Best strategy for power backup in case of cuts?

I know. And if I know, it's a fair bet everyone else knows and they're working towards a solution.

Rest of weird and additionally irrelevant drivel snipped.

And so you keep spelling out. With no substantiation. And against established research, facts, science.

Ergo, in all likelihood false.

QED :-)

While that's true, they won't just cut in automatically if the power goes mid step. Unless you wear them 24/7. I imagine some folk do.

We live in a bungalow, so that's less of a worry. But we have had the power go at night and been grateful for the immediate light from the motion activated nightlight.

If we are waiting for a miracle new battery technology why don't we wait for fusion power instead, and miss out the windmills?

Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress

Somehow I can't see you remembering those words as you briefly stumble mid step because the house suddenly went pitch black.

And the fact youy've lived there so long should remind you that you ar getting on, and - as my late mother sadly discovered - "It's the falls that kill you". (She didn't die from a fall directly, but that broke her hip got her stuck in hospital from where like many vulnerable folk she did not emerge alive)

Because practical fusion power is not even vapourware yet. There's no delivery date, no delivery *century* offered.

Yes, they can strike sparks. In fact, the only SF (as opposed to fantasy) fusion power I've seen described was a pulse device, with heatsinking to smooth out the thermal power delivered to a steam turbine. That might be practical, if it becomes possible to contain a useful-sized fusion pulse. Hell of a lot of RF interference, though.

I've used these for the past 2 years (wall light with PIR):

In fact I do it every night for te 3 am pee.

My mother emerged fr0om hospital alive, well at least all there was of her left did. Which wasn't a lot, frankly.

One of which is Siemens.

Nor, indeed, let reality be the enemy of progress?

I think my point was that the same applies to affordable batteries on the scale needed.

I don't think you are a climate scientist (like Spike)? But I am being a little unfair - you have at least taken the trouble to set out your thoughts:

Who sponsored the Tory party conference in the Cameron days

As I said...

Exactly. And, in fact it is even *worse* than that, because while we know that in theory fusion power can work, and there are only - very complex and hard - engineering challenges to overcome, in the case of a cheap battery, that is safe and small enough in size yet large enough in capacity and cheap enough to be useful, there is not even a theoretical technology that could work. Even the best material - lithium - is scarce, expensive and the technology is fragile and more dangerous than is advisable.

But the killer blow is that ultimately, once you add in all the extras to make renewables actually reliable, its far cheaper to build a basic old hot water fission reactor.

At leats the materials and labour cost to *build* it ls less. The cost to get permission to do it and to be allowed to run it is of course about 4 times more than just building it

Which is why on Asia designs that are bogged down for decades on Europe complete on time and on budget. They actually want them built.

Broadly yes.

The costs I used are somewhat different, but the same basic principles have not changed.

Low Energy density Cost of deployment Cost of decommissioning High Environmental impact Cost of compensating for intermittency

Versus the cost of deploying the sane alternative - nuclear power.

Note I said nothing about climate change in any depth in that.

I simply said in a TLDR sort of way 'if cheap low carbon emission energy is what you want, you won't get it with intermittent renewables and ultimately nuclear power is a far better alternative'

I haven't moved from that broad position.

If you think windmills are progress, gawd help you...

The costs are massively inaccurate. And a good number of your principles rely on cost:

And there remains a good deal in all of that.

However sane you might think it to be - and I can agree in the round with many of the basic principles - it hasn't happened.

You have - the environmental impact of renewables.

In a sense it's not necessary to touch climate debates because nuclear addresses most of them. But of course they are central to what we're doing now. So one of your bedrock principles (anthropogenic climate change is a myth) does at least seem to inform your inflexibility.

Which is sort of fine and there are even some decent examples of a relatively successful adoption. But in the UK it's simply too expensive, takes too long, we don't have the skills, land planning, or construction infrastructure, and public opinion and political conviction is against.

You never know - SMRs might change a lot of that. But that's 15 years off. If indeed it works. And I would add that my opinion on nuclear is influenced by some extended stays in/around Whitehaven - the nuclear aftermath when it sort of works. The financial and social cost (or, rather, impact) is eye watering.

My main concern around renewables is intermittency. But I'm optimistic that the solutions - interconnection, storage, and dispatchable backup will improve. And behaviours need to change - I believe we have to stop thinking about unlimited energy whenever we want it.

And you would doubtless argue that optimism is misplaced and we should have nuclear. But we won't.

My opinion (and its just an opinion) is that when the ice caps finish melting and sea levels have risen by another 70 metres then people will still be talking about how we can stop global warming.

This planet is not going to last forever - deal with it