This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Why was Didcot "A" Power Station Demolished a Columnist Asks?

The demolition of Didcot "A" power station removed about 1.44 GigaWatts of generation. So why was it demolished when China is building many new coal fired power stations? Couldn't it have been made to operate in a cleaner way by filtering emissions etc?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7567013/PETER-HITCHENS-Ill-tell-truth-fanatics-Extinction-Rebellion.html


Z.
Parents
  • Nothing wrong with conserving energy if it saves money, can't argue with that, but for the other issues, all of this presupposes that c02 is actually a villain here.

    Many would argue not, those dissenting voices which present the real science are silenced if they voice their professional opinions which don't chime in with the way the mainstream has presented the argument. You cannot get research grant funding now unless you add something like '....as a consequence of climate change'.

    So for example - "I wish to conduct research into how red squirrels store their nuts for the winter across various regions of the UK."

    Submit that and you will get a big fat zero.

    However, if you add the closer '..as a consequence of climate change' to your request, the funding bodies are your oyster.

    Fall-out from this affects medical research and many other kinds of useful studies.

    In terms of coal fired power, whatever happened to the Govt grants which used to be available for Clean Coal Technology?

    We could have had a sustainable coal fired generation industry if these climate change nuts actually acknowledged the real science instead of jumping upon what is rapidly becoming a global political project, and no good will come of it in the long term.
Reply
  • Nothing wrong with conserving energy if it saves money, can't argue with that, but for the other issues, all of this presupposes that c02 is actually a villain here.

    Many would argue not, those dissenting voices which present the real science are silenced if they voice their professional opinions which don't chime in with the way the mainstream has presented the argument. You cannot get research grant funding now unless you add something like '....as a consequence of climate change'.

    So for example - "I wish to conduct research into how red squirrels store their nuts for the winter across various regions of the UK."

    Submit that and you will get a big fat zero.

    However, if you add the closer '..as a consequence of climate change' to your request, the funding bodies are your oyster.

    Fall-out from this affects medical research and many other kinds of useful studies.

    In terms of coal fired power, whatever happened to the Govt grants which used to be available for Clean Coal Technology?

    We could have had a sustainable coal fired generation industry if these climate change nuts actually acknowledged the real science instead of jumping upon what is rapidly becoming a global political project, and no good will come of it in the long term.
Children
No Data