Yes, that, and reduce particulates, stimulate the economy, provide decent jobs, and achieve a high degree of energy resilience.
Yes, that, and reduce particulates, stimulate the economy, provide decent jobs, and achieve a high degree of energy resilience.
If Putin kicks off in the expected 2029-30 timeframe most people will be dead sooner than expected…
No. They were initially sold as being a cheap way to produce electricity. Just add in the costs of the subsidies, the cost of the transport grid to replace the balancing one we used to have, and the costs of backup to deal with their intermittency, cheap renewables are neither cheap nor reliable.
The carbon thing always was a red herring.
That was just a politicians fairy tale that any sane person saw through surely? I’m surprised you fell for it.
Costs will come down, but maybe never as low as before. Reliability will go up. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
I think it’s still the prime mover.
Tim
I didn’t fall for it; I’m merely reminding people of the initial reason for selling fairy tales to the public.
They’ve been saying that for more than twenty years. I’m surprised you fell for it.
How do you propose to make the wind and sun ’reliable’?
Only for those that fell for it in the first place.
Yeah, just like nuclear power “to cheap to meter, or in fact, any significant nuclear expansion is “just round the corner”.
That’s not a serious question is it? You’re just being obtuse. You know full well “how”. What no one knows is how soon we’ll be able to ramp up and diversify our storage capability.
Keep denying it if you like. The link between carbon and climate is pretty irrefutable. It’s entirely possible that as a planet full of monkeys all wanting to do their own thing means that we are utterly doomed, but I think just giving up trying is the wrong approach.
Tim
Isn't molten salt more suited for district heating rather than generating electricity?
Chatgpt say it would cost 16.3 trillion GBP to fill Dinorwig up, my estimate was 6.8 trillion GBP.
The idea is the nuclear core is cooled with molten salt and that this is used to generate electricity. You can get a much higher temperature with molten salt than with water. Higher temperature leading to higher efficiency converting to electricity, due to Carnot cycle theory.
The additional trick TerraPower employs is to have a storage tank of hot molten salt coolant between the nuclear core and electrical generators. This allows it to output at 150% normal power for about 5 hours. It can then refill the heat tank when demand drops.
No need to worry the alpha monkey "Donald" is planing to stop all the other monkeys burning oil.
"Nobody move or the ni**er gets it!"
(word munged _only_ in the faint hope that the wood might not get buried under a pile of trees.)
TACO* man will back down when confronted by a country that Iran allows the use the Strait of Hormuz either with a toll or free of charge (China/Russia/India etc.)
*TACO = Trump Always Chickens Out
Of course, I know how to generate cheap, reliable energy.
Faffing about with batteries to cope with grid instability from renewables won’t cut it and it will cost £billions.
Let’s hope someone sees sense and cancels to whole crazy idea.
Venus: ~95% CO2, Surface temperature 470degC.
Mars: ~95% CO2, Surface temperature -60degC.
Earth: ~0.04% CO2, Surface temperature 15degC.
Tell me where the link lies between carbon and climate.
Are you at all familiar with the inverse square law? Solar energy is an important topic. (So is albedo, but that's a topic for another day.)
Ah, so you’re saying there’s no connection between carbon and climate.
Computed Mean Planetary Temperatures Venus 328 K (55 C) Earth 279 K ( 6 C) Mars 226 K (-47 C)
Actual Mean Planetary Temperatures Venus 740 K (467 C) Earth 288 K (15 C) Mars 220 K (-53 C)
”In the case of Venus however, the surface temperature is substantially higher than what our ideal equations predicted”So, the solar input is of minimal effect. Mars is actually colder than predicted, and Venus is very much hotter.
Obviously three data points prove nothing but...
Venus: 4.6 * 10^20 kg CO2 Mars: 2.4 * 10^16 kg CO2 Earth: 5.6 * 10^17 kg CO2
:-)
This policy certainly does appear that way.
I saw John Bolton advocate a blockade on UnHerd last week. Unfortunately Bolton wasn't probed on how we could deal with the consequent economic impact on the global economy. So it is still a mystery to me. I normally like UnHerd, but this interview was very disappointing.
Nothing on the pages shown appears to give a value for Earth of 5.6 * 10^17 kg CO2
(1.4 * 10^21) * (0.04 / 100) = 5.6 * 10^17 (total mass from page) * (your %)
Bolton is a warmonger second only to Lindsey Graham. I don't know why the Telegraph gives him space. He is currently indicted for mishandling classified documents.
When I first read this, I thought it was deuterium oxide.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required