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

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,384
Alternatives are being researched for non rare earth based materials in most areas, the actual problem with them is the a West did what it always does which is let China dig them up and thus control the market even though there are plenty of them in other places such as America.
It's more we neglected Africa for the past 50+ years and instead propped up monarchies in the middle East that belong in the medieval period in pretty much every regard.

One can criticize China for many things but their foreign economic empire building is straight out of our handbook, they just turned out to be fair better at it.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,641
Base the "green" revolution on rare earth materials (clue is in the name) get burned.

It's not really that complicated, very lucrative though.
Rare-earth elements aren't rare. They're just not concentrated like iron or other substances.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,325
Rare-earth elements aren't rare. They're just not concentrated like iron or other substances.
Well, no, not exactly. They are only found in small places and there is only a very limited source. Replace (however many billions of cars) with electric, and you are essentially in dream land. I mean, it works nicely for middle-upper class folk who want to pretend they are zero emission, because it said so in the pamphlet, but in reality, you might as well drive a V8.

The break even point is around 150k miles, where an electric car is better for the environment. My ICE car has done 15k in 5 years. (you do the math* American)
 
Last edited:

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
That's their targets fucked then - they can't bring them online fast enough to make the needed difference.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,325
Makes sense, current renewables can only do so much. Go nuclear aim to get off nuclear, we need to stop burning shit now, not in 25 years. China have got the message loud and clear, the climate is fucked and will be even more fucked unless we act now. If China are behind it, everyone will be behind it. I wouldn't put it past them to start building them in Africa too, to go with all the pretty little highways they are laying down. It could go aways to making life better in these countries, so they don't all want to risk their lives emigrating.

Clean, reliable power could transform the 3rd world.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,961
If you want to decarbonise quickly, then nuclear is the only game in town I'm afraid. Renewables are great in theory, however the ultra-low strike price that's always mentioned in the glossy brochure never materialises, as wind alone cannot power a modern economy due to how intermittent it is, and always needs reliable backup - usually gas

For starters you'd need enough storage to power the country for a couple of weeks to account for all the weather systems we get in Europe, and frankly right now that is a complete and utter fairytale. Even that huge battery Musk bought for South Australia would only cover our needs for 5 minutes or so.

It is a great test however. If someone is keen to decarbonise as much as possible, but also disregard nuclear as the best way to do this - you know they aren't really a serious commentator and can be easily ignored.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
we need to stop burning shit now, not in 25 years
Nuclear cannot deliver that. It takes 15 years to bring a plant online.

If they go nuclear, they can't hit their targets. Period.

Bring it on - I don't really care if they pepper the landscape in them. But they need to massively ramp up renewables quickly.

I repeat: Nuclear cannot replace any coal, oil or gas in time.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
If you want to decarbonise quickly, then nuclear is the only game in town I'm afraid.
You can indeed decarbonise through nuclear.

However, it's impossible to do this quickly. We don't have the engineering capacity, resource or ability to make anything other than a handful in near 20-year timescales and horribly expensively.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,961
Nuclear cannot deliver that. It takes 15 years to bring a plant online.

If they go nuclear, they can't hit their targets. Period.

Bring it on - I don't really care if they pepper the landscape in them. But they need to massively ramp up renewables quickly.

I repeat: Nuclear cannot replace any coal, oil or gas in time.
Unless you solve the storage question - which is clearly an awkward one given how determined you are not to answer it - renewables cannot replace coal oil or gas at all.

This is unless you only want to run your fridge or heat your house when it's windy.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
Unless you solve the storage question
I've solved my storage question. In 24 months time I'll be completely energy independent.

You solve the "we can't build nuclear in time" question first and I'll put a bit more effort in if you like.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,325
Do the same with batteries, and I won't consider the whole enterprise a dead-end. :)
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,909
50MW solar farm going to start it's installation in North Devon this week.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
Designed for a different age. Even data centres designed a few years ago have been failing.
Ultimately, you need water to cool the things down. It's a function of how they work - more powerful = more heat.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,878
Ultimately, you need water to cool the things down. It's a function of how they work - more powerful = more heat.
Sure but if the ambient temperature that the water is expected to cool down to when not near the reactor is much higher because the temperature outside is much higher then you might design it with a larger amount of water circulating so that it will be taking away the heat less often instead of coming round hotter each time.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
Sure but if the ambient temperature that the water is expected to cool down to when not near the reactor is much higher because the temperature outside is much higher then you might design it with a larger amount of water circulating so that it will be taking away the heat less often instead of coming round hotter each time.
They take cool water from upstream, use it, dump it downstream. One of the problems is river volume - they can't pump more water through faster (limited amounts they can abstract) - to keep the effluent temperatures down as they can only take so much and discharge so much.

Meh.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,878
They take cool water from upstream, use it, dump it downstream. One of the problems is river volume - they can't pump more water through faster (limited amounts they can abstract) - to keep the effluent temperatures down as they can only take so much and discharge so much.

Meh.
Cooling systems will need redesigning across the board for all kinds of things.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
Cooling systems will need redesigning across the board for all kinds of things.
Yes. But you can't redesign your way out of a lack of water.

If we want new shit - seaside. (And in 20 years)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,878
Yes. But you can't redesign your way out of a lack of water.

If we want new shit - seaside. (And in 20 years)
There's plenty of water. Just not in the same way there used to be. There's less river flow and the temperature is warmer. It just needs a design to accommodate the temperatures we will have over the next few decades. At the end of the day whatever temperature of water we have it will be a lot less than the reactor and therefore be capable of cooling it. It will need ferrying about in a different manner. A redesign.

As will data centres and even gamers' liquid-cooled PCs.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
33,211
There's plenty of water. Just not in the same way there used to be. There's less river flow and the temperature is warmer. It just needs a design to accommodate the temperatures we will have over the next few decades. At the end of the day whatever temperature of water we have it will be a lot less than the reactor and therefore be capable of cooling it. It will need ferrying about in a different manner. A redesign.
Hard disagree.

You've got X amount to extract, and you can only discharge it at Y temperature. The X to extract will be the maximum designed extraction limit for the river. Water has a set capacity to transfer heat - therefore given limited in, you've got limited out - and limited cooling capacity.

"Ferrying [water] about in a different manner" isn't going to make fuck all of a difference. They'll need to put the reactors where there's more water.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom