UK energy
Re: UK energy
Is Grant Shapps right?
"
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP @grantshapps
As the person you are literally trying to convince of your goal, let me put something on the record for you #JustStopOil
Your stunts are pointless. Your anarchist tactics are embarrassing. And your attempts to disrupt British life are backfiring
Just Stop.
"
He also states that JSO's demands will damage UK's energy security, and cost UK 1'000s of jobs [in oil-n-gas production]
(Meanwhile Starmer is promising to cut-back UK oil-n-gas production.)
Who is (more) right??
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-projects :
The aim, he [Starmer] said, should be for the UK to become a world leader in the green energy transition, and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, said Labour’s plans amounted to an “ideological vendetta against British energy independence” that would risk jobs and help Russia in using energy supplies as a weapon.
"
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP @grantshapps
As the person you are literally trying to convince of your goal, let me put something on the record for you #JustStopOil
Your stunts are pointless. Your anarchist tactics are embarrassing. And your attempts to disrupt British life are backfiring
Just Stop.
"
He also states that JSO's demands will damage UK's energy security, and cost UK 1'000s of jobs [in oil-n-gas production]
(Meanwhile Starmer is promising to cut-back UK oil-n-gas production.)
Who is (more) right??
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-projects :
The aim, he [Starmer] said, should be for the UK to become a world leader in the green energy transition, and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, said Labour’s plans amounted to an “ideological vendetta against British energy independence” that would risk jobs and help Russia in using energy supplies as a weapon.
Re: UK energy
Some issues are strategic and can't be handled by on the merits of individual cases.
I look forward to Starmer's announcement of Labour's policy on new extraction. At the moment from what we have been told he's more right.
And the UK has major competitive advantages in many of the areas of technology and manufacturing that are needed for the transition.
Jonathan
I look forward to Starmer's announcement of Labour's policy on new extraction. At the moment from what we have been told he's more right.
And the UK has major competitive advantages in many of the areas of technology and manufacturing that are needed for the transition.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 12:51pm
- Location: Far Away From Intelligent Life
Re: UK energy
I give up.
Fact one: it is how much energy in total that is released as heat into the atmosphere which makes the biggest difference to the air temperature, where that heat energy comes from i.e either from fossilised politicians or from gaseous giants, matters less. The outer atmosphere has dual properties of allowing so much solar radiation down to earth, and insulating so much heat from escaping back up again.
So, produce lots and lots of heat energy quickly, and heh presto, the temperature will go up regardless of where that energy came from oil or solar. That only makes a longer term difference, not an immediate moment by moment difference.
The design of the UK power grid is still based on the 70s model where smaller local power stations were being closed in favour of larger regional power stations. This lead to a grid that likes lots of power to go from a few locations country wide, into all the cities, which doesn't suit the latest green model of many small generation sites dotted around the countryside, all over the place.
It would be better if the money spent on large solar farms was spent giving householders and small businesses which otherwise cannot afford solar, to plant it on their many city located roofs, then the power can be used where it is made and is needed, on stuff like refrigeration and air conditioning.
And by actually for a UK first, collaborating, (read = imposing scientific engineering common sense standards) on BEV chargers, we could also have cars recharged green during the day when they're not been driven which is around 90% of the day for 90% of cars. It's not like we don't now have electronics capable of controlling charging according to supply, so it would be a walk in the park to make a charger system that charges when it receives green energy i.e from solar or wind, and only uses non green energy when the owner has requested a full top up because they have a longer trip planned needing a full charge. But as we know, most of us drive short distances daily, and mostly work during the day, so except for the travelling vacuum salesperson types, this system would work well.
It's only the anti greens, the anti improvement, the anti electric, the anti progress Luddites that sniff petrol so much they can't think for lead on the brain, that want to claim that green energy is useless cos it's not there when you need it (false, greatest rise in need for electricity is daytime air con in summer now) that it can't be controlled (false, computers can control it very well) infrastructure can't cope (mostly true right now but only because of a lack of joined up thinking over 20 years of foreseeable changes)
And still the tory truffle hunters speak with forked tongues. "oh we're helping insulate britain, giving help to those in greatest need"
Priests. (a cunning swear word )
What I have observed over the last 25 years and more, is consistently, the very dwellings in greatest need of insulating, and hence the greatest benefit to energy consumption, has been the typical british housing stock in towns all over. The humble pre 40s terraced house. These are the houses with trickier to insulate walls, and roof spaces with assorted impediments making it more expensive to insulate. But they get ignored in favour of the low lying easy fruit which aren't as energy inefficient anyway.
Done right, you only need insulate once, it's not like painting the Forth Rail Bridge.
Instead, every single new insulation scheme ever created by the tory twits, has been used for mostly post WW2 council housing stock which already, compared to private rented stock, is already far far far better condition. Council stock has had billions pumped into it over the years, money coming from the pockets of all poll tax payers, not just the lucky few council tenants getting subsidised housing which everyone covers the cost of.
Yes I do blame the wicked witch who started the great sell off thereby reducing significantly the amount of housing stock available to rent by working class people, a change which also has allowed the private landlord to flourish and prosper by creating a huge market for a limited supply of properties allowing them to raise year on year rents above the rate of pay increases thereby keeping working class people
locked in poverty because they are always paying, for life, not just 25 years, (better off murdering someone) they are always paying for thier home which is often at a lower standard than others enjoy.
The coming changes are likely to make thousands more people homeless unless property prices fall a lot, and interest rates also fall, but wages don't. Which of course is never gonna happen in this country. New laws for energy efficiency in homes will make more landlords either push up rents even more, else sell up. Many private homes are energy efficiency E or worse. It will soon become illegal without special dis-compensation, to rent out a dwelling with poor ratings.
And it's all because of the changes to pensions for the rich. Well in part anyway. Changes to taxation on very large pension pots (not the £1,109 in my pot but the million plus pension pots that some doctors, lawyers, and other professionals enjoy) meant that some shrewd types decided to invest savings elsewhere like property. Some did try and got their gingers burnt investing in art and cars, but the majority became landlords and property owners. And where ever the money goes, the government follows looking for tax revenues. And the banks look for profit opportunities. So housing stock as an investment now has extra costs due to changes in taxation etc. And those costs get passed onto the renters.
My dad could on a typical working class wage buy a new house in 1960. Without considerable assistance, if a 20 something on a normal wage wanted to buy, they'd whistle in the wind for 40 years, continually trying to build up a deposit which is outstripped by normal house price rises decade on decade. A goal endlessly receding into the distance. Bottom line, land ain't been made in the UK, in fact, the government are quite happy to see more and more of it wash away into the sea, not withstanding that when someone's property gets washed away by coastal erosion, the crown gains title to what was private land, the coastline except by previous title, belongs to the crown.
Fact one: it is how much energy in total that is released as heat into the atmosphere which makes the biggest difference to the air temperature, where that heat energy comes from i.e either from fossilised politicians or from gaseous giants, matters less. The outer atmosphere has dual properties of allowing so much solar radiation down to earth, and insulating so much heat from escaping back up again.
So, produce lots and lots of heat energy quickly, and heh presto, the temperature will go up regardless of where that energy came from oil or solar. That only makes a longer term difference, not an immediate moment by moment difference.
The design of the UK power grid is still based on the 70s model where smaller local power stations were being closed in favour of larger regional power stations. This lead to a grid that likes lots of power to go from a few locations country wide, into all the cities, which doesn't suit the latest green model of many small generation sites dotted around the countryside, all over the place.
It would be better if the money spent on large solar farms was spent giving householders and small businesses which otherwise cannot afford solar, to plant it on their many city located roofs, then the power can be used where it is made and is needed, on stuff like refrigeration and air conditioning.
And by actually for a UK first, collaborating, (read = imposing scientific engineering common sense standards) on BEV chargers, we could also have cars recharged green during the day when they're not been driven which is around 90% of the day for 90% of cars. It's not like we don't now have electronics capable of controlling charging according to supply, so it would be a walk in the park to make a charger system that charges when it receives green energy i.e from solar or wind, and only uses non green energy when the owner has requested a full top up because they have a longer trip planned needing a full charge. But as we know, most of us drive short distances daily, and mostly work during the day, so except for the travelling vacuum salesperson types, this system would work well.
