Surely they'll need canopies to keep the sun off them, better to eat the canapés. 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Printable View
Surely they'll need canopies to keep the sun off them, better to eat the canapés. 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Need to stop messaging by swipe text on my phone or at least start reading what I've put inQuote:
Originally Posted by J-C
And today the president has said that transitioning away from fossil fuels will “have us back living in caves”. It’s beyond comprehension that this nation was allowed to host this. It’s always a bit of a circus, but it’s been a joke this year.
Was going to post about that. Absolutely making a mockery of the whole thing. Just a photo op and a box ticking exercise. Why would you have it in a country that openly doesn't believe in climate changeQuote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Because of what I do, I was involved in COP26 at Glasgow and I felt quite optimistic after it concluded. There’s such a growing populist turn against it nowadays that this COP in particular is going to amplify all of the wrong messages. I genuinely despair right now at where we’re heading.
Maybe he is worried his horrible regime might end up back in tents if no one needs or buys the oil and they don't fancy buying sand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
Oh, I’ve zero doubt self-interest is the sole driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
They'd be back in the stone age pretty quick left to their own devices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
No bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Live in hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Downside is the very rich ones would simply move to their secondary residences in the UK, and not to take up the jobs the EU workers were forced to leave behind.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
https://x.com/stvnews/status/1750858...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
It has been a bit blowy right enough.[emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41322742.html
Don’t they know this won’t work?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How could that possibly work in Scotland? It would mean that people get inconvenienced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310
so that's a full year under our belts at +1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
i find the whole thing very strange. i get the need to be calm and rationalise this into context, why there's still hope etc., but at the same time, it feels more and more like we're in a flimsy vehicle hurtling towards a wall lined with explosives.
when do we admit that our political systems, and a huge amount of our lifestyle choices, need to absolutely go in the bin? I'm not saying I live a 100% green life by any means, I'm just asking these questions. FWIW I really struggle to see how air travel can be justified in any cases other than seeing loved ones and one-off work trips, diplomacy etc. Same goes for meat, and I try to avoid it as much as possible, particularly cheap crap stuff, but again, I'm not here to claim moral superiority, I definitely still eat it when veggie options are rubbish.
Bottom line for me, though, is that individual choices are more or less pissing in the wind. Governments need to either legislate or be toppled, otherwise the future of our planet looks very inhospitable for eejits like us, and sadly many other creatures and life forms who have done nothing wrong.
Exactly. If it is so serious then we need a more radical approach to addressing climate change. Unfortunately, the dominant free market-neoliberal capitalist economic forces aren't going to allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Many of the green policies are just guilt tripping lip service.
Consume , consume...build more houses because it makes housing more accessible (as if that has ever actually happened in Britain), encourage economic reliance on tourism with all the attendant carbon footprint, new cars, they're so electric (but not very green). Cheap food imports, travelling all around the world, we need that cheap food (regardless of the cost to those who's countries grow it) because our wages are so low. Social care crisis anyone, let's import hundreds of thousands of people from developing nations instead of adequately funding the industry (whilst we're at it , we can spend hundreds of millions on a Tram system that serves a fraction of the cities population, handy for the tourists though and your house price might rise if you live near it, lol)). Fossil fuels? Let's issue new licences to extract more oil from the North Sea and tell the suckers their cars aren't compliant with our make no difference ULEZ zone).
Sadly, people feel there are no alternatives and they're right. Unless governments get radical, anything we do is pissing in the face of a gale force wind.
I think one important first step is for people to stop rationalising how our current system might yet deal with it. It won't, and trying to convince oneself that it will is either arrogant, deluded, irresponsible, selfish, stupid or some combination of the above. I think we actually do need to start panicing soon, as we are way behind on changing course.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I genially think we simply aren’t going to change and will inevitably eventually be ****ed as a result. Governments can’t legislate to do what’s needed because they will be voted out, and even if a government (UK for example) somehow went hardline on climate change and survived a few elections it would be a drop in the ocean because the rest of the world wouldn’t be doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
We should all be willing to do the following but people aren’t willing to go without foreign holidays, new clothes, new electric items, live in cold home in winter (or a hot home in summer for those in hot climates) and so on. Once again it’s probably the mindset of why should I suffer when everyone else isn’t. Maybe if it was forced on the whole world’s population it would be easier to stomach because we would all be in the same boat but that would take totalitarian governments to achieve. Not something many would accept without a fight.
