I have found it increasingly difficult, some decades since, to believe that the discussion centered on energy and climate is genuinely about climate at all.
Wealth and power are not reducing their own energy footprint, any more than they followed the lockdown rules.
I think someone managed to explain to the doltish uber-rich descendants of the 19th century’s capitalists that resources are finite.
Naturally, this would lead them to be concerned about the resources you and I consume.
For this reason and no other, I posit, some half-baked science from the 1970s has been sanctified and made to gleam with a sacred effulgence by the application of wealth and power, solely in the interest of reducing energy and resource consumption by the bulk of the population.
Your work, research are fantastic, thank you Mr Turver.
However, sadly you are wrong on the greens losing the argument. There wasn't one to start with. 'Green' is a fiction. It's the latest scam of the Left wing state to take money from the earner and move it to itself. Note how when 'global warming' didn't happen the marketing changed to 'climate change' because the climate changes four times a year at least. These used to be called seasons.
The Left don't have to win an argument. They simply take what they like from the public, wash it through quangos, 'think tanks' and pretend charities, trough countless six figure salaries along the way and agree that the government should take more of our income through taxes - because if they don't, they're out of a job.
Until the public can stop government from wasting their money on this nonsense nothing will change and the tax scam calling itself 'green' will only accelerate.
Cheers to you, sir. Your message as that of other climate realists is becoming less fringe which is all to the good. I raise a glass at your reasoned argumentation and continued revealing of the emperor's limp nakedness.
Yes, I believe the tide is really turning against the Greens. This is a big change compared to just a few years ago, particularly regarding nuclear power. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the turning point. Greens were covering up the inadequacy of solar and wind by importing Russian natural gas. Now they cannot do that.
As for nuclear, I support it, but I really think that you should take a second look at natural gas. It has many advantages over all other energy sources, and the UK has shale fields.
We should have an energy mix of coal, gas and nuclear. Given the cost of a nuclear plant we could have build enough to provide all our power needs as well as the same capacity in gas and again in coal for the 12 bn Miliband spaffed on 'climate aid' for other countries.
The state simply doesn't want to. For some reason it wants to force blackouts and permanent deindustrialisation.
Excellent article! One small point which enhances the case for nuclear: modern plants can already load-follow with ramp rates of up to 5% of capacity per minute.
What a delicious analogy - "Arguing for wind and solar in place of nuclear power is akin to arguing in favour of chocolate teapots because you cannot wait for a ceramic one. No matter how many chocolate teapots you buy, you can never make tea; just like no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels you install you can never run a modern economy on intermittent electricity."
"if your primary concern is the environment, then you should be an advocate of nuclear power because it has the smallest overall environmental footprint of all energy sources because it doesn’t take up much land and has very low mineral intensity." Yes! And if your primary concern is emissions, nuclear is at least as emission-free as any known source of power - nuclear is a dream come true for bi-partisan-ship.
She knows her stuff having started with a physics degree, worked in a bank on major project financing, and worked in EdF. She has a very good understanding of nuclear technology, present and future.
She starts by demolishing renewables in ways that will be familiar to readers of this blog, and goes on to discuss the obstacles nuclear faces alongside its clear advantages.
Great article. We can only hope that during this parliament that more and more people realise nett zero is a ridiculous policy and is destroying our industrial base through expensive electricity. It will then take a major political party to have courage to adopt a different strategy and put this to the electorate at the next election. Democracy can then maybe just save he day 👍👍
One of the areas of research in radioisotope thermal generators for space applications has been in miniturised Strontium RTGs. The idea is you can get some meaningful thermal effect per gram at a size that doesn't require extensive shielding. Sr is beta decay and unlike alpha from plutonium requires thick metallic shielding over a certain size of source material.
The upshot of this work which appears to be going well (though in the early stages) is that it solves the nuclear waste problem somewhat. And the source material is dirt cheap compared to other nuclear sources. Sr is practically given away.
So not only would large scale nuclear be good for Earth applications. It would also be handy for space ones too.
But again time, money and feasibility are what counts.
If we must spend £22bn on innovative energy “solutions” then investigating this sounds like a more sensible application of some of the money than carbon capture & storage. Memo to Mr Millipede. The majority should of course go to the immediate building of new nuclear power installations.
Excellent David. The Commonsense is strong in this one. We may yet win The Battle of Ideas against the retrogressive Dark Forces of anti-engineering, anti-science and anti-economics irrationality.
I was at the Battle of Ideas too - sorry I missed you! My wife and I got a good spot in the main hall and the place was so busy we decided to stay put there all day both days (and all the sessions in there but one were interesting and food for thought). I would have liked to see Lord Frost again, I have seen Ali speak on green issues and was not impressed though the Net Zero argument shrivels anyway when held up to the light. Your contribution sounds to have been well-judged - and it's amazing that so few of the arguments on either side consider £/MwH which you would have thought is critical. I like the chocolate teapot analogy - I'll try to remember it. I think the Tories are moving now on this issue - not just Jenrick. I was quite surprised that Gove printed my letter this week pointing out that spaffing £22 bn on CCUS was an idea that can be traced to Boris and "Levelling Up".
Great article, thanks.
I have found it increasingly difficult, some decades since, to believe that the discussion centered on energy and climate is genuinely about climate at all.
Wealth and power are not reducing their own energy footprint, any more than they followed the lockdown rules.
I think someone managed to explain to the doltish uber-rich descendants of the 19th century’s capitalists that resources are finite.
Naturally, this would lead them to be concerned about the resources you and I consume.
For this reason and no other, I posit, some half-baked science from the 1970s has been sanctified and made to gleam with a sacred effulgence by the application of wealth and power, solely in the interest of reducing energy and resource consumption by the bulk of the population.
Your work, research are fantastic, thank you Mr Turver.
However, sadly you are wrong on the greens losing the argument. There wasn't one to start with. 'Green' is a fiction. It's the latest scam of the Left wing state to take money from the earner and move it to itself. Note how when 'global warming' didn't happen the marketing changed to 'climate change' because the climate changes four times a year at least. These used to be called seasons.
The Left don't have to win an argument. They simply take what they like from the public, wash it through quangos, 'think tanks' and pretend charities, trough countless six figure salaries along the way and agree that the government should take more of our income through taxes - because if they don't, they're out of a job.
Until the public can stop government from wasting their money on this nonsense nothing will change and the tax scam calling itself 'green' will only accelerate.
Cheers to you, sir. Your message as that of other climate realists is becoming less fringe which is all to the good. I raise a glass at your reasoned argumentation and continued revealing of the emperor's limp nakedness.
Yes, I believe the tide is really turning against the Greens. This is a big change compared to just a few years ago, particularly regarding nuclear power. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the turning point. Greens were covering up the inadequacy of solar and wind by importing Russian natural gas. Now they cannot do that.
As for nuclear, I support it, but I really think that you should take a second look at natural gas. It has many advantages over all other energy sources, and the UK has shale fields.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/16-reasons-why-greens-should-love
I am certainly not opposed to natural gas. In fact I support fracking
Glad to hear it.
We should have an energy mix of coal, gas and nuclear. Given the cost of a nuclear plant we could have build enough to provide all our power needs as well as the same capacity in gas and again in coal for the 12 bn Miliband spaffed on 'climate aid' for other countries.
The state simply doesn't want to. For some reason it wants to force blackouts and permanent deindustrialisation.
Enjoyable? Sounds like a masochist’s paradise. I lack the patience you obviously have.
TRY THIS
!https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/IoozmOEPYEGffMFFGVvHWwHN28Yqlo-metaTlVLRSBJVCBVUC5wZGY=-.pdf
Excellent article! One small point which enhances the case for nuclear: modern plants can already load-follow with ramp rates of up to 5% of capacity per minute.
What a delicious analogy - "Arguing for wind and solar in place of nuclear power is akin to arguing in favour of chocolate teapots because you cannot wait for a ceramic one. No matter how many chocolate teapots you buy, you can never make tea; just like no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels you install you can never run a modern economy on intermittent electricity."
"if your primary concern is the environment, then you should be an advocate of nuclear power because it has the smallest overall environmental footprint of all energy sources because it doesn’t take up much land and has very low mineral intensity." Yes! And if your primary concern is emissions, nuclear is at least as emission-free as any known source of power - nuclear is a dream come true for bi-partisan-ship.
Here's Kathryn Porter on the case for nuclear.
https://watt-logic.com/2024/09/18/making-the-case-for-nuclear-power/
She knows her stuff having started with a physics degree, worked in a bank on major project financing, and worked in EdF. She has a very good understanding of nuclear technology, present and future.
She starts by demolishing renewables in ways that will be familiar to readers of this blog, and goes on to discuss the obstacles nuclear faces alongside its clear advantages.
Excellent article from Kathryn
She's also a good speaker. She would have made an excellent panellist at the event.
Great article. We can only hope that during this parliament that more and more people realise nett zero is a ridiculous policy and is destroying our industrial base through expensive electricity. It will then take a major political party to have courage to adopt a different strategy and put this to the electorate at the next election. Democracy can then maybe just save he day 👍👍
One of the areas of research in radioisotope thermal generators for space applications has been in miniturised Strontium RTGs. The idea is you can get some meaningful thermal effect per gram at a size that doesn't require extensive shielding. Sr is beta decay and unlike alpha from plutonium requires thick metallic shielding over a certain size of source material.
The upshot of this work which appears to be going well (though in the early stages) is that it solves the nuclear waste problem somewhat. And the source material is dirt cheap compared to other nuclear sources. Sr is practically given away.
So not only would large scale nuclear be good for Earth applications. It would also be handy for space ones too.
But again time, money and feasibility are what counts.
Very interesting - thanks for sharing.
If we must spend £22bn on innovative energy “solutions” then investigating this sounds like a more sensible application of some of the money than carbon capture & storage. Memo to Mr Millipede. The majority should of course go to the immediate building of new nuclear power installations.
Thank you David, excellent contributions! Brilliant that you are taking them on.
Excellent David. The Commonsense is strong in this one. We may yet win The Battle of Ideas against the retrogressive Dark Forces of anti-engineering, anti-science and anti-economics irrationality.
I was at the Battle of Ideas too - sorry I missed you! My wife and I got a good spot in the main hall and the place was so busy we decided to stay put there all day both days (and all the sessions in there but one were interesting and food for thought). I would have liked to see Lord Frost again, I have seen Ali speak on green issues and was not impressed though the Net Zero argument shrivels anyway when held up to the light. Your contribution sounds to have been well-judged - and it's amazing that so few of the arguments on either side consider £/MwH which you would have thought is critical. I like the chocolate teapot analogy - I'll try to remember it. I think the Tories are moving now on this issue - not just Jenrick. I was quite surprised that Gove printed my letter this week pointing out that spaffing £22 bn on CCUS was an idea that can be traced to Boris and "Levelling Up".
Excellent report - thank you!