It's only the anti greens, the anti improvement, the anti electric, the anti progress Luddites that sniff petrol so much they can't think for lead on the brain, that want to claim that green energy is useless cos it's not there when you need it (false, greatest rise in need for electricity is daytime air con in summer now) that it can't be controlled (false, computers can control it very well) infrastructure can't cope (mostly true right now but only because of a lack of joined up thinking over 20 years of foreseeable changes)
And still the tory truffle hunters speak with forked tongues. "oh we're helping insulate britain, giving help to those in greatest need"
Priests. (a cunning swear word )
What I have observed over the last 25 years and more, is consistently, the very dwellings in greatest need of insulating, and hence the greatest benefit to energy consumption, has been the typical british housing stock in towns all over. The humble pre 40s terraced house. These are the houses with trickier to insulate walls, and roof spaces with assorted impediments making it more expensive to insulate. But they get ignored in favour of the low lying easy fruit which aren't as energy inefficient anyway.
Done right, you only need insulate once, it's not like painting the Forth Rail Bridge.
Instead, every single new insulation scheme ever created by the tory twits, has been used for mostly post WW2 council housing stock which already, compared to private rented stock, is already far far far better condition. Council stock has had billions pumped into it over the years, money coming from the pockets of all poll tax payers, not just the lucky few council tenants getting subsidised housing which everyone covers the cost of.
Yes I do blame the wicked witch who started the great sell off thereby reducing significantly the amount of housing stock available to rent by working class people, a change which also has allowed the private landlord to flourish and prosper by creating a huge market for a limited supply of properties allowing them to raise year on year rents above the rate of pay increases thereby keeping working class people
locked in poverty because they are always paying, for life, not just 25 years, (better off murdering someone) they are always paying for thier home which is often at a lower standard than others enjoy.
The coming changes are likely to make thousands more people homeless unless property prices fall a lot, and interest rates also fall, but wages don't. Which of course is never gonna happen in this country. New laws for energy efficiency in homes will make more landlords either push up rents even more, else sell up. Many private homes are energy efficiency E or worse. It will soon become illegal without special dis-compensation, to rent out a dwelling with poor ratings.
And it's all because of the changes to pensions for the rich. Well in part anyway. Changes to taxation on very large pension pots (not the £1,109 in my pot but the million plus pension pots that some doctors, lawyers, and other professionals enjoy) meant that some shrewd types decided to invest savings elsewhere like property. Some did try and got their gingers burnt investing in art and cars, but the majority became landlords and property owners. And where ever the money goes, the government follows looking for tax revenues. And the banks look for profit opportunities. So housing stock as an investment now has extra costs due to changes in taxation etc. And those costs get passed onto the renters.
My dad could on a typical working class wage buy a new house in 1960. Without considerable assistance, if a 20 something on a normal wage wanted to buy, they'd whistle in the wind for 40 years, continually trying to build up a deposit which is outstripped by normal house price rises decade on decade. A goal endlessly receding into the distance. Bottom line, land ain't been made in the UK, in fact, the government are quite happy to see more and more of it wash away into the sea, not withstanding that when someone's property gets washed away by coastal erosion, the crown gains title to what was private land, the coastline except by previous title, belongs to the crown.
Bored with earth, where is the mother ship please?
-
- Posts: 5818
- Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm
Re: UK energy
The temperature increase due to direct emission of energy into the atmosphere from combustion is tiny compared to the radiative forcing from the CO2 increase (can't find a quick reference, but from memory tens of thousands of times more).harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm I give up.
Fact one: it is how much energy in total that is released as heat into the atmosphere which makes the biggest difference to the air temperature, where that heat energy comes from i.e either from fossilised politicians or from gaseous giants, matters less. The outer atmosphere has dual properties of allowing so much solar radiation down to earth, and insulating so much heat from escaping back up again.
So, produce lots and lots of heat energy quickly, and heh presto, the temperature will go up regardless of where that energy came from oil or solar. That only makes a longer term difference, not an immediate moment by moment difference.
if the energy comes from solar, the net increase is close to zero, as the energy would have been absorbed as heat if it weren't converted to electricity in a panel, the actual amount being dependent on the albedo of the surface the panel is shading.
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 12:51pm
- Location: Far Away From Intelligent Life
Re: UK energy
solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate. And the radiation from the sun is a different frequency so has different properties than re-radiated heat from surfaces. Hence the net gain does make a difference. That's part of the reason why we are heading for catastrophe with the ice sheets, they reflect the sun so efficiently, replaced with brown earth that absorbs. Likewise as oceans become more polluted, they too absorb more heat energy.
More buildings absorb more heat, more roads absolutely so. The more we pave and cement over the land the more heat we absorb before it can reflect back to space.
Of course the CO2 and various CFCs layers also help to blanket in heat on earth, but they operate actually, rather a long way out to space. The way people talk, it's as if the CO2 layer is a hundred feet above us and acting like a giant duvet. It clearly isn't, it's clearly spread through out the atmosphere.
So any energy that is converted to heat tends to be in the frequency ranges that are more easily trapped, than the original solar heat.
Solar radiation is the radiation that reflects back out the atmosphere the easiest. All the heat generated by human activity less so. Release heat into a semi enclosed system i.e the earth, and if that heat is produced faster than it can be radiated away, the earth heats up.
One or two (not many yet admittedly) environmental scientists have come out and said that while they initially supported the CO2 global warming model, they now see it differently. That it is more about the heat produced, than the CO2 produced that matters. Even David Bellamy before he died retracted some of what he said about climate change. If humans cut down their heat production by reducing superfluous transportation (i.e car to the corner shop for a bottle of milk) wasteful manufacture i.e clothes for fashion, not to only replace worn out clothes, homes for people, not for investment, computing for science, not for emperors new money mining (supposedly just mining bitcoin worldwide is equivalent to one small country's entire energy needs now) ending the space race because in truth the benefits are vastly overstated, ending plane travel except for trans oceanic urgent needs i.e not for fruit and christmas card deliveries. Do that, and we could have more lush greenery all around, and plants eat CO2 for breakfast, and heh presto, a green planet absorbs less heat (still uses the UV of course)
Our view is that by focusing solely on how energy is made, i.e from solar, is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.
More buildings absorb more heat, more roads absolutely so. The more we pave and cement over the land the more heat we absorb before it can reflect back to space.
Of course the CO2 and various CFCs layers also help to blanket in heat on earth, but they operate actually, rather a long way out to space. The way people talk, it's as if the CO2 layer is a hundred feet above us and acting like a giant duvet. It clearly isn't, it's clearly spread through out the atmosphere.
So any energy that is converted to heat tends to be in the frequency ranges that are more easily trapped, than the original solar heat.
Solar radiation is the radiation that reflects back out the atmosphere the easiest. All the heat generated by human activity less so. Release heat into a semi enclosed system i.e the earth, and if that heat is produced faster than it can be radiated away, the earth heats up.
One or two (not many yet admittedly) environmental scientists have come out and said that while they initially supported the CO2 global warming model, they now see it differently. That it is more about the heat produced, than the CO2 produced that matters. Even David Bellamy before he died retracted some of what he said about climate change. If humans cut down their heat production by reducing superfluous transportation (i.e car to the corner shop for a bottle of milk) wasteful manufacture i.e clothes for fashion, not to only replace worn out clothes, homes for people, not for investment, computing for science, not for emperors new money mining (supposedly just mining bitcoin worldwide is equivalent to one small country's entire energy needs now) ending the space race because in truth the benefits are vastly overstated, ending plane travel except for trans oceanic urgent needs i.e not for fruit and christmas card deliveries. Do that, and we could have more lush greenery all around, and plants eat CO2 for breakfast, and heh presto, a green planet absorbs less heat (still uses the UV of course)
Our view is that by focusing solely on how energy is made, i.e from solar, is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.
Bored with earth, where is the mother ship please?
Re: UK energy
NIcely summarised ruby.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:42pmThe temperature increase due to direct emission of energy into the atmosphere from combustion is tiny compared to the radiative forcing from the CO2 increase (can't find a quick reference, but from memory tens of thousands of times more).harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm I give up.
Fact one: it is how much energy in total that is released as heat into the atmosphere which makes the biggest difference to the air temperature, where that heat energy comes from i.e either from fossilised politicians or from gaseous giants, matters less. The outer atmosphere has dual properties of allowing so much solar radiation down to earth, and insulating so much heat from escaping back up again.
