SteamyTea

Would have some people trying to move into the area, bit like having a 'good school' nearby. I am one of 6 houses in my post code area, would be get a discount based on the number of turbines/pylons/hectares of PV, slip 6 ways, so a good discount. What if there were 600 houses i.e. a small discount. Discounting peoples energy is a recipe for disaster, no incentive to do the right thing and use less.

Seems that Pakistan has imported 50 GWs of PV and installed over 33 GWs of it, 18 GW in the last financial year. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/01/20/pakistans-installed-pv-capacity-estimated-above-27-gw/ The UK, 18.1 GWs installed. https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/solar-technology/uk-solar-capacity-up-5-9-year-on-year Pakistan's first 48 GWs has an estimated cost of $2bn. Pakistan's GDP, in 2024 was $371,570,000, UK $3,686,033,040. Near as damn it, a tenth of ours. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD Per Capita CO2 emissions are 0.72 tonne/person for Pakistan, UK 4.35 tonnes/person. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita Population of Pakistan is 255,219,554, UK 69,551,332. https://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/

They are multi directional. Our electrical grid is similar to a house ring main. It is designed this way to make it more robust and capable of dealing with unexpected large generation plants shutting down. It is the small (but still large) spurs that need an upgrade to cope with more distributed capacity. But that is nothing compared to the local 'last mile' upgraded that are needed. Map_of_the_National_Grid_in_Great_Britain.svg

1 tonne of bio digestible waste produces about 400 cubic metres of gas, half of that is methane. 200 m3 of methane has around 2 MWh of energy. If a third of that was converted to electricity, and the UK produced about 35 million tonnes each year, so about 23 TWh of power. Or, oddly enough, about what Hinckley C will churn out in a year. (The use of fuel cells, rather than turbines would up efficiently significantly, but that would require more development)

They get reliable, low CO2e, electricity. I am sure there were similar complaints about paving roads. Now people marvel at what the Romans did for us. But realistically, telegraph and power poles in 'pretty' villages are a bigger problem visually. I have one outside my bedroom window. I don't notice it, mainly as I am asleep, or it is dark. Oddly though, it does not supply my house, that has underground cabling.

That is not really an issue though. Bulk transmission losses are pretty small. The biggest problem is public acceptance of wind and solar. Mostly based on disinformation. One of the oldest windfarms is near Truro, clearly visible from the A30, but only for about a mile, so less than a minute at 70 MPH. There is also a solar farm close to it, most people I know do not know of its existence. even though it is clearly visible.

That is our biggest problem. Marginal Pricing is a ludicrous system for a necessary service. Imagine if the supermarkets did it.

How many grockles you hog tied with it, and how long do you need to chock them to stop them camping on your land.

Possibly the cost of decommissioning is account for elsewhere. I think that the two EPRs are both close to £20bn, though it is hard to find a true costs for any of them. It is not really the price that is the problem as much of that is for labour, of which most is UK based. The biggest problem is the slow pace. Do you think so. We already have half hour pricing, just not on the retail side. Dynamic pricing will be to a lot of customers a disadvantage. Most cannot cope with E7, let alone E10 (two cheaper periods. I work with two people, neither of them stupid, and one is an electrician. Like me, they both have E7. One cannot understand how to set up a storage heater and heats her hot water on demand, the other (the electrician) has twice the day units than night units (700 kWh, 360 kWh respectively). A little probing and it transpires that they run a tumble dryer for 2 hours every day (as part of their holiday cottage cleaning business business). As the night units only heat the hot water, they are using about 10 kWh/day, which is probably about right for two/three of them. I was around their place the other evening, not coming out of the storage heaters. They heat when they feel cold, so generally on day rate. Offering those people dynamic pricing will be a disaster.

