What brexit was it you voted for then ?
Putin, arse, elbow
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You mean in the same sense that lying Brexer Johnson is to blame for the rail strike?
Doubt that a strike as such can be laid at Johnson’s door
And a rail strike and a national energy policy is imo different
But hey ho he was head of government
Not quite sure what brexit has to do with Germany’s energy policy
Dare say you can grub up some obscure connection
That and the country / government having been infiltrated by Russian secret squirrels
Sponsored Links
Wind and solar provide a different type of supply to nuclear. They are not comparable.People have done the sums and considered the alternatives. That's why very few people who can count recommend nukes.
It would cost half as much as Hinckley did to build 10GW of solar and wind in Morocco and then run a cable here. And it'd be done faster.
Xlinks and UK govt discussing CfD for UK-Morocco power link
Xlinks is in discussion with the UK Government about Contract for Difference (CfD) support for the planned interconnector between Morocco and the UK.www.offshore-energy.biz
Also, would you really want to invest in/rely on, large energy supplies from N.Africa?
Germany has traded with Russia for a long time. You might call the area optics and technical equipotent. UK and others too even the USA. It started falling off when the Soviet collapsed. Prices too high. Japan starting up in similar areas wont have helped either.
Gas, Oil and a number of raw materials are Putin's economic war. How will it work out? This might interest you as we can say me too on gas.
I'm not looking at dates but Gernany's variations on a green party probably relate to the way they went. Merkel wasn't one. Their greens got votes after Chernobyl blew up, The Japanese one even more.
Solar needs storage. Some countries are using enormous lithium packs to load level with the usual methods of generating. We have Dinorwig that can provide 1,800mw for a while that is just used to make up for surges as it can go on line quickly. To use all solar would need rather a lot of storage and like wind the output is not constant. The nuke question even goes back to Blare. His answer to no nuke was do you want us to keep the lights on? The main problems is getting people to build them. It's proved to be difficult. Some reckon MrsT even had a mind change on more.
So who to believe. The people in power who are actually doing it or a political party that isn't. Ok assume the people in power are mad if you like. Be sucked in which is what politics in general usually does.
They are different. But they are comparable.
Price can be compared, reliability and availability can be compared, time to build can be compared.
Yes, it would diversify our energy supply and reduce the periods where large weather systems impact their supply.
Nuclear is a terrible technology to pair with renewables, they don't add to each other at all.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,852
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
The point is, rather crucially, they both don't produce greenhouse gases.
They can be compared as you say; wind and solar are fatally unreliable in that comparison.
If you're going to buy your power from somewhere else like Morocco, then you can't compare.
Last edited:
No they're not, as nuclear provide baseload suply whereas solar and wind do not.
Even if you add storage (which increases the cost), they are not comparable. Nuclear replaces coal, whereas wind/solar tends to replce gas, as that is able to vary with demand.
You can in theory have a variable nuclear output (and some do) but obviously, its not best to do this.
Any developed country needs a baseload supply, and the likes of UK and Germany need nuclear to meet that demand. (Notice that Germany has an excellent reputation for renewables, but is also burning large amounts of dirty coal).
You can't economically build enough storage to use wind/solar as a baseload supply. Even with molten salt systems, the cost increase, the more you add, as you'd be adding so much redundancy into the system.
their energy is vastly cheaper.
"Offshore windfarm operators will sell power for as little as £37.35 per megawatt hour, 5.8% below the lowest bid in the most recent auction in 2019."
If developed over a large area, there is pretty sure to be wind, or sun, or tides, or waves, somewhere.
Price of offshore wind power falls to cheapest ever level in UK
Contract price is nearly 6% lower than previous auction in 2019, which could ease pressure on energy bills
www.theguardian.com
as for getting energy from Africa, I guess you aren't aware of the gas that Europe imports.
Dependency on Russia didn't work out well, did it?
Is Saudi stable and reliable?
It is, but what other way is there? Nuclear is best run at constant, consistent output - same load all the time. Gas, diesel are the only ones you can run start stop.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,852
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Clear enough why you wouldn't want to!
Sponsored Links
