Prove it. This is a massive accusation. How, o wise one, did you come to this conclusion? Do you have enough evidence to write on one side of a bus ticket? Of course you don't. That's why you're watching a video put out by the people who gave Liz Truss the ideas that broke Britain.
We already changed the climate, we are changing the climate, we are influencing an entire planet’s climate directly from our influence. That in itself is madness. The only thing madder is the people denying that it is happening.
You must be such a GENIUS! I bow down before your greatness! Would you be so good as to SHARE the research paper you wrote in which you proved all this to be true? A link would be really handy. Presumably you own a fleet of satellites and ground-based weather stations. Don't keep it to yourself! Explain, o wise one, how you came to this conclusion.
@@thoutube9522 There are plenty of research papers out there pointing out the fakery. Basically, if you have to "adjust" the historic data and carefully choose your start date to show the trend you want, you are lying.
Anyone can pick a random number and claim that's needed like you have. Good luck getting that much nuclear installed and no, we can't still be burning fossil gas in a net zero future. We can have backup dispatchable generation made from biomethane and hydrogen for the phenomenally rare periods we don't have any wind or solar or enough storage. We'll have massive amounts of batteries, hydro, interconnectors, energy in vehcles and gas storage in places like salt caverns.
Oh, the ignoramus who has found a scientific term and uses this profound knowledge like a lycra lab-coat to disguise their total ignorance! Well done, mate. you have learned........ a WORD! Maybe in a month or two, you could do another quick Google search and maybe learn another one!
And you cannot just run up a nuclear plant for a few hours once started it has to run for years, if the money that has been spent on wind and solar had been spent on nuclear we would be well away by now.
Prove it. The UK gets 42% of its power from renewables. That's FOUR TIMES more than ten years ago. There's no reason why this shouldn't continue. The IEA is a dishonest, self-serving shady crooked organisation. The people who gave us Trussonomics.
Fossil fuel infrastructure kills 17 times the birds and bats per MW, we have known this for decades. Both of those are dwarfed by the numbers killed by cats and buildings. Please don’t pretend your concern is for wildlife if you are opposing clean forms of generation. The biggest threat to wildlife is manmade climate change.
The spanner in the works for nuclear happened in the 60s & 70s, when there was a lot of fear about nuclear wars. The 'ban the bomb' mob, also protested against nuclear reactors. And of course the government backed down.
The 'ban the bomb' mob were being funded by Russia in an attempt to scare everyone that nuclear power and nuclear bombs were the same thing. This was the earliest form of Russia undermining western energy supply. Ever since, it has taken a new form or name every few years but today, it is still about targeting energy supply. They've just found another way to link it to the environment which is something people are passionate about.
Yet another interview where they talk of decarbonisation as achievable and needed. These ideas need to go full stop. Then we can bring manufacturing back to the UK. They are doing that in America, and they will grow beyond our wildest dreams.
@@robinjones5169 Stop being hysterical, I am as planet friendly as the next man. Just remember Carbon dioxide is plant food and plants grow bigger and do better when Co2 levels are higher. The deserts are receding due to increased levels of plant growth and what you would call a dirty gas. Lets get American I say and Frack baby Frack!
@@robinjones5169 Oh dear you are on a downer, the green dream of societal control will die along DEI, ESG and the Woke. People are waking up and won't follow this scam much longer. As president Trump has said, drill baby drill for that gas and oil as it will save us all!
@@chrisprior1225I mean you're trotting out anti environment talking points so forgive me if I don't believe you when you haven't understood that climate change is the biggest threat to our environment. Plants have limited ability to take on board CO2 and isn't the only thing plants need. Remember that they also need water, the increased variability in weather is causing floods and droughts. But here is the other aspect, we're also destroying plantlife at a massive rate, we're not helping plantlife, we're doubly screwing them over while some are claiming we're helping them. As for control. Were you in charge of your electricity bills as gas prices doubled our electricity bills? I think you'll find our electricity bill is linked to the most expensive generation which is that dirty gas you love so much. It cost us billions whilst they raked in profits. I'm suggesting forms of energy that can be owned and controlled by ordinary people and communities. Never heard of gas or nuclear being able to do that. Of course I'm not obsessed with culture wars and I don't simp for our oppressors.
Renewable is by definition 'whim of nature', we all know how older societies fared when they relied on nature - they were poor, unhealthy and many froze to death....
You mean Norway? They have a good distribution of money. They have 90%+ renewables and over half the country has a heat pump extracting heat from an environment colder than ours. Or is that too inconvenient an example?
@@robinjones5169 Norway is a very bad example... They have a small population, lots of snow and mountains to provide hydro, Norway also uses some geothermal energy, but here is the real kicker, all that they have is paid for by selling oil and gas to other countries... Without the oil and gas Norway would be a very poor country without the money to virtue signal with susididised EV
@@chrissmith2114So it's not applicable because they were smarter about their energy assets than we were and didn't completely privatise them under Thatcher like we did? I take the point on hydro though. Portugal, Australia. Loads of examples to go at without hydro.
The energy expense is literally due to the increase in wholesale cost of gas. Yes renewables are getting cheaper, but they are already cheaper than gas, and massively cheaper than nuclear. Also, our own natural resources don't help as we don't have a state company and it's sold on the global market. Which, by the way, isn't going to want to make things cheaper when the impact of climate change drives costs of everything up. It will be expensive in the short run but its safe and cheaper by far in the long run. If we expand gas to meet our needs we'll be fucking to international pressures. And what of innovation and industry? This guy literally just said "we should wait for the rest of the world to do it then just buy it"??? Nonesense man just reactionary politics no real economics. Also, about infrastructure, yes it costs but what is the cost of not doing it? If we add no capacity, it will cost more later. If we keep gas, it will cost more later. If we don't upgrade and diversify our grid it will stifle industry and cost more later.
