Politics

[Rayvin 5187]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

We're currently generating 40% of our electricity using renewables. That has happened in a reasonably short period of time. Why can't it continue at the same pace? Are we running out of sea and land to put these things?

 

Is it really that high? That's actually really impressive.

[Renton 21402]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

We're currently generating 40% of our electricity using renewables. That has happened in a reasonably short period of time. Why can't it continue at the same pace? Are we running out of sea and land to put these things?

 

Law of diminishing returns, we've picked the low hanging fruit (wind power). You can't be solely reliant on this, it can only provide a proportion of your grid because it's often not windy. All I am saying is you also need a reliable source of energy that is always present at the flick of a switch. Nuclear fits the bill, as far as I am aware this has been our energy policy for a while. 

[Renton 21402]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

When you said this is cloud cuckoo land stuff without a shred of information on the matter. I may be confusing patronising with stupidity mind.

 

MF said we could solve the issue in 2 years, which is what I called cloud cuckoo land. I then gave an anecdote explaining we can't even reliably connect smart meters as an example. I actually doubt he was being serious about this, but whatever. 

[Toonpack 9302]

46 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

There's 60 million of us though, that's a fuck ton of energy needed. 

 

Bring on Indy

[Renton 21402]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Is it really that high? That's actually really impressive.

 

It's highly variable though dependent on the weather. We have no way of storing excess energy generation (yet). I don't think batteries are the answer personally as they have a serious environmental impact. 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3859]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Law of diminishing returns, we've picked the low hanging fruit (wind power). You can't be solely reliant on this, it can only provide a proportion of your grid because it's often not windy. All I am saying is you also need a reliable source of energy that is always present at the flick of a switch. Nuclear fits the bill, as far as I am aware this has been our energy policy for a while. 

The first assumption in the law of diminishing returns is no change in technology. This does not apply to renewable energy.

[trophyshy 7073]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

These cunts have learned absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

[Monkeys Fist 42144]

Just now, Renton said:

 

MF said we could solve the issue in 2 years, which is what I called cloud cuckoo land. I then gave an anecdote explaining we can't even reliably connect smart meters as an example. I actually doubt he was being serious about this, but whatever. 

I said we could if a fraction of the money spent by oil and gas firms on wasteful, pointless or just outright fraudulent stuff, every day, was put in to renewables. 
The two year time frame to improve the efficiency of renewables isn’t the cloud cuckoo part, it’s the laughable idea that the oil and gas industry will make anything more than the absolute minimum required effort to change. 

[wykikitoon 19985]

https://grid.iamkate.com/?fbclid=IwAR19X2h8MvIIwGsvdyrtSGIfe4LI9pzTW0ekRzf6Uc92tgZiRuDOxr4AGOo

 

 

[Rayvin 5187]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

It's highly variable though dependent on the weather. We have no way of storing excess energy generation (yet). I don't think batteries are the answer personally as they have a serious environmental impact. 

 

Sure but even so, it's some progress. Imagine if we did get to 100% - you set it up state owned and charge people cost + 2% for future proofing.. no one would ever freeze in their homes again. Fully energy independent. 

[Renton 21402]

1 minute ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

The first assumption in the law of diminishing returns is no change in technology. This does not apply to renewable energy.

 

It's not though is it? It's the availability of the correct weather conditions, regardless of technology (for the main ones, wind and solar). Please explain to me why we don't need a back up source if it's not windy or sunny, as is often the case in winter when we most need power? 

[wykikitoon 19985]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Sure but even so, it's some progress. Imagine if we did get to 100% - you set it up state owned and charge people cost + 2% for future proofing.. no one would ever freeze in their homes again. Fully energy independent. 

Well apart from wank leaky housing stock that isn't fit for purpose.

[Renton 21402]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Sure but even so, it's some progress. Imagine if we did get to 100% - you set it up state owned and charge people cost + 2% for future proofing.. no one would ever freeze in their homes again. Fully energy independent. 

 

I completely agree we need to maximise renewables and energy should be state owned. I just don't think they can ever be the only answer. Maybe the government think they can and that is why Sizewell C is being scrapped. I'm a bit dubious about this though. 

[Meenzer 15446]

One might cautiously suggest that Britain needs to be, as it were, insulated

[Renton 21402]

2 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Well apart from wank leaky housing stock that isn't fit for purpose.

 

Probably the biggest issue. And without insulation heat exchange is pointless. 

[Toonpack 9302]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

It's not though is it? It's the availability of the correct weather conditions, regardless of technology (for the main ones, wind and solar). Please explain to me why we don't need a back up source if it's not windy or sunny, as is often the case in winter when we most need power? 

 

Doesn't need to be, solar works even on cloudy days (I accept less efficient) direct sunshine is not needed, better yes but not critical.

 

I can't understand why it's not mandated new build housing has solar, the cost added to the property price would be marginal.

[wykikitoon 19985]

11 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

One might cautiously suggest that Britain needs to be, as it were, insulated

But fuck them, they cause problems.

But those fuel protestors are utter LEGENDS AND SHOULD BE KNIGHTED INIT BRUV

[wykikitoon 19985]

6 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

Doesn't need to be, solar works even on cloudy days (I accept less efficient) direct sunshine is not needed, better yes but not critical.

 

I can't understand why it's not mandated new build housing has solar, the cost added to the property price would be marginal.

Because profits from fossil fuel giants would cripple the millionaires

[Renton 21402]

9 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

Doesn't need to be, solar works even on cloudy days (I accept less efficient) direct sunshine is not needed, better yes but not critical.

 

I can't understand why it's not mandated new build housing has solar, the cost added to the property price would be marginal.

 

Does solar work at night? 

[Monkeys Fist 42144]

19 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

can't understand why it's not mandated new build housing has solar, the cost added to the property price would be marginal.

Or a small vertical axis wind turbine. 
If everyone had both, we’d pretty much be covered. 
 

When the large turbines we have now are due to be replaced, we should be putting these in their place- they’re more efficient, you can place way more of them in the same acreage that we are currently using for onshore farms, and can be operated in higher wind speeds than our present ones. 

[Toonpack 9302]

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Does solar work at night? 

 

WTF has that got to do with anything, it works in light to varying degrees of efficiency, IF it was a brightly moonlit night, yes it would btw

[Monkeys Fist 42144]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Does solar work at night? 

Put a light on next to it 

[Renton 21402]

5 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

WTF has that got to do with anything, it works in light to varying degrees of efficiency, IF it was a brightly moonlit night, yes it would btw

 

Okay, I think we are talking cross purposes here, my point stems back to the OP by ewerk, about Sizewell C. To sum up my point:

 

1) We need continuous energy more than ever in the 21st century, to operate anything electrical including C/H.

2) It's not always windy, so wind generation alone is not the sole answer.

3) It's not always light, so solar alone can never be the sole answer.

4) Often it is neither windy nor light. For example winter at any time outside the 6 hour day time window during anticyclonic conditions.

5) The example made in point 4) also happens to be the time when it is coldest and we need the most domestic energy.

 

So for this reason, what I am saying is we ALSO need a dependable source of energy that is not dependent on these factors that are outside of our control. That is why I think not proceeding with Sizewell C is a mistake. I also think cancelling HS2 and NPR are huge mistakes. We should be investing in carbon neutral infrastructure as much as possible, of all kinds.  

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3859]

37 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

Doesn't need to be, solar works even on cloudy days (I accept less efficient) direct sunshine is not needed, better yes but not critical.

 

I can't understand why it's not mandated new build housing has solar, the cost added to the property price would be marginal.

I think it is in Scotland.

[Renton 21402]

15 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

Put a light on next to it