Agree with recommendations on focusing on cheap power and accepting Chinese tech but not ownership. Which clean techs should we try to compete on? And how do we decide? Still part of EU, the UK could’ve been a part of a continent-wide, all-of-the-above approach, but on its own it’s hard to see where is best to focus, given vital interdependencies between industrial and manufacturing sectors.
Will be touching on this later in the series but I think the answer is nuclear. I don't think anyone thinks China should be building our nuclear any more. We have a potentially brilliant company in Rolls Royce SMR already. This doesn't mean excluding foreign suppliers (that isn't what China did) as they help build supply chains but it does mean actually building a lot- if you don't build you can't build a supply chain.
It is a fallacy to think that we can decarbonise using renewable generation, hydrogen and so on. Not only is it eye wateringly expensive to try, it will fail as that technology is not suitable, practically or technically.
We should go back to basics and ensure that there is a valid reason to even de carbonise when the evidence that it is the major cause of climate change is so weak and there is so much other scientific evidence that does not support that hypothesis.
The West totally rely on the U.N.'s IPCC for this thinking. Further the IPCC issues 'Guidance for policy makers' by their political section but their own Assessment Reports do not support that. Governments tend not to read scientific papers which the ARs are.
Why rely on one entity for information when there are many other sources to compare, you would not accept a tender for work without putting it to several contractors to get the best.
This is great — looking forward to the rest of the series.
Agree with recommendations on focusing on cheap power and accepting Chinese tech but not ownership. Which clean techs should we try to compete on? And how do we decide? Still part of EU, the UK could’ve been a part of a continent-wide, all-of-the-above approach, but on its own it’s hard to see where is best to focus, given vital interdependencies between industrial and manufacturing sectors.
Will be touching on this later in the series but I think the answer is nuclear. I don't think anyone thinks China should be building our nuclear any more. We have a potentially brilliant company in Rolls Royce SMR already. This doesn't mean excluding foreign suppliers (that isn't what China did) as they help build supply chains but it does mean actually building a lot- if you don't build you can't build a supply chain.
It is a fallacy to think that we can decarbonise using renewable generation, hydrogen and so on. Not only is it eye wateringly expensive to try, it will fail as that technology is not suitable, practically or technically.
We should go back to basics and ensure that there is a valid reason to even de carbonise when the evidence that it is the major cause of climate change is so weak and there is so much other scientific evidence that does not support that hypothesis.
The West totally rely on the U.N.'s IPCC for this thinking. Further the IPCC issues 'Guidance for policy makers' by their political section but their own Assessment Reports do not support that. Governments tend not to read scientific papers which the ARs are.
Why rely on one entity for information when there are many other sources to compare, you would not accept a tender for work without putting it to several contractors to get the best.
Are you saying we shouldn’t decarbonise because it isn’t necessary or it’s too expensive? Or both? Or neither?