The way to go is small modular nuclear plants. I know Rolls Royce are world leaders in this and Britain should investing massively into this and get rid of all the planning issues. Qatar and UAE are putting Billions into this, now they have a little bit of oil but are still investing in this.
Small Modular Rectors are the way to go. They are MUCH cheaper than the big reactors, can be installed quickly and the infrastructure is already there (eg in the old Nuclear Reactor sites down the River Severn. The Rolls Royce SMR is an excellent one to go for: it (well, a variant) has been powering our nuclear-powered subs for decades, it comes in an excellent package that can be (fairly) quickly installed and is designed so that multiple SMRs can be built back-to back on the same site. Maybe it's problem is that it is made in Britain, and our Government & Civil Service don't want to see British enterprise succeed.
Very interesting discussion, especially the part about importing more streamline regulatory frameworks from South Korea; and combine it with mini reactors in a free port. Maybe we should utilise other countries expertise with infrastructure projects, like Spain's High-speed rail, French Nuclear reactor. Get their companies and construction staff to build it quicker and avoid red tape. British train companies built railways in, India, South America, Italy and Spain. Maybe it's time to set aside our pride and let other countries build up our infrastructure who have greater expertise and experience.
Cool, let's just let every other country other than us own our energy infrastructure. Then they can control what we buy in to make the infrastructure, the methods of making the infrastructure and the fuel. They'll get all the benefit and we'll get none. Brilliant, it's not like we just went through a period where we had a massive price hike because of the knock on effect of global fossil fuel prices (in this case gas) rising because of the pandemic and Russia. Let's just replicate that with nuclear but go even more extreme and let foreign countries control every aspect of it. What could go wrong?
@robinjones5169 Where have you been, don't you remember Thatchers privatisations in the 1980s. Foreign companies and governments already owe everything anyway, water, trains, airports, car companies, soon royal mail. London transport built Elizabeth line and then sold it off to a foreign company to operate it. Why spend billions and years extra swallowed in red tape, just to then sell it off a few years anyway. You could follow a Norwegian model which they used to built up their oil and hydropower industres. Bring in foreign expertise and companies to build dams and oil rigs etc but still keep direct controlling ownership 51%. After a set amount of time 20-50 years the asset is returned in full to the state. Companies make money and the state gets expertise, technology, and modern infrastructure at a much reduced price.
@@sirfinleygaming9490Why would the foreign countries and companies provide their expertise for no stake? That's not how it works in the real world. More things are coming back into public ownership. That's the only real way to ensure we run it. Then not voting in those same people who sell it off.
@@robinjones5169 this video explains Norway success ruclips.net/video/RO8vWJfmY88/видео.htmlsi=H0jWbmr5cpKn7FQD basically a hybrid model part state, part private company ownership model. Best of both worlds and Norway retains controlling ownership and can take full ownership bk in like 50 years.
@Trevor_Austin from none to very far less, only for those who want to play with it. Instead putting 10. 000$ or more on my roof I rather buy an ETF tracking a good index.
We gave the fossil fuel industry £170 billion pounds in the energy crisis. They get £10 billion a year in subsidies. It would be fantastic if we were "wasting" anywhere near the money on renewables as we have been on fossil fuels.
@robinjones5169 didn't know that . The government do get millions back in taxes , but somehow I don't see that happening with renewables. Another source of energy methane gas that's produced by cow poo, rotting land fill and other sources is never used. It would help fill the gaps until more other reliable green technology can be used instead.
@@BrinJay-s4vThe industrial revolution started in the 1750s not the 1950s. I'm in favour of a green industrial revolution, about as far from a luddite as you can get.
YES we are leading the world in the most stupid idea ever. Intermittent energy is not sustainable energy and it is not clean because it requires so much fossil fuel to make it. It makes Net Zero sense. The main problem with nuclear is the excess regulations and fear mongering. I do think we should have a GB Energy as the transition to nuclear will require a change in the regularity framework. You should also talk about small modular reactors as the technology is already here and able to be built in factories. SMRs can be added to the existing grid so frankly the solution is not that hard to do if you have the will to do it. SMRs and support for innovation in nuclear would cost much less than the intermittent energy madness and deliver within a realistic time scale such as 2050.
But the one "Green" source of electricity that seems to be totally ignored is HYDRO! There are a number of different types that can be used especially where remote communities are in need of a steady supply of base load! Run of river units would be cheap and easy to install. or there are many ideal sites where a large dam would be better suited such as remoter glens in the west of the Scottish highlands where the annual rainfall is over 3 meters. Many burns /streams have a vertical fall of well over three hundred feet so they could be fitted with 2, 3 or 4. small units to produce for a farm or two if not more without the need for the grid!
Nuclear plus batteries plus no fixed time has to be the way to go. All net zero and zero emission laws must be repealed. Then we create a sensible regulatory framework for nuclear power.
It's O.k using nuclear power, but what about the waste that comes from it?? Nobody wants it near them, always want power, but no one wants the nuclear waste.. Where do we store it???
No, renewables are the cheapest form of electrical generation by a long way. This can easily be checked by looking at LCOE figures from valcoe or the independent and good International Energy Agency. Unlike the IEA in this video who are serving their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry. It is gas prices that is why your energy bills are so high. Blame the right people, the ones who are actively costing you more and are in control of how we heat, transport and power our lives.
