Rolls-Royce SMR selected to build small modular nuclear reactors

I don't disagree - but I don't know where you get your figures from, and there is no analysis. You go straigh tfrom description to critique. So it's difficult to know one way of the other.

How about: 'amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise

I'd like to see some established figures for the amount of damage "green" solutions create including hydro, marine life, agriculture and forests.

Yes, it’s about 500 tons of steel per turbine, but at least is potentially recyclable, although being partly encased in concrete and several hundred feet underwater might pose challenges, affect marine life, etc.

I couldn’t help noticing two things about that report, that an uncritical reader might not have noticed.

Firstly, there is a mention of concrete, right at the start, and it is referred to thereafter only in passing. Is there any reason that concrete’s contributions, the millions of tons of which went into the UK’s wind turbine fleet, appears to have been minimised? Note that environmentalists have complained about the environmental impact of Hinckley C’s use of concrete, which is dwarfed by that of the wind turbine fleet.

Secondly, note the following. Quote: Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%. Unquote.

They do not seem to be impartial sources from which to draw data. The 17% figure for the 3500 tons of concrete seems laughable, given the environmentalists’ concern over Hinckley C.

It could be that they have used a footprint figure for concrete, having ignored that of the cement used in its manufacture. Otherwise, the footprints of steel and concrete are roughly similar, and there’s very much more concrete than steel used for wind turbine construction. Ergo, the 17% figure for concrete quoted in the report appears to be fanciful.

Good points. I know that concrete has a high environmental cost, and that far more is used in wind than nuclear. But I hadn't realised it was quite on that scale - and yes, its importance does look to have been relegated in that Forbes piece.

I'll take a closer look when I get the time.

But it did keep the moss and algae in check, and made for wonderful displays of roses without black-spot in the 50's and 60's :-)

It's the normal size of your prostate, says the doc with his finger up your bum.

But doesn't have the original heating system, doors or windows (except maybe the front door if it was interesting) and now probably has some insulation in the loft too.

Partly because of the idiotic way that electricity rates are based on the cost of gas generation, plus *all* the green taxes are slapped on electricity alone, not gas prices. Politically than can change.

Or stop handing out 'disability benefits' and free motability cars to people who are lying about their condition.

Well, as many residents have discovered after a flood that has contaminated their nicely insulated houses with other peoples s*it, you can live in a hotel for a year or more while all the damaged insulation, studwork, plasterboard and flooring is ripped out, the shell left to dry (for a long time) and re-instated.

Then you cannot sell the place at 'normal' prices, even if you wanted to.

Ballpark:

Huge caveats though - not least my expertise/ability to give an accurate figure in any event. Others:

You'd need a retrofit assessment - sounds as though your home would have particular requirements, especially around the floors, walls and heritage considerations;

MHEV is something I think is important - it doesn't always feature in retrofit assessments, claiming they take into account porosity/breathability. Considerable ingenuity needed to retrofit. And see 'Disruption';

Subsidy - might be 100% (ECO4), might be nothing;

Disruption - biblical.

You could get a quote, but herein lies a problem IMHO. It's takes a lot of time, experience, and skill to assess a home properly. I got a quote of about £1000 from a company I trust for my own home. About 3 times that for project management, contractor selection, and a customised programme. I thought that was pretty good for the time needed.

I'm slowly building up my knowledge but retrofitting older homes is a minefield, especially if you/me/your contractor doesn't know what they're doing. The previous owner had a go at my home and it'll probably end up costing more to undo the problems than it would to have done it properly in the first place.

Hey cat, see those pigeons over there?

Cost per kilowatt-hour isn't a good measure for intermittent sources.

Take a hydroelectric plant. It will generate power whenever you want, subject to enough water. Conveniently there tends to be more water around in winter when we need the power.

Then compare that to a solar panel. It generates power when it feels like it, regardless of demand. It tends to generate power in summer more than winter.

The maximum load on the grid tends to be at teatime, especially in winter when lots of people get home from work, turn on the heating and start cooking dinner.

How many solar panels would it take to supply that peak? (Hint: It's dark)

That power from a solar panel is far less useful than the power from a hydro plant.

Andy

Yes, AI figured that out - those (you snipped) are system estimates.

Oops :-)

I have to admit that those things did not cross my mind.

Mmmm. The figures aren't showing up. I've tried pasting them again above. Briefly, in case it doesn't come out, SWI £4k, 2ndry glazing £5700, roof/rafters £1900, floors 5k, MHEV £7k, c.£31k total