Using the UK as an example once again our economy is to some degree a ponzi scheme. If our population stops growing or shrink the economy goes to ****. We therefore have to increase our population by immigration with the effect of building more houses on green land, consuming more food, more fuel, more cars on the road and effectively more of everything bad for the environment. Then how many people live within walking distance of their work. A few centuries ago the answer would have been everyone. Now it’s probably a pretty small %, especially in the west.
Then the real elephant in the room is the world’s ever growing population. We are 1.5 degrees above pre industrialisation levels. The world’s population at that milestone was sub 800 million. We are now over 10 times that figure.
If our population was still 800 million we could sustain our current lifestyles without killing the planet I’d imagine. Dammed if I know the solution to that one though.
To be fair we are doing our bit on population. If it wasn’t for immigration it would be falling rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul1642
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://x.com/guardianeco/status/175...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Thought Labour had cancelled this emergency?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This Tory Government doesn't seem to believe in green issues.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e_iOSApp_Other
Quote:
The UK government is providing a €700m (£600m) guarantee for the billionaire Jim Ratcliffe to build the biggest petrochemical plant in Europe in 30 years that will turbocharge plastic production.
The huge petrochemical plant has been described as a “carbon bomb” by campaigners. Being constructed in the Belgian city of Antwerp by Ratcliffe’s company Ineos, it will bring plastic production to Europe on a scale not seen before, just as countries are trying to negotiate a binding global treaty to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution.
Looking past the green issues, I must be missing the economic reason for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Why on earth would we fund a billionaire to build a factory in Belgium?
My thoughts exactly, other than Ratcliffe being a huge tory doner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul1642
AND this plant will do exactly what will be shut down at grangemouth!!
It's being funded by banks plus UK, Italian, Spanish and Belgian governments I had read through export loans. I'm not sure at what rate or benefit to the other countries. I think it claims it will be carbon neutral after 10 years. I can't see how, probably some greenwashing project like tree planting but I'm unsure
Just seen on the news that some Swiss women have won a case in the ECHR on tackling the climate crises.
Good news? Surely?
People think that when we sign up to these climate treaties they are meaningless but they become law and the public can use the law to ensure they are enforced. Good on the old Swiss ladies.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I critised this at the time. The green led scot gov £2 billion PFI deal will mainly benefit huge polluters and rich land owners. Carbon offset has been shown time and time again to be a swindle with negligible environmental benefits allowing massive amounts of Carbon emissions
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/pri...cotlands-trees
The Scottish Government's £2 billion PFI deal to pay wealthy landowners to plant trees will increase inequality and do nothing to deter big polluters – proof that the market can't fix the climate crisis
Highly impartial source you have there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You regularly post links from the national which is obviously not impartial. That is fine some of the articles are poor some are really good. You'd be crazy and clouded if you only read articles from a source that repeats what you want to read. What did you think of the article it's well researched. It's obvious the PFI benefits the few who grossly own half of Scottish land. Carbon offsetting is more and more being shown as the scam it is, a get out for horrors like BP to say they are green whilst killing the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
If you want more sources that the PFI is terrible
An article from eco experts on Carbon offsetting I admit they have bias in saving the planet
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog...s%20we%20think.
Greenpeace too
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/t...t-really-work/
The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work
Robert Mcalpine ex Green party has been fighting for Scotlands nature for decades
https://robinmcalpine.org/scotlands-...ing-us-poorer/
Scotland’s money trees are making us poorer
by Robin McAlpine | 13 Mar 2023
The Scottish Government is trying to 'lever in' private funding to profit from tree planting in Scotland. The direct consequence of this will be something akin to 'reverse land reform', pricing another generation off the land.
