Well, it is nice to be free again, though as I said on release, I shall never really feel free while Julian is still imprisoned and while Scotland is still part of an imperialist United Kingdom. I expect most of you have seen my release, but for those who have not:
The support of readers of this blog was particularly important to maintaining my mental health while in jail. Well over 2,000 people wrote to me in prison by post or by the peculiar prisoner email service (emails were printed out and given to me – I then hand-wrote replies which were scanned and sent by the jail). I read every word sent to me, and was very grateful for the books, magazines, poetry and the stories of people’s lives. It was companionship.
It also gave me much more of a feel for the community who read this blog, which truly is worldwide. I particularly treasured all those who wrote to say that they sometimes – or even generally – disagree with what I write, but enjoy the intellectual exercise and supply of under-reported facts and independent opinion. Because as regular readers know, it has always been my intention to activate thought and to inform; never to cultivate unthinking support. That seems to have succeeded splendidly well, as people sent me reams of argument on what they feel I am wrong about; which I much enjoyed.
I shall write about prison and the justice system in the coming days and weeks. I learnt a very great deal. But today as I get my own writing muscles working again, I thought I would give you my overview on COP26.
If Glasgow 2021 is remembered at all, it will be as the moment when big finance came to the party. Politicians and those who control them now largely accept that the public demand mitigation of climate change, and that this will perforce alter some of the ways that big money makes money. Glasgow 21 was rather more sinister than blah blah blah – it was the formal endorsement of the view that public endeavour is not the solution to climate change, rather the answer lies in “trillions of dollars” of private investment from banks and private equity which, Johnson announced, is all ready to go.
Johnson told us that governments can mobilise billions, while the private sector can mobilise trillions, as though that money was not created by government in the first instance. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero provides an answer to the question “What does a representative sample of evil people responsible for despoiling the planet look like?” We receive assurances like this:
Already, a fundamental shift in capital is accelerating as the world’s largest asset owners and managers, controlling over USD$30 trillion, join the UN-backed Race to Zero campaign.
No “respectable” media or body is going to question the taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and above all taxpayer guaranteed returns the big financial sharks are going to get – because it is all to combat climate change. This is an even bigger spree in the offing for the fatcats than the banker bailouts that led to the decade of austerity. In order to ensure the private sector money rolls in, you and I will be meeting R & D costs and then picking up any losses: the wealthy will be hoovering up the profits.
They also need to keep consumers consuming. There is no government interest in distributed power generation solutions.
Consider this. If you insulated every home in the country, and put solar panels on every roof, non-local energy usage would be greatly reduced and people’s energy bills would fall. But insulating homes, especially older ones, is much more labour intensive than it is capital intensive. It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But material costs are comparatively small, and then after insulation consumers will not be paying big energy bills. This is not in the least a fatcat friendly policy.
But what if you leave homes pumping heat into the atmosphere, forget local generation and instead build a new network of nuclear power stations? There is nothing more conducive to the concentration of economic and social power than the nuclear industry, with its inextricable links to the security state. Electricity can still be sold to the helots, whose self-sufficiency and freedom will in no way be enhanced.
Nobody should be surprised the government is showing much more interest in nuclear power than in home insulation or domestic solar panels.
Similarly expect to see much government support given to “blue hydrogen”, which liberates more CO2 from natural gas than does burning the gas in a power station. It employs fossil fuel and the promises to continue the economic centralisation of the current energy market, so is very attractive to the ruling classes. Green hydrogen, however, requires wind turbines (or potentially solar power in Africa) and water, and is therefore potentially susceptible to production by large communities rather than by oil giants.
Nuclear power, blue hydrogen – expect to have these and other high centralisation, high energy schemes foisted on us now as “solutions.” They are in fact solutions, in this sense. In Glasgow the people were shut out while the global super-wealthy asked themselves this vital question:
“The planet is heading for environmental destruction: how do we make money out of that?”
They believe they have found some of the answers.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I am so pleased you are returned to your family from an incarceration that any fair-minded person would struggle to agree with those responsible for sentencing you. I would like to see an update on Mr Assange’s position and where he now stands with regards to the extradition appeal from the American authorities. I’m sure you will attend to this in due course, but for the moment, it’s good to know you are now free.
Great to read your voice again Mr Ambassador!
Looking forward to an advent calendar full 🙂
On COPS
How many extra plane flights – 400, 500, 600? Eve Bozo took a couple not be left out. Went rushing back to have dinner with a husband climate denialists of the Torygraph…
I didn’t seen any MSM reports of per capita emissions current or historical – just about a system of carrying on as usual and planting some trees somewhere far away from where the products of CO2 are being consumed.
A cake and eat it scenario.
A whole new financial industry to take control of the remaining resources of the planet from those who still live there in the name of ‘saving the planet’. Whilst blaming the emerging and more populous nations and demand they keep it under control.
I didn’t need to see anymore than the likes of Zak Goldsmith jumping around like Tigger ecstatic at the multi billions contracts that will be flowing and the rollcall of world robber barons all cockahoop – Head of Shell, Head of Blackrock even little critta doing her happy bit for stuffing our climate change!
And what about the super duper new greens of the Scottish Gov with their flashy new ministerial titles? Did either of them or NS even feature?
Fortunately there are real thinkers inventors engineers that are working independently on ideas and nations which will actually do something about it.
Craig wrote:
“There is nothing more conducive to the concentration of economic and social power than the nuclear industry, with its inextricable links to the security state.”
