Non-renewable energy

Today now.

Coal 7% Wind 1.7%

Other stuff red-lining to get to 39GW

Don't switch your kettles on all at once.

Eat more beans!

In Scotland there will be no cars or gas boilers in 20 years so we are well prepared

The local car dealerships are selling donkeys from 2025

Government clergy only use taxpayer funded taxi rides as part of their sacrifice

"Carbon Neutral" energy for the future. What a load of old shoe makers. The tree hugging eco warriors need to get real!

'Powering Britain',BBC 2 last night was very good. Heysham AGR's .

Even they are scheduled to go before 2030, along with Hinkley+Hunterston with nothing to replace them.

As Hopper suggested, beans ( curried ) may well be the answer.

I don’t care a monkey about where or how the leccy is generated - except we need to reduce fossil burning to the absolute minimum as soon as possible.

I just looked at leccy generation on the ‘Real Time British Electricity Fuel Mix’ site and we are currently dishing up 3.3 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every second from burning fossil fuels.

The UK is a tiny part of the world. That is why it is unsustainable. Nuclear is preferable to burning fossil fuels - apart from the mess to clear up later - but there are cleaner nuclear technologies than our present fleet.

Fossil-burning luddites need to get real.

On the subject of getting real, what's the answer then? Carrying on as we are is not an option.

• Fossil fuels, especially oil, are running out. Expect prices to rise sharply over the next 10 years. Party over.
• Fossil fuels are essential for many purposes other than energy - and we're burning them as if there were no tomorrow.
• Burning fossil fuels has injected large quantities of gasses into the atmosphere that trap solar energy on the surface that would otherwise radiate back into space. The extra heat changes weather and - more seriously - our climate. Whilst it was possible to deny this 20 years ago, evidence that global warming is real has grown, not shrunk. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but there is no significant evidence that the 'Eco-warriors' are wrong. The facts suggest the exact opposite; it's those who don't believe in Global Warming who have blundered.

I'd happily accept the anti-green position if it had a more sensible logic than: 'This cannot be real.' So over to you Bo'sun: falling natural resources and global warming are both real, and both have serious consequences - what's your action plan? 'Do Nothing' is always an option, but you have to explain why it's the best choice.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 27/11/2020 11:17:25

I think the time for burying the head in the sand is over. Sometimes you need to take drastic action in order to force progress; its too easy to sit back doing things the same old way waiting for a better solution to just appear of its own accord.

Even if they don't hit the guidelines, it will galvanise industry into making strides towards those goals rather than just counting the cash until retirement.

NDIY , if it were but so simple as to ignore scientific debate ,rename the devil as “CO2” and proselytise.

The internet is heading toward producing about 3.5 per cent of global emissions via the power it consumes. That would include posting on forums. Who would have thought?

Nuclear was/is the 'way to go' but a certain policy decided to destroy heavy industry, sell everything and burn all the gas to make electricity instead of using it solely for domestic heating.

Wind has a place but ,as today, barely lights a candle even if we "quadrupled" it. Mr 'J's words.

Solar ? Won't boil an egg at night.

Hydro. Ignored. Why ?

Geothermal ?

Whicn leaves , coal.

update for 11.30am

Coal 6.73%

Gas 57%

Nuclear including France 18.49%

Hydro 2%

Pumped storage 0.7%

Wind 1.2%

Solar 1.75%

Much better than the past. We need more nuclear and more reduction in demand as well as more storage and green energy. The swapping of coal for gas helps with the CO2. Most days wind does far better than this but it shows we have the capacity to cope.

regards Martin

Hydro isn't ignored. But you can't just plonk a water wheel across a brook and call it a power station. I suspect that all of the potential sites for hydro-electric plants in the UK already have them.

As the numbers show, none of the lauded renewable sources are replacements for steam turbine power stations. But inelligent use of them would make significant reductions in their emissions. Unfortunately, intelligent long term integrated policies are not things our governments are any good at

People are the problem. Need fewer people.

Also need everyone to understand that energy consumption is not just petrol and electricity but everything converts to energy. For example you employ a builder to build a house. It is starting to be recognised that the bricks represent energy use because of the kiln used to make them etc. However it is less recognised that the labour used is also 100% energy conversion. This is because the worker uses his pay to buy peetrol to get to the site but his food is also energy use, when he buys a car it had energy to make the steel but also teh people paid to make it convert to energy. It is like the trick with mirrors facing each other showing pictures of themselves getting ever smaller. Every little action ultimately converts to energy.
Whn you realise every little activity is actually energy use you realise how much it is being wasted.

Which debate would that be? There are few serious scientists with knowledge of the field that disagree with the consensus, plenty of people who try to promulgate the idea that there is violent disagreement.

Why do the computer modellers assume that a temperature change will be universally disastrous?

Andrew

Edited By Frances IoM on 27/11/2020 11:55:48

It'll cause a major ecological shift and slow evolution to accommodate - if you took people out of the equations. Apparently we lose the gulf stream and get colder which destroys my dream of growing bananas outdoors in Wales

Tidal energy folks? relaible if expensive to get going and the eco-warriors jump on every suggestion.

As to wind power and it's vagaries this is another case where excess capacity when it is blowing and some form of storage would make a huge difference - more pumped hydro perhaps.
Also note that net zero doesn't have to mean absolute zero - for instance we might be able to export leccy when we have excess wind power and therefore offset our need to generate when it's calm.

Siting small nuclear reactors around cities sound s afine ideal - assuming they are of a safe type and security prevents someone flying a plane full of semtex into it... and the darn thing is air-gapped from remote operation.

pgk

John, the debate that you question explicitly accepts exists!

You are aware that a "consensus" is a spread of views and is not "science".

Does a serious scientist differ from an ordinary one by agreeing with your interpretation? Next you will talk of settled

science.

Fossil fuels, especially oil, are running out.

You keep posting that Dave, but the oil companies seem to believe otherwise ? Are BP mistaken when they stated last year that proven reserves were almost 50% greater than in 1999, despite having had 20 years production ? And as the price rises, more known reserves become economic to extract. No excuse not to try and economise on use, but I doubt oil (and gas) will be removed from the mix for a long time.

People are the problem. Need fewer people.

Indeed - but not politically acceptable to raise that.

Smaller nuclear power sources (5- 10MW or even larger 50-100MW) could be cheaper to build

I understand that is an area that is moving fowards. At one point it was mooted to repackage nuclear submarine reactors as small scale power plants, but there was discussion at work recently about this (we do work for the nuclear power industry) & apparently a specific small scale power generation reactor has been designed and (maybe) tested, with discussion now about going into production. Generating electricty nearer to demand would save grid losses - something that is an issue with large scale wind generation as the generating sites are rarely close to the point of consumption.

Tidal energy folks? relaible if expensive to get going and the eco-warriors jump on every suggestion.

The locals in Swansea were in favour of such a scheme IIRC, but it was still thrown out. Seems a better idea than wind to me - as long as there is the Moon we will get two reliable tides a day.

As with so many areas of life - too much politics & vested interests invoved to be able to make sensible progress.

Nigel B.