About 25 away from getting some power. Now imagine if half the money had been spent on grid reinforcement/renewal, a third on new RE generation and the remaining amount on storage (which does NOT have to be batteries). We would have increased installed capacity by about 15GW, and dispatchable power by probably 10GW. Or, in eady to understand terms, about 20% of our needs. But hey, getting to Birmingham, from somewhere near North London is a vote winner.

Ah, talk about this when you are there: From the corrupt (maybe), left wing, multi million turnover press: New wood-burning stoves to carry health warnings in UK plan Pollution from wood burners kills thousands but proposed emissions limit would cut toxic particles by 10% Damian Carrington Environment editor Thu 22 Jan 2026 13.56 GMT New wood-burning stoves will carry a health warning highlighting the impact of the air pollution they produce, under UK government plans. Ministers have also proposed cutting the limit on the smoke emitted from wood burners by 80%. However, the measure would only apply to new stoves, most of which already meet the stricter limit. The new limit would cut the annual toxic emissions from wood burning in the UK by only 10% over the next decade, according to the consultation. Clean air campaigners said the proposals ignore the pollution from existing stoves and compared less polluting stoves to low-tar cigarettes. Pollution from burning in homes is one of the UK’s biggest sources of air pollution, contributing 20% of fine particles, about the same as all road transport. The fine particles are the most dangerous air pollutant for human health, the government said. Wood-burning stoves and fires in homes are linked to 2,500 early deaths a year in the UK, according to a recent study, as well as 3,700 cases of diabetes and 1,500 cases of asthma. Wood burners linked to 2,500 deaths a year in the UK, analysis finds Wood burners are used by about 12% of households, but more than 90% of these have other sources of heating. Many use the stoves and fires solely for their aesthetic appeal. Emma Hardy, the air quality minister, said: “Dirty air robs people of their health and costs our NHS millions each year to treat lung conditions and asthma. We are determined to clean up our air. By limiting emission levels and introducing new labels as outlined in our consultation, families will be able to make better, healthier choices when heating their homes.” The UK-wide consultation proposes labels for new stoves that clearly state the impact burning solid fuels has on the health of individuals and their families. A suggested warning reads: “Please be aware that this appliance emits air pollution into and around your home which can harm your health.” The label would also rate the energy efficiency of the stove from A to C. Wood sold for burning would also carry a health warning, with a suggested wording reading: “Burning in the home leads to air pollution which has a negative impact on the health of you and your family.” The final proposed measure would increase the fine for fuel suppliers who sell insufficiently dry wood from £300 to £2,000. Damp wood produces more pollution. The proposed limit for smoke emissions from new stoves is 1g per hour, down from the current 5g per hour. About 70% of stoves tested since 2018 already meet the new limit, the consultation said, and the new standard would not come into force for three to five years from the date the new law is passed. The foreword to the consultation said: “We all deserve to live in an environment where our everyday lives are not negatively affected by the quality of the air that we breathe.” Emissions of fine particle pollution from domestic burning rose by 36% from 2009-20, largely due to a rise in emissions from the burning of wood. Larissa Lockwood, director of clean air at Global Action Plan, said: “While measures to tighten pollution standards for wood burning stoves and better inform people of the health risks of these products at the point of sale are a good first step, they don’t go far enough. “A less polluting stove is like a low tar cigarette: it’s slightly better for your health, but still significantly worse than not using them in the first place. We want to see further action from the government to ensure everyone can access cleaner, greener forms of heating and give local authorities the powers they need to curb harmful emissions for the benefit of their local communities.” Research found that no prosecutions for illegal wood burning were made in England in the year to August 2025, despite 15,195 complaints. Only 24 fines were issued by local authorities during that period. Jemima Hartshorn from the Mums for Lungs campaign group said: “Almost daily, people tell us about being smoked out of their homes and gardens, of non-stop coughing and wheezing during the winter despite their neighbours burning in a legal way across the country. “Non-essential wood burning needs to end,. The consultation outline does not go far enough – it only suggests measures that will reduce wood burning from new stoves but does not address the huge pollution emitted by existing stoves. Hopefully, the final outcome will be more aligned with scientists and health professionals and the needs of the public and children’s health.” The consultation closes on 19 March.

https://www.oftrb.com/archives/39898 Small-scale LNG Carriers: Around 3,500 to 20,000 cubic meters. Medium-sized LNG Carriers: Approximately 20,000 to 90,000 cubic meters. Large LNG Carriers (Q-Max and Q-Flex classes): Between 210,000 and 266,000 cubic meters.

