Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
If they're building 'conventional' nuclear stations like Sizewell C then that's certainly the timescale.

I read somewhere about smaller modular reactors based on those used in nuclear powered submarines. Could those be rolled out more quickly?

Yes, I have read about them too. If the length of time it takes to build a Nuclear Submarine is anything to go by, I would gamble No.
 

Adam4868

Legendary Member
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Burning wood is part of the natural carbon cycle. Digging up and burning coal that has been out of the cycle for hundreds of millions of years isn't.

OTOH using fossil fuels to transport wood for thousands of miles and claiming it's green is absurd.
No because for burning wood to make sense in terms of electricity generation you need young trees, what they now do for a number of years is plant trees and cut them down in a few years time, but that distrubs nature, as life ground etc. in forests takes years to develop, so it's stuck in a certain cycle. In addition burning wood is by far not so efficient as burning coal or gas.
Long term sollution is none of those, it's liquid hydrogen from either water, solar wind whatever we can even power cars on it.(But thanks to Shell that's on a very low pace in europe. In the US they are much faster)
 

icowden

Über Member
Long term sollution is none of those, it's liquid hydrogen from either water, solar wind whatever we can even power cars on it.(But thanks to Shell that's on a very low pace in europe. In the US they are much faster)
Liquid hydrogen is not the future. It is massively inefficient. The future is likely to be fusion or just more efficient electricity storage and conversion from sunlight and wind.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Liquid hydrogen is not the future. It is massively inefficient. The future is likely to be fusion or just more efficient electricity storage and conversion from sunlight and wind.
That's indeed the lie Shell helped to get into this world. well mainly Europe in to Us they are powering cars with it, using solar and wind to be converted to that because yes clearly compared to battery storage(because that is what electricity storage comes down to) you have some loss, but the flip side is that it is much easyer and cheaper to transport use etc. More efficient energy storage has been promised for years, unless they are going to take nuclear waste batteries serious it's not going to happen.(if they do it's not said in stone it's going to work either, but the theoretical results looks promising)
 

Mr Celine

Active Member
No because for burning wood to make sense in terms of electricity generation you need young trees, what they now do for a number of years is plant trees and cut them down in a few years time, but that distrubs nature, as life ground etc. in forests takes years to develop, so it's stuck in a certain cycle. In addition burning wood is by far not so efficient as burning coal or gas.
Long term sollution is none of those, it's liquid hydrogen from either water, solar wind whatever we can even power cars on it.(But thanks to Shell that's on a very low pace in europe. In the US they are much faster)

In my experience old trees burn just as well as young ones. So long as forests are replaced no new carbon is being put in to the atmosphere, unlike the carbon produced from burning fossil fuels.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
In my experience old trees burn just as well as young ones. So long as forests are replaced no new carbon is being put in to the atmosphere, unlike the carbon produced from burning fossil fuels.
I'm not talking about your experiences i'm talking about wood they use for eletricity generation as that is the comparison between fossil fuels. The lie that they would use old trees has been debunked long time ago.
 

mjr

Active Member
So are we enjoying this government's triple whammy of:
1. New north sea fossil licences, contrary to UN and IEA guidance;
2. Blocking an energy -saving public information ad campaign that was planned for this autumn;
3. Still opposing ground-level solar and onshore wind through their local branches.
 

albion

Well-Known Member
Liquid hydrogen is not the future. It is massively inefficient. The future is likely to be fusion or just more efficient electricity storage and conversion from sunlight and wind.

Inefficient simply meant it was costly. Green hydrogen produced from onshore wind is very efficient. And now cheaper to make than buying gas.
 
Top Bottom