No matter how ‘small’ or ‘modular’ the reactors, certain aspects of nuclear power will always remain highly centralised – uranium mining, uranium enrichment, fuel element fabrication, reprocessing and spent fuel disposal.
Regarding mining, there isn’t really that much ‘conventional’, easily accessible uranium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power&oldid=1058617612#Uranium_resources
– As of 2011 the world’s known resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of US$130/kg, were enough to last for between 70 and 100 years [63][64][65]. In 2007, the OECD estimated 670 years of economically recoverable uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ores assuming the then-current use rate [66].
63 – “Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power” (PDF). A Policy Brief – Challenges Facing Asia. January 2011.
64 – “Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future”. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). 2008-06-03.
65 – Uranium 2007 – Resources, Production and Demand. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. ISBN 978-92-64-04766-2.
66 – “Energy Supply” (PDF). p. 271, IPCC.
Of course if nuclear is expanded by a factor of, say, ten, these come down to 7, 10 and 67 years respectively. A factor of ten is conservative when you consider the three quarters of the world that currently uses a fraction of total global energy generation. We would soon end up in a death spiral of extracting ever poorer uranium, with proportionally greater ecological destruction from mining, just as we are now in the death spiral of fossil fuels:
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/10/20/oil-system-collapsing-so-fast-it-may-derail-renewables-warn-french-government-scientists/
Welcome back. You’ve been missed hugely.
Welcome home my good friend, nice to see you back, I’m very happy about that. I hope that after months of injustice in prison you will now feel better and be ready to give your thoughts and analyzes on what is happening on this nightmarish island known as the Disunited Kingdom, in any case I am glad that you are returning from hell and saw again light of day and use it to hear what you will write next and reading about your exposing the manipulations and crimes of the establishment that harmed you and tried to destroy your soul, so stay cool and and don’t let the scumbags deceive you and fool you again
With respect, Grand Wazoo, and while I agree with your sentiments, which scumbags “fooled” Craig Murray?
I saw a brave man confronting some very powerful and wicked enemies of the people.
I saw a man who understood the possible consequences of what he was doing, and was prepared to risk his freedom in order to share the truth.
I saw honesty, bravery and determination, but no foolishness at all.
Hi Craig glad you are out of prison. Can’t imagine how rotten it is to be deprived of your freedom. Although I don’t have to imagine that for my country, Scotland.
Reading your Murder in Samarkand book at present. The front cover is different from the picture on your blog. Any particular reason for the change?
It’s looking like when Salmond and Sturgeon stood together behind that poster/ placard that said A Once in a Generation Opportunity back in 2014 Salmond was thinking “we may only get one shot at our freedom” and Sturgeon was thinking “I’ll make sure this is the first and last time this happens.”
Awra best for the rest of your life. Hopefully no more trials where you personally are in the dock.
Welcome home Craig. Your speech was marvellous. Thank you for existing. Stay healthy and strong. Keep blogging as long as you can.
All the best from an admirer.
Good to see you out, and back in the fray too.
Missed your commentary on the surreal goings on these past few months but your health is the most important thing 🙂
Craig wrote:
“If you insulated every home in the country, and put solar panels on every roof, non-local energy usage would be greatly reduced and people’s energy bills would fall. But insulating homes, especially older ones, is much more labour intensive than it is capital intensive. It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But material costs are comparatively small, and then after insulation consumers people will not be paying big energy bills. This is not in the least a fatcat friendly policy.”
That could explain why the judiciary are giving such long sentences to Insulate Britain activists, and the media are working so hard to vilify them:
https://www.insulatebritain.com/
– Each year in the UK, hundreds of thousands of families are forced to choose between heating or eating, cold children or hungry children, and many 1000s die because they are too cold.
– Insulating the homes of Britain will save lives and provide warm homes while pound for pound making the most effective contribution to reducing carbon and providing meaningful jobs. Insulating Britain is the levelling up agenda writ large.
Read Insulate Britain in their own words:
https://twitter.com/InsulateLove/status/1467896781002485761
The very first step to address climate change should be to insulate all heated buildings as much as possible. True, the UK has had some schemes for awhile. However some loft insulation and wall cavity insulation is not enough. Cheap and economical, but we need to go much further.
It is quite a mystery to any thinking person why more hasn’t been done. Heat pumps are not going to work well enough without seriously well insulated homes.
Welcome back Craig. You are one Brave Warrior for Truth. And as you say.. Now we need to get Julian back to Stella and the boys.
It was a great Freedom speech, full of Humanity for other souls.
Build back slowly.. At first.
Welcome back, Mr. Murray, in absentia lucis, Tenebrae vincunt, but please be careful, they will haunt you again,.
Wouldn’t it be good to see all politicians serve a prison sentence? Very educational. Good to see you again Craig. I am sorry that you and not they were manacled.
Welcome home, Craig, welcome home. I am not really a whisky drinker, as my gullet isn’t quite up to it, but I will make an exception and take a dram of some Oban malt in the sideboard. Obviously the food was more than sufficient, and the exercise very much lacking, so do now look after yourself; Nadira will need to take you seriously in hand. Too many good socialists die too young, and you’ve got a lot to do!!