@@buildmotosykletist1987By 2030, yes. And? Energy infrastructure for entire countries costs a lot. Renewables are already covering 70% of their needs in some areas. That would still be cheaper than an alternative system based on fossil fuels and said fossil fuels would make the country less energy secure. It would also be absolutely cheaper in operation to have renewables. I'm also going out on a whim here and saying you haven't factored in the externality costs of the carbon of fossil fuels and the knock on effects that will have on the climate.
As usual greed and irons reduce the plans to greed and power. This corrupts the actions to result in something that doesn’t work. People are working on the basis of now supplies not the quadruple supplies we will need by 2050. So what may work now will be impossible for this massive increase in demand.
So you would have us more reliant on the gas that just caused us to pay double what we were paying for electricity in the recent energy crisis? Rather than making the vast majority of our energy not reliant on fossil fuels that are bought and sold on an international market.
@@robinjones5169 In 2023, the UK produced 168,644 TJ of natural gas, which accounted for 54.1% of the country's total gas supply. The United Kingdom produces around 1,083,928 barrels of oil per day, which ranks it 19th in the world. The UK imports oil to make up for its daily deficit of 499,968 barrels. We have to make up both of these deficits by import. So our demand exceeds our supply, which is the cause of ‘the energy crisis’. If you produce your own supply you can ensure the demand will always be met. Ed Milliband has crippled our ability to do so.
@@WastedPotSo you're blaming Ed Milliband for us selling oil and gas to a global market? There was a hybrid approach to domestic and international O&G sales from 70s labour, then Thatcher fully privatised it. If you're going to blame a politician blame the right one.
@@robinjones5169 No that’s not my argument. My argument is that if we produced enough O&G to not only meet our demand but then also sell on the international market our energy prices would fall. Ed’s an easy target because he’s public about needing to meet net zero targets, but I understand he’s not alone in his sabotage of our economy.
@@robinjones5169 Totally unreliable renewables cannot handle keeping the grid alive without at least gas generation... Also we need the compounds from oil and coal to keep our civilisation going, so even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow we would still need to mine coal and pump oil.
I worked for 18 years in the renewables sector. It wasn't profitable because it wasn't mainstream economics. Customers had to have high disposable incomes. These plans - desirable though they seem - are completely unaffordable to UK.
@@robinjones5169 solar only operates ~8 hours of each day, and there are not enough batteries. Outside the horse latitudes solar power is not very viable and does not survive high winds, hurricanes or hail.
The IEA is a right wing think tank that is extremely opaque about who funds them. They’re paid to be promoting a viewpoint that enables the status quo. There is no one solution to low carbon energy but this guy clearly does not understand the energy landscape or is deliberately misleading people for his paymasters at the IEA. Our existing energy setup is massively inefficient and is heavily dependent on natural gas. Which is globally extremely expensive. Nuclear is also extremely expensive, this is why he started off with a comment about it being cheap (one that was never realised) after telling us how expensive renewables are. This is the opposite of reality. Nuclear is also phenomenally slow to build as he suggested if you haven’t already been doing it for decades. The people who have gone at everything at speed though are the Chinese, their build out of nuclear has been as fast as they could grow and was pretty linear, however renewables and storage is exponential. You need speed of transition in an overhaul of your energy system in a climate crisis. We cannot wait for nuclear to save the day eventually. Renewables are cheap. Look up their levelised cost of energy (LCOE). It is lower than any other generation method by a long way. Renewables are quick, about 10 times quicker for the same amount of generation. We cannot afford to wait for nuclear. Note how he talked about how unpredictable/unreliable renewables were but didn’t mention storage of any kind. You should find that very suspicious that he can do that without getting called out. This man is lying to you.
The most recent strike prices for wind is approx. 2.5x the current price for gas and an over inflated return for wind is often quoted. You need to drill down to the actual detail to estimate what we will pay for electricity once we introduce more wind generated electricity. As wind is an unreliable source of electricity generation, we will also have to pay for a dual system which includes both wind and gas generated electricity. In this dual system, electricity generated by gas will end up costing much more than what we currently pay because the overheads are the same but have less time to be recouped. All these factors are why, even at this early stage, we currently pay more for our electricity in the UK than nearly any other country in the world and this is BEFORE the vast cost of upgrading our infrastructure has been added to our electricty bills.
@@christineross4155Batteries of many kinds to cover intra day variations, much cheaper than gas peaking; LFP, sodium. $0.50/kWh for repeatable infrastructure lasting many thousands of cycles. For LDES max out pumped hydro, CAES, finally hydrogen. Royal society did a great paper on this. Your assessment of gas prices vs wind is nowhere near correct. £39-73/MWh for wind in different auctions. Gas regularly goes over £100/MWh. The energy crisis has been caused by high gas prices. We have a marginal pricing system that charges end users by the most expensive generation medium no matter how much of it is being used. This means if gas is running we're paying a premium on our energy. We could save people billions by decoupling gas and electricity prices. Of course you won't hear that sort of thing from people who own the fossil fuel infrastructure. They like us paying more for energy. It wasn't renewables that had 170bn in excess profits as a result of the energy crisis.
@@Incognito-turnip I have a degree in chemistry and my husband has a degree in electrical engineering. The battery storage you are referring to is there to balance the grid as wind generated electricity is highly variable. I'm not anti any form of viable energy as long as it is both affordable and available as and when it is required. Battery storage on the scale you are talking about will only cover a couple of minutes of what is required to keep the lights on in the UK any time we have sustained periods of low or exceptionally high wind speeds. It is also worth pointing out that if electricity is too expensive for many families and businesses, that also puts adequate energy out of reach for millions across the UK. That have a huge impact on our standard of living and set us back from many years of progress in energy sufficiency and availability. We live in a country where heat in the winter shouldn't be treated as a luxury. It's a necessity and if it becomes unavailable for sustained periods of time or unaffordable for many, that will pose a serious risk to both our mental and our physical health.
