By Paul Homewood
Proof, if ever it was needed, that Greenpeace don’t give a toss about global warming.
Their only objective is to take us all back to the Dark Ages;
Comments are closed.
 | BLACK PEARL on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | pardonmeforbreathing on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | energywise on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | Ray Sanders on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
| pardonmeforbreathing on Storm Ravages World’s La… |
 | dennisambler on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
| pardonmeforbreathing on Storm Ravages World’s La… |
| dennisambler on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | oomhead on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | Gamecock on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Greenpeace also against Golden Rice, genetically modified rice to prevent vitamin A deficiency which causes children blindness in third world. Anti nuclear as well, they are a liability and should be defunded, as well as WWF.
WEF meeting in Davos is on now, who is going to attend from UK?
Tricky moment for Sir Kneelsalot, decisions, decisions.
Decisions, decisions……followed by U-turns, U-turns.
That’ll depend on how many private executive jets are available!!
What Wind Power?
With the National Grid in a state of collapse, here’s a startling fact for the gullible:
Wind turbines do NOT produce any energy at all, FULL STOP.
The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.
So called ‘renewables’ should more accurately be called energy collectors. They collect energy that already exists, in the form of wind or sunlight, and convert what little there is into electricity.
Therein lies the perpetual problem. If it is dark, still and cold, typical midwinter conditions, there is no energy to collect, thereby literally leaving us in the dark!
As we discovered recently, in still, frosty December, and again this January, wind ‘energy’ is a technological dead-end.
The intrinsically better sources have what is known as greater Energy Density.
For example, water is 800 times denser than air, so hydro is always going to give a much greater conversion capture than wind. Coal is intrinsically denser than wood, so much more thermodynamically efficient. A coal fire burns much hotter than wood.
Nuclear, working at atomic level wins the energy density stakes hands down.
The other hugely-damaging problem with parasitic ‘unreliables’ is their truly voracious material, maintenance, repair, replacement and land requirements.
At present, all the world’s energy plants occupy around 0.5% of the Earth’s surface. Trying to capture all our energy from solar and wind would require an astonishing 50% of the Earth’s surface!
This will leave virtually nowhere for farming, food production, forests, fishing, nature, wildlife habitats, recreation or us.
Before the planet is completely carpeted, and wrecked with ‘renewables’ it is high time the collective density of our deluded, ever-so-green, politicians realised this!
I’m left to wonder: what is the energy density of politicians – with and without there wallets?
Harry with regard to nuclear plants load following, this is no longer a problem. For example, the 4 APR1400s built by Kepco and now operating in the UAE can ramp at +/-5% per minute over the range of 100% down to 25% of rated power. Here is the full spec for some light reading(!)
Click to access APR1400.pdf
Gen 4 Molten Salt reactors can also have thermal “peaking” stores. Anglo/Canadian Moltex claim their 300MWe design with “gridstore” can operate at 600MWe for 12 hours or even 900MWe for 8 hours.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/enables-renewables/
And even for older designs there is also this option put forward on Euan Mearns Energy Matters by Andy Dawson who worked on the construction of Heysham 2 and Torness.
https://euanmearns.com/decarbonising-uk-power-generation-the-nuclear-option/
At the most basic level France has been ramping up and down output from its large fleet of plants for decades although with older designs it enhances wear.
Thanks, Ray. Good info. But do we have nukes like these in the UK?
Ray, Moltex is selling shares, not reactors.
“Water is 800 times denser than air”
Irrelevant. Energy collected by hydro is a function of the head (drop of potential energy) and volume availability/reply of water to the turbine. A “run-of-river” hydro plant has low head (typically large volume flowrate) and can be intermittent due to having no storage. Hydro appears better because the best choices have already been built, and there is little or no growth opportunity.
“atomic level wins the energy density stakes hands down”
Irrelevant as well as incorrect. Power generation investment should be led by economics, but this is a problem for nuclear. Nuclear is a distant laggard on economics and commercial risk, and cannot compete with better choices of coal and gas fired power generation.
Nuclear not investable in the private sector, so expansion of nuclear depends on public sector investment with administered (not competitively tested) income. In short, having a nuclear power generation component of any significance means nationalisation of the power generation sector. This can be seen in the UK’s creeping nuclear developments, where government bans coal-fired power generation (eliminated) and is now pressing to make gas fired power generation expensive through decarbonisation. Lo and behold, when everything else is expensive and looks impractical, the government has its case to invest in nuclear, which is all this was ever about in the UK.
Any free-marketeer who supports nuclear generation technology has face up to a choice: do they prefer nuclear technology investment in the public sector, or do they prefer power generation investment in a free market. They cannot have both.
