It will only take one really cold winter and power outages become a reality, for people to turn on whoever is running the country, if everybody truly believed in climate emergency we would all vote for the Greens.
Without wishing to get political. I think the name “Greens” is not truly reflective of just what a shambles of policies they have. The overarching “Green” credentials is for me lost in the other crap they want.
Well the political comment didn’t last long. Like others on here, you just can’t help yourselves.
Green Party - The party that preports to be about green issues.
Reform Party - The party that denies man made climate change and will scrap net zero. I agree neither have anything to do with the climate emergency
Fuck knows, I vote reform so am no way as intelligent as you. I will just bow to whatever you say, as you are always correct,
I do think that areas that have high levels of lightning strikes should investigate harvesting that form of energy. Places like Florida for example. A couple of harvested strikes would see off anything a farm of wind turbines could generate. The problem with this being the large instantaneous power supply.
Seeing that we can now send power down a Cat5 cable to boil a kettle (and more), perhaps there may a solution in the future to do the reverse of this? Still, what do I know.
Lightning strikes are a fascinating natural phenomenon that carry immense energy, but harnessing them as a reliable form of energy is highly impractical for several reasons. Here's an overview of lightning as a potential energy source and the challenges involved:
### Energy in Lightning
- A single lightning bolt can carry **up to 1 billion joules of energy** (roughly equivalent to 280 kWh), which is enough to power a typical household for about a week.
- The energy is released in a very short time (milliseconds), resulting in an extremely high power output (up to 1 trillion watts).
### Challenges of Harnessing Lightning
1. **Unpredictability**: Lightning strikes are random and sporadic, making it impossible to predict when and where they will occur.
2. **Short Duration**: The energy is released in a fraction of a second, requiring technology capable of capturing and storing it almost instantaneously.
3. **High Voltage and Current**: Lightning carries extremely high voltage (millions of volts) and current (tens of thousands of amps), which would require specialized and expensive equipment to handle safely.
4. **Infrastructure Costs**: Building a system to capture lightning would require widespread infrastructure in areas prone to lightning strikes, which are often remote or impractical for energy distribution.
5. **Low Frequency**: Even in regions with frequent thunderstorms, the total energy from lightning over a year is relatively small compared to other renewable energy sources like solar or wind.
### Theoretical Possibilities
While harnessing lightning directly is not feasible, researchers have explored ways to capture atmospheric electricity or use lightning's energy indirectly. For example:
- **Atmospheric Energy Harvesting**: Some experiments have attempted to capture the electrical charge in the atmosphere, though this is still in the experimental stage.
- **Energy Storage**: Advanced capacitors or supercapacitors could theoretically store the energy from a lightning strike, but current technology is not efficient enough for practical use.
### Conclusion
While lightning is a powerful natural phenomenon, its unpredictability, short duration, and the technical challenges of capturing and storing its energy make it an impractical source of renewable energy. Instead, focus remains on more reliable and scalable renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.
One of my schools projects (65years ago) was to draw a map of Great Britain if sea levels rose by 50ft due to Artic ice melting, so someone saw it as a problem back then. Always regret losing all my school stuff during various moves. The top of the west stand at the valley may just about be visable 😀 😃
Here’s another one for you to gulp on. How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it? How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it? I am on a roll now.
Here’s another one for you to gulp on. How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it? How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it? I am on a roll now.
I’m not aware of those possibilities but if they could fly why not. It’s going to need thinking outside the box. 👍
Here’s another one for you to gulp on. How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it? How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it? I am on a roll now.
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.
Ok, oh wise one. The recent developments at stations like Bank and Elizabeth Line couldn’t have utilised a location that never drops below 17 degrees to benefit the constructions above? Why do heat pumps have bores deep into the ground, in order to dramatically improve efficiency. Don’t crossover this and your daily cycle. The whole irony being that LU spend an absolute fortune trying to cool the underground network. Stand near a vent shaft at ground level and you can feel the heat dissipated from trains moving through tunnels beneath.
