The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

How is coal used for power generation in the UK an environmental disaster?

Pollution/air quality. And don't you think all those mines where excavation was carried out had an adverse affect on the ecological and environmental matters?

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

Now there's a question.

You obviously don't believe global warming is a threat and upto now it's not apparent if it is going to be one, but I am concerned enough to take what is being said seriously.

There does seem to be multiple effects proposed, and multiple outcomes so it's hard to gaze into the crystal ball and know for sure, but are you so sure it's all a con?

Should we just continue as we were, or wait for more evidence, or try to reduce co2 ?

Actually, it's probably going to be pissing in the wind because I can't see Africa with a tripled population not burning everything they've got.

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

First off, I'm not the one talking "disaster".

Secondly, I've already mentioned some of the issues of coal. Does it really matter whether it's 2017 or not?

It's simple really. Coal is not conducive for quality air or ecological and environmental matters.

Your post 12/12/2017 20:09hrs ">Besides, it could be argued that coal is "affordable", but yet environmentally it is a disaster. <"

Either it is an environmental disaster or it isn't.

Edit: For equivalent power output, coal-burning power stations in 2017 produce fewer polluting emissions than coal-burning power stations in - say - 1957.

Edited by V8 Fettler on Wednesday 13th December 15:37

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

But if V8 Fettler didn't adamantly believe that it was a con, He wouldn't be able to be the voice of obstructive disruption so easily - and loses all that glory.

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Is "obstructive disruption" an alternative term for "different opinion"?

I've found something simple that might help you to understand volts http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/...

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

FFS - really ?

What does that apply to?

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

FFS - really ?

What does that apply to?

You and your stupid semantics and inability to read.

Intentionally fking around derailing a useful discussion to dwell on whether ‘Volts flow’ or Coal burning being an environmental disaster meant ‘disaster’ or ‘disaster’

Are you one of those emotional types that doesn't function well under stress and cannot communicate in a logical coherent manner?

Have you had a chance to read the "volts" link I posted earlier? It would be a good starting point for you.

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

V8 Fettler said:

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

How is coal used for power generation in the UK an environmental disaster?

Pollution/air quality. And don't you think all those mines where excavation was carried out had an adverse affect on the ecological and environmental matters?

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

Now there's a question.

You obviously don't believe global warming is a threat and upto now it's not apparent if it is going to be one, but I am concerned enough to take what is being said seriously.

There does seem to be multiple effects proposed, and multiple outcomes so it's hard to gaze into the crystal ball and know for sure, but are you so sure it's all a con?

Should we just continue as we were, or wait for more evidence, or try to reduce co2 ?

Actually, it's probably going to be pissing in the wind because I can't see Africa with a tripled population not burning everything they've got.

The world's climate was changing before mankind arrived, it will continue to change after mankind is extinct.

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Why? Are we nearly there with a solution? Is everyone else getting better progress by increasing funding?

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Are you one of those emotional types that doesn't function well under stress and cannot communicate in a logical coherent manner?

Have you had a chance to read the "volts" link I posted earlier? It would be a good starting point for you.

No

Proof ?

I’m sat with the Labrador in front of the log burner watching Netflix
Zero stress

I think you are acting like a dick.


Now, we have cleared that up- Stop fking up the thread like a good boy.

Your response is emotional, incoherent and illogical, would you not be better employed in the media or the arts? Although emotional, incoherent and illogical does describe many who support wind generation as a viable alternative to coal, nuclear and gas.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I think you are acting like a dick.

Now, we have cleared that up- Stop fking up the thread like a good boy.

This and your arrogant attitude when corrected on basic science leads me to the conclusion that you have been brainwashed by the green blob. I shall take no further notice of your tripe and you will see no further comment from me on your verbal diarrhoea.

[V8 Fettler]

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Why? Are we nearly there with a solution? Is everyone else getting better progress by increasing funding?

UK taxpayer funding for fusion research is less than £100million per annum, how much tax money is being used to subsidise renewables? £6billion per annum?

Commercial fusion offer limitless energy that will work when it's windy and when it's not windy.

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Why? Are we nearly there with a solution? Is everyone else getting better progress by increasing funding?

UK taxpayer funding for fusion research is less than £100million per annum, how much tax money is being used to subsidise renewables? £6billion per annum?

Commercial fusion offer limitless energy that will work when it's windy and when it's not windy.

But given the limited number of Fusion research facilities we can support due to finite resources (namely engineers, scientists and, ironically, energy) what evidence is there that more money will provide a faster solution?

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

The world's climate was changing before mankind arrived, it will continue to change after mankind is extinct.

Your right, of course.

Let's face it, one day the planet is going to be burnt to a crisp by an expanding sun but that's no reason to say oh sod it

you can also argue, that all that co2 was in the air at one time and life still flourished.

We must be careful not to confuse co2 with death of life, it will carry on quite happily, it's us we need to consider and let's face it, over population is probably a much bigger threat and no one is doing anything about that (though trump and Putin might )

there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that increasing co2 concentration in the atmosphere may lead to worse environmental effects than our society will handle.

do you believe that increasing co2 won't cause any harmful effects that human kind wouldn't be better stopping before they start?