Nuclear energy is very expensive to start with , which is why it is difficult to get new plants built .But in the long term it is the best return on investment .
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/energy-return-on-investment-eroi/
Wind and solar are a very bad idea , as they are both very unreliable , need huge subsidies and a lot more money spent to keep the grid stable even when they are actually working .
The main idea of the push for unreliable generation is to destroy the economy of the country .
And all of the reliable generation , [ coal / oil / gas ], is being hit with huge increases in Carbon taxes for the same reason .
I think it might be some time before most people realise the main idea of the Net Zero Insanity .
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
ITRW: I wonder how long it would take for those supporting a solely nuclear grid to realise that it’s only really good for base load and not (like gas) good at load-following.
‘Any free-marketeer who supports nuclear generation technology has face up to a choice: do they prefer nuclear technology investment in the public sector, or do they prefer power generation investment in a free market.’
False dichotomy.
Government has regulated nuclear out of the energy market.
Which makes this bizarre: “Lo and behold, when everything else is expensive and looks impractical, the government has its case to invest in nuclear.”
That nuclear is not cheap and widespread lays at the feet of government. Government created the fear of it. Government created the barriers to it, justified by the fear they manufactured. France did fine with widespread implementation.
Nuclear is the way to go, but the economics require government to take their boot off its neck. Which isn’t going to happen in UK. It’s not going to happen soon in US, but there is a start. Steve Milloy has documented that the US government lied about nuclear risk with their bogus LNT – linear no-threshold – standard. The core principal of nuclear safety has been falsified.
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” — Ronald Reagan
Gamecock. The private sector is not suited to manage nuclear commercial risks and liabilities. You might strongly believe nuclear is a winner in any commercial contest, but the private sector doesn’t agree with you. Private investors are not interested. Never have been. Never will be. Period.
Forget the dreamy ultra-long-dated discounted cashflow models to concoct a low price you think the private sector really should see as a good bet. They won’t.
And forget the distraction of regulation and “it’s all Guv’mint’s fault”. It adds nothing.
Where the private sector refuses to walk, the public sector dares to venture. This week, Andrew Bowie MP (minister for nuclear) made announcements about a “roadmap”, FID on Sizewell C before the next General Election, and £300M for a new Uranium enrichment plant (which is a drop in the ocean).
Yes, you really do face a dichotomy between the free market and nuclear technology. Take your pick because you’re not going to have both.
If you really are are a lover of nuclear generation technology and want to see more, you cannot then harp-on about subsidies or free markets. Pots and kettles.
“Never have been. Never will be. Period.”
There are 92 commercial reactors in the US.
To respond to my earlier points, you need to show these 92 “commercial” activities are purely private sector risk-taking for nuclear liabilities. Otherwise, you are helping to make my points.
For example, can you show that any of the 92 sit outside the liability cover provided by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1954)? If not, significant risk (the majority since uncapped liabilities are always larger than capped) is carried in the public sector. This reduces the “commercial” activities to the level of sub-contracting of a state-owned activity (as the state holds the majority of the risk).
I’d be interested to hear about the enduring and resilient US private risk management arrangements to manage ongoing decommissioning and waste management in (say) 1000 years. Any shortcomings in the arrangements will result in liabilities drifting into the public sector, even at some distant future date, where the people picking up the tab will have no sense of the benefit of the liabilities they are having dumped onto them.
Finally, the UK Government ran a “Nuclear New Build” process around 2010. I recall no sign of a queue of US private investors. If they failed show up to a good opportunity in the UK, they don’t exist.
As you rightly say, wind turbines actually extract energy rather than producing it. I have long wondered whether the proliferation of wind turbine ‘farms’ and their extraction of energy from the weather system are actually having an effect on our weather/climate? There MUST be some downwind effects, particularly over water with offshore farms. Has a study ever been done?
There has been a report of windmills in N Germany causing a drought presumably by altering the rainfall pattern.
Ditto, Roy. Have often commented on same thoughts.
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and a past president said he left the organisation because it had been taken over by the political left and no longer made decisions based upon the scientific evidence. Greenpeace’s anti nuclear stance despite its energy being cheaper than wind and of course far more reliable together with their total disinterest in China’s CO2 emissions is evidence that CAGW and the net zero “solution” is simply an anti-West scam.
Our politicians are also disinterested in China’s emissions, hence the continued claims that we are “leading the world in fighting climate change” and the drive for the fairy dust of Net Zero. Clearly China and India don’t believe the UN hype that burning hydrocarbons is an existential threat to the planet.
