Clean power to overtake fossil fuels in Britain in 2019

[Bluespunk]

Just now, ThaiBunny said:

And what exactly do you think we can against the vested interests who support technologies such as coal?

Did you even read the OP?

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

That line's getting a bit old, isn't it?

 

Meanwhile, the EU hands out hundreds of millions of euros of grants each year to 'green' groups,  some of which funding seems to be used to lobby the EU into promoting 'green' policies; it's well-known as the 'cash carousel'.

 

I would say that qualifies them for the description 'Big Green'.

Quite.  I'm a climate change supporter - but sadly, it's become a political issue to gain more money and votes.

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may prefer to ignore the history of course......

As most activists do.

 

France, the 6th biggest economy in the world, has been getting over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power for 30 years. And it still hasn't had a fatal accident. Per terawatt-hour, nuclear is the safest form of energy on the planet.

 

 DEATHS FATAL/TWH     TWH NOTES

Nuclear 0.04

Hydro 0.10

Solar (rooftop) 0.1

Wind 0.15

Coal - USA 10.0

Natural Gas - 20.0

Oil - 52.0

Coal - China 325.0

Coal - World 244.0

 

www.nextbigfuture.com

 

 

ENERGY SOURCE 

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

And when climate change has got to the point where there is no turning back?

 

What happens then?

 

We will all be collateral damage because we wanted cheap yet disastrous forms of energy production.

 

Or don't you care about that?

You misunderstand as I agree with the 'climate change' argument.

 

My concern is that the 'solutions' will hit the poor far more than the wealthy......

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You misunderstand as I agree with the 'climate change' argument.

 

My concern is that the 'solutions' will hit the poor far more than the wealthy......

It will hit us all, but climate change demands that the changes happening now succeed. 

 

The personal finances cost is the price we all pay.

 

Oh, and by the way, I am far from wealthy. So, implying my views on the cost we will all pay is because I am wealthy, is wrong.

 

I support the renewable energy sources because they are the only current option that can ameliorate climate change. I accept the cost because that is the reality of our current situation.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Bluespunk
grammar

[dick dasterdly]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A little reading on who is most affected by climate change might broaden that point of view.

I agree, but the cost is to be shared amongst the poor in wealthy countries - not just those making money out of either environmental/non- environmental ventures....

[dick dasterdly]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A little reading on who is most affected by climate change might broaden that point of view.

And reading who will pay (i.e consumers) will broaden that horizon even further.....

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree, but the cost is to be shared amongst the poor in wealthy countries - not just those making money out of either environmental/non- environmental ventures....

I separate the two issues.

 

1. Re-tooling the nation’s energy production towards Green.

 

2. Resolving the nation’s wealth disparity.

 

A simple adjustment to energy taxation can address the imbalance in the proportion of costs across income.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And reading who will pay (i.e consumers) will broaden that horizon even further.....

There is absolutely no reason why lower income consumers need pay a higher proportion - take a look at the tax take on energy bills, there is plenty of room to change energy taxation to be fairer to people on low incomes.

[dick dasterdly]

33 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

And when climate change has got to the point where there is no turning back?

 

What happens then?

 

We will all be collateral damage because we wanted cheap yet disastrous forms of energy production.

 

Or don't you care about that?

Really?

 

You're trying to ignore my 'argument' that the poor/average will pay - not the extremely wealthy ?

 

Edit - percentage of income wise.

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Really?

 

You're trying to ignore my 'argument' that the poor/average will pay - not the extremely wealthy ?

 

And how exactly do you come to that conclusion?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree, but the cost is to be shared amongst the poor in wealthy countries - not just those making money out of either environmental/non- environmental ventures....

You neglect who bears the cost of climate change impacts.

 

You ignore the fact the cost of renewables is falling.

 

And let’s not get into wars caught for access to wind and sunlight.

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As most activists do.

 

France, the 6th biggest economy in the world, has been getting over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power for 30 years. And it still hasn't had a fatal accident. Per terawatt-hour, nuclear is the safest form of energy on the planet.

 

 DEATHS FATAL/TWH     TWH NOTES

Nuclear 0.04

Hydro 0.10

Solar (rooftop) 0.1

Wind 0.15

Coal - USA 10.0

Natural Gas - 20.0

Oil - 52.0

Coal - China 325.0

Coal - World 244.0

 

www.nextbigfuture.com

 

 

ENERGY SOURCE 

Only until things go wrong as per the various examples....

 

Windscale had to be renamed as sellafield - and no-one (?) is likely to forget either Chernobyl or the Japanese equivalent.....

 

There are a few other examples of things having gone horribly wrong in the nuclear power facility.....

[CGW]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You almost had me feeling sorry for the poor old fossil fuel sector and those helpless nuclear energy types.

"Fossil" fuel (Rockerfell's name - great selling point) or Abiogenic oil? either way the same source as will be used to generate taxes and make the magic windmills, how much energy goes into making them? 

Somebody is playing with numbers here, the Greenies/progressive / lefties will be jumping up and down with joy trying to force their disjointed opinion on all.

The UK used 1.6 million Bbls of oil a day in 2018, down slightly from previous years (1.53 lowest in recent decades), it has no industry left so that accounts for a lot of usage, in the meantime - their are fortunes to be made from folks gullibility!

Nonsense article - pure fabrication - fuel for those that need it ???? 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Pilotman said:

and at what cost? It's easy to meet targets like this if you don't care how much the consumer has to pay, also pay odious amounts of cash to the senior managers of utility companies and destroy the natural environment with millions of ugly wind generators that do bugger all when the wind doesn't blow.   Meanwhile, India, China and the US continue to pollute the earth with impunity, while good old tiny UK lead the field. No well done from me, more like 'get real folks and let everyone else do their bit first'.  

