House of Lords Committee that recommends hydrogen spending is chaired by a non-executive director of a hydrogen company who also employs Chris Stark as a staffer.
I am from Alaska, not the UK, so I am not competent to discuss your politics. However, I am a competent engineer, and the engineering realities of "green hydrogen" are obvious. Unless electricity magically becomes free, "green hydrogen" is complete bullshit. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is so much energy lost in the various conversions required that "green hydrogen" will never even approach economic feasibility. It is a massive energy loser, and will make the world worse, not better. Keep up the good fight, guys. The best disinfectant is sunlight, and I wish you all well at spreading sunlight!
Thank you. It's funny you should mention "free energy" because that's exactly what the Government assumed in one of its costing reports - that wind for green hydrogen would be deemed "free" because it would otherwise be curtailed.
This communist Labour Party, headed by Keir Stalin, has within 5 miserable weeks lost at least 5% of the 17% who voted for them - I am hoping at around the 100 week mark, they are forced into another GE - their obviously un-costed plans for regression of the masses, are dystopian and spiteful, in equal measure - even now, I can safely say this will be the worst Govt for Britain and Britons, I’ve ever known and I’ve endured many
The UK could lose up to £8 billion in government revenue from 2025 to 2030 if it doesn't link its emissions trading scheme with the EU's
Which means that UK billpayers would be paying an extra £8bn.
Commissioned by [the usual suspects] major UK energy firms including Centrica, Drax, Equinor, National Grid, SSE and Uniper, the report highlights the financial implications of maintaining separate carbon markets post-Brexit.
The research also found that the upcoming EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, set to begin in 2026, could impose additional costs on UK exporters, who might have to pay up to £800 million into the EU budget due to the price differential.
It would be much better to cut the associated export subsidies which will be a lot more than the CBAM payments and force the Continent to pay more for its power. It would increase our security of supply as well, since they would need to provide capacity to handle supply without our exports, thus increasing the margin available for export to the UK. No need for us to apply CBAM to them which would simply raise costs for consumers.
Worth pointing out that the beneficiaries are National Grid, with increased asset utilisation to transport power to and over interconnectors, and ROC generators who get an increased subsidy on their output by virtue of the extra tax on gas. and extra export volumes.
I presume he will be consulting them on how high AR7 prices need to go, and whether there are other ways to increase renewables subsidies once the AR6 results are public.
Yes, I had a a number of “weep” letters but not all have been published (yet). The reference is from the final “World at War” episode
Llandyfaelog is to get that substation so Bute Energy can generate using onshore wind in mid Wales, something that isn’t necessarily for Wales to reach net zero
Sheer corruption and nothing to do with climate or “saving the planet”. They are blatantly taking us all for fools, and have been doing so for decades.
There is no need whatsoever to “reduce emissions”, never mind cut them back to Net Zero. The UK contributes just 1% of global CO2 emissions and the majority non-Western countries are making zero effort to cut their own emissions. To the contrary, they are steadily ramping up their consumption of fossil fuels, paying no heed to the 2018 global Net Zero target of the corrupt United Nations: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/.
Our self-flagellating UK Net Zero deindustrialisation and impoverishment will have negligible global impact, other than shipping our jobs abroad. The scientific clincher that “climate change” is a hoax is that increasing atmospheric CO2 has negligible impact on climate as its global warming effect is already saturated: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
These Green Blob people are engaged in a deadly ulterior crime against humanity. Don’t ever expect them to admit it, they are in too deep. They need to be stripped of their powers but don’t expect any Uniparty politicians to do that, especially not Labour. To the contrary, how long before they deem climate change denial or Net Zero denial to be a crime? https://davidturver.substack.com/p/criminalising-net-zero-disobedience.
They will use every dishonest trick in the book. Look at the way the global Green Blob suppressed news of Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption from the general public and ludicrously pretended that its sudden unprecedented spike in global temperatures, still not dissipating, was due to man-made CO2: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2024_v6_20x9-scaled.jpg.
It's sheer totalitarianism...a hideous green totalitarian blob squashing resistance from wherever it rises. There is no rhyme nor reason to it. It grows in all directions, roots in all layers of government, NGOs, the education sector where it brainwashes the young so that by the time they reach university they are expected to conform and repeat the mantras about 'saving the planet'. As some predicted back in 2020/21 the covid tyranny has segued in to the Net Zero tyranny. It was certainly the testing ground.