According to the IEA’s ‘World Energy Investment 2023’ India had licensed 87 coal mines to begin production since 2020 and in the March 2023 round of auctions 106 mines were offered.
In their ‘Coal 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ (DEC 23) they say they expect China and India to account for more than 70% of global coal consumption by 2026
He was the only one of the founders of Greenpiss that had a scientific background.
Coldest ever in Calgary according to the herald except wasn’t a record according to env Canada. So once again lies on lies by mainstream media.
I’ve not paid much attention to the claims of “records” — there are too many issues with the process of getting proper readings and keeping them proper.
Just north of Ellensburg, WA, this a.m., I read -17°F (-27°C). That’s neither a personal nor regional record.
The Arctic Air Mass from northern Canada, down to Calgary, to me, and still heading south toward the Gulf of Mexico is an impressive thing. I’ve followed the progress for the past week using the Ventusky app.
Stay warm and safe!
Ya ventusky is great I use it all the time. Find more accurate to predict wx than ev. Canada. I now live on van isle but grew up in central Sask. all the time I was a child I don’t ever remember a winter without -40 wx for at least a week or two. Now listening to news reports you would think it was unheard of. Too funny
The terrifying thing is that the decisions are being made by arts grads who simply cannot understand.
Not all environmentalists are as evil or as stupid as Greenpeace. Prof James Lovelock (of the Gaia hypothesis fame) was a member of member of ‘Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy’. As well as supporting nuclear power, he was all for fracking and against wind power.
Since it ‘peaked’ with the campaigns for sea mammals Greenpeace have become less and less relevant. One day the Charity Commission may tire of GPs political activities. It would be interesting to see how their subscription income is holding up. That’s is what the venture into nuclear power generation is all about — maintaining the best level of subscription income.
Much the same applies to WWF who felt constrained by their original name . World Wildlife Fund.
Off topic: Is the UK the only country whose tax payers involuntarily support so many groups who lecture their donors – through government grants — about the donors’ wickedness?
The EU does it quite a lot. It funds the charities to lobby it to make changes, then says that there must be an issue here that needs action, and then issues Directives in response thereby hiding that it was their idea in the first place.
‘Would you rather have a wind turbine or a “modular reactor” in your backyard?’
Is this a trick question?
Though “modular reactor” is a fiction.
From me to the nearest wind facility is about 8 miles. To the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is 60 miles. The former is useless unless it is making noise, so the 8 miles is close enough. I would not mind being close to the CGS, but those folks do not want residents nearby.
When someone gets a “modular reactor” operational, it will warrant a tour — except I likely will check out before then.
I’m less than 7 from a real nuker. And I feel fine.
When we were first threatened with a 1000 acres of solar panels and a 450 tons of TNT equivalent 700 MWh battery two miles out of town I suggested a RR(of course!) SMR to the local greeny consigliere (emeritus psychology prof.) who accused me of lunacy. Construction has started so who is the lunatic?
He started bleating on about sea level rise, I pointed out that I live in Flood Lane with no plans to move anywhere (except by boat perhaps).
https://www.favershameye.co.uk/post/project-fortress-previously-known-as-cleve-hill
I also proposed fracking the abundant gas reserves (very probably) under my little house)
GC you keep saying that SMRs are non existent which is not correct.
There are already quite a few, (though not in the US) some are so old they are being retired i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGP-6#.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPHWR-220https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNP-300https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40_reactorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200
I said ‘“modular reactor” is a fiction.’
You give an example of a small reactor.
Non sequitur.
Sorry the 5 separate links all blurred into one. Here is an individual example.
“The IPHWR-220 (Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor-220) is an Indian pressurized heavy-water reactor designed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.[1] It is a Generation II reactor developed from earlier CANDU based RAPS-1 and RAPS-2 reactors built at Rawatbhata, Rajasthan. It can generate 220 MW of electricity. Currently, there are 14 units operational at various locations in India. It is sometimes referred to as an small modular reactor due to its modularization.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPHWR-220
I see nothing “modular” about 15 units built over 15 years (which matches RR’s previous announcement).
Excellent news, I suspected that was why my RR shares ar doing so nicely.
Not really, the new boss has been doing a good job of tidying up the business and getting orders for engines for wide-bodied airliners so the shares have been a great performer in 2023. A bit of war helps as well. If SMRs finally does move forward then it should help drive the price higher during this year.
Professional advice suggests you are correct, still like my theory!
The real scandal is that Greenpiss still parades around as an ‘environmental’ group when its ideas damage it so badly. Dr Moore probably witnessed all the unemployed CND mob join once the end of the Soviet Union ended their purpose.
