.
.
There’s the wind, water, and solar (WWS) vision promoted by a few academics, and then there’s economic and technical reality – with a seriously large chasm in between.
Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2017
A new paper prepared by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth System Laboratory and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is drawing attention in policy circles in the U.S. The paper critiques the claims of a study by Mark Jacobson et. al. that it is feasible, at low cost, to achieve 100% conversion of the U.S. electricity generation system to wind, hydroelectricity and solar energy by 2050 (the “WWS Vision”).
The authors of the critique include experts in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who could not be accused of being “climate sceptics”. Indeed, they have previously authored reports in which they concluded that an 80% decarbonisation of the U.S. electrical grid eventually could be achieved at “reasonable” cost, assuming that a broad suite of generation options and other technologies are employed. Their critique of the Jacobson…
View original post 775 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
We can easily and fully decarbonize the grid, using nuclear… WWS not so much…
That it is a daft idea to decarbonize is another matter…
World oil production is expected to reach 100 million barrels a DAY by 2020.
http://www.iea.org/about/faqs/oil/
That’s before even considering the world’s ever-expanding electricity generation.
Demand for air con is going to mushroom this century, for example.
WWS is not going to make any serious impact any time soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
lots of studies showing huge areas can go 100% renewable energy. If we are to have a sustainable living earth, renewable energy is the only way out.
‘100% renewable energy’? Don’t hold your breath.
http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/number-of-electric-cars-worldwide-increased-60-in-2016
World wide increase of electric cars 60% in 2016. Electric cars will be on a curve similar to refrigerators and smartphones. We will see what happens.
renewableguy says: June 26, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Utter rubbish, without subsidies they are going backwards, just take a look at this
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20170601/ANE/170609955/denmark-kills-tesla-and-other-ev-sales-with-tax-move
For 100 years, Electric Cars have been almost as effective as liquid fueled IC engined cars.
Only the hand of government can warp the application of the laws of physics. A modern IC engine car is the most efficient use of resources for personal transport. Liberal Progressive bluesky dreams of grand remaking society always fly in the face of reality and require the hand of government to tip the scales in their favor.
We don’t need them ! to force us to do the right thing. Real people do the right thing because that is the method tested by real use, in the real world and is the most efficient use of all inputs.
I have been working in the Renewable Energy Field for near 50 years and it is a good way to get a bit more use out of available resources, BUT, it has never been a Replacement for Primary energy supplies. Never has and Never will. Anyone that says different is ether too lazy to do ALL the numbers or is a lie-er with an agenda …pg
Smartphones went from nowhere to 2 billion in a decade or so.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/
Short-range expensive electric cars costing thousands more than their long-range competitors are a different matter entirely. Got half an hour to spare for a recharge every 100 miles, when it’s about 2 minutes for a fuel refill that lasts far longer?
@Oldbrew:
Unless you find a high speed charging outlet, that charge time is more like 8 to 12 hours.
There are large runs of freeway without charging stations.
Over the long haul, this will change, but for now it is a major issue. A run from Silicon Valley to the L.A. basin can be made in a Tesla on one charge, but when you get there, you can not GO anywhere. It is a 6 hour / 350 mile run so a minor top up at lunch gets you to L.A. proper. Then better get a hotel to charge overnight (unless a fast charge station is at the place you had to stop). Finally, another full charge is needed to return. Once home, another full charge to go to work the next day.
That’s about 3 days for a business meeting in L.A.
With my Diesel, I’ve made the run to a meeting, then back home that evening, and at work the next day. One 5 minute fillup at The Grapevine each way. 12 driving hours total. Out at 5 A.M. meeting at lunch /early afternoon, dinner at home, sleep in my own bed, at work next day AM.
The Tesla is nice if you never leave town, though…
(Don’t expect to cross Texas in less than 3 days… 918 miles edge to edge. I’ve done it in one day, several times. 80 MPH speedlimit helps, since 90 MPH doesn’t attract attention. Maybe someday the fast charge stations will exist and a Tesla can do it in 2 days… but not now. Expect a hotel with power cord out the window every 300 miles…)
I’d love to own an electric car, but only as a second around town car.
For me electric cars are for folk who are either reluctant drivers, for whatever reason, or pricey second cars for the shops/ school run/ local commute etc.
Anyone else needs a proper car using fuel, or maybe a hybrid if you have a bit extra to spend.
p.g.sharrow says:
June 26, 2017 at 3:40 pm
For 100 years, Electric Cars have been almost as effective as liquid fueled IC engined cars.
