wind’

Isn't this just the way the grid was conceived over the past 100 years. Have centralised generation relatively close to large centres of population. Then have just enough distribution to supply the population. For instance the highlands of Scotland is relatively sparsely populated so you don't need a large feed to supply the population. That is until you need the reverse feed to support a large wind farm or pumped storage scheme located in the Scottish highlands.

As people have been pointing out for a long time wind/solar are cheap but only if you ignore the infrastructure to support them.

There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists. This will not suit those who have already invested in wind/solar. It's only because the policy has been wind/solar that we are buying twice. Actually it's buying twice when the wind is blowing and buying from a backup when the wind doesn't blow.

Exactly.

Exactly

Exactly. What makes sense is SMRs no more then 30 miles way at most.

It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?

A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.

Tim

I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.

I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate much when needed most - in winter.

What was also mentioned in passing in the news items I saw was how much rapid addition to the European distribution grid was needed to make more use of the solar.

In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather than just being dumped in the sea.

Downsides that spring to mind:

1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
3. The waste water from an efficient generator is rather cool. That's how thermodynamics works. So, to have useful waste water temperature for district heating, you have to reduce the efficiency of the electricity generation. Not the end of the world, but a consideration.

Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at the cost of increasing our energy bills.

Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Tim

I have no idea what anthropogenic means but it does sound like the sort of word a scientist might use to bullshit a layman.

The reality is we are around half way between ice ages and have no idea what the world was like at this point last time round so could well be spending a fortune for nothing.

No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts instead.

I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature would be 0.07degC.

This would of course end the UK’s economy and result in what population was left living in mud huts, wearing sackcloth, crapping in a hole in the ground, and living on beets and turnips.

Meanwhile the elites would be jetting overhead at FL350 while dining on Kobe steaks and swilling fine wines.

OTOH, if you wanted to end climate change, all you need to do is circularise the Earth’s orbit and reduce its axial tilt to 0 degrees.

I think you could make that work with low temperature water. Either you design the emitters to work with low temperatures (eg new build flats with UFH). Or you distribute lukewarm water and each flat has a small heatpump to 'concentrate' the heat. They already do that in flats in London - a ground source borehole, a central 'warm' heat main and then a per-flat heatpump, which means it works very similar to a gas boiler in terms of ownership, servicing, replacement, etc:

This is why the takeup of gas CHP has been limited - yes you can make the electricity, but the heating demand varies so much through the year. If you need to curtail the generation to match the heating demand, you might as well just have a CCGT and a gas boiler.

Theo

Related to human activity.

It’s possible but the best evidence is that global temperatures are rising far faster and in parallel with rising CO2 levels.

We could indeed cross our fingers and try and prepare for the worst, but if we *can* do something (and can afford to), I think we should try. I guess my grandchildren will be grateful that I made the effort at least.

Tim

Probably true, and I think it's the 'believe in' bit that's the stumbling block.

Most people here are less likely than the average person to take, well, pretty much anyone's word as Gospel. Particularly after Covid, when just about every 'conspiracy theory' was proved correct and the assurances from government and 'experts' were proved, er, incorrect.

Oh, yes, there was Trump's Russian collusion. Pam and a few others were absolutely certain it was all true, and the US taxpayer spent some tens of millions of Dollars trying to prove that it was true, and failing dismally. A second enquiry actually traced the payments involved in the fraud, though nothing was done about it.

So: show us the evidence that convinced you. Hearsay is not evidence, no matter how high and mighty and 'qualified' the speaker. Not any more. 'The man in Whitehall...' is a relic of the more trusting, and trustworthy, past. Or maybe it's just that we were younger and more gullible.

But no evidence of this stage last time round?

At some stage people will have to make a decision between renewable energy farms built by liars and nuclear power stations built by engineers. Since those are likely to to be SMRs, a single SMR is probably good for a small light industrial town of around 200,000 inhabitants, and since that is the cheapest way to go, eventually people will go that way.

I wouldn't be surprised if Drax starts to do a roll out. Then all it takes is a firm who charges half as much for electricity that *isn't* 'renewable' to hit the market, and that's that.

Not if we go nuclear

Or how much it all cost

But that isn't actually happening is it?

The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.

In the end it doesn't *matter*. cheap fossil fuel is coming to an end and we need something else.

'Renewables' simply don't work, so it had better be nuclear.