Politics

[kent_white]

48 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Isn’t Nuclear classed as renewable?

No - it's a non renewable energy source like coal. Just a very efficient one.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

No - it's a non renewable energy source like coal. Just a very efficient one.

Fusion does seem to be the way forward. 

Unfortunately, I was reading a piece recently about there being a shortage of the requisite isotopes, and that they're very expensive. 

Fission makes me uneasy because of the storage requirements for the waste, and the astronomical decommissioning costs.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, PatrickBateman said:

Awwww, you miss your invite? 😘

Climate experts....the same mob were saying we'd be burning alive by now, Al gore-stylee, nearly 20 years ago. You got a hard-on watching An Inconvenient Truth.

Go nuclear and keep Mr Burns happy.

You don't need to be a climate expert and even if you choose to ignore the science, simple observations are revealing subtle, but telling changes that can't be ignored.

Bear in mind too that places are and will become uninhabitable, and those hoards  will be heading somewhere..

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That is wrong. Renewables produced enough power last year to have used no oil or gas at all. The issue is storage for peak times not overall output. 

They accounted for approximately 50% of overall generation. 

Even with the times some were turned off, it still wasn't enough.

Furthermore, demand for electricity will increase quite significantly as transport moves away from petrochemical fuels.

That, however, isn't a reason to dismiss it.

There equally isn't enough gas fired capacity to meet demand neither. 

[kent_white]

20 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Fusion does seem to be the way forward. 

Unfortunately, I was reading a piece recently about there being a shortage of the requisite isotopes, and that they're very expensive. 

Fission makes me uneasy because of the storage requirements for the waste, and the astronomical decommissioning costs.

Fusion really would be the miracle we've all been hoping for. The slight down side is that the world economy might collapse as the price of fossil fuels would plummet. 

Reading today that the UK is leading the way and hopes to have a viable plant by 2040. This might be what prompted this thread but I can't be arsed looking back. 

If it's true then it would be at least as important as the industrial revolution! 

[BobyBrno]

56 minutes ago, Spider said:

No.

It’s classed as clean energy.

Because the emissions are virtually zero and raw materials needed are a huge amount lower.

Fission and fire are very different.

 

Ta. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word renewable when I really meant clean. At the end of the day though, no energy source is totally ‘clean’ as the manufacturing process will use energy in the short to medium term. Glad we are one of the leaders of wind farm energy production though.👍

[Spider]

11 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Ta. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word renewable when I really meant clean. At the end of the day though, no energy source is totally ‘clean’ as the manufacturing process will use energy in the short to medium term. Glad we are one of the leaders of wind farm energy production though.👍

Part of the reason I voted Labour is their commitment with energy to make it more self-reliant. The Tories always have that whiff of backhanders from big oil about them.

fact is that it’s a long term effort and will cost a lot. But worth it if we end up not having to suck Russian and Saudi cock for our energy

[BobyBrno]

17 minutes ago, Spider said:

Part of the reason I voted Labour is their commitment with energy to make it more self-reliant. The Tories always have that whiff of backhanders from big oil about them.

fact is that it’s a long term effort and will cost a lot. But worth it if we end up not having to suck Russian and Saudi cock for our energy

Well you can’t fault them on their commitment to wind power. Doggar Bank another example. 

[Spider]

4 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Well you can’t fault them on their commitment to wind power. Doggar Bank another example. 

Not sure that’s a Labour project to be honest. But as of their election , they are certainly committed to increasing the pace and investment into energy.

[BobyBrno]

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

Not sure that’s a Labour project to be honest. But as of their election , they are certainly committed to increasing the pace and investment into energy.

It’s not. I wasn’t talking about Labour. The commitment over the last 13 years is what I was talking about. Which is why we are world leaders in it. 

[Spider]

5 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

It’s not. I wasn’t talking about Labour. The commitment over the last 13 years is what I was talking about. Which is why we are world leaders in it. 

It’s a shame so many people with so little knowledge seem sure it’s a waste of time.

Because it really isn’t.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

They accounted for approximately 50% of overall generation. 

Even with the times some were turned off, it still wasn't enough.

Furthermore, demand for electricity will increase quite significantly as transport moves away from petrochemical fuels.

That, however, isn't a reason to dismiss it.

There equally isn't enough gas fired capacity to meet demand neither. 

The issue with renewables and nuclear clean power mix is not capacity it’s the grid and storage. We can generate enough power. But it’s not yet able to deal with peak and trough demands. The worry is that upgrading the grid and developing the storage solutions to get over that hump are very possible but also very expensive. But I think we need to bite the bullet and do it. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

Part of the reason I voted Labour is their commitment with energy to make it more self-reliant. The Tories always have that whiff of backhanders from big oil about them.

fact is that it’s a long term effort and will cost a lot. But worth it if we end up not having to suck Russian and Saudi cock for our energy

A misconception that we weren't doing much about renewables- that graphic illustrates just that. From around 6% to almost 50% in the tenure. Good going.

It's a bit silly though to almost ignore gas etc in the meantime- they're still needed until more renewables are available. Hope we don't become reliant on imports before we reach the net zero target, as that is a risk, and not a secure situation. 

Time will tell.

The use of the crown estate is interesting- from what I understand it takes any borrowing off the government books and onto the crown estate. Makes sense in a way, but presumably that also takes some of any profits off the state and into the crown estate.