This should really piss off Greenpeace. Orlen Synthos GREEN Energy ( a Polish company are doing this.
https://osge.com/en/
As publicised here
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Six-SMR-power-plants-approved-in-Poland
I really have no idea why the UK is fannying about and not just pressing ahead.
Nu Scale, GE Hitachi, Rolls Royce, Moltex , Westinghouse etc – there are numerous good options available.
A 300 MW plant is now “small”. 🙂
The Rolls Royce version is 470MW. That’s bigger than most of the nuclear reactors that were ever built in the UK! Even now, the biggest apart from Sizewell B are about 600MW
Ray, the fannying around is to meet public procurement rules holding Government procurement to competition and international trade agreements around state aid. Fannying ensures alternatives to nuclear are impractical or more expensive. The ban on coal. Ridiculous aspirations to decarbonise natural gas by CCS and conversion to H2. All for an impractical Net Zero target which will never be achieved – so NZ will be dropped after the new nuclear fleet is built.
If “unabated” coal and gas fired generation is possible, it would be delivered by the private sector and costs (therefore energy prices) would be much lower.
Ray – this is no ordinary fannying – it is good, wholesome nuclear fannying.
Are “Orlen Synthos GREEN Energy” not a private consortium?
Orlen Synthos GREEN Energy might be a private consortium and they may have plans to develop nuclear power generators. They may even have plans to operate and manage nuclear risks.
If/when they approach the private capital markets to seek funding for any of these planned facilities, the first question will be: show us how you have capped the nuclear liabilities.
The private capital markets will not touch uncapped nuclear liabilities. They never have and never will. This extends to the private insurance industry (which the private capital markets rely upon) which lacks the capacity to underwrite potential nuclear losses.
Uncapped liabilities are Kryptonite to these markets.
The only acceptable and practical place for nuclear liabilities is a copper-bottomed public guarantee in some form acceptable to the capital and insurance industries. A copper-bottomed public guarantee means the business is fundamentally a public sector risk-taking activity (the holder of the business risk). Whatever Orlen Synthos GREEN Energy plan to do, it can be categorised as no more than an operating service to this public sector activity.
Wholly private nuclear risk-taking is a unicorn. It is totally inconsistent to harp on about subsidies (public support given to otherwise private activity) while arguing for nuclear operations. Yes, wind generators benefit from huge public support. But so will nuclear. The reasons may be different, but the principle is the same (transaction of unacceptable private risk to the public).
Greenpeace tweet to get Likes for their cause
They got 1.2K Likes
However almost all the 1,000 replies go against them
A good snapshot is Popular tweets (with 50+ Likes) to Greenpeace from Jan 12-15
There are 26 with 50+ Likes
Some with hundreds one gets 860
Lorraine Allanson tweets
“How environmentalists can claim wind & solar are eco friendly,
all they do is perform badly, kill birds
& cover our landscape in steel, concrete & glass.
Nuclear is by far the better option, it’s reliable & has a tiny footprint.
Greenpeace only care for their billionaire backers”
@MhehedZherting reminds me that Greenpeace actually sells fossil fuels
It markets Prowindgas, as if it 100% made from windpower, in fact it’s 99% mined methane
.. https://twitter.com/MhehedZherting/status/1746626423211610554
Interesting that the Dogmatic Green Party tweeted the same dogma the day before
Stew the statement “Global renewable energy capacity grew by 50% in 2023” is complete BS. 2022 global renewables capacity was 1400GW Hydro, 900GW wind, 1200GW Solar Total 3500GW. New total capacity increase in 2023 was 517GW which is nothing like 50%. The Guardian also ran this BS article (Jillian Ambrose). What they have (deliberately?) done is confuse “growth over previous year’s growth figure” with growth over previous total capacity. clever eh or downright lying.
I have complained to the Graun (as if they care) and not had a reply so far.
OK here’s the IEA graph
Many tweets including those by some profs tweeted the ridiculous claims
Don’t these people think ?
You can see earlier tweets with correct wording
“in total, the world added 50% more renewable energy capacity in 2023 than was added in 2022”
“a 50% increase in global additions, totaling 510 GW in 2023 compared to 2022.”
The characteristics of the Twitter traffic is that no one on their own side called them out
I think I looked through 30-40 tweets that made that claim sometimes there were replies , clapping like seals
but another characteristic was that the Twitter traffic was very light will almost no Likes for the tweets
as if Greens shout loudly, but don’t have much support.
No one on our side noticed their tweets
Oh one thing, two things
#1 Renewable capacity is a BS metric, cos what counts is actual OUTPUT
#2 Western green stats can be suspicious , but ones originating out of Asia are even more likely to be fake.
Why would we take Chinese stats at face value ?