Zero emissions by 2050.

I’m all for change if it is done properly and proportionally.

Bicyclists for example in general are a menace but all is fine because it’s one more car off the road. That’s too mixed up imo. There should be rational thought put into where people can keep fit and how to reduce emissions. Sometimes they need distinct problem statements and separate solutions but I fear that they all get lumped together and we end up with crazy laws and practices in the name of the environment.

Feckin cyclists.
Well if you like we can leave the bike at home, get back into our cars and clog the roads up with more traffic making you even later.
 
Genuine question to those in the know. Can someone explain the basic pros and cons of different energy resources?

There must be a reason we focus so much on nuclear, coal, gas etc? And less on solar, wind, tidal etc (or certainly have done historically)

Is it simply because they are cheaper? Or because they produce way more electricity than the other forms?

Given how rapidly we’re destroying the planet I’m amazed more countries haven’t pooled resources into clean energy.
 
Personally I think we as a nation have left it to late, it’s all about greed all over the world and now we the people really don’t give a fuck because we think it will never happen, it’s like the old saying not in my lifetime.
 
Genuine question to those in the know. Can someone explain the basic pros and cons of different energy resources?

There must be a reason we focus so much on nuclear, coal, gas etc? And less on solar, wind, tidal etc (or certainly have done historically)

Is it simply because they are cheaper? Or because they produce way more electricity than the other forms?

Given how rapidly we’re destroying the planet I’m amazed more countries haven’t pooled resources into clean energy.
Simplest answer, productivity.

Wind generates very little in regards to the requirements of the nation. One wind turbine is enough for a street, so you'd need one for every street in Britain to meet the minimum requirements, realising that makes you see how wind turbines are not a cost effective solution (and they kill around 300,000 birds a year). Same issue with solar power. For example, to power the UK, you'd need a solar panel the size of Texas. However you could put solar panels on every rooftop of every building in the UK, giving roofspace an additional purpose; generating electricity. But solar panels aren't cheap to make.

Hydroelectric power is much more efficient. The UK would benefit from them, but it's dependent on hydrology, uses up large land masses so more disruptive for local communities in landlocked countries and devastating to the natural wildlife in some areas due to it's size and production requirements.

Coal and oil are simple, efficient and familiar, problem is it's slowly killing us. Oil uses very little yet returns massive energy output. Generates many other spin-off industries and jobs. But it's main problem is that it's finite.

Nuclear fission power is exceptionally suited for energy production, France for example utilises roughly 60% of it's energy needs on nuclear power. It's also cheaper to generate than oil and coal. Zero emissions, making it a green energy production, of course there's the elephant in the room; the waste product. Nowadays the nuclear industry has become very efficient and reducing the amount of waste and even reusing it. Of course this makes the waste even MORE hazardous. The holy grail is nuclear fusion reactors, which cannot go into meltdown, easier to control, even more efficient and effective that fission, fuel products are limitless and virtually no waste. There's just one tiny flaw in the plan;


We don't know how to generate the temperatures high enough to make it work. Think "the Sun".
 
We are all to blame, do we think I will turn that light off because it doesn’t need to be on, do we think let’s turn the heating off and put extra clothes on, do we walk to the nearest shop or do we jump in the car because we can’t be arsed to walk, do we drive our kids everywhere, the list goes on and on and these are just the tip.
 
Simplest answer, productivity.

Wind generates very little in regards to the requirements of the nation. One wind turbine is enough for a street, so you'd need one for every street in Britain to meet the minimum requirements, realising that makes you see how wind turbines are not a cost effective solution (and they kill around 300,000 birds a year). Same issue with solar power. For example, to power the UK, you'd need a solar panel the size of Texas. However you could put solar panels on every rooftop of every building in the UK, giving roofspace an additional purpose; generating electricity. But solar panels aren't cheap to make.

Hydroelectric power is much more efficient. The UK would benefit from them, but it's dependent on hydrology, uses up large land masses so more disruptive for local communities in landlocked countries and devastating to the natural wildlife in some areas due to it's size and production requirements.

Coal and oil are simple, efficient and familiar, problem is it's slowly killing us. Oil uses very little yet returns massive energy output. Generates many other spin-off industries and jobs. But it's main problem is that it's finite.

Nuclear fission power is exceptionally suited for energy production, France for example utilises roughly 60% of it's energy needs on nuclear power. It's also cheaper to generate than oil and coal. Zero emissions, making it a green energy production, of course there's the elephant in the room; the waste product. Nowadays the nuclear industry has become very efficient and reducing the amount of waste and even reusing it. Of course this makes the waste even MORE hazardous. The holy grail is nuclear fusion reactors, which cannot go into meltdown, easier to control, even more efficient and effective that fission, fuel products are limitless and virtually no waste. There's just one tiny flaw in the plan;


We don't know how to generate the temperatures high enough to make it work. Think "the Sun".
The Cern collider generates enormous amounts of heat. It is at too high a temperature for current technology to use, so it is injected into the earth. Just a thought,
Second thought: the recent report by the commons select cttee suggested that we deploy 60,000 wind turbines, but where to put them? (from memory, correct me if you want)
 
It’s a pipe dream and as an initiative, full of contradiction. What’s left of heavy industry will be exempt, as stated by another, nuclear for electricity generation will need to be increased beyond what is publicly acceptable. What an investment fracking would have been.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.