This should have been a mandatory requirement of big business who subsidised the EL construction by having a free run of constructing what they wanted above.
Here’s another one for you to gulp on. How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it? How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it? I am on a roll now.
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.
Neither of these suggestions are ludicrous. But they're both marginally profitable and would take decades to pay back the investment.
Underground heat recovery systems have been successfully deployed in Boise, Idaho and Drammen, in Norway. London already has an example in the Northern Line, in Islington. Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting in Pedestrian Walkways ("walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it") have been deployed in Toulouse, Masdar City, UAE and, again in London, in high footfall areas at the Olympic Park in 2012.
The thing is, when you have/had a blank canvas, they would have been more profitable than trying to retrofit, which as you rightly comment, would take decades to recover.
Regarding heat pumps, I think they will become more efficient as engineering improves. I remember when LED lighting first appeared on the scene, everyone thought it was great. It was actually very poor with light level rendering, glare etc being appalling. You had manufacturers quoting mean time failures of 50k hours, yet the products were less than 6 months old. If you take a look around LU premises you can see early examples (Green Park) and what is currently installed on the EL. No comparison. Likewise, I think in the next 10 years, ASHP will be the go to domestic energy source for hot water/heating. Unfortunately, not just yet. I guess the same will apply to energy storage (batteries). So in short, stamping out of fossil fuel at this moment in time is not the solution IMO.
At present Neasden Depot is undergoing a major upheaval with the use of electricity replacing gas. The upgrade of power supplies and cost of solar is mind blowing.
I wouldn't want to see any ideas completely abandoned because they seem 'ludicrous' now. Most of the technology we have now would have been thought of as ludicrous at some point in the past. Much of it, not very long ago at all. Ideas that currently seem too difficult and/or too expensive at the moment may prove to be winners in the future, so it's important that we don't forget them completely even if they aren't currently our priorities.
That said, we don't have time to wait on the climate issue. It's therefore important that there is major investment in workable solutions right now, even if the technology will be cheaper in ten years time. Ultimately, if there aren't any early adopters prepared to pay premium rates, there won't be the development into these products and the prices won't drop. Someone's got to bite the bullet before we all get shot.
Here’s another one for you to gulp on. How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it? How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it? I am on a roll now.
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.
Neither of these suggestions are ludicrous. But they're both marginally profitable and would take decades to pay back the investment.
Underground heat recovery systems have been successfully deployed in Boise, Idaho and Drammen, in Norway. London already has an example in the Northern Line, in Islington. Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting in Pedestrian Walkways ("walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it") have been deployed in Toulouse, Masdar City, UAE and, again in London, in high footfall areas at the Olympic Park in 2012.
They're ludicrous given existing alternatives are far, far more beneficial, and would take a fraction of the costs and effort to implement. Money would be better spent diverted to existing technology than to something that would take aeons to show any really, tangible benefit - it's fiddling while Rome burns.
Ok, oh wise one. The recent developments at stations like Bank and Elizabeth Line couldn’t have utilised a location that never drops below 17 degrees to benefit the constructions above? Why do heat pumps have bores deep into the ground, in order to dramatically improve efficiency. Don’t crossover this and your daily cycle. The whole irony being that LU spend an absolute fortune trying to cool the underground network. Stand near a vent shaft at ground level and you can feel the heat dissipated from trains moving through tunnels beneath.
This should have been a mandatory requirement of big business who subsidised the EL construction by having a free run of constructing what they wanted above.
What has any of that got to do with retrofitting heat pump technology to the underground and using it in a widespread manner, or using the minute amount of heat generated from people on walkways for any meaningful purpose?
Reality: There is strong evidence that green investments can drive economic growth. Studies from organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OBR suggest that transitioning to renewable energy can create jobs, boost innovation and enhance long-term economic stability.
The Tony Blair Institute did not argue that Net Zero would harm growth, but rather suggested the transition should be better managed for efficiency.
