Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Scouse]

BTW @Gwadien - UK steel said in May that they couldn't use the coal as the sulphur content is too high.

Majority owner of the mine is an investment group in the Cayman Islands btw. Make of that what you will...

 

[Raven]

...and that's the cost of still having domestic steel production in a world that is going nuts.

 

[Scouse]

...and that's the cost of still having domestic steel production in a world that is going nuts.

Can't you read? The owner of british steel released a statement saying they can't use it.

85% of it is for export - that's the government's own comittee.

It's fuck all to do with our steel industry.

 

[Embattle]

Isn't it for making steel?? Makes more sense than importing it, no?

They were talking about it on Politics live, as Scouse says the percentage used in the UK will be 15% and the steel industry isn't that big in the UK any more but what is left doesn't think much of it and bear in mind they are racing to other methods of production by 2035. So let's take that date as a target date let's also say the is up and running by 2025, does anyone seriously think after all the investment that the mine will just close after a decade.

 

[Raven]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdWI2gF8hc4

 

[Scouse]

"All" they've done is prove that they can get more out than they can get in.

Now there's a massive engineering challenge to not only scale it up to useful size, to make it useable in a generation capacity and also make it cheap enough to be worth delivering as a global energy source.

I doubt that'll happen in my lifetime tbh. So whilst it's great - absolutely so given the 60-year quest since the invention of lazers - like nuclear it's not relevant to our short term - or even to our medium-term climate goals.

 

[Gwadien]

"All" they've done is prove that they can get more out than they can get in.

Now there's a massive engineering challenge to not only scale it up to useful size, to make it useable in a generation capacity and also make it cheap enough to be worth delivering as a global energy source.

I doubt that'll happen in my lifetime tbh. So whilst it's great - absolutely so given the 60-year quest since the invention of lazers - like nuclear it's not relevant to our short term - or even to our medium-term climate goals.

I mean I'm no nuclear fusion scientist but I would have thought actually producing energy would be the largest step they could possibly make.

I think the upscaling will be the easier part, it's just more about financial investment which I'm sure they will so long as they also work on a death star.

Think about the gap between splitting the atom and the building of nuclear power stations.

And I am right to think this is still a form of nuclear, right?

 

[Scouse]

I think the upscaling will be the easier part

Doubt it. I said "not in my lifetime".

And....

On the question of how long before we could see fusion being used in power stations, Dr Budil, the LLNL director, said there were still significant hurdles but that: "with concerted efforts and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant".

So, I reckon another 50-60 years.

 

[Scouse]

Dismantling Sellafield: the epic task of shutting down a nuclear site

The long read: Nothing is produced at Sellafield anymore. But making safe what is left behind is an almost unimaginably expensive and complex task that requires us to think not on a human timescale, but a planetary one

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bodhi]

I mean I'm no nuclear fusion scientist but I would have thought actually producing energy would be the largest step they could possibly make.

I think the upscaling will be the easier part, it's just more about financial investment which I'm sure they will so long as they also work on a death star.

Think about the gap between splitting the atom and the building of nuclear power stations.

And I am right to think this is still a form of nuclear, right?

It is a form of nuclear yes, which is why @Scouse doesn't like it. Mostly as if it works we can carry on living as we are, without the death of capitalism he has such a boner for.

It will take a while to scale, so in the meantime a better idea is to build more of the nuclear technology we already have. However both will work before we've figured out how to get rid of the shit bits of renewables, like the fact they tend to disappear in conditions like we've had for the last couple of weeks when we need them most.

 

[Embattle]

Again a multi pronged approach is best, we would never have any time soon when energy would be wasted.

As for fusion, it is like putting the sun in a box but at least this first positive step shows it is possible to get more out than you put in.

 

[Raven]

Again a multi pronged approach is best, we would never have any time soon when energy would be wasted.

As for fusion, it is like putting the sun in a box but at least this first positive step shows it is possible to get more out than you put in.

The problem is always storage and with us where the weather changes its mind several times a day and where we have such dramatic changes in season -7 this morning +40 ~6 months ago. We need to wise up to storage, batteries aren't the answer, their materials are still finite and hard to get at. We need hydrogen production via hydrolysis from all "wasted" green energy. Electric vehicles and so on are OK up to a point but impractical for most commercial work, farming, distribution, construction etc Plant could be sat around for weeks, then all of a sudden need to be run 24 hours 7 days, EV just doesn't do that.

Edit, if Fusion becomes a real "thing" which it will, then it still won't suit agricultural/construction stuff, assuming they are EV. Good luck charging a combine in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of harvest.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure I'd describe batteries as impractical for farm work. Tractors don't really travel very far, just like combine harvesters. Battery-powered versions of those seem pretty sensible to me, especially as they can just return to the farm to recharge each night.

On the Rallycross Volvo turn up to each event with electric diggers now. They're really quite cool.

 

[Raven]

I'm not sure I'd describe batteries as impractical for farm work. Tractors don't really travel very far, just like combine harvesters. Battery-powered versions of those seem pretty sensible to me, especially as they can just return to the farm to recharge each night.

On the Rallycross Volvo turn up to each event with electric diggers now. They're really quite cool.

That's because you live in a city. In the real world, a 7 ton (unladen) combine will have to work 24 hours a day, in the middle of actual nowhere, then get parked up for 10 months.

Currently, they sit on ~1000 litres of diesel, roughly 12 litres an acre. I have no idea what the equivalence is with electric, but it ain't going to be running when it needs to be running, instantly, stop start depending on the weather etc.

EV is not the panacea people keep saying it is.

Edit, and those with an interest are already looking at Hydrogen.

Understanding Hydrogen Fuel | Hydrogen Refuelling | JCB.com

Hydrogen fuel is a clean, renewable, safe and transportable fuel and is the ultimate zero CO2 solution.

www.jcb.com

And anyone within construction will tell you, proper, permanent, reliable power doesn't get to site until it's pretty much finished.

 

[caLLous]

I'm not sure I'd describe batteries as impractical for farm work. Tractors don't really travel very far, just like combine harvesters. Battery-powered versions of those seem pretty sensible to me, especially as they can just return to the farm to recharge each night.

On the Rallycross Volvo turn up to each event with electric diggers now. They're really quite cool.

There's just no way a combine will be out working for a day without charging. It's easy enough to refuel a diesel combine in the middle of a field (and a big diesel combine *can* work for 12+ hours before it needs filling), that's just not a possibility with batteries (unless you have some massive swappable thing that you can take out and take away to charge). And besides, working vehicles do more than just drive about, they need the juice to do whatever work they're doing and that would decimate battery life. I can understand a battery-powered digger (to a point) but a combine is going full-pelt 90% of the time it's turned on.

 

[Deebs]

That's because you live in a city. In the real world, a 7 ton (unladen) combine will have to work 24 hours a day, in the middle of actual nowhere, then get parked up for 10 months.

Currently, they sit on ~1000 litres of diesel, roughly 12 litres an acre. I have no idea what the equivalence is with electric, but it ain't going to be running when it needs to be running, instantly, stop start depending on the weather etc.

EV is not the panacea people keep saying it is.

Edit, and those with an interest are already looking at Hydrogen.

Understanding Hydrogen Fuel | Hydrogen Refuelling | JCB.com

Hydrogen fuel is a clean, renewable, safe and transportable fuel and is the ultimate zero CO2 solution.

www.jcb.com

And anyone within construction will tell you, proper, permanent, reliable power doesn't get to site until it's pretty much finished.

Surely they would be planning on when to harvest so would then charge the plant a few days before having to use it? My brother works in construction and I spoke to him today and he mentioned that net week he is going to be using cranes to start construction of a warehouse = project plan. If EV they would be on charge ready to go.

 

[Raven]

Surely they would be planning on when to harvest so would then charge the plant a few days before having to use it? My brother works in construction and I spoke to him today and he mentioned that net week he is going to be using cranes to start construction of a warehouse = project plan. If EV they would be on charge ready to go.

There is a plan, up to a point, but weather changes that. Either way, you can't have a combine sat charging while you need to harvest. You need to get going, the moment the weather breaks.

EV would charge, "ready to go" and then run out 5 (random number) hours later, then everyone would be sat around waiting for it to charge. In construction (I am sure your brother would confirm) you need to be ready to move, now, not in 2 hours time or whatever. A 2 hour delay will cause days delay to the next trade, weeks delay to the project.

 

[Deebs]

There is a plan, up to a point, but weather changes that. Either way, you can't have a combine sat charging while you need to harvest. You need to get going, the moment the weather breaks.

EV would charge, "ready to go" and then run out 5 (random number) hours later, then everyone would be sat around waiting for it to charge. In construction (I am sure your brother would confirm) you need to be ready to move, now, not in 2 hours time or whatever. A 2 hour delay will cause days delay to the next trade, weeks delay to the project.

Yes I get that but for smaller plant EV is perfectly suitable. Gas guzzlers are a different matter due to battery limitations.

 

[Scouse]

It is a form of nuclear yes, which is why @Scouse doesn't like it

Who said I don't like it? It's basically nuclear without the vast majority of the waste downside.

My only problem is that you or me are never ever going to get to see this. And it'll be fucking hella expensive.

Trad. nuclear was supposed to produce electricity "too cheap to meter" - and look how that's fucking worked out. Fusion is going to make Trad. nuclear look like solar or wind by cost comparison.

 

[Raven]

Yes I get that but for smaller plant EV is perfectly suitable. Gas guzzlers are a different matter due to battery limitations.

I get that, we have an electric forklift in the warehouse, have done for ages. Usually the lads are good at charging it, but sometimes they aren't, and it takes 12 hours to charge. The thing shifts 5 ton, it's not going to do that without full power.

 

[Raven]

Trad. nuclear was supposed to produce electricity "too cheap to meter"

Still does... We could literally jettison it off into space, if it was that important, which it never has been. Store it until we know what to do with it, it's not going anywhere.

edit, and still better than the by-product of the only other reliable source of energy, fossil, where we store in our atmosphere.

 

[Scouse]

We could literally jettison it off into space

Ok. Just one last try to put this most utterly retarded of ideas to bed.

Traditionally 5% of rocket launches have failed. Explosively. So unless you're into spreading the most dangerous substances known to mankind across our atmosphere you'll give up on this shit.

Frankly - if we could have done it, we'd already have done it - because it'd probably work out cheaper than the "solutions" we're spending hundreds of billions on right now to zero effect.

 

[Gwadien]

That's because you live in a city. In the real world, a 7 ton (unladen) combine will have to work 24 hours a day, in the middle of actual nowhere, then get parked up for 10 months.

Currently, they sit on ~1000 litres of diesel, roughly 12 litres an acre. I have no idea what the equivalence is with electric, but it ain't going to be running when it needs to be running, instantly, stop start depending on the weather etc.

EV is not the panacea people keep saying it is.

Edit, and those with an interest are already looking at Hydrogen.

Understanding Hydrogen Fuel | Hydrogen Refuelling | JCB.com

Hydrogen fuel is a clean, renewable, safe and transportable fuel and is the ultimate zero CO2 solution.

www.jcb.com

And anyone within construction will tell you, proper, permanent, reliable power doesn't get to site until it's pretty much finished.

Just tow a diesel generator duhh

 

[Embattle]

Surely they would be planning on when to harvest so would then charge the plant a few days before having to use it? My brother works in construction and I spoke to him today and he mentioned that net week he is going to be using cranes to start construction of a warehouse = project plan. If EV they would be on charge ready to go.

In Clarkson's farm series you realise how complicated it is, it comes down to the moisture level that decides when they can harvest a crop.

The problem is always storage and with us where the weather changes its mind several times a day and where we have such dramatic changes in season -7 this morning +40 ~6 months ago. We need to wise up to storage, batteries aren't the answer, their materials are still finite and hard to get at. We need hydrogen production via hydrolysis from all "wasted" green energy. Electric vehicles and so on are OK up to a point but impractical for most commercial work, farming, distribution, construction etc Plant could be sat around for weeks, then all of a sudden need to be run 24 hours 7 days, EV just doesn't do that.

Edit, if Fusion becomes a real "thing" which it will, then it still won't suit agricultural/construction stuff, assuming they are EV. Good luck charging a combine in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of harvest.

Well we have a growing need for green hydrogen, when not used directly the excess energy can easily be used for things like green hydrogen production or even water desalinization etc.

 

[Raven]

Ok. Just one last try to put this most utterly retarded of ideas to bed.

Traditionally 5% of rocket launches have failed. Explosively. So unless you're into spreading the most dangerous substances known to mankind across our atmosphere you'll give up on this shit.

Frankly - if we could have done it, we'd already have done it - because it'd probably work out cheaper than the "solutions" we're spending hundreds of billions on right now to zero effect.

Choses an irrelevant point, spends page after page getting himself into knots and ignoring reality.

Nope, not playing your game. Sorry.

EV, limited use. End of. Current renewables, limited use. End of.

Nuclear on all the time, no worries.

 

[Scouse]

Choses an irrelevant point

"Fires @Ravens post into space"

*bang*

"Awww shit. I'm covered in drool"

 

[Scouse]

Nuclear fusion ‘holy grail’ is not the answer to our energy prayers | Letters

Letters: Dr Mark Diesendorf questions the claim that nuclear fusion is safe and clean, while Dr Chris Cragg suspects true fusion power is a long way off. Plus letters from Dick Willis and Martin O’Donovan

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Fuck Biddn and his Highlander 2 scorch the sky plans.

Can geoengineering fix the climate? Hundreds of scientists say not so fast

The Biden administration is developing a controversial solar geoengineering research plan to the dismay of many experts

www.theguardian.com

would bomb if they started this shit

 

[Embattle]

Fuck Biddn and his Highlander 2 scorch the sky plans.

Can geoengineering fix the climate? Hundreds of scientists say not so fast

The Biden administration is developing a controversial solar geoengineering research plan to the dismay of many experts

www.theguardian.com

would bomb if they started this shit

Very Highlander 2.

 

[Raven]

Wind generated a record amount of electricity in 2022

More electricity in Great Britain last year came from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

www.bbc.co.uk

So electric bills will be coming down then...or?