It's not the percentage of wild AC the public power grid is having to support from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity that is substantially important, but its fuel savings, which is little to non. In the US the advertised fuel savings for supporting the wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity by the electric utility grid is 1% each. That number is likely rounded up significantly. The wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic electrical generation should not be supported by the public power grid. The practical use for wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity is for maintaining electrical energy storage such as charging storage batteries or working with something similar such as hydropower. The electrical storage can supply the power grid or run pumped hydro for stockpiling water for hydropower at about 50% efficiency. Instant 100% backup of wild AC typically requires natural gas turbine generators running at high availability consuming a minimum 70% of the fuel of full output, but making little electricity, where in a few seconds they can be at 100% output to instantly backup the wind farm 100%. Making up the dips in wild AC will cause more than 70% of full output fuel consumption. It would use 66-2/3% of the natural gas of 100% back up of natural gas turbine generators to run a natural gas combined cycle plant at high efficiency output where it can make full use of a steam cycle adding 50% higher efficiency making all the electricity than to 100% instantly back up a wind generator farm for the same electrical output to behave as a scheduled power station. The cheapest incremental electricity is from hydropower and nuclear power. Second to those in the US would be a new ultra supercritical clean coal plant burning high BTU bituminous coal at a predicted crossover fueling cost with natural gas priced at $0.80 per million BTUs in 2022. US natural gas was priced at an offseason wholesale price in early summer 2024 of $2.50 per million BTUs, three times the fueling cost of the coal plant. This is the cheapest natural gas that could be expected without economic collapse. Winter peak natural gas wholesale prices can be several times higher. The US has some of the lowest cost natural gas in the world. UK wholesale natural gas was priced in US equivalence Oct. 2024 at $10.50 per million BTUs. It is not accurate to state residential electricity cost is greatly the cost of maintaining the power grid as sometimes said. In the US on average only 38% of the generated electricity reaches the residential electric power meter. 62% of the generated electricity on average is lost to grid resistance. A little less than $0.03 per kWh is average for US midwestern wholesale electricity scheduled 24 hours in advance. That costs $0.03/.38 = $0.078 at the residential meter. Our Cumberland, Indiana residential electricity in 2020 was priced at $0.10 per kWh. The cost verses sale price difference has to maintain the power grid and make some profit. Internally generated electricity should be significantly cheaper
This is for the UK not the US. Fossil gas is expensive because it gets put on a global market which puts it at the whims of cartels like OPEC who throttle supply to keep prices high at every available opportunity like a pandemic or a war in Ukraine. That is a far bigger explainer of the price than not running it constantly for a CCGT. And I don’t know how many times I am going to have to point this out to people but generation doesn’t nicely line up with demand when a technology wants to generate it efficiently. Nobody who talks about fossil gas likes to talk about its effect on the climate and the cost of that emitted carbon. We cannot afford to keep burning fossil fuels for energy generation.
It's not about reducing carbon, it's about increasing certain bank accounts.
The IEA is a right wing think tank. They’re paid for by people with a vested interest in the status quo.
EXACTLY! There is NO SUCH THING as man made global warming. It is all a huge fraud.
Prove it. This is a massive accusation. How, o wise one, did you come to this conclusion? Do you have enough evidence to write on one side of a bus ticket? Of course you don't. That's why you're watching a video put out by the people who gave Liz Truss the ideas that broke Britain.
Too true. Greed is mankind's biggest enemy.
Oil and gas companies would never do that
Get that North Sea oil up now, I'm bloody freezing
No you're bloody not. Put a cardigan on and stop whingeing.
...and they think this will change the climate. Pure madness.
We already changed the climate, we are changing the climate, we are influencing an entire planet’s climate directly from our influence. That in itself is madness. The only thing madder is the people denying that it is happening.
You must be such a GENIUS! I bow down before your greatness! Would you be so good as to SHARE the research paper you wrote in which you proved all this to be true? A link would be really handy. Presumably you own a fleet of satellites and ground-based weather stations. Don't keep it to yourself! Explain, o wise one, how you came to this conclusion.
@@thoutube9522 There are plenty of research papers out there pointing out the fakery. Basically, if you have to "adjust" the historic data and carefully choose your start date to show the trend you want, you are lying.
@@thoutube9522 I could picture you wearing a mask covering your smug look whilst getting your boaster as you typed your extra witty retort.
@@thoutube9522 : He does not need to, the climate scam has been debunked, just search.
You need not just back up but also base load. A resilient grid needs about 50% base load. Only nuclear or gas provides this.
Anyone can pick a random number and claim that's needed like you have.
Good luck getting that much nuclear installed and no, we can't still be burning fossil gas in a net zero future.
We can have backup dispatchable generation made from biomethane and hydrogen for the phenomenally rare periods we don't have any wind or solar or enough storage.
We'll have massive amounts of batteries, hydro, interconnectors, energy in vehcles and gas storage in places like salt caverns.
Hydro is the greenest of them all and it is all baseload!
@geothermal is best but like hydro is no good for uk.
Oh, the ignoramus who has found a scientific term and uses this profound knowledge like a lycra lab-coat to disguise their total ignorance! Well done, mate. you have learned........ a WORD! Maybe in a month or two, you could do another quick Google search and maybe learn another one!
And you cannot just run up a nuclear plant for a few hours once started it has to run for years, if the money that has been spent on wind and solar had been spent on nuclear we would be well away by now.
Net Lunacy.
Prove it. The UK gets 42% of its power from renewables. That's FOUR TIMES more than ten years ago. There's no reason why this shouldn't continue. The IEA is a dishonest, self-serving shady crooked organisation. The people who gave us Trussonomics.
