Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Wij]

How about these cogent points then, soze?

They're not cogent points. It's a shambling rant comparing apples with oranges.

Try answering the point about the comparitive strike rates. Try answering about the total costs of running a grid. Come up with some meaningful numbers for the whole system.

You aren't though; you keep shifting the argument away from the bits you can't answer. Eventually we end up back at the start. I call Toht on you. Double Seel in fact!

 

[TdC]

Double Seel in fact!

harsh!

 

[Scouse]

I call Toht on you. Double Seel in fact!

Well, I wouldn't call Damian Carrington's feature a "shambling rant" - considering he's Monibot's boss, worked at the Financial Times, New Scientist and teh b33b and it's his full time job to be a reasonably responsible journalist. Hell, even The Economist doesn't believe in nuclear any more.

David Cameron said

The problems of nuclear waste have to be dealt with to make any new investment possible.

but they haven't been, have they.

Cumbria doesn't want any new shit - and you yourself have responded to the principle that we must know what to do with the waste (my principle issue with nuclear) before creating even more of it saying:

Your principle. Not mine.

Not your principle to care about what we do with nuclear waste before we make more of it?

Riiiiiiight.

Remember that picture of that ostrich on a beach I posted?


I totally refute that I've seel-like ducked the argument on cost. The argument on cost has been pretty clearly settled from both sides - they're (currently) comparatively equal, with space for renewables to fall (which they're doing apace), and space for the nuclear cost to rise - as it has been doing quite spectacularly. Spectacularly enough for not a single private company to want to build nuclear without massive government backing.

The argument then falls where it's always fallen - the place I'm coming back to time and again. Waste disposal. The unsolveable problem. The one you've basically stated: "I don't care" to...




Edit: To bring a bit of change to our arguments (because I'm pretty sure we're both bored of going round in circles) I like this take in the Economist on nuclear - shedding light on nuclear's inherently political rather than economic setting...

 

[Wij]

You've constistantly ducked the system cost. How to run a grid.

Go for it!!

 

[Scouse]

How to run a grid.

You're not advocating us keeping an old, inflexible, out-of-date energy grid, are you?


I've not ducked it. I've already stated many times that you're thinking is too isolationist. It's a pan-european issue with a pan-european solution - and the creation of a "european super grid" is already going ahead.

At the moment the UK grid isn't part of it but with, for example, Skirtland regularly producing more electricity via wind power than it can use, the technological work (which, unlike nuclear, is solveable using current technology) is already underway.

There's an emerging single EU energy market - (windy in the UK beyond our capacity? Not windy in Spain today - we flog our excess 'leccy there - and vice-versa) - and this is happening like it or not. The investment is a foregone conclusion and happening whether we're winding it up, solaring it, nuclearing-it or not. You can't have small independent energy generators and "smash the big six" (a current political hot-potato this very day) without necessary grid upgrades.

Welcome to the brave new world m8

 

[rynnor]

You're not advocating us keeping an old, inflexible, out-of-date energy grid, are you?

I've not ducked it. I've already stated many times that you're thinking is too isolationist. It's a pan-european issue with a pan-european solution - and the creation of a "european super grid" is already going ahead.

At the moment the UK grid isn't part of it but with, for example, Skirtland regularly producing more electricity via wind power than it can use, the technological work (which, unlike nuclear, is solveable using current technology) is already underway.

There's an emerging single EU energy market - (windy in the UK beyond our capacity? Not windy in Spain today - we flog our excess 'leccy there - and vice-versa) - and this is happening like it or not. The investment is a foregone conclusion and happening whether we're winding it up, solaring it, nuclearing-it or not. You can't have small independent energy generators and "smash the big six" (a current political hot-potato this very day) without necessary grid upgrades.

Welcome to the brave new world m8

Isnt this just a sideshow - like germany shutting down its nuke plants to rely on polish coal fired generation.

The problem remains when we get a prolonged cold spell over pretty much the whole of europe there wont be spare to export to us.

Its also very susceptible to blackmsil/abuse like in the russian gas pipeline shutdown.

Its also bloody expensive - noone builds such links without a profitable longterm contract in place.

The real question is how can we safeguard supply at the lowest unit cost.

 

[Wij]

Figures? Proof this will work? Statistical analysis of capacity credit? Europe-wide commitments? Overall costs?

Anything?

 

[Wij]

Oh, don't forget my last post but also, US CO2 emissions are at the lowest level since 1996 thanks to fracking!

German CO2, if you look at their overall effect including the coal they now pay Czech to burn is up.

Renewable-centric policy doing wonders.

(and of course energy costs in the US are flat-to down while they are up-to-fucking-up in Germany)

 

[Deebs]

Common sense prevails. Or would you rather we bulldozed Norfolk and filled it with wind farms?

NO!!! Where would I get my turkey from at Christmas?

 

[Wij]

Inside Science talks about nuclear waste as its first item:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dvc0d

 

[Job]

We must also remember the fiasco that is carbon credits and the hilarious fact that Russias were worked out st the height of their polluting industry...which then collapsed leaving them with a windfall of credits to sell to yhe rest of the world so they could INCREASE their co2 output...you couldnt make it up.

 

[rynnor]

I wonder how much of the windpower supply will be knocked out by the storm?

I believe they disconnect them beforehand so quite an outage.

 

[Job]

This is more like it.

http://www.industrytap.com/massive-...der-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811

 

[Raven]

Utterly pointless in the UK.

 

[Scouse]

This is more like it.

http://www.industrytap.com/massive-...der-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811

Looks pretty cool that. Hope it works.

Utterly pointless in the UK.

Yep, but not in North Africa.

 

[rynnor]

This is more like it.

http://www.industrytap.com/massive-...der-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811

Interesting though water is heavy and requires a great deal of energy to pump through 50 miles of pipes so I wonder if there really will be any net gain. I also wonder if they are going to have to desalinate the water (which is also energy intensive) or else face massive buildups of salts within the towers?

Edit - I wonder if this is just a subsidy eater - using cheap conventional energy to produce a smaller amount of highly profitable 'green' energy?

 

[Job]

You could apply that to any renewable technology, 500mw would obviously dwarf the pump usage, it's simple, robust and the fans can be repaired with ease, they operate all the time, no worry of wind speeds and it condenses the acreage down hugely to make the same power and once built the tower could last for a 100 years.
That's a sensible technology, windfarms are a lot of tech out in the elements.

 

[rynnor]

You could apply that to any renewable technology, 500mw would obviously dwarf the pump usage, it's simple, robust and the fans can be repaired with ease, they operate all the time, no worry of wind speeds and it condenses the acreage down hugely to make the same power and once built the tower could last for a 100 years.
That's a sensible technology, windfarms are a lot of tech out in the elements.

Its not really power generation though if theres no net gain - just expensive lossy power conversion.

 

[Scouse]

Its not really power generation though if theres no net gain - just expensive lossy power conversion.

It won't get off the ground if they can't get more power out of it than they put in.

Why the seeming cynicism over any possible renewable engineering solutions?

 

[Job]

Expensive lossy power conversion..that is everything we do...the worst offenders are gas and coal stations that have huge pools of water to steam off the excess heat...they used to pipe it to local homes..but people dont want power station in towns so we throw gazillions of watts away all year round.

 

[rynnor]

Expensive lossy power conversion..that is everything we do...the worst offenders are gas and coal stations that have huge pools of water to steam off the excess heat...they used to pipe it to local homes..but people dont want power station in towns so we throw gazillions of watts away all year round.

You are right of course but because the fuels are energy dense even if you waste 60% you still make a net gain over the energy used to mine/deliver it.

 

[Tilda]

Has somebody made the point in this thread that the vast majority of the UK's current nuclear waste is due to our very early military research and experiments for Trident, a small part is from the research into early models of reactor. I heard on the radio that a nuclear powerstation built now, would, over its entire 80-90 year lifetime and decommissioning, produce only another 1.5% of the countries waste stockpile.

 

[georgie]

Yes, it has been previously stated, but

"WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH CHILDRENS!!!??!?!?" or something...

 

[Job]

Theyre still trying with fusion remember..if they nail it the greenies will have to shut up because its as natural as the sun.

 

[Embattle]

The main developments in fusion will probably be via the ITER project and that won't be for some time yet.

 

[soze]

I watched a documentary all about Chernobyl last night. It is shocking how close they came to a second explosion that would have rendered half of Europe uninhabitable. I do not for a second think a similar accident could ever happen here. With the people running the test having no clue what they are doing and then disabling safety measures to run the test. Then ignoring safety margins on the test. Scary shit.

It dose make me worry about other tinpot nations having these things though. I would not object to a single agency running all of the nuclear power stations in the world. At least then we could be sure they were being run safely.

 

[Embattle]

This was good when on originally:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHvDhILYl8

 

[Poag]

I watched a documentary all about Chernobyl last night. It is shocking how close they came to a second explosion that would have rendered half of Europe uninhabitable. I do not for a second think a similar accident could ever happen here. With the people running the test having no clue what they are doing and then disabling safety measures to run the test. Then ignoring safety margins on the test. Scary shit.

It dose make me worry about other tinpot nations having these things though. I would not object to a single agency running all of the nuclear power stations in the world. At least then we could be sure they were being run safely.

Channel? Sounds like a good watch...

 

[Raven]

You're not advocating us keeping an old, inflexible, out-of-date energy grid, are you?

It doesn't need to be flexible if it works 24/7 365 days of the year and can be scaled back or up dependant on demand. Nuclear, coal or gas are the only ways to go in that regard...the second two options are dirty and use a finite source.

Renewables are simply not flexible in any way shape or form. We have already established that storing energy is just not viable or efficient.

Yes it would be wonderful if we could harness power from the sea or from the sun but it just wouldn't work.

Like I said earlier, yes we could switch to renewables and it might be cheaper (it probably isn't btw) but the flip side is you would just have to get used to sitting in the dark of an evening.

 

[soze]

Channel? Sounds like a good watch...

It is called The Battle for Chernobyl