Electric cars have about an 80% efficiency in use of energy while gasoline may have a peak efficiency of over 30%, reality would be more like 10 to 15% in normal driving.
oldbrew says:
June 26, 2017 at 7:37 pm
For me electric cars are for folk who are either reluctant drivers, for whatever reason, or pricey second cars for the shops/ school run/ local commute etc.
Anyone else needs a proper car using fuel, or maybe a hybrid if you have a bit extra to spend.
I own an electric short range car. I am putting on about 10,000 miles a year. Long range I use my pickup or m wife’s gas car. I bought the electric used at a really good price, 3 yrs old, 22,600 miles, $6500. It has an incredible experience driving electric. A really quiet ride without the hassles of all the maintenance of a gasoline engine. COst per mile of an electric is 1/3 that of the gasoline engine.
E.M.Smith says:
June 26, 2017 at 6:47 pm
@Oldbrew:
Unless you find a high speed charging outlet, that charge time is more like 8 to 12 hours.
There are large runs of freeway without charging stations.
About 95% of my charging is at home. I live on the very south west suburb of Chicago. M anxiety free with my electric car is about 50 miles. After that I want to look for ways to charge the car. There are really a great number of electric stations available for charging. I use an app called plugshare to find where the chargers are located. I have never been stranded and not been able to get home. Another view, at 120 Volts, ever home in the United States is a filling station. If you are in the grid area, you have a way to charge your vehicle. A little planning makes for a great experience driving.
Short-range expensive electric cars costing thousands more than their long-range competitors are a different matter entirely. Got half an hour to spare for a recharge every 100 miles, when it’s about 2 minutes for a fuel refill that lasts far longer?
I wouldn’t call a short range car a selling point myyself for most people. But, I get around just the same with a little more time occasionally. Most of my work as a handyman is easily within range of a 50 mile round trip. While working at a customers for several hours on the longer trips, I ask permission to plug in. At 15 cents per kilowatt hour, most of the time, I use less than a dollar. If I am working at a distance of 25 miles and will be there for several hours, I ask to plug in. At most I will need 6 kw-hr which would be about 90 cents. To go that range in my pickup truck would be in the range of 2 to 4 dollars.
A C Osborn says:
June 26, 2017 at 2:13 pm
renewableguy says: June 26, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Utter rubbish, without subsidies they are going backwards, just take a look at this
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20170601/ANE/170609955/denmark-kills-tesla-and-other-ev-sales-with-tax-move
I received no subsidies since I bought my car used. Even with replacing batteries after 100,000 miles, I will easily be ahead of the cost of a gasoline car. This ride is cheap enough to learn from, that it is well worth the low car payments. In the electric car club I am in, there are other members that also bought used electrics at really good prices. Tesla on the other hand keeps its value and has not fallen in price like mine has.
E.M.Smith says:
June 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm
We can easily and fully decarbonize the grid, using nuclear… WWS not so much…
That it is a daft idea to decarbonize is another matter…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Places_with_around_100.25_renewable_electricity
There are about 40 million people in the world living in areas of 90% renewable energy or better. In a few yyears, this could easily double and double again. Nobody has to use the Mark Jacobsen formula for reaching 100% renewable energy. But this number will be reached by multiple regions in the world soon. It is a necessity to do so.
‘Long range I use my pickup or my wife’s gas car.’
OK, so we can add some local businesses to the list of those who might use an electric vehicle.
But for most households with one vehicle the electric option is not a good one due to limited range.
The CO2 argument is poor as electricity is still mainly sourced from fuel burning, and CO2 is a harmless trace gas anyway.
For city use electrics do offer lower pollution at the point of use, no argument there. But driving into cities nowadays is a headache for most due to road use restrictions, delays, parking issues etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
Without hydro we are nearly at 10% renewable energy production now across the United States.
But for most households with one vehicle the electric option is not a good one due to limited range.
The CO2 argument is poor as electricity is still mainly sourced from fuel burning, and CO2 is a harmless trace gas anyway.
What explains the past climate changes is co2. At higher levels of co2, ocean acidification becomes a real serious issue as shell life will become more and ore difficult to sustain. Human CO2 is the only reason we are warming on earth. All other sources are insignificant or cooling. The Paris Climate Accord isn’t just for no reason at all.
Lower cost longer range electric cars are just arriving on the market. That option is now available.
renewableguy – you can believe your claims but others may take a different view.
More electric vehicles = lower tax take from fuel sales = problem for government finances
10 REASONS Not To Believe The Climate Hype
This includes conservative mayors. Wind energy is mostly in the midwest United States and most of those states are conservative.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26062017/mayors-conference-supports-100-percent-renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-climate-change
U.S. Mayors Back 100% Renewable Energy, Vow to Fill Climate Leadership Void
The U.S. Conference of Mayors also voted to support quick electrification of vehicles and urged Congress to back the Clean Power Plan and Paris climate agreement.
The resolutions passed Monday include ones that:
Urge Congress and the Trump administration to support the Paris Agreement and the Obama administration’s stalled Clean Power Plan, which would cut carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector and which Trump has been working to repeal.
Call for a quick electrification of the nation’s transportation sector.
Ask Trump and Congress to “develop a comprehensive risk management program to address future flood risks from sea level rise.”
Support greater investment from all levels of government in wind energy.
Encourage Congress to reauthorize and fully fund the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, a defunct federal program that sent money to local governments.
IBM accepts man made global warming as reality. Harmless? No.
http://nawindpower.com/ibm-four-years-ahead-schedule-renewables-co2-reduction-goals?utm_medium=email&utm_source=LNH+06-28-2017&utm_campaign=NAW+Latest+News+Headlines
IBM Four Years Ahead Of Schedule In Renewables, CO2-Reduction Goals
Posted by Betsy Lillian on June 23, 2017
Renewableguy: The Paris Climate Accord isn’t just for no reason at all.
Correct. it’s for wealth redistribution. Mostly from the poor people in rich countries to the tich people in poor countries.
In the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
Renewables other than hydro-electric have a way to go to reach 1% of global energy consumption, which is itself increasing all the time.
If everything (that can be) is converted to electric operation, the total requirement for electricity is going to mushroom way beyond anything we see today. Wind turbines and solar panels wouldn’t stand any chance of catching up to, or keeping pace with, demand for multiple reasons.
Plus when it’s dark and not windy you’re going to need millions, if not billions, of batteries and/or some other equivalent stored power. All has to be paid for.
And the production of batteries emits a lot of CO2 of course. I’m sure ‘renewableguy’ will have a ready distraction for this though.
The co2 difference between gas and electric cars is easily made from more co2 emissions in manufacturing. Tesla has no natural gas coming into the plant where they manufacture cars and batteries. They will use 100% clean energy in their 5 billion dollar plant.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WVPewYjytPY
Both types of vehicle begin in much the same way. Raw materials are extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into various components that are assembled into the car itself. Because electric cars store power in large lithium-ion batteries, which are particularly material- and energy-intensive to produce, their global warming emissions at this early stage usually exceed those of conventional vehicles. Manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.
These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving—shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months—and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.
renewableguy: Tesla has no natural gas coming into the plant where they manufacture cars and batteries. They will use 100% clean energy
Yep, I was right, distraction. Tesla will be assembling the battery packs at their facility, the actual batteries used in those assemblies are made in China.
‘continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.’
Possibly, but only until their battery charge ends after an hour or two. One Chinese model couldn’t exit an underground car park due to the steep ramp.
End of life is when the battery is too weak to recharge properly. Then the car is worthless so its depreciation is higher than for fuel burners.
I see you have accumulated a zelot here in Renewableguy. Best stock up on koolaid repellant…
Charging in a dense urban area like Chicago? Sure, lots of outlets.
Now go try driving I-5 from Sacramento to L.A. There are places where even getting gas at night is something you plan… Next, take I-10 from L.A. to Dallas. Mind the 240 or so mile stretch of no gas sations near Van Horn… No buildings at all, really. Electric chargers? Good luck with that… you will be doing the “beg a socket” and 10 hour charges across that desert.
Now I have nothing against electric cars, PROVIDED there is zero subsidy anywhere in the the electric market… Heck, I’d like to have one for the 80% of my trips around town.. except that the “renewables” mandate for California utilities has lifeline rates driven up to 19 cents /kW-hr and tariffs filed for half a buck soon. Over the life of the car I can expect costs starting over double yours and then doubling again. So the True Believes want ecar subsidy rates, paid for by everyone else…
So do be sure to remove the subsidy bias from “renewable” rate structures and ecar tariffs.
Now I don’t know the present costs, and I hope Tesla has fixed the problem, but at least a few folks have “bricked” their Tesla. They can not drop below a minimum charge or the battery becomes useless. They keep track of each cell status and history. Depower that computer in a full discharge, it forgets everything and declares the battery dead. One guy left his float charging in the garage and jetted off to Europe. Returning a few months later to a brick. A utility power issue had tripped the house breakers and the self discharge rate did the rest. $40,000 of new battery later, it ran again. Tesla said they were working to get that down to $10,000 but I don’t know how close they are now.
Repair is done via shipping the car back to Tesla. Arranging that from Van Horn left as an exercise for the student…
Oh, and like laptops, after a few years (max couple of thousand charge cycles) you get to buy a new battery anyway. Start saving you $2000/year now…
So please realize the warts on your polyanna POV. To not recognize the very real economic and engineering issues leads to being seen as inexperienced….
Now a Ford Fiesta sized e-car with a nickle-iron 50 year battery and 100 mile range for under $20,000 new; I’d be happy to buy one. Just as long as I could charge it with 5 cent/kW-hr nuclear electricity… It would never leave town, but would cover 80% of my needs and extend the life of my old Mercedes Diesel that cruises wonderfully for 450 miles on a tank, fillable everywhere. I’ve taken it to L.A. and back more than I can count, and to Texas and Florida and back dozens of times. Even to Chicago a few times… (watch out for the long empty bits from Colorado through Kansas and keep fueled up at night).
Yep, I was right, distraction. Tesla will be assembling the battery packs at their facility, the actual batteries used in those assemblies are made in China.
They are made at the gigafactory. 95% of the components of the Tesla are American made.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170104/OEM01/170109950/tesla-launches-battery-production-at-gigafactory
The cells produced at the Gigafactory today will be used to fill more energy-storage products until cell production for the Model 3 begins in the second quarter, according to Tesla.
Old Bloke: ((((Possibly, but only until their battery charge ends after an hour or two. One Chinese model couldn’t exit an underground car park due to the steep ramp.
End of life is when the battery is too weak to recharge properly. Then the car is worthless so its depreciation is higher than for fuel burners.)))))
2nd life batteries will be used as back up for charging stations. They will last a long time after their usefulness in the car. In the future, the intensity of fast changing will be balanced with storage.
Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack
Fred Lambert – Nov. 1st 2016 10:31 am ET @FredericLambert
It depends on the battery chemistry. The Nissan Leaf doesn’t do this well. The Tesla battery pack is phenomenal. This is longer than a ICE vehicle easily.
renewableguy: Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack
Why hasn’t Tesla already tested the real world battery pack lifespan on a rolling road?
tallbloke says:
June 29, 2017 at 8:06 am
renewableguy: Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack
Why hasn’t Tesla already tested the real world battery pack lifespan on a rolling road?
Don’t know, should they?
Jacobsen wants to get to 100% renewable energy without nuclear and natural gas. Clack will use nuclear and natural gas and even use nuclear in the last 20% of 100% clean energy. The argument is how to 100% clean energy. Fossil use is agreed upon these men as bad bad bad bad bad.
https://www.ecowatch.com/carl-pope-mark-jacobson-2449642580.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=2e56cbe013-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-2e56cbe013-85888425
Jacobson described a scenario in which we get 100 percent of our power from renewables by 2055 with technologies he thinks will be available by that date. Jacobson’s critics disagree—but the lead contributor to their article, Christopher Clack previously published his own trail-breaking journal article saying that we can cut carbon emissions by 80 percent with renewables by 2030. Clack’s article argued that this would require connecting different regions of the U.S. with transmission lines—a technology clearly available today. We would need 60 percent wind and solar to do this—hydro, nuclear and natural gas would make up the rest.
So both sides of this media-hyped debate agree that, using today’s renewable technology plus transmission, we can cut utility sector carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2030. (President Obama’s much criticized Clean Power Plan, now suspended by the Trump Administration, by comparison, envisaged cutting utility emissions by only 32 percent by 2030).
So what Clack and Jacobson disagree about is what happens between 2030 and 2055.
E.M.Smith says:
Now go try driving I-5 from Sacramento to L.A. There are places where even getting gas at night is something you plan… Next, take I-10 from L.A. to Dallas. Mind the 240 or so mile stretch of no gas sations near Van Horn… No buildings at all, really. Electric chargers? Good luck with that… you will be doing the “beg a socket” and 10 hour charges across that desert.