So, produce lots and lots of heat energy quickly, and heh presto, the temperature will go up regardless of where that energy came from oil or solar. That only makes a longer term difference, not an immediate moment by moment difference.
if the energy comes from solar, the net increase is close to zero, as the energy would have been absorbed as heat if it weren't converted to electricity in a panel, the actual amount being dependent on the albedo of the surface the panel is shading.
(amazing that someone could live on this earth thru the last 3 decades, and have so much to say about energy use, WITHOUT knowing about greenhouse gases ... )
-
- Posts: 5818
- Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm
Re: UK energy
This is entirely without any scientific support and is wholly wrong.harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate. And the radiation from the sun is a different frequency so has different properties than re-radiated heat from surfaces. Hence the net gain does make a difference. That's part of the reason why we are heading for catastrophe with the ice sheets, they reflect the sun so efficiently, replaced with brown earth that absorbs. Likewise as oceans become more polluted, they too absorb more heat energy.
More buildings absorb more heat, more roads absolutely so. The more we pave and cement over the land the more heat we absorb before it can reflect back to space.
Of course the CO2 and various CFCs layers also help to blanket in heat on earth, but they operate actually, rather a long way out to space. The way people talk, it's as if the CO2 layer is a hundred feet above us and acting like a giant duvet. It clearly isn't, it's clearly spread through out the atmosphere.
So any energy that is converted to heat tends to be in the frequency ranges that are more easily trapped, than the original solar heat.
Solar radiation is the radiation that reflects back out the atmosphere the easiest. All the heat generated by human activity less so. Release heat into a semi enclosed system i.e the earth, and if that heat is produced faster than it can be radiated away, the earth heats up.
One or two (not many yet admittedly) environmental scientists have come out and said that while they initially supported the CO2 global warming model, they now see it differently. That it is more about the heat produced, than the CO2 produced that matters. Even David Bellamy before he died retracted some of what he said about climate change. If humans cut down their heat production by reducing superfluous transportation (i.e car to the corner shop for a bottle of milk) wasteful manufacture i.e clothes for fashion, not to only replace worn out clothes, homes for people, not for investment, computing for science, not for emperors new money mining (supposedly just mining bitcoin worldwide is equivalent to one small country's entire energy needs now) ending the space race because in truth the benefits are vastly overstated, ending plane travel except for trans oceanic urgent needs i.e not for fruit and christmas card deliveries. Do that, and we could have more lush greenery all around, and plants eat CO2 for breakfast, and heh presto, a green planet absorbs less heat (still uses the UV of course)
Our view is that by focusing solely on how energy is made, i.e from solar, is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.
Re: UK energy
What if we use white/cream cement? Would that be OK - it's more reflective than brown earth?harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate. And the radiation from the sun is a different frequency so has different properties than re-radiated heat from surfaces. Hence the net gain does make a difference. That's part of the reason why we are heading for catastrophe with the ice sheets, they reflect the sun so efficiently, replaced with brown earth that absorbs. Likewise as oceans become more polluted, they too absorb more heat energy.
More buildings absorb more heat, more roads absolutely so. The more we pave and cement over the land the more heat we absorb before it can reflect back to space.
p.s. do you know anything about conservation of momentum? We'd appreciate your input on a recent H*lmets thread!
- Chris Jeggo
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 3 Jul 2010, 9:44am
- Location: Surrey
Re: UK energy
Agreed. It is a woolly, pseudo-scientific rant.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 10:48pmThis is entirely without any scientific support and is wholly wrong.
Re: UK energy
"Network of geothermal power stations ‘could help level up UK’
Many of Britain’s poorest towns are in areas with greatest potential for renewable energy, says report"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... evel-up-uk
Many of Britain’s poorest towns are in areas with greatest potential for renewable energy, says report"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... evel-up-uk
Re: UK energy
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm It would be better if the money spent on large solar farms was spent giving householders and small businesses which otherwise cannot afford solar, to plant it on their many city located roofs, then the power can be used where it is made and is needed, on stuff like refrigeration and air conditioning.
harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm Solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate.
