@lfg_uk I'm not sure "AC for homes in the UK" is a policy hill I'd choose to die on, personally. Abundant clean energy, absolutely; lots of good homes, sure; AC is nice to have as a further bonus?
@lfg_uk Please consult the following tweet before making rebuttals. You may have a valid point, or it may already have been addressed!
https://t.co/88fOMp6J34
To be clear, as there were a lot of mistaken tweets doing the rounds, there is no question that several hundred million pounds have been spent on fish mitigations at Hinkley Point C. The fish disco cost £50m and the retrieval and return system cost £150m.
The first debate is over the extra large intake, which cost £500m. Some fraction of this would have been necessary either way. My guess is about £50m of it, based on the gauge compared with other cases. I could be part wrong, but not hugely.
If I’m right, then £650m of it was spent purely on fish mitigations. There is no chance that only £50m was, but perhaps only £600m was. On the other hand, maybe £675m was spent on fish.
The second question is the number of fish. There is no question that only a handful of protected fish are being saved, no one disputes this. The 0.083 salmon per year and 100 twaite and allis shad numbers are not disputed.
The ‘millions’ of fish people mention are river lampreys and similar, basically microscopic eels, of which there are trillions in the sea. They are therefore not protected and no one realistically thinks we should protect them.
Some people are muddying the waters by trying to make this unclear.
@GreatBritishTT Presumably this sort of thing gets flagged as a high priority bug, with a fix pushed in an update in the next few weeks?
I feel like this should be how it works!
@tomhfh I think an illustrative example of a taboo trade-off could be speed limits - we could drop them all to 5mph, avoid many road deaths and crash the economy, starve people etc.
Surely that would help people to think more critically on costs and benefits?!
@AISafetyMemes By "has it" do you mean "have been able to access it"? Or do you think they've been able to extract the weights? I assume access to a terminal doesn't mean much vs access to the model.
@SolarEnergyUK_ We have rooftop solar with a battery. It can make sense for a home. But the problem with grid level solar, specifically - not to get too technical here - is that it doesn't work in the winter. That's a long time! That's a lot of batteries!
@mr_james_c@FreeLeeValuers You can control how much power you supply via the inverter. You don't have to use everything the panels generate.
In the absence of a battery, I guess you'd want to vary the car charging rates carefully, providing a smooth load/source to the grid. I suspect they don't, though.
@davethepants@mr_james_c Agree; I think this is actually a good application for solar, IF you are reasonably confident of a couple of EVs charging at any one time. Surely still a net sink for the grid this way. Ideally would then provide >0 ROI...
@Christo21694168@energygovuk@RollsRoyce@GBNgovuk Say what you like about this tweet, it prompted me to discover that the UK has its own centrifuges in Cheshire and, whilst it imports natural (unenriched) uranium, the global trade is secure, with suppliers including Canada and Australia. Handy!
@lfg_uk They should publish their numbers on the scale of renewable generation and storage needed to displace gas without nuclear. From all the modelling they must have done.
They... Have those numbers, right?
@acadofideas@KathrynPorter26 Watching the video, @KathrynPorter26 makes much more nuanced points than this (referring to grid and backup source costs), so I'll aim criticism solely at the quote which makes a misleading claim out of context.
@acadofideas@KathrynPorter26 There's a point to be made here but can it be precise and intellectually honest, please?
Renewables are cheap.
The reason renewables don't make the grid cheaper is that they can't easily displace gas, so we pay the gas price. *This* the argument against renewables!