First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal

It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal

It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless. How
are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for winter
heating.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless. How
are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for winter
heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring billions
into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide can give more
for less without the residual danger and cost.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for winter
heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring billions
into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide can give more
for less without the residual danger and cost.

You're always quick to tell posters that they aren't on topic, so WTF
has your post got to do with cycling.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 09:26:14 GMT, Bod wrote:

On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...-first-major-e
conomy-to-set-net-zero-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being
rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for
winter heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring
billions into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide
can give more for less without the residual danger and cost.

You're always quick to tell posters that they aren't on topic, so
WTF
has your post got to do with cycling.


I think Mr Cheerful has cracked, and is admitting that an eco-lifestyle
is the prefered way forward.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 16/06/2019 10:57, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 09:26:14 GMT, Bod wrote:

On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...-first-major-e
conomy-to-set-net-zero-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being
rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for
winter heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring
billions into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide
can give more for less without the residual danger and cost.

You're always quick to tell posters that they aren't on topic, so
WTF
has your post got to do with cycling.


I think Mr Cheerful has cracked, and is admitting that an eco-lifestyle
is the prefered way forward.


I am against nuclear power stations, they seemed like a good idea in the
50's, but have not panned out as they promised.

I am not aginst bicycles, just the ****s that use them so badly.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for winter
heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring billions
into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide can give more
for less without the residual danger and cost.

If you look at https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you will see very
little solar in winter and periods with very little power from wind.

Given that current electrical generation doesn't include transport or
heating you need to about double or triple current electricity
generation and have it available when people want it. Even the current
small contribution from variable sources such as wind and solar causes
considerable problems for the distribution grid.

Tidal is very expensive.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for winter
heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring billions
into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide can give more
for less without the residual danger and cost.

If you look at https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you will see very
little solar in winter and periods with very little power from wind.

Battery costs are falling at rates that rival Moore's law.

Given that current electrical generation doesn't include transport or
heating you need to about double or triple current electricity
generation and have it available when people want it. Even the current
small contribution from variable sources such as wind and solar causes
considerable problems for the distribution grid.

The Germans discovered a couple years ago that was not a real concern.

It's surprising more don't like the idea of not having 24/7 power. Everyone could just take the day off when there isn't enough power. Cycling is more fun w/o a stiff head wind!


Bret Cahill

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On 16/06/2019 13:20, Tom Evans wrote:
On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...o-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being
rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty meaningless.
How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for
winter heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring billions
into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide can give
more for less without the residual danger and cost.

If you look at https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you will see very
little solar in winter and periods with very little power from wind.

Given that current electrical generation doesn't include transport or
heating you need to about double or triple current electricity
generation and have it available when people want it. Even the current
small contribution from variable sources such as wind and solar causes
considerable problems for the distribution grid.

Tidal is very expensive.

but very cheap compared to nuclear, and always available.

First Major Economy To Set Net 0C
 

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:38:25 GMT, MrCheerful
wrote:

On 16/06/2019 13:20, Tom Evans wrote:
On 16/06/2019 07:56, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/06/2019 13:36, Tom Evans wrote:
On 13/06/2019 18:07, Bret Cahill wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...s-first-major-
economy-to-set-net-zero-climate-goal


It's hard to to be stuck on stupid when other places are being
rational.


Bret Cahill

The UK isn't being rational. A 30 year target is pretty
meaningless. How are they going to achieve it?

Also, the current trend is to promote impractical solutions such as
wind. Wind is too variable, we need a reliable power source for
winter heating.


as of 8am, nuclear is stuck on 4.3gw, the day seems calm yet wind is
giving 2.9 gw, solar is giving an estimated 1.2gw, so pouring
billions into nuclear seems rather silly when wind, solar and tide
can give more for less without the residual danger and cost.

If you look at https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you will see
very little solar in winter and periods with very little power from
wind.

I'd like the renewables all in 1 box, not chuck wind in with
nuke/coal/gas.

Given that current electrical generation doesn't include transport or
heating you need to about double or triple current electricity
generation and have it available when people want it. Even the
current small contribution from variable sources such as wind and
solar causes considerable problems for the distribution grid.

Tidal is very expensive.

but very cheap compared to nuclear, and always available.


Good lard, IAWTP. Go on Mr C get with the program(me) and use an
environmentally friendly means of transport.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.