Wind power is hardly zero risk to all the wildlife it chops up.
Fossil fuel infrastructure kills 17 times the birds and bats per MW, we have known this for decades.
Both of those are dwarfed by the numbers killed by cats and buildings.
Please don’t pretend your concern is for wildlife if you are opposing clean forms of generation.
The biggest threat to wildlife is manmade climate change.
The spanner in the works for nuclear happened in the 60s & 70s, when there was a lot of fear about nuclear wars. The 'ban the bomb' mob, also protested against nuclear reactors. And of course the government backed down.
The 'ban the bomb' mob were being funded by Russia in an attempt to scare everyone that nuclear power and nuclear bombs were the same thing. This was the earliest form of Russia undermining western energy supply. Ever since, it has taken a new form or name every few years but today, it is still about targeting energy supply. They've just found another way to link it to the environment which is something people are passionate about.
Why decarbonize? CO2 is a small part of green house effect !
Nope, it absorbs quite a chunk of the infa-red window. Imagine you have a cup full of water, a small change causes it to spill over.
We are wasting even more billions on billionaires.
Those are precisely the people that this Trussonomics bunch of scumbags are interested in helping. Thank you for your sanity.
Yet another interview where they talk of decarbonisation as achievable and needed. These ideas need to go full stop. Then we can bring manufacturing back to the UK. They are doing that in America, and they will grow beyond our wildest dreams.
So you don't give a damn what kind of state the planet is left in for future generations?
@@robinjones5169 Stop being hysterical, I am as planet friendly as the next man. Just remember Carbon dioxide is plant food and plants grow bigger and do better when Co2 levels are higher. The deserts are receding due to increased levels of plant growth and what you would call a dirty gas. Lets get American I say and Frack baby Frack!
@@robinjones5169 Oh dear you are on a downer, the green dream of societal control will die along DEI, ESG and the Woke. People are waking up and won't follow this scam much longer. As president Trump has said, drill baby drill for that gas and oil as it will save us all!
@@chrisprior1225I mean you're trotting out anti environment talking points so forgive me if I don't believe you when you haven't understood that climate change is the biggest threat to our environment.
Plants have limited ability to take on board CO2 and isn't the only thing plants need. Remember that they also need water, the increased variability in weather is causing floods and droughts. But here is the other aspect, we're also destroying plantlife at a massive rate, we're not helping plantlife, we're doubly screwing them over while some are claiming we're helping them.
As for control. Were you in charge of your electricity bills as gas prices doubled our electricity bills? I think you'll find our electricity bill is linked to the most expensive generation which is that dirty gas you love so much. It cost us billions whilst they raked in profits.
I'm suggesting forms of energy that can be owned and controlled by ordinary people and communities. Never heard of gas or nuclear being able to do that.
Of course I'm not obsessed with culture wars and I don't simp for our oppressors.
@@robinjones5169 crude and silly responses will result in total destruction of this society.
We don't have climate problems.
We have a problem with the scientifically illiterate.
@robinjones5169 You make too many assumptions.
@@thisisnumber0Do you accept the scientific reality of anthropomorphic climate change?
Yes or no?
@@robinjones5169 No, and you need spelling lessons and a very close look at the agenda of the United Nations.
@@thisisnumber0Then congratulations you are scientifically illiterate.
No assumptions needed.
Maybe try and fix that. I ain't gonna do it for you.
Renewable is by definition 'whim of nature', we all know how older societies fared when they relied on nature - they were poor, unhealthy and many froze to death....
You mean Norway?
They have a good distribution of money.
They have 90%+ renewables and over half the country has a heat pump extracting heat from an environment colder than ours.
Or is that too inconvenient an example?
@@robinjones5169 Norway is a very bad example... They have a small population, lots of snow and mountains to provide hydro, Norway also uses some geothermal energy, but here is the real kicker, all that they have is paid for by selling oil and gas to other countries... Without the oil and gas Norway would be a very poor country without the money to virtue signal with susididised EV
@@chrissmith2114So it's not applicable because they were smarter about their energy assets than we were and didn't completely privatise them under Thatcher like we did?
I take the point on hydro though.
Portugal, Australia. Loads of examples to go at without hydro.
Actually we never make energy only convert to a different sort! So how is it renewable?
@@BrinJay-s4v all energy ends up as heat....
The energy expense is literally due to the increase in wholesale cost of gas. Yes renewables are getting cheaper, but they are already cheaper than gas, and massively cheaper than nuclear.
Also, our own natural resources don't help as we don't have a state company and it's sold on the global market. Which, by the way, isn't going to want to make things cheaper when the impact of climate change drives costs of everything up.
It will be expensive in the short run but its safe and cheaper by far in the long run. If we expand gas to meet our needs we'll be fucking to international pressures. And what of innovation and industry? This guy literally just said "we should wait for the rest of the world to do it then just buy it"??? Nonesense man just reactionary politics no real economics.
Also, about infrastructure, yes it costs but what is the cost of not doing it? If we add no capacity, it will cost more later. If we keep gas, it will cost more later. If we don't upgrade and diversify our grid it will stifle industry and cost more later.
The way to go is small modular nuclear plants. I know Rolls Royce are world leaders in this and Britain should investing massively into this and get rid of all the planning issues. Qatar and UAE are putting Billions into this, now they have a little bit of oil but are still investing in this.
Where do we store the waste that comes from it???
Rolls want to build a prototype by 2040.
@jillbastable6767 : Waste is recycled and is NOT a problem.
@@jillbastable6767
Fast breeder reactor, chews everything up, nothing radioactive remains, more or less.
