I think nuclear technology is certainly a way of being energy self sufficient that has largely been neglected by successive British governments for decades. The French embraced it years ago and we should have too. It’s a controversial technology but it’s decades old now and as long as it’s not neglected and penny pinched is very safe. Would be interesting to hear @Chippycafc view on this.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
You do realise that yourFrance seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK is precisely the main thrust of the article? So what part of that article was 'unreliable'? No part, and your trying to discredit it because it appeared in Toby Young's - lockdown sceptic!!!!! Advocate of vaccine disinformation!!!!! - TDS is as fatuous as it is desperate.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
You do realise that your France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK is precisely the main thrust of the article? So what part of that article was 'unreliable'? No part, and your trying to discredit it because it appeared in Toby Young's - lockdown sceptic!!!!! Advocate of vaccine disinformation!!!!! - TDS is as fatuous as it is desperate.
Yes, I apologise re this particular article, though it doesn't change my view on Daily Sceptic site. A quick look at the articles on there shows his extreme views on vaccines, lockdowns and climate change.
The fact of the matter is that the U.K. has not protected itself from supply issue like we’ve seen created by Putins invasion of Ukraine. We’ve relied far too heavily on coal and gas where France in particular has massively invested in nuclear energy. Easier for the French of course because of the comparable populations but France having twice the land mass. What we’ve done with renewables is good but is it really the complete answer to our future energy needs ? I don’t think so. For me at least I’d like to see the renewables increase but also to at least quadruple our nuclear energy capabilities. As far as the climate emergency is concerned though I think we’re just pissing in the wind. Not us but the world.
Very worrying, yet we still have politicians in this country calling for us to cancel our net zero targets for political gain.
The target has been put back because, its simply not achievable.
Of course it would closer if the successive governments had started implementing projects toward nett zero when the targets were announced rather than just waffle about it and cut budgets on measures that could help.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
Any stats should be drilled down and claims questioned for sure. I'm not saying that he is a reliable source, but your link pretty much supports his claim that France is 60% of the German costs.
I know nothing of any consequence about the nuclear industry, but I know a man that does and he tells me that the French nuclear industry is having lots of problems because their generators were thrown up too quickly. I seem to recall that France had to shut one or two down during the Russian gas crisis and stopped supplying us the agreed energy.
All I'm saying is that France may not be the exemplar we're led to believe it is. Hopefully, we can build some nuclear energy into the uk mix without selling out to China.
Very worrying, yet we still have politicians in this country calling for us to cancel our net zero targets for political gain.
The target has been put back because, its simply not achievable.
Of course it would closer if the successive governments had started implementing projects toward nett zero when the targets were announced rather than just waffle about it and cut budgets on measures that could help.
That is the problem, they keep kicking the can further down the road, however climate change is speeding up. At some point difficult decisions will have to be taken if the planet is to remain habitable. It's a problem for the whole world and shouldn't be political, we should all be working together.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
Any stats should be drilled down and claims questioned for sure. I'm not saying that he is a reliable source, but your link pretty much supports his claim that France is 60% of the German costs.
I know nothing of any consequence about the nuclear industry, but I know a man that does and he tells me that the French nuclear industry is having lots of problems because their generators were thrown up too quickly. I seem to recall that France had to shut one or two down during the Russian gas crisis and stopped supplying us the agreed energy.
All I'm saying is that France may not be the exemplar we're led to believe it is. Hopefully, we can build some nuclear energy into the uk mix without selling out to China.
I did apologise and accept that both articles support the claim that France is doing better than Germany. It seems that France has been having problems with nuclear energy as there was a lack of water for cooling due to climate change.
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
Any stats should be drilled down and claims questioned for sure. I'm not saying that he is a reliable source, but your link pretty much supports his claim that France is 60% of the German costs.
I know nothing of any consequence about the nuclear industry, but I know a man that does and he tells me that the French nuclear industry is having lots of problems because their generators were thrown up too quickly. I seem to recall that France had to shut one or two down during the Russian gas crisis and stopped supplying us the agreed energy.
