The Lemon Fool

This was published recently, I don't know if any of you have had a look through it but it could be interesting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-beis.pdf

I haven't looked through it in detail but I have noticed that the Government seem to think there is a place for Nuclear and Hydrogen energy.

WickedLester wrote:This was published recently, I don't know if any of you have had a look through it but it could be interesting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-beis.pdf

I haven't looked through it in detail but I have noticed that the Government seem to think there is a place for Nuclear and Hydrogen energy.

[pedant mode] No such thing as "Hydrogen energy"! [/pedant mode] (Unless they mean "Fusion energy", which I assume they don't)

WickedLester wrote:This was published recently, I don't know if any of you have had a look through it but it could be interesting. I haven't looked through it in detail but I have noticed that the Government seem to think there is a place for Nuclear and Hydrogen energy.

I did read it. ITM Power seemed a likely hydrogen punt, the SP went up nicely post-COP but has now fallen again. Perhaps making them an even better punt. Starmer has heard of them... https://www.h2-view.com/story/keir-starmer-visits-itm-power/
Hydrogen will be wanted for powering heavy users with a small operating radius. Bus fleets, dustcarts. Long-distance? Not so sure.

Also wanted for feeding into the gas network where up to 20% can be blended with natural gas without any change in existing boilers or blowing up the users due to inevitable leakage.
There is puffery around the notion of 100% hydrogen, conveniently ignoring the need to replace all the pipework in householders' homes https://www.theengineer.co.uk/converting-the-gas-network-to-hydrogen/
Hydrogen+hot air+politicians = nothing investible, imho.

V8

This article is worth a read if you've got nothing better to do before your roast.

https://news.sky.com/story/net-zero-tar ... s-12520837

Net zero targets could cause more unrest and division than Brexit, Tory MP warns

WickedLester wrote:
Net zero targets could cause more unrest and division than Brexit, Tory MP warns

I think that Steve Baker is an MP who genuinely tries to put across a realistic and pragmatic view on where this country (whole of UK) is going.

Puts on tin hat.

scotview wrote:I think that Steve Baker is an MP who genuinely tries to put across a realistic and pragmatic view on where this country (whole of UK) is going.

In this case, yes.
People vaguely approve of a 'green' agenda, so long as it causes them not the slightest inconvenience or expense.
We shall soon see an example of this as the 'green' levies are removed from electricity bills and hidden in general taxation.

V8

scotview wrote:

WickedLester wrote:
Net zero targets could cause more unrest and division than Brexit, Tory MP warns

I think that Steve Baker is an MP who genuinely tries to put across a realistic and pragmatic view on where this country (whole of UK) is going.

Puts on tin hat.

This Steve Baker - https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status ... 9418510342

"Politicians need to level with the public about the scale of change needed in our lives so we don’t have another political fiasco like Brexit"

It seems clear that the Govt certainly has zero strategy (not sure it's worth speculating about whether that's net or gross)

WickedLester wrote:This was published recently, I don't know if any of you have had a look through it but it could be interesting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-beis.pdf

I haven't looked through it in detail but I have noticed that the Government seem to think there is a place for Nuclear and Hydrogen energy.

The hydrogen strategyreleased last year goes into more detail on that.

The thing with hydrogen is that there are certain big applications, mostly in the chemical industry, fertilisers etc where hydrogen is the only real option to replace methane, but they tend to have the advantage of being single large sites where you don't need much infrastructure outside the site itself.

Then there's a whole lot of other uses where you have a choice between hydrogen, batteries etc, which tend to be smaller and more distributed. Those applications that just rely on hydrogen as "energy" (rather than as a chemical reagent) will always be at a disadvantage because of the lower efficiency of converting energy to hydrogen and converting it back, you lose 40+% of your energy. And it needs a whole new infrastructure, whereas you just need incremental additions to the electricity network. Plus the chemical industry is likely to need so much energy that it will hoover up most of the available hydrogen.

So I'm a bit sceptical about hydrogen outside the chemicals industry and a few niche uses in transport.

The big problem with nuclear is just the cost of doing it to Western safety standards, the likes of Hinkley Point look like they will produce electricity at a considerably higher cost than renewables + storage.