Small Modular Rectors are the way to go. They are MUCH cheaper than the big reactors, can be installed quickly and the infrastructure is already there (eg in the old Nuclear Reactor sites down the River Severn. The Rolls Royce SMR is an excellent one to go for: it (well, a variant) has been powering our nuclear-powered subs for decades, it comes in an excellent package that can be (fairly) quickly installed and is designed so that multiple SMRs can be built back-to back on the same site.
Maybe it's problem is that it is made in Britain, and our Government & Civil Service don't want to see British enterprise succeed.
Where do we store the waste that comes from it??
@@jillbastable6767 : Waste is recycled and is NOT a problem..
@@buildmotosykletist1987Not in an SMR, you need a whole different kind of nuclear reactor to process the waste and they're even more expensive.
Very interesting discussion, especially the part about importing more streamline regulatory frameworks from South Korea; and combine it with mini reactors in a free port. Maybe we should utilise other countries expertise with infrastructure projects, like Spain's High-speed rail, French Nuclear reactor. Get their companies and construction staff to build it quicker and avoid red tape. British train companies built railways in, India, South America, Italy and Spain. Maybe it's time to set aside our pride and let other countries build up our infrastructure who have greater expertise and experience.
Cool, let's just let every other country other than us own our energy infrastructure. Then they can control what we buy in to make the infrastructure, the methods of making the infrastructure and the fuel. They'll get all the benefit and we'll get none.
Brilliant, it's not like we just went through a period where we had a massive price hike because of the knock on effect of global fossil fuel prices (in this case gas) rising because of the pandemic and Russia.
Let's just replicate that with nuclear but go even more extreme and let foreign countries control every aspect of it. What could go wrong?
@robinjones5169 Where have you been, don't you remember Thatchers privatisations in the 1980s. Foreign companies and governments already owe everything anyway, water, trains, airports, car companies, soon royal mail. London transport built Elizabeth line and then sold it off to a foreign company to operate it. Why spend billions and years extra swallowed in red tape, just to then sell it off a few years anyway. You could follow a Norwegian model which they used to built up their oil and hydropower industres. Bring in foreign expertise and companies to build dams and oil rigs etc but still keep direct controlling ownership 51%. After a set amount of time 20-50 years the asset is returned in full to the state. Companies make money and the state gets expertise, technology, and modern infrastructure at a much reduced price.
@@sirfinleygaming9490Why would the foreign countries and companies provide their expertise for no stake?
That's not how it works in the real world.
More things are coming back into public ownership. That's the only real way to ensure we run it. Then not voting in those same people who sell it off.
@@robinjones5169 this vide explains how Norway does it ruclips.net/video/RO8vWJfmY88/видео.htmlsi=H0jWbmr5cpKn7FQD
@@robinjones5169 this video explains Norway success ruclips.net/video/RO8vWJfmY88/видео.htmlsi=H0jWbmr5cpKn7FQD basically a hybrid model part state, part private company ownership model. Best of both worlds and Norway retains controlling ownership and can take full ownership bk in like 50 years.
The first 11 days of November it was cloudy and no wind.. ....😲😲
Dunkelflaute
centuries ago in the middle ages society would "hibernate" for the winter...is that the result of this net-zero ?
How much solar/wind we would really need if we had enough nuclear.
None.
@Trevor_Austin from none to very far less, only for those who want to play with it.
Instead putting 10. 000$ or more on my roof I rather buy an ETF tracking a good index.
Renewables have an issue ie wind turbines, solar require a constant grid for the inverters to work.
Renewables as an investment proposition are simply not viable.
Without guaranteed subsidizing they would absolutely fail to attract investment.
Seems very sensible to me, the path they are on now is completely non sustainable and a huge amount must change.
Excellent interview. thank you.
Question are we wasting billions on net zero. Answer. YES.
We gave the fossil fuel industry £170 billion pounds in the energy crisis. They get £10 billion a year in subsidies.
It would be fantastic if we were "wasting" anywhere near the money on renewables as we have been on fossil fuels.
@robinjones5169 didn't know that . The government do get millions back in taxes , but somehow I don't see that happening with renewables. Another source of energy methane gas that's produced by cow poo, rotting land fill and other sources is never used. It would help fill the gaps until more other reliable green technology can be used instead.
@@robinjones5169 Are you a Luddite? Life expectancy raised from mid 50's to 80's over the Industrial Revolution can revert faster than it happened.
@@BrinJay-s4vThe industrial revolution started in the 1750s not the 1950s.
I'm in favour of a green industrial revolution, about as far from a luddite as you can get.
Are we wasting money on net zero I would say yes , but then I'm no expert
In a word YES!!!
YES we are leading the world in the most stupid idea ever. Intermittent energy is not sustainable energy and it is not clean because it requires so much fossil fuel to make it. It makes Net Zero sense. The main problem with nuclear is the excess regulations and fear mongering. I do think we should have a GB Energy as the transition to nuclear will require a change in the regularity framework. You should also talk about small modular reactors as the technology is already here and able to be built in factories. SMRs can be added to the existing grid so frankly the solution is not that hard to do if you have the will to do it. SMRs and support for innovation in nuclear would cost much less than the intermittent energy madness and deliver within a realistic time scale such as 2050.
Why pander to the Net Zero religion?
Absolutely
Andy knows how to pronounce economic.
Which is nice....
It’s lunacy
But the one "Green" source of electricity that seems to be totally ignored is HYDRO! There are a number of different types that can be used especially where remote communities are in need of a steady supply of base load! Run of river units would be cheap and easy to install. or there are many ideal sites where a large dam would be better suited such as remoter glens in the west of the Scottish highlands where the annual rainfall is over 3 meters. Many burns /streams have a vertical fall of well over three hundred feet so they could be fitted with 2, 3 or 4. small units to produce for a farm or two if not more without the need for the grid!
