" and don't think it is fine. I do have moderately close contact to the industry - for example, I have PhD students working at Framatome, on  cybersecurity, and meet nuclear engineers regularly in standardisation committees. 

So reading your response, it's the security issue that's putting you off Small modular nuclear reactors. Can you tell us what the cyber risks are as your so we'll informed?