I think it's right that onshore wind be utilised again as they're quicker to erect, although smaller and less productive. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

7 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The issue with renewables and nuclear clean power mix is not capacity it’s the grid and storage. We can generate enough power. But it’s not yet able to deal with peak and trough demands. The worry is that upgrading the grid and developing the storage solutions to get over that hump are very possible but also very expensive. But I think we need to bite the bullet and do it. 

Indeed.

Nevertheless, at the moment there is insufficient capacity to produce enough.

My concern is the race seems unbalanced- more generation capacity is no good without the grid network and storage. 

Rishi was right in the sense that the network needing boosting, hence his shift to 2035 for ice ban.

Came too late, as lots of manufacturers had started to shift, but that's another story.

Dunno if SKS will reverse that, but either way, the cables in our streets need replacing up to the major cables from generating sites.

Fucking huge project, and huge cost. Especially given copper prices.

[Sweep]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Fusion does seem to be the way forward. 

Unfortunately, I was reading a piece recently about there being a shortage of the requisite isotopes, and that they're very expensive. 

Fission makes me uneasy because of the storage requirements for the waste, and the astronomical decommissioning costs.

They were talking about this on the radio yesterday, apparently it really is astronomical. The UK currently spends about £4B per year already on the "waste management" of what we already have

[bolty58]

11 hours ago, PatrickBateman said:

Climate denier for saying those stupid fcking turbines don't provide enough power ahahahaha 😄😄

You fcking melt, I'm mis-informed for pointing out your 'green energy' bollocks is a load of twaddle 😄😄

We should go nuclear and try and save the people of the UK money on their leccy bills, instead we're spunking millions supposedly going green to keep wankers like you happy 😊 😃 

Absolutely spot on. Nuclear is, and has always been, the answer.

[bolty58]

6 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Fusion does seem to be the way forward. 

Unfortunately, I was reading a piece recently about there being a shortage of the requisite isotopes, and that they're very expensive. 

Fission makes me uneasy because of the storage requirements for the waste, and the astronomical decommissioning costs.

Elon Musk is getting more and more efficient at sending stuff up. No reason why the payloads couldn't be nuclear waste.

Point it at the moon - the fucker glows in the dark anyway. Alternatively send it into the vastness of the cosmos. It would be millennia before the little green men arrive with protest banners and orange paint.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

49 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Elon Musk is getting more and more efficient at sending stuff up. No reason why the payloads couldn't be nuclear waste.

Point it at the moon - the fucker glows in the dark anyway. Alternatively send it into the vastness of the cosmos. It would be millennia before the little green men arrive with protest banners and orange paint.

I'd be slightly concerned about another one going pop and spreading particulates throughout the atmosphere. 

That said, I've thought about that before. Leave it on the far side, where the Chinese are currently exploring.

[Sweep]

53 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Elon Musk is getting more and more efficient at sending stuff up.

They'd never risk it, in case the payload never makes it to space, apparently it'd also cause an issue with far too much debris in orbit  -  they waffled on about it earlier on the radio, but I wasn't really listening too hard, but the gist was that sending nuclear waste up into space is not an option at present.

 

Apparently we've still got around 150/200 years of fossil fuels left, so I'm happy enough for them to keep burning them for the forseeable future, as it won't affect me 😀

Edited July 26, 2024 by Sweep

[Sweep]

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I'd be slightly concerned about another one going pop and spreading particulates throughout the atmosphere. 

That said, I've thought about that before. Leave it on the far side, where the Chinese are currently exploring.

If you can get it up and out of the atmosphere, then just send it towards the sun, no need to point it towards the moon. You're right though, some mishap at launch, and there's possibly a bit of a problem

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 hours ago, Sweep said:

They were talking about this on the radio yesterday, apparently it really is astronomical. The UK currently spends about £4B per year already on the "waste management" of what we already have

Can believe it.

Such is the life expectancy of these places, it's almost impossible to accurately estimate future costs, and indeed what the regulations will be in those later decades.

There is also a hidden "green" issue with them given the huge amount of concrete etc required to build them. But that's a really difficult bit of analysis to complete.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

8 minutes ago, Sweep said:

If you can get it up and out of the atmosphere, then just send it towards the sun, no need to point it towards the moon. You're right though, some mishap at launch, and there's possibly a bit of a problem

Good idea that. Total recycling- give it back to where it came from.

[tyldesley_white]

17 hours ago, PatrickBateman said:

Climate denier for saying fcking turbines don't provide enough power ahahahaha 😄😄

You fcking melt, I'm mis-informed for pointing out your 'green energy' bollocks is a load of twaddle 😄😄

We should go nuclear and try and save the people of the UK money on their leccy bills, instead we're spunking millions supposedly going green to keep wankers like you happy 😊 😃 

Millions you say, Sizewell 'c' cost is 20 to 30 billion , that's billion with a 'B'

[gonzo]

Britain conned!

[bolty58]

35 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Britain conned!

Give it time. This is coming. Reds were needed to break the stale incompetence of too many terms in office by the blues. I'll give it til Q1 next year until the Labour tax grab is in full swing and their BBC lackey and the One Eyed Black Lesbians Against The Bomb organisation are basking in the land of milk and honey.