Mad Dictators

[JohnMo]

22 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Interference with radar and defence operations

If that was the case there would be no wind turbines near us, but we have plenty, so maybe not that true.

23 minutes ago, Spinny said:

The culling of birds

Maybe getting towards the number cats kill, but maybe not. So we should discuss banning cats also?

23 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Fire and collapses do occur.

That's a regular occurrence - or again, maybe not

24 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Low effective efficiency given curtailment and the inability to match supply to demand

And gas doesn't have curtailment - they spend even longer offline but no one talks about it. They even have diesel generators on the same sites to allow gas turbines to start and get hot enough to bring the steam plant online in CCGT packages. A least wind can be taken on and off line very quickly by feathering the blades.

 

28 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Low effective efficiency given curtailment and the inability to match supply to demand

That's an all wind or no wind argument, which isn't being discussed. Wind is part of a diverse energy portfolio. Unfortunately as @saveasteading infers, included nuclear, which is what we should worry about.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Iincluded nuclear, which is what we should worry about.

We are still cleaning up after a reactor was shut down and restarted incorrectly.

 

Buildings kill more birds.

[JohnMo]

5 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

We are still cleaning up after a reactor was shut down and restarted incorrectly.

Chernobyl 40 years ago, still a little bit of a no go zone

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Chernobyl 40 years ago, still a little bit of a no go zone

And an Irishman won the Tour.

Actually that was a year later.

 

Edited yesterday at 16:15 by SteamyTea

[Ed_]

54 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Interference with radar and defence operations

Every windfarm is cleared (or not) by MOD.

55 minutes ago, Spinny said:

The culling of birds

Much overstated, see any research on the topic.

 

55 minutes ago, Spinny said:

The need for pylons everywhere blighting the scenery

Not specific to wind.

 

56 minutes ago, Spinny said:

That oil jobs will go shrinking the economy

They are going regardless. North sea is a declining basin and fewer fields are cost competitive. Oil can be sold regardless of whether it is used in the UK - see Norway!

 

57 minutes ago, Spinny said:

The UK doesn't make turbines

Blade factories in Hull & IoW.

Vestas Nacelle factory coming to Scotland

Monopile fabrication facility on Teeside

JDR Cables at Hartlepool, multiple Prysmian cable factories

We probably make as much of wind farms as we do oil and gas facilities.

1 hour ago, Spinny said:

Fire and collapses do occur

Piper alpha?

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Ed_ said:

Piper alpha

What has 4 legs and goes woof.

 

There are rig and well fired everywhere.

Kuwait had a lot.

[-rick-]

Someone mentioned the need for fuel in case of war earlier. It's been said already, but it's an awful lot easier to bomb refineries and oil pipelines than it is to bomb solar panels and windfarms. And as an importer of fuel it's also a lot easier to blockade/disrupt shipping than it is to stop the sun/wind. See Russia

[Spinny]

44 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

included nuclear, which is what we should worry about.

 

We should strive to be rational about radiation and nuclear power...

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiation-Reason-Impact-Science-Culture/dp/0956275613/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=bg1jN&content-id=amzn1.sym.5e81eabe-938d-4936-a067-ca199f0f9913&pf_rd_p=5e81eabe-938d-4936-a067-ca199f0f9913&pf_rd_r=262-7534544-0018501&pd_rd_wg=xTSmn&pd_rd_r=7fc92425-cede-45b3-9dab-8d1f26ca4128

 

You may enjoy listening to him...

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/radiation-and-reason

 

Some think we should fear cow farts, some viruses, some asteroids, some free speech. Choose your poison carefully but always be afraid.

 

Edited yesterday at 16:41 by Spinny

[mjc55]

1 hour ago, Spinny said:

Good to see some recognition of the cons of wind power which include:

 

Visual and noise impacts

Interference with radar and defence operations

The culling of birds

The need for pylons everywhere blighting the scenery

That oil jobs will go shrinking the economy as there are far fewer jobs in wind (The UK doesn't make turbines, or solar panels). 

