by Workingman » 22 Apr 2017, 12:05
Hmmm,
Chatham House reported, last year I think, that biomass was a bit of a red-herring. Burning a pelletised 50 year old tree takes seconds and does not take into account the energy used in making the pellets and transporting it, and others, across the Atlantic. Growing new replacements one-for-one is not, therefore, carbon neutral nor immediate. It is hard to argue with the logic.
For me, and it is only a personal view, we need more nuclear built on home soil, and we needed to start some years back. We simply cannot rely on what we now have once the coal fired plants close in 2025. I am also sceptical that there will be sufficient advances in carbon neutralish renewables in that short time.
As we have often said before, there are many other types of renewable energy to be harnessed, but unfortunately our politicians have put the solar and wind eggs in one basket so that there is no room for anything else - in their thinking.
Friday was good but still a bit of a publicity stunt in some ways.