Why do we need all these bodies filled to the gunnels with people on handsome fees anyhow. Whether we agree with Millibrain and the eco warriors the direction of travel currently is in their favour so that means its upto NSEO to construct a solution to deliver the outcome they desire. They already have OFGEM to stress test its deliverability and affordability and a select committee to probe whatever it wants. Thus get rid of the lot of them. This is entirely in alignment with Reeves statement we she said she wants to reduce the cost of consultants to govt department by £500m/year.
Shouldn’t the comparison to a gas powered grid be to one where every gas power station is fitted with carbon capture and include for the long term (infinite) storage ofCO2? And wouldn’t that be the baseline against which all alternatives are compared?
No. Gas use should not be for baseload generation. We should have that provided by a good choice of nuclear. The thermodynamically sensible choice for gas is as a chemical feedstock and for heating, particularly where higher temperatures are needed in industry, and for handling demand flex not met by other generation. Carbon capture is not economically justified in any scenario. It only results in faster depletion of gas.
By that standard all fossil energy sources that produce the massive materials inputs to the wind/solar/battery/hydrogen/gas system electricity supply must also be fully carbon captured. In the end that will be close to an EROI calculation. For which the full lifecycle wind/solar/buffered electricity supply is typically around 3:1. Minimum 14:1 needed to sustain a modern industrial civilization. Higher including endless wars.
Whereas the highest EROI currently known is CANDU reactors at >120:1. And MSR calculations are putting them as >300:1. Consequently, since Energy inputs =~ CO2 inputs, nuclear is vastly superior to the wind/solar grid, which is where all the government subsidies, mandates & exemptions are directed.
On that basis manufacture, install and maintain renewables and storage using only renewables that have been manufactured, installed and maintained using renewables.
No use of hydrocarbons for mineral extraction & processing, nothing but synthetic hydrocarbons for resin production, no fudges with ‘carbon offset’
Production of renewables is fully exposed to intermittency.
Everyone involved and everything they use is no longer permitted to use any hydrocarbons whatsoever so for instance no artificial fertilisers, no treated water supply no electronic gadgets to use to pontificate on the perils of ‘man made CO2’ no travel to climate conferences unless on boats made from wood sourced sustainable forests (200 year growth of replacement trees to be achieved before any travel is permitted) all boats to be powered by oars or sails made from sustainable materials.
Get digging guano and return to 1 million years BC
Which could just as well be caused by higher global temperatures? Which humans are not capable of influencing (try and calculate the energy required to do so). But there is one capable of such feats, the sun.
Well their claim is that CO2 is causing dangerous rates of climate change, so that cost must be accounted for. They, as always, ignore any and all benefits from that CO2 (increased plant/food growth) and of course the incredible benefits of all that energy. While greatly exaggerating the risks of increased GHG levels. (global boiling, the World is on Fire, Existential Threat etc).
Truthfully, it's all hogwash. Instead the REAL issue is there isn't enough economical supplies of fossil resources to supply the 5X increase in Primary Energy supply the World will need to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of Developing Nations for a modern industrialized socioeconomic system. The only energy source capable of supplying tat level of energy is nuclear, and it can do that until the Sun sterilizes the Earth. Happy coincidence, nuclear energy is also the lowest emissions of any energy source, by a large margin.
That's just the facts. And those whom ignore them are the REAL SCIENCE DENIERS.
The only real problem with nuclear is that people don’t want it, for various reasons, so crack that and we can move on from the academic thought pieces
It's easy to crack. You can cut down the forested hillsides in Wales for solar and wind farms, and build pylons everywhere to take their intermittent output to feed Cardiff and Shrewsbury and Chester, and flood Merthyr and Ebbw Vale etc. to provide more pumped storage, but still have the lights go out in midwinter, but with power bills at least double present levels. Or you can build nuclear mainly at existing sites, with almost no need for more pylons (see for example the proposal made by Andy Dawson some years ago here
Of passing interest as that doesn’t get us to net zero does it? Wylfa is a dreadful site to use (and probably some of the others too) as it will not have sufficient grid capacity and a new connection will have to negotiate two national parks and an AONB. Hitachi point blank refused to use a subsea connection, although EDF don’t seem bothered at Sizewell. Wylfa also has no use for the waste heat which EN-1 positively encourages. SE England only for nuclear as that’s where the grid will be renewables deficient
Net zero should be cancelled. Cancel the wind farms and there is capacity to deliver power from Wylfa to deliver power across North Wales and to NW England and the W Midlands. Select a cheap enough technology and you might even be able to run an aluminium smelter too.
