Wind Farms
- Thread starter cozycats
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Nuclear will have to be the bulk of it.
Tidal is another predictable one.
Hydro can be used with care - there are significant environmental problems.
It's likely that in some places large scale solar could be useful, but bringing solar electricity from the Sahara to northern Europe isn't going to work.
Ditto some locations for wave power, and off-shore wind farms, but there aren't many places where the waves and the wind are constant and consistent enough for those sources to be used in a planned and integrated way - they will tend to be mostly opportunistic. Because you can't rely on them to be there when needed, you also struggle to take much advantage of them when they are there; cycling fossil fuel or nuclear power stations up and down isn't a good idea.
We also need to be doing a lot of R&D into storage technologies - if we could get an efficient, cost-effective way to store electricity, particularly on a small/medium scale, then individual or community microgeneration from sun and wind might be more realistic.
Tidal is another predictable one.
Hydro can be used with care - there are significant environmental problems.
It's likely that in some places large scale solar could be useful, but bringing solar electricity from the Sahara to northern Europe isn't going to work.
Ditto some locations for wave power, and off-shore wind farms, but there aren't many places where the waves and the wind are constant and consistent enough for those sources to be used in a planned and integrated way - they will tend to be mostly opportunistic. Because you can't rely on them to be there when needed, you also struggle to take much advantage of them when they are there; cycling fossil fuel or nuclear power stations up and down isn't a good idea.
We also need to be doing a lot of R&D into storage technologies - if we could get an efficient, cost-effective way to store electricity, particularly on a small/medium scale, then individual or community microgeneration from sun and wind might be more realistic.
Indeed. As you say, everything else (at least, everything else that has so far been conceived) is likely to always be fairly small-scale, in many cases 'opportunistic' and often most available where it is least neeed - so I can't for the life of me see how it could ever come to represent 'the bulk' (even with all combined).
Again, indeed. AFAIAA, pumping water up hills seems to be about the best we can do at present - although it works, it's hardly ideal.
Kind Regards, John
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19785689
Phase-change materials are another avenue.
One idea I've heard is (once we all have electric cars) to use the vast distributed battery which they create when all plugged in.
Talking of cars - an interesting discussion on the feasibility of using electricity to turn hydrogen and carbon (from water and the air) into gasoline:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/technically-its-possible-to-produce-gasoline-from-air-but/
Phase-change materials are another avenue.
One idea I've heard is (once we all have electric cars) to use the vast distributed battery which they create when all plugged in.
Talking of cars - an interesting discussion on the feasibility of using electricity to turn hydrogen and carbon (from water and the air) into gasoline:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/technically-its-possible-to-produce-gasoline-from-air-but/
Sponsored Links
Ah, the predictable "But Chernobyl and Fukushima prove it's dangerous".
Bear in mind that Chernobyl never met even the most basic safety requirements for western nuclear installation - not even the most lax ones. Basically it was an inherently poor design, being run by people who didn't know what they were doing and performing experiments with the safeties off.
Also, don't take the fact that the surrounding villages are abandoned. If you had the option of leaving your nice new, comfortable, flat and going back to a run down soviet era cesspit - I think you might decide that the nice new flat was better !
Fukushima, despite the press hysteria, resolutely failed to blow up. Note there was no nuclear explosion - the much reported on nuclear explosions were in fact hydrogen.
And while people still harp on about the exclusion zones, isn't it funny how we never seem to hear about the other problems - the heavily contaminated land from oil, chemicals, sewage, rotting fauna, and god knows what - caused by the tsunami. Also funny how people seem to forget the 20,000 people who died and focus on the (IIRC) 2 or 3 that died in industrial accidents that happened to be at at a nuclear power plant.
Now, before getting all hysterical about the dangers, just lets put it in perspective.
If you're going to criticise nuclear as being dangerous, then please give a total for deaths from civil nuclear operations ? You can include the whole world, and all causes if you want - I'll even let you include the non-nuclear related ones from Fukushima. You can't cheat and include the counts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki !
Now, how many people die on our roads every year ? Last I heard it's in the order of 3k/year for the UK alone.
How many die from the effects of fossil fuel being used ? Quite a lot I believe. How many die from the effects of hydro - that nice safe renewable energy supply ? (look it up, you might be surprised).
Now look up the contribution to energy supplies from nuclear - and I think you'll find that statistically it's quite safe.
Put aside the conditioning from years of tabloid "Oh no, it's NUCULAR" followed by photos of a mushroom could from military tests. Focus on actual facts and you might find it's not half as bad as you claim.
Now, as to when it'll run out ? Well bear in mind that if we didn't keep treating good fuel as waste and insist of getting rid of it at great expense, we'd have enough to supply the UK's lecky needs for (I believe) a few centuries. That's not from what's in the ground, that's just from what's in store awaiting expensive "disposal". It's the equivalent to getting crude oil out of the ground, extracting the lamp oil, and treating the rest as toxic waste !
