O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[LaxtonLad]

This is one of those things where you need to understand a bit of nuance.

If the world stopped consuming Russian oil tomorrow the global economy would pitch straight into a depression. The long term solution? Electric cars - regardless of who makes them.

As to people buying consumer goods from China and India, list their other options please?

The future has to be nuclear power whose only drawback is the disposal of the radioactive waste, not a problem if it's shot out into the cosmic void, a one -way trip to Jupiter? Or Australia? It's not beyond the possibility of future science finding a way to make it useful or at least neutral, not that it would matter if it was Australia, or the USA.

There's no pollution, it's cleaner, a lower cost of production and safer than any alternative. We could have led the world if we had started it in the early 199o's when Maggie shut the pits.

[Jampie]

The future has to be nuclear power whose only drawback is the disposal of the radioactive waste, not a problem if it's shot out into the cosmic void, a one -way trip to Jupiter? Or Australia? It's not beyond the possibility of future science finding a way to make it useful or at least neutral, not that it would matter if it was Australia, or the USA.

There's no pollution, it's cleaner, a lower cost of production and safer than any alternative. We could have led the world if we had started it in the early 199o's when Maggie shut the pits.

If nuclear really was cheaper I'd be all for it. But it isn't, it's actually the most expensive kind of power generation to build and it isn't cheap to operate either. It can't compete with solar and wind, not even close.

[SwalePie]

If nuclear really was cheaper I'd be all for it. But it isn't, it's actually the most expensive kind of power generation to build and it isn't cheap to operate either. It can't compete with solar and wind, not even close.

Agreed, but nuclear does provide the reliable and powerful base load capability for when it isn't windy or sunny, which is also critically important at this stage.

[Old_pie]

If nuclear really was cheaper I'd be all for it. But it isn't, it's actually the most expensive kind of power generation to build and it isn't cheap to operate either. It can't compete with solar and wind, not even close.

What's the cost of solar and wind when it isn't generating? What's the cost of running out of power which we have been fairly close to on more than one occasion in the last couple of years? Where is the cost of all the backup required for the lack of solar and the loss of wind? Lots of equipment sitting there waiting to be turned on, still having to be purchased and maintained. I'll bet that that and subsidies are not factored in to many of the equations.

A major factor in nuclear costs is the fear factor. But we're happy to ruin the landscape, shred birds, damage agriculture all in the attempt to be green. And don't get me on about Li-on battery banks otherwise my blood pressure really will go up.

[Old_pie]

The future has to be nuclear power whose only drawback is the disposal of the radioactive waste, not a problem if it's shot out into the cosmic void, a one -way trip to Jupiter? Or Australia? It's not beyond the possibility of future science finding a way to make it useful or at least neutral, not that it would matter if it was Australia, or the USA.

There's no pollution, it's cleaner, a lower cost of production and safer than any alternative. We could have led the world if we had started it in the early 199o's when Maggie shut the pits.

This country has had an ambivolent attitude and approach to nuclear since the 1950's. Instead of building on the expertise we again showed ourselves to be leaders in the creation of technology and short sighted idiots in taking advantage of it, much as we found ourselves with football (thought I'd throw that in seeing as this is footymad). Other nations have a longer term view in their planning of major infrastructure whether it be power stations, railways, roads and not doubt other facilities. Maggie of course, in her desire to balance the books (short termism) took the route of the dash for gas. And like coal, it one day would run out or become undesirable.

So as I write our own nuclear is providing just under 10% of our requirements, wind less than 1%, no solar of course, CCGT (Gas turbine) 57%, Biomass (not green) ~5% and then another 5% imported from the excess nuclear from France and 3% from excess Norwegian hydro. A few other bits. In my view our energy security is pretty poor.