Heat Pumps

You don't want any circulation of almost luke warm water in the heating coil if the water in the tank is hotter than the water in the coil. It will only cool the water in the tank faster.

Electricity prices today are an international disgrace. All in the name of 'saving the planet'.

Go look at the NOAA graphs of atmospheric CO2 versus time and tell me if you can see one single change of slope that might be down to 'renewable energy.

The interesting thing is not how much global warming its caused, but how little.

They were saying that if we got over 400ppm the whole of civilisation would collapse. The poles would melt, and our children wouldn't know what snow was. We are now at 420ppm.

And its hard to detect much change in anything.

We have spent trillions and ruined the livings standards of millions to achieve the square root of Sweet Fanny Adams...

Potential, yet realised. And at risk of repeating myself, there are costs beyond the economic.

Incorrect.

In the case of new build, incorrect. Last time I read, Exeter is down to less

On retrofit, it varies.

Eh?!

The 'green lobby' (whoever that is) is not anti-nuclear.

Look around - especially the southern hemisphere. And tell me renewables don't benefit low income communities.

Yes. That's the myth of 'only fill your kettle up to the amount you want to boil' With electricity something like 3 times the price of oil or gas, it makes a little sense, but you still get back a reduction of 30% in gas usage compared with the electricity you used.

If electricity were not 'renewable' and comparable in cost with oil or gas, like it used to be, you would be looking at even less gains from economising with it.

The tragedy is there is no 'energy shortage' . The worlds oceans are awash with uranium. Thorium is everywhere.

Thanks for saying that. I couldn't be bothered to argue with someone else's religion. I have done the calculations of LCOE. Not just of subsidised low interest rate constructed windmills and solar panels, but the entire grid infrastructure that is needed to make them work

And like the claimed capacity factor of windfarms versus the actual capacity factor reflected by the national grid's meters, its hard to escape the conclusion that when it comes to renewable energy, the manufacturers lobby groups are not even being economical with the truth. They are just plain lying to the public, and getting away with it

Nature has no waste,

One man's s*it is another plants manure

All that heat escaping from suburban houses keeps the temperature gauges looking like global warming is actually happening, and justifies enormous sums of money going to peope selling renewable scams.

They absolutely want to to keep wasting that energy, Its profit for them And the plants are revelling in the CO2 levels.

I see the academics who label people as the ‘energy decadent’ carefully refrained from referring to such people as the ‘energy bourgeoisie’.

F****ng academics Always full of moral virtue

People on council estates don't have time for moral virtue. They just want cheaper electricity.

That's why they are voting Reform...

Ah, the Kamala Harris syndrome. The working class wanted low inflation and secure jobs, but she was offering wokery and gender issues, which are of no interest to them. So they voted elsewhere…

In fact that is broadly correct as far as I can tell listening to MAGA voters online.

Of course what they got was a idiot who promised a lot more that he will completely fail to deliver, but it does seem as though 'renewable energy' 'woke moral politics' will go and never return.

Unfortunately so too will an awful lot of blue collar jobs..

With Trump you get more Baby than Bathwater...

We have nuclear power plants, they work. They could be better, but even if we built the same again, we could do it much cheaper.

Costs beyond economic, isn't a sensible remark. You can use money as a metric, an approximation for nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation. It might help people focus their thoughts.

OK, give me a sketch of a solution for the UK, where renewable power is cheaper and reliable.

Exeter?

Many houses aren't new build. Things like double glazing need replacement, and are problematic, windows blow before the frames go bad.

The sun is hugely inefficient, The Earth only receives 0.00000005% of the sun's energy, the rest is wasted. In effect, efficiency is a false goal. You should consider costs, sustainability, etc...

The green lobby is the green movement. People who call themselves green and try to affect government policy. Surely that is obvious?

The green lobby has been demonising nuclear since the 70s. Green party UK still has a policy of phasing out nuclear. A few counter examples doesn't contract the overall thrust of the movement.

No one has said solar isn't useful in some circumstances, but I don't know of any country powering heavy industry off solar? You know, steel, ammonia production etc.

Costs can be expressed in 2 ways - economic, and externalities (pollution for example). I agree that it's not a sensible expression of cost, and misses qualitative measures especially.

Of course.

Than nuclear? Go to the top of this thread and look at the cost heads. Just AI it if you can't readily find the figures. Some costs are less, most non-renewables are more.

Exeter Council. It's taken them several iterations to get that low, but they're there:

IMVHO Passivhausing Victorian housing is a non-starter. But I'm open to persuasion.

That's a surreal analogy. But if it works for you as example of consuming terrestrial finite resources, go for it.

No, you're talking about the Green Party. Plenty of 'green' lobby groups, academics, and individuals acknowledge the need for some fossil and/or nuclear, at least short and mid-term.

Even the GP doesn't give a timeline for nuclear. Their 'prophecy' is made on the assumption of adequate storage. That's too fanciful for me, and their policy should reflect more honestly the nascent state of storage solutions.

Not countries to my knowledge, but plenty of examples of community level. For example:

If you had to place those in order of importance, which one would be at the top of your list?

I would even question the maintenance category. What is easier and cheaper to maintain - centralised generating stations or tens of thousands of individual generators often in the most inaccessible places including at sea?

Yes and question LCOE.

Long term, I think nuclear will also have lower capital costs. It is just intrinsically cheaper to build small/compact energy sources. The current high cost of nuclear is a development cost, rather than a mass production cost. Even things like floating wind turbines will always have a high mass production cost, due to the sheer number required and the supporting infrastructure required.

Id go for Winner: Nuclear LCOE: nuclear Capital cost. Nuclear Maintanceoperation: Nuclear Reliability: Nuclear Baseload Capability: Nuclear

I mean sure Renewable UK are going to tell you that a 1GW wind farm that lasts 20 years and only actually produces 1/3rd of its rated output on average, needs servicing very 6 weeks or so, and needs a whole gas power station as backup when the wind drops and a 1GW undersea cable to connect it to a grid, and a 1GW battery to replace the rotating inertia of a thermal power station and a 1GW extra grid capacity to take its occasional electricity down to a town where its needed, is *on its own* cheaper than a 1GW nuclear power station that lasts 60 years, gets serviced once a year and needs no backup, battery or grid extension at all. Even including the cost of retiring it to green field when its life is over...

But the point is, they are not comparing apples with apples. And they are not calculating the overall cost to the country of ALL the extra bits and bobs to make this heath Robinson grid actually work.

Because *they* don't have to pay for them. *WE* the consumer and taxpayer, do.

They are in fact *lying*.

And people sadly believe their lies

Its little point arguing with a TrueBeleiverInRenewables™

The personal cost in ego in realising that he has fallen for the biggest scam of the 21st century and that all the people he trusted in have been lying to him while they stole money out of his pocket ...no one can admit that who has any pride at all.

I mean you start out thinking you are ahead of he herd, you are smarter, you have invested faith in the future and what you believe today everyone will think is fact tomorrow.

And then someone says 'it was all a fantasy'

And you have been taken for a fool?

C'mon. No one admits that.

And even the amount of CONCRETE FFS. Massive waste of valuable resources

Renewable energy is not green and its not cheap. Its an expensive resource hungry environmentally destructive fraud.

Staggering lack of understanding. Not least that there's more than one source of renewable energy.

And again (and as usual) no substantiation of figures.

Both sides have their fun.