Fire and collapses do occur.

Low effective efficiency given curtailment and the inability to match supply to demand

 

Like illegal refugee camps, it is easy to say someone has to take them, until they build one next to you, devalue your house, and spoil your life. We need balance, not extremism.

 

Its a stretch to state that these are big con!

 

Visual and noise impacts - visual, don't agree, noise, the juries out and location can somewhat mitigate that.

Interference with radar and defence operations - really?

The culling of birds - presume you are in favour of the culling of cats then?

That oil jobs will go - more of a pro than a con in my opinion

Fire and collapses do occur - really, didn't know that, good job oil production is harmless then!

Low effective efficiency given curtailment and the inability to match supply to demand - the use of battery storage seemingly will help with this.

 

Listen, I get that you don't like alternative forms of energy generation, but given what we have endured for many, many years from high CO2 emissions, and given it is our descendants that will suffer the most, your defence of the status quo is just beyond the pale!

[Spinny]

It is not that I don't like alternative forms of energy generation. It is moderation, balance and diversity that we need, not religious fervour. Energy efficient houses great, the more the better. But spending vast sums on subsidising one energy source and demonising another is foolish. It assumes we know all the answers with certainty, and we are absolutely right and certain about what we are doing. I say beware the certain evangelical man because quite likely they are a bit stupid to lack doubt and uncertainty.

 

Yes in the long run fossil fuels will run low. But there has to be a balance. Making an energy transition is a 50-100 year journey. During that journey technology will advance in astonishing ways. Explore and advance all options. Nuclear fission is here and fusion will eventually come.

 

21 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

from high CO2 emissions

That is your belief, not a known proven or unchallenged scientific fact.

 

22 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

it is our descendants that will suffer the most

I am glad you care about our descendants, but there is no ''climate emergency''. Don't mistake fear and propaganda for what is really known. The IPCC have just burned the scenario all the climate emergency peddlars use as unrealistic - it aint happening - it aint necessarily so.

There are many threats to humanity, a new ice age, asteroids, global warfare, planetary pollution, pocster, etc

[mjc55]

1 hour ago, Spinny said:

It is not that I don't like alternative forms of energy generation. It is moderation, balance and diversity that we need, not religious fervour. Energy efficient houses great, the more the better. But spending vast sums on subsidising one energy source and demonising another is foolish. It assumes we know all the answers with certainty, and we are absolutely right and certain about what we are doing. I say beware the certain evangelical man because quite likely they are a bit stupid to lack doubt and uncertainty.

 

Yes in the long run fossil fuels will run low. But there has to be a balance. Making an energy transition is a 50-100 year journey. During that journey technology will advance in astonishing ways. Explore and advance all options. Nuclear fission is here and fusion will eventually come.

 

That is your belief, not a known proven or unchallenged scientific fact.

 

I am glad you care about our descendants, but there is no ''climate emergency''. Don't mistake fear and propaganda for what is really known. The IPCC have just burned the scenario all the climate emergency peddlars use as unrealistic - it aint happening - it aint necessarily so.

There are many threats to humanity, a new ice age, asteroids, global warfare, planetary pollution, pocster, etc

There is no real point in continuing to discuss with you.  we are at polar ends of the spectrum.  You think you are right as do I.  Only time will tell.

[SteamyTea]

Here is a bit about uranium reserves.

About 90 years worth at current usage.

So if we doubled (globally) nuclear generation, about 50 years.

Would be hard to build a facility when you know it will be hard to fuel it before it's end of life.

 

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium

[Spinny]

I just looked at that website and I think your chosen interpretation is a bit pessimistic.

 

Quote

about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

 

[Spinny]

Where things are at...

 

https://youtu.be/nl__O_QGIR4?si=G_CGnPuO8etvYzmV

[ProDave]

10 hours ago, Spinny said:

Where things are at...

 

https://youtu.be/nl__O_QGIR4?si=G_CGnPuO8etvYzmV

That sounds like somebody talking sense at last.