I hope you got my letter from New Zealand, I was delighted to hear you’d received so much correspondence and support, it will undoubtedly been a tremendous boost to your morale. And there’s no doubt an experience like this, as it did for some other great people, for instance Mandela, Gandhi, Russell, (not forgetting Assange and we ardently hope for his release) will make you a much more powerful figure for change, with the experience and a serious moral authority to back it. A few prisoners grow in stature for their experience, you’ll be one of them. But as you so eloquently said in your address to the crowd, so many don’t, and that’s something that Scotland, and many other countries, should be, but aren’t, ashamed of. The imprisonment rate in Scotland is marginally higher than in England, at 133/100k, but higher than most of Europe by quite a long way, though Russia and the Baltic states are higher, and in the Western world the USA is by a long way the highest, at over 600/100k You have to check in comparing figures if the comparison is for the total population or adult population. So you’re not quite right in suggesting that Scottish figures are the worst in the West, they’re not really significantly different from the rest of the UK; the US and some other European nations substantially exceed them. One nation whose prison population is much higher is New Zealand, a “western” country”; the rate here is 188/100k. Lots of folk overseas have a somewhat idealised idea of this supposedly peaceful, beautiful and ever-so-nice country, but there is a very strong reactive and retributive part of the population (redneckism) to whom politicians who might be embarrassed by such figures remain far too accommodative to.
In regard to COP 26. Yes, a failure in all but name. It’s helpful to illustrate the problem with a specific example of national and corporate misbehaviour. Why not look at New Zealand? Under a previous National administration the corporate sector seriously cheated our Kyoto promises, with government acquiescence, by purchasing fraudulent carbon credits from countries like Ukraine and Russia, and the government gave away free credits to some of our worst polluters (they won’t be free to the taxpayer, it’s a another form of fossil fuel subsidy which will not even expire by 2050) and we’ve not dealt at all in any way to our methane emissions (about half our total carbon equivalent emissions) and transport emissions continue to rise. Our emissions are nearly 60% higher than they were in 1990. Our Green Party co-leader, Minister (out of Cabinet) for ClimateChange, name James Shaw. went to COP26 with supposedly improved promises, but these were fake. A promise of a 50% reduction by 2030 was in reality, because of cynical creative accounting, more like 22%, and even then fully two thirds of this reduction was to met by, guess it, purchase of overseas credits! You’d be hard pressed to ever think a moral government could so misbehave. He should have resigned instead of taking this worthless deal to COP26. Now this is a country the size of the UK, with just five million people. We have excellent hydro resources (nearly fully utilised though) but great solar and wind resources and some further geothermal resources to tap. But in NZ solar and wind are given no subsidies, solar in particular barely used, and the electricity system is a cosy and corrupt cartel (privatised in the 1990s) It’s pretty simple, if this generally politically and economically benign country, with all its natural advantages, cannot or will not commit to urgent, true and sufficient global warming emissions reductions then there really is no hope for any of us.
Craig, you lay out your table for a banquet with an enticing menu.
Your starter is for Julian, your entreé is to promise to summarise your prison experience. But the main course for today is Cop 26…… Please sir, can I have some more.
When you say “No “respectable” media or body is going to question the taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and above all taxpayer guaranteed returns the big financial sharks are going to get”….. you hit the nail on the head.
Blah, blah, blah, is a huge global racket, way more lucrative than the war industries wildest expectations. Major Smedley D. General Butler is saluting the new age racketeers.
The proposals to date will make the poor, destitute. NetZero for most will represent the money in their pocket after fuel bills have been paid.
Can I urge you and others here, to sign and circulate this Parliamentary Petition calling for a national debate on the NetZero plans for 2050.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
I still urge you to forget this blog for now and bugger off somewhere secret with your family.
Love from all at Digger Mansions…_
I am utterly apoplectic at how the Scottish government, Crown and privatised prison service treated CM! 22 hours a day locked up! As a civil prisoner! With severe health issues.
https://thedissenter.org/exclusive-whistleblower-craig-murray-experience-scottish-prison/
It’s a major miracle he didn’t pick up Covid.
If there was ever a cruel and unusual punishment, especially applying to the only non-
criminal prisoner out of its whole population – this is it.
The Scottish Press, TV and radio should be syndicating that article as should any honest newspaper in Europe and the whole world.
We will hear more about AungSangs incarceration by her Generals than we ever will of the Scottish Junta government’s of CM and its prisoners for profit.
DiggerUK, the petition you linked to was started by Niall Warry, who apparently endorses denial of greenhouse heating:
https://twitter.com/NiallWarry
This is either delusional, or genocidally dishonest. And your link does not call for a national debate; it calls for a referendum. I assume your objective is to abandon reduction of emissions, and must therefore be either founded upon delusion, or genocidally reckless.
I too object to the corporate and political abuse of the climate and ecological emergency, but you’ll serve only ignorance, suffering, loss and death if you deny the facts and misrepresent the science, as Niall Warry does.
Good to see you are back in action Craig so soon after your release and you’re looking healthy as well.
Delighted you are free, Craig and once again able to express yourself. Your uncompromising vision is desperately needed, more-so than ever.
Brilliant to have you back. Really looking forward to reading your observations on the carceral state, certain to mushroom in years ahead under neoliberal authoritarians north and south.
Creating lots of jobs is a reason why the fascist pigs who run the country won’t do it.
Great to see you’re back in ‘business’ already!
Tidal power.
Oh Craig!
Can’t tell you how pleased I am to see you back. So much love and respect for you, truly a kind man
Peace and have a good Christmas my friend
“Politicians and those who control them now largely accept that the public demand mitigation of climate change” or the controllers have funded enough astroturf groups to make it seem that the public demand mitigation.