And of course, cost is bound to come into it. Bear in mind that at present the go ahead on new plants is stalled on the level of price guarantee. I believe the figure being talked about is around £95/MWHr - or 9.5p/unit. Preposterous isn't it to pay so much for guaranteed, low carbon, clean*, lecky ? So if 9.5p/unit is preposterous, why are we guaranteeing something in excess of 30p/unit to the operators of unreliable windfarms that cannot under any circumstances guarantee to provide a meaningful contribution to meeting maximum demand ? If it's bad to guarantee a minimum return to one operator - then it should be bad to guarantee it to any. I've yet to hear any rational explanation - they all seem to come down to "Nuclear is bad, therefore subsidies for nuclear are bad".
And before I put away the soap box, on the subject of solar power.
There are a number of processes that will produce hydrocarbons of some sort from lecky. Given "free" lecky from solar power somewhere where it's reliably sunny (ie no the UK), then it makes sense to do this. One process I know of will take water+CO2+lecky and produce methanol. Methanol is conveniently a liquid at convenient temperatures (unlike hydrogen) and without pressurisation (unlike hydrogen) - it's therefore easy to store and transport as liquid with existing infrastructure (unlike hydrogen). It can be stored and distributed without any expensive new infrastructure (unlike hydrogen), has a high energy content (unlike hydrogen), can be dispensed with existing infrastructure (unlike hydrogen), and used in existing power plants (eg petrol engines) with minimal mods (unlike hydrogen). So it would be easy to (for example) put up large arrays in sunny places (Africa, parts of the US), and transport the easy to transport liquid fuel to where it's needed. The CO2 produced at point of use will find it's own way back. And if you want, it can be used as a feedstock to make plastics etc which could then be carbon negative !
So of course we have an obsession with hydrogen which as a mobile fuel source is second only to lecky in the uselessness stakes.
Bear in mind that Chernobyl never met even the most basic safety requirements for western nuclear installation - not even the most lax ones. Basically it was an inherently poor design, being run by people who didn't know what they were doing and performing experiments with the safeties off.
Also, don't take the fact that the surrounding villages are abandoned. If you had the option of leaving your nice new, comfortable, flat and going back to a run down soviet era cesspit - I think you might decide that the nice new flat was better !
Fukushima, despite the press hysteria, resolutely failed to blow up. Note there was no nuclear explosion - the much reported on nuclear explosions were in fact hydrogen.
And while people still harp on about the exclusion zones, isn't it funny how we never seem to hear about the other problems - the heavily contaminated land from oil, chemicals, sewage, rotting fauna, and god knows what - caused by the tsunami. Also funny how people seem to forget the 20,000 people who died and focus on the (IIRC) 2 or 3 that died in industrial accidents that happened to be at at a nuclear power plant.
Now, before getting all hysterical about the dangers, just lets put it in perspective.
If you're going to criticise nuclear as being dangerous, then please give a total for deaths from civil nuclear operations ? You can include the whole world, and all causes if you want - I'll even let you include the non-nuclear related ones from Fukushima. You can't cheat and include the counts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki !
Now, how many people die on our roads every year ? Last I heard it's in the order of 3k/year for the UK alone.
How many die from the effects of fossil fuel being used ? Quite a lot I believe. How many die from the effects of hydro - that nice safe renewable energy supply ? (look it up, you might be surprised).
Now look up the contribution to energy supplies from nuclear - and I think you'll find that statistically it's quite safe.
Put aside the conditioning from years of tabloid "Oh no, it's NUCULAR" followed by photos of a mushroom could from military tests. Focus on actual facts and you might find it's not half as bad as you claim.
Now, as to when it'll run out ? Well bear in mind that if we didn't keep treating good fuel as waste and insist of getting rid of it at great expense, we'd have enough to supply the UK's lecky needs for (I believe) a few centuries. That's not from what's in the ground, that's just from what's in store awaiting expensive "disposal". It's the equivalent to getting crude oil out of the ground, extracting the lamp oil, and treating the rest as toxic waste !
And of course, cost is bound to come into it. Bear in mind that at present the go ahead on new plants is stalled on the level of price guarantee. I believe the figure being talked about is around £95/MWHr - or 9.5p/unit. Preposterous isn't it to pay so much for guaranteed, low carbon, clean*, lecky ? So if 9.5p/unit is preposterous, why are we guaranteeing something in excess of 30p/unit to the operators of unreliable windfarms that cannot under any circumstances guarantee to provide a meaningful contribution to meeting maximum demand ? If it's bad to guarantee a minimum return to one operator - then it should be bad to guarantee it to any. I've yet to hear any rational explanation - they all seem to come down to "Nuclear is bad, therefore subsidies for nuclear are bad".
And before I put away the soap box, on the subject of solar power.
There are a number of processes that will produce hydrocarbons of some sort from lecky. Given "free" lecky from solar power somewhere where it's reliably sunny (ie no the UK), then it makes sense to do this. One process I know of will take water+CO2+lecky and produce methanol. Methanol is conveniently a liquid at convenient temperatures (unlike hydrogen) and without pressurisation (unlike hydrogen) - it's therefore easy to store and transport as liquid with existing infrastructure (unlike hydrogen). It can be stored and distributed without any expensive new infrastructure (unlike hydrogen), has a high energy content (unlike hydrogen), can be dispensed with existing infrastructure (unlike hydrogen), and used in existing power plants (eg petrol engines) with minimal mods (unlike hydrogen). So it would be easy to (for example) put up large arrays in sunny places (Africa, parts of the US), and transport the easy to transport liquid fuel to where it's needed. The CO2 produced at point of use will find it's own way back. And if you want, it can be used as a feedstock to make plastics etc which could then be carbon negative !
So of course we have an obsession with hydrogen which as a mobile fuel source is second only to lecky in the uselessness stakes.
And another thought on risk ...
For all the whining about how dangerous nuclear is, it is hard to argue (if rational) that it's fairly safe relative to the output it produces.
Meanwhile, I (and I'm not alone) see some hidden dangers that I doubt we'll ever persuade windmill huggers to accept. Just been watching a program about the dangers of faulty kitchen appliances. So washers, tumble driers, etc are (in small numbers) prone to catching fire. A fire officer was quite clear in his advice to never use them when going to bed - but to put them on when people are around (and awake) in the house.
So we are busy installing smart meters who's desired effect is to persuade a lot of people to run domestic appliances when the meter says it's cheapest. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan - lets get lots of people to run their appliances overnight, so if (as a small number do) they catch fire then no-one will be awake to notice. What could possibly go wrong
Apart from the issue of those who live in flats/semis/terraces properties where someone else washing machine is going to be painfully audible when you're trying to sleep
For all the whining about how dangerous nuclear is, it is hard to argue (if rational) that it's fairly safe relative to the output it produces.
Meanwhile, I (and I'm not alone) see some hidden dangers that I doubt we'll ever persuade windmill huggers to accept. Just been watching a program about the dangers of faulty kitchen appliances. So washers, tumble driers, etc are (in small numbers) prone to catching fire. A fire officer was quite clear in his advice to never use them when going to bed - but to put them on when people are around (and awake) in the house.
So we are busy installing smart meters who's desired effect is to persuade a lot of people to run domestic appliances when the meter says it's cheapest. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan - lets get lots of people to run their appliances overnight, so if (as a small number do) they catch fire then no-one will be awake to notice. What could possibly go wrong
Apart from the issue of those who live in flats/semis/terraces properties where someone else washing machine is going to be painfully audible when you're trying to sleep
As for converting water and air into methanol, solar power is far from free, because you have to build and maintain the generating plant, so decide how efficient your solar farm will be, how efficient the process for making methanol will be, how much the solar and chemical facilities will cost to build, and how long they will last, and then see how much the methanol will cost to make.
Ah yes, the "didn't read the bit that said 'Many accidents at or involving nuclear power plants have shown that it is not safe." right below a photo illustrating the point in red top tabloid fashion' argument.
If you introduce Chernobyl as an argument to show that nuclear isn't safe, then you've lost the argument before you start.
If you introduce Chernobyl as an argument to show that nuclear isn't safe, then you've lost the argument before you start.
That was the last death I am aware of in the nuclear industry in the UK, I am unaware of any related to any directly associated radiation exposure. Even those which are such as the ones in Japan (Tokai incident) the people died weeks later.
Also not taking into account deaths outside of the industry which people associate with radiation such as from leukaemia or thyroid cancer etc. One estimate is 33+ cancer deaths as a result of the Windscale fire.
Also not taking into account deaths outside of the industry which people associate with radiation such as from leukaemia or thyroid cancer etc. One estimate is 33+ cancer deaths as a result of the Windscale fire.
Thank you.
I think you'll agree that's a very small number compared to, for example, deaths of coal miners. And, of course, can they be absolutely certain that these cancer deaths were caused by radiation leakage at Windscale? I don't claim to know, but I'm sure that there is the possibility of other causes.
That of course is part of the problem - but nuclear isn't the only industry to suffer from that.
In terms of numbers, there are many in other energy sectors that dwarf them - just one (Aberfan) comes to mind which in just one incident killed far more. Reading about it, it's clear that the final toll was more as there were significant related illnesses for many years (for example, there was a rapid increase in alcohol related illnesses and presumably deaths which wouldn't have been recorded as being linked). One can't help but wonder if some of the alleged illnesses caused by nuclear aren't in fact symptoms of stress caused by the fear so many people have of it ?
Against that, and this is where few people I've ever conversed with seem to consider, one has to consider the benefits that years of (relatively) clean and reliable electricity has brought. I can't help thinking that without reliable supplies of reasonably priced electricity, our overall standard of living would be considerably lower - and there are (I believe) plenty of studies that show a correlation between living standards and health.
And as I wrote earlier, there are a surprising number of fatalities caused by appliance fires - some of them from the likes of tumble driers and washing machines. If we are going to encourage people to run these overnight in order to manage demand to match supply, then that is likely to increase the death toll from such fires (less likely to get out and survive if you are asleep than if you are awake, can smell the fire starting off, and switch it off). Rather hard to quantify, but if you are going to argue for/against something on safety grounds then IMO you have to consider wider effects than just the immediate things under discussion.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
