Doubling down on energy strategy

[Suff]

The Conservatives have long held a view that our energy needs to be split into sections to meet our commitments to Net Zero

Nuclear to form the solid bedrock of power generation. Fully 25% of the grid.
Renewables in massive proportion to mitigate the variable nature of them
Biomass to provide in-fill for very low renewables at low otput.

Gas was supposed to be the short stop from coal to renewables but it is now a real energy security issue.

The Environ"mental"ists have been shrieking about Nuclear for forever. They don't care if we have energy security and they'd rather kill us all with climate change than have Nuclear.

So now the plan includes 8 new reactors and an option to go for the RR small reactors too if needed or to exchange some of the 8 for small RR reactors.

Works for me. One of the climate forums I talk on will be howling.

[Suff]

Mind you it is a package deal.

Key points of the new energy strategy
Nuclear - The government plans to reduce the UK's reliance on oil and gas by building as many as eight new nuclear reactors, including two at Sizewell in Suffolk. A new body will oversee the delivery of the new plants.
Wind - The government aims to reform planning laws to speed up approvals for new offshore wind farms. For onshore wind farms it wants to develop partnerships with "supportive communities" who want to host turbines in exchange for guaranteed cheaper energy bills.
Hydrogen - Targets for hydrogen production are being doubled to help provide cleaner energy for industry as well as for power, transport and potentially heating.
Solar - The government will consider reforming rules for installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings to help increase the current solar capacity by up to five times by 2035.
Oil and gas - A new licensing round for North Sea projects is being launched in the summer on the basis that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than doing so abroad.
Heat pumps - There will be a £30m "heat pump investment accelerator competition" to make British heat pumps which reduce demand for gas.

If you do a bit of digging, that 5x solar means 70GW.
[edit] Increase to 100GW of offshore wind is already in train till 2030. So making it "easier" is going to mean that grows.

Yes they are justifying oil and gas. However we know that reserve is diminishing.

Hydrogen is in there too but it is fairly small.

[cromwell]

The Environ"mental"ists have been shrieking about Nuclear for forever. They don't care if we have energy security and they'd rather kill us all with climate change than have Nuclear.

That's their bad luck.
Some of that lot would happily take us back to the middle ages if they could.

[Workingman]

A "Curate's Egg" strategy for me.

Nuclear should be 40%+ with more SMR reactors, and SSH (Small Scale Hydro) should play a much bigger part than windmills.

Unfortunately we have politicians who know SFA.

[Suff]

Not sure SSH can reach the same density of these massive offshore farms. They are approaching truly huge generation from these massive turbines and also gaining more power in low times.

That being said, we need everything and SSH is low hanging fruit being totally ignored.

[Workingman]

To be clear, I am not asking for SSH to replace anything, but to supplement things.

There are hundreds of sites in the UK where 5MW can be generated and thousands more where around 1MW is available - in total quite a chunk of power. They are comparatively cheap and quick to install, and easy to maintain. A few other things in their favour are that they are "ON" 24/7 and in winter when the rivers are high and we use more electricity they produce more.

Against them are the closed minds that only see them as "small" and the lack of big and well known industrial supporters such as Siemens with wind.

[Suff]

Indeed. Vested interests not wanting simple things to replace their horrendously expensive gravy train.

Hence low hanging fruit being ignored. It was why I was saying we need it ALL. There are very few on the climate forums who agree with that but there are a few pragmatic ones.

There has been huge progress in riverside hydro which doesn't really require a large weir to drive it. Only used by enthusiasts. Very frustrating.

[Workingman]

There is one near me in Otley which uses the goit that used to drive the water wheel from the old 19th century mill. It provides enough power for the 260 new homes now built on the site. There are two others on a four mile stretch upstream and between them they create 3.4 MWh annually. Another is planned for Pool in Wharfedale.

The above are all single or twin screw schemes built to the side of existing weirs with low heads.

... we need it ALL. There are very few on the climate forums who agree with that...

And there is the problem - tunnel vision. Wind and solar have been rammed down our throats for so long and so often that the general public cannot see past them - I include MPs and government advisors in there. My MP is one such animal - a windmill zealot. Everything else - hydro, tidal, geothermal - is overlooked or dismissed. It is almost criminal, but it is where we are.

[Suff]

A bit like the discussion I'm in right now elsewhere. The whole "we don't need nuclear power stations, insulation will net us far more savings over the next 20 years". When I ask what they will be powering their EV with in 20 years if they don't transition the power grid to CO2 neutral, it is completely blanked and they just carry on wittering on about how Insulation is our saviour.

When I also say that people can bear the cost of insulation, especially double glazing, I am told that huge apartment blocks can't do that. Ignoring the fact that the UK is not Europe where over 80% of people live in apartment blocks. Never mind the fact that ordinary people can't do CO2 neutral energy projects. That is also completely blanked.

Blind leading the blind. And our politicians are, generally, equally blind.