I cant comment on the content of your article, but I can say one thing about the opening paragraph and this sentence: 'Good things come to those who procrastinate.'
Although I am by nature an achievement and schedule oriented person, I have deliberately cultivated a certain procrastination in problem solving, that I activate from time to time in my personal and professional life. When I can, I no longer rush to find solutions, or if I do initially, I then slow it all down and take my time, sometimes putting the problem on the backburner for days or weeks.
This allows both your subconscious to work on the problem in the background, and also for serendipitous events to potentially occur. Also, despite claims by 'high-achiever' types that 'action' is always better than 'non-action', my experience is that sometimes problems simply resolved themselves.
Taking problem solving a little more slowly, in my experience, ends up with better solutions and deadlines still met.
As a members of the Lords of Clean Energy the environmentalist has been rewarded with their picture on every molecule of carbon dioxide. There they are, floating along on their nuke-free cloud admiring the beautiful birds that are headed straight for renewable hell. But we need not worry: energy will be clean, plentiful, cheap and reliable, they promise, while the world heads in the direction of the beautiful birds.
The praise for the Canadian opposition talking about taking full advantage of natural resources is the heart of it, though. We are at the point where North Sea resources will not be able to sustain UK demand. The energy security play at this point is surely to lean into wind especially, as that is the bonafide domestic resource. The alternative is increased reliance on LNG imports.
Wind has been a dismal failure in Britain. They should go all out on nuclear. But not the worst choice French EPR. They could have gone with the GE Prism which would have ran on their spent nuclear fuel or the Korean APR1400.
The "lets build a one-off, experimental design power station" is what makes nuclear look expensive. The French did it in the 1980s, and the world is having a nuclear renaissance. I can see no scenarion, net-zero of BAU, in which nuclear is not at the heart of energy policy of successful nations... but hard decisions need to be made. Politicians need to think about what the country needs in 20-30 years time, not what will get the elected next election cycle.
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone."
Thanks Ed. I guess I'd make two points. Firstly, the UK does have good wind, and as I wrote about a while ago, the "energy security" aspect is becoming more talked about as the "cheap and green" bits get more doubtful. To your point, the UK has been a net importer of O&G for well over a decade, but that begs the question of whether the O&G should have an unnecessary accelerated decline or should be used to its maximum, because the alternative is more LNG imports no matter the wind "capacity". I can quite see the UK reverting to using coal before 2050.
Secondly, over a longer time frame, there is a serious question of just what will create "wealth" in the UK. O&G is running out, renewables pay no taxes or royalties, industry has mostly left.... So my point is Canada has a choice (and a choice of political parties), the UK doesn't have the same optionality (and no diversity of policy to choose from). Deiter Helm publishes about this a lot. For example: https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/podcast-48-the-remarkable-net-zero-political-consensus-and-why-its-wrong/
I cant comment on the content of your article, but I can say one thing about the opening paragraph and this sentence: 'Good things come to those who procrastinate.'
Although I am by nature an achievement and schedule oriented person, I have deliberately cultivated a certain procrastination in problem solving, that I activate from time to time in my personal and professional life. When I can, I no longer rush to find solutions, or if I do initially, I then slow it all down and take my time, sometimes putting the problem on the backburner for days or weeks.
This allows both your subconscious to work on the problem in the background, and also for serendipitous events to potentially occur. Also, despite claims by 'high-achiever' types that 'action' is always better than 'non-action', my experience is that sometimes problems simply resolved themselves.
Taking problem solving a little more slowly, in my experience, ends up with better solutions and deadlines still met.
I'll get around to replying at some point...
As a members of the Lords of Clean Energy the environmentalist has been rewarded with their picture on every molecule of carbon dioxide. There they are, floating along on their nuke-free cloud admiring the beautiful birds that are headed straight for renewable hell. But we need not worry: energy will be clean, plentiful, cheap and reliable, they promise, while the world heads in the direction of the beautiful birds.
The praise for the Canadian opposition talking about taking full advantage of natural resources is the heart of it, though. We are at the point where North Sea resources will not be able to sustain UK demand. The energy security play at this point is surely to lean into wind especially, as that is the bonafide domestic resource. The alternative is increased reliance on LNG imports.
Wind has been a dismal failure in Britain. They should go all out on nuclear. But not the worst choice French EPR. They could have gone with the GE Prism which would have ran on their spent nuclear fuel or the Korean APR1400.
The "lets build a one-off, experimental design power station" is what makes nuclear look expensive. The French did it in the 1980s, and the world is having a nuclear renaissance. I can see no scenarion, net-zero of BAU, in which nuclear is not at the heart of energy policy of successful nations... but hard decisions need to be made. Politicians need to think about what the country needs in 20-30 years time, not what will get the elected next election cycle.
This guy gives the best description of what should happen with Nuclear:
Energy Transition: Nuclear SMRs vs Renewables, Energy Transition Crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBF2fGUO5cQ
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone."
Thanks Ed. I guess I'd make two points. Firstly, the UK does have good wind, and as I wrote about a while ago, the "energy security" aspect is becoming more talked about as the "cheap and green" bits get more doubtful. To your point, the UK has been a net importer of O&G for well over a decade, but that begs the question of whether the O&G should have an unnecessary accelerated decline or should be used to its maximum, because the alternative is more LNG imports no matter the wind "capacity". I can quite see the UK reverting to using coal before 2050.
Secondly, over a longer time frame, there is a serious question of just what will create "wealth" in the UK. O&G is running out, renewables pay no taxes or royalties, industry has mostly left.... So my point is Canada has a choice (and a choice of political parties), the UK doesn't have the same optionality (and no diversity of policy to choose from). Deiter Helm publishes about this a lot. For example: https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/podcast-48-the-remarkable-net-zero-political-consensus-and-why-its-wrong/