Comments on: Osborne’s Budget should freeze the UK’s carbon tax and phase out dirty coal

By: Arcanum Arcanorum (虚空)

Arcanum Arcanorum (虚空) — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:15:00 +0000

I am close to accepting the fact that humanity, and the biodiversity of the planet, will be destroyed by greedy elites. Despite what we do to save ourselves, our children, and future generations, the rich have decided that their extra yachts are more important.

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:15:00 +0000

In reply to sarntcrip.

So if a tiny sum was invested, because of the low investment in nuclear, we’d all be saved. Hyperbole more?

And yes yes, actual clean power generation would kill us all. The reality is that people would have to run with the sort of unreliable energy production you want – to and from work, for instance. And forget home power for most.

(The costs ramp up VERY sharply over 35% renewable power, as Germany is showing, and it’s all near-100% gas backed anyway!)

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:12:00 +0000

In reply to sarntcrip.

Oh, so if a nuclear power plant “goes up” (i.e. there’s a minor radioactive release), you’ll bomb us all? I see. You have no idea about nuclear power.

And I see, clean power is destroying the planet. Right.

By: sarntcrip

sarntcrip — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:00 +0000

In reply to Godfrey Paul. IF YOU WARP THE FIGURES, NOT ONCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE ADVANCING BATTERY TECH WILL ALLOW EXTRA ENERGY FROM VERY HIGH WIND CAN BE STORED AGAINST LESS WINDY TIMES

By: sarntcrip

sarntcrip — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:17:00 +0000

In reply to Leon Wolfeson. IF A FRENCH NUC STATION GO UP AS UP LIKE JAPAN WE IN THE S.E.ARE HISTORY ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE CHINA IS NOW DOING WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE KNOW BEYOND DOUBT IS DESTROYING THE PLANET ON WHICH WE LIVE!

By: sarntcrip

sarntcrip — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:12:00 +0000

ABSOLUTELY IT SHOULD BUT THE TORIES ARE IN THE POCKETS OF THE PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IF A FRACTION OF THE MONEY INVESTED IN NUCLEAR ENERGY WAS INVESTED IN BOTH BATTERY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY WE’D BE RUNNING ON RENEWABLES BY NOW INSTEADTHEPLANET IS BEING DESTROYED BY VESTED INTERESTS OF PETRO CHEMICALCOMPANIESMANY OF WHICH AVOID PAYING THEIRTAX

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:35:00 +0000

In reply to the Prole.

Er, no.

We’re not in the 1970’s. It doesn’t take 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. 36 months at the outside.

So you argue for dirty coal, high-priced dirty power. You ignore the fact that China’s investing heavily for a transition away from coal.

By: the Prole

the Prole — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 01:58:00 +0000

The trouble is, at present there is little viable alternative to coal.
Forget renewables – apart from hydro, the energy roi’s are pretty laughable, and that’s before we get into the intermittent supply problem (uk peak energy demand usually coincides with cold winter days when the wind isn’t blowing).
Nuclear could be an option, but currently it’s looking terribly expensive (it doesn’t need to be, that’s a joy of the uk’s gold plated rules and regs), and if we started building new plant tomorrow, we would be well into the 2020s before we saw any power from it.
Oil is too expensive for anything other than peak lopping, which leaves the only real alternative to coal as combined cycle gas.

We could throw up loads more CCGT stations, but that’s not an optimal strategy given that we don’t actually have all that much more gas readily available,(and the same folks who want to close all the coal power stations are quite keen we don’t frack to see if we can get some local supplies of the stuff) and any extra we get will be mainly reliant on the Russians being in a good mood. Putting all our power generation hopes into this one basket would seem foolish in the extreme.

Old king coal is here to stay a while yet if we want to keep the lights on (and if we don’t burn it, the Chinese will).

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:27:00 +0000

The problem is buying nuclear power from France is expensive, we should build our own.

The no-brainer is looking at real costs. And not “welcome” in major rises and energy cuts, offset by a small fall.

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:27:00 +0000

In reply to Godfrey Paul.

So you’ve got no idea about energy costs then.
(Tip – It’s another form of renewable energy which is more expensive)