The next 5 years with Labour? Vol. 2
Discussion
This discussion is highly relevant to the next 4.5 years of Labour, unless they see sense at some point, which seems extremely unlikely.
Yes but then the excuse for this overall approach (a national excuse) takes a hit, and as per wholly inadequate storage, that's not where we are. Under current tech the cost for adequate storage is >£1 trillion in a net zero existence. Facing that sort of spending in the n ext 4.5 years of Labour is c;early relevant to the thread title.
If people want to pay £2million per hour to burn imported gas, more when Ed's dreamworld starts to be a nightmare, Labour as the government of the day will help out. Their approach also increases our paltry share of global emissions, due mostly to transportation and regasification of LNG. Result x2.
Penny Whistle said:
turbobloke said:
It wouldn't necessarily be effective for every new build due to factors such as azimuth, roof angles, shading, etc. In addition, national grids weren't developed for very large numbers of small variable unreliable inputs, rather for a small number of large reliable inputs, so there's increased grid destabilisation to contend with as a result. The frequency must not deviate too much from the target 50Hz. Some equipment would be damaged or destroyed by the frequency stepping out of bounds and would automatically disconnect for protection, potentially triggering a blackout. The total cost for balancing the grid 2022 / 2023 was £7 billion, a £2.6 billion increase over 2020 / 2021. The only way is up atm.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveal...
You wouldn't necessarily have to enable export to the grid.<snip>https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveal...
If people want to pay £2million per hour to burn imported gas, more when Ed's dreamworld starts to be a nightmare, Labour as the government of the day will help out. Their approach also increases our paltry share of global emissions, due mostly to transportation and regasification of LNG. Result x2.
turbobloke said:
This discussion is highly relevant to the next 4.5 years of Labour, unless they see sense at some point, which seems extremely unlikely.
Yes but then the excuse for this overall approach (a national excuse) takes a hit, and as per wholly inadequate storage, that's not where we are. Under current tech the cost for adequate storage is >1 trillion in a net zero existence. Facing that sort of spending in the n ext 4.5 years of Labour is c;early relevant to the thread title.
If people want to pay £2million per hour to burn imported gas, more when Ed's dreamworld starts to be a nightmare, Labour as the government of the day will help out. Their approach also increases our paltry share of global emissions, due mostly to transportation and regasification of LNG. Result x2.
We can have both reliable renewable electricity and farmland.Penny Whistle said:
turbobloke said:
It wouldn't necessarily be effective for every new build due to factors such as azimuth, roof angles, shading, etc. In addition, national grids weren't developed for very large numbers of small variable unreliable inputs, rather for a small number of large reliable inputs, so there's increased grid destabilisation to contend with as a result. The frequency must not deviate too much from the target 50Hz. Some equipment would be damaged or destroyed by the frequency stepping out of bounds and would automatically disconnect for protection, potentially triggering a blackout. The total cost for balancing the grid 2022 / 2023 was £7 billion, a £2.6 billion increase over 2020 / 2021. The only way is up atm.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveal...
You wouldn't necessarily have to enable export to the grid.<snip>https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveal...
If people want to pay £2million per hour to burn imported gas, more when Ed's dreamworld starts to be a nightmare, Labour as the government of the day will help out. Their approach also increases our paltry share of global emissions, due mostly to transportation and regasification of LNG. Result x2.
The only true reliable electricity is tide generation, harness the tides and leave th eland for food production.
If the tide stops then we have bigger problems to worry about rather than keeping the lights on.
We need to stop with the continuing down the road of the unreliable forms of electricity generation like wind and solar.
Sway said:
Roof mounted is entirely viable. Harry Metcalfe managed to put a decent sized array on old barns...
As for nuclear, it really isn't difficult to get over 20%. It's a choice, and one that all these countries managed to achieve:
It's perhaps viable, there seems to be little interest in scaling it up. Neither companies nor various govs. As for nuclear, it really isn't difficult to get over 20%. It's a choice, and one that all these countries managed to achieve:
Yes a few countries managed it, we seem to struggle right now with getting close to them.
Crafty_ said:
Randy Winkman said:
It was all going so well until Labour messed things up. 
So not off page 1 and we're going with blatant trolling already, well done.After all, Labour are making everything so much better right ?
t sherlock. People want the future to be better, not dwell on the past.The problem they have is that the new kids on the block are even worse which is impressive even by british standards of political incompetence.
