Good point. I so wish there were more opposition to the horrors Bute Energy proposes for Radnor Forest, one of the most (until now) unspoilt parts of Wales.

There’ll be more about Bute on the blog tomorrow.

Yes, but should not the government “onshore wind policy” itself be subject to a benefit v cost analysis, and, if so, over what future timeline [30 years, 50 years etc.].

Seems to have been overlooked with all the rumpus about Putin’s gang upcoming tussle with the other bunch of Fascists in Ukraine. One thing for sure in any contest between Etna’s eruptions and the entire army of net zero windbags and scammers my money is on Etna coming out tops every time. Each time the old mountain burps it’s as though its telling Greta and all her disciples to fuck right off. Nature has its own way of polluting short term but enriches the soil long term. And CO2 plays a part in that process.

France will certainly benefit from EDFs Hinckley C and Sizewell C, and it looks as though the Chinese will be forced out. The other “great hope” is Rolls Royce with their SMRs, although a lot of the backing there isn’t from the U.K. SMRs would provide an exportable product, and I’m sure countries around the world will be desperate for a nuclear station with an RR badge over the door and union jacks everywhere

Tidal lagoons though … you can’t really export them! Yes they would employ loads during construction, and have lots of spin-off benefits for the local economy, but Global Britain is less interested in things like that

I got the following mail from Charles Hendry …

Dear Dr Dean

Apologies for my slow reply to your email.

The Government’s official response was given by the Secretary of State for BEIS, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, in Parliament on 25 June 2018:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/proposed-swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon

I would however say that I did not consider this an adequate response to my Review, as it distorted points I had made and ignored all of the benefits! It was ultimately a political decision not to proceed, so it was not able to be considered for a CfD.

I hope that helps!

Kind regards
Charles

A PhD in chemical engineering (three phase fluid dynamics, to be precise). I’ve never been called Mr for well over 30 years, other than in Germany where I’m Herr Doktor. My passport, driving license, bank accounts etc all say Dr

The precise energy equations are irrelevant to the reality of producing hydrogen. What matters is the efficiency of the production process. I’m sure you could tell me the approx mpg of your car, but not the PRECISE ENERGY EQUATIONS for the combustion of petrol, and in any case that wouldn’t include all the losses due to heat in the exhaust, sound, friction, wind resistance etc

The two main processes are splitting water with electricity, turning H2O into H2 and O2, or steam reforming of methane turning CH4 and H2O into H2 and CO2. The PRECISE ENERGY EQUATIONS, while interesting, would tell you the theoretical maximum, not what is achievable in practice

But, if I were to rummage through my text books to get you the PRECISE ENERGY EQUATIONS, what would you actually do with that information? I might do it if you actually have a good reason for wanting it, but I don’t see how it contributes to the debate

Yes, by chronology; but also by ensuring that gender identity was publicly debated as little as possible.

I find it difficult to agree with that interpretation given that the beneficiaries of the UK sticking with nuclear will be companies from France and elsewhere, even China.