...
Our view is that by focusing solely on how energy is made, i.e from solar, is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.
Chris Jeggo wrote: ↑2 Jun 2023, 9:38amAgreed. It is a woolly, pseudo-scientific rant.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 10:48pm This is entirely without any scientific support and is wholly wrong.
Very clearly what harriedgary says is not "wholly wrong", but dare point out "The Science" and official narrative has holes in it so should be open to question and debate, on this forum at least, there is the usual "entirely without scientific support" response with no reasoning other than that it is not acceptable, no matter how many good points are made.
Re: UK energy
I cannot remember much Grant Shapps has ever been right about. The Tories don't understand renewable energy in anything other than monetary terms while the Labour party seems to believe the extraordinarily high cost of nuclear is worthwhile at a time their costs are ever higher and recent world politics suggests that dotting a nation with nuclear power plants is an open goal.
I agree we need a little nuclear power capacity to see the century through while renewables and our lifestyles evolve, but there's a risk that once the Nuclear Lobby get their feet under the table once more, there's every chance we repeat past mistakes of spending too much on nuclear and too little on renewables.
Inflation is crippling the UK economy more than others in large part because of our very high energy prices, with liquid gas being shipped in from the US and Middle East.
I fail to see how shutting down our own FF production, only to have to buy FF from others in vast quantities, makes much sense.
-
- Posts: 5818
- Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm
Re: UK energy
Very clearly, the physical science part is wholly wrong.Biospace wrote: ↑2 Jun 2023, 11:07amharriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 2:22pm It would be better if the money spent on large solar farms was spent giving householders and small businesses which otherwise cannot afford solar, to plant it on their many city located roofs, then the power can be used where it is made and is needed, on stuff like refrigeration and air conditioning.harriedgary wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 3:13pm Solar panels are black(ish) so absorb more heat then they radiate.
...
Our view is that by focusing solely on how energy is made, i.e from solar, is ignoring the elephant dying from starvation in the corner. We use too much energy, and too much resources. Cut back on that, and the world will right itself.Chris Jeggo wrote: ↑2 Jun 2023, 9:38amAgreed. It is a woolly, pseudo-scientific rant.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑1 Jun 2023, 10:48pm This is entirely without any scientific support and is wholly wrong.
Very clearly what harriedgary says is not "wholly wrong", but dare point out "The Science" and official narrative has holes in it so should be open to question and debate, on this forum at least, there is the usual "entirely without scientific support" response with no reasoning other than that it is not acceptable, no matter how many good points are made.
The rest, to be fair, is merely incoherent, bordering on incomprehensible.
Re: UK energy
This is the bit I fear Shapps might be right about! And his further point is that at least we're funding UK jobs by producing FF at home.Biospace wrote: ↑2 Jun 2023, 11:23amI cannot remember much Grant Shapps has ever been right about. The Tories don't understand renewable energy in anything other than monetary terms while the Labour party seems to believe the extraordinarily high cost of nuclear is worthwhile at a time their costs are ever higher and recent world politics suggests that dotting a nation with nuclear power plants is an open goal.
I agree we need a little nuclear power capacity to see the century through while renewables and our lifestyles evolve, but there's a risk that once the Nuclear Lobby get their feet under the table once more, there's every chance we repeat past mistakes of spending too much on nuclear and too little on renewables.
Inflation is crippling the UK economy more than others in large part because of our very high energy prices, with liquid gas being shipped in from the US and Middle East.
I fail to see how shutting down our own FF production, only to have to buy FF from others in vast quantities, makes much sense.
I'm only asking the question, mind, so don't nuke me ...
Re: UK energy
Some of what someone may say may not be right in many people's view, but to condemn them for their style of writing above all else when there is far more which is correct than not is more than a little unfair, surely? Besides, there was a lot of physical science and plenty of it was spot on.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑2 Jun 2023, 11:29am Very clearly, the physical science part is wholly wrong.
The rest, to be fair, is merely incoherent, bordering on incomprehensible.
I feel it was someone who dared to talk about and question the official narrative which prompted certain responses.
Promise
My feeling is that more of our nation's policymaking should be done with cross-party committees with a broad church of knowledgeable people entering the discussion.