Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,975
I've already addressed this point twice now @Wij.

Maybe I'm not clear - I'm a pragmatist and can see the need for limited fleet rebuild, but it's fucking expensive and we should be pushing battery storage and pan-continental grid balancing much harder than we are, whilst investing in CCS R&D.

Yes, Gen IV might come online at some point - but that's guaranteed expensive and, at best, could potentially help with the waste issue. And by the time they hit proper widespread commercial application there's a good chance that battery, grid and renewables applications will be able to do the job cheaper and more safely.
But you don't know that. For all you know a small, modular fission design might take off that is mass-producible long before mass battery storage becomes viable. In the meantime when neither preferred end-state is available wind+fossil is cheaper (or at least a safer investment) than nuclear but releases more CO2. Your choice is clear.
 

Bodhi

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,964
The non-existent tech like CCS right there @Bodhi...

Edit: Fingers cross they manage to do it though - it'll be the only chance we have to reduce our waste stockpile.

But I'll tell you right now - with the R&D and actually building new plant (which is one of Nuclear's long-standing proven problems - they've never been able to make construction cheaper because of complexity and development (like in this case)) - it's going to be f00king expensive.

Maybe we can reduce our waste stockpiles with Gen IV reactors, if they actually get there, meanwhile - wind is cheap as chips, we know how to make turbines, it's getting cheaper and doesn't have expensive, pesky, waste issues.
No expensive pesky waste issues eh?

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,061
But you don't know that. For all you know a small, modular fission design might take off that is mass-producible long before mass battery storage becomes viable
I've posted on this before multiple times - nuclear has been promising the same promise since the first reactor and never delivered. These new reactors are promising the exact same promise. Nothing's changed. Nuclear's problem is it's inherent complexity and the danger of the materials involved.

I'd absolutely LOVE it to come together. The world is crying out for cheap carbon-free energy with a low footprint - and as @Bodhi points out - something that could potentially help go towards cleaning up the massive problem created by, er, nuclear fission.

However, based on the industry's track record of this exact promise, and consistent failure to deliver on that promise (and they've had 70 years), I hold out little hope.


Batteries on the other hand? Much newer tech. Delivering. Much much earlier in it's R&D lifecycle, much less costly than nuclear, not perfect - but in terms of hazardous materials looks like an angel compared to fission - and loads of scope for improvement. (Of course, the usual naysayers have been poo-pooing the tech, just like they did with wind - and they are talking shit now, like they were talking shit with the now very cheap and barely-subsidised (as opposed to coal, gas and nuclear) wind).

In the meantime when neither preferred end-state is available wind+fossil is cheaper (or at least a safer investment) than nuclear but releases more CO2. Your choice is clear.
And once again, third time in this conversation - I'll say I'm a pragmatist and say limited fleet rebuild is required. What the feck else do you want me to say?

None of that means anything other than nuclear fisson is still a fucking expensive white elephant who's time is nearly up because we've much simpler, less expensive tech that is doing a better job.


As for the fix of swivel-eyed loon corner:
It's difficult to justify that title when, in the very same article:
Global Fiberglass Solutions developed a method to break down blades and press them into pellets and fibre boards to be used for flooring and walls....."We can process 99.9% of a blade and handle about 6000 to 7000 blades a year per plant"
So yes, blades have been landfilled - but we've already got a number of solutions to that problem underway - and not just reprocessing but recycling, which is win-win environmentally.

Unlike nuclear waste - which we can't even landfill, lasts 100,000+ years and currently we're waiting on a "magic" technology that may never appear to help us reduce (not fix) a problem that physics says "tough shit, idiots" about.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,975
Batteries are newer tech than nuclear fission?

What?
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,061
Batteries are newer tech than nuclear fission?
Oh come on.

In terms of their use in grid balancing applications, yes. It's not like we're building fucking big duracell rechargables is it?

Carbon nanotubules for example - promise of almost instantaneous charge/discharge.

We're R&Ding the shit out of energy storage tech and it's coming along in leaps and bounds with practical simple applications.

Edit: Plus, if that's the only objection you've got...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,975
Oh come on.

In terms of their use in grid balancing applications, yes. It's not like we're building fucking big duracell rechargables is it?

Carbon nanotubules for example - promise of almost instantaneous charge/discharge.

We're R&Ding the shit out of energy storage tech and it's coming along in leaps and bounds with practical simple applications.

Edit: Plus, if that's the only objection you've got...
It wasn’t but most of what you put wasn’t relevant. Grid scale batteries aren’t here yet. You are expressing hope.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,376

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
I dont really think burying turbine blades is much of a problem.

Subsidising them to line pockets and then claiming they somehow power things is the issue.
Their actual ability to provide usable power for the grid and reduce fossil use is about 9% of their plate rating without storage.
They produce 0.4% of total energy use.

If we wanted to replace world total energy consumption increase...just the increase...we would need an area the size of the entire UK covered in turbines every year....or the size of Russia every 50 years..just for the increase.

We need super high density 24/7/365 energy to support the modern world.
Solar and wind could help, but its not really got what its going to take.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,061
It wasn’t but most of what you put wasn’t relevant. Grid scale batteries aren’t here yet. You are expressing hope.
Maybe, in a progressing technology (same with larger grid scale stuff) - but so are you with a tech that's been saying the same thing for 70 years...
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
Its actually very difficult to find as an absolute because they dont want you to know...ever single specific search goes to electricity only...
If you search wind power only wiki has the data, presumably they forgot to hide that.

Anyway heres as close as you can get..other renewables 1.8%
Wind ..solar and biomass etc.
If you try to dig down they revert to electricity only.

The spectator managed it and got to .46% wind .38% solar and the others.

World energy consumption - Wikipedia
Its kind of hilarious that they dont want to tell you how much wind produces as a percentage of total..its like ..well...theyre trying to hide it.
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
2,260
*yawn* link *yawn*


@Deebs, can we setup a script that posts something like that after every one of @Job's posts?
I agree, and the thing is that is too coherently written for it to be Job, so therefore it must be a cut n paste... but where from??? :rolleyes:
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
They use gas instead, because its cheaper.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
I agree, and the thing is that is too coherently written for it to be Job, so therefore it must be a cut n paste... but where from??? :rolleyes:
Its from the spectator as I mentioned, it used to be easily searched but now they realise how bad it looks theyve reverted to percentage of electricity only....which is between 3-4% as from the wiki.
So total energy is obviously way below that.
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
2,260
Its from the spectator as I mentioned, it used to be easily searched but now they realise how bad it looks theyve reverted to percentage of electricity only....which is between 3-4% as from the wiki.
So total energy is obviously way below that.
The word Spectator appears precisely zero times in that post.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom