Energy price cap - Page 4 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Energy price cap


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Orraloon said:

IMO, we have got plenty nuclear fusion, we just need to learn to use it better.

A fair point. 

I was just using the 30 year from fusion trope.

Fossil fuels specifically oil are still very useful. Burning them off to generate electricity might not be a good use for them even if they didn't have a deleterious effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Malcolm said:


exactly, so we need to be extracting the vast natural resources we have now including fracking.  Whatever it takes.  Wheel Greta out in thirty years time.

That's a joke. It's been 30 years till fusion for the last 70 years.

Fossil fuels should be used to transition as quickly as possible. Funnily enough China is doing just that. They're pretty much the only country spending significant resources on transition, energy storage, huge energy transfer infrastructure etc.

However it's a lot easier for their system of government to think long-term. Our political system pops out folk who are good at winning elections every 5 years as a primary concern. As opposed to long-term projects etc, it's all near-sighted populism and culture wars to activate their base to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

If it can lie about how many people died at Chernobyl it can certainly make up figures about cost to suit its own agenda. 

 

‘Following an earlier motion by two government lawmakers, Wiebes had commissioned a report from nuclear energy consultancy Enco into the 'Possible Role of Nuclear in the Dutch Energy Mix in the Future' until 2040.’

 

The Enco report claims that "with increased safety requirements, the nuclear power industry is the safest power generation available that is known to mankind today."

Citing findings from Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute, the report goes on to say that even when accidents occur and radioactive releases are taken into account, the impact on the population is much lower than that of any other energy source if measured in fatalities per terawatt hour each year.

According to the institute's figures, nuclear power has caused less than 0.01 deaths per TWh each year, compared to 0.245 deaths in solar, 8.5 in offshore wind, or 120 in coal - but no time frame was given for the average casualties.

Like Enco, the Paul Scherrer Institute has links to the nuclear industry, though, and according to reports by the Tagesanzeiger and other Swiss newspapers until 2016 stored 20 kilogrammes of weapons-grade plutonium in a secret storage facility for the Swiss government, which was then shipped to the US. 

The Swiss government later said the material was not weapons-grade. Switzerland until the late 1980s reportedly considered developing its own nuclear weapons.

The Enco report also claims that only several dozen people died from the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with "some hundreds additional deaths caused by cancers," and says only a few dozens of fatal cancers might be expected over several decades as a result of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown.

That is far less than the up to 4000 people, the World Health Organization in 2005 said could eventually die of radiation exposure as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. A 2016 report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), however, links hundreds of thousands of deaths to the accident, and said millions suffer from long-term health consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear is going to take 15 years to start up. So it is irrelevant what the price is today but what it will be in the future.

Also I'd not have price as the primary motivator anyway.

We need consistent energy supply while mitigating emissions. How that is achieved should be worked out by folk that know what they are talking about. That's not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, phart said:

Nuclear is going to take 15 years to start up. So it is irrelevant what the price is today but what it will be in the future.

Also I'd not have price as the primary motivator anyway.

We need consistent energy supply while mitigating emissions. How that is achieved should be worked out by folk that know what they are talking about. That's not me.

Tbh, from a UK perspective, I would rather have you and a few others on here were making the decisions than some of the donkeys that actually do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, phart said:

A fair point. 

I was just using the 30 year from fusion trope.

Fossil fuels specifically oil are still very useful. Burning them off to generate electricity might not be a good use for them even if they didn't have a deleterious effect.

Aye, I'm just trying to invent my own "trope" by countering the "30 years from fusion" one by saying we've been using fusion for thousands of years and there is still plenty of it to go around. 

I agree with my old Organic Chemistry professor who said to us (many, many times) that oil is far too valuable to burn. Future historians will look back on the age of oil and ask the question " Why did these idiots take that precious resource out of the ground and just burn the fukin stuff?" 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

Tbh, from a UK perspective, I would rather have you and a few others on here were making the decisions than some of the donkeys that actually do. 

I'm absolutely not qualified to be making any decisions of that magnitude.

Now the same could be said of the folk actually making the decisions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

Aye, I'm just trying to invent my own "trope" by countering the "30 years from fusion" one by saying we've been using fusion for thousands of years and there is still plenty of it to go around. 

I agree with my old Organic Chemistry professor who said to us (many, many times) that oil is far too valuable to burn. Future historians will look back on the age of oil and ask the question " Why did these idiots take that precious resource out of the ground and just burn the fukin stuff?" 🤣

Organic chemistry... shudder.

I have PTSD from drawing skeletal diagrams and organising functional groups, then trying to balance reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 11:51 AM, vanderark14 said:

My energy company went bust and I was put over to British gas. I got my first quarterly bill from them last week and I was genuinely surprised at how low it was, the bill was higher than usual obviously but not as bad as the media hype.

We will cut back on heating usage this winter to try and counter the price hike. I live in the south of England so I won't need to cope with the low temps we used to get in Scotland

We have had 3 companies go bust in the last couple of year. We were with lookaftermybills soo they dealt with it all to be fair. Our rate was £65 a month and we weren't using that, we ended up a good bit in credit which has been useful. We have been moved on to British gas an like yourself have been pleasantly surprised with how low they still are. We are once again in credit. There are 2 of us in a 3 bedroom house with a fully converted loft so we don't use much of anything. It'll be interesting to see what the bills are like come winter when the heating is on although we will probably wear more clothes and only stick it on for a few hours a day.

On 9/1/2022 at 1:35 PM, Alibi said:

I reckon this is Sturgeon, having painted herself into a corner, refusing to even consider changing tack.  Stopping exploration and development of our oil resources won't make any difference to climate change as the oil will just be imported from elsewhere.  A pragmatist would say let's produce our own oil and get the benefits of it.  Sturgeon isn't the brightest in my opinion and her grasp of the wider picture is poor.  Her virtue signalling is costing Scotland money.  I want her to succeed, to lead the country to independence, but she's just utterly hopeless, lacks any drive, and she surrounds herself with low grade ministers while some of the best minds in the SNP are sidelined, ignored, or even persecuted.  She really has caused a lot of damage to the SNP with her actions, albeit most of the electorate don't generally look that closely at what's going on.

 

I think she's well overstayed her welcome and a lot of people are sick of her, which could have a very negative effect on the Indy campaign 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...