Its a neglected resource, many early generators were sited on rivers just like the water mills. One or two are still in use.
Nuclear plus batteries plus no fixed time has to be the way to go. All net zero and zero emission laws must be repealed. Then we create a sensible regulatory framework for nuclear power.
Cool, by 2200, yeah?
Any energy store should it fail is rather like an exploding bomb be it a resovoir or lithium battery.
It's O.k using nuclear power, but what about the waste that comes from it?? Nobody wants it near them, always want power, but no one wants the nuclear waste..
Where do we store it???
Renewables are massively more expensive and unreliable.
No, renewables are the cheapest form of electrical generation by a long way. This can easily be checked by looking at LCOE figures from valcoe or the independent and good International Energy Agency. Unlike the IEA in this video who are serving their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry.
It is gas prices that is why your energy bills are so high. Blame the right people, the ones who are actively costing you more and are in control of how we heat, transport and power our lives.
@@robinjones5169 : Yet Australia's renewables are costed at over $1.5 TRILLION !
Why are my replies disappearing ?
@@robinjones5169 : Nope. Simple fact: Renewables are the most expensive !
@@buildmotosykletist1987By 2030, yes. And? Energy infrastructure for entire countries costs a lot.
Renewables are already covering 70% of their needs in some areas.
That would still be cheaper than an alternative system based on fossil fuels and said fossil fuels would make the country less energy secure.
It would also be absolutely cheaper in operation to have renewables.
I'm also going out on a whim here and saying you haven't factored in the externality costs of the carbon of fossil fuels and the knock on effects that will have on the climate.
As usual greed and irons reduce the plans to greed and power. This corrupts the actions to result in something that doesn’t work. People are working on the basis of now supplies not the quadruple supplies we will need by 2050. So what may work now will be impossible for this massive increase in demand.
Yes!
I like to call Ed the zealot 'Head Moribund' because his aim is to make UK energy supply moribund.
So you would have us more reliant on the gas that just caused us to pay double what we were paying for electricity in the recent energy crisis?
Rather than making the vast majority of our energy not reliant on fossil fuels that are bought and sold on an international market.
@@robinjones5169 In 2023, the UK produced 168,644 TJ of natural gas, which accounted for 54.1% of the country's total gas supply.
The United Kingdom produces around 1,083,928 barrels of oil per day, which ranks it 19th in the world. The UK imports oil to make up for its daily deficit of 499,968 barrels.
We have to make up both of these deficits by import. So our demand exceeds our supply, which is the cause of ‘the energy crisis’. If you produce your own supply you can ensure the demand will always be met. Ed Milliband has crippled our ability to do so.
@@WastedPotSo you're blaming Ed Milliband for us selling oil and gas to a global market?
There was a hybrid approach to domestic and international O&G sales from 70s labour, then Thatcher fully privatised it.
If you're going to blame a politician blame the right one.
@@robinjones5169 No that’s not my argument. My argument is that if we produced enough O&G to not only meet our demand but then also sell on the international market our energy prices would fall. Ed’s an easy target because he’s public about needing to meet net zero targets, but I understand he’s not alone in his sabotage of our economy.
@@robinjones5169 Totally unreliable renewables cannot handle keeping the grid alive without at least gas generation... Also we need the compounds from oil and coal to keep our civilisation going, so even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow we would still need to mine coal and pump oil.
I could of told you this 10 years ago.
I'll bet you could of (sic) you would have been wrong then as well.
Yes.
What happened to building a future instead of just caring about the instant
Simply not going to happen.
We could just relax and deal with problems as and when .......and if...... they arise
By which time it's too late. We will have a huge refugee crisis. We already have. This is pathetic thinking.
Efficiency is used several times where capacity factor is probably intended
Yeah, the guy is parroting talking points, he doesn't actually understand what he is talking about.
That chick has quite the carbon footprint
2070 MAYBE
Not billions but trillions 😡
You are forgetting nuclear war 😂
To even contemplate if its a question shows ignorance of science and its rules.
Is the pope catholic?
I worked for 18 years in the renewables sector. It wasn't profitable because it wasn't mainstream economics. Customers had to have high disposable incomes. These plans - desirable though they seem - are completely unaffordable to UK.
When, in the 80s or 90s?
Payback on solar now is 5 years.
Don't lie to people.
@@robinjones5169 solar only operates ~8 hours of each day, and there are not enough batteries. Outside the horse latitudes solar power is not very viable and does not survive high winds, hurricanes or hail.
It's good to see that this right wing organisation is at last taking climate change seriously
They're not, they're suggesting solutions that are too slow.
The IEA is a right wing think tank that is extremely opaque about who funds them. They’re paid to be promoting a viewpoint that enables the status quo.
There is no one solution to low carbon energy but this guy clearly does not understand the energy landscape or is deliberately misleading people for his paymasters at the IEA.
Our existing energy setup is massively inefficient and is heavily dependent on natural gas. Which is globally extremely expensive.
Nuclear is also extremely expensive, this is why he started off with a comment about it being cheap (one that was never realised) after telling us how expensive renewables are. This is the opposite of reality.
Nuclear is also phenomenally slow to build as he suggested if you haven’t already been doing it for decades. The people who have gone at everything at speed though are the Chinese, their build out of nuclear has been as fast as they could grow and was pretty linear, however renewables and storage is exponential. You need speed of transition in an overhaul of your energy system in a climate crisis. We cannot wait for nuclear to save the day eventually.
Renewables are cheap. Look up their levelised cost of energy (LCOE). It is lower than any other generation method by a long way.
Renewables are quick, about 10 times quicker for the same amount of generation. We cannot afford to wait for nuclear.
Note how he talked about how unpredictable/unreliable renewables were but didn’t mention storage of any kind. You should find that very suspicious that he can do that without getting called out.
This man is lying to you.
What sort of storage are you referring to.
The most recent strike prices for wind is approx. 2.5x the current price for gas and an over inflated return for wind is often quoted.
You need to drill down to the actual detail to estimate what we will pay for electricity once we introduce more wind generated electricity.
As wind is an unreliable source of electricity generation, we will also have to pay for a dual system which includes both wind and gas generated electricity.
In this dual system, electricity generated by gas will end up costing much more than what we currently pay because the overheads are the same but have less time to be recouped.
All these factors are why, even at this early stage, we currently pay more for our electricity in the UK than nearly any other country in the world and this is BEFORE the vast cost of upgrading our infrastructure has been added to our electricty bills.
@@christineross4155Batteries of many kinds to cover intra day variations, much cheaper than gas peaking; LFP, sodium. $0.50/kWh for repeatable infrastructure lasting many thousands of cycles.
For LDES max out pumped hydro, CAES, finally hydrogen. Royal society did a great paper on this.
Your assessment of gas prices vs wind is nowhere near correct.
£39-73/MWh for wind in different auctions. Gas regularly goes over £100/MWh.
The energy crisis has been caused by high gas prices. We have a marginal pricing system that charges end users by the most expensive generation medium no matter how much of it is being used. This means if gas is running we're paying a premium on our energy. We could save people billions by decoupling gas and electricity prices.
Of course you won't hear that sort of thing from people who own the fossil fuel infrastructure. They like us paying more for energy. It wasn't renewables that had 170bn in excess profits as a result of the energy crisis.
@@christineross4155 ever heard of a battery before ? Or pumped hydro energy storage ? Stuff like that
@@Incognito-turnip I have a degree in chemistry and my husband has a degree in electrical engineering.
The battery storage you are referring to is there to balance the grid as wind generated electricity is highly variable.
I'm not anti any form of viable energy as long as it is both affordable and available as and when it is required.
Battery storage on the scale you are talking about will only cover a couple of minutes of what is required to keep the lights on in the UK any time we have sustained periods of low or exceptionally high wind speeds.
It is also worth pointing out that if electricity is too expensive for many families and businesses, that also puts adequate energy out of reach for millions across the UK. That have a huge impact on our standard of living and set us back from many years of progress in energy sufficiency and availability.
We live in a country where heat in the winter shouldn't be treated as a luxury. It's a necessity and if it becomes unavailable for sustained periods of time or unaffordable for many, that will pose a serious risk to both our mental and our physical health.
It's not the percentage of wild AC the public power grid is having to support from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity that is substantially important, but its fuel savings, which is little to non. In the US the advertised fuel savings for supporting the wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity by the electric utility grid is 1% each. That number is likely rounded up significantly.
The wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic electrical generation should not be supported by the public power grid. The practical use for wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity is for maintaining electrical energy storage such as charging storage batteries or working with something similar such as hydropower. The electrical storage can supply the power grid or run pumped hydro for stockpiling water for hydropower at about 50% efficiency.
Instant 100% backup of wild AC typically requires natural gas turbine generators running at high availability consuming a minimum 70% of the fuel of full output, but making little electricity, where in a few seconds they can be at 100% output to instantly backup the wind farm 100%. Making up the dips in wild AC will cause more than 70% of full output fuel consumption.
It would use 66-2/3% of the natural gas of 100% back up of natural gas turbine generators to run a natural gas combined cycle plant at high efficiency output where it can make full use of a steam cycle adding 50% higher efficiency making all the electricity than to 100% instantly back up a wind generator farm for the same electrical output to behave as a scheduled power station.
The cheapest incremental electricity is from hydropower and nuclear power. Second to those in the US would be a new ultra supercritical clean coal plant burning high BTU bituminous coal at a predicted crossover fueling cost with natural gas priced at $0.80 per million BTUs in 2022.
US natural gas was priced at an offseason wholesale price in early summer 2024 of $2.50 per million BTUs, three times the fueling cost of the coal plant. This is the cheapest natural gas that could be expected without economic collapse. Winter peak natural gas wholesale prices can be several times higher. The US has some of the lowest cost natural gas in the world.
UK wholesale natural gas was priced in US equivalence Oct. 2024 at $10.50 per million BTUs.
It is not accurate to state residential electricity cost is greatly the cost of maintaining the power grid as sometimes said. In the US on average only 38% of the generated electricity reaches the residential electric power meter. 62% of the generated electricity on average is lost to grid resistance.
A little less than $0.03 per kWh is average for US midwestern wholesale electricity scheduled 24 hours in advance. That costs $0.03/.38 = $0.078 at the residential meter. Our Cumberland, Indiana residential electricity in 2020 was priced at $0.10 per kWh. The cost verses sale price difference has to maintain the power grid and make some profit. Internally generated electricity should be significantly cheaper
This is for the UK not the US.
Fossil gas is expensive because it gets put on a global market which puts it at the whims of cartels like OPEC who throttle supply to keep prices high at every available opportunity like a pandemic or a war in Ukraine.
That is a far bigger explainer of the price than not running it constantly for a CCGT.
And I don’t know how many times I am going to have to point this out to people but generation doesn’t nicely line up with demand when a technology wants to generate it efficiently.
Nobody who talks about fossil gas likes to talk about its effect on the climate and the cost of that emitted carbon.
We cannot afford to keep burning fossil fuels for energy generation.