More people should be saying this

[Wij]

BBC NEWS | Business | Energy policy 'too wind focused'

I am sick of seeing wind farms in M&S adverts and such as though wind is the answer to all our energy woes. Wind could form part of the mix but to pretend it could compete with Nuclear, Gas or Coal is just a fantasy. Faddy, trendy, lets-ignore-real-facts twats are behind this !!!

 

[dysfunction]

I think wind farms are really ugly. I wish they had never been invented...lets get something else instead.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Let's add "bio diesel" to that list of things to tell "f*ck off".

People don't think things through.

Sure, biodiesel looks good when compared to one regular car, but think about what you need to fuel ALL cars.

Nuclear is the way, we have the technology.

 

[TdC]

Giant tidal power station plans revealed - Building

that maybe?

 

[Scouse]

There's no such thing as "clean coal" yet, and we've very little idea how to sequester carbon dioxide safely. That hasn't stopped "business interests" pushing this non-existant technology.

We live in a country with abundent natural resources when it comes to wind and tidal/wave power so as far as I'm concerned they can put big fuck off wind farms all over the country.

I give no shit about anyone who doesn't like the eyesore side of it. It's the "right thing" to do.

 

[dysfunction]

Yes lets just keep building wind farms so that we kill off all the birds and bats around the coastlines and ruined scenic valleys...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Under. Water. Nuclear. Reactors!

 

[Wij]

There's no such thing as "clean coal" yet, and we've very little idea how to sequester carbon dioxide safely. That hasn't stopped "business interests" pushing this non-existant technology.

We live in a country with abundent natural resources when it comes to wind and tidal/wave power so as far as I'm concerned they can put big fuck off wind farms all over the country.

I give no shit about anyone who doesn't like the eyesore side of it. It's the "right thing" to do.

Have you any idea how many windfarms we'd actually need to satisfy even our household leccy requirements ? Let alone eCars and business. FUCKING MASSES !!! And the price of leccy would be sky-high and we'd have brown-outs on calm days. Tidal can't make enough either. Download the Without Hot Air pdf. It's not an anti-green rant sponsored by big biz. It's just honest about the numbers. 'Renewables' can't do it all and we'd fuck up the country if we tried to make them.

Clean-coal is a bit of bullshit in all honesty. Nuclear should be the backbone of our energy supply.

 

[DaGaffer]

I've got no problem with the aesthetics of wind farms (quite like 'em actually), and think we have an appropriate climate to do more. However, the article is right, wind can only ever be a small component of a wider strategy because a. it doesn't physically scale well (we don't have the spare land and the economics of offshore don't stack up yet) and b. you need an alternate source anyway because wind-generated electricity isn't reliable (maybe if we solved some of our storage problems it would be different). Wind and water power need to be used, but they're never going to give us more than 20-25% (at best) of our needs.

 

[ECA]

Basically we need nuclear until solar gets efficient enough to replace it.
Wind/Tidal power generation costs are expensive.

From the royal academy of enginerring: cost per kilo watt hour ( in pence ).

Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
Nuclear fission plant 2.3
Coal-fired pulverised-fuel (PF) steam plant 2.5
Coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CFB) steam plant 2.6
Coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 3.2
Poultry litter-fired bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) steam plant 6.8
Onshore wind farm 3.7
Offshore wind farm 5.5
Wave and marine technologies 6.6


NUCREAR PREASE!

Who the fuck wants to pay triple their leccy bill just to please greenpeace.

 

[ECA]

Thats just raw production cost btw doesn't include infrastructure staffing all the other crap the leccy companies charge you for.

You're normally paying between 5-20p/kwh in the uk depending on time of day/location.

 

[Tom]

Don't forget that windfarm construction wouldn't happen were it not for the large subsidies offered by the government.

Also don't forget the cost of actually connecting them to the grid. Something often left out of the argument.

 

[TdC]

Don't forget that windfarm construction wouldn't happen were it not for the large subsidies offered by the government.

so? doesn't that make it a good thing that they actually are getting built?

 

[tris-]

How many hamsters on wheels and dynamos would it take to produce the present output of eletricity?

 

[ECA]

How many hamsters on wheels and dynamos would it take to produce the present output of eletricity?

Three.

 

[nath]

I thought folks in white coats were making progress with fusion?

 

[TdC]

iirc it takes too much energy to start up a fusion reaction?

 

[nath]

I've no idea, I vaguely recall seeing a program about it not so long ago that suggested they were getting somewhere. There was a big round room with lots of magnets. I don't remember much else :/.

 

[Ch3tan]

Yeah they said it could be 15 years it could be a 100 years, so fusion is hardly a reliable solution right now.

 

[rynnor]

What we really need in the future is a way to store the energy produced by wind/solar etc.

If we scaled up production of these a thousandfold it would still not be that helpfull since it cant be managed like gas/coal/oil/nuclear power plants - you cant ask them to suddenly produce more because you have a peak in demand.

It is actually possible to build a house that uses barely any heating with massive amounts of insulation, heat retaining triple glazing etc. - thats the real way forward - reducing consumption requirements but obviously the energy companies wouldnt like that and planning regulations are lagging way behind reality.

 

[Scouse]

From the royal academy of enginerring: cost per kilo watt hour ( in pence ).

Nuclear fission plant 2.3

You will find that the figure above does not include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste.

There are a few reasons for this including:

1) In usual costings it pushes the price up to the most expensive per kWh.

2) We don't actually know how to dispose of radioactive material in the volumes needed so, at best, we can only come up with rough estimates.

3) It's so fucking expensive when you factor in disposal that all other forms of power beat it hands-down.

If you're interested in the figures being bandied around for the disposal of nuclear waste from our existing stack of stations the estimates range from £70bn-140bn.

The U.K. taxpayer will be picking up this bill - E.On/EDF etc, will not build new nuclear power stations if they have to pay for disposal. Gordo's already committed us to this.

Also don't forget the cost of actually connecting them to the grid. Something often left out of the argument.

I agree Tom. Costings for all types of power should include the total cost of ownership, not just choice tidbits to make the casual-press-reading English public feel like they're making informed decisions for themselves...

 

[Scouse]

It is actually possible to build a house that uses barely any heating with massive amounts of insulation, heat retaining triple glazing etc. - thats the real way forward - reducing consumption requirements but obviously the energy companies wouldnt like that and planning regulations are lagging way behind reality.

Nail/Head situation going on here.

Well, at least as far as household usage goes

 

[ECA]

You will find that the figure above does not include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste.

It would be nice if we could get those figures from anywhere that is reliable, any suggestions?

 

[Scouse]

It would be nice if we could get those figures from anywhere that is reliable, any suggestions?

As far as I know there are no reliable figures for nuclear power. Since we can't figure out how to dispose of the stuff we can't really put a figure on it.

As for the others, they do tend to vary depending on who's ultimately backing them.


Perhaps a different approach should be taken than basing opinions solidly on cost? Each technology has its advantages and disadvantages and the argument should encompass more of these.

Lets face it, all over the UK we've been building houses and commercial buildings to a minimum-cost model. As a result large swathes of our country are fucking ugly places to live. If cost wasn't the only factor...

 

[Wij]

You will find that the figure above does not include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste.

There are a few reasons for this including:

1) In usual costings it pushes the price up to the most expensive per kWh.

2) We don't actually know how to dispose of radioactive material in the volumes needed so, at best, we can only come up with rough estimates.

3) It's so fucking expensive when you factor in disposal that all other forms of power beat it hands-down.

If you're interested in the figures being bandied around for the disposal of nuclear waste from our existing stack of stations the estimates range from £70bn-140bn.

The U.K. taxpayer will be picking up this bill - E.On/EDF etc, will not build new nuclear power stations if they have to pay for disposal. Gordo's already committed us to this.




I agree Tom. Costings for all types of power should include the total cost of ownership, not just choice tidbits to make the casual-press-reading English public feel like they're making informed decisions for themselves...

I call shennanigans on this. Proof or it isn't so.

Also have you factored in fast-breeder technology or thorium plants ?

 

[Wij]

It is actually possible to build a house that uses barely any heating with massive amounts of insulation, heat retaining triple glazing etc. - thats the real way forward - reducing consumption requirements but obviously the energy companies wouldnt like that and planning regulations are lagging way behind reality.

Household heating is only a small part of our energy requirements.

 

[ECA]

What we really need in the future is a way to store the energy produced by wind/solar etc.

If we scaled up production of these a thousandfold it would still not be that helpfull since it cant be managed like gas/coal/oil/nuclear power plants - you cant ask them to suddenly produce more because you have a peak in demand.

It is actually possible to build a house that uses barely any heating with massive amounts of insulation, heat retaining triple glazing etc. - thats the real way forward - reducing consumption requirements but obviously the energy companies wouldnt like that and planning regulations are lagging way behind reality.

You can grab all kinds of videos about Passive houses on youtube/internets.

eg:

YouTube - Passive House - Galway

The problem with these used to be stale air, but those crazy swedes developed and air interchange system to get you fresh air without impacting too much on losing heat.

 

[Cadelin]

You will find that the figure above does not include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste.

There are a few reasons for this including:

1) In usual costings it pushes the price up to the most expensive per kWh.

2) We don't actually know how to dispose of radioactive material in the volumes needed so, at best, we can only come up with rough estimates.

3) It's so fucking expensive when you factor in disposal that all other forms of power beat it hands-down.

If you're interested in the figures being bandied around for the disposal of nuclear waste from our existing stack of stations the estimates range from £70bn-140bn.

Do you actually have any sources for those statements? Also any number you band around for the disposal of nuclear waste includes the waste caused by the manufacture of nuclear weapons which caused a huge amount more waste than from a power plant because the uranium needs to be highly enriched.

We will have to rely on nuclear power in the near future if we want to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

The UK should follow the French model. The french estimate that the disposal of nuclear waste only accounts for 5% of the cost of the electricity.

EdF puts aside EUR 0.14 cents/kWh for decommissioning and at the end of 2004 it carried provisions of EUR 9.9 billion for this. By 2010 it will have fully funded the eventual decommissioning of its nuclear power plants (from 2035). Early in 2006 it held EUR 25 billion segregated for this purpose, and is on track for EUR 35 billion in 2010. Areva has dedicated assets already provided at the level of its future liabilities.

 

[JBP|]

call this a crazy idea if you like, but why don't we just shoot all the nuclear waste up to the moon on a rocket? its not going to hurt anyone up there is it

 

[ECA]

That's a terrible idea because we're going to have a moonbase eventually.
Space elevator imo.