Wales can generate roughly twice the energy needed for net zero just from offshore wind, and that includes hydrogen storage, so there is no need for any onshore wind in Wales
The north Wales grid will be at max capacity by 2030 so any ew nuclear at either Wylfa or Trawsfynydd would need an entirely new grid connection to England
With the growth of offshore wind the only place nuclear makes any sense is SE England
Start with floating wind from the Celtic Sea at £250/MWh. Pay to bring the power ashore. Pylons to your electrolysis plant and hydrogen caverns that will take at least a decade to leach and will presumably be located in Cheshire. Hydrogen at least £400/MWh when stored. Power out at close to £1,000/ MWh.
Fair points, although I'm not who believes we would run out of gas anytime soon or that some grand grand etc children experience it either. Nuclear is a wonderful solution to many issues, it's just that we struggle with trusting many with that technology. And considering how quickly the West got brainwashed in recent years, dismantling functioning nuclear power and going full mental Thunberg globally.... we need to be careful who's in power.
That's not a significant issue. Almost all countries that developed nuclear weapons did so without a commercial nuclear power program. If you want nuclear weapons you build specialty heavy water or graphite reactors to achieve that. Even particle accelerators would be easier than foolishly attempting to use commercial reactors.
Meanwhile our leaders could care less about the insane Worldwide public funded efforts to engineer deadly bioweapons, as SARS-CoV-2 was. And an even more insane effort to promote nuclear war with Russia, makes any talk about Nuclear power --> Nuclear weapons proliferation nothing short of ridiculous.
Why is that? Because after Chernobyl some countries even banned improvements one of which was Sweden. 2011 didn't make it much more popular because of fear and incompetence. Although innovation and improvements never did stop in practice with breeder-reactors being used and many other gen3 and gen4, mainly hindered by lack of funding and risk-capital. All of this is hopefully changing as we speak with the world agreeing last COP (however this was politicians who can never be trusted, they flew down there on private jets for the photo-op. So let's wait and see.
Bad as Robert describes it, it is actually much worse. He is just showing US based organizations. For instance Greenpeace internationally is funded ~$400M/yr, the $33M is just the US division. And a lot of groups missing from the list like the WWF which had $507M in assets in 2020 and revenue of $286M. WWF is very aggressive with its anti-fossil & anti-nuclear campaigning, promoting wind & solar scams. (They also spend a pittance on saving Pandas, like Greepeace occasionally may try to save some whales - unless they are being killed by Wind turbines - that's OK).
Other missing groups include Food & Water Watch with ~$17M/yr in revenue, Riverkeeper with $5M/yr revenue. Thousands of those smaller NGOs engaged in promoting scam energy solutions and opposing rational energy.
If you just look at the anti-nuclear groups:
"...There are more than 700 nonprofits and other advocacy groups in the United States that oppose the use of carbon free nuclear energy. An August 2023 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined fewer than 200 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $2.3 billion..."
And in spite of its endless "Global Boiling" Climate Change Fear Porn rhetoric, The World Bank stubbornly refuses to fund Nuclear power, in fact it won't even discuss the subject.
So you have the Vested Interests, Big Oil & Gas, Big Green, King Coal all using funds diverted from their taxes, to finance a vast network of Mercenary ENGOs dedicated to kneecapping their Nuclear competition. On top of that we have the Club of Rome, Bankster Malthusian Misanthropes who despise Nuclear power with a passion, because it blows away their Malthusian, Scarcity, Doomer Dogma.
That's the only problem Nuclear has. Solve that and fossil will be replaced within a few decades with factory produced molten salt reactors. Believe me, the Grifters I mentioned, are very well aware of that fact.
Energy Transition: Nuclear SMRs vs Renewables. Energy Transition Crisis:
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone"
NIMBY, because I want to protect the Welsh countryside for future generations? As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, Wales can easily reach net zero using only offshore wind, so why would Wales need any onshore turbines. Particularly when offshore have far higher capacity factors and being less variable are easier for grid balancing
The visual footprint of a planned wind turbine 205m (675ft) to blade tip in Wales. The horizon is indicated by the blue line. Anywhere with maroon is in direct sight in good weather.
There are a number of windfarms in England. However, much of the land is not really windy enough to justify investment and most of the hills are national parks, which is why Welsh and Scottish hills have been preferred.
The damage is extensive, with worse to come. I've driven from Brecon via Builth Wells and Crossgates up to Newtown. Wind Farm Alley. Soon with visibility footprints stretching well over 100 miles.
It will probably get classified as legal but harmful at some point. But until they come knocking at my door, I am going to keep exposing the lies, corruption and hypocrisy.
"You're gonna love this one! Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda - it's a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore".
This cast is even more concerning, as they are plainly intentionally malevolent. XR advising on energy policy.
https://order-order.com/2024/08/12/revealed-milibands-extreme-left-policy-team/
I am from Alaska, not the UK, so I am not competent to discuss your politics. However, I am a competent engineer, and the engineering realities of "green hydrogen" are obvious. Unless electricity magically becomes free, "green hydrogen" is complete bullshit. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is so much energy lost in the various conversions required that "green hydrogen" will never even approach economic feasibility. It is a massive energy loser, and will make the world worse, not better. Keep up the good fight, guys. The best disinfectant is sunlight, and I wish you all well at spreading sunlight!
Thank you. It's funny you should mention "free energy" because that's exactly what the Government assumed in one of its costing reports - that wind for green hydrogen would be deemed "free" because it would otherwise be curtailed.
This communist Labour Party, headed by Keir Stalin, has within 5 miserable weeks lost at least 5% of the 17% who voted for them - I am hoping at around the 100 week mark, they are forced into another GE - their obviously un-costed plans for regression of the masses, are dystopian and spiteful, in equal measure - even now, I can safely say this will be the worst Govt for Britain and Britons, I’ve ever known and I’ve endured many
Another crony story:
https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/06/uk-energy-giants-push-for-eu-carbon-market-link/
The UK could lose up to £8 billion in government revenue from 2025 to 2030 if it doesn't link its emissions trading scheme with the EU's
Which means that UK billpayers would be paying an extra £8bn.
Commissioned by [the usual suspects] major UK energy firms including Centrica, Drax, Equinor, National Grid, SSE and Uniper, the report highlights the financial implications of maintaining separate carbon markets post-Brexit.
The research also found that the upcoming EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, set to begin in 2026, could impose additional costs on UK exporters, who might have to pay up to £800 million into the EU budget due to the price differential.
It would be much better to cut the associated export subsidies which will be a lot more than the CBAM payments and force the Continent to pay more for its power. It would increase our security of supply as well, since they would need to provide capacity to handle supply without our exports, thus increasing the margin available for export to the UK. No need for us to apply CBAM to them which would simply raise costs for consumers.
Worth pointing out that the beneficiaries are National Grid, with increased asset utilisation to transport power to and over interconnectors, and ROC generators who get an increased subsidy on their output by virtue of the extra tax on gas. and extra export volumes.
Wasn't Gummer/Deben up to the same malarkey?
Yes. I covered that here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/disband-the-climate-change-committee
Ed asks his CCC chums to set a target for 2035.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/09/uk-government-seeks-ndc-advice/
I presume he will be consulting them on how high AR7 prices need to go, and whether there are other ways to increase renewables subsidies once the AR6 results are public.
I see our resident nimby is back
https://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/24504969.letter-weep-llandyfaelog-chosen-national-grid-energy-hub/
Yes, I had a a number of “weep” letters but not all have been published (yet). The reference is from the final “World at War” episode
Llandyfaelog is to get that substation so Bute Energy can generate using onshore wind in mid Wales, something that isn’t necessarily for Wales to reach net zero
More
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/123276/pdf/
There is far more than that, keep digging 😉
Sheer corruption and nothing to do with climate or “saving the planet”. They are blatantly taking us all for fools, and have been doing so for decades.
There is no need whatsoever to “reduce emissions”, never mind cut them back to Net Zero. The UK contributes just 1% of global CO2 emissions and the majority non-Western countries are making zero effort to cut their own emissions. To the contrary, they are steadily ramping up their consumption of fossil fuels, paying no heed to the 2018 global Net Zero target of the corrupt United Nations: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/.
Our self-flagellating UK Net Zero deindustrialisation and impoverishment will have negligible global impact, other than shipping our jobs abroad. The scientific clincher that “climate change” is a hoax is that increasing atmospheric CO2 has negligible impact on climate as its global warming effect is already saturated: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
These Green Blob people are engaged in a deadly ulterior crime against humanity. Don’t ever expect them to admit it, they are in too deep. They need to be stripped of their powers but don’t expect any Uniparty politicians to do that, especially not Labour. To the contrary, how long before they deem climate change denial or Net Zero denial to be a crime? https://davidturver.substack.com/p/criminalising-net-zero-disobedience.
They will use every dishonest trick in the book. Look at the way the global Green Blob suppressed news of Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption from the general public and ludicrously pretended that its sudden unprecedented spike in global temperatures, still not dissipating, was due to man-made CO2: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2024_v6_20x9-scaled.jpg.
Incidentally, the phrase “The Green Blob” was coined ten years ago by Owen Paterson, the nearest the Tories ever got to an honest Environment minister: https://cliscep.com/2016/06/01/the-green-blob-identifies-itself/.
It's sheer totalitarianism...a hideous green totalitarian blob squashing resistance from wherever it rises. There is no rhyme nor reason to it. It grows in all directions, roots in all layers of government, NGOs, the education sector where it brainwashes the young so that by the time they reach university they are expected to conform and repeat the mantras about 'saving the planet'. As some predicted back in 2020/21 the covid tyranny has segued in to the Net Zero tyranny. It was certainly the testing ground.
Why do we need all these bodies filled to the gunnels with people on handsome fees anyhow. Whether we agree with Millibrain and the eco warriors the direction of travel currently is in their favour so that means its upto NSEO to construct a solution to deliver the outcome they desire. They already have OFGEM to stress test its deliverability and affordability and a select committee to probe whatever it wants. Thus get rid of the lot of them. This is entirely in alignment with Reeves statement we she said she wants to reduce the cost of consultants to govt department by £500m/year.
Shouldn’t the comparison to a gas powered grid be to one where every gas power station is fitted with carbon capture and include for the long term (infinite) storage ofCO2? And wouldn’t that be the baseline against which all alternatives are compared?
No. Gas use should not be for baseload generation. We should have that provided by a good choice of nuclear. The thermodynamically sensible choice for gas is as a chemical feedstock and for heating, particularly where higher temperatures are needed in industry, and for handling demand flex not met by other generation. Carbon capture is not economically justified in any scenario. It only results in faster depletion of gas.
By that standard all fossil energy sources that produce the massive materials inputs to the wind/solar/battery/hydrogen/gas system electricity supply must also be fully carbon captured. In the end that will be close to an EROI calculation. For which the full lifecycle wind/solar/buffered electricity supply is typically around 3:1. Minimum 14:1 needed to sustain a modern industrial civilization. Higher including endless wars.
Whereas the highest EROI currently known is CANDU reactors at >120:1. And MSR calculations are putting them as >300:1. Consequently, since Energy inputs =~ CO2 inputs, nuclear is vastly superior to the wind/solar grid, which is where all the government subsidies, mandates & exemptions are directed.
On that basis manufacture, install and maintain renewables and storage using only renewables that have been manufactured, installed and maintained using renewables.
No use of hydrocarbons for mineral extraction & processing, nothing but synthetic hydrocarbons for resin production, no fudges with ‘carbon offset’
Production of renewables is fully exposed to intermittency.
Everyone involved and everything they use is no longer permitted to use any hydrocarbons whatsoever so for instance no artificial fertilisers, no treated water supply no electronic gadgets to use to pontificate on the perils of ‘man made CO2’ no travel to climate conferences unless on boats made from wood sourced sustainable forests (200 year growth of replacement trees to be achieved before any travel is permitted) all boats to be powered by oars or sails made from sustainable materials.
Get digging guano and return to 1 million years BC
What’s the problem with hydrocarbons? We will always need hydrocarbons but just not burn them unabated
There is no problem with hydrocarbons. Your design for carbon capture on a jet engine is eagerly awaited.
Your not on message they are allowed to consume any resource they want to get their goal its only the rest of us that has to go back into the caves.
Those problems will all fall on us Plebes, the Ruling Class will live in the lap of luxury. Feudalism 2.0. That's what this is all about, always was.
Why would you attempt capturing carbon? All life is made up from carbon, are we and trees poison now? Red herring
As I’m sure you well know, to prevent the level in the atmosphere significantly increasing
Which could just as well be caused by higher global temperatures? Which humans are not capable of influencing (try and calculate the energy required to do so). But there is one capable of such feats, the sun.
Well their claim is that CO2 is causing dangerous rates of climate change, so that cost must be accounted for. They, as always, ignore any and all benefits from that CO2 (increased plant/food growth) and of course the incredible benefits of all that energy. While greatly exaggerating the risks of increased GHG levels. (global boiling, the World is on Fire, Existential Threat etc).
Truthfully, it's all hogwash. Instead the REAL issue is there isn't enough economical supplies of fossil resources to supply the 5X increase in Primary Energy supply the World will need to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of Developing Nations for a modern industrialized socioeconomic system. The only energy source capable of supplying tat level of energy is nuclear, and it can do that until the Sun sterilizes the Earth. Happy coincidence, nuclear energy is also the lowest emissions of any energy source, by a large margin.
That's just the facts. And those whom ignore them are the REAL SCIENCE DENIERS.
The only real problem with nuclear is that people don’t want it, for various reasons, so crack that and we can move on from the academic thought pieces
It's easy to crack. You can cut down the forested hillsides in Wales for solar and wind farms, and build pylons everywhere to take their intermittent output to feed Cardiff and Shrewsbury and Chester, and flood Merthyr and Ebbw Vale etc. to provide more pumped storage, but still have the lights go out in midwinter, but with power bills at least double present levels. Or you can build nuclear mainly at existing sites, with almost no need for more pylons (see for example the proposal made by Andy Dawson some years ago here
https://euanmearns.com/decarbonising-uk-power-generation-the-nuclear-option/ ), and lower bills in consequence.
It is worth noting that nuclear power is now up for discussion in previously anti nuclear Australia.
Of passing interest as that doesn’t get us to net zero does it? Wylfa is a dreadful site to use (and probably some of the others too) as it will not have sufficient grid capacity and a new connection will have to negotiate two national parks and an AONB. Hitachi point blank refused to use a subsea connection, although EDF don’t seem bothered at Sizewell. Wylfa also has no use for the waste heat which EN-1 positively encourages. SE England only for nuclear as that’s where the grid will be renewables deficient
Net zero should be cancelled. Cancel the wind farms and there is capacity to deliver power from Wylfa to deliver power across North Wales and to NW England and the W Midlands. Select a cheap enough technology and you might even be able to run an aluminium smelter too.
Wales can generate roughly twice the energy needed for net zero just from offshore wind, and that includes hydrogen storage, so there is no need for any onshore wind in Wales
The north Wales grid will be at max capacity by 2030 so any ew nuclear at either Wylfa or Trawsfynydd would need an entirely new grid connection to England
With the growth of offshore wind the only place nuclear makes any sense is SE England
Start with floating wind from the Celtic Sea at £250/MWh. Pay to bring the power ashore. Pylons to your electrolysis plant and hydrogen caverns that will take at least a decade to leach and will presumably be located in Cheshire. Hydrogen at least £400/MWh when stored. Power out at close to £1,000/ MWh.
I think I'd take the nuclear, thanks.
Has anyone successfully stored hydrogen? This would be a revolutionary thing and it's strange it hasn't received the publicity it deserves.
Fair points, although I'm not who believes we would run out of gas anytime soon or that some grand grand etc children experience it either. Nuclear is a wonderful solution to many issues, it's just that we struggle with trusting many with that technology. And considering how quickly the West got brainwashed in recent years, dismantling functioning nuclear power and going full mental Thunberg globally.... we need to be careful who's in power.
That's not a significant issue. Almost all countries that developed nuclear weapons did so without a commercial nuclear power program. If you want nuclear weapons you build specialty heavy water or graphite reactors to achieve that. Even particle accelerators would be easier than foolishly attempting to use commercial reactors.
Meanwhile our leaders could care less about the insane Worldwide public funded efforts to engineer deadly bioweapons, as SARS-CoV-2 was. And an even more insane effort to promote nuclear war with Russia, makes any talk about Nuclear power --> Nuclear weapons proliferation nothing short of ridiculous.
Nuclear has been a huge disappointment in that it seems to have hardly developed at all in the last 50 years
There has been a hiatus for 20+ years, but there's lots of development going on now.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/advanced-nuclear-technologies
So can we now have high flexibility, load following, nuclear to replace gas for flexibility
Why is that? Because after Chernobyl some countries even banned improvements one of which was Sweden. 2011 didn't make it much more popular because of fear and incompetence. Although innovation and improvements never did stop in practice with breeder-reactors being used and many other gen3 and gen4, mainly hindered by lack of funding and risk-capital. All of this is hopefully changing as we speak with the world agreeing last COP (however this was politicians who can never be trusted, they flew down there on private jets for the photo-op. So let's wait and see.
What it's really about is this:
The Anti-Nuclear Industry Is A $2.3B-Per-Year Racket. And it’s outspending pro-nuclear groups 14 to 1!
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-anti-nuclear-industry-is-a-23b
Bad as Robert describes it, it is actually much worse. He is just showing US based organizations. For instance Greenpeace internationally is funded ~$400M/yr, the $33M is just the US division. And a lot of groups missing from the list like the WWF which had $507M in assets in 2020 and revenue of $286M. WWF is very aggressive with its anti-fossil & anti-nuclear campaigning, promoting wind & solar scams. (They also spend a pittance on saving Pandas, like Greepeace occasionally may try to save some whales - unless they are being killed by Wind turbines - that's OK).
Other missing groups include Food & Water Watch with ~$17M/yr in revenue, Riverkeeper with $5M/yr revenue. Thousands of those smaller NGOs engaged in promoting scam energy solutions and opposing rational energy.
If you just look at the anti-nuclear groups:
"...There are more than 700 nonprofits and other advocacy groups in the United States that oppose the use of carbon free nuclear energy. An August 2023 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined fewer than 200 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $2.3 billion..."
https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opposition-to-nuclear-energy/
And in spite of its endless "Global Boiling" Climate Change Fear Porn rhetoric, The World Bank stubbornly refuses to fund Nuclear power, in fact it won't even discuss the subject.
So you have the Vested Interests, Big Oil & Gas, Big Green, King Coal all using funds diverted from their taxes, to finance a vast network of Mercenary ENGOs dedicated to kneecapping their Nuclear competition. On top of that we have the Club of Rome, Bankster Malthusian Misanthropes who despise Nuclear power with a passion, because it blows away their Malthusian, Scarcity, Doomer Dogma.
That's the only problem Nuclear has. Solve that and fossil will be replaced within a few decades with factory produced molten salt reactors. Believe me, the Grifters I mentioned, are very well aware of that fact.
Energy Transition: Nuclear SMRs vs Renewables. Energy Transition Crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBF2fGUO5cQ
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone"
850ft high is going to need a big hole with a lot of concrete and steel in it but thats OK init
I note your article quotes a certain nimby called Johnathan Dean!
NIMBY, because I want to protect the Welsh countryside for future generations? As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, Wales can easily reach net zero using only offshore wind, so why would Wales need any onshore turbines. Particularly when offshore have far higher capacity factors and being less variable are easier for grid balancing
The visual footprint of a planned wind turbine 205m (675ft) to blade tip in Wales. The horizon is indicated by the blue line. Anywhere with maroon is in direct sight in good weather.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-07-12-232226-1723377600.7616.png
In Wales and Scotland onshore wind has always been allowed. Ed has only introduced this particular joy to England
There are a number of windfarms in England. However, much of the land is not really windy enough to justify investment and most of the hills are national parks, which is why Welsh and Scottish hills have been preferred.
The damage is extensive, with worse to come. I've driven from Brecon via Builth Wells and Crossgates up to Newtown. Wind Farm Alley. Soon with visibility footprints stretching well over 100 miles.
I’m well aware, and none of them are necessary for net zero
It will probably get classified as legal but harmful at some point. But until they come knocking at my door, I am going to keep exposing the lies, corruption and hypocrisy.
At the moment propaganda is outscoring truth.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50249-how-do-britons-feel-about-expanding-renewable-energy
We've lots of work to do.
They will do everything in their power to quash dissent and truth
They might learn something.
You're going to be eating the bugs instead of meat & dairy for protein:
UNMISSABLE: Main National TV Station Pumps INSANE Propaganda - ENJOY!
Ivor Cummins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZwdn2kBcmY
"You're gonna love this one! Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda - it's a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore".