What the international energy agency has planned for us all.....

[spike.t]

Looks like a real mess.....

BBC News - Climate change: Ban all gas boilers from 2025 to reach net-zero

Climate change: Ban new gas boilers from 2025 to reach net-zero

A ban on new gas boilers from 2025 is one step to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, say energy experts.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ike85123]

2 years ago or so cali said no diesel trucks allowed after 2040. But no other states said that. It will be hard to enforce while still producing petroleum burning vehicles.
I see it being a far off law?

 

[spike.t]

Who knows with the dipshits that are running the show everywhere......

 

[PerH]

In China and India ? If not so its no point in it at all.

 

[Newboomer]

A real fantasy. There is no way to fulfill it in the timeframe they are proposing. They don't say where the resources to build all these new solar and wind farms are coming from. Manufacturing will not be able to produce all the needed components for all the "clean machines" to supply the entire world. About the only feasible solution is nuclear energy. Every kind of motor, engine and appliance can be run on nuclear power. If it can be done with ships, it can be done with anything else. The big problem is convincing big oil and all the energy companies. They are not going to readily give up their gold mine for some half witted greenie scheme.

 

[Tanks]

No industrial nation is going to do that and be uncompetitive in the global market place. I can see about changing to electric vehicles when recharging is just as fast as filling up the gas tank. I travel too far and too often to make it work with the current technology.

You want to minimize emissions? Then allow nuclear power and natural gas plants with carbon capture technology as mentioned by some.

 

[NE 7x57]

A real fantasy. There is no way to fulfill it in the timeframe they are proposing. They don't say where the resources to build all these new solar and wind farms are coming from. Manufacturing will not be able to produce all the needed components for all the "clean machines" to supply the entire world. About the only feasible solution is nuclear energy. Every kind of motor, engine and appliance can be run on nuclear power. If it can be done with ships, it can be done with anything else. The big problem is convincing big oil and all the energy companies. They are not going to readily give up their gold mine for some half witted greenie scheme.

I don't think the oil companies are the problem when it comes to nuclear power, the greenie culture is. For many environmentalist groups using nuclear power to just produce electricity is verboden, to actually power anything else would give them complete heart failure.

There's no way they'll reach their lofty "sustainable energy" goals with wind and solar unless there is some kind of huge breakthrough in battery technology. Both of those sources aren't constant, there's night and there are wind free days so there always has to be some type of back up power facility.

Additionally it's sad that the people so concerned about the environment have no problem with slapping up some 300 foot tall wind turbines on pristine landscapes or cover many square miles with solar farms.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I don't think the oil companies are the problem when it comes to nuclear power, the greenie culture is. For many environmentalist groups using nuclear power to just produce electricity is verboden, to actually power anything else would give them complete heart failure.

There's no way they'll reach their lofty "sustainable energy" goals with wind and solar unless there is some kind of huge breakthrough in battery technology. Both of those sources aren't constant, there's night and there are wind free days so there always has to be some type of back up power facility.

Additionally it's sad that the people so concerned about the environment have no problem with slapping up some 300 foot tall wind turbines on pristine landscapes or cover many square miles with solar farms.

There are two problems for nuclear. The first is too many remember Three Mile Island and the far worse situation at Chernobyl and are convinced they will surely die. You also have the more recent issue with the Fukushima plant. All of these incidents were avoidable, but you can't convince enough people of that.

The second problem is what to do with the spent fuel when it's time to refuel the reactors. No one wants it, but it is another challenge that I'm convinced could be met.

 

[BourbonTrail]

+1 on Nuclear power improvements.

It always cracks me up that “they” want to use supposedly green technology that requires absurd amount of petroleum products and industrial chemicals to manufacture (i.e., batteries, solar panels, wind turbines) especially where the only place economical enough to do it is China. The world’s pollution generator.

Until people consider the entire supply/manufacturing chain, we will never make substantive headway in energy overhaul. It’s all virtue signaling until then...

 

[Rubberhead]

It doesn't take an expert to say quit burning natural gas...it does take an expert to say how we're going to replace that energy...

 

[rinehart0050]

There are two problems for nuclear. The first is too many remember Three Mile Island and the far worse situation at Chernobyl and are convinced they will surely die. You also have the more recent issue with the Fukushima plant. All of these incidents were avoidable, but you can't convince enough people of that.

The second problem is what to do with the spent fuel when it's time to refuel the reactors. No one wants it, but it is another challenge that I'm convinced could be met.

Seems to me that an easy fix for nuclear waste is the rapidly decreasing cost of rockets/space travel with companies like Space X and thier reusable rockets. Just load up a payload full of nuclear waste, launch it at the sun, and you're good to go. And your rocket can come back to earth for the next load.

 

[flatwater bill]

Both France and Chile raised fuel/transportation costs very slightly to reduce greenhouse emissions. The young people that demanded change....the very ones that demanded the elimination of fossil fuels, rioted in both countries, causing tremendous infrastructure damage.............and millions of liters of diesel fuel were required to clean up the mess. They want YOU to give up fossil fuels......as long as THEY give up nothing. When these changes impact the greenies, we will see a different attitude................FWB

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Seems to me that an easy fix for nuclear waste is the rapidly decreasing cost of rockets/space travel with companies like Space X and thier reusable rockets. Just load up a payload full of nuclear waste, launch it at the sun, and you're good to go. And your rocket can come back to earth for the next load.

If you could be 100% certain that the rocket doesn't blow up on launch or that the container of the waste would maintain it's integrity in such a situation, yes, not a bad idea.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Seems to me that an easy fix for nuclear waste is the rapidly decreasing cost of rockets/space travel with companies like Space X and thier reusable rockets. Just load up a payload full of nuclear waste, launch it at the sun, and you're good to go. And your rocket can come back to earth for the next load.

The spent nuclear fuel rods should be sent to the new Chinese space station. They can warehouse them there and the UN can pay them in Bitcoin for their services.

 

[Newboomer]

I wonder how many of those idiots will give up their fossil fueled appliances, fancy cars, homes, etc. It's do as I say, not do as I do. Makes about as much sense as all those twits flying to the conferences and spewing out more pollution than the rest of the world combined..

 

[fourfive8]

+1 on Nuclear power improvements.

It always cracks me up that “they” want to use supposedly green technology that requires absurd amount of petroleum products and industrial chemicals to manufacture (i.e., batteries, solar panels, wind turbines) especially where the only place economical enough to do it is China. The world’s pollution generator.

Until people consider the entire supply/manufacturing chain, we will never make substantive headway in energy overhaul. It’s all virtue signaling until then...

Yes, exactly!!! and you can double the overall environmental footprint when it comes time to dispose of the crap- the batteries, panels, electronics, carbon fiber laced turbine parts, etc., the machinery of the "green" movement! Little wonder companies like "big green", aka Waste Management, are so pro-green energy- they know they'll get the fat gov contracts for the cleanup.

 

[rinehart0050]

If you could be 100% certain that the rocket doesn't blow up on launch or that the container of the waste would maintain it's integrity in such a situation, yes, not a bad idea.

Good point Phil. Most rockets are launched on the coast, with trajectories that take them over the oceans just in case something happens.

 

[Newboomer]

I would venture a guess that there is enough energy left in the spent fuel rods to power plenty of small items like home appliances, autos, etc.

 

[Goose Cracker]

There are two problems for nuclear. The first is too many remember Three Mile Island and the far worse situation at Chernobyl and are convinced they will surely die. You also have the more recent issue with the Fukushima plant. All of these incidents were avoidable, but you can't convince enough people of that.

The second problem is what to do with the spent fuel when it's time to refuel the reactors. No one wants it, but it is another challenge that I'm convinced could be met.

You are spot on, of course. But how many folks died at the Three Mile Island "disaster"?

BTW, from the DOE:

5. Used fuel can be recycled​

That’s right!
Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle used nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on used nuclear fuel in the future.
Learn more about our work with spent nuclear fuel.

Nuclear is the only way forward, imho. if those advanced reactor designs come to fruition, game changer!

 

[ActionBob]

I don't think the oil companies are the problem when it comes to nuclear power, the greenie culture is. For many environmentalist groups using nuclear power to just produce electricity is verboden, to actually power anything else would give them complete heart failure.

There's no way they'll reach their lofty "sustainable energy" goals with wind and solar unless there is some kind of huge breakthrough in battery technology. Both of those sources aren't constant, there's night and there are wind free days so there always has to be some type of back up power facility.

Additionally it's sad that the people so concerned about the environment have no problem with slapping up some 300 foot tall wind turbines on pristine landscapes or cover many square miles with solar farms.

I've allready lost at least 30 acres of good rented farm ground to solar in Minnesota. Fine if they build them in the desert. But first off, what sense does it make to build them in the land of short winter days and cloudy skys? Second, where is the food going to come from after you convert the farm land to solar farms?

These things are being built based on government subsidies, not good business nor environmental models.