The solution to this is easier than you think. With a gasoline car, yyou carry extra gas in the car to get across the wide expanse of the desert. With an electric car you would carry a generator with you and plan a stop along the way, to increase your safety level. I would not chose a gas generator, I would chose to use a propane generator. Propane is more reliable in long term use. Gasoline ages over time and gums up engines. AN electric car can use any source that creates electricity, while an ICE vehicle can only use gasoline. Not diesel, not kerosene. Must use gas. Or pay lots of money to use both. A station wagon type electric car would be perfect for this. My little car can get a generator in the back. Inconvenient, yes, but can be done if necessary. DDon’t plan on any desert driving ever.
renewableguy: Don’t know, should they?
Yes, because empirical data is worth more than predictive models, as the last 40 years of climate science clearly demonstrates.
oldbrew says:
June 29, 2017 at 10:22 pm
renewableguy: Don’t know, should they?
Yes, because empirical data is worth more than predictive models, as the last 40 years of climate science clearly demonstrates.
The batteries are bench tested in cycles. The Tesla batteries were tested and perform with 90% battery capacity after 3000 cycles.
Capacity is one metric, torque delivery another.
From Paul Homewood’s site:
Are We Headed for a Solar Waste Crisis?
June 28, 2017 by Mark Nelson
Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.
Neither does California, a world leader in deploying solar panels. Only Europe requires solar panel makers to collect and dispose of solar waste at the end of their lives.
All of which begs the question: just how big of a problem is solar waste?
Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste.
We found:
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones.
oldbrew says:
June 29, 2017 at 11:13 pm
Capacity is one metric, torque delivery another.
Electric motors are superior to gas engines in torque. The fastest 0 to 60 production car in the world, is a Tesla Model S with ludicrous mode. I believe it is now down to 2.1 seconds in getting to 60 mph.
oldbrew says:
June 30, 2017 at 12:28 am
From Paul Homewood’s site:
Are We Headed for a Solar Waste Crisis?
June 28, 2017 by Mark Nelson
Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.
Waste is a huge issue in everyy area of our lives. Burning coal puts every buried toxic in the air there is. Plastic pollution in the ocean is in the possible billions of tons. I’m for covering disposal properly in every way possible. Better yet make our society with the least amount of disposal possible. Think people will agree to that? Try going up against the container industry. Every package should be going back to the stores for possible recycling and disposal. See what kind of no you get. If that were to happen, see how fast disposal is reduced.
reneableguy,
I admire your energy and enthusiasm. You are the kind of troll we should welcome here because you give us the opportunity to challenge your ideas without name calling. Ooops, I just called you a troll…….please accept my apologies.
Like you I love electric cars and have owned two over the last ten years. Nevertheless I agree with p.g. that they are not going to supplant my two gas guzzlers (his & hers) or my son’s 5.7 liter Hemi powered truck.
So what is the problem? There are many but here are two that you should consider.
1. While in high school (in 1954) I concluded that better storage battery technology was badly needed yet half a century later “Lead-acid” technology is still important. We are still looking for something that is ten times smaller and cheaper than the Plante cell. We are also in need of batteries that last for at least 10 years.
2. You said:
“Burning coal puts every buried toxic in the air there is.”
Leaving aside the provable absurdity of what you said, you are forgetting that the electricity your buggy uses is mostly generated by fossil fuel power plants. Here in Florida over 80% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.
gallopingcamel says:
2. You said:
“Burning coal puts every buried toxic in the air there is.”
Leaving aside the provable absurdity of what you said, you are forgetting that the electricity your buggy uses is mostly generated by fossil fuel power plants. Here in Florida over 80% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.
The future is clean energy. My area is about 60 to 80% nuclear energy.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WVj2ZIjytPY
renewableguy,
That link you provided claiming that EVs are non-polluting takes an extremist position. There are people cited on this thread taking an extremist position on the opposite side. IMHO they are both wrong and the truth will emerge over time.
You mention that the bulk of your electricity is generated by nukes so perhaps you live in France.
For a long time I have advocated nuclear “Fourth Generation” nuclear power in general and breeder MSRs in particular. Small MSRs built in factories, delivered on a single truck can be produced and installed at a rate of at least one per day in the USA. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/small-modular-reactors-could-be-operating-in-the-uk-by-2030-report/#comment-120516