Andy Wightman is always a good source of information for stuff like this, land ownership and other environmental issues on Twitter. Well researched stuff by himself and good links to others. He was a big critic of this policy at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
He's a big miss in parliament, a common sense voice in the green movement who understood that perfection can often be the enemy of good.
What we really need is legislation to outlaw wood burning and multi fuel stoves......
|Meanwhile we can carry on flying around in our private planers and helicopters, jet of all around the globe on holiday, burn thousands of acres of grouse moor, import food from all around the world \(obviously needed even more now we are because we are building houses, despite Nimbyism, on prime agricultural land).
We're importing food because of profit not space and food choice ie wanting non native foods. Only 0.1% of the uk is made up of actual homes, about 5% of uk is classified urban areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Even if our pitiful housebuilding increases I'm confident Scotland will be net zero by 2050 after that we should be going carbon negative. Agriculture is actually a huge emmiter of our co2 about 7.8% our 2nd highest cause of emissions. That's why countries like Holland and Germany are trying to cut farmers production and emissions to hit net zero.
Transport excluding air travel is out in front at worst culprit 10.9% of emissions, hence us wanting to cut car use dramatically. Businesses 3rd 7.5%, residential 6.3%. All new builds will have to be electric heating now which will help get net zero, replacing existing gas boilers will be harder. 5% energy, gas, coal and oil power stations. Air travel and shipping together is only 0.7%.
You can see why cars, agricultural and heating homes in buildings are the targets. Cut them or turn them electric and we'll get net zero. Scotland are doing pretty well I think in the push to electrify
See this stooshie about wood burning stoves, why has there been nothing said about the stricter ban on oil and gas boilers??Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I think a number of green advocates I've seen are saying they are happy they are being banned in large towns and cities but unhappy about in some rural settings. I've read that for some they can be net zero sustainable and a source for when power isn't guaranteed. I don't know enough about them personally. I'm glad on the ban for oil and gas in new builds, it seems a no brainerQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I am in a small hamlet of about 20 houses and I think we all have wood burning stoves, myself included. I planted a number of trees in the garden up to 36 years ago and coppiced them in rotation for fuel. Coppiced wood regrow so it's very sustainable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sounds absolutely brilliant 👏Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Which is probably the perfect use case for wood burning stoves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
What isn’t though is my neighbour up the road who has a house in a rather more built up area (that obviously has mains gas and electricity) that decides to put theirs on at any opportunity and routinely stink the road out with whatever they are burning in it.
There is now an odd situation where we are happily banning cars for their pollution but not bothering to police people routinely burning wood in fires in populated areas years after clean air acts were brought in to stop people doing exactly that.
Wood burning stoves do have a place in the types of situation you have described but I’m all for a ban in Inner city / urban areas.
I have a wood burner. I dry my wood for a couple of years and would only burn very dry logs. I can't even see smoke out my chimney when it is burning. No idea about particulates though and nearly all my wood has came from people chopping down trees and wanting rid of them. Much harder these days than it was a few years back but I have a good stock stillQuote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
I can see why people like wood burners. There is something amazing about watching a fire and tending to it. However, we can’t all have one. There isn’t enough wood. There is a reason we switched to coal. We were running out of trees to burn. Wood is not a very efficient fossil fuel to burn. It’s not very dense like coal.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Given that we can’t all have wood burners, how should society decide who gets to have one?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you read both my and wookie' posts you should realise that we are both using wood that would go to waste otherwise. I burn my own wood which regrows for future years. I also live in a house with no oil or gas heating system in a rural situation where power cuts are a frequent occurrence. Very different situation to the central belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Who chooses? Well the new building regulations have been pretty clear.
People also like wood burners because it saves them being extorted by robber power suppliers. Amazingly, with some straightforward adaptations, you can also do things like heat your hot water with it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You're making things up about availability of wood and the switch to coal. Coal had been used for fuel for a long, long time in Scotland. However, the speed, scale and demands of industrialisation required industrial level mining of a fuel that was suitable for it's needs. Nothing to do with availability of wood.
The Scottish timber industry produces huge amounts of low grade wood, much is unsuitable for construction, Mostly used for pulp, but It burns nicely too.
Burners should be definitely banned in new builds and only really used when other heating sources available. It produces more co2 than oil and gas for the same amount of heat and methane. Obviously renewable electricity is much much better than all 3 and where we have to be heading as soon as we can. If we want net zero we need to go electric as fast as we can and we are getting there
Electric vehicles are now saving 1.5 million barrels of oil being burnt a day. Two thirds of that are from people choosing to ride electric bikes. On yer bikes everyone!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-...ting-emissions
I’m surprised electric Vespas are not becoming more popular?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think electric bikes have just got so good, hundreds of delivery drivers choosing them over mopeds it seems. Think the bonus is the battery is easily taken off and charged in the house, its light and easy to do but also makes the bike less likely to steal as the battery is the main price sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The have also came down in price can get a good one for about 800 in halfords and you can pay it up there, over 60 a month for a bus pass. Cycle to work scheme is great if its available at your work. Takes a third off the bikes cost minimum through tax savings and let's you pay over 12 or 18 months
It’s theft that would be my biggest worry with an electric bike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Feel alright if I take the battery off means I need a bag if uptown in shops ect though. Say its 800 for the bike its 500 second hand and 200 if the person has to find and buy a battery, thieves are probably going to go for a better steal. Dig dlock and they need an angle grinder too. The zoomos all the delivery drivers have don't need locked they immobilise, think about 2k to buy, can be rented for under 50 a week thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
A 50cc petrol scooter will go about 100 miles on a single 5l tank of petrol and obviously you don’t need space to charge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Compared to an electric one which might do 40 miles on a full charge.
Sure they will eventually be a thing but the use case is still pretty weak I’d say.
I’ve commuted for years on a scooter. By far the most convenient, speedy and cost effective way of getting about town.
Cheap to buy (esp. second hand) and extremely cheap to run I’m amazed more people don’t do it.
Sensibly Edinburgh has excluded them from the LEZ rules as well.
Money decides. Seen the price of a wood burner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Also modern insulated houses simply don’t need them. My house is roasting, compared to my last mid 30s semi detached that I used to live in.
J
Dubai: a year's rain fell in one day. The pictures are apocalyptic.
https://x.com/DaveThroup/status/1780566686644445217
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLXX9oxW...pg&name=mediumQuote:
It has been the wettest 6 months across the whole of England since records began in 1871.
The wettest 12 months across 18 English catchments
And the wettest 18 month period for England on record.
Funny thing is their water companies are so useless and have stolen so much money that they are only about 8 weeks away from a hose pipe ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Humza Yousaf Sept 23
"The UK government rolling back on their climate pledges is unforgivable.
It's time for climate action and ambition. Scotland will continue to show global leadership in the face of the climate crisis.
The UK Government is on the wrong side of history, I'd urge them to rethink"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...at_format=link
The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.
The final goal of reaching "net-zero" by 2045 will remain, but BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also go.
Ministers have missed eight of the last 12 annual targets and have been told that reaching the 75% milestone by the end of the decade is unachievable.
A statement is expected at Holyrood on Thursday afternoon.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) - which provides independent advice to ministers - warned back in 2022 that Scotland had lost its lead over the rest of the UK in tackling the issue
Where is the outrage that the Scottish Government has failed out 8 of 12 of the targets set… Yousless was jetting around the globe boasting how Scotland was a world leader on reaching net zero. 🙄Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Ambitious targets are more difficult to achieve. On the other hand...Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
the UK’s Labour Party rolled back its pledge to make £28 billion per year of additional capital expenditure available to meet the country’s Net Zero target: extra spending is now likely to be around £5 billion should Labour form the next government.
