More people should be saying this

[Scouse]

Which shouldn't happen in future because it would still be viable if the energy companies paid it.

As I've already said, the energy companies are prepared to build and run nuclear power stations for Britain. They refuse, however, to take part in the disposal of nuclear waste. They cannot hope to run a profit if they have to dispose.

We have agreed to foot the bill for this already.

My $0.02?

Well, if we take the minimum £70bn estimate for this then ask yourself one question. How much would it cost to go and buy an off-the-shelf commercial solar panel and wind generator for every household in the UK, double glaze those which aren't and fit energy efficient boilers to them all. Then with the cash left over build fuckloads of wind and tidal energy farms.

Do the maths. Get the figures from the producers of these equipment and use their least favourable efficiency estimates to bias the results towards the low-energy-producing/saving side of the equation.

I think you'll find that for £70bn we could hit our new "2050" target in the time it takes to whack them up. Job-creation-tastic, much more efficient than quantitative easing cash flowing directly to the banks and "diet" on the carbon front, although I will admit there'd be no 3 breasted irradiated mutant women to fondle

But don't take my word for it...

 

[rynnor]

One thing I don't understand about nuclear waste disposal, why is it so bloody expensive to drill a hole a mile down and bury the stuff well away from the water table? Seriously, burying it that far down should not cost billions and billion, some fucker somewhere is getting very rich off the back of that scam.

Its a pretty big mine and I guess they have to survey a hell of a lot more than usual to make sure theres nothing unexpected down there that could scupper it.

The rest of the cost is probably security plus you'd prob need to extend a railway line to the site since thats about the best way to transport the stuff - I guess it all adds up.

It will come tho eventually - prob under a new govt since this lot would have no chance getting it thru now.

On an earlier point about clean coal burning tho its true no-one has got one in production yet there are companies (like big gas rigs) who have been sequestering CO2 in the ground for years quite sucessfully so its not completely pie-in-the-sky.

 

[rynnor]

I think you'll find that for £70bn we could hit our new "2050" target in the time it takes to whack them up. Job-creation-tastic, much more efficient than quantitative easing cash flowing directly to the banks and "diet" on the carbon front, although I will admit there'd be no 3 breasted irradiated mutant women to fondle

I'd say your right - its always going to be better to conserve energy in the first place than to keep building new power stations to cope with ever increasing load.

Even if like me your not convinced by the CO2 arguements it still makes good sense to look for alternatives to our finite fossil fuel stockpiles - plus we are somewhat at the mercy of teh evul Russkis for our Winter gas usage - not a good position to be in...

 

[ECA]

As I've already said, the energy companies are prepared to build and run nuclear power stations for Britain. They refuse, however, to take part in the disposal of nuclear waste. They cannot hope to run a profit if they have to dispose.

We have agreed to foot the bill for this already.

My $0.02?

Well, if we take the minimum £70bn estimate for this then ask yourself one question. How much would it cost to go and buy an off-the-shelf commercial solar panel and wind generator for every household in the UK, double glaze those which aren't and fit energy efficient boilers to them all. Then with the cash left over build fuckloads of wind and tidal energy farms.

Do the maths. Get the figures from the producers of these equipment and use their least favourable efficiency estimates to bias the results towards the low-energy-producing/saving side of the equation.

I think you'll find that for £70bn we could hit our new "2050" target in the time it takes to whack them up. Job-creation-tastic, much more efficient than quantitative easing cash flowing directly to the banks and "diet" on the carbon front, although I will admit there'd be no 3 breasted irradiated mutant women to fondle

But don't take my word for it...

If this is the case and you've "done" the maths can you post your working please?

Thanks.

 

[Trem]

As I've already said, the energy companies are prepared to build and run nuclear power stations for Britain. They refuse, however, to take part in the disposal of nuclear waste. They cannot hope to run a profit if they have to dispose.

We have agreed to foot the bill for this already.

My $0.02?

Well, if we take the minimum £70bn estimate for this then ask yourself one question. How much would it cost to go and buy an off-the-shelf commercial solar panel and wind generator for every household in the UK, double glaze those which aren't and fit energy efficient boilers to them all. Then with the cash left over build fuckloads of wind and tidal energy farms.

Do the maths. Get the figures from the producers of these equipment and use their least favourable efficiency estimates to bias the results towards the low-energy-producing/saving side of the equation.

I think you'll find that for £70bn we could hit our new "2050" target in the time it takes to whack them up. Job-creation-tastic, much more efficient than quantitative easing cash flowing directly to the banks and "diet" on the carbon front, although I will admit there'd be no 3 breasted irradiated mutant women to fondle

But don't take my word for it...