I just done a quick search to see how much gas storage, as a service, costs, seems to be about £0.00167/kWh ($0.64/MCF), so quite expensive. May have got the conversions wrong and the original data may be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage If it is even a factor of 10 out, it is still expensive, possibly why we don't store that much.

I bought a second hand one in 1984, it was good. The video rental shop owner had a Betamax, so loads of choice.

Yes, John Clauser, paid by the American Petroleum Institute. And you think scientist are corrupt. I studied the very field that he says is the cause. I abandoned it as a long term study as the science, experiments and events, all pointed to it not being the main cause. In the last decade and a half, the subject has been studied intensively and no studies have really shown that it is anything more than a short term weather phenomenon. But all that is a digression. If you are serious about debate on anthropogenic climate change, go get a higher degree in the subject and then rubbish all the research, that will level the playing field for you.

Shall pop your comments into the conspiracy theory bin.

Same episode that pointed out that in a few years they would be the world leaders. Did BMW, Toyota etc all really think that the only benefit was to themselves. Be interesting to find out how much they have invested in Chinese companies that make car parts or assemble cars, similar to what the Japanese did in the UK car market in the 1990s.

You are one of them. I don't know your educational background, it is not Physics. There is a scientific reason that seemingly small rises in atmospheric can have a disproportionate effect on global temperatures. There is also research that shows global temperatures going going back 1.2 million years. Is that long enough for you. Anthropogenic climate change is happening, whether you wish to believe it or not.

Cough SASOL

Not how academic peer reviewing works. Rogue reviewers soon get found out, and the consequences are usually pretty severe. There is a big difference between science (as in the method) and opinion. Opinion is not science, it is just thoughts. Worth studying Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend and how they differed in their approach to quantum physics. It is heavy going philosophy but put the scientific method on a firmer footing. If an opinion is said, heard or quoted, assume that there has been no experiments, data collected, analysis and reviewing. An opinion is not science so cannot be falsified.

Have you a published and peer reviewed academic paper published, or an even better source for your assumptions?

Is Brian that hard to work with. More usual to murder an Indian or a Chinese when hungry. Seems a bit extreme to me, but each to their own.

Not sure it is the skill level that is missing. Think it is the capital investment in new plant and machinery that is missing. We have many companies that barely make any money, and revenue is often used to pay director's bonuses and pensions. These are know as Zombie Companies. While running a zombie company can be good for the major shareholders, it (expletive deleted)s better investment opportunities and crucified industrial sector investment. I am coming to the conclusion I work for a zombie company.

Are you building in Surrey? (your username could suggest otherwise). Regardless of what the climate change deniers say, you will have periods of 35° degree outside air temperatures, and the occasional sub -10°C winter temperatures. Cooling, via UFH pipework will work well at the moment, but in two decades will probably struggle. So fit the pipework now, use if necessary, and consider how you can fit AC later if it becomes necessary. Your build will be around longer than all of us here, so, for what is probably a tiny cost, will pay dividends later.

Nuclear has been holding back the UK electricity new build. There is a 'hope' that it will be cheaper and built faster. That hope is used against the renewables industry. We should, and can, deploy wind and solar at the megawatt scale today, and cheaper than nuclear. It is really our ludicrously slow planning system that is holding us up. I think I read about the Anglesea nuclear replacement being approved. There was a clause for a 95 year decommissioning period at the end of life. 95 years for (expletive deleted)s sake. What are people thinking.