FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Renewable energy policy
Renewable energy policy
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"It is standard policy now. If it doesn't make an instant profit for big business,then it has to cut to the bone. Over 4 years to go and only the tip of the iceberg has been revealed. Lots and lots of Chinese investment,over the next couple of years,as they bring in even more foreign investment and let us slide into more dependency on those countries that want to earn big profits from our low wage culture. " . Hit the nail on the head there! The trouble with short sided profit driven policies is... They have a habit of coming back to bite you on the arse (banking). Business's with its monetary influence has way to much say in politics and the first step to make things improve is disconnecting business and politics and then getting sensible long term plans for infrastructure! | |||
| |||
"Separating business and politics,is just a fantasy. To many MPs see the job as a part time job,that is a stepping stone into high paying consultancy and directorships. Super low tax, super low wage costs, and huge incentives on offer. Is it any wonder all our big companies are foreign owned. " . The US is having this same debate, well they are if you listen to the sensible politicans!. The trouble with listening business influencing politics is what's best for businesses is not necessarily best for a country, people or the earth  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Before considering a renewable energy policy that might best suit our nations present and future needs I think it's worth a quick Google of "Saul Griffiths Climate Change Recalculated the terawatt world" ". I've read alot of sauls stuff, brilliantly clever bloke in lots of ways! Of course he fully realises we can't even think about using all the fossil fuels if we want to stave off the worse off climate change! In fact I think he calculated it to using a maximum of 30% of the known reserves of oil and 65% of gas... Now factor in the fact of how much fossil fuel you'll use just changing the system... And guess what, your at his maximum fossil fuel usage | |||
"Exactly the subsidy being given to the Chinese for hinkley is bigger than the subsidies we were giving renewables! Plus the carbon output of building the damn thing is worth 12 years of running a gas powered one let alone renewables Just as the rest of the world is getting geared for renewables the uk is regressing "Yes but unlike renewables it will be able to supply a decent amount of electricity. Renewables are ok for topping up but cannot meet the needs of a nation. As for cutting carbon why waste money trying, it does not make any difference to climate change, water vapour has more effect. | |||
"Exactly the subsidy being given to the Chinese for hinkley is bigger than the subsidies we were giving renewables! Plus the carbon output of building the damn thing is worth 12 years of running a gas powered one let alone renewables Just as the rest of the world is getting geared for renewables the uk is regressing
Yes but unlike renewables it will be able to supply a decent amount of electricity. Renewables are ok for topping up but cannot meet the needs of a nation.
As for cutting carbon why waste money trying, it does not make any difference to climate change, water vapour has more effect.". What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hello SexyBum, keep repeating something doesn't make it true. It is not any more than a hypothesis and ignores so many other factors that cannot be quantified in their 'models' See if you can Google Patrick Moore's recent speech? The effort put into renewables is largely wasted in the U.K. as they are simply ineffective and save little carbon in practice. Hydro is very good given suitable geographic characteristics but U.K. is not that well endowed. An interesting web site is gridwatch which shows current power generation in the U.K. by type. Just Google it. Alec" . Hello again Alec
You know hydro and the UK not being suitable ... Well We're an island, there's like sea everywhere  | |||
| |||
"Hello SexyBum, keep repeating something doesn't make it true. It is not any more than a hypothesis and ignores so many other factors that cannot be quantified in their 'models' See if you can Google Patrick Moore's recent speech? The effort put into renewables is largely wasted in the U.K. as they are simply ineffective and save little carbon in practice. Hydro is very good given suitable geographic characteristics but U.K. is not that well endowed. An interesting web site is gridwatch which shows current power generation in the U.K. by type. Just Google it. Alec. Hello again Alec
