Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time.... show more

Electroverse

48,560 subscribers

19,281 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

34 Kommentare

Profilbild von Bill Heller

Bill Hellervor 5 Tagen

One picture is worth a thousand words...

Profilbild von michael holcombe

michael holcombevor 5 Tagen

Correct! But gas is also a great option since the emissions are only H2O and the gas of life CO2.

Profilbild von Derek

Derekvor 5 Tagen

Seems energy poverty was the plan at least until they needed energy for surveillance centres

Profilbild von WhizKidder

WhizKiddervor 5 Tagen

Newer designs need even less space, are walk-away safe (they can't melt down), produce less waste (with a shorter period of radioactivity), and some don't even need a nearby water supply for cooling.

Profilbild von CinnamonGaga

CinnamonGagavor 5 Tagen

You are going to have to get through almost 30 years of scare tactics and propaganda

Profilbild von haliday

halidayvor 5 Tagen

Yes, but China is not a major source of Uranium, with barely enough for domestic demand. So here we are.

Profilbild von UncleMac

UncleMacvor 5 Tagen

The climate change cultists are useful idiots for those who want green communism.

Profilbild von NÝlØ²Q

NÝlØ²Qvor 5 Tagen

Plant biology and Plant science is NOTABLY ABSENT in ALL the global warming, climate change scenarios There are approximately 391,000 species of plants covering 32 % of Earths surfce 163 MILLION square KILOMETERS of co2 ABSORPTION and GROWTH by PLANTS EVERY SINGLE DAY

Profilbild von Richard Rothwell

Richard Rothwellvor 5 Tagen

When you imagine you are smarter than a nuclear engineer, but you can’t do the math. The expansion or not of nuclear power has little connection to the motivation for climate change mitigation, thanks to economics & risk/politics. Hansen for example favors nuclear power.

Profilbild von algar

algarvor 5 Tagen

By not choosing Nuclear it simply proves that it isn't emissions and climate change that is the concern----It is reliable, affordable energy which is the driver of Industrial Capitalism.----Climate Politics then are essentially anti capitalist eco socialism.

Profilbild von Donny Boon !

Donny Boon !vor 5 Tagen

We have a thousand years of coal in the ground! And we own it ! Let’s burn it Way less problems than dealing with nuclear power issues like placement of plants and the waste disposal of spent nuclear materials.

Profilbild von SpecialAgentRock

SpecialAgentRockvor 5 Tagen

Big oil propagandized the population back in the 70's and 80's to ensure their cartel

Profilbild von ORAC v.42

ORAC v.42vor 5 Tagen

It's a great example of how politicians have no common sense. It's not going to change because of your dreadful education. But it does make such great comedy!!!

Profilbild von Jimmy

Jimmyvor 5 Tagen

No Nukes

Profilbild von Gordon Herriman

Gordon Herrimanvor 5 Tagen

“Safest Energy Source” is a made up statistic to close coal plants. Dispatchable power that can ramp to match demand is more important than being at full power 93% of the time. Nat Gas power plant uses less land. Remove junk science and what is left to make nuclear attractive?

Profilbild von Steve Kroll

Steve Krollvor 4 Tagen

Absolutely!

Profilbild von Sharon Collins

Sharon Collinsvor 4 Tagen

Nuke facilities take large volumes of water for cooling. Waste in another issue. Atomic clock was set back in the day with advancement of nukes and technologies. People were warned so they made it a policy.

Profilbild von Keith

Keithvor 5 Tagen

But they release water vapor and water vapor is the most impactful greenhouse gas.

Profilbild von cjtjgeol

cjtjgeolvor 5 Tagen

Dumbarse leftys are usually scientifically illiterate..and don't like newqular

Profilbild von IRoly

IRolyvor 5 Tagen

Meaning there’s another agenda

Profilbild von Lawyerforlaws

Lawyerforlawsvor 5 Tagen

There have been nuns protesting commercial nuclear power since the 1970s . .

Profilbild von Isaac

Isaacvor 4 Tagen

Luego está el tema de los desechos radiactivos.... cambiar un mal por otro

Profilbild von Barry Schiff

Barry Schiffvor 5 Tagen

My view is it’s still a terrible option for terrestrial power.

Profilbild von Sanity Personified

Sanity Personifiedvor 5 Tagen

Now tell us about the fiasco in Somerset sweet pea

Profilbild von Flemming Rasmussen 🇺🇦🇩🇰🇬🇱🇪🇺

Flemming Rasmussen 🇺🇦🇩🇰🇬🇱🇪🇺vor 5 Tagen

WRONG

Profilbild von Felix Landwirt

Felix Landwirtvor 5 Tagen

Nuclear clearly has a role in the clean energy mix! I find the UAE approach fascinating: Barakah nuclear plus mega solar, all in one long-term strategy. Both work together. ⚡️🌞

Profilbild von Carlton Duston

Carlton Dustonvor 5 Tagen

Some good points.

Profilbild von GreenMan

GreenManvor 4 Tagen

Nuclear is going to have to come back whether we want to or not because it's the only true thing that can produce enough power per acreage that efficiently.

Profilbild von Salama Al Mansouri

Salama Al Mansourivor 5 Tagen

Friends, True Sustainability comes from Alignment. Nuclear power is clean, steady and reliable. I trust solutions that serve Humanity for generations. Fear-based choices only Deplete. Go with Source Flow to Thrive. WISDOM!

Profilbild von Cancel some of the Government

Cancel some of the Governmentvor 5 Tagen

How many countries currently recycle their nuclear waste?

Profilbild von David Bryan

David Bryanvor 5 Tagen

Agreed. The land use impact of say solar alone & the poor energy production are enough to rule it out.

Profilbild von 2nd tesla

2nd teslavor 5 Tagen

Solar power and turbines can be considered reasonably safe; if they break down, they can be repaired at any time. To be honest, nuclear power isn't quite as safe as claimed—the true extent of the risk only becomes apparent if an accident actually occurs.

Profilbild von British Adventure News 🇬🇧

British Adventure News 🇬🇧vor 5 Tagen

Thorium reactors would be even better.

Profilbild von Marty Davis

Marty Davisvor 5 Tagen

There's your sign 👆 touche my friend

Ähnliche Videos

Most renewable electricity in the world is not wind or solar, it is hydropower. Hydro produces about 14% of global electricity, and more than half of all renewable power. It is reliable, dispatchable, and produces virtually no CO2 - yet many environmental groups oppose new dams. The same contradiction appears with nuclear power. Nuclear produces zero operational CO2, runs 24 hours a day, and uses far less land than wind or solar. If cutting emissions were truly the priority here, the focus would be obvious: Hydropower and nuclear, not endless wind and solar expansion.

Most renewable electricity in the world is not wind or solar, it is hydropower. Hydro produces about 14% of global electricity, and more than half of all renewable power. It is reliable, dispatchable, and produces virtually no CO2 - yet many environmental groups oppose new dams. The same contradiction appears with nuclear power. Nuclear produces zero operational CO2, runs 24 hours a day, and uses far less land than wind or solar. If cutting emissions were truly the priority here, the focus would be obvious: Hydropower and nuclear, not endless wind and solar expansion.

Electroverse

11,913 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Nuclear generates up to 1,000x more power per square meter than wind/solar. That's why wind and solar need 10–25x more materials for the same energy output. Which energy source is actually "green?" Full video:

Nuclear generates up to 1,000x more power per square meter than wind/solar. That's why wind and solar need 10–25x more materials for the same energy output. Which energy source is actually "green?" Full video:

Ben (Promethean Action)

22,781 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The world has spent $7 trillion on wind and solar. That global fleet produces an average of around 630 GW. The same $7 trillion could have built roughly 1,400 modern nuclear reactors, producing around 1,400 GW on average -- so more than twice the power. Wind and solar generally last around 20 years (a lot less by some estimates), whereas nuclear plants can operate for 80 years or more. Over 80 years, wind and solar must be built four times -- a cost of $28 trillion to maintain 630 gigawatts. The same $28 trillion spent on nuclear would deliver roughly 5,600 gigawatts -- nearly nine times the power. Also, nuclear produces this regardless of the weather, whereas wind and solar require 24-7 backup (usually gas, not included in these calculations).

The world has spent $7 trillion on wind and solar. That global fleet produces an average of around 630 GW. The same $7 trillion could have built roughly 1,400 modern nuclear reactors, producing around 1,400 GW on average -- so more than twice the power. Wind and solar generally last around 20 years (a lot less by some estimates), whereas nuclear plants can operate for 80 years or more. Over 80 years, wind and solar must be built four times -- a cost of $28 trillion to maintain 630 gigawatts. The same $28 trillion spent on nuclear would deliver roughly 5,600 gigawatts -- nearly nine times the power. Also, nuclear produces this regardless of the weather, whereas wind and solar require 24-7 backup (usually gas, not included in these calculations).

Electroverse

93,847 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.

Electroverse

12,655 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy - enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy - enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Electroverse

99,492 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy: enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy: enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Electroverse

58,561 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and Dunkelflaut hit - the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp. When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and Dunkelflaut hit - the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp. When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Electroverse

252,727 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and "Dunkelflaut" hit -- the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp: When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. The only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and "Dunkelflaut" hit -- the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp: When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. The only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Electroverse

82,734 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lousy energy policy has consequences. Germany destroyed all of their nuclear power plants (for no good reason) and decided solar and wind power would be their strategy. But they needed a backup, and the “Green” party agreed it would be coal power. Germany used to have smart people. But most of them died during WW2.