I do think you might have a point about fusion, if all the wind farm subsidies were put together into the iter and other programs, I wonder how much it would bring practical fusion nearer.

[wc98]

Gary C said:

but are you so sure it's all a con?

Should we just continue as we were, or wait for more evidence, or try to reduce co2 ?

Actually, it's probably going to be pissing in the wind because I can't see Africa with a tripled population not burning everything they've got.

as far as con goes i think that can only be labeled at a few individuals within the climate "science" community.like all branches of science paradigms are established then torn down and a new one appears. i have no doubt climate science will be the same.

i think it is accepted that all major universities these days are first and foremost businesses . in that respect i would not expect them to do anything that would affect their income and further down the chain the individual scientists that rely on the same funding after giving a cut to the university the same situation exists. shukla's gold would be a good term for you to search to get a grasp of the eye watering amounts of money involved in climate science funding.

note the above applies to all disciplines ,i have a friend that is a royal society fellow, i find it all a bit seedy in terms of how the arse licking, back scratching etc goes on in relation to becoming part of the right "clique" so you can at least try and get on and do your job, though to be fair it appears to be worse in the soft sciences where all sorts of chancers that are nowhere near as smart as they think they are can get away with it for a long time.marine biology springs to mind in this instance.

agreed re sub saharan africa. if it can't be burnt, fked or eaten it is of no use.

[StanleyT]

Anyone got any spare coal or Uranium? Be a good time to put it on the swap exchanges!

Apologies from the Forties pipeline, we may be a bit short on gas sooner than later the next few weeks.

Fortunately, one of our lads from store has access to reactor tape (a slightly stronger version of gaffa tape used on nuclear reactors) and as soon as he can get on his way up Norn of Perth he'll tape the pipeline up.

Was I think the gist of this mornings "daily markets, engineering and emergent issues" team brief but tbh I was fapping tired and didn't pay 100% attention, the stationary windfarm image on the conference room wall mesmerised me into boreddom, apart from when a great creasted barn tern sat on a turbine nacelle for a fishy looking st.

Re nuclear waste, there once was an article in the Pinicle of scientific dogma, the Warrington Guardian, that the ash pile from Fiddlers Ferry contains more alpha radiation from the Thoria radionuclides in coal than there is alpha radiation in the most hazardous building at BNFL Sellafield. (Nicely caveated as to the type of radiation to make a story I suspect, BNFL HQ being in Warrington).

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I’m sat with the Labrador in front of the log burner watching Netflix
Zero stress

I have netflix, a springer spaniel and a labrador. But I'm envious of the log burner...

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Keep a secret ?


I often throw a shovel of coal on it

That's fine, I'm only playing devil's advocate over here cos it's too easy.

A little coal on a log burner is fine in my eyes...just not on an industrial scale Given your name, I'm guessing you use a little peat here and there from the bogs

[Evanivitch]

StanleyT said:

Re nuclear waste, there once was an article in the Pinicle of scientific dogma, the Warrington Guardian, that the ash pile from Fiddlers Ferry contains more alpha radiation from the Thoria radionuclides in coal than there is alpha radiation in the most hazardous building at BNFL Sellafield. (Nicely caveated as to the type of radiation to make a story I suspect, BNFL HQ being in Warrington).

The caveat is very relevant. Nuclear reactors don't tend to throw clouds of alpha emitting dust into the atmosphere, certainly not part of their normal function.

Coal power stations do as part of their normal process.

[Ali G]

Are we doing the Helium atom minus 2 electrons a.k.a the 'Alpha Particle' as part of dissemination of ignorance, fear, or learning?

[V8 Fettler]

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Why? Are we nearly there with a solution? Is everyone else getting better progress by increasing funding?

UK taxpayer funding for fusion research is less than £100million per annum, how much tax money is being used to subsidise renewables? £6billion per annum?

Commercial fusion offer limitless energy that will work when it's windy and when it's not windy.

But given the limited number of Fusion research facilities we can support due to finite resources (namely engineers, scientists and, ironically, energy) what evidence is there that more money will provide a faster solution?

Manhattan project, Apollo. Money fixes the resource issue.

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

The con is that the money being wasted on "renewables" should be channeled into fusion research.

Why? Are we nearly there with a solution? Is everyone else getting better progress by increasing funding?

UK taxpayer funding for fusion research is less than £100million per annum, how much tax money is being used to subsidise renewables? £6billion per annum?

Commercial fusion offer limitless energy that will work when it's windy and when it's not windy.

But given the limited number of Fusion research facilities we can support due to finite resources (namely engineers, scientists and, ironically, energy) what evidence is there that more money will provide a faster solution?

Manhattan project, Apollo. Money fixes the resource issue.

And neither are comparable to the complexity of Fusion.

So whilst we are plugging all this money into Fusion research, how are we funding Electricity generation in the meantime? What are we doing about energy security?