Hi Don
I certainly didn’t mean you were a troll. Far from it! I’m sorry that you took it that way.
No I meant that as I am involved with the Smart Meter programme professionally, if I engaged with the points you raised, which are fair points but certainly invite discussion, then the trolls would probably weigh in en masse afterwards.
That’s all. (By the way I did mean contentious rather than forthright.)
Best
David
Many thanks for clarifying, David.
I had (yet another) letter today from SSE saying they hadn’t heard from me following their last letter saying their Smart Meter Team were in our area and which date would suit me best to have my Smart Meter installed.
Funnily enough, I also had a phone call from them just last week making the same offer. I explained that I didn’t want a smart meter. Doesn’t look like one department talks to the other department !
The phone-call lady asked “what would help you change your mind” to which I replied “nothing” and when she asked “Why are you objecting to a smart meter ?” I felt life was too short so simply, but I hope politely, replied “I don’t think I really have to answer that question”. I thought that would be the end of the “Push”, obviously not.
Anyway, both the letter and the phone call were polite, and that counts for a lot, these days.
Smart Meters are a great way of logging when you’re on holiday so the tea leaves can visit. 
Current fires in California this year were probably started when part of the Pacific Gas & Electric equipment failed. Looks like last year’s fires likewise were started by aged and poorly maintained electricity transmission infrastructure.
Does this provide a lesson that we need to learn from in the UK as we move towards a “cleaner” more ecologically friendly source of energy and its distribution ?
Yes it does, we might be moving towards cleaner & more ecological power, but that does not mean we can take our eyes off the maintenance & replacement balls.
Considering the alleged cause of the CA fires, from what I’ve seen of power transmission infrastructure in US, it appears to me the consumption levels have increased ahead of the infrastructures load capacity.
I was in Minneapolis a few years ago & driving to the office one ‘20 below’ morning & a lot of snow, I saw a mile or more line of overhead high voltage cables with the spreader arms covered in snow & the cables steaming. Not a good sign.
Gas CCGTs produce around 50% of carbon dioxide compared with equivalent coal fired ones
One thing re electric cars often overlooked is the how they will taxed in future when they become the dominant and have replaced petrol and diesel ones. The government will need to replace fuel duty which raises billions so expect electricity used in cars to face big price rises. Enjoy the cheap electricity now it won’t last for long.
True but it is slightly better & is not the whole story.
CCGT plant will emit around 45% of CO2 compared to coal per kW/hr of power
Further reductions are made with better carbon scrubbing/capture. Natural gas also emits less NO2 & SO2.
Other emission reduction gains with gas CCGT is the plant output can be powered up & down (regulated) against demand faster than coal & will react to demand in minutes from a hot start compared to hours for coal. And that also means they no longer need cooling towers & thats a big plus for vision pollution
It is likely to be road pricing. The very low incremental cost of operation of an EV (once the capital is sunk) encourages more driving. To make decisions to drive more considered (required to combat congestion and environmental effects), a price needs to be applied.
There’s also the issue of people moving en-mass into fire-prone areas, thus requiring the electricity infrastructure in the first place. Add in relentlessly hot dry weather, and high winds, and there you go…
I simply quoted the (genuine) statistic to counter your false assertion that there are weeks in the winter with no wind. I am not an expert in wind power, I work in photovoltaics.
Diversification is the key. Distributed wind farms that have lower windspeed correlation, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear. It’s entirely possible, today, with current technology, to have a carbon-free and cost effective energy grid just anywhere in the world. It’s only the political will that is lacking. The transition has some costs, but the benefits are enormous.
‘carbon-free’ is a little optimistic - for starters, have you seen how much concrete it takes to build a nuclear power station!
Chris, very true I did read an article the other week about how much pollution is created in the manufacturing process of concrete a much lower carbon emission concrete is available but at a much higher cost therefore it does not get used.
Hi Dozey,
I didn’t dispute the genuine aspect of the statistic.
And I only suggest “a week or so” as the duration of cold, frosty, calm nights, not “weeks”
And I didn’t state that wind power output would be Zero. I had in mind (but didn’t state it) that wind generated power might be less than “normal” (if there is such a thing). Hence my post about windspeed cubed.
Anyway, I quite liked your statistic, and it certainly made the point that there is usually somewhere in the UK that can generate some electricity, virtually all of the time.
Put in enough renewables, and you maybe don’t need any new nuclear. But yeah, I was restricting the definition to fuel sources, not construction impact.
I would be interested to see that article. Can you sight it please?
Unfortunately I read on my iPad in the news section so really haven’t a clue on where to find it.
I am quite interested in this type of thing as I worked for major Construction Materials Supply Company running the company Transport Department for many years before retiring.
The main point(s) I had in mind when starting this thread was the long-term (or repeating whole-life) effects of various solutions to our future power needs.
This covers both demand for power and power production. In both cases, construction, maintenance, decommissioning needs to be considered. This includes, for example, plastic and metal in the production of vehicles, concrete and steel in wind turbines and power stations and replacement and/or decommissioning requirements. Plus a host of other factors.
Wind turbines don’t just “appear” for example, neither do nuclear power stations. Both need energy to create and at approximately 30 or 40 year intervals, to replace.
Nor do oil rigs, oil/gas/coal fired power stations and coal mines.