I'm all for anything that reduces pollution of any kind. I'm happy if coal isn't getting burnt in Britain as long as they ain't importing electricity from coal burners in Holland.

I like seeing those windmills, as it says no pollution, though I'm concerned about the birds that may be killed in them.

I have no problems seeing them in the landscape. They have a sort of masculine beauty that all big machinery has.

However, I don't understand why they don't go for wave generated electricity. No visual impact at all, and work most of the time, especially in the Atlantic.

 

Just because China etc pollute doesn't mean that Britain has to.

Re cost- so long as there is a lot of it, the cost will come down.

More important is what happens when the  batteries need replacing.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Only until things go wrong as per the various examples....

 

Windscale had to be renamed as sellafield - and no-one (?) is likely to forget either Chernobyl or the Japanese equivalent.....

 

There are a few other examples of things having gone horribly wrong in the nuclear power facility.....

Every nuclear accident was caused by human error, and can be avoided if clever people are in charge.

Till fusion comes along, nuclear fission is the best option.

[CGW]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just because China etc pollute doesn't mean that Britain has to.

I agree, & their in a great position to "clean up" as they have encouraged all "Industry" to move to China! despite the devastation is has caused to people that relied on the industries to make a living, those behind the "move" have of cause profited and helped build the "social divide"

Yet the overall consumption of abiogenic fuel continues to rise worldwide on a daily basis.

[PETERTHEEATER]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I thought the UK was nearly all gas turbines.

British politicians produce the most and best quality gas.....

[Thongkorn]

We have thousands of these monster wind turbines near us and i mean thousands, Some are off shore and some are on land like forests, they are causing problems at sea, killing birds , disrupting seals, They are an eye sore.

[Pilotman]

3 hours ago, jonclark said:

But I bet you are glad to have a UK passport given the freedoms it provides you, as it gives you access to 186 countries world wide...Small and insignificant indeed. 

 

what has that got to do with anything here? 

[Pilotman]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Britan may be a small  nation but she and her people have had a giant impact on the world as we know it and by far more good than bad once again britan is leading kudos major kudos

Ha, now that is debatable and a good subject for a long argument (discussion). I'm not sure that the UK's Colonial past covers it in much glory. 

[Pilotman]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'd like to agree, but why did you miss out on the cost of nuclear energy?

didn't want to start another forum fight,  For me, it's the only viable option. 

[Stocky]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

But no reference to nuclear energy - the most expensive and dangerous....

And the environmental costs of fossil fuels aren't included either - that bill is yet to be paid! 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Ha, now that is debatable and a good subject for a long argument (discussion). I'm not sure that the UK's Colonial past covers it in much glory. 

British colonisation of Singapore gave it better drains than those in Thailand.

It may not have been wonderful worldwide, but better than the  Belgians in the Congo.

[Pilotman]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

British colonisation of Singapore gave it better drains than those in Thailand.

It may not have been wonderful worldwide, but better than the  Belgians in the Congo.

I think you will find that the Singaporeans built them after Independence. Most good things, where good things happened at all,  seemed to have happened in the former Colonies after the UK had left. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every nuclear accident was caused by human error, and can be avoided if clever people are in charge.

Till fusion comes along, nuclear fission is the best option.

So 'clever people' are not human subject to human error?

 

 

[geoffbezoz]

13 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

I think you will find that the Singaporeans built them after Independence. Most good things, where good things happened at all,  seemed to have happened in the former Colonies after the UK had left. 

Didn't work out too well for Rhodesia though did it ?

However throughout history Empires where built by colonising countries , not for the prime purpose of improving the lot of the indigenous population, rather than to extract minerals, timber and other goods in order to enrich the dominant power.  And nothing has changed to this very day as can be seen by wars and invasions by major powers in order to benefit from oil.

Edited June 21, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, CGW said:

I agree, & their in a great position to "clean up" as they have encouraged all "Industry" to move to China! despite the devastation is has caused to people that relied on the industries to make a living, those behind the "move" have of cause profited and helped build the "social divide"

Yet the overall consumption of abiogenic fuel continues to rise worldwide on a daily basis.

Stating the consumption of abiogenic fuel consumption continues to rise, is misleading (probably deliberately so). 

 

Renewable energy usage is also increasing each year, as is economic activity. 

 

Referring to single sets of data presented out of context are meaningless. 

 

[connda]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Britain, the birth place of coal power, is set this year to use more electricity from zero-carbon sources such as wind, solar and nuclear than from fossil fuel plants for the first time, the country's National Grid said on Friday.

Nuclear.  Nice zero-carbon clean energy.  Just look at Chernobyl and Fukushima. 

BTW.  How's that aquifer-destroying fracking coming along in the UK?

[attrayant]

I would be better to say that accidents can be prevented or reduced, the more we adhere to best design practices and embrace technological improvements.  While Chernobyl and Fukushima were ecological disasters, the impact footprint was tiny compared to that of fossil fuels.  Sadly, these incidents created a nuclear boogeyman, and he has effectively paralyzed progress in making better and safer plants.

 

2 minutes ago, connda said:

Nuclear.  Nice zero-carbon clean energy.  Just look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

I see the boogeyman has gotten to you.  Using Chernobyl as an argument against building a nuclear reactor with today's technology is like using the Hindenburg disaster as an argument against building an airplane today.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by attrayant