Lousy energy policy has consequences. Germany destroyed all of their nuclear power plants (for no good reason) and decided solar and wind power would be their strategy. But they needed a backup, and the “Green” party agreed it would be coal power. Germany used to have smart people. But most of them died during WW2.

Wall Street Mav

25,352 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk: If you covered the entire cleared area around a nuclear power station with solar panels, the solar panels would often produce more electricity than the nuclear plant itself. “If you take a nuclear power station and the whole clear area that's around it, it ends up being quite a bit of land. If you carpeted that land with solar panels, which would generate more, the nuclear power station or the solar panels? And usually, it's the solar panels. Now of course, you could always amp up the nuclear power station, but just taking the way things currently are, that's sort of an interesting data point. It's just to give you a sense of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.” From: Interview at the EEI Annual Convention, June 11, 2015

Elon Musk: If you covered the entire cleared area around a nuclear power station with solar panels, the solar panels would often produce more electricity than the nuclear plant itself. “If you take a nuclear power station and the whole clear area that's around it, it ends up being quite a bit of land. If you carpeted that land with solar panels, which would generate more, the nuclear power station or the solar panels? And usually, it's the solar panels. Now of course, you could always amp up the nuclear power station, but just taking the way things currently are, that's sort of an interesting data point. It's just to give you a sense of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.” From: Interview at the EEI Annual Convention, June 11, 2015

ELON CLIPS

52,173 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Nuclear uses 1,000 times less land than wind or solar. On a small, beautiful island like ours, that matters. If Labour were serious about nuclear they’d back our amendments to scrap the environmental regulations that simply add costs and do more harm than good to nature.

Nuclear uses 1,000 times less land than wind or solar. On a small, beautiful island like ours, that matters. If Labour were serious about nuclear they’d back our amendments to scrap the environmental regulations that simply add costs and do more harm than good to nature.

Claire Coutinho

450,673 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Electroverse

13,445 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

The world has spent approximately $6–7 trillion cumulatively on wind turbines and solar panels. With that amount, we could have built up to 1,400 standard nuclear power plants (each with ~1–1.2 GW capacity, typical for modern large reactors). With proper maintenance, safety upgrades, and regulatory approvals, many nuclear plants last 60 years- 80 years or more. A typical wind or solar farm lasts about 20 years, meaning we would need to spend up to $21 trillion to produce the same energy as nuclear. With $21 trillion, the world could theoretically fund up to 4,000 nuclear power plants. Now lets talk about wind turbines. Without the Production Tax Credit (PTC), many wind farms were not economically viable from electricity sales alone, due to high upfront costs, intermittency (requiring backup power), and competition from cheaper sources like natural gas. The tax credits effectively offset a significant portion of costs—in some cases covering much or all of the investment for tax-liable entities—turning otherwise marginal or unprofitable projects into attractive ones. Are you seeing the scam? It's time to start building more nuclear and less of these green dream turbines and solar panels.

The world has spent approximately $6–7 trillion cumulatively on wind turbines and solar panels. With that amount, we could have built up to 1,400 standard nuclear power plants (each with ~1–1.2 GW capacity, typical for modern large reactors). With proper maintenance, safety upgrades, and regulatory approvals, many nuclear plants last 60 years- 80 years or more. A typical wind or solar farm lasts about 20 years, meaning we would need to spend up to $21 trillion to produce the same energy as nuclear. With $21 trillion, the world could theoretically fund up to 4,000 nuclear power plants. Now lets talk about wind turbines. Without the Production Tax Credit (PTC), many wind farms were not economically viable from electricity sales alone, due to high upfront costs, intermittency (requiring backup power), and competition from cheaper sources like natural gas. The tax credits effectively offset a significant portion of costs—in some cases covering much or all of the investment for tax-liable entities—turning otherwise marginal or unprofitable projects into attractive ones. Are you seeing the scam? It's time to start building more nuclear and less of these green dream turbines and solar panels.

John Lee Pettimore

120,600 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.

Farrukh

14,159 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Wind turbines are getting bigger, more efficient, and are delivering higher output. That sounds impressive, but it isn't compared to other sources. A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines. Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear for the same output. And turbines, of course, only produce power when the wind is blowing. Nuclear is constant. Then there's the storage requirements. To make wind reliable, you need batteries. At grid scale, that becomes impossible with current technologies. Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many.

Wind turbines are getting bigger, more efficient, and are delivering higher output. That sounds impressive, but it isn't compared to other sources. A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines. Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear for the same output. And turbines, of course, only produce power when the wind is blowing. Nuclear is constant. Then there's the storage requirements. To make wind reliable, you need batteries. At grid scale, that becomes impossible with current technologies. Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many.

Electroverse

21,616 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten