Greenpeace: Arctic 30
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Sponsored Links
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2205647/uk-breaks-4gw-wind-energy-record
11% and rising! but you're missing the point.
Build more power stations , be they wind, nuclear or sodding great hamsters on steroids, but without introducing controls on consumption you're not solving anything merely continuing the spiral
A nuclear station is planned in Somerset at Hinckley and it was reported in the Times in June or July that EDF want a subsidy of £165 per MWH produced for the whole life of the plant although it's unclear as to whether that is the total price or the subsidy on top of the market price.
Either way building numerous subsidised power stations is still less cost effective than bringing in TEQ's.
and it gets even more complicated
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors
I'm beginning to think Norcon's comment about greed is closer than I first thought
11% and rising! but you're missing the point.
Build more power stations , be they wind, nuclear or sodding great hamsters on steroids, but without introducing controls on consumption you're not solving anything merely continuing the spiral
A nuclear station is planned in Somerset at Hinckley and it was reported in the Times in June or July that EDF want a subsidy of £165 per MWH produced for the whole life of the plant although it's unclear as to whether that is the total price or the subsidy on top of the market price.
Either way building numerous subsidised power stations is still less cost effective than bringing in TEQ's.
and it gets even more complicated
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors
I'm beginning to think Norcon's comment about greed is closer than I first thought
No, but alternators are. There will be regular power cuts.
Sponsored Links
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2205647/uk-breaks-4gw-wind-energy-record
11% and rising! but you're missing the point.
Build more power stations , be they wind, nuclear or sodding great hamsters on steroids, but without introducing controls on consumption you're not solving anything merely continuing the spiral
A nuclear station is planned in Somerset at Hinckley and it was reported in the Times in June or July that EDF want a subsidy of £165 per MWH produced for the whole life of the plant although it's unclear as to whether that is the total price or the subsidy on top of the market price.
Either way building numerous subsidised power stations is still less cost effective than bringing in TEQ's.
and it gets even more complicated
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors
I'm beginning to think Norcon's comment about greed is closer than I first thought
11% and rising and falling depending upon whether the wind is blowing or not!
Your first and second links confirm the pitifully low contribution wind power makes to our energy needs:
- proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point = 3200 GW
- ALL of the existing wind power stations = 4 GW
Yes, of course building a new nuclear power station will cost money, but so do windmills which, in many people's opinions, are a waste of time.
Anyway, leaving all that aside for a moment, how would you control consumption? Would I, as a domestic consumer, be required to use less electricity? Please remember that electricity costs me a lot of money, which is in itself a disincentive for me to waste it.
What, specifically, should I stop doing?
What, specifically, should non-domestic users stop doing?
Ideally yes you should use less, there's an argument that energy is still far too cheap anyway , although using price as a disincentive is a crude way of doing it. Read the page about TEQ's , it's a way of controlling consumption.
For non domestic users then there is a lot that can be done to reduce waste and as I said using things like wind for direct mechanical drive. Go back a hundred and fifty odd years and our entire economy was largely wind , water and horse powered and the country prospered.
AsI've already said, it's essential to control consumption to ever have a chance of being in control of the situation irrespective of how power is generated in the first place.
Personally I think a few blackouts would be a good thing for this country might wake a few people up.
Yeah I meant that it would show up how fragile our society is.
Can you imagine the horrific complexity and cost of any government attempt to introduce TEQs. We're talking about people who are incapable of arranging a bacchanalia in an alcohol manufacturing facility, so it sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Apart from anything else, the ability to trade them would just result in rich people carrying on as normal. Running their huge centrally heated, air conditioned homes, and big gas guzzling cars. The poor would be stuck with what they were given.
SOME sort of power generation apart from "green" sources is a must. Power generation in this country, not imported energy from abroad. The "base load" must be covered, but remember that peak loads are likely to occur on cold evenings in the Winter. Cold, frosty evenings tend to be fairly still, so no solar power, no wind power. I don't want to sit around a candle, freezing, so I'll have nuclear energy thanks, and plenty of it too. Pay the subsidy by cutting a few government departments!
SOME sort of power generation apart from "green" sources is a must. Power generation in this country, not imported energy from abroad. The "base load" must be covered, but remember that peak loads are likely to occur on cold evenings in the Winter. Cold, frosty evenings tend to be fairly still, so no solar power, no wind power. I don't want to sit around a candle, freezing, so I'll have nuclear energy thanks, and plenty of it too. Pay the subsidy by cutting a few government departments!
The greediest lot in the energy business are the wind turbine companies. The massive subsidies have made them fabulously wealthy at our expense, none of which has made one tiny bit of difference to energy capacity. Labour are the worst culprits - they should have commissioned new power plants 10-12 years ago. But no political party escapes criticism. Whilst they battle for the greenest high ground our energy capacity is going down the drain.
I wouldn't say the country prospered until steam power was harnessed. While we had thousands of wind and water powered mills, life was tough.
Wind power these days make the most economic sense for use in electricity generation. Direct drives do not, owing to their variability of output.
Grid connected WTs make sense, in that you can compensate the power each way.
Even if you used WTs for just energy storage (like pumped hydro), you are looking at an expensive energy system. And we don't have a cheap established technology (other than pumped hydro) that can store the energy on a national scale.
Consumption control must be a global issue, and yes it must be controlled for us to keep a handle on emissions.
We still need nuclear of course, as:
a. We need to replace coal power, and that need for baseload supply isn't going to go away in the foreseeable future.
b. There will still be an expansion of consumerism, and energy consumption on a global level for many decades to come.
c. It is currently the best choice we have for baseload supply when hydro power has reached its limits (it has in most places).
As you said, we cannot keep increasing our energy consumption, but energy efficiency measures on their own will often increase energy consumption overall in the long term (Jevons Paradox).
To acheive a sustainable steady state economy without the hardship of major wars or depressions will probably be on a par with nuclear fusion in terms of difficulty. But that does not mean we should not try to tackle it. We have no moral basis for stopping other countries from persuing a consumer lifestyle like we enjoy, but we must find a way that it does not wreck the planet. Limiting economic growth, coupled with energy efficiency is seen by many as the key long term tactic.
Of course fusion is making some interesting headlines ATM. And not just "its X amount of years away". If it is ever made viable, a Nobel Prize wouldn't seem enough to thank them.
With respect, this is not an adequate answer. I'll ask the question again: specifically which items should I stop using? I have the usual things in my home, so perhaps you could tell me which are not necessary.
Sponsored Links
