Why we need "Net zero"

[BotusBuild]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

I suspect you give him too much credit for strategic thinking. 

 

But some of his courtiers are probably thinking along those lines. 

 

 

Perhaps should have said "The Orange Clown (TOC) and the US Elite". There is a pattern of the US "invading" oil producing nations.

 

It's just that TOC is prepared to make things happen irrespective of non-US points of view, and even of his own population (80% + against taking control of Greenland in a recent survey referenced on one of the satirical US shows).

 

{Bunkering down}

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, BotusBuild said:

We need to get the nuclear and renewables online ASAP

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.

[Big Jimbo]

My son in law works for a British, French, Belgium Company, that designs and manufacturers, and maintains weapons, missiles, including nukes. They do use a lot of American software, and hardware, and have begun designing this out. That makes a lot of sense to me. I hope we do have the ability to up our UK skill level. If we need a lighter, or a box of matches to make fire. We are buggered. The reason he says that they are moving away from US components, is that worlds buyers no longer trust the US, and want weapons that do not rely on either the US or China. He says that he doubts that the US will ever get the trust back. I'm sure that will have implications for them in the coming years. As he said, when he was in a previous industry, they used to send stuff to China to be produced because it was cheap. They used to basically steal all the R and D and re-badge it as there own technology. We still to this day, educate there people in our universities, to allow them to go home, and have the skills to do exactly that. America, is heading in the same direction. Can't be trusted, and thought of in the same way as China in the future.

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

I hope we do have the ability to up our UK skill level

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.

[Big Jimbo]

well as i am currently drilling deeply down into my fabric, and ventilation heat losses @SteamyTea . After completing my part "O". I am going to consider myself very skilled, but only when i get it bloody completed. I could murder a Kebab, or a bloody good burger, as my brian is currently using energy at a rapid rate.

Edited 3 hours ago by Big Jimbo

[-rick-]

Financialisation as well. ie, companies (and the government) focusing on maximizing the next set of financial returns rather than long term plans.

 

Been reading a lot of criticism of this recently focussed on our large financial sector dominating the discussions that leads to cutting longer term investments for the short term returns. It's obviously something that happens everywhere but is a particular issue here. If companies aren't doing well then they have a difficult situation but this financial focus means that there isn't the focus of getting out of the hole, just making the best of the current situation.

 

In terms of government we seem to have had repeated attempts to set up long term planning, investment in capabilities (that will only pay off with continued investment/projects) only for those future projects to be cancelled and all the investment ploughed into the capacity being wasted (with other countries going to hire the engineers we expensively trained).

Edited 3 hours ago by -rick-

[SteamyTea]

33 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

could murder a Kebab, or a bloody good burger, as my brian is currently using energy at a rapid rate.

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.

[Spinny]

Sorry Beelbeebub, but you have some daft self contradictory arguments here...

 

It is the mad Millipede and the extreme net zero nutters that are actually greatly responsible for UK dependence on oil & gas from overseas - because they have spent the last 10-20 years stopping all uk fossil fuel production. You cannot then argue that the UK should go net zero because it depends on overseas oil and gas and that is a security issue. You are in the land of the madman there.

 

The UK probably has plenty of fossil fuels on and around it's own shores that would provide energy independence for an awful long time. In case you were not born then the UK shut down it's coal mines in the 1980's. There is more gas and oil around our coast, ample coal reserves, and then there is fracking. Also worth remembering that at some point mankind will master fusion power anyway. The UK has very very foolishly done away with its gas storage facilities.

 

You also claim one nearly 80 year old man aka Trump, will hold the UK as an LNG energy hostage in the same way Putin was doing with Europe. Trump will be gone in 3 years, may become powerless after the mid terms, why would any nation take the slightest bit of notice of Trump when planning for energy security for the next century.

 

(PS There is no definitive scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change of course. Many people are unfortunately making a good living touring the world on jet planes and cranking out unscientific lies and misinformation that the world will end if we don't stop cows farting, and blaming every flood or fire (which we have always had) on carbon dioxide. It is nonsense and the wheels are already beginning to fall off the band wagon.)

 

The way to energy security is a diversified energy infrastructure using multiple sources, not a self righteous dependence on 100% renewables only. Technology will render many of today's solutions obsolete within a decade or two anyway. The world is only just beginning on engineered proteins for example.

 

So nothing wrong with building energy efficient homes or using alternative energy sources, but let's not kid ourselves with net zero extremism.

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, Spinny said:

There is no definitive scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change of course

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

[Roger440]

43 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

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

 

Are those the "peers" that get paid to support a conclusion. And dont get paid if they dont.