• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Tredman said:
At least it will fund R&D in the UK, usually we just chuck billions at the financial services industry for it to vanish
Click to expand...
The money would also stay in the UK if we used it to fund R&D in the renewables sector, which actually works.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Sizewell C pledged to lower bills but will take at least 10 years

Sir Keir Starmer says the development of Sizewell C on the Suffolk coastline will create 10,000 jobs over the next decade.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Im interested in seeing how throwing money at the most expensive (in capital terms and also cost per MWh) form of energy will lower bills compared with throwing money at renewables, which are the cheapest.
 
visage said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Sizewell C pledged to lower bills but will take at least 10 years

Sir Keir Starmer says the development of Sizewell C on the Suffolk coastline will create 10,000 jobs over the next decade.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Im interested in seeing how throwing money at the most expensive (in capital terms and also cost per MWh) form of energy will lower bills compared with throwing money at renewables, which are the cheapest.
Click to expand...
It's that or storage, and storage isn't there yet. We will always need resilience, I'd rather nuclear than gas provided that resilience.
 
I believe getting power from where renewables create it to where it's needed is also a big challenge.
 
AndyWolves said:
I believe getting power from where renewables create it to where it's needed is also a big challenge.
Click to expand...
Damn sight cheaper, quicker and easier to solve that than to build a nuclear. Which also needs transfering.
 
Tredman said:
Damn sight cheaper, quicker and easier to solve that than to build a nuclear. Which also needs transfering.
Click to expand...
But the infrastructure is there as the new nuclear plants are where existing ones are. Labour need to make a decision about connecting wind power to the grid. Pylons are massively unpopular and the alternative, underground cables, is much more expensive. No doubt they’re doing an analysis of the impact on their vote in different constituencies. Needs sorting soon or we’ll be paying to turn off turbines more frequently which is madness given energy prices.
 
Wilf Wolf said:
But the infrastructure is there as the new nuclear plants are where existing ones are. Labour need to make a decision about connecting wind power to the grid. Pylons are massively unpopular and the alternative, underground cables, is much more expensive. No doubt they’re doing an analysis of the impact on their vote in different constituencies. Needs sorting soon or we’ll be paying to turn off turbines more frequently which is madness given energy prices.
Click to expand...
See my comment in the annoy thread about NIMBYs :)
 
Looks like Hazelgrove moved to the US;

"
Good morning! In the collapsing Republic formerly known as the United States, justice now travels by backhoe, science is subject to podcast approval, and law enforcement functions like a state-sponsored bounty hunting operation. We begin today’s descent with what used to be the Environmental Protection Agency, a name that now reads like something out of a cursed Mad Libs.

Administrator Lee Zeldin, in a performance of deregulatory vaudeville, unveiled a proposal to revoke the 2009 “endangerment finding”, the legal bedrock that defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant and allowed the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions. With the stroke of a pen, the Trump administration is attempting to reclassify climate change as a harmless weather quirk. Why? Because oil companies asked nicely. Because ExxonMobil still has more lobbyists than conscience, and because Donald Trump promised his donors he’d break the thermostat and burn the manual.

If finalized, the EPA’s new rule would eliminate greenhouse gas tailpipe standards altogether. Let me say that again: the agency charged with protecting the environment is proposing not to regulate car pollution because apparently carbon doesn’t count. The move is being celebrated by fossil fuel executives and the American Petroleum Institute, who can barely contain their glee, and condemned by environmental groups who are already preparing lawsuits, because apparently the only carbon-neutral thing left in America is justice".


follow me at marygeddry.substack.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top