UK energy policy

[cromwell]

Over the years it has been defined by what we shouldn't be doing.
The UK is an island built on coal. But coal was deemed to be very polluting, and very bad, and it was shut down.
Nuclear. We were the first country to have a nuclear power station. In the 1950s we led the world on nuclear power.
But nuclear was judged t⁷o be very very bad by noisy green protesters so our politicians shuffled away from nuclear.

Gas. Our island is surrounded by oil and gas fields.
But again the greeniacs deemed that gas was a very bad thing, so fracking was abandoned too.

So political cowardice and stupidity has led us away from coal gas and nuclear.

Now all of a sudden Putin turns the gas off and the green power agenda is laid bare. In the winter very often the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. How are your renewables going to keep you warm then? Do tell.

Now we are supposed to spend all our savings paying the winter gas bill, or put ourselves into debt to pay it.

The politicians can yelp "climate change" all they like but the truth is that their cowardice and stupidity have put us where we are.

[Workingman]

I can understand coal going. And I'm sure that oil and gas will eventually have to go as fuels - after a transition.

However, what bugs me is nuclear. It was always the answer, still is, but was lumped in with nuclear weapons by the likes of CND to make is scary. Then came all the crap about nuclear waste, most of which is very low level, so I cannot be bothered. Go read
this if you are remotely interested.

[cromwell]

When people are made poor just to pay their gas bill I think they'll be interested.

[Workingman]

We have a problem with politicians. Very few have any technical, scientific or engineering knowledge. Most are from the legal professions or are PPE (Popcorn Popping and Eating) holders from Oxbridge..

So, when someone gives them a glossy brochure with pictures of windmills and all the blurb they fall for it.

[saundra]

Over the years it has been defined by what we shouldn't be doing.
The UK is an island built on coal. But coal was deemed to be very polluting, and very bad, and it was shut down.
Nuclear. We were the first country to have a nuclear power station. In the 1950s we led the world on nuclear power.
But nuclear was judged t⁷o be very very bad by noisy green protesters so our politicians shuffled away from nuclear.

Gas. Our island is surrounded by oil and gas fields.
But again the greeniacs deemed that gas was a very bad thing, so fracking was abandoned too.

So political cowardice and stupidity has led us away from coal gas and nuclear.

Now all of a sudden Putin turns the gas off and the green power agenda is laid bare. In the winter very often the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. How are your renewables going to keep you warm then? Do tell.

Now we are supposed to spend all our savings paying the winter gas bill, or put ourselves into debt to pay it.

The politicians can yelp "climate change" all they like but the truth is that their cowardice and stupidity have put us where we are.

I agree croomers so what happens if we all refuse to pay its my savings that have to pay these bills not my state pension so what did I save for

[Suff]

The point about climate change and climate change driven global warming is short sharp and stark. A world warmed by 2. 5C from pre industrial. Temps will feed 2.5bn people.

Eventually the politicians got the message and started doing stuff.

On the way they found that renewable energy, when it is on tap, is virtually free apart from the initial subsidies to build it out. Politicians are addicted to free stuff and modern Solar panels lat for 40 years.

Of course having finally realised that the environmental science community has been right for 40 years and they have been ignored, the politicians start listening to far more "environmentalists", scientists or not. Ignoring the fact that 75% of them are totally barking.

Nevertheless Cameron, followed by May and Johnson and what looks like Truss, continue to support Nuclear build out. I'm sure that Labour will too regardless of which leader they have.

The latest spat with Russia has highlighted that natural gas is a diminishing resource on which we cannot rely for transition.

Therefore Nuclear. France has already proven that you can rely on Nuclear for 70% of your power. However it is/was relatively expensive. Hinckley point C had a contract for difference of £95 per MW/h. At the time wholesale was £45 and the detractors were whinging..

Nobody whinging on cost now. However, the contract for difference on Wind is now down to £39. Even more attractive now than it was then. Solar becomes even cheaper in Summer.

The premise was thirds. Third gas, third renewable and third Nuclear. It was a good transition plan. Now it has to change.

Maybe we will have to move to the end game earlier. Third Nuclear, two thirds renewable and third storage (yes it is more than 100% because of overbuild).

Time will tell but there is far less chance of Nuclear failing now than there was before Feb.

[Workingman]

Nuclear fission / fusion have always been the main answer; not windmills, solar, heat pumps, EV cars or any other 'green' nonsense.

The world survives on electrical power for most of its needs. It needs it 24 hours every day. Wind and solar do not provide that, and never will. The current storage 'solutions' are either inefficient or environmentally damaging.

We need to go nuclear now and stop pissing about.

[Suff]

We need to go nuclear now and stop pissing about.

Unless the world goes thorium, there is simply not enough uranium. Of course Fusion is the nirvana but we Must stop emitting CO2. RTFHN. By putting in sufficient Nuclear to backstop renewable lows, we can do that. Demanding we stop putting in wind and solar and stop moving to EV is simply not going to cut it.

Over the next decade we are upping wind to 100GW and more solar. 100GW of Nuclear would not be viable with current plans.

Why can't we take advantage of free energy, wind and solar, so long as we get the mix right?? That is the same evangelism that is shown by those nutter Environmentalists who want to stop Nuclear at any cost even if it is fossil fuel power.

Cars need to go NOW, so that when we move to fully clean power in 2040 or later, that transport is fully decarbonised. Not 25 or 30 years later.

This is not a "one or the other" situation. This is an all at once situation or the following generations are totally and completely screwed.

[Workingman]

Dream on.

There is enough raw uranium for about 230 years of electricity production, longer as unyet unmanaged but known deposit become available. Thorium is virtually endless.

Wind and solar, and other green assets, do not fill the void when coal, gas and oil depart. They are transient and always will be. Nuclear fission / fusion have always been the main answers; not windmills, solar panels, heat pumps, EV cars, or any other 'green' nonsense.

The world survives on electrical power for most of its needs. It needs it 24 hours every day. Wind and solar do not provide that, and never will. The current storage 'solutions' are either inefficient or environmentally damaging.

We need to go nuclear now and stop pissing about.

[Suff]

I never said the whole solution. I said a part of the solution which produces cheap energy when available.

Why constantly ignore it? We do not have time to ignore it and we must act. So long as the wind and solar are deemed to be intermittent and therefore only part of the picture and not stopping Nuclear, why run it down?

Reality is that wind and solar will deliver more energy than nuclear over the next decade and possibly the decade after. I'm talking TW/h per year.

The problem is to transition the TW/h of fossil fuel to something else.

It will always be a hybrid approach or we will screw the liveable biosphere.