If you are on the same side as the government’s propaganda outfit (the BBC) then you are probably on the wrong side. The controllers are the drivers behind “climate change” and there is plenty of science which suggests this is just another rod to beat us with.
Rot. The Arctic is melting away; Bangladesh, Florida and many islands are disappearing under rising sea level; heatwaves, wildfires and storms are increasing in frequency and severity; increased atmospheric CO2 is acidifying the oceans and half the Great Barrier Reef has already died.
You have a choice: believe the controllers’ propaganda or research more widely. Things are so serious, that Pelosi has bought a beachfront property. Have a look at early 1900’s storms and heatwaves for a true comparison. Also ask yourself why environmentalists have been found guilty of setting wildfires. Or why have clilmate units been found guilty of falsifying data.
– “Pelosi has bought a beachfront property… ask yourself why environmentalists have been found guilty of setting wildfires… clilmate units been found guilty of falsifying data…”
Is this tittle-tattle what you take for evidence when there’s wholesale investment in the new shipping routes where for millions of years there was ice? When dozens of aircraft crew fly over this receding Arctic every day? When anyone can download multiple countries’ satellite data? When almost the entire fields of climate and environmental science are yelling from the rooftops, and all the major scientific institutions in the world, and all the scientific journals and all the universities, and the vast majority of all scientists agree that we’re in danger?
Well now, that would be a Grand Conspiracy!
My evidence is tittle-tattle while yours is “impressive”. You are having a laugh. research for yourself and go back mnore than thirty years.
Here, as we mentioned ice, a starter https://realclimatescience.com/2017/12/dmi-1991-arctic-ice-thickening-since-the-1940s/
You linked to Tony Heller AKA “Steven Goddard” rather than any university, scientific institution or journal.
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/
– “Make no mistake about it, global warming is the biggest scientific fraud in history.”
– “Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science.”
– “The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.”
– “There is no global warming crisis. There is a crisis of the White House having government agencies manipulate data, in pursuit of their global warming agenda. There is also a crisis of the White House attacking the Bill of Rights in pursuit of their global warming agenda.”
Seriously? In the face of copious, publicly available, overwhelming evidence and the clear message of the scientific community, you’re alleging a grand scientific fraud, on the words of a right-wing political pundit? Next time you need your computer fixed, be sure to call out a hairdresser.
Lee, I really like how you’re incapable of checking the date on the press snippet you linked. It’s from 1990. 31 years ago. This is your “research”? How is that even relevant today, even assuming the snippet was true, which it was not? Here, try some facts instead of fascist memes about Pelosi: https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
Not only is the ice cover several million square kilometers less than it was in 80s, most of it is fresh, temporary ice, not thick, multi year ice Arctic used to be covered with on multi year basis. This is bad, BTW, because as fresh water from melting ice mixes with salty one, each year the formation of new ice will be more and more difficult even without climate change. We’re on best route to see an ice-free arctic in our lifetimes, and saying a snippet from 90s disproves that is utterly insane.
Here, have one more actual fact. Hudson Bay should be frozen in December. Currently, it’s ice free besides the very northernmost part. This is the second lowest ice extent in Hudson Bay, above only 2010. Polar bears rely on this ice to move and hunt, and a few more years of this and their population might crash. Maybe show them a few snippets from the 70s to educate them how wrong they are?
What I like about the website I linked to, is the large number of old newspaper articles shown that show nothing new is happening. That is, there is no change. I certainly prefer it to looking at the results of “scientists” who have been caught (more than once) deliberately altering the data.
“Old newspaper articles”? The Canberra Times and page 14 of the Santa Cruz Sentinel ? Looks to me as if “Steven Goddard” has resorted to an intensive trawling expedition.
I don’t suppose you know what a systematic review of the scientific literature is, but you can read about one starting on page 5 of this PDF, the section titled “Survey of the peer reviewed literature” (page 1329 of the original journal):
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
The idea that a huge hoax could be perpetrated simply by “scientists altering the data” is ludicrous. Actual, observable, measurable phenomena prove that Earth’s surface is accumulating vast quantities of additional heat. Sea level is rising. You have probably seen it stated on your denial sites that the melting of floating ice cannot raise sea level, and this is correct, but sea level is rising nonetheless; just ask residents of Bangladesh, Florida or the Marshal Islands. Only one thing could cause the amount of rise measured, and that is thermal expansion of ocean water, and that can only happen if the water temperature is increasing. The same goes for ice loss; ice cannot melt without heat.
Ultimately, scientists’ data needs to be consistent with observations, or those scientists’ reputations will suffer; their work won’t get cited. If they’re caught faking data, their careers are toast.
Do us a favour and go and joke about something funny.
Take another week off with your family.
We shall understand and will be waiting for your further commentaries.
Dr. Courtenay
Good to have Craig back in the land of free speech, democracy and liberty after a spell in chokey on trumped up charges for telling the truth in an article on his online journal, which is no longer allowed to be seen.
You know, I never would have thought of England and repressive governments in the same sentence when I was young. Glad that you are out of prison, but it’s a sad day when a supposed democracy throws citizens into jail on trumped up charges.
One other venue for you to consider in the future would be writing on substack, which lets you set up both free and paid options for subscribers. Just a thought, in case you’re looking to expand your reach.
I look forward to future articles about the court and prison experiences.
On the Glasgow climate event, it seems that we mostly end up with pithy commitments by various governments, and as you say, financial and other interests lining up to feed at the trough or greenwash their products. Good to have some light shone on those guys.
Excellent and thoughtful post Craig.
We’ve missed you!
Glad you have returned safe and well. Though I regret to inform you that I agree with almost everything you write.
You are absolutely right about the shift in climate change mitigation. It could have heralded a decentralised, robust energy system with local communities at the core. It’s ironical that the stereotypical American climate change “skeptic” argues against it, partly on the basis of liberty. Early response would enable more liberty and less cost. Delay in reducing CO2 emissions and other measures has only increased centralisation and will require harsher government mandates.
Imagine what geopolitics could look like if everyone stopped meddling in the Middle East, as oil was much less important?
– “You are absolutely right about the shift in climate change mitigation. It could have heralded a decentralised, robust energy system with local communities at the core.”
It still could, and must. But it’s down to us; the governments aren’t coming to save us.
– “Imagine what geopolitics could look like if everyone stopped meddling in the Middle East, as oil was much less important?”
Precisely. Ongoing Western covert action, assistance and supply of arms against Syria and Yemen are both in support of the al Saud and other Gulf monarchies, for supply of oil and gas.
While I agree that we should be insulating homes as a matter of priority and putting solar panels on them too I think your stance against nuclear power needs some revision. See these two blog posts by Bernardo Kastrup for an overview:
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/12/the-nuclear-option-is-inevitable.html
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/10/open-letter-to-bill-gates.html
This. Scotland is uniquely suited for nuclear power, population concentrated in a few big cities among the coastline. This is perfect for nuclear power plants, and, like France, Scotland could be totally independent energetically in a few years with a network of state owned plants, cutting the fat cats of any possibility of grift. Conversely, Scotland is uniquely bad for renewables, no water or solar sources to speak of, and powering it with wind would devour tons of pristine land that needs to be rewilded and consume insane amounts of polluting rare earths, and for what? To make country freeze and blackout every time air is quiet? This is not a solution, very far from it.
I don’t know. Monbiot, Hansen, Lovelock – they’re all keen on nuclear power. And it’s likely true, it’s better by far than a fried planet. But does Scotland actually have to go down that road? Where is the full examination of the reality of a fully renewable energy strategy for Scotland to be found? Is there one? And it’s all very well pointing to the somewhat emptier parts of your country, but they do have a value to the people that live there, and the tourism industry. Nuclear power comes with its own presently insoluble thousands of years waste problem, apart from it being a massively corrupting technology – no nuclear plant gets built or operated without corruption and secrecy in industry and politics. I am not aware of any new nuclear facility being built anywhere that hasn’t been massively subsidised, and you’ll pay for this through your bills for 50 years. Offshore wind power is probably the least problematic for Scotland, and we need to construct a much less energy wasteful society. One problem I’d see if you stuck nuclear power plants in Scotland would be the temptation to use them to supply energy to the rest of the UK as a convenient earner, especially if Scotland became independent. Would you wish to see that? For England, with its massive crowded population well nuclear may have to be an option or see the country retreat socially to the Middle Ages. A revival of interest in a Europe / North African / Middle East super-grid tied to wind power in northern Europe and solar power in southern Europe and those other areas makes much more sense to me. But I think it’s all too late. In particular the population explosion of the last 100 years makes it impossible for all mankind to partake.
First, I am very happy to see Craig writing again. My modest subscription not only was well directed, but together with other readers, successful.
Second, I disagree with some points of this post. Producing electricity and balancing supply and demand is not effective on local level as it could be in the past when many towns could depend on its municipally owned power station and a pile of coal. Regulated free market either allows for huge speculative profits (this season visible in natural gas markets, but many similar instances happened before), or is so regulated that we would be better with a simpler system, a nationalized system. Scotland is large enough to make it practical. Once we have a national system, ownership does not translate into the power of companies.
Additionally, the unresolved challenge of clean energy, produced without carbon or nuclear fission, is unreliability, again, starkly visible this season. A combination of clouds and otherwise nice weather (weak winds) cuts the supply. Converting unreliable supply to reliable one at reasonable cost is nowhere to be seen. Without reasonable cost, less developed countries will either remain poor or simply disregard “carbon neutral route”. And this is where most people live.
With already existing technologies, the energy that can be extracted from uranium and thorium can be increased at least 10 times over the current practice, through conversion of non-fissile isotopes to fissile ones. This will give the humanity about 40 years (life cycle of nuclear power stations) to develop other technologies and other lifestyles (how much energy do humans need for nice living?). In those terms, the future seems brighter.
– “With already existing technologies, the energy that can be extracted from uranium and thorium can be increased at least 10 times over the current practice, through conversion of non-fissile isotopes to fissile ones.”
Please summarise or link to a summary of how this can be done. I’m aware of MOX, but I thought it gave far less than a ten-times advantage. I’m aware of proof-of-concept breeding of thorium into U233, but I thought it had not been done at commercial scale. I’m aware of fast reactors to fission plutonium, but there is minimal experience building them for commercial power generation.
The decade-long planning, approval and construction process for nuclear power stations is a major disadvantage, because we must roughly halve emissions in the next ten years. Attempting to fast-track the process is likely to provoke even stronger public opposition.
