New nukes ?

I'm not a fan of nuclear but I don't mind the idea of numerous smaller ones.

Oddly, I remember blackouts long before we had renewables at all - other than some hydro power. How could that be?

Edinburgh used to lose power when there was a stong wind from the North East. Sea spray went over the power station and affected the switchgear. Very unhelpful when the main public transport was trams.

Lightning strikes, most probably, or power lines brought down by falling trees, nothing to do with generation capacity.

A regular feature (also voltage reductions, resulting in letterbox TV) in the London suburbs in the 1950s and early 60's before the 500MW sets started to come on stream, giving us a reasonable surplus generation. By the 1980's (with death of heavy industry) the surplus became quite large. Maggie set the Mergers and Monopolies Commission on the CEGB, their report didn't quite meet the "spec". They reported that the CEGB was a competent, professional, and well run organisation. Their one criticism was poor planning in that they had built too much capacity. Ironic, I thought, since CEGB planning was *entirely* based on Treasury forecasts for the economy.

Cocaine and Whiskey or Arthur Scargill?

And OPEC.

Striking miners or power workers in the 70s.

Speaking of which, the yanks (Bechtel/Westinghouse) are interested in Wylfa since Horizon/Hitachi dropped out ...

You can bet someone has been Put in that place!

Because there isn't any science that could make hydrogen a viable solution for mass energy generation. Beyond nuclear fusion. Which I am certain he wasn't talking about.

I don't need to see the "detail" of a perpetual motion machine to suspect it may be a crock of s*it.

Clearly you know a lot more about this than me. However a cursory Google search brings up a web page from Misubishi

Competition among developers of the technology is taking place around the world, where engineers are solving a host of issues. At this site, we will focus on hydrogen power generation and how it relates to the future of energy.

March 16, 2019

All eyes are on Hydrogen Energy

Insight of Large-scale hydrogen gas turbine Developer

As I said, you clearly know more about this than me. So are these people all talking about something else entirely different to what you're talking about ? Or is everything they're saying, all nonsense ?

michael adams

...

It wasn't an accident I mentioned nuclear fusion. All eyes have been on that since before I was born.

I thought we had progressed beyond lots of people wishing for something makes it true ?

It's not that you can't use hydrogen as an energy source. Just that by the time you have, you may as well not have bothered.

The reason there is a lot of reporting on hydrogen is because a lot of other greenwash ideas have proved to be s*it and the green lobby desperately needs to reel in new marks.

No one would welcome renewable sustainable energy more than I. But hydrogen ain't it.

Staw man energy you mean ?

Please explain why the Mitsubishi Corporation would be devoting so many resources to research which can never come to fruition or yield any benefits ?

Wouldn't they already have enough more promising projects to be spending their R/D budget on, if that were the case ?

Jethro uk vs the Mitsubishi Corporation. There's only one way to decide...

michael adams

...

Nucleara is not a solution. It is the *only* solution.

And I can assure you if there were something cheap widely available and carbon free they would instantly ban it.

Hydrogen isn't really an energy source. The energy has to come from somewhere else and the hydrogen just provides another way of storing it and moving it around.

John

Your remark might be better directed at the Mitsubishi Corporation whose website I was mererly quoting.

michael adams

...