These Environmental nutters
#21
(04-18-2019, 07:32 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:15 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 05:54 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 05:47 PM)Cunninghamismagic Wrote: Lots of white MCW who can afford green energy?

Afford green energy? Offshore wind and solar are dirt cheap, cheaper than nuclear, coal and oil and comparable to natural gas. The only obstruction is nimbyism and a lack of government investment to offset the lack of private sector demand.

So very wrong, wind and solar don't work well enough to supply anywhere near enough energy to replace coal, gas and nuclear. There was a very good study done by the IMechE that looked into this, either our devices that use power need to become around 1000% more efficient or the future is bleak.

It's not wrong, solar and wind have a lower price per kWh than all but natural gas plants. The problem arises from their use as a baseline for power generation due to their inconsistency but that's a different argument to green energy and the problems with that stem from public perception of nuclear generators and the lack of investment into them. The only problems with getting them widely adopted are due to the lack of investment into large scale plants and nimbyism. People don't realise how expensive coal and oil power generation is and new nuclear reactors cost billions.

As an aside, I'm pro nuclear and I wish our government and the German government were looking at the French way of generating power and Canadian research into the fission sector (thorium and feeder reactors specifically). In an ideal world we'd have as many fission reactors as France to provide a very solid baseline and more offshore wind plants to provide flexibility.

To get anywhere near enough energy from renewables we would have to cover most of the usable land in the UK with a mix of solar, wind and wave.  That also assumes we cut our expenditure at the same time.  Where does the food come from now, we would have to import it all, this just pushes the emissions somewhere else.  

Have a read here http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

A solution requires significant investment into new technologies in both power gen and lower energy consumption (which means more taxes, no one votes for that).  Also a reduction in our expectations is required, no new phone every 24 months, no plane flights on holiday 2x a year.

I've read the 10 page summary document for the book you linked and get what your point is but don't understand what that has to do with mine. I'm not saying that we should power the entire country with renewables, I'm saying that solar power and offshore wind are dirt cheap.
Reply
#22
The Orkney Islands are using a lot of hydrogen in vehicles instead which has no harmful emissions - but I think currently it still uses electricity and therfore fossil fuels to make it.... but such innovations are a start.

Protests are going to inconvenience many and that's the aim for publicity hoping to effect change. Sometimes that is needed and sometimes breaking the law is needed to eventually get enough backing and notice - as per the Suffragettes - whether that applies in this case we won't know till they are studying it in history decades hence (if civilisation srill exists)
Reply
#23
Having been impacted in London by the disruption & having spoken to those people involved I fully back them.

Look deep inside into what’s happen to this country, it’s priorities & what is hope img to the planet & you can’t ignore them & everything they stand for
Reply
#24
(04-18-2019, 07:54 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 07:32 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:15 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 05:54 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: Afford green energy? Offshore wind and solar are dirt cheap, cheaper than nuclear, coal and oil and comparable to natural gas. The only obstruction is nimbyism and a lack of government investment to offset the lack of private sector demand.

So very wrong, wind and solar don't work well enough to supply anywhere near enough energy to replace coal, gas and nuclear. There was a very good study done by the IMechE that looked into this, either our devices that use power need to become around 1000% more efficient or the future is bleak.

It's not wrong, solar and wind have a lower price per kWh than all but natural gas plants. The problem arises from their use as a baseline for power generation due to their inconsistency but that's a different argument to green energy and the problems with that stem from public perception of nuclear generators and the lack of investment into them. The only problems with getting them widely adopted are due to the lack of investment into large scale plants and nimbyism. People don't realise how expensive coal and oil power generation is and new nuclear reactors cost billions.

As an aside, I'm pro nuclear and I wish our government and the German government were looking at the French way of generating power and Canadian research into the fission sector (thorium and feeder reactors specifically). In an ideal world we'd have as many fission reactors as France to provide a very solid baseline and more offshore wind plants to provide flexibility.

To get anywhere near enough energy from renewables we would have to cover most of the usable land in the UK with a mix of solar, wind and wave.  That also assumes we cut our expenditure at the same time.  Where does the food come from now, we would have to import it all, this just pushes the emissions somewhere else.  

Have a read here http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

A solution requires significant investment into new technologies in both power gen and lower energy consumption (which means more taxes, no one votes for that).  Also a reduction in our expectations is required, no new phone every 24 months, no plane flights on holiday 2x a year.

I've read the 10 page summary document for the book you linked and get what your point is but don't understand what that has to do with mine. I'm not saying that we should power the entire country with renewables, I'm saying that solar power and offshore wind are dirt cheap.

Cheap and make little impact. A large point of that book is to refute the "if we all do a little it will add up to a lot" argument. Renewables currently add up to a little, they are not the solution.
Reply
#25
Can we use salt?
Reply
#26
(04-18-2019, 08:16 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 07:54 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 07:32 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:15 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)Morley Wrote: So very wrong, wind and solar don't work well enough to supply anywhere near enough energy to replace coal, gas and nuclear. There was a very good study done by the IMechE that looked into this, either our devices that use power need to become around 1000% more efficient or the future is bleak.

It's not wrong, solar and wind have a lower price per kWh than all but natural gas plants. The problem arises from their use as a baseline for power generation due to their inconsistency but that's a different argument to green energy and the problems with that stem from public perception of nuclear generators and the lack of investment into them. The only problems with getting them widely adopted are due to the lack of investment into large scale plants and nimbyism. People don't realise how expensive coal and oil power generation is and new nuclear reactors cost billions.

As an aside, I'm pro nuclear and I wish our government and the German government were looking at the French way of generating power and Canadian research into the fission sector (thorium and feeder reactors specifically). In an ideal world we'd have as many fission reactors as France to provide a very solid baseline and more offshore wind plants to provide flexibility.

To get anywhere near enough energy from renewables we would have to cover most of the usable land in the UK with a mix of solar, wind and wave.  That also assumes we cut our expenditure at the same time.  Where does the food come from now, we would have to import it all, this just pushes the emissions somewhere else.  

Have a read here http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

A solution requires significant investment into new technologies in both power gen and lower energy consumption (which means more taxes, no one votes for that).  Also a reduction in our expectations is required, no new phone every 24 months, no plane flights on holiday 2x a year.

I've read the 10 page summary document for the book you linked and get what your point is but don't understand what that has to do with mine. I'm not saying that we should power the entire country with renewables, I'm saying that solar power and offshore wind are dirt cheap.

Cheap and make little impact. A large point of that book is to refute the "if we all do a little it will add up to a lot" argument. Renewables currently add up to a little, they are not the solution.

Again, I'm not saying the "if we all do a little it will add up to a lot" argument though, I'm saying solar and wind dirt cheap in response to CiM saying that it's for MCWs who can afford it. I'm well aware of the limitations of renewables, hence me saying that I want our baseline power to be nuclear based with renewables providing grid flexibility.
Reply
#27
I am trying to reduce my own environmental pollution.

Could have had a Royal Adeel tonight but resisted.
Reply
#28
nuclear power easy

countries like china and india are spending a lot of money on renewable energy

what caused the mini ice age
Reply
#29
(04-18-2019, 08:16 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 07:54 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 07:32 PM)Morley Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:15 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)Morley Wrote: So very wrong, wind and solar don't work well enough to supply anywhere near enough energy to replace coal, gas and nuclear. There was a very good study done by the IMechE that looked into this, either our devices that use power need to become around 1000% more efficient or the future is bleak.

It's not wrong, solar and wind have a lower price per kWh than all but natural gas plants. The problem arises from their use as a baseline for power generation due to their inconsistency but that's a different argument to green energy and the problems with that stem from public perception of nuclear generators and the lack of investment into them. The only problems with getting them widely adopted are due to the lack of investment into large scale plants and nimbyism. People don't realise how expensive coal and oil power generation is and new nuclear reactors cost billions.

As an aside, I'm pro nuclear and I wish our government and the German government were looking at the French way of generating power and Canadian research into the fission sector (thorium and feeder reactors specifically). In an ideal world we'd have as many fission reactors as France to provide a very solid baseline and more offshore wind plants to provide flexibility.

To get anywhere near enough energy from renewables we would have to cover most of the usable land in the UK with a mix of solar, wind and wave.  That also assumes we cut our expenditure at the same time.  Where does the food come from now, we would have to import it all, this just pushes the emissions somewhere else.  

Have a read here http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

A solution requires significant investment into new technologies in both power gen and lower energy consumption (which means more taxes, no one votes for that).  Also a reduction in our expectations is required, no new phone every 24 months, no plane flights on holiday 2x a year.

I've read the 10 page summary document for the book you linked and get what your point is but don't understand what that has to do with mine. I'm not saying that we should power the entire country with renewables, I'm saying that solar power and offshore wind are dirt cheap.

Cheap and make little impact. A large point of that book is to refute the "if we all do a little it will add up to a lot" argument. Renewables currently add up to a little, they are not the solution.

(04-18-2019, 09:16 PM)spyro 123 Wrote: nuclear power easy

countries like china and india are spending a lot of money on renewable energy

what caused the mini ice age

Was it a conspiracy by any chance?
Reply
#30
(04-18-2019, 08:01 PM)Pickle Rick Wrote: The Orkney Islands are using a lot of hydrogen in vehicles instead which has no harmful emissions - but I think currently it still uses electricity and therfore fossil fuels to make it.... but such innovations are a start.

Protests are going to inconvenience many and that's the aim for publicity hoping to effect change. Sometimes that is needed and sometimes breaking the law is needed to eventually get enough backing and notice - as per the Suffragettes - whether that applies in this case we won't know till they are studying it in history decades hence (if civilisation srill exists)
Soz Pick, for being a pedant but the Suffragette’s campaign of “Deeds not words” had been abandoned four years when women were given the franchise. I would suggest it was not the criminal actions of a few wealthy middle class women that won them the vote but the responsible behaviour of the millions of ordinary women in the roles and duties they performed during the Great War, showing that women were as capable and intelligent as men which won round the MPs. The suffragette campaign of violent action had been running for eleven years with very little sign of success. Indeed attitudes were hardening against them.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)