Thread by @7Kiwi

UK’s energy policy is failing: high costs, low reliability & environmental harm. A physics-first approach - focusing on EROEI, reliability, environmental footprint, security & cost—can save us. Why we need to ditch renewables ideology & embrace nuclear, gas, and hydro. (1/17)

Ed Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 plan relies on wind and solar, cutting gas to 5% and virtually ignoring nuclear. Result? UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Net Zero’s low-energy future risks economic stagnation. (2/17)

A physics-first energy policy prioritizes:
- High Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)
- Reliability and flexibility
- Small environmental footprint
- Energy security
- Low total system cost

Let’s break it down. (3/17)

EROEI measures energy output vs. input. Low EROEI (like wind/solar) means society spends more effort gathering energy, leaving less for growth. The Net Energy Cliff shows low EROEI risks societal collapse (4/17)

Weissbach’s study shows nuclear and gas have high EROEI, while solar, wind, and biomass are low. Biomass EROEI is ~2, and with carbon capture, it’s <1 - a net energy sink! Physics-first excludes low-EROEI sources. (5/17)

Modern economies need reliable, flexible power. Nuclear is steady but inflexible. Gas and hydro can adjust to demand. Wind and solar depend on weather, uncorrelated with need. Physics-first demands reliable sources. (6/17)

CO2 isn’t the only metric. Wind and solar need vast land, minerals, and new transmission lines. Mining for cobalt (wind) and solar panel production often harm the environment. Physics-first considers the full footprint. (7/17)

Geopolitics matters. BRICS nations control much of global oil/gas. Relying on interconnectors or North African solar is risky. UK must maximize domestic gas and oil to avoid dependence on hostile regimes. (8/17)

Cheap energy drives prosperity. Renewables’ “low cost” ignores subsidies, grid balancing, and new infrastructure. Even Hinkley Point C nuclear is cheaper than new wind/solar in AR6. Orsted’s Hornsea 4 cancellation proves wind’s true cost. (9/17)

Going through the options:
Burning trees at Drax has an EROEI of ~2, emits particulates, and needs vast land. It’s only “green” because we ignore CO2, assuming trees regrow in decades. Keep Drax running for now, but replace it with better options. (10/17)

Solar PV has low EROEI, needs lots of land, and produces least when demand is highest (winter evenings). UK ranks 2nd worst globally for solar. Chinese-made panels often use coal and slave labour. End subsidies for grid-scale solar! (11/17)

Offshore wind is intermittent & costly with low EROEI. It relies on cobalt (child labour in Congo) and Chinese rare earths. Buffering with batteries or hydrogen worsens EROEI. Wind has no place in a physics-first policy. (12/17)

UK’s 4.7GW of hydro (including 2.8GW pumped storage) has high EROEI and reliability. Pumped storage balances the grid. Expansion is limited by geography, but it’s a keeper for physics-first. (13/17)

Gas has high EROEI, low emissions vs. coal, and UK has offshore NOrth Sea & onshore shale resources. Coal’s high EROEI and UK’s 77m tonnes of reserves make it viable with modern scrubbing tech. Both likely needed until nuclear scales up. (14/17)

Nuclear offers zero emissions, high EROEI, low mineral use, and reliable power for decades. Five-eyes allies ensure fuel security. Overregulation must be fixed to cut costs and build times. Nuclear + gas + hydro = physics-first. (15/17)

UK’s focus on wind and solar is a dead end: low EROEI, unreliable, and unsustainable. A physics-first policy needs nuclear, gas, and hydro to deliver cheap, secure, reliable energy. Reform nuclear regs and boost domestic hydrocarbons to avoid economic ruin. (16/17)

If you enjoyed this thread, please like and share. You can sign up for free to read the full article on the link below. (17/17).
open.substack.com/pub/davidturve…

Hi @threadreaderapp unroll please.