2. “Miliband admits his policies will drive up energy bills”
Context matters: Energy prices are influenced by many factors, including fossil fuel market volatility. Renewables, once established, provide cheaper electricity than fossil fuels. The UK’s current high energy bills are largely due to gas price spikes - not green policies.
Short-term costs may rise due to investment in infrastructure, but the long-term benefits include lower bills and energy independence from volatile global markets.
3. “Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes”
Misleading framing: Fiscal pressures exist regardless of Net Zero policies. Any government will face funding challenges, but green investment is often self-sustaining and can stimulate economic activity, increasing tax revenues in the long run.
4. “Only 14% of energy executives now believe Net Zero by 2050 is achievable”
Cherry-picked statistic: The survey reflects industry sentiment, not scientific feasibility. Many energy executives have vested interests in fossil fuels, so their skepticism isn't surprising. The UK Climate Change Committee and other independent bodies still maintain Net Zero is achievable with the right policies.
5. “Labour shutting down shale gas wells ‘plays into Putin’s hands’”
False equivalence: UK shale gas reserves are limited and unlikely to make a meaningful dent in energy prices or independence. Even the Conservative government acknowledged this before banning fracking.
Europe reducing Russian gas dependency involves investing in renewables and energy efficiency - precisely what Net Zero aims to do.
6. “Starmer should be in Ukraine discussing Net Zero’s consequences”
Red herring: This is an attempt to conflate separate issues. The UK’s Net Zero policies have nothing to do with Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, transitioning away from fossil fuels weakens Putin’s leverage over Europe.
Conclusion
This argument misrepresents evidence and ignores the broader economic benefits of Net Zero. While the transition requires investment, it ultimately leads to cheaper energy, greater energy security, and economic growth. The alternative - continued reliance on fossil fuels - poses far greater risks to both the economy and national security.
I guess Guido Fawkes knows the intellectual capacity of its readers well enough to ensure they won't question the latest guff it posts.
Reality: There is strong evidence that green investments can drive economic growth. Studies from organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OBR suggest that transitioning to renewable energy can create jobs, boost innovation and enhance long-term economic stability.
The Tony Blair Institute did not argue that Net Zero would harm growth, but rather suggested the transition should be better managed for efficiency.
2. “Miliband admits his policies will drive up energy bills”
Context matters: Energy prices are influenced by many factors, including fossil fuel market volatility. Renewables, once established, provide cheaper electricity than fossil fuels. The UK’s current high energy bills are largely due to gas price spikes - not green policies.
Short-term costs may rise due to investment in infrastructure, but the long-term benefits include lower bills and energy independence from volatile global markets.
3. “Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes”
Misleading framing: Fiscal pressures exist regardless of Net Zero policies. Any government will face funding challenges, but green investment is often self-sustaining and can stimulate economic activity, increasing tax revenues in the long run.
4. “Only 14% of energy executives now believe Net Zero by 2050 is achievable”
Cherry-picked statistic: The survey reflects industry sentiment, not scientific feasibility. Many energy executives have vested interests in fossil fuels, so their skepticism isn't surprising. The UK Climate Change Committee and other independent bodies still maintain Net Zero is achievable with the right policies.
5. “Labour shutting down shale gas wells ‘plays into Putin’s hands’”
False equivalence: UK shale gas reserves are limited and unlikely to make a meaningful dent in energy prices or independence. Even the Conservative government acknowledged this before banning fracking.
Europe reducing Russian gas dependency involves investing in renewables and energy efficiency - precisely what Net Zero aims to do.
6. “Starmer should be in Ukraine discussing Net Zero’s consequences”
Red herring: This is an attempt to conflate separate issues. The UK’s Net Zero policies have nothing to do with Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, transitioning away from fossil fuels weakens Putin’s leverage over Europe.
Conclusion
This argument misrepresents evidence and ignores the broader economic benefits of Net Zero. While the transition requires investment, it ultimately leads to cheaper energy, greater energy security, and economic growth. The alternative - continued reliance on fossil fuels - poses far greater risks to both the economy and national security.