I was with you until you denied me 3 breasted women

 

[Wij]

Micro-generation is horribly inefficient. A solar panel and wind-turbine would hardly ever produce the household leccy alone let alone anything else. Also how do you think £70 billion is going to cover that for every household for the next 50 years ? Not a chance.

Maths:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

 

[mr.Blacky]

I am sorry but is nuclear energy also not a finite source?

 

[Tom]

Yes, but it is also a viable source, and a predictable source—unlike wind power.

 

[Wij]

I am sorry but is nuclear energy also not a finite source?

Yes, but if we reprocess the depleted uranium into Plutonium we can run power plants off that.

We can also run power plants off Thorium.

We've also not got much of an idea how much Uranium is left to be mined. There could be a lot more than we thought. We aren't looking that hard at the moment as it's not scarce and we only need small amounts.

Also, it can be extracted from the sea almost endlessly although this is more expensive.

Could easily get 100s of years out of nuclear fission by which time we'd probably have nuclear fusion.

It will last us longer than coal at least and it has a very low carbon footprint if you're into that sort of thing.

 

[inactionman]

There's a couple of solar power satellite solutions being planned as well, which could double up as mazers, handily! That's probably the best renewable, as they can operate at a constant level 24/7 (possibly excluding solar flares), and you can move the downlink to deliver power to wherever it's needed.

Fission is the way to go for now, for baseline power, but we need to a least double fusion research spending to sort out the long term. As for disposing the waste, subduction zones seems the best idea.

One idea I've heard about renewables like wind, why don't you use it to generate hydrogen for use in fuel cells? That way you don't have to worry so much about loss due to the grid.

 

[ECA]

We also really realistically only need nuclear for 20-50 years before renewables become much more viable.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think this whole thing is a case of "cn't please everyone".

Someone has to buckle and give in, or a nice compromise needs to be done.

We can't save ALL of the enviroment.
We can't give up ALL of the energy production stuff.
We can't change ALL of the cars hybrid/build JUST wind stuff.

Knowing humans though, that's not an option :lol:

 

[rynnor]

We also really realistically only need nuclear for 20-50 years before renewables become much more viable.

I'm afraid not - they all have theoretical maximums we can never practically reach - in the UK we can never get our energy demands (assuming they dont increase at all which is extremely unlikely) solely from renewables - we will always be reliant on either fossil fuels/nuclear power or energy imports.

 

[pez]

I'm afraid not - they all have theoretical maximums we can never practically reach - in the UK we can never get our energy demands (assuming they dont increase at all which is extremely unlikely) solely from renewables - we will always be reliant on either fossil fuels/nuclear power or energy imports.

probably not true if you take in to account all the islands Britain owns. Theoretically thats probably way more hydro power than is ever going to be needed.

Practically and financially ofc its nonsense.

I'm not sure how you can categorically state that in 50 years it would be impossible to meet Britain's energy needs through renewables. Thats quite a statement when you consider 50 years ago and the revolution in IT and communications. Or the 50 years before that and the revolution in transport and infrastructure. Or the 50 years before that and the changes in insutry etc etc.
Things can change, fast, and its only getting faster.

 

[Wij]

probably not true if you take in to account all the islands Britain owns. Theoretically thats probably way more hydro power than is ever going to be needed.

Practically and financially ofc its nonsense.

Thank god you qualified that

 

[ECA]

Or the 50 years before that and the changes in insutry etc etc.
Things can change, fast, and its only getting faster.

QFT.

Our rate of progress has been exponential over the last 10000 years or so.
Over the last 200 years it's been absolutely insane and it hasn't slowed down.

Why wouldn't energy be the next barrier to be developed through technology?

 

[rynnor]

I'm not sure how you can categorically state that in 50 years it would be impossible to meet Britain's energy needs through renewables. Thats quite a statement when you consider 50 years ago and the revolution in IT and communications. Or the 50 years before that and the revolution in transport and infrastructure. Or the 50 years before that and the changes in insutry etc etc.
Things can change, fast, and its only getting faster.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

Read that - there are real maximum values - we only have a finite amount of land we can use for it, theres a finite limit to wave power and geothermal powers output.

Sure we might make slightly more effecient solar cells etc but after the level of mass production we would need they are unlikely to be amazingly better than what we have so we can be pretty certain that we couldnt supply todays needs.

The huge problem with even this estimate is that the chances of our energy usage staying the same is practically 0 - we constantly buy more gizmos that demand ever more energy.

A country with our population density cannot get all its power from renewables.

 

[ECA]

And I'm sure if 100 years ago you told people about the state of society you'd be laughed at by 99.99% of people.

200 years ago and you'd have been declared insane and locked up.

 

[rynnor]

QFT.

