Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people
"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)
Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x
While on the subject of renewables, there's also this interesting MIT
review on use of batteries:
"The $2.5 trillion reason we cant rely on batteries to clean up the
Thanks, that is an even better link.
Depressing, isn't it.
Politicians, of course, will be delighted with the advice "Don't bother
to build more nukes". Talk about chosing the consultants who will give
you the results you want.
And JC is faffing on about taxing Facebook to subsidise the BBC.
I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that the
Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.
Since we have little in the way of natural resources left as in coal oil
and gas - once the mainstream of electricity production, I'd not be too
sure prices of those will stay low forever.
To me it is sensible to use a variety of ways to generate electricity.
The really sad thing is how the UK - once the workshop of the world -
hasn't benefitted from designing building and selling such (renewables)
technology to parts of the rest of the world where they are keen on them.
And has to go abroad for a nuclear power station too.
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW
Not sure this is true. One of the reasons I went into nuclear power was
that, in the 1960's, the "official" view was that oil would run out in
Being young and foolish, I believed this, but I reasoned that we were
not going to want to give up cars, so would go electric even if we had
to drop range and performance significantly. And electric cars need base
load generation to charge overnight: big win for nuclear.
The official view at the same time was that UK coal reserves were ~ 300
years (this is at the 60's UK consumption of, IIRC, somewhere between 50
and 100 MTon/year).
I see no reason to suppose that the UK and many other countries don't
have large gas reserves provided you frack. The US economy is doing
relatively well on the back of fracking (perhaps the only thing that is
keeping Trump from being booted out).
Oil is cheaper now than it was in the 1950's, in spite of the hike in
the 70's following the Six Days war.
Obviously, resource prices *do* rise as they become scarce; but people
also tend to find more reserves, and more efficient means of recovery.
Not convinced about that. In fact the reason Adolf got elected
was because the shit was hitting the fan and enough decided
that it was worth taking a chance with a loon like that.
Same with Mouseolini.
Tim: disagree. In fact I can't think of any natural mineral resouce
which has actually *run out*. As it becomes scarce, the price goes up,
we find alternatives and the demand goes down. You might approach zero
oil assymptotically at t=infinity. This was one of the glaring errors in
the Club of Rome models in "Limits to growth". Plenty of graphs showing
resources collapsing to zero because they left out the feedback factor.
Similarly all the panic about running out of lithium for batteries, and
exotic metals for electronics. Once your mobile phone needs (say) £50
worth of tantalum there will be a healthy argument for recycling.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.