You know hydro and the UK not being suitable ... Well We're an island, there's like sea everywhere "dont forget all the rivers | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm dying to get out of the renewables field.. however, I think the government is actually cheating on their funding...now lots of social housing is getting upgraded energy efficient renewables(air source heat pumps)...so the feed in tariff now goes to.... They've made a mockery out of the renewable market, I'd say mainly just because they really dont want people off the grid, and there was no real actual long term plan to hit any of the carbon reduction targets." *solar feed in tariff goes down 80% in jan.. I think the people missing out are homeowners and those in rural areas.The government has not done enough to highlight or make much of the info easy and accessable. One of the reasons for the poor solar intake is cheap inefficient chinese panels that have been lying around in warehouses for years.. and the research into solar battery storage has really only recently come to fruitiion, which WILL make solar a much more viable and efficient system! | |||
"Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Everything's fucked up. Has been for a long time if we're honest." My cock is 10inches My cock is 10inches... | |||
"Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Everything's fucked up. Has been for a long time if we're honest. My cock is 10inches My cock is 10inches..." They meant "tall tales" not bloody fairy tales. | |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it! "Sorry. I may be missing the point of the post. What is renewable energy? | |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it! "This one in particular has only been in the job for a few weeks. How long do you think it takes to sort out shit like this? Jeeeeez. | |||
| |||
"Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Everything's fucked up. Has been for a long time if we're honest. My cock is 10inches My cock is 10inches..." Not repeated enough yet.  | |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it!
This one in particular has only been in the job for a few weeks.
How long do you think it takes to sort out shit like this?
Jeeeeez."Think you will find "Dishonest Dave" has been at the helm almost 5 1/2 years. Still yet to decide on a direction though.  | |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it!
Sorry. I may be missing the point of the post. What is renewable energy?"energy that can be sustainably sourced, solar.wind,hydro,air,bacteria digestion,ground and of course wood | |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it!
This one in particular has only been in the job for a few weeks.
How long do you think it takes to sort out shit like this?
Jeeeeez.
Think you will find "Dishonest Dave" has been at the helm almost 5 1/2 years. Still yet to decide on a direction though."Unless I've been asleep for 5 1/2 years I think you'll find that he was leader of a coalition government where every man and his dog chipped in with their tuppenceworth and deals had to be done. He's only been in sole charge for a few weeks, as I said... | |||
"They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years!" Blimey, SB, I never thought I'd see the day when you were harping back to "the good old days of Mrs T." It just goes to show the Tories get everyone in the end...
Mr ddc
Ps, I thought the Greens were for less home-ownership, that we should all be living in Council Housing? | |||
| |||
"One of the crazy things are the feed in tarrifs. If you create electricity from wind or tidal in the north of Scotland or anywhere remote area in the UK you are penalised for being away from the centres of population. No matter how green the energy is the companies have to pay to down load the electricity onto the national grid. If you have a manky coal fired power station polluting like fuck near a centre of population then the generating company gets paid for providing the grid with power. That loads the dice against clean green energy , which then requires a subsidy. This is not a sensible energy policy !!!!" The feed in tariff is what you are paid if you have renewable energy generation installed for excess energy you don't use that you feed back to grid. ALL major generators pay a connection charge excluding domestic. If you generate in Scotland and try to supply to England you lose energy as it travels. So that 3mw your windmill produced is next to fek all when it gets hundreds of miles away. That's why the big population centres have big power stations around them. You can have one 2000mw station or nearly 700 onsure wind turbines, per station you want to replace. Scotland has something like 3000 planning applications going through for onsure wind. | |||
| |||
