![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Economy with the truth | Judith[_4_] | UK | 5 | May 9th 12 07:54 AM |
economy energy gel/syrup | someone | Techniques | 1 | August 4th 09 04:07 AM |
mushrooms, riding and the economy | Tom Keats | General | 5 | May 18th 09 01:07 AM |
Economy of Motion | Prisoner at War | General | 8 | October 12th 07 08:28 PM |
CTC's economy with the veritas | Nick Maclaren | UK | 164 | June 13th 07 03:05 PM |