camelot-forum.co.uk

Been following this chap for quite a while, he's quite outspoken on a range of modern day obsessions including Hydrogen as a transport fuel, but this primer from him on the "primary energy fallacy" is well worth a read

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/primary- ... tin-nty3e/

Nice to read, makes things seem a lot easier.

I'm (blindly(?)) confident that issues like transmission networks will be upgraded as needed. Solutions/storage for worst case scenarios are a tougher issue. But providing enough energy is, I believe, the simplest issue.

The UK can easily rollout enough PV, on-shore wind, and off-shore wind to individually generate the equivalent of a years worth of all-electric UK energy demand. There are simply no issues with scaling. But building the right amount in the right places, and transmitting it to where it's needed, when it's needed is far tougher.

I remember the likely perplexion when students asked about % heat loss from buildings. My reply was always 100%. I then had to explain the differences for the curriculum and the plain honest reality of what happens to all the heating, used in a house, in the winter.

Most only use the heat-loss % as a means to target the individual heat losses without considering that they always add up to a 100% (total loss).

I’m glad that the UK energy use is far better than that world piece chart!

EV haters simply don’t (want to) consider rejected heat energy.