Our rate of progress has been exponential over the last 10000 years or so.
Over the last 200 years it's been absolutely insane and it hasn't slowed down.

Why wouldn't energy be the next barrier to be developed through technology?

Our energy demand has doubled every 20-30 years since the 1850s - so far we have gotten this energy predominantly from our dwindling stocks of fossil fuels that were built up over hundreds of millions of years - its best not to delude ourselves that this is a small problem - its probably the biggest challenge facing humanity.

Fusion may never produce more energy than is used to start the reaction its still a while before we will know - barring this we are stuck with nuclear power.

Edit - until some distant day when we run out of fissionables.

 

[ECA]

If the worst comes to the worst I'm perfectly happy munching Soylent Green.

 

[Chilly]

And I'm sure if 100 years ago you told people about the state of society you'd be laughed at by 99.99% of people.

200 years ago and you'd have been declared insane and locked up.

Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. It doesnt matter if its now, 500 years in the future or 500 years in the past.

 

[noblok]

There's no guarantee thermodynamics will still be relevant in 500 years though. Although the odds of a new theory being discovered and having practical applications being developed on basis of said theory which allow us to live on renewables in 50 years are probably pretty slim .

 

[pez]

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

Read that - there are real maximum values - we only have a finite amount of land we can use for it, theres a finite limit to wave power and geothermal powers output.

Sure we might make slightly more effecient solar cells etc but after the level of mass production we would need they are unlikely to be amazingly better than what we have so we can be pretty certain that we couldnt supply todays needs.

The huge problem with even this estimate is that the chances of our energy usage staying the same is practically 0 - we constantly buy more gizmos that demand ever more energy.

A country with our population density cannot get all its power from renewables.

I briefly scanned it since its not summarised very well. Basically he was suggesting that with proper investment the UK alone could account for around 50% of its energy requirement through renewables with expansive but not ludicrously excessive investment.

Thats a hell of a lot imo. Ofc a more likely situation would be for renewable energy owned and maintained by the UK but based in another country either directly or through the EU to account for it. In fact, judging from what the author was saying with the potential for the various types of renewable power all it would take would be for a couple of large, hot, low pop density countries such as Algeria/Morrocco to join the EU and it would be close to self sufficient.

Also look at how much he predicts can be raised through deep offshore wind farms and then compare the deep water area available around Portugal/Azores, Ireland and Iceland.

 

[rynnor]

I briefly scanned it since its not summarised very well. Basically he was suggesting that with proper investment the UK alone could account for around 50% of its energy requirement through renewables with expansive but not ludicrously excessive investment.

No he ends thinking the likely max would be about 16% and even that requires massive investment.

As to low density countries - yes they probably could be theoretically self sufficient but they are too poor to manage it.

Also look at how much he predicts can be raised through deep offshore wind farms and then compare the deep water area available around Portugal/Azores, Ireland and Iceland.

Actually he states that currently no-one thinks deep offshore wind is practical - it would be hideously expensive - need tons of maintenance due to salt corrosion and we lack the hundreds of specialist ships required to launch them plus millions of tons of steel - just because we could theoretically do something doesnt mean its practical.

 

[pez]

well thats what I get for just looking at the graphs.

And you see no way that the technical ability to makes these things feasible would not arise in the next 50 years? You think things like salt erosion and logistic issues related to deep sea wind farms will stay impossible to overcome for eternity?

 

[rynnor]

well thats what I get for just looking at the graphs.

And you see no way that the technical ability to makes these things feasible would not arise in the next 50 years? You think things like salt erosion and logistic issues related to deep sea wind farms will stay impossible to overcome for eternity?

No but as I say those things cost tons to build and you then have the problem of getting the power back inland plus you have to leave shipping lanes/fishing areas free - the sea around europe is incredibly busy.

These things sound good but even with subsidies and government support people arent exactly queue'ing up to build these which tells you a fair bit...

 

[Wij]

I briefly scanned it since its not summarised very well.

It's worth reading fully. You can do it in a couple of hours. It looks like work at work

Some interesting nuggets in there. Not just the numbers.

 

[DaGaffer]

Update. Interesting new info on this on The Reg. Suggests the operational economics need a serious rethink.

 

[TdC]

heh awesome

I have a question about a line in that article though:

the introduction of so many wind turbines will spell disastrous problems for operators of "thermal" plant - that is fossil fuelled, and conceivably nuclear too.

wasn't that the whole idea? or am I reading it wrong?

 

[Wij]

It means noone would bother investing in other forms of energy generation as they'd be operating in an unfair market. You might well think that's a good thing if you're sufficiently greenie but that would just make us more and more reliant on the unpredicatable whims of the wind.