M1AGM said:
Crafty_ said:
Randy Winkman said:
It was all going so well until Labour messed things up.
So not off page 1 and we're going with blatant trolling already, well done.After all, Labour are making everything so much better right ?
t sherlock. People want the future to be better, not dwell on the past.The problem they have is that the new kids on the block are even worse which is impressive even by british standards of political incompetence.
Randy Winkman said:
I didnt vote Labour and dont think they have started well. It's the lack of reflection on how bad it was prior to the election that gets me.
It doesn't matter, all that matters is that the new Government have made things worse.Besides, I don't think reflecting on how bad the previous lot were makes the point it seems you think it does. To me, it highlights that despite having an incredibly low bar to achieve "better", Labour can't even do that.
Randy Winkman said:
I didnt vote Labour and dont think they have started well. It's the lack of reflection on how bad it was prior to the election that gets me.
Except it wasn’t as bad as this. God the Tories were incompetent, but they had a growing economy, falling inflation, an expectation of falling interest rates, generally a positive outlook.
The new Labour government don’t actually understand basic economics and politics. They have stalled a growing economy and tipped us into a recession through conscious terrible decisions.
That is worse than the benign incompetence of the Tories.
loafer123 said:
Except it wasn’t as bad as this.
God the Tories were incompetent, but they had a growing economy, falling inflation, an expectation of falling interest rates, generally a positive outlook.
The new Labour government don’t actually understand basic economics and politics. They have stalled a growing economy and tipped us into a recession through conscious terrible decisions.
That is worse than the benign incompetence of the Tories.
If you look at recent GDP data, our economy regularly stalls in the latter half of each year for some reason.God the Tories were incompetent, but they had a growing economy, falling inflation, an expectation of falling interest rates, generally a positive outlook.
The new Labour government don’t actually understand basic economics and politics. They have stalled a growing economy and tipped us into a recession through conscious terrible decisions.
That is worse than the benign incompetence of the Tories.
gruffalo said:
We can have both reliable renewable electricity and farmland.
The only true reliable electricity is tide generation, harness the tides and leave the land for food production.
If the tide stops then we have bigger problems to worry about rather than keeping the lights on.
We need to stop with the continuing down the road of the unreliable forms of electricity generation like wind and solar.
Sorry, tide might be reliable but it's not practical.The only true reliable electricity is tide generation, harness the tides and leave the land for food production.
If the tide stops then we have bigger problems to worry about rather than keeping the lights on.
We need to stop with the continuing down the road of the unreliable forms of electricity generation like wind and solar.
Millions has been spend assessing the practicality of tidal generation in the Bristol Channel, on the face of it an ideal site, with the second highest tidal reach in the world. Unfortunately, as anyone who's been to the beaches of Barry or Weston-Super-Mare, the water has so much silt in it that a tidal barrage would need constant dredging.
I think the solution might be an Infrastructure Bill that would require Parliamentary approval for the construction of, for example, a nuclear power station, and then bar any further challenge of any kind. Nuclear in particular is so expensive largely because of the cost of opposing and appeasing wealthy idiots who will do anything to prevent and/or delay construction.
handpaper said:
gruffalo said:
We can have both reliable renewable electricity and farmland.
The only true reliable electricity is tide generation, harness the tides and leave the land for food production.
If the tide stops then we have bigger problems to worry about rather than keeping the lights on.
We need to stop with the continuing down the road of the unreliable forms of electricity generation like wind and solar.
Sorry, tide might be reliable but it's not practical.The only true reliable electricity is tide generation, harness the tides and leave the land for food production.
If the tide stops then we have bigger problems to worry about rather than keeping the lights on.
We need to stop with the continuing down the road of the unreliable forms of electricity generation like wind and solar.
Millions has been spend assessing the practicality of tidal generation in the Bristol Channel, on the face of it an ideal site, with the second highest tidal reach in the world. Unfortunately, as anyone who's been to the beaches of Barry or Weston-Super-Mare, the water has so much silt in it that a tidal barrage would need constant dredging.
I think the solution might be an Infrastructure Bill that would require Parliamentary approval for the construction of, for example, a nuclear power station, and then bar any further challenge of any kind. Nuclear in particular is so expensive largely because of the cost of opposing and appeasing wealthy idiots who will do anything to prevent and/or delay construction.
I have no issues with Nuclear especially if the cost can be brought under control to make it actually affordable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff