A Manifesto for 2024

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I was hoping that the learned folk on the forum might come forward with their own thoughts rather than I like that, I don't like that, and that it might help me fine tune.

---

Sorry, I'll have a go at that.

The way I see it regarding gas and oil extraction is that the energy market is driven by economic factors. If we are extracting gas and oil to make it cheaper for our domestic market, we're not helping our economy move away from the dependence on oil and gas.

But you're right there needs to be an alternative...
We had a lot of wind in the UK, so that will be part of the mix. I agree nuclear should also be increased. People demonise nuclear power, but fossil fuel burning is killing lots of people early through respiratory conditions.

And (whoever already said it), I agree that making our homes, offices and factories more energy efficient should be a big focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

I'm rather surprised that you have said nothing about reducing energy use: insulating buildings, making the transport system efficient (like the Dutch have done, re-engineering their cities so that only an idiot would get in a car, because it is so much quicker to cycle or get a bus/tram), etc. Unfortunately, no-one makes any profit out of selling less oil, solar power or whatever (an example of the "Tragedy of the Commons), but since every form of energy generation has some effect on the environment, reducing our energy use is essential.



This would have been a reasonable statement 30 years ago. Our understanding of the climate system has moved on a huge amount since then, and it's now absolutely certain (inasmuch as any scientific theory can be certain), not merely "plausible", that humans have had a major impact on the climate.



I would be interested in your views on nuclear fusion: clean, safe energy, with no radioactive waste. I worked in research related to fusion for a while back in the 1980's, when it was predicted that commercial fusion reactors would be available in about 2030. Hmmmm. Even then, I sometimes got the impression that fusion research was a big pit into which money was being shovelled.

---

HI Anthony,

Fair point on the reduction. I think price has made folks perception one of being careful these days. Whether driving, heating, flying.... the cost is always an issue.
Government has a role, but take cars for example.
Before they decided to ban ICE from 2035, we were making huge progress with much lighter touch intervention.
That's essentially where I would be.
Government does too much in my opinion so any intervention should be sensible, balanced, fair. It also has to be affordable for the working class.
If you have £50k + to throw around on a car every few years you are mostly untouched by net zero policy.
I haven't written for all departments yet, but when I get to the departments where Housing, Business and Transport are dealt with, you might see something.

On the 30 years issue, the IPCC was set up 35 years ago. At that time climate science was mostly physics led. Now physicists that raise concerns about the level of scaremongering are told to shut up, you aren't a specialist.... etc.
The climatologists seem to forget that much of what they do would be impossible but for physicists, on which most of their work is built.

You even qualify your "absolutely certain" comment.

There's nothing absolutely certain. We have IPCC opinions ranging from negligible anthropogenic warming around 1C or less to 8C or higher by the end of the century.
That doesn't mean there aren't learned and qualified folk lower down the spectrum, just that their opinions are deemed not worthy of consideration and it does have the effect of lifting the average consensus, if you remove the bottom 10% from calculation.

It has been said about Covid that SAGE needed a Red Team. I'd suggest the same for climate. Unfortunately there is no money in being a climate sceptic and in an interview Richard Lindzen was asked if he had any "sceptics" in his classes.
He said of course.
He was asked how come we don't hear these voices coming through.
He said because they had to leave the climate industry to make a living.

I am optimistic that nuclear fusion is the future, but suspect we will have to manage with existing tech for the rest of the century.
I think here lies a problem with the route we have taken this last 20 years.
We shelved reliable gas and nuclear for unreliable wind tied to the ability to store - but without having established how we would store and at what cost.
If we'd have added 3-4 nuclear stations over the last 25 years (the last to come on stream was signed off under Mrs Thatcher) we would be in a much better position now ourselves and able to export energy at peak time rather than import it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Sorry, I'll have a go at that.

The way I see it regarding gas and oil extraction is that the energy market is driven by economic factors. If we are extracting gas and oil to make it cheaper for our domestic market, we're not helping our economy move away from the dependence on oil and gas.

But you're right there needs to be an alternative...
We had a lot of wind in the UK, so that will be part of the mix. I agree nuclear should also be increased. People demonise nuclear power, but fossil fuel burning is killing lots of people early through respiratory conditions.

And (whoever already said it), I agree that making our homes, offices and factories more energy efficient should be a big focus.

---

Appreciate it Noel.

AS we moved through the industrial revolution., from water mills, to coal fired etc we did so because the moves made sense from a cost and efficiency perspective.

My old business in the 90s was in an old Rossendale Mill that used to be owned by Bacup Shoe Co and it was fascinating to still see the old belt drive system in the mill. My cutter started work in that mill when they still had the belt drive working.
https://industrial-archaeology.org/s...spinning-mill/
Such as on the link.

But they moved to electric.

These changes were rarely mandated. They were better options. If these current options being pushed were better, we would go for them. Better doesn't have to be cheaper - it can be measured in a number of ways.

But I'm instinctively suspicious of Government mandates because they don't have the greatest track record. I'd rather leave it to innovation.
It's crazy that as things stand, logburning stoves are a growing market and 5 year forecast is for year-on-year increase, not just in the UK but worldwide.
I'd suggest that's largely down to the misdirected Government interventions of the last 20-30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

what have I avoided?
and I don't see I've slurred anything.

---

It's a waste of time talking to you. You don't read my comments, you won't answer a simple question I've asked three times, and you throw cheap insults and slurs at me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

It's a waste of time talking to you. You don't read my comments, you won't answer a simple question I've asked three times, and you throw cheap insults and slurs at me

---

I'll run through in case I've missed something.

Er, which taxes will the Witton Park Party be raising to fund this?
You asked again #8, and again #15. 3 times.

That's the only question you have asked and I answered and you could see I answered by your "oh borrowing" reply in #8.

So just to be clear, no taxes will be raised to cover the cost of the 8 SMRs that I propose signing up to.

Now to the cheap insults and slurs.

Post #3
By beginning with "Er" don't you see that as being a touch sarcy? That's your opening comment.

Post #8
I can't wait to hear your party's immigration policy :rolleyes::D

That was a bit leftfield Marco - you can hardly say that isn't sarcastic when you include a "Roll Eyes (sarcastic)" emoji now and what exactly are you inferring here?

So I answered, you just don't seem to like my answer. You are also the one that introduced a sarciness to the discussion.

and you seem to think my "creative accounting" comment was an insult.

"The optimistic estimate in February 2021 was for £1.8 billion per SMR"

You linked to the article. You popped in the word "optimistic"
and then
"and the fact that large info structure projects seem to end up eventually costing 3 x what was originally said"

to present a figure of £6Billion per SMR as factual when it is far from that.

It is an assumption you have come to, that I disagree with. I reckon if the UK Government signed up to 8 now, they would get them for about £18-20b.
I might be wrong, but I think that's a darn sight closer than £48b.

So I will take Mr Stein at face value, who's opinion was set out in the article you linked to, and work on the basis that the SMR project is going well and "third-party equity is coming in, believing in the approach, believing in the design"

I'm sorry if you found my comments insulting.

MICHAEL KELLY. Retired Professor of Technology in electrical engineering at Cambridge University.

"I’ve spent some time looking into the feasibility of these ideas, and these are the facts.

"The green energy net-zero plan will require a command economy
And several technological impossibilities, and a massive drop in living standards."

Evidence also suggests 'green' agricultural policies would led to billions of people starving to death...but hey ho!

"The idea that net zero can be achieved on the current timelines by any means short of a command economy combined with a drastic decline in standards of living – and several unlikely technological miracles – is a blatant falsehood. The silence of the National Academies and the professional science and engineering bodies about these big picture engineering realities is despicable.

People need to know the realities of net zero."

For a fuller description of 'the facts' see the link below.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...my-impossible/

"The green energy net-zero plan will require a command economy
And several technological impossibilities, and a massive drop in living standards."

Evidence also suggests 'green' agricultural policies would led to billions of people starving to death...but hey ho!

"The idea that net zero can be achieved on the current timelines by any means short of a command economy combined with a drastic decline in standards of living – and several unlikely technological miracles – is a blatant falsehood. The silence of the National Academies and the professional science and engineering bodies about these big picture engineering realities is despicable.

Yep.

And just so that we're all clear and 'define our terms' :
What Is a Command Economy?

A command economy is a key aspect of a political system in which a central governmental authority dictates the levels of production that are permissible and the prices that may be charged for goods and services. Most industries are publicly owned.

The main alternative to a command economy is a free market system in which demand dictates production and prices.

The command economy is a component of a communist political system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

HI Anthony,


On the 30 years issue, the IPCC was set up 35 years ago. At that time climate science was mostly physics led. Now physicists that raise concerns about the level of scaremongering are told to shut up, you aren't a specialist.... etc.
The climatologists seem to forget that much of what they do would be impossible but for physicists, on which most of their work is built.

You even qualify your "absolutely certain" comment.

There's nothing absolutely certain. We have IPCC opinions ranging from negligible anthropogenic warming around 1C or less to 8C or higher by the end of the century.
That doesn't mean there aren't learned and qualified folk lower down the spectrum, just that their opinions are deemed not worthy of consideration and it does have the effect of lifting the average consensus, if you remove the bottom 10% from calculation.

---

You make a rather strange implication that climate science is no longer led by physicists. Climatology is essentially a sub-discipline within physics; it's all based on physical principles like thermodynamics and hydrodynamics.

The uncertainty about the warming by the end of the century is mainly because of the uncertainty about what humans will do by the end of the century. What I was mainly thinking about in my earlier post was the warming that has already happened (a little over 1 degree C since 1850): the physicists have shown that this would be completely impossible without including the effects of human activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

You make a rather strange implication that climate science is no longer led by physicists. Climatology is essentially a sub-discipline within physics; it's all based on physical principles like thermodynamics and hydrodynamics.

---

I agree it's a sub discipline, but the folk qualified in that sub-discipline take a sneering approach to folk who've put the foundations in place for that sub-discipline.
So I supposse we agree on the core, but interpret what is happening differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

The uncertainty about the warming by the end of the century is mainly because of the uncertainty about what humans will do by the end of the century. What I was mainly thinking about in my earlier post was the warming that has already happened (a little over 1 degree C since 1850): the physicists have shown that this would be completely impossible without including the effects of human activities.

---

The Victorian era is a convenient period to start calculations. Between 1607 and 1814 the Thames froze over 7 times sufficient to set up fairs on the ice.

However, as I have said, I'm prepared to act as if we need to move towards net zero, but not at the pace that we are being pushed to.
So if I am wrong, it really won't matter as far as my energy policy is concerned.

In fact I believe my energy policy as set out, will get us towards net zero faster than the current Govt or the next Govt.