Deflect deflect …look over there …don’t look at the SNP failuresQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
There is a lack of seriousness from both govts and Labour on this issue. And also from the public. Every restriction on the burning of fossil fuels is opposed and politically costly for whichever govt is doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
We can see it here with the LEZ, the introduction of cycle lanes, phasing out wood burning stoves in new build houses etc etc.
Everyone says they want to stop climate change. So long as it’s not inconvenient for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's lots of denial going on. You just have to look at the outrage in Musselburgh over plans to build flood defences. Most of the arguments against seem to be that rising sea levels and climate change is just scaremongering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Spot on. All of the above don't care enough certainly not over votes. Uxbridge byelection created more power than it should have. Fact is we can get net zero with our too biggest co2 contributers changing, car transport and house heating. There is uproar when any gov or council tries to cut the biggest polluter car use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Climate activists also need to take a hard look at themselves. Great at complaining about lack of action but when some action does happen they disappear and leave politicians twisting in the wind taking on the opposition to the changes. They should be out in force praising authorities like Edinburgh council for bringing in LEZ and building cycle paths. It’s much easier just to moan about what’s not happening though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I take it any bikes are okay. I just checked and my vespa PX is allowed and it's a 2 stroke. Need to get my finger out and get it back on the road again.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Any motorbike / moped registered after 2006 are exempt [emoji736]Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Not to mention the weight of modern cars. Modern SUV’s are nearly three tons. Everyone complains about the condition of the roads without making the connection that it’s us who are to blame. We keep buying bigger and bigger cars and expect the roads to stay the same with no extra wear and tear. We certainly don’t fund the council extra to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oddly enough the council has largely relaid my whole route into work in the last two years or so!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Taken ages but hey what’s a few temporary traffic lights tail backs when you can just jump the queue each time [emoji12]
Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's in the pipeline from what I saw recently, the end of exemption from vehicle tax for electric vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I’d be 100% behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bear in mind that the average EV also weighs half as much again as a petrol/diesel vehicle. The more EVs on the road then there is more wear and tear on the roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Which is why we need to move away from cars in cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by w pilton hibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Urmm while it was always a poorly thought out replacement that lacked imagination, foresight and proper integration with even the public transport that existed at the time this is surely something that can’t be allowed to happen!
Seems mental that the Council can be caught cold so close to the lease end date!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o.amp
If there is no other site available that the city can use then it should be allowed to compulsory purchase the site. It is strategically important to the people of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Considering all the public transport / active travel agendas at play it would seem a complete travesty for a capital city to not have a bloomin’ bus station!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by w pilton hibby
Classic shifting of goal posts :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Where is the shifting. Charge by size and weight regardless of engine type, whilst also trying to cut cars to a minimumQuote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
The elephant in the room though, bad roads are annoying the planet heating up kills. Stopping gas is miles away from the importance of pot holes
April 2024 was warmer globally than any previous April on record. This is the 11th consecutive month at record levels.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNZ-12_W...pg&name=medium
https://x.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1789757911486378164
Liz Truss in the Torygraph today urging Sunak to end all net zero targets, **** bag. Did she not hurt us enough in her embarrassingly short reign
Labour end the ban on onshore wind turbines, good news. Remarkable fact since Russias full blown invasion, Ukraine has managed to install 12 times more onshore wind turbine capacity than we currently have in the UK
How can that be? The last UK govt was most world beatingyist govt evah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Ukraine completed about 200MW of onshore wind last year. The first since the war started. It went into the war with about 1.7Gw of wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The U.K. has almost 30Gw of installed capacity with onshore accounting for about 14Gw.
The UK has also been much more focused on the substantially more effective offshore wind..so much so it has the leaves offshore wind capacity in the world. On top of that there is another 8Gw already in construction.
Back to onshore there is already 8Gw of planning consented applications. 6Gw in planning and waiting approval and 7Gw in pre planning.