All I'm saying is that France may not be the exemplar we're led to believe it is. Hopefully, we can build some nuclear energy into the uk mix without selling out to China.
I did apologise and accept that both articles support the claim that France is doing better than Germany. It seems that France has been having problems with nuclear energy as there was a lack of water for cooling due to climate change.
The fact of the matter is that the U.K. has not protected itself from supply issue like we’ve seen created by Putins invasion of Ukraine. We’ve relied far too heavily on coal and gas where France in particular has massively invested in nuclear energy. Easier for the French of course because of the comparable populations but France having twice the land mass. What we’ve done with renewables is good but is it really the complete answer to our future energy needs ? I don’t think so. For me at least I’d like to see the renewables increase but also to at least quadruple our nuclear energy capabilities. As far as the climate emergency is concerned though I think we’re just pissing in the wind. Not us but the world.
With net zero, health, food security, defence and cyber there are many areas where the UK might take a lead or at least position herself better. But not with this government!
I've just read this thread with interest and would add: - there's a large political cycle this year in US, UK and EU elections - yes the top 10% and 20% consume a disproportionate amount adding to greenhouse gasses - there are solutions - China and India have significant populations and are in a very different place in their development - there are campaigns to break the post world war two order
So all in all we're at a crossroads where we might discuss data, reports and trajectories, but individually we carry no power nor responsibility. Except to discuss and amplify sensible solutions.
One might say the same about Ukraine, child poverty as well as a plethora of other causes. Perhaps we immerse ourselves in the politics and philosophy whilst supping a decent glass of Malbec?!
What one can say is that we will have some more clarity in a couple of years time.
Individually we do carry responsibility, for our lifestyle choices that determine energy consumption. We, generally speaking, won't accept others telling us how to live as that imposes on our liberties.
We don't need more clarity on rising global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gasses. It is known and not in dispute. How to act, and how those actions, or lack of them, affects our daily lives, is.
As elected governments tend to do what makes them popular with their voters above all else, unless they believe the public want net zero, it won't become their main priority, and until it does, that can will continue being kicked down the road.
What is the clarity you speak of that you're expecting to see in a couple of years?
Individually we do carry responsibility, for our lifestyle choices that determine energy consumption. We, generally speaking, won't accept others telling us how to live as that imposes on our liberties.
We don't need more clarity on rising global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gasses. It is known and not in dispute. How to act, and how those actions, or lack of them, affects our daily lives, is.
As elected governments tend to do what makes them popular with their voters above all else, unless they believe the public want net zero, it won't become their main priority, and until it does, that can will continue being kicked down the road.
What is the clarity you speak of that you're expecting to see in a couple of years?
This is a massively overlooked point in the climate debate. The signalling effects of every decision you take should not be underestimated in the impact they can have on large corporations and on governments is huge. If you consider the environment in your purchasing decisions then corporations will follow what the consumer wants similarly governments will understand it is a big issue for voters and business and reflect it on policy.
So those who say doing your bit and recycling or buying the recyclable or sustainably sourced option doesn't matter "because China" are massively missing the point. Those small actions can have massive impacts. the more people who do them the bigger the impact.
The fact of the matter is that the U.K. has not protected itself from supply issue like we’ve seen created by Putins invasion of Ukraine. We’ve relied far too heavily on coal and gas where France in particular has massively invested in nuclear energy. Easier for the French of course because of the comparable populations but France having twice the land mass. What we’ve done with renewables is good but is it really the complete answer to our future energy needs ? I don’t think so. For me at least I’d like to see the renewables increase but also to at least quadruple our nuclear energy capabilities. As far as the climate emergency is concerned though I think we’re just pissing in the wind. Not us but the world.
With net zero, health, food security, defence and cyber there are many areas where the UK might take a lead or at least position herself better. But not with this government!
I've just read this thread with interest and would add: - there's a large political cycle this year in US, UK and EU elections - yes the top 10% and 20% consume a disproportionate amount adding to greenhouse gasses - there are solutions - China and India have significant populations and are in a very different place in their development - there are campaigns to break the post world war two order
So all in all we're at a crossroads where we might discuss data, reports and trajectories, but individually we carry no power nor responsibility. Except to discuss and amplify sensible solutions.
One might say the same about Ukraine, child poverty as well as a plethora of other causes. Perhaps we immerse ourselves in the politics and philosophy whilst supping a decent glass of Malbec?!
What one can say is that we will have some more clarity in a couple of years time.
What we can say for sure is that, when the most myopic amongst us have clarity, it will be far, far too late ! Sometimes you just have to read and accept the writing on the wall and not wait until it collapses on top of you.
The following text is copied from the Wildlife Trusts. Please have a read and try to avoid buying peat or any peat based products (certain house plants, mushrooms etc.)
Our peatlands represent a huge carbon store so are essential in our fight against climate change. However, over 80% of the UK's peatlands are damaged - and when damaged, the peat becomes dried and exposed to the elements, and instead of storing and taking up carbon emits it back into the atmosphere as CO2.
If just 5% more of our peatlands were to go, the amount of carbon lost would equate to the total annual UK man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore its really important that we restore them back to health, so that they keep carbon locked up in the ground. Once restored to a healthy, functioning habitat they will also start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat.
The following text is copied from the Wildlife Trusts. Please have a read and try to avoid buying peat or any peat based products (certain house plants, mushrooms etc.)
Our peatlands represent a huge carbon store so are essential in our fight against climate change. However, over 80% of the UK's peatlands are damaged - and when damaged, the peat becomes dried and exposed to the elements, and instead of storing and taking up carbon emits it back into the atmosphere as CO2.
If just 5% more of our peatlands were to go, the amount of carbon lost would equate to the total annual UK man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore its really important that we restore them back to health, so that they keep carbon locked up in the ground. Once restored to a healthy, functioning habitat they will also start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat.
It's a shame that some plant based meat alternatives are mushroom derived, so increasing the demand for them. Easy enough to avoid if the labelling is clear though.
When will the "average" person start to listen and change their behaviours (myself included) ? Its so hard.
They won't. Well not in sufficient numbers to halt the global warming trend. That's why I believe more emphasis should be put on carbon capture rather than trying to get folk to reduce emissions.
Regardless of what processes are put in place to reduce carbon be that reducing emissions or carbon capture, the key is going to be exactly when the tipping point is. Seems to me the data is pointing towards that critical juncture being closer than we thought even just a few years ago. All I know is that at present the world is not doing enough to stop us reaching that moment.
When will the "average" person start to listen and change their behaviours (myself included) ? Its so hard.
They won't. Well not in sufficient numbers to halt the global warming trend. That's why I believe more emphasis should be put on carbon capture rather than trying to get folk to reduce emissions.
We need to wake up and realise the severity of the situation we are in. Wildlife cannot adapt to the changing conditions quickly enough and that is disastrous for humans as well. We also need politicians to stop using Climate Change to gain votes. We are all in this together.
Whilst not denying the absolute facts the headline from the BBC frustrates me a little.
I’d say a record warm March not Hot March.
Perversely if general temperatures stay higher will our usage of energy start to decline as we use less to generate heat ?
I assume we will and that will help turn the dial back the other way but of course we need to do more.
I still wonder if there is any data that looks at domestic usage to see if the price impact and public consciousness combined has helped reduce domestic heating volumes.
Whilst not denying the absolute facts the headline from the BBC frustrates me a little.
I’d say a record warm March not Hot March.
Perversely if general temperatures stay higher will our usage of energy start to decline as we use less to generate heat ?
I assume we will and that will help turn the dial back the other way but of course we need to do more.
I still wonder if there is any data that looks at domestic usage to see if the price impact and public consciousness combined has helped reduce domestic heating volumes.
On needing less heating, it depends what part of the world you live in. If the gulf stream shuts off as a consequence of global warming as scientists predict, then we'll be colder here, so no reduction in energy needed to heat homes. Over the entire planet though, that might reasonably be expected to be a consequence.
Edit. More air conditioning using energy for cooling effect to consider too.
Whilst not denying the absolute facts the headline from the BBC frustrates me a little.
I’d say a record warm March not Hot March.
