US Politics

[Common Sense Club]

You seem a little obsessed with the 'Christian Right' and certainly seem to over estimate their power policy wise.

Christianity, by the way, isn't required to claim a 'god given right' to anything. All societies take exactly what they want whether they use religion as a basis or not. Stalin and Pot didn't need religion did they, so I find this continual reference back to the 'Christian Right' a bit pointless and perhaps some personal animus you have.

Also you haven't criticised the fact that it's the working classes more than anyone else paying for switching to renewals.....which there was never a popular demand for......and I notice you didn't mention nuclear.

Nuclear blows renewable's out of the water in terms of reliability, regardless of the pun.

It's about money as the driving factor seemingly more than actual need, who pays and who profits.....what matters is the policy not the bunch of words someone uses to justify a policy. Nuclear should have been the top focus as it was in France, but wasn't and we are paying the cost of the failure of British elites.....who seemingly get to retire and live nice lives despite making terrible decisions.

The most reliable form of natural energy is tidal; you can set your clock by it, but the lobby group isn’t as visible or powerful, hence we don’t hear much about it. We are an island surrounded by water and regular tides. Go figure why we aren’t going full speed into this…

 

[Stirlingsays]

The most reliable form of natural energy is tidal; you can set your clock by it, but the lobby group isn’t as visible or powerful, hence we don’t hear much about it. We are an island surrounded by water and regular tides. Go figure why we aren’t going full speed into this…

The reason essentially is cost.

Tidal is expensive and the technology for reliably low cost infrastructure isn't considered to be there yet.

But you'd expect the geographical realities of this island would mean that we would be spending more on it......but the bulk of money is going into offshore wind — followed by solar PV.

Personally I'd think tidal would be a better bet than solar but I'm just a plonker eating biscuits.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The reason essentially is cost.

Tidal is expensive and the technology for reliably low cost infrastructure isn't considered to be there yet.

But you'd expect the geographical realities of this island would mean that we would be spending more on it......but the bulk of money is going into offshore wind — followed by solar PV.

Personally I'd think tidal would be a better bet than solar but I'm just a plonker eating biscuits.

Tidal might be tricky, just because the amount of ship traffic we get. Electricity generation should ideally be placed as close to the end user as possible, because a lot of power is lost on transporting electricity over distance.
London probably wouldn't benefit as the English Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world.
However there is the shoreline around Norfolk and Suffolk. The locations would lend itself well to off-shore wind farms and also tidal. The trouble is that where tidal and wind is in abundance, tends to be in less populated areas.
Around the fields of Surrey and Hampshire I have seen farmers fields used for solar panels.
This oil price volatility is making people think seriously about energy security.
There'll always be oil to run tanks, fighter jets and missiles

 

[silvertop]

You seem a little obsessed with the 'Christian Right' and certainly seem to over estimate their power policy wise.

Christianity, by the way, isn't required to claim a 'god given right' to anything. All societies take exactly what they want whether they use religion as a basis or not. Stalin and Pot didn't need religion did they, so I find this continual reference back to the 'Christian Right' a bit pointless and perhaps some personal animus you have.

Also you haven't criticised the fact that it's the working classes more than anyone else paying for switching to renewals.....which there was never a popular demand for......and I notice you didn't mention nuclear.

Nuclear blows renewable's out of the water in terms of reliability, regardless of the pun.

It's about money as the driving factor seemingly more than actual need, who pays and who profits.....what matters is the policy not the bunch of words someone uses to justify a policy. Nuclear should have been the top focus as it was in France, but wasn't and we are paying the cost of the failure of British elites.....who seemingly get to retire and live nice lives despite making terrible decisions.

Obsessed may overstate it but it was a decent example of how fossil is seeking to influence policy given the CR influence on US policy especially through the Republicans.

And it works. Climate change denial is rife in the Bible Belt and has slipped into populist right narrative elsewhere. Just see the comments on here.

I did not mention nuclear in that answer but did up the thread by reference to France. Definitely a mix of nuclear and renewables as the end target with fossils diminishing in importance in a steady and manageable way.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Tidal might be tricky, just because the amount of ship traffic we get. Electricity generation should ideally be placed as close to the end user as possible, because a lot of power is lost on transporting electricity over distance.
London probably wouldn't benefit as the English Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world.
However there is the shoreline around Norfolk and Suffolk. The locations would lend itself well to off-shore wind farms and also tidal. The trouble is that where tidal and wind is in abundance, tends to be in less populated areas.
Around the fields of Surrey and Hampshire I have seen farmers fields used for solar panels.
This oil price volatility is making people think seriously about energy security.
There'll always be oil to run tanks, fighter jets and missiles

There was an advanced proposal to build a tidal barrier in Swansea Bay that was shelved. The Severn would be a good possibility. There is a large tidal movement out of Great Yarmouth; they don’t have to built in shipping channels. On a smaller, local level, there are moveable, floating barriers that ‘bob’ within the waves. Solar makes sense on domestic property, warehouses etc., but not on green fields. Wind power too erratic, but that seems to have financial interests momentum.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The most reliable form of natural energy is tidal; you can set your clock by it, but the lobby group isn’t as visible or powerful, hence we don’t hear much about it. We are an island surrounded by water and regular tides. Go figure why we aren’t going full speed into this…

It’s reliable but that’s not the issue. It’s harvesting it effectively that’s the limitation. Living where I do I come into contact with some of those involved in trying to exploit off shore energy. Just positioning a drilling rig in order to secure equipment to the seabed in areas with strong tidal flows is a major challenge.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Regardless of the form of energy some feck is going to be making profit matey and it won't be you and me.

Fossil fuel is extremely important in many different ways for some time to come. What are you going to fill your car up with?

Laughing gas?

I fill mine up with electricity. I get 260 miles on a full charge, which costs me £4.20 at home. Servicing is cheap as the engine is simple. It’s only needed every 20,000 miles. I will never go back to a petrol car. The electric is so much quieter and pleasurable to drive. When we had 3 days of power loss due to the big winter storm I ran my house from the car’s battery. At the rate of use I could have had power for 2 weeks.

Because of the cheap rate for nighttime use my electricity bills are less than they were before I bought an EV. And I no longer buy petrol.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I fill mine up with electricity. I get 260 miles on a full charge, which costs me £4.20 at home. Servicing is cheap as the engine is simple. It’s only needed every 20,000 miles. I will never go back to a petrol car. The electric is so much quieter and pleasurable to drive. When we had 3 days of power loss due to the big winter storm I ran my house from the car’s battery. At the rate of use I could have had power for 2 weeks.

Because of the cheap rate for nighttime use my electricity bills are less than they were before I bought an EV. And I no longer buy petrol.

None of that. Bus passes are great.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I fill mine up with electricity. I get 260 miles on a full charge, which costs me £4.20 at home. Servicing is cheap as the engine is simple. It’s only needed every 20,000 miles. I will never go back to a petrol car. The electric is so much quieter and pleasurable to drive. When we had 3 days of power loss due to the big winter storm I ran my house from the car’s battery. At the rate of use I could have had power for 2 weeks.

Because of the cheap rate for nighttime use my electricity bills are less than they were before I bought an EV. And I no longer buy petrol.

Well, that's great for you and everything but not really addressing the reality for the vast majority.