On a more specific note The South Kyle onshore farm went operational in 2023 providing 230Mw
So the concept of Ukraine having 12x anything with regards to wind power v the U.K. doesn’t ring entirely true unless someone has picked a rather specific period of time and set of stats to fit their point while completely missing the bigger picture.
Sorry it's the 2 years since the war started and it's England not uk, its devolved and we have done much better than England. Yes offshore is more productive but onshore is better than literally burning fossil fuels like we're doing just now. Everything is far to slow in the uk. The same is said about solar, offshore and nuclear is cheaper yes but we need every weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Also yes it's a specific period the last two years but they are dodging mines, drones, have 1 million men fighting and have regular power outages.
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4332875/labour-government-lifts-facto-ban-onshore-wind-farms
Campaigners highlighted how as a result of the rules Ukraine has been able to install 12 times more onshore wind energy capacity than England since Russia's invasion, despite being at war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Aye no doubt England has had an odd problem with onshore and taken in isolation I suppose the 12x thing might mean something.
But the U.K. has a national grid so taking England only, onshore only as some sort of comparator is a bit odd.
You could easily as say that the UK grid added over 2Gw of renewables in the last year alone which surpasses all of Ukraine’s total installed capacity.
It doesn’t after all matter, when trying not to burn fossil fuels, if the renewable is generated offshore in Dogger Bank or onshore on the north east coast of England instead.
But I get the point. England’s planning laws for onshore have stymied progress there and thankfully common sense has finally prevailed on that front.
The great thing for Ukraine is that the windmills are harder for the Russians to take out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A huge backfire of Putins war is getting the west to go full throttle towards energy independence and renewables. 34% of Russias federal budget comes from oil and gas, a world running on renewables must be scary for themQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Interesting thread and article in the FT
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1821866681704013859
It's about the greens in England but I can see similarities here. Will there be a split in the greens. The older green voter polls far more Nimby, anti onshore wind and solar, anti nuclear. The younger greens are completely pro decarbonisation even if that means using countryside to save the planet.
Also mentioned is something I was utterly baffled with last year. The greens in Germany chose to close their nuclear power stations and who would have thought it caused a rise in CO2 emissions in Germany, burning gas and coal took up the slack.
The shock of Chernoble caused a massive decline in nuclear projects. We burned fossil fuels instead.
"We estimate that the decline in Nuclear power Plants caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally". https://nber.org/conferences/si-2024-political-economy
Has the issue of what to do with nucular waste been properly addressed yet, or is it still 'dump it in the sea somewhere far away and hope for the best'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not disagreeing with your general argument, but it was actually Angela Merkel's CDU that made the decision in 2011 to close the nuclear power stations, mainly as a reaction to the disaster in ***ushima.
Like you said, though, there has been a lot of discussion over whether the final closure should have been delayed until they could replace those with greener sources of power.
EDIT: Apparently, I can't write F..u..k..ushima
It's safely sealed in countries all over the world. There are projects to try and use it to generate power but none are yet economical. I think the problem is there is a generation that think it get put in the sea or just in the ground as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Finland are leading the way with disposal and are happy to take others waste at a cost. They secure it deep underground in solid cases. They say it is safe from earthquake and wars for 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is spent in 1000 years.
I'm sure in a few hundred years we'd have the technology to take it out and deal with it although in 100,000 years it probably won't matter.
Whilst it's there it's saving lives from reducing CO2. Never mind what If's burning fossil fuels is killing us now, never mind destroying the planet that will kill more.
33 million UK live years gone because unlike France we didn't slow down Nuclear production. Also the massive electricity price spike we saw in the last years didn't happen in France due to their nuclear power self sufficiency
I just read it from the FT article. But reading further it was the greens that closed the final stations, clever when your so reliant on gas and can't buy from Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/
I'd eventually like to not need nuclear and be purely renewable, I'm sure we won't need it in 100 years. In the meantime we are burning fossil fuels, it's crazy
Steel and copper cans. So long as it's stainless steel, I'm convinced that'll last 100,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You sound like an expert the Finns should hire you. The other option is drilling for gas and lighting it on fire for energyQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
No, you're the expert. You're informing us that Finns are leading the way in waste disposal, but that only seems to mean that Finns have decided not to dump it in the sea but instead dump it far undergound. Credit to them for that decision to use their own territory, but I fully expect house prices around the area chosen to plummet in 50,000 years or so. Or possibly even earlier, when news about leaking cans leaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It’s only radioactive for about a thousand years so the cans leaking in 50,000 years shouldn’t be a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I revise my estimate of the fall in house prices to 2524.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Using language like dumping in the sea is daft isn't it. Even if they over estimated the safety of the 100,000 years by 90% they will still be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The problem is it isn't a nil sum game. So you say don't have nuclear because they might be mistaken when they say they can store it safely for a hundred millenia. You have to admit that instead of choosing nuclear you are choosing to burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels isn't a maybe something could go wrong it causes deaths simple as. The BMJ estimated that burning fossil fuels kills 5 million people per year so I'm glad that countries like China are investing massively in nuclear power as if they can switch completely then 5 million less deaths per year is better than who wants to live next to a nuclear waste facility. The planet is dying also and we simply have to get to net zero. Once there hopefully we can transition to purely renewable, in the meantime people are dying
https://bmjgroup.com/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuel-use-accounts-for-over-5-million-extra-deaths-a-year/#:~:text=deaths%20a%20year-,Air%20pollution%20from%20fossil%20fuel%20use%20ac counts%20for,million%20extra%20deaths%20a%20year&t ext=Air%20pollution%20from%20using%20fossil,publis hed%20by%20The%20BMJ%20today.
Nuclear is the safest fuel source we have. I’m all for it but for the price. It’s too expensive for Scotland given our renewable options but for other countries then they should go for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Forbes quoting 24,400 years for the half-life of Plutonium 239, in waste from breeder reactors. God only knows how long its whole life is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi...aste-disposal/
It's far more expensive than it should be due to our Victorian planning laws we take years to even start and dozens of applications, meetings, complaints ect ect. South Korea makes them like a conveyor belt and they get the electricity from them at a quarter of the price us auto this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Also until battery storage catches up we need another power source when renewables aren't enough.
Last year 56% of the electricity we used was from renewable, 30% from nuclear, 14% from burning fossil fuels. We produced 97% of what we use from renewable but at certain times so loads got exported. Some on here would be surprised how much we already rely on nuclear but one more small reactor would make us completely green and fossil fuel free when it comes to electricity.
The problem is with cars going electric and hopefully heating we are going to need more electricity and at all times including night or winter.
I’m def not against it, we just have to find a way of building them cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nuclear isn't fossil free even once the plant is up and running. Mining uranium and getting rid of the waste is a fossil fuel task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yeah I agree and Labour seem to be window dressing so far with the planning revolution. I read that the UK tax information has 16,000 pages so it's water tight. The planning application for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing runs to almost 360,000 pages. They had 20 meetings just to talk to objectors. A year and a half since they started pushing forward with it, £300 million in planning. Look at HS2 times times what France and Spain paid per mile as they said they wanted it and did itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Imagine the planning in the UK for new nuclear and they objections meetings ha. Other countries just get it done
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/building-back-faster/
1,961. That’s the number of documents contained within a single planning application for a wind farm off the northeast coast of England – capable of powering around 1.5 million homes. The environmental impact assessment and environmental scoping documents alone totalled 13,275 pages. To put that into context, that’s 144 pages longer than the complete works of Tolstoy combined with Proust’s seven volume opus In Search of Lost Time.
UK’s National Highways agency spent £267 million preparing a planning application to build a 23-kilometer road. The planning application, which featured 30,000-plus pages of environmental documentation, was the longest ever prepared.