I guess Guido Fawkes knows the intellectual capacity of its readers well enough to ensure they won't question the latest guff it posts.
I thought measures implemented so far don't go far enough fast enough to hit Net Zero, hence doubts. I may be wrong about that, but even if not, that's no reason to defer our efforts, as your arguments make clear.
To be honest it’s exactly what you’d expect to see on a right wing website.
My new grandson would understand more than that clown that got voted in, in July. Miliband i mean...Useless idiot. Doesnt say much about those who put him in either.
There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
Comments
I agree neither have anything to do with the climate emergency
I will just bow to whatever you say, as you are always correct,
I do think that areas that have high levels of lightning strikes should investigate harvesting that form of energy.
Places like Florida for example.
A couple of harvested strikes would see off anything a farm of wind turbines could generate.
The problem with this being the large instantaneous power supply.
Seeing that we can now send power down a Cat5 cable to boil a kettle (and more), perhaps there may a solution in the future to do the reverse of this? Still, what do I know.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.
Link
The recent developments at stations like Bank and Elizabeth Line couldn’t have utilised a location that never drops below 17 degrees to benefit the constructions above? Why do heat pumps have bores deep into the ground, in order to dramatically improve efficiency. Don’t crossover this and your daily cycle.
The whole irony being that LU spend an absolute fortune trying to cool the underground network.
Stand near a vent shaft at ground level and you can feel the heat dissipated from trains moving through tunnels beneath.
This should have been a mandatory requirement of big business who subsidised the EL construction by having a free run of constructing what they wanted above.
Underground heat recovery systems have been successfully deployed in Boise, Idaho and Drammen, in Norway. London already has an example in the Northern Line, in Islington. Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting in Pedestrian Walkways ("walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it") have been deployed in Toulouse, Masdar City, UAE and, again in London, in high footfall areas at the Olympic Park in 2012.
I remember when LED lighting first appeared on the scene, everyone thought it was great.
It was actually very poor with light level rendering, glare etc being appalling.
You had manufacturers quoting mean time failures of 50k hours, yet the products were less than 6 months old.
If you take a look around LU premises you can see early examples (Green Park) and what is currently installed on the EL.
No comparison.
Likewise, I think in the next 10 years, ASHP will be the go to domestic energy source for hot water/heating.
Unfortunately, not just yet.
I guess the same will apply to energy storage (batteries).
So in short, stamping out of fossil fuel at this moment in time is not the solution IMO.
At present Neasden Depot is undergoing a major upheaval with the use of electricity replacing gas.
The upgrade of power supplies and cost of solar is mind blowing.
That said, we don't have time to wait on the climate issue. It's therefore important that there is major investment in workable solutions right now, even if the technology will be cheaper in ten years time. Ultimately, if there aren't any early adopters prepared to pay premium rates, there won't be the development into these products and the prices won't drop. Someone's got to bite the bullet before we all get shot.
Palace are cunts
I'm still of the opinion
Palace are cunts
https://www.cityam.com/barclays-and-natwest-drop-climate-targets-from-executive-bonuses/?utm_source=CityAM&utm_campaign=b36764289e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_09_32_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-4c08cce64b-586795468
https://order-order.com/2025/02/24/just-1-in-6-energy-chiefs-think-net-zero-achievable-by-2050/
Reality: There is strong evidence that green investments can drive economic growth. Studies from organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OBR suggest that transitioning to renewable energy can create jobs, boost innovation and enhance long-term economic stability.
2. “Miliband admits his policies will drive up energy bills”
3. “Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes”
4. “Only 14% of energy executives now believe Net Zero by 2050 is achievable”
5. “Labour shutting down shale gas wells ‘plays into Putin’s hands’”
6. “Starmer should be in Ukraine discussing Net Zero’s consequences”
Conclusion
I guess Guido Fawkes knows the intellectual capacity of its readers well enough to ensure they won't question the latest guff it posts.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.