[Beelbeebub]

From the OP article 

 

"The Energy Secretary on Wednesday said he had granted planning permission to the One Earth Solar Farm development to be built on prime farmland across Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire." 

 

(emphasis mine) 

 

So prime farmland eh?  Must be some of the most productive land in the country.  We'll starve without the breadbasket of thr East Midlands that is Newton-On-Trent. 

 

Let's have a look at the map of agricultural land quality. 

 

 

The project is the area south of Newton-On-Trent either side of the river. 

As you can see the land is green which is grade 3 "good to moderate" 

 

Grade 3 is 2 sub grades A and B the maps don't distinguish but here's the description 

 

Grade 3a (Good): capable, but notable limitations that reduce cropping flexibility or consistency.

 

Grade 3b (Moderate): more restricted: typically fewer arable options and/or less reliable output

 

As you can see neither of these could be described as "prime". 

 

Every single time anyone tries to build anything on farmland people start banging on about food security and the land as though it were the best soil in all Europe. 

 

In reality nobody is going to put their solar farm on grade 1 land when there is lower grade and available. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

19 hours ago, Spinny said:

Yes in the long run fossil fuels will run low. But there has to be a balance. Making an energy transition is a 50-100 year journey. During that journey technology will advance in astonishing ways. Explore and advance all options. Nuclear fission is here and fusion will eventually come.

For the UK the fossil fuels are running low now. 

 

Oil and gas are currently 50% of consumption and that will halve or worse *in the next decade*.  Not the next 100 or 50 years but the next 10 years. 

 

Unless we want to be dependent on importing gas and oil when 20% of the world supply can be cut off at the whim of a power mad dictator we need another way to power the UK.

 

Nuclear takes ages to build. Far longer than the 10 year time frame. 

 

Solar farms are the cheapest form of energy generation and they are quick to build. Yes they are intermittent but one thing they do provide is lots of power when it is sunny, which is also when hot countries (which the UK is becoming) also tend to see highest demand due to air conditioning. 

 

Batteries are also becoming cheaper year on year.

 

Right now solar is providing 30% of our electricity, 2x that of gas. At a time when gas prices are high we are saving 2/3 on our national gas bill (of which we import abiut half). 

[Beelbeebub]

22 hours ago, Spinny said:

Good to see some recognition of the cons of wind power which include:

 

Visual and noise impacts

Interference with radar and defence operations

The culling of birds

A good friend is an expert (as in one of the guys the MoD call when they want to know about radar) and has specifically looked at this. 

 

His answer is "there are effects but nothing that causes a problem". The radar issue is one raised by non-experts (repeatedly) but is not a concern of the people who are actually in charge of operating our radar. 

 

And as for birds, cats kill far more than wind turbines (which don't kill many at all) 

[Spinny]

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Oil and gas are currently 50% of consumption and that will halve or worse *in the next decade*.  Not the next 100 or 50 years but the next 10 years. 

Very unclear what you are trying to say there. Are you claiming gas and oil consumption will halve in a decade, or are you claiming UK oil and gas reserves will halve in a decade, or are you claiming global oil and gas reserves will halve in a decade ?

 

We do of course have lots of coal in this country.

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Nuclear takes ages to build. Far longer than the 10 year time frame. 

Ever heard of SMR's. And if the idiots that govern us were even remotely competent we would already have more nuclear capacity. You might also note that France has 56 reactors that provide 70% of its electricity. I believe it is not unusual for the UK, given it is run by total idiots, to have to call on energy through international connectors - energy generated by nuclear plants in France that is always available whatever the weather. Some solar panels are never going to solve that national security issue. 

 

Sorry, we can't fight a war today because the sun has gone in.

 

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Unless we want to be dependent on importing gas and oil when 20% of the world supply can be cut off at the whim of a power mad dictator we need another way to power the UK.

Gas and Oil has always been traded and we have managed very successfully to have gas and oil supplies and it has done a brilliant job of keeping us warm and fuelling our vehicles for many decades. The global market generally keeps prices down for what is a fungible good. We are not going to see all our vehicles replaced with electric in the next 10 years, we are not going to see millions of gas boilers replaced within 10 years. For 50 years no serious politician has ever proposed banning ICE vehicles on national security grounds regarding the supply of fuel.

Many countries/organisations hold national strategic stocks of oil and gas. The UK is of course far too stupid to do this effectively with repeated failures to pay for the level of such strategic storage that it should have.

If we really are concerned about National Security then we do an odd job of it as we have been closing down manufacturing industry and steel making and the like because our energy prices are completely uneconomic.

 

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Solar farms are the cheapest form of energy generation and they are quick to build. Yes they are intermittent

Really ? So that is why government has to offer huge subsidies/price guarantees to get companies to build solar farms. Of course it costs nothing to put in pylons and cables to connect them to the grid, and the fact they can't produce anything during the hours of darkness, and little when cloudy, and can't cope if temperatures go too high can all be completely ignored when assessing their actual efficiency and true costs. The fact they are made in China is not a national security concern at all.

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

tend to see highest demand due to air conditioning. 

Incredibly few people die from heat in the UK. Overwhelmingly old people with existing medical problems that might die a few months or a year or two earlier than they otherwise would.

Meanwhile thousands die from the cold and we definitely need heating in the winter months, But wait, no, I guess you heat a draughty 1930's house every winter using a couple of solar panels - what am I thinking ?

 

Look, overall I think you are trying to simplify a lot of complex considerations and tradeoffs into a hugely over simplified set of assertions. It really, really, really, is not some obvious nirvana to make an energy transition in a decade. It is pie in the sky dreamland.

 

If you don't think about it too much, or research it too much, I guess you can maintain your fantasies. I can assure you it will be a 50 year journey and enormously expensive.

 

Get REAL.

 

PS Come on England ⚽

Edited 3 hours ago by Spinny

[saveasteading]

31 minutes ago, Spinny said:

And if the idiots that govern us were even remotely competent

 

32 minutes ago, Spinny said:

If you don't think about it too much, or research it too much, I guess you can maintain your fantasies

 

 

That's enough, I'm out of this. 

You can feel that you have won in some way if it make you feel better. 

It's been interesting though to read that such extreme views are, or appear to be genuine.

 

Presses the unfollow topic button........

[Roger440]

35 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Very unclear what you are trying to say there. Are you claiming gas and oil consumption will halve in a decade, or are you claiming UK oil and gas reserves will halve in a decade, or are you claiming global oil and gas reserves will halve in a decade ?

 

We do of course have lots of coal in this country.

Ever heard of SMR's. And if the idiots that govern us were even remotely competent we would already have more nuclear capacity. You might also note that France has 56 reactors that provide 70% of its electricity. I believe it is not unusual for the UK, given it is run by total idiots, to have to call on energy through international connectors - energy generated by nuclear plants in France that is always available whatever the weather. Some solar panels are never going to solve that national security issue. 

 

Sorry, we can't fight a war today because the sun has gone in.

 

Gas and Oil has always been traded and we have managed very successfully to have gas and oil supplies and it has done a brilliant job of keeping us warm and fuelling our vehicles for many decades. The global market generally keeps prices down for what is a fungible good. We are not going to see all our vehicles replaced with electric in the next 10 years, we are not going to see millions of gas boilers replaced within 10 years. For 50 years no serious politician has ever proposed banning ICE vehicles on national security grounds regarding the supply of fuel.

Many countries/organisations hold national strategic stocks of oil and gas. The UK is of course far too stupid to do this effectively with repeated failures to pay for the level of such strategic storage that it should have.

If we really are concerned about National Security then we do an odd job of it as we have been closing down manufacturing industry and steel making and the like because our energy prices are completely uneconomic.

 

Really ? So that is why government has to offer huge subsidies/price guarantees to get companies to build solar farms. Of course it costs nothing to put in pylons and cables to connect them to the grid, and the fact they can't produce anything during the hours of darkness, and little when cloudy, and can't cope if temperatures go too high can all be completely ignored when assessing their actual efficiency and true costs. The fact they are made in China is not a national security concern at all.

Incredibly few people die from heat in the UK. Overwhelmingly old people with existing medical problems that might die a few months or a year or two earlier than they otherwise would.

Meanwhile thousands die from the cold and we definitely need heating in the winter months, But wait, no, I guess you heat a draughty 1930's house every winter using a couple of solar panels - what am I thinking ?

 

Look, overall I think you are trying to simplify a lot of complex considerations and tradeoffs into a hugely over simplified set of assertions. It really, really, really, is not some obvious nirvana to make an energy transition in a decade. It is pie in the sky dreamland.

 

If you don't think about it too much, or research it too much, I guess you can maintain your fantasies. I can assure you it will be a 50 year journey and enormously expensive.

 

Get REAL.

 

PS Come on England ⚽

 

You are expending unnecessary energy on BBB. Only his view is correct. All others are wrong.

[Roger440]

On 13/07/2026 at 22:26, Nickfromwales said:

@Roger440 may already be suffering from this type of expansion, as he moved to deepest, darkest, but still picturesque Wales, and then the pylons started dropping.......

 

Indeed. The MOD have probably saved me on this occasion, but its forever blighted until they build "something".

[Spinny]

18 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

That's enough, I'm out of this. 

Well I am sorry for that.

 

I don't really know anyone that thinks the UK has had competent government in the last 10-15 years. So I didn't think that one was a controversial statement. Half the country are so fed up they would probably vote for BinFace now.

 

On the research side, there are clearly a large group of people with serious questions and concerns about the energy transition. Rejecting every concern as invalid with a wave of the hand is not very credible. If there is going to be a debate then it involves recognising when there are valid points on the other side of things. How significant they are can be discussed, but they do exist. Even some of the ''global elite'' as they get termed like Bill Gates and Tony Blair are now urging some caution.

 

39 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

You can feel that you have won in some way if it make you feel better. 

It's been interesting though to read that such extreme views are, or appear to be genuine.

I never really care too much about the idea of winning, only about the idea of finding the right answers and the truth. I am as much of an idiot as the next man. I just wanted to inject a few things that people may not be aware of given there is a good deal of censorship that goes on. Even search engines like google have been deliberately 'fixed' to downgrade anything other than chosen political narrative. When I see a subject where free speech, and some pretty distinguished people, are being silenced and censored it sets my 'someone is hiding the truth' bells ringing.

 

Renewables is fine, but my plea is just to recognise some of the very real issues and costs at the National scale. To go forward in a balanced way nationally rather then just seeing demons and angels.

 

The best of our friends don't always nod along, they sometimes say are you sure your sure about that one.

 

People here are trying to build energy efficient homes, and there is never anything wrong with that.

 

[Nickfromwales]

28 minutes ago, Spinny said:

I don't really know anyone that thinks the UK has had competent government in the last 10-15 years

Depends where you're sat of course, but I’d say you’d be kosher adding probably another decade to that.

[SteamyTea]

It is worth pointing out that we started the transition to low carbon generation nearly 2 decades ago.

Apart from some very small scale wind farms, hobby PV and a bit of hydro, we had virtually nothing.

Since the we have added 55 GW_p if wind and solar.

Now the name plate capacity if RE cannot be compared directly with thermal generation, but it contributed close to 40% of our generation. 

It also contributed to our pumped storage as well. 

 I have not looked at storage capacity in a while, but must be close to 1 GWh now.

 

I cannot see any reason why we should not hit 90% low carbon generation by 2040, except if there is not the political will to do so.  I think the political will is there, we tend to hear the naysayers more because they are the vocal minority, the majority says nothing.

 

I am going to repeat what I said about cost. Wind and PV are the cheapest forms of, and it is coming in bold , NEW generation.

It is not competing with the same contracts as legacy generation.

 

Edited 40 minutes ago by SteamyTea