This enviroment saving the

[Notch7]

but even the biggest cannot provide baseload supply. And no matter how many you build, this will not change

Isnt that determined by electrical storage?

UK battery storage capacity could reach 70% growth in 2019 as business models evolve. As much as 500MW of additional large-scale battery storage capacity could be built in the UK in 2019, increasing its capacity by more than 70% to 1.2GW. ... There is also a large group of projects in the 10 - 20MW capacity range

 

[IT Minion]

Isnt that determined by electrical storage?

UK battery storage capacity could reach 70% growth in 2019 as business models evolve. As much as 500MW of additional large-scale battery storage capacity could be built in the UK in 2019, increasing its capacity by more than 70% to 1.2GW. ... There is also a large group of projects in the 10 - 20MW capacity range

Battery storage will kill off gas peaker plants that ramp up to meet surges of demand ( think boiling the kettle at half time during the world cup).

But 1.2Gwh of storage is an hour's supply from a decent sized nuclear plant, or a large gas/coal plant or one of the big wind arrays. If you're trying to cover a day with very low generation then it's far too small.

That's not to say it can't be done with other approaches. Pumped hydro being the classic example. There's lots of interest in things like flow batteries which can't out out as much power per second, but are much cheaper to store hours upon hours of power.

 

[Notch7]

Battery storage will kill off gas peaker plants that ramp up to meet surges of demand ( think boiling the kettle at half time during the world cup).

But 1.2Gwh of storage is an hour's supply from a decent sized nuclear plant, or a large gas/coal plant or one of the big wind arrays. If you're trying to cover a day with very low generation then it's far too small.

That's not to say it can't be done with other approaches. Pumped hydro being the classic example. There's lots of interest in things like flow batteries which can't out out as much power per second, but are much cheaper to store hours upon hours of power.

Thanks, that makes sense.

I cant say Im a fan of nuclear because I feel the decommissioning costs can be huge.

Nuclear power does seem to end up costing more than budgeted. The worst option seems to be Hinkley -the cost of the electricity is way too much.

 

[Ryler]

These enviromental bell ends need to look at the bigger picture

I find it very amusing that the remoaner lefties on diynot want to save the planet and to achieve that in any meaningful way, established economies and emerging economies all around the world would tank and take a hit like never before. It would be like a tyson hit from when he was in his prime.
Which we would never recover from.
And then the remoaners make claims about the brexit economic damage and moan moan moan and worry about us taking a hit.. (or at least use it as cover for their real agenda)
How hard a hit would that be in comparison?
I say it would be very light and easily recovered from.

 

[JP_]

I find it very amusing that the remoaner lefties

I find it amusing that brexiteer right wingers are so selfish and have no soul, but each to their own.

You know, it is possible to have a strong economy and increase green energy - just look at America.

The people that argue against it often have big investments in the oil and gas industry. I really don't understand what others have against it, makes no sense at all.

 

[EddieM]

Thanks, that makes sense.

I cant say Im a fan of nuclear because I feel the decommissioning costs can be huge.

Nuclear power does seem to end up costing more than budgeted. The worst option seems to be Hinkley -the cost of the electricity is way too much.

depressingly standard blinkered, uneducated luddite response

 

[Ryler]

I find it amusing that brexiteer right wingers are so selfish and have no soul

Which is better?
Keep burning the forests to make way for farmland to feed the people and improve the economy selling timber (just like we done) or leave the forest and let the people starve and let the economy tank? And watch the mass exodus from their unproductive lands.

If I pick the first option why am I selfish? Why have I no soul?

 

[IT Minion]

Switching to renewables and ditching fossil fuels isn't going to be cheap. On the other hand ignoring the issue is going to cost a lot more.

It's like having a leaky roof, it may cost money to fix it but it'll cost more if you put it off.

 

[transam]

The world leader who probably did more for the world / UK environment than any other in the last 30 years was probably

Margret Thatcher love her or hate her she was 30 years ahead of her time with ref to this global wRmi g caper

 

[JP_]

Which is better?
Keep burning the forests to make way for farmland to feed the people and improve the economy selling timber (just like we done) or leave the forest and let the people starve and let the economy tank? And watch the mass exodus from their unproductive lands.

If I pick the first option why am I selfish? Why have I no soul?

People won't starve. The forests are being cut down to put cheap unhealthy food on our plates. There are plenty of ways to make food without destroying the planet, and the food will taste better and be healthier. But we will have to pay a bit more for it, and not many people are willing to do that.

 

[transam]

People won't starve. The forests are being cut down to put cheap unhealthy food on our plates. There are plenty of ways to make food without destroying the planet, and the food will taste better and be healthier. But we will have to pay a bit more for it, and not many people are willing to do that.

Ask the Chinese
Ask the Indians
Ask the Brazilians

With out them on board all. This climate change caper does not amount to a bag of beans

 

[Brigadier]

Nuclear power does seem to end up costing more than budgeted.

Most projects in the UK do ; it's not limited to nuclear.
It almost seems to be the accepted way of doing things. Win the work, then rinse even more money out of us.

 

[IT Minion]

Ask the Chinese
Ask the Indians
Ask the Brazilians

With out them on board all. This climate change caper does not amount to a bag of beans

China spent 45% of the money invested in renewables in the world in 2017. They also generated about 25% of the world's emissions. That means they're spending more than average to reduce emissions. Twice their fair share in some respects.

India is doing some, they're big on Solar power, but I don't know how they're doing compared to their emissions. Brazil's just gone full right wing and is burning the Amazon for more cash crop land. Hey ho, the market will fix it in the end...

 

[Ryler]

With out them on board all. This climate change caper does not amount to a bag of beans

That pretty much sums it up. The chief of the UN was in australia recently and said that the will to tackle climate change is fading.
Economies will suffer tackling climate change head on. Like a tyson hit.
The remoaners are happy to see economies suffer across the globe tackling climate change but moan that leaving the eu will cause ours to suffer.
Double standards abound.

 

[transam]

China has announced that they are banning all plastic bags this year

China hold a 3rd of the world's patents on renewables

China has the first electric powered cRgo ship
It transports Coal to there power station