Friday 22 April 2016

A Bloody Great Bale of Straw in the Wind

... for Drax, that is.  Here's a telling slip by Amber Rudd.  Writing to defend the indefensible Hinkley Point in the Graun, she says:
"new nuclear is the only proven low-carbon technology that can provide continuous power, irrespective of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining"
 - i.e. what we in the trade call baseload.

Oooh.  What about biomass then, lady?  What about Carbon Capture & Storage, that *indispensable* adjunct to the gas plants necessary to balance the intermittent and random output of wind?   Both, like nukes, capable of continuous power and much better still, both what we call dispatchable ...

They know, really.  Biomass mostly isn't low carbon; and CCS is a fantasy.  They know, really.

ND

15 comments:

Professor Pizzle said...

Would that constitute a legal admission that DECC policy is predicated on a lie?

I'm assuming not. Govt seems to be remarkable exempt from the consequences of wrong actions - unless it is offending SJWs.

John in Cheshire said...

I sold my Drax shares, fortunately before they tanked completely. I didn't really make much from them but at least I didn't lose half of their value. One of the few times I didn't let inertia decide for me. I've decided I'm not very good at owning shares; I've probably lost more over the years than I've gained. But eventually, even for me, Drax just sounded like a scam; cutting down many trees in the US, shipping the chipped wood to the UK and transported by rail to burn in power station furnaces. That's just insane.

Blue Eyes said...

Does the benefit of saving the carbon outweigh the obvious cost of buy the nuclear power? That is the only calculation that counts, and I suspect we know the answer.

Blue Eyes said...

*ing

Electro-Kevin said...

And despite all this baloney they still haven't been able to shake the 'nasty party' image.

Perhaps (along with the party logo) they should have changed the name to the Conservation Party.



Ceedy said...

If they were the Convservation Party perahps they might not have sold us down the river since 1974 to supranational bodies EK

Demetrius said...

I recall Drax being built, I always said it was a mistake.

andrew said...


Perhaps (along with the party logo) they should have changed the name to the Conservation Party.

...and we would all live in nice georgian houses

EK, I would vote for you.

On Nukes, for a small country, they are a bad idea.
One mistake/terrorist incident/act of god and somerset is gone for a few thousand years.

Whereas the gases from other industrial processes actually kill more people but do not make machines go 'click'




Electro-Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Electro-Kevin said...

As this blog's most ardent Brexiteer... I could literally KISS Obama !

Electro-Kevin said...

Not being picky here ...

But wouldn't Obama have said "... to the back of the line." rather than "... to the back of the queue." ?

Blue Eyes said...

I thought that EK!

John miller said...

The most delicious irony of modern times. Theresa May's unintentional branding of the Tory Party.

rwendland said...

See FT is saying Hinkley decision is being further delayed for a "60 day consultation". Surprise, not. Handily until after brexit vote.

Wonder if this is to push a no-go decision until after the vote, or to allow a leaving EU decision to be a good excuse, or simply to allow currencies to come to a new norm to inform the financial decision?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Well if they know (and I doubt you not), why do they go on insisting that we must do more and more stupid stuff, and that the only cure for stupid and wasteful is yet more stupid and wasteful?

Why? Are they all THAT much in thrall to the EU?

Baffled.