Perversely if general temperatures stay higher will our usage of energy start to decline as we use less to generate heat ?
I assume we will and that will help turn the dial back the other way but of course we need to do more.
I still wonder if there is any data that looks at domestic usage to see if the price impact and public consciousness combined has helped reduce domestic heating volumes.
It’s exactly why the term global warming has been dropped in favour of the more accurate climate change. As pointed out above the climate changing will not mean every part of the world experiencing warmer weather. As a global picture that might be true but parts of the world that are now hot like sub Saharan Africa could well become completely uninhabitable and places with a Mediterranean climate currently could become generally too warm to produce the food we need. Temperate zones like Northern Europe could have extremes of both heat and cold depending on season. Weather systems that give us our weather at some level of predictability like the Gulf Stream and jet stream could change direction or disappear completely. If the Gulf Stream didn’t flow through the UK’s waters then it’s said our climate on these isles would be closer to that of norther Sweden. We are heading into unknown territory. Nothing is certain or in fact wholly predictable.
Whilst not denying the absolute facts the headline from the BBC frustrates me a little.
I’d say a record warm March not Hot March.
Perversely if general temperatures stay higher will our usage of energy start to decline as we use less to generate heat ?
I assume we will and that will help turn the dial back the other way but of course we need to do more.
I still wonder if there is any data that looks at domestic usage to see if the price impact and public consciousness combined has helped reduce domestic heating volumes.
It’s exactly why the term global warming has been dropped in favour of the more accurate climate change. As pointed out above the climate changing will not mean every part of the world experiencing warmer weather. As a global picture that might be true but parts of the world that are now hot like sub Saharan Africa could well become completely uninhabitable and places with a Mediterranean climate currently could become generally too warm to produce the food we need. Temperate zones like Northern Europe could have extremes of both heat and cold depending on season. Weather systems that give us our weather at some level of predictability like the Gulf Stream and jet stream could change direction or disappear completely. If the Gulf Stream didn’t flow through the UK’s waters then it’s said our climate on these isles would be closer to that of norther Sweden. We are heading into unknown territory. Nothing is certain or in fact wholly predictable.
Still think better to say warm not hot but if it’s language to make a point I understand.
But I am curious about what changes our domestic use may or may not show as we individuals can only make modest impacts.
When will the "average" person start to listen and change their behaviours (myself included) ? Its so hard.
Sadly, I don't think people will do what's necessary until after it's too late. It may even be too late now.
I think on an individual level most of us are unprepared to make significant changes unilaterally. We need either for them to be mandatory or to know that the vast majority are doing the same. Everyone is waiting for other people to make the changes that they don't want to make themselves.
On a political level, not may people will vote for restrictive policies and politicians are most unlikely to impose unpopular policies that will impose short term pain despite them being for the long term good.
On the business front, most companies will adhere strictly to the profit motive. They may make some superficial changes, but these will be just enough to maintain their public image at a level where they can make the biggest profits possible.
Internationally, we'll contine to stick with the same old disjointed approach and continue to blame others for the woes of the world. That's why we see the same mind numbing moronic arguments about China and India consistently wheeled out as excuses to never do anything.
It's like the whole world is is at the mother of all house parties. It's so mad that we're shaking the place apart. If we could all agree to stop, we could save the place. Or we could just keep on partying whilst we invite Einsturzende Neubauten to get their pneumatic drills out. I think most have no desire to stop the party or feel powerless to try.
And of course, if I'm right about being too late already, why bother to try?
Eventually when ( if ?) it’s too late they’ll be draconian measures of energy, food and water rationing with mass migrations and civil unrest and possibly international conflict. That’s the nightmare scenario we’re facing unless things change. How far into the future that is remains to be seen. I won’t see it thankfully but it gives me no pleasure knowing that. It’s unbelievably scary.
Comments
These are statistics taken from June 2023, but France seems to have done better than Germany and both a lot better than the UK.
The Daily Sceptic was set up by Toby Young, is a lockdown sceptic, who said that the loss of a few thousand old people wasn't worth locking down. He also said that the pandemic was over in June 2020 and was an advocate of Covid 19 vaccine disinformation, so not a reliable source of information.
So what part of that article was 'unreliable'?
No part, and your trying to discredit it because it appeared in Toby Young's - lockdown sceptic!!!!! Advocate of vaccine disinformation!!!!! - TDS is as fatuous as it is desperate.
Of course it would closer if the successive governments had started implementing projects toward nett zero when the targets were announced rather than just waffle about it and cut budgets on measures that could help.
I know nothing of any consequence about the nuclear industry, but I know a man that does and he tells me that the French nuclear industry is having lots of problems because their generators were thrown up too quickly. I seem to recall that France had to shut one or two down during the Russian gas crisis and stopped supplying us the agreed energy.
All I'm saying is that France may not be the exemplar we're led to believe it is. Hopefully, we can build some nuclear energy into the uk mix without selling out to China.
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/climate-change-water-scarcity-jeopardizing-french-nuclear-fleet/
I've just read this thread with interest and would add:
- there's a large political cycle this year in US, UK and EU elections
- yes the top 10% and 20% consume a disproportionate amount adding to greenhouse gasses
- there are solutions
- China and India have significant populations and are in a very different place in their development
- there are campaigns to break the post world war two order
So all in all we're at a crossroads where we might discuss data, reports and trajectories, but individually we carry no power nor responsibility. Except to discuss and amplify sensible solutions.
One might say the same about Ukraine, child poverty as well as a plethora of other causes. Perhaps we immerse ourselves in the politics and philosophy whilst supping a decent glass of Malbec?!
What one can say is that we will have some more clarity in a couple of years time.
We don't need more clarity on rising global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gasses. It is known and not in dispute. How to act, and how those actions, or lack of them, affects our daily lives, is.
As elected governments tend to do what makes them popular with their voters above all else, unless they believe the public want net zero, it won't become their main priority, and until it does, that can will continue being kicked down the road.
What is the clarity you speak of that you're expecting to see in a couple of years?
So those who say doing your bit and recycling or buying the recyclable or sustainably sourced option doesn't matter "because China" are massively missing the point. Those small actions can have massive impacts. the more people who do them the bigger the impact.
The following text is copied from the Wildlife Trusts. Please have a read and try to avoid buying peat or any peat based products (certain house plants, mushrooms etc.)
Our peatlands represent a huge carbon store so are essential in our fight against climate change. However, over 80% of the UK's peatlands are damaged - and when damaged, the peat becomes dried and exposed to the elements, and instead of storing and taking up carbon emits it back into the atmosphere as CO2.
If just 5% more of our peatlands were to go, the amount of carbon lost would equate to the total annual UK man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore its really important that we restore them back to health, so that they keep carbon locked up in the ground. Once restored to a healthy, functioning habitat they will also start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat.
It's a shame that some plant based meat alternatives are mushroom derived, so increasing the demand for them. Easy enough to avoid if the labelling is clear though.
I assume we will and that will help turn the dial back the other way but of course we need to do more.
Edit. More air conditioning using energy for cooling effect to consider too.
I think on an individual level most of us are unprepared to make significant changes unilaterally. We need either for them to be mandatory or to know that the vast majority are doing the same. Everyone is waiting for other people to make the changes that they don't want to make themselves.
On a political level, not may people will vote for restrictive policies and politicians are most unlikely to impose unpopular policies that will impose short term pain despite them being for the long term good.
On the business front, most companies will adhere strictly to the profit motive. They may make some superficial changes, but these will be just enough to maintain their public image at a level where they can make the biggest profits possible.
Internationally, we'll contine to stick with the same old disjointed approach and continue to blame others for the woes of the world. That's why we see the same mind numbing moronic arguments about China and India consistently wheeled out as excuses to never do anything.
It's like the whole world is is at the mother of all house parties. It's so mad that we're shaking the place apart. If we could all agree to stop, we could save the place. Or we could just keep on partying whilst we invite Einsturzende Neubauten to get their pneumatic drills out. I think most have no desire to stop the party or feel powerless to try.
And of course, if I'm right about being too late already, why bother to try?
Harwich factory to make jet fuel out of faeces in world first
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-68789981