Hello Clark,
The primary purpose of fast reactors is to convert abundant non-fissile Uranium 238 into fissile Plutonium 239 (I don’t think it is a direct conversion but wikipedia will of course give details). Dounray was a prototype and there are working examples around – eg Russia’s fast reactors (MOX type) that they are using to utilise their plutonium stocks but they also breed plutonium. The plutonium can then fuel thermal reactors.
– “The primary purpose of fast reactors is to convert abundant non-fissile Uranium 238 into fissile Plutonium 239”
That’s a breeder reactor; whether it’s a fast reactor or not is another matter.
– “The plutonium can then fuel thermal reactors.”
A thermal reactor is the converse of a fast reactor. The terms ‘thermal’ and ‘fast’ refer to speed of the neutrons. Fission releases fast neutrons. In a thermal reactor a moderator (typically water or graphite) is used to slow the neutrons to ‘thermal’ speeds, which makes them more efficient at splitting further nuclei of U235.
But plutonium fissions much more readily in a flux of fast neutrons. The UK stockpiled many tonnes of plutonium, but never used it because fast reactors were never commercialised.
MOX is Mixed OXide and includes U235, U238 and plutonium. It can power a thermal reactor but only a little plutonium can be used this way; the main and essential fuel is the U235.
Yes Clark I should have said fast breeder reactor. But all breeder reactors are fast reactors and I think all fast reactors are breeder reactors. The neutron capture cross section for U-238 is much higher for fast neutrons which is why breeder reactors are fast reactors. I am not aware of any fast reactors that are not breeder reactors. I did not know that plutonium neutron capture cross section was higher for fast neutrons (than thermal) but certainly in a uranium fuelled thermal reactor the bred plutonium also undergoes fission. And as you say Plutonium is also part of the MOX fuel mix in a thermal reactor and it undergoes fission in the thermal flux.
I’ve just taken a look at fission cross section graphs; U-235 & P-239 are very similar – the plutonium above the uranium especially at the lower end of the thermal range
The vast majority of power station reactors are thermal-spectrum reactors; very few fast reactors have ever contributed to a power grid, and the few that have were experimental. Yes, thermal-spectrum reactors can breed plutonium a bit, and they can use it a bit, but so far as I know none of these established techniques come anywhere near Piotr Berman’s ten-times fuel efficiency advantage; we’re dependent on expendable reserves of natural uranium.
I accept that such fuel cycles could be developed, but we need to halve emissions in the next ten years; how much of the available uranium should we commit to that?
Clark: as I know none of these established techniques come anywhere near Piotr Berman’s ten-times fuel efficiency advantage; we’re dependent on expendable reserves of natural uranium.
I based my estimate on the fact that less than 5% of natural uranium is used as fuel. After checking, current fast neutron reactors are designed to consume plutonium and other actinides, because of the proliferation issue. BREST (fast reactor with lead coolant, Russian acronym) is designed to “burn” and “breed” plutonium in the same time. Lead coolant reflects neutrons, so a larger proportion of neutrons from fission converts U238 to P239, and this ratio can be increased. It seems that with the current designs, fuel rods would be used for 5 years, recycled into somewhat more fuel rods, so realizing full breeding potential could take decades.
However, this leisurely breeding can be increased in subsequent generations of nuclear reactors, currently the ease of operation is economically more important than fuel efficiency, analogous to the early stage of automobiles.
Russia, China and some other countries are bolder in advancing nuclear technologies than most of the West, and China announced a very ambitious nuclear program, with hundreds of units, some of which will be Russian.
My impression is that nuclear technologies have to advance if they are to serve as a global energy solution, but “hydrogen technology” has many more open questions.
Piotr Berman, thanks for your reply.
– “My impression is that nuclear technologies have to advance if they are to serve as a global energy solution”
This is my impression too. And nuclear power stations take around a decade to build, which is very slow in the context of how fast we must cut greenhouse gas emissions.
You are sticking to your guns here Clark but you are incorrect re the subject of discussion – increase of energy extracted in nuclear reactors compared with current practice.
Thermal reactors use predominantly U-235 which makes up only approx 0.7% of natural uranium. Over 99% of natural uranium is U-238 which remains virtually unused in thermal reactors. Fast breeder reactors, by conversion of U-238 to fissile plutonium U-239, can utilise upwards of 60% of the available energy of the uranium.
Without spending too much time I can’t readily find a figure for utilisation in combination with thermal reactors but I will quote the first line of a wikipedia article in respect of fast breeder reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor:
Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the uranium mined from the earth.
Yup, this is what you don’t get, Clark. The very low Uranium reserves figure is based on garbage reactors we have today. Thorium reactors and reactors that breed fuel would extend the figure into many thousands of years at current energy consumption, easily. Breeders have one more big advantage, too, they burn 60-90% of the energy in fuel rods instead of less than 1% producing vastly smaller amount of nuclear waste. If we funded nuclear to a fraction of subsidies fossil fuels or renewables got over last few decades, today the world could have been powered by a network of clean, zero emissions reactors owned by state that would have drastically reduced the amount of theft of public money 1% do with both fossil fuels and renewables, alas, that would have been too smart…
IMcK and Mr V, you both seem to think that you’re arguing against my position and that there’s something I need to ‘get’, yet actually we’re all arguing much the same thing. Yes, there are some very promising types of reactor that could make clean, safe, plentiful power for centuries or probably even millennia into the future. I’m particularly inspired by the molten salt designs; I think that working in the fluid phase is a natural choice given the high temperatures and extreme power densities involved; it completely bypasses the notorious difficulty of preventing meltdown. I see most advantage in breeding from thorium and fissioning at both the U233 and the U235 stages, thereby producing the maximum energy for the minimum amount of problematic transuranics produced.
But that’s not where we are; only a couple of handfuls of fast and/or breeder reactors have ever been been built, whereas the vast, vast majority of power reactors, whether operational, under construction or planned, are of the fuel-inefficient types that run on low-enriched uranium. But the fossil fuel depletion-pollution crunch is upon us now, we need to transition away immediately, but the only reactors for which adequate civil engineering experience exists are of the inefficient types, and even those are taking over a decade to build.
We barely have time to build, let alone prototype and commercialise the advanced, fuel-efficient reactor types, and if we vastly scale up using our inefficient types we hugely accelerate depletion of conventional uranium reserves, dropping us back into the energy crunch in a very short time.
Basically, humanity hasn’t done it’s homework; we’ve failed to prepare for the inevitable and foreseeable. It’s the same old problem as the rest of our predicament – political responsibility has been increasingly abdicated to the market since the 1980s. Mining fresh uranium is far cheaper and more profitable than developing advanced reactors, so the former has been expanded while the latter was neglected.
Hello Clark,
I am going to have another go and keep it brief.
The subject to which I was responding was whether it is possible to increase of the energy extracted from the fuel in nuclear reactors compared with current practice – and a figure of 10 times was posed.
My response was yes (albeit not quoting a figure) by breeding fissile plutonium in fast (breeder) reactor(s) from the otherwise unused Uranium 238 and which constitutes the majority of the available uranium. The fissile plutonium would then be fed into the fuelstock (MOX) of existing (and currently under construction) thermal reactors. I also referenced the existence of fast breeder reactors and cited the Russian MOX fuelled one [the BN-800].
I was stating the feasibility of achieving the issue in question (increase of energy extracted from nuclear fuel stocks), not suggesting any particular line we should be going down or a timescale in which it could be achieved.
Yes, throughout this discussion I have agreed that it is possible to vastly increase nuclear fuel efficiency, but that is not the path that the nuclear industry has taken; the vast majority of the reactors that have been built are of the wrong sort to do this.
Incidentally, if you’re into breeder reactors, why go the plutonium route rather than thorium? Plutonium is problematic; it’s the most chemically toxic element known, it’s a major weapons proliferation risk, and other problematic actinides are inevitably produced as it is bred, requiring reprocessing to separate them out for ridiculously long-term disposal.
Thorium is about four times as abundant as natural uranium, more widely distributed, deposits are more accessible, and it breeds into U233 which is fissile. During fission, a little of the U233 gets heavier rather than fissioning, but it ends up as U235 which is also fissile, giving it a second chance of producing energy rather than becoming a troublesome actinide.
Hello Clark,
I’m not ignoring you – been a bit busy and only saw your post yesterday.
Thorium reactors – I don’t have any knowledge of them other then what I read on Wikipedia. But yes they look an interesting prospect although still in the development phase. I don’t have any insight into their potential feasibility but presumably prospects are good given they are being pursued internationally.
– “…although still in the development phase.”
Yes, this is the problem with all the decent nuclear power options. For a host of sad reasons, development has been left too late. All we have – and all we have adequate experience with – are hundreds of uranium-hungry, fuel-inefficient, actinide-producing nuclear super-kettles, many of them approaching or beyond their design lifetime, and most of them far too close to the rising sea level, with bad news rapidly approaching:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-projects-a-surge-in-coastal-flooding-starting-in-2030s
Hi Craig, so glad you are ‘free at last’. I came in around 10pm after my second shift of the day, a Thursday just before COP26 to read a list of the attendees on social media. My blood began to boil and I was moved to song….Listen to The Song of The End 1.2.mp3 by Stu-Cam on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/JAaqp
Hope you have the time to listen, its great to have you back at your keyboard.
Stuart
Solar panels in Scotland? Wind power maybe, just a little propeller on the roof?
Good to here you are out again, but you should never have been in.
I have been actively looking for a practical domestic level wind turbine – they sadly don’t seem to exist.
Same here Craig. Big void. Great to see you back and very quickly on form.
I thought you could get them for houseboats and caravans; if so, use several together.
I just asked a friend who lives on a houseboat if such things exist, see what he says …
They are sold for boats to keep the batteries charged. From £100 to thousands depending on the quality and power output. Internet search “boat wind turbine”.
Wind Generators have been around for a long time. Originally designed in Scotland! I have lived on a boat since 1996 and you can see many reviews of boat owners fitting them and solar panels to their boats. The main thing is that they are 12volts. Domestic house power is 240volts. However, if I lived in a house, I would install both wind and solar and be totally self sufficient “off grid” as I am now. One needs Solar panels, wind generator, a regulator, a large battery bank, a converter to convert 12volts to 240volts. It’s not as simple as it sounds. Domestic use of lots of “white goods” would soon drain the batteries and damage the converter. Use has to be monitored. The expert I rate is a young guy on YouTube “DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse”.
Yes – we have solar panels and a battery bank already. Haven’t found a windmill that can contribute significantly, that isn’t very large.
Hello, Mr.Murray! It’s so nice to see you back to freedom!
Yesterday I bookmarked this. People from Latvia share their experience with solar panels.
https://pikabu.ru/story/solnechnaya_yenergetika_yeto_udobno_govorili_oni_8668210
I believe that snow is common in winter in Scotland too. So, what do you suggest to solve this? Roof-cleaning service? New jobs?
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+connect+several+wind+turbines
The only way I can think of to say within the “contribute” rule is to mention its relevance to this self-explanatory post.
There are traditional Horizontal Axis Wind turbines which have to rotate to face wind, can blow up if wind very strong and noisy. Vertical Axis ones stay in same position, quieter and less likely to over spin. Good for domestic use. (Alas hard for me to install at height on a sailing boat) There is a good description on Engineering with Rosie “Vertical Axis Wind Turbines Aerodynamic & Design” on YouTube. These should provide higher power Craig without big propellers sticking out ?
There really isn’t any benefit of small wind turbines in a domestic setting in urban areas. The wind in built up areas is too variable, too reduced in power. They’re expensive, difficult to install safely and need constant attention. Some are noisy. That’s why you don’t see them. It’s more appropriate for whole communities to own a large windmill as for instance in Denmark. https://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/07/new-study-says-rooftop-wind-power-doesnt-pay-off/
Glad to have you back Craig
Suitable house-based mechanical electricity generation systems will always be a problem on domestic properties.
Mentioned elsewhere wind levels are more variable and less powerful overall than when installed in open country.
There are other issues with low frequency noise that are often ignored by those offering a “solution”.
Maybe as an ex-Diplomat you may have been briefed on the possible dangers of infrasound. Remember that house-based mechanical wind turbines have signficant levels of 0.1Hz – 20Hz of vibration present in the support mast, blades and nacelle. This vibration is transmitted into the support environment (i.e. the walls) and then can travel throughout the house structure. A quiet study room for instance could always be uncomfortable to work in as it may sit at an 8Hz noise peak. In the long term it is possible the mounting points for the support mast (and gable end of the house) require major levels of maintenance. Farms that use WTs tend to mount the mast sufficiently far enough away (10m or so) from cow sheds and living accomodation such that low frequency vibrations are at very low levels before encountering fixed structures.
Studies in Finland and Denmark have demonstrated a link to health issues attributed to infrasound effects and they have a move towards community owned systems built in safe zones.
So there are two things to consider long term: Physical damage to the mounting structure (which can be mitigated to some extent), and mental/physical health from low frequency vibration between 0.1Hz and 10Hz.
The limitations for onshore windfarms around Eskdalemuir make interesting reading, as they cover infrasound issues for another important subject (use your favourite interweb search engine to look for “Eskdalemuir” and “small wind turbines”)
Offshore wind farms presumably create much higher levels of low frequency noise which will travel much further.
As far as I can see in the Habitat Regulations Assessments required for each WT Farm makes no attempt to define “noise”. References to temporal limitations on construction and decommisioning noise are mentioned which implies only human audible noise is considered. I am not sure what constitutes nuisance level noise.
It looks like porpoises and small whales that use the coast here in East Kent have to find somewhere else to live.
Wikikettle
For simplicity I compare 24 volts DC with 240 Volts AC. 3000 watts can be one13 amp socket at 230 volts or 125 amps at 24 volts, and 125 amps needs a 25 mm2 cable the same size as your mains supply cables into a house. There are two philosphically beautiful things I like about battery storage. The first is that we don’t use electrical energy all the time, while batteries charge continually during the day or on off-peak rates at night. The second is that the output of the PV to Battery DC is exacly the same from all converters, however many sources there may be.
Every grid-tied AC inverter is electronically matching the alternating current of the mains supply which is mechanically produced by a machine from steam. I like the steam bit, dark satanic mills etc, but not the electronically chopped up electricity. I like the idea of diesel squirting into my engine, but I don’t like the idea of having to replace an electronic power unit. Sounds a bit expensive to me.
Yes, that’s probably cultural resistance and old fogeyism. But one things for certain, humans will fight over Lithium, copper and rare metals of the new technology, just as ruthlessly as they have been fighting for oil in our lifetimes, destroying the entire Middle East and more, out of greed and a totally misplaced feeling of national superiority. The Far East will be the winners in the future technologies.
Yesterday I took a sack truck loaded with parcels in a freezing wind half a mile into the Clean Air zone in Birmingham. This is the taste of the future, us peasants reverted back to the stone age, while the nuclear powered HS2 gets the higher echelons of society to London in less time than I did my sack truck delivery…Plus cha change, plus ch’est la meme chose. I shudder to think what the Tories are planning for our society. BTW northerners, your bit of budget for HS2 is now available for us southerners to squander as we will.
Glad you’re out Craig – well done for getting through that !
Wind Turbines
============
Various model specs on this site https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines?kwrange=0%2C60
I would totally recommend Hugh Piggots Turbines https://scoraigwind.co.uk/
Avoid unbranded small turbines and avoid cheap looking turbines on ebay – often not what they claim to be.
The present system is designed to support the royals.
Perhaps a wind turbine collective would be more economical, building turbines on land that could resist storms and floods, and then transmitting the power to a community. Whether it would be feasible for a community to invest in the infrastructure themselves for doing this, or they would have to do a deal with the people running national infrastructure, I don’t know.
There’s a scale factor in play here. Big wind turbines are more efficient than small ones – and by efficiency I mean the ratio of energy generated to energy used in making and installing it.
See https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/en/publications/life-cycle-analysis-of-the-embodied-carbon-emissions-from-14-wind
I think that for house-sized ones you’re on a loser unless you’re off-grid.