This government literally have their heads stuck up their asses
Apparently we do not have the infrastructure that handle energy from those sources, and we’re pumping money in to a private company to fix it, so it’s essentially going to places like Hong Kong and other countries as dividend payments for the shareholders of said company.
We sold it all. We ain’t getting shit.
The UK needs nuclear. If there’s no wind or Sun, then what?
No doubt this will be used as an excuse to line pockets of specific landowners and simultaneously reduce space for housing. Bastards.
All for wind and solar, but it’s pretty pointless to keep building more of the same until we start investing in storage as well. At the moment it’s turn the turbines off when there is to much production and rely of fossil and others when there isn’t enough. Obviously the more storage we have the less turbines we need to produce.
Seeing a logical plan being presented to the UK politicans.
Ready, set …. nothing.
Onshore solar sounds great but will it take land away from food production?
Is onshore wind reliable enough?
Do we need to be energy independent? Although France are the old enemy (and one day we will finally defeat them) we continue to trade with them.
Install more nuclear and wind, keep the gas and retire coal/ biofuel etc. On windy days we could then use the spare energy to make “gas” or hydrogen. I seem to recall gas is easier to store – hydrogen just slips out of the best confinement chambers. Maybe the extra energy could be used to create something that is easy to convert to hydrogen?? Is it easy to use spare energy to create nitrogen, that would help the farmers and reduce their need for gas.
It would be good if they posted the details of the study.
I want their claims to be true but this seems like yet another bias study.
I’m even sure that they use the term short term to exclude nuclear as an option.
Nuclear is slow because of planning permission.
70GW of solar power would also face alot of planning permission problems on shore… Which is why so much wind is offshore.
If this is anything like the studies I’ve seen, they ignore critical things like energy storage costs, manufacturing emissions and decommissioning.
I’m all for these things but we really need to be critical of claims that clearly sound too good to be true.
That should be obvious.
Solar on every roof, smart charging for EVs, and maybe a battery.
Once you add a heat pump, it does become quite a complex system, and you also need a decent energy management strategy for every home.
Government: “I’m sorry, best we can do is transphobia. Can you imagine what it would have been like under Vladimir Corbyn!”
Gunna be a bit NIMBY but I hate onshore wind, and would really rather we not ruin the few nice landscapes we actually have. I really like the British countryside as is.
I see no reason not to just build more out to sea, where they don’t bother anybody and have access to a more reliable source of wind.
And then work on tidal too. Even better. UNDER the water. No one can see that shit.
The entire worry about the environment, is human. The earth doesn’t give a shit if it’s 2C warmer than it should be. The earth doesn’t give a shit if the icecaps melt. Almost no animals even realise they’re alive, or that they can die.
The only things on earth, that care about the environment are us humans.
So I think that should extend to views.
I’m okay with ocean vistas being shitted up. I can deal with that. Lets not fuck with the countryside too though, it seems pointless.
I get the sense that part of the support for it it is to just rub the right peoples noses in it. Fuck up the countryside, to own the climate skeptics.
The whole thing they promised to provide 10 years ago?
There are multiple reasons why renewable sources are not a simple panacea for electricity supply around the world:
the weather-dependence problem,
the energy storage problem,
the end-of-life replacement and recycling problem (producing more waste)
the land-area problem
the materials-of-construction and scarcity problem
Frequency problem -https://www.engineering.com/story/grid-frequency-stability-and-renewable-power
Wind is incredible for our landscape and climate, building solar panels anywhere that isn’t a desert is a huge waste of resources. The UK is one of the least sunny nations on earth and we’re wasting money that could go into more and even larger wind farms. Between nuclear and wind surely that makes a dent if we invested in both property.
13 comments
This government literally have their heads stuck up their asses
Apparently we do not have the infrastructure that handle energy from those sources, and we’re pumping money in to a private company to fix it, so it’s essentially going to places like Hong Kong and other countries as dividend payments for the shareholders of said company.
We sold it all. We ain’t getting shit.
The UK needs nuclear. If there’s no wind or Sun, then what?
No doubt this will be used as an excuse to line pockets of specific landowners and simultaneously reduce space for housing. Bastards.
All for wind and solar, but it’s pretty pointless to keep building more of the same until we start investing in storage as well. At the moment it’s turn the turbines off when there is to much production and rely of fossil and others when there isn’t enough. Obviously the more storage we have the less turbines we need to produce.
Seeing a logical plan being presented to the UK politicans.
Ready, set …. nothing.
Onshore solar sounds great but will it take land away from food production?
Is onshore wind reliable enough?
Do we need to be energy independent? Although France are the old enemy (and one day we will finally defeat them) we continue to trade with them.
Install more nuclear and wind, keep the gas and retire coal/ biofuel etc. On windy days we could then use the spare energy to make “gas” or hydrogen. I seem to recall gas is easier to store – hydrogen just slips out of the best confinement chambers. Maybe the extra energy could be used to create something that is easy to convert to hydrogen?? Is it easy to use spare energy to create nitrogen, that would help the farmers and reduce their need for gas.
It would be good if they posted the details of the study.
I want their claims to be true but this seems like yet another bias study.
I’m even sure that they use the term short term to exclude nuclear as an option.
Nuclear is slow because of planning permission.
70GW of solar power would also face alot of planning permission problems on shore… Which is why so much wind is offshore.
If this is anything like the studies I’ve seen, they ignore critical things like energy storage costs, manufacturing emissions and decommissioning.
I’m all for these things but we really need to be critical of claims that clearly sound too good to be true.
That should be obvious.
Solar on every roof, smart charging for EVs, and maybe a battery.
Once you add a heat pump, it does become quite a complex system, and you also need a decent energy management strategy for every home.
Government: “I’m sorry, best we can do is transphobia. Can you imagine what it would have been like under Vladimir Corbyn!”
Gunna be a bit NIMBY but I hate onshore wind, and would really rather we not ruin the few nice landscapes we actually have. I really like the British countryside as is.
I see no reason not to just build more out to sea, where they don’t bother anybody and have access to a more reliable source of wind.
And then work on tidal too. Even better. UNDER the water. No one can see that shit.
The entire worry about the environment, is human. The earth doesn’t give a shit if it’s 2C warmer than it should be. The earth doesn’t give a shit if the icecaps melt. Almost no animals even realise they’re alive, or that they can die.
The only things on earth, that care about the environment are us humans.
So I think that should extend to views.
I’m okay with ocean vistas being shitted up. I can deal with that. Lets not fuck with the countryside too though, it seems pointless.
I get the sense that part of the support for it it is to just rub the right peoples noses in it. Fuck up the countryside, to own the climate skeptics.
The whole thing they promised to provide 10 years ago?
There are multiple reasons why renewable sources are not a simple panacea for electricity supply around the world:
the weather-dependence problem,
the energy storage problem,
the end-of-life replacement and recycling problem (producing more waste)
the land-area problem
the materials-of-construction and scarcity problem
Frequency problem -https://www.engineering.com/story/grid-frequency-stability-and-renewable-power
Wind is incredible for our landscape and climate, building solar panels anywhere that isn’t a desert is a huge waste of resources. The UK is one of the least sunny nations on earth and we’re wasting money that could go into more and even larger wind farms. Between nuclear and wind surely that makes a dent if we invested in both property.