The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Gary C said:
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.
However, if the Green lobby is to be appeased then there is middle ground: nuclear power, particularly fusion, which offers the potential to deal with peak as well as base loads e.g. split H2O to create hydrogen during low demand.
MYOB said:
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.I often throw a shovel of coal on it
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 said:
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?Commercial fusion offer limitless energy that will work when it's windy and when it's not windy.
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?
To compare the complexities of Manhattan, Apollo and commercial fusion is not the easiest task. You can however look at starting points where serious funding commences:
Manhattan started in around 1942 when the biggest bomb carried by an aircraft was probably the 8000lb HC bomb, containing approx 5000lbs of Torpex explosive. By 1945 the Manhattan project had created an atomic bomb with a yield of the equivalent of 33,000,000lbs of TNT, which equates to approx 20,000,000 lbs of Torpex
In 1963 (Apollo start date), the US were still strapping men into converted intercontinental ballistic missiles to achieve low earth orbit, by 1969 the US has reached the moon.
We've had controlled fusion for decades, it just doesn't last very long, but 2018 could be regarded as the starting point where serious money is now spent on the project.
Gary C said:
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.
You might want to shift this sort of discussion to the climate change thread(s!).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.
I assess (Not believe, hate that word, this is not or should not be, religion we're talking about!) that CO2 is actually beneficial to all life on earth, not just good old 'umans. Plants grow better, crop yields continue to rise and so forth.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
There's a good podcast this morning from James Dellingpole.
https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/fkt6y-46f89...
He has Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week. He does talk about the AGW debate but in terms of the renewable discussion he does describe his experience of the total clusterf
k that is NSW powergen debacle. The most expensive electricity in the world, caused by wind.
https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/fkt6y-46f89...
He has Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week. He does talk about the AGW debate but in terms of the renewable discussion he does describe his experience of the total clusterf
k that is NSW powergen debacle. The most expensive electricity in the world, caused by wind.XM5ER said:
Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week.
Wikipedia said:
Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Despite his protestations, Plimer is hardly an unbiased commentator.According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
eharding said:
XM5ER said:
Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week.
Wikipedia said:
Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Despite his protestations, Plimer is hardly an unbiased commentator.According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
eharding said:
XM5ER said:
Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week.
Wikipedia said:
Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Despite his protestations, Plimer is hardly an unbiased commentator.According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
MYOB said:
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...Zero stress
I often throw a shovel of coal on it
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Powered-Stove-Friendly-Bu...
Evanivitch said:
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.
jet_noise said:
You might want to shift this sort of discussion to the climate change thread(s!).
I assess (Not believe, hate that word, this is not or should not be, religion we're talking about!) that CO2 is actually beneficial to all life on earth, not just good old 'umans. Plants grow better, crop yields continue to rise and so forth.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
Yes, but it is fundamental to this argument.I assess (Not believe, hate that word, this is not or should not be, religion we're talking about!) that CO2 is actually beneficial to all life on earth, not just good old 'umans. Plants grow better, crop yields continue to rise and so forth.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
If you believe co2 is already causing harm, will destroy civilisation and must be stopped immediately, we have no choice but to close down fossils generators no matter the consequences regardless if we have a viable alternative.
If you believe it's not real or not a danger, frack on and burn coal and gas, they are the cheapest (I did mean to write crack on, but somehow my slip now seems appropriate)
without some sort of agreement here, we can't ever have any sort of consensus.
Gary C said:
jet_noise said:
You might want to shift this sort of discussion to the climate change thread(s!).
I assess (Not believe, hate that word, this is not or should not be, religion we're talking about!) that CO2 is actually beneficial to all life on earth, not just good old 'umans. Plants grow better, crop yields continue to rise and so forth.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
Yes, but it is fundamental to this argument.I assess (Not believe, hate that word, this is not or should not be, religion we're talking about!) that CO2 is actually beneficial to all life on earth, not just good old 'umans. Plants grow better, crop yields continue to rise and so forth.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
If you believe co2 is already causing harm, will destroy civilisation and must be stopped immediately, we have no choice but to close down fossils generators no matter the consequences regardless if we have a viable alternative.
If you believe it's not real or not a danger, frack on and burn coal and gas, they are the cheapest (I did mean to write crack on, but somehow my slip now seems appropriate)
without some sort of agreement here, we can't ever have any sort of consensus.
Anything else is just arguing about pinhead-located angel quantity.
Not that we need a consensus. Science doesn't work that way (although politics does).
Discussion is good.
jet_noise said:
Which is why all unreliables are a futile waste of everyone's taxes and a totally unsustainable means of supporting modern civilisation.
Anything else is just arguing about pinhead-located angel quantity.
Not that we need a consensus. Science doesn't work that way (although politics does).
Discussion is good.
Agreed.Anything else is just arguing about pinhead-located angel quantity.
Not that we need a consensus. Science doesn't work that way (although politics does).
Discussion is good.
I meant that the argument is baseless without referring to why you believe that.
Your point about unreliables for example. If co2 was going to kill us tomorrow, I think we would agree that crap power would be preferable to death by co2
So I would have to assume you don't think co2 is a problem?
Personally, I think co2 is having a provable effect, but Im not certain if it's actually going to be something we can't live with. I also know that I won't be here if it does, but that's not an excuse not to address the issue.
As such, off shore wind may have its part to play, but ultimately, if we don't get a bulk cheap source, or enforce our standards on developing countries, as I've said before, it's pissing in the wind.
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
If you're incapable of posting your own views, then perhaps you could preface your posts with "Playing devil's advocate," for clarity.
I'm perfectly able to post my own views, just as I'm perfectly able to encourage debate. Paddy_N_Murphy said:
All the Fanboi's of Nuclear in a jerk circle have missed this today ?
The Office for Nuclear Regulation and two other government bodies gave the green light on Thursday for the Japanese reactor design for Horizon Nuclear Power’s plant at Wylfa, marking the end of a five-year regulatory process.
It is almost as if people here protest against Renewables 'just because', yet don't actually follow, care, champion or influence on the promotion of and alternative.
Protestors rarely do I suppose.
Could you please post coherently.The Office for Nuclear Regulation and two other government bodies gave the green light on Thursday for the Japanese reactor design for Horizon Nuclear Power’s plant at Wylfa, marking the end of a five-year regulatory process.
It is almost as if people here protest against Renewables 'just because', yet don't actually follow, care, champion or influence on the promotion of and alternative.
Protestors rarely do I suppose.
V8 Fettler said:
The concept of posting nonsense in stealthy devil's advocate mode and subsequently scuttling away claiming "devil's advocate" when others refute your nonsense is bizarre, but if you find that rewarding in some perverse way then you carry on.
Really? Where's my nonsense? Show some respect to others please. MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
The concept of posting nonsense in stealthy devil's advocate mode and subsequently scuttling away claiming "devil's advocate" when others refute your nonsense is bizarre, but if you find that rewarding in some perverse way then you carry on.
Really? Where's my nonsense? Show some respect to others please. MYOB said:
Just think of those lovely windy days where the turbines are spinning freely and on that day, some coal power stations can be shut down. That is one day of reducing pollution.
V8 Fettler said:
MYOB said:
V8 Fettler said:
The concept of posting nonsense in stealthy devil's advocate mode and subsequently scuttling away claiming "devil's advocate" when others refute your nonsense is bizarre, but if you find that rewarding in some perverse way then you carry on.
Really? Where's my nonsense? Show some respect to others please. MYOB said:
Just think of those lovely windy days where the turbines are spinning freely and on that day, some coal power stations can be shut down. That is one day of reducing pollution.
Grow up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff