- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
I didn't say it was stupid, I simply asked where?
To which you responded,
Where to get energy for the future
- Thread starter sxturbo
- Start date
I didn't say it was stupid, I simply asked where?
To which you responded,
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 2,416
- Reaction score
- 339
- Country
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
Not when it comes to deciphering your gobbledygook.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,852
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Some people need the Angleeyes treatment
The tidal thing needs a long term view - not something we find in abundance.
Output wise, Brissow Channel would be something like 30 wind turbines. Around 1% of Hinckley C NP plant.
The tidal thing needs a long term view - not something we find in abundance.
Output wise, Brissow Channel would be something like 30 wind turbines. Around 1% of Hinckley C NP plant.
He's implying that if it were safe why don't we have one in a city centre? Personally I'd have picked an example of Battersea power station, a coal plant in the middle of a major urban area.
But I'd that is where he was going, it's rubbish. We don't build any power plants in the middle of towns or cities anymore as it's too expensive.
Nuclear done well is reasonably safe, but it is also expensive, inflexible and slow to build. So I'm not a fan overall.
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,882
- Reaction score
- 753
- Country
UK nuclear power stations have only had a few minor incidents in 60+ years
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
Of course he is, but his attempted cleverness just makes him sound thick. There are no farms between Tower Bridge & the Houses of Parliament either. Is it because they are dangerous? Exploding cows or hand grenades shaped like potatoes? Good grief...
As a cost comparison, Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (also being built on the Severn Estuary) will cost £25bn, and deliver 3.2GW of power sold at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated for the 35 years of the contract.[49] The Hafren scheme proposers state they would require £25 billion capital investment, and power costs would be £160 per MWh for the first 30 years, and £20 per MWh thereafter. Other schemes have been costed at between £150 and £350 per MWh.[2]
The other complication with tidal is that the output capacity varies with tides etc which also vary over the year and isn't constant. There seems to be some tax payer funded costs due to it's presence. Those are predictions.
Both are PFI funded via bank loans. I don't think Hafren exists any more ( 1/6 of shares own by a Tory MP's family business) I've seen mention of yet another study.
Some one costed greening. Reported on C4. £7.5b 5 of those by the public and 2.5 by the gov which we also pay one way or another.
The other complication with tidal is that the output capacity varies with tides etc which also vary over the year and isn't constant. There seems to be some tax payer funded costs due to it's presence. Those are predictions.
Both are PFI funded via bank loans. I don't think Hafren exists any more ( 1/6 of shares own by a Tory MP's family business)
I've seen mention of yet another study.Some one costed greening. Reported on C4. £7.5b 5 of those by the public and 2.5 by the gov which we also pay one way or another.
Apart from when Windscale caught fire.
One of the worst nuclear accidents ever, resulting in releasing radioactive iodine and polonium over Europe. Graded 5 out of 7 in the scale of nuclear incidents.
The £160 value is unsupported, the reference takes you to the government review which explicitly stated that they didn't have a firm strike price.As a cost comparison, Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (also being built on the Severn Estuary) will cost £25bn, and deliver 3.2GW of power sold at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated for the 35 years of the contract.[49] The Hafren scheme proposers state they would require £25 billion capital investment, and power costs would be £160 per MWh for the first 30 years, and £20 per MWh thereafter. Other schemes have been costed at between £150 and £350 per MWh.[2]
The other complication with tidal is that the output capacity varies with tides etc which also vary over the year and isn't constant. There seems to be some tax payer funded costs due to it's presence. Those are predictions.
Both are PFI funded via bank loans. I don't think Hafren exists any more ( 1/6 of shares own by a Tory MP's family business)
Some one costed greening. Reported on C4. £7.5b 5 of those by the public and 2.5 by the gov which we also pay one way or another.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,852
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
As a cost comparison, Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (also being built on the Severn Estuary) will cost £25bn, and deliver 3.2GW of power sold at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated for the 35 years of the contract.[49] The Hafren scheme proposers state they would require £25 billion capital investment, and power costs would be £160 per MWh for the first 30 years, and £20 per MWh thereafter. Other schemes have been costed at between £150 and £350 per MWh.[2]
The other complication with tidal is that the output capacity varies with tides etc which also vary over the year and isn't constant. There seems to be some tax payer funded costs due to it's presence. Those are predictions.
Both are PFI funded via bank loans. I don't think Hafren exists any more ( 1/6 of shares own by a Tory MP's family business)
Some one costed greening. Reported on C4. £7.5b 5 of those by the public and 2.5 by the gov which we also pay one way or another.
All the "irregular" power schemes are - obviously - really hard to compare, there are so many different variables for each one. At least the tides are more predictable than winds.
Some sort of synthetic photosynthesis is a possibility, there's been work on it for 100+ years. The natural one isn't very efficient and we can't synthesise it. (We don't really understand it, it relies on superposition and entanglement.) There are various chemicals bacteria, algae, which have been shown to produce eg hydrogen or ammonia. Some could be cheap to produce. It wouldn't be surprising of someone comes up with something for wide application.
Solar panel efficiency is going up too, (cf Raygen) from the current ~20% to 40 or more using a hybrid technology, but bright sun is best... In 100 years it'll be interesting to look back.
I think he specified 60+ years deliberately.
"In recent CfD auctions, strike prices as low as £39.65/MWh have been agreed for offshore wind projects"
cuts the ground from under the feet of nukes.
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,882
- Reaction score
- 753
- Country
Windscale was not power station
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,882
- Reaction score
- 753
- Country
No it was a rough estimate, Windscale was not a power station
Sponsored Links