" Sorry. I may be missing the point of the post. What is renewable energy? energy that can be sustainably sourced, solar.wind,hydro,air,bacteria digestion,ground and of course wood" Renewables aren't necessarily good for the environment. There's been numerous studies, including by the IPCC, that prove that wood, although a renewable, actually produces more GHGs than coal. And one of the GHGs wood produces is Nitrogen Dioxide. Burning wood produces 1/5 the amount of Nitrogen Dioxide as it does Carbon Dioxide. However Nitrogen Dioxide is 300 times more damaging to the environment as CO2. It also produces methane (21 times worse than CO2), and Carbon Monoxide. And it is extremely land intensive- for an average 3 bedroom house, somewhere between 6 and 10 acres of woodland would be needed, depending upon the type of wood used. So, although theoretically sustainable, in practice wood is neither sustainable nor green. | |||
"Hello Phoenix couple, well put. It's quite timely also the reports of steel company losses. High energy consuming companies are severely hampered by the green energy subsidies that put up their fuel costs. We need these companies but make it harder for them to compete. Alec " Tata steel. More industry gone, never to return. 1200 job losses and more product we'll now need to import. Feeling it for those people and their families
| |||
" Sorry. I may be missing the point of the post. What is renewable energy? energy that can be sustainably sourced, solar.wind,hydro,air,bacteria digestion,ground and of course wood Renewables aren't necessarily good for the environment. There's been numerous studies, including by the IPCC, that prove that wood, although a renewable, actually produces more GHGs than coal. And one of the GHGs wood produces is Nitrogen Dioxide. Burning wood produces 1/5 the amount of Nitrogen Dioxide as it does Carbon Dioxide. However Nitrogen Dioxide is 300 times more damaging to the environment as CO2. It also produces methane (21 times worse than CO2), and Carbon Monoxide. And it is extremely land intensive- for an average 3 bedroom house, somewhere between 6 and 10 acres of woodland would be needed, depending upon the type of wood used. So, although theoretically sustainable, in practice wood is neither sustainable nor green. " Yep, you've got to grow it, harvest it and transport it. Same with some of the others as well. Bio oil for example. When all things taken into account it's worse than coal. We simply must have diversity of supply. Certainly you will be looking at the lesser of two evils but the world simply isn't all fairies and butterflies. With the amount of energy we use we can't do it reliably and economically with renewables right now. | |||
" What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you!" When we mentioned a nation we specifically meant the UK. Here we have hydroelectric schemes in place and have had them for 100 years, including dams, river runs schemes and pumped-storage. They still only amount to around 1.8% of the UK's total generating capacity. The problem with hydro is the remoteness of suitable locations and the environmental impact such schemes have. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age and the tiny effect that mankind has on atmospheric carbon is negligible. Approximately 750 gigatons of carbon is moving through the carbon cycle (the cycle that takes up and releases carbon from vegetation, land and oceans) each year of this 750 gigatons mankind is responsible for about 29 gigatons. In the Cambrian period the earth had carbon dioxide concentrations of around 7,000ppm as opposed to a maximum of 400ppm today. Concentrations of around 2000 ppm have been common during the life of earth. Atmospheric carbon is essential for plant growth (i.e. growing food to feed the staving millions), the more there is the better the crops grow. Yes an exaggeration but only the same as the claim that man is making a difference to the world with the carbon we produce. As for your comparison with an avalanche if you knew anything about why avalanches occur you would know they do not occur like that, if they did nothing could travel on a mountain without causing avalanches. | |||
| |||
"One of the crazy things are the feed in tarrifs. If you create electricity from wind or tidal in the north of Scotland or anywhere remote area in the UK you are penalised for being away from the centres of population. No matter how green the energy is the companies have to pay to down load the electricity onto the national grid. If you have a manky coal fired power station polluting like fuck near a centre of population then the generating company gets paid for providing the grid with power. That loads the dice against clean green energy , which then requires a subsidy. This is not a sensible energy policy !!!! The feed in tariff is what you are paid if you have renewable energy generation installed for excess energy you don't use that you feed back to grid. ALL major generators pay a connection charge excluding domestic. If you generate in Scotland and try to supply to England you lose energy as it travels. So that 3mw your windmill produced is next to fek all when it gets hundreds of miles away. That's why the big population centres have big power stations around them. You can have one 2000mw station or nearly 700 onsure wind turbines, per station you want to replace. Scotland has something like 3000 planning applications going through for onsure wind." . Subsidies on renewables!! Wtf do you think the 100£ per mw were paying for hinkley is.. Charity Coal is subsidised, oil, gas, nuclear is the biggest subsidy user of all the generators, Christ wait to you have to pay to decommission them, because as you say there nearing there life span try hundreds of billions of pounds! Hydro power is perfectly doable in this country, we've got massive tidal rivers like the seven, Thames,fourth, Clyde, number, never mind the huge potential places for sea tidal generation! The grid runs at extremely high voltages to mitigate losses, yes you'll always gets losses but you certainly don't turn 3mw into fuck all, that's why ask the nuclear plants are stuck out on seaside towns in Remote places | |||
"Right now there is .58 of a gw of hydro on the grid generating. There is only 1gw available in this country. We don't have enough suitable environment on the scale needed, in the places where it's needed." . You ever wondered why there's little hydro generation! Policy making | |||
" What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you! When we mentioned a nation we specifically meant the UK. Here we have hydroelectric schemes in place and have had them for 100 years, including dams, river runs schemes and pumped-storage. They still only amount to around 1.8% of the UK's total generating capacity. The problem with hydro is the remoteness of suitable locations and the environmental impact such schemes have. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age and the tiny effect that mankind has on atmospheric carbon is negligible. Approximately 750 gigatons of carbon is moving through the carbon cycle (the cycle that takes up and releases carbon from vegetation, land and oceans) each year of this 750 gigatons mankind is responsible for about 29 gigatons. In the Cambrian period the earth had carbon dioxide concentrations of around 7,000ppm as opposed to a maximum of 400ppm today. Concentrations of around 2000 ppm have been common during the life of earth. Atmospheric carbon is essential for plant growth (i.e. growing food to feed the staving millions), the more there is the better the crops grow. Yes an exaggeration but only the same as the claim that man is making a difference to the world with the carbon we produce. As for your comparison with an avalanche if you knew anything about why avalanches occur you would know they do not occur like that, if they did nothing could travel on a mountain without causing avalanches. " . That's a great story, but there's no evidence to back up one word you've wrote. Try reading what the 22,000 peer reviewed scientific papers have actually concluded! The Cambrian period was what 500 million years ago? There was no land life at all at that time, the sun would have been several percent lower in magnitude by any established nuclear theory, with a sun producing far less energy you can guess what.. Have much more c02 concentrations in the atmosphere... In fact if we hadn't had that much c02 with a much dimer sun, you'd never had got the climate to sustain life on land | |||
"One of the crazy things are the feed in tarrifs. If you create electricity from wind or tidal in the north of Scotland or anywhere remote area in the UK you are penalised for being away from the centres of population. No matter how green the energy is the companies have to pay to down load the electricity onto the national grid. If you have a manky coal fired power station polluting like fuck near a centre of population then the generating company gets paid for providing the grid with power. That loads the dice against clean green energy , which then requires a subsidy. This is not a sensible energy policy !!!! The feed in tariff is what you are paid if you have renewable energy generation installed for excess energy you don't use that you feed back to grid. ALL major generators pay a connection charge excluding domestic. If you generate in Scotland and try to supply to England you lose energy as it travels. So that 3mw your windmill produced is next to fek all when it gets hundreds of miles away. That's why the big population centres have big power stations around them. You can have one 2000mw station or nearly 700 onsure wind turbines, per station you want to replace. Scotland has something like 3000 planning applications going through for onsure wind.. Subsidies on renewables!! Wtf do you think the 100£ per mw were paying for hinkley is.. Charity Coal is subsidised, oil, gas, nuclear is the biggest subsidy user of all the generators, Christ wait to you have to pay to decommission them, because as you say there nearing there life span try hundreds of billions of pounds! Hydro power is perfectly doable in this country, we've got massive tidal rivers like the seven, Thames,fourth, Clyde, number, never mind the huge potential places for sea tidal generation! The grid runs at extremely high voltages to mitigate losses, yes you'll always gets losses but you certainly don't turn 3mw into fuck all, that's why ask the nuclear plants are stuck out on seaside towns in Remote places "No I think the £96 a megawatt minimum the grid are paying on Hinkley (when they run) is what they had to garauntee the conglomerate so they would build it. That's nothing like paying a wind farm £150 a megawatt when it's off! By 2027 that will be below what it costs to generate anyway. Last week it hit £150 a megawatt at times. Carbon tax on coal is currently £40 a tonne. the capacity market means everyone is paid to be contracted to supply. How is coal, oil or gas subsidised? A 3mw wind turbine is Scotland is hardly comparable to the losses of a nuke. They don't get charged any extra to supply from there as implied by the previous poster. They just can't generate enough to mitigate their losses. Tidal power is nowhere, it's being researched but it does not have the capacity to generate on the scale needed. Yeah it can all be developed but that all takes a lot of time and money. We don't have either. You still haven't answered my other question. It's February, 6pm, it's not windy, it's dark, evening peak at 45gw. Where are you getting your power? | |||
"One of the crazy things are the feed in tarrifs. If you create electricity from wind or tidal in the north of Scotland or anywhere remote area in the UK you are penalised for being away from the centres of population. No matter how green the energy is the companies have to pay to down load the electricity onto the national grid. If you have a manky coal fired power station polluting like fuck near a centre of population then the generating company gets paid for providing the grid with power. That loads the dice against clean green energy , which then requires a subsidy. This is not a sensible energy policy !!!! The feed in tariff is what you are paid if you have renewable energy generation installed for excess energy you don't use that you feed back to grid. ALL major generators pay a connection charge excluding domestic. If you generate in Scotland and try to supply to England you lose energy as it travels. So that 3mw your windmill produced is next to fek all when it gets hundreds of miles away. That's why the big population centres have big power stations around them. You can have one 2000mw station or nearly 700 onsure wind turbines, per station you want to replace. Scotland has something like 3000 planning applications going through for onsure wind.. Subsidies on renewables!! Wtf do you think the 100£ per mw were paying for hinkley is.. Charity Coal is subsidised, oil, gas, nuclear is the biggest subsidy user of all the generators, Christ wait to you have to pay to decommission them, because as you say there nearing there life span try hundreds of billions of pounds! Hydro power is perfectly doable in this country, we've got massive tidal rivers like the seven, Thames,fourth, Clyde, number, never mind the huge potential places for sea tidal generation! The grid runs at extremely high voltages to mitigate losses, yes you'll always gets losses but you certainly don't turn 3mw into fuck all, that's why ask the nuclear plants are stuck out on seaside towns in Remote places
No I think the £96 a megawatt minimum the grid are paying on Hinkley (when they run) is what they had to garauntee the conglomerate so they would build it. That's nothing like paying a wind farm £150 a megawatt when it's off!
By 2027 that will be below what it costs to generate anyway. Last week it hit £150 a megawatt at times.
Carbon tax on coal is currently £40 a tonne. the capacity market means everyone is paid to be contracted to supply. How is coal, oil or gas subsidised?
A 3mw wind turbine is Scotland is hardly comparable to the losses of a nuke. They don't get charged any extra to supply from there as implied by the previous poster. They just can't generate enough to mitigate their losses.
Tidal power is nowhere, it's being researched but it does not have the capacity to generate on the scale needed. Yeah it can all be developed but that all takes a lot of time and money. We don't have either.
You still haven't answered my other question.
It's February, 6pm, it's not windy, it's dark, evening peak at 45gw. Where are you getting your power?". Ahh so your question to me is... We've left it too late to do it! Firstly the green party have been campaigning to change tact on generation for decades, the government have always ignored us! Secondly the Germans in a period of what 5 years since Fukushima went tits and there own report found there nuclear plants were liable to the same accident have transformed there generating ability! Yes it's cost them, it's costs them lots, no argument there.. However there own government sustainability report, reported that over aa 50 year period there'd actually be in the black! You see you keep saying nuclear and I keep saying... How much will it cost to decommission hinkley or even the ones all approaching there end within 15 years! The answer to your question is to vary your demand as much as possible through using less, using at different times, using moor efficently... But mostly by having a long term effective energy policy. One we haven't got now, nor had for 30 years! | |||
| |||
"Once again, what the government say and what they do are two different things! This one in particular seems hell bent on wrecking any hopes for carbon cuts! It's hardly surprising They say we'll sort out housing.. Were at the lowest home ownership in thirty five years! Sort out immigration... Goes through the roof Jobs... Lowest labour participation in a generation Debt.. Higher than ever Trade deficit.. Higher than ever Uni fees trebled Yes everything's great really don't look at the small print, just keep drinking your beer and watching celebritys dance... Trust us we'll sort it!
Sorry. I may be missing the point of the post. What is renewable energy?
energy that can be sustainably sourced, solar.wind,hydro,air,bacteria digestion,ground and of course wood"Ah, yes, that myth. And the financial and environmental cost of manufacturing and maintaining the equipment? | |||
| |||
"Out of curiosity seen as you mentioned losses. What's the loss on 80 miles of cable at 100,000 volts What's the loss on 25 miles of cable at 30,000 volts" The reference used was Scotland. So let's round it up and say 1000 miles. The unit that matters is watts. The answer is nearly 9% or 8.7% if you want to get picky. Let's say you have 10gig of generation. That's 871mw lost in transmition. That's almost half of a conventional power station. You can thicken you cables to reduce losses, which costs a lot more to do and increases build cost massively. Or you can use overground cables to mitigate your losses. You could paint the pylons white to match the beautiful wind turbines you've built all over Scotland. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've not said nuclear. I've said diversity. I think we need sustainable security of supply that includes options so we are not tied to any one form of generation. IF all the renewables are built that are in planning that will be roughly 50% of the current demand. Which is only going up." | |||
| |||
" What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you! When we mentioned a nation we specifically meant the UK. Here we have hydroelectric schemes in place and have had them for 100 years, including dams, river runs schemes and pumped-storage. They still only amount to around 1.8% of the UK's total generating capacity. The problem with hydro is the remoteness of suitable locations and the environmental impact such schemes have. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age and the tiny effect that mankind has on atmospheric carbon is negligible. Approximately 750 gigatons of carbon is moving through the carbon cycle (the cycle that takes up and releases carbon from vegetation, land and oceans) each year of this 750 gigatons mankind is responsible for about 29 gigatons. In the Cambrian period the earth had carbon dioxide concentrations of around 7,000ppm as opposed to a maximum of 400ppm today. Concentrations of around 2000 ppm have been common during the life of earth. Atmospheric carbon is essential for plant growth (i.e. growing food to feed the staving millions), the more there is the better the crops grow. Yes an exaggeration but only the same as the claim that man is making a difference to the world with the carbon we produce. As for your comparison with an avalanche if you knew anything about why avalanches occur you would know they do not occur like that, if they did nothing could travel on a mountain without causing avalanches. . That's a great story, but there's no evidence to back up one word you've wrote. Try reading what the 22,000 peer reviewed scientific papers have actually concluded! The Cambrian period was what 500 million years ago? There was no land life at all at that time, the sun would have been several percent lower in magnitude by any established nuclear theory, with a sun producing far less energy you can guess what.. Have much more c02 concentrations in the atmosphere... In fact if we hadn't had that much c02 with a much dimer sun, you'd never had got the climate to sustain life on land" Just about every thread you contribute to, on pretty much any subject contains the phrase. "peer reviewed scientific papers". Do "peer reviewed scientific papers" give you the horn? | |||
" What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you! When we mentioned a nation we specifically meant the UK. Here we have hydroelectric schemes in place and have had them for 100 years, including dams, river runs schemes and pumped-storage. They still only amount to around 1.8% of the UK's total generating capacity. The problem with hydro is the remoteness of suitable locations and the environmental impact such schemes have. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age and the tiny effect that mankind has on atmospheric carbon is negligible. Approximately 750 gigatons of carbon is moving through the carbon cycle (the cycle that takes up and releases carbon from vegetation, land and oceans) each year of this 750 gigatons mankind is responsible for about 29 gigatons. In the Cambrian period the earth had carbon dioxide concentrations of around 7,000ppm as opposed to a maximum of 400ppm today. Concentrations of around 2000 ppm have been common during the life of earth. Atmospheric carbon is essential for plant growth (i.e. growing food to feed the staving millions), the more there is the better the crops grow. Yes an exaggeration but only the same as the claim that man is making a difference to the world with the carbon we produce. As for your comparison with an avalanche if you knew anything about why avalanches occur you would know they do not occur like that, if they did nothing could travel on a mountain without causing avalanches. . That's a great story, but there's no evidence to back up one word you've wrote. Try reading what the 22,000 peer reviewed scientific papers have actually concluded! The Cambrian period was what 500 million years ago? There was no land life at all at that time, the sun would have been several percent lower in magnitude by any established nuclear theory, with a sun producing far less energy you can guess what.. Have much more c02 concentrations in the atmosphere... In fact if we hadn't had that much c02 with a much dimer sun, you'd never had got the climate to sustain life on land Just about every thread you contribute to, on pretty much any subject contains the phrase. "peer reviewed scientific papers". Do "peer reviewed scientific papers" give you the horn? " . I'll be brutally honest with you.. Yeah 
What's not to enjoy about knowledge, I absolutely adore reading scientific papers, research, theories, ideas!
It's almost as good as Victorian engineering, which is my current favourite topic! | |||
" What you mean renewables like the dam used by Holland to produce a continuous supply of electricity or the hoover dam or the Aswan dam or do you mean the continuous supply of electric generated by geothermal in Iceland and other countries, or there's renewables from solar, that don't require sunshine or if you really want to go down the road of nuclear energy, you could use a completely different type of rector like thorium, which is inherently safer and could help with the supply of rare earths.... As for carbon not effecting climate... Well, I'm afraid your science is very poor, it's been proven for about errr 130 years! Water vapour is the biggest forcer of course and that is the reason you need to worry about warming the planet through carbon output.. As a warmer planet has more water vapour, it's a knock on effect of the effect of carbon... Like methane locked in frozen tundra and sea beds, once you warm it enough to unlock that then you release loads of methane which is as bad as water vapour, or you warm it enough to melt ice caps and they stop reflecting sunlight, so more warming again, that's why they call it runaway climate change,its like an avalanche you push a tiny little bit of snow down the hill and the rest is done for you! When we mentioned a nation we specifically meant the UK. Here we have hydroelectric schemes in place and have had them for 100 years, including dams, river runs schemes and pumped-storage. They still only amount to around 1.8% of the UK's total generating capacity. The problem with hydro is the remoteness of suitable locations and the environmental impact such schemes have. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age and the tiny effect that mankind has on atmospheric carbon is negligible. Approximately 750 gigatons of carbon is moving through the carbon cycle (the cycle that takes up and releases carbon from vegetation, land and oceans) each year of this 750 gigatons mankind is responsible for about 29 gigatons. In the Cambrian period the earth had carbon dioxide concentrations of around 7,000ppm as opposed to a maximum of 400ppm today. Concentrations of around 2000 ppm have been common during the life of earth. Atmospheric carbon is essential for plant growth (i.e. growing food to feed the staving millions), the more there is the better the crops grow. Yes an exaggeration but only the same as the claim that man is making a difference to the world with the carbon we produce. As for your comparison with an avalanche if you knew anything about why avalanches occur you would know they do not occur like that, if they did nothing could travel on a mountain without causing avalanches. . That's a great story, but there's no evidence to back up one word you've wrote. Try reading what the 22,000 peer reviewed scientific papers have actually concluded! The Cambrian period was what 500 million years ago? There was no land life at all at that time, the sun would have been several percent lower in magnitude by any established nuclear theory, with a sun producing far less energy you can guess what.. Have much more c02 concentrations in the atmosphere... In fact if we hadn't had that much c02 with a much dimer sun, you'd never had got the climate to sustain life on land Just about every thread you contribute to, on pretty much any subject contains the phrase. "peer reviewed scientific papers". Do "peer reviewed scientific papers" give you the horn? . I'll be brutally honest with you.. Yeah
What's not to enjoy about knowledge, I absolutely adore reading scientific papers, research, theories, ideas!
It's almost as good as Victorian engineering, which is my current favourite topic!"In that case I'm off to read some "peer reviewed scientific papers" I'll let you know how I get on....  | |||
| |||
"Out of curiosity seen as you mentioned losses. What's the loss on 80 miles of cable at 100,000 volts What's the loss on 25 miles of cable at 30,000 volts" That depends on a number of factors Is the cable overhead or underground? What size of conductors are being used? How many joints are in the cables? What is the Load Factor on the cable? Are you calculating the energy dissipated in the conductors or all the power line losses? Have we to take into account the Joule effect, magnetic losses, and the dielectric effect when asking about the loss? Are we taking the step-down transformers into the calculation or ignoring them? I could go on but as you can see you are asking nonsensical questions as you are not being specific in your designation | |||
"Out of curiosity seen as you mentioned losses. What's the loss on 80 miles of cable at 100,000 volts What's the loss on 25 miles of cable at 30,000 volts That depends on a number of factors Is the cable overhead or underground? What size of conductors are being used? How many joints are in the cables? What is the Load Factor on the cable? Are you calculating the energy dissipated in the conductors or all the power line losses? Have we to take into account the Joule effect, magnetic losses, and the dielectric effect when asking about the loss? Are we taking the step-down transformers into the calculation or ignoring them? I could go on but as you can see you are asking nonsensical questions as you are not being specific in your designation " . Well to be honest I was being pedantic. The losses on wind powered from god knows where are... Between 7% and 20% But seen as your input energy is like... Err free, it's quite acceptable. Actually most losses are heat losses on transformers and cable heating! Energy in energy out. The industry call it eroei, energy returned on energy invested! If you want to do the figures I'll quote them to you chapter and verse. To summarise... Oil from Iraq/Saudi brilliant Wind.. Good Solar... Fair Fracking.. Wank | |||
| |||
"Just in case you didn't know. All but one of our nuclear power stations will be gone in 15 years maximum! The government white paper that was wrote by the NDA that's the body responsible fit decommissioning the plants.. They first estimated the cost to be 40 billion pounds.. That got rounded up to 80 billon pounds not long after and was left with a comment that basically said it could be 160 billon because... Nobody's actually decommissioned that many, one leading American expert that was asked by congress a few years back said.... It could take between 25 years and 60 years to decommission ONE plant! The cost of decommissioning will be met by the tax payer, in fact we had a bit of a row with the French generator edf.. Who were running one of our plants a few years back.. They wanted an extra 250 million for something or other and when the government umed and arred... They basically said pay up or we walk off and lock the gates, if you know anything about nuclear generation, you know can't just walk away from one that quick, or even stop generating. So for me the nuclear is the last option firstly because it's fucking expensive and secondly because it's fucking dirty! There's dozens of countries making very successful moves in renewables... China for starters" I've just been reading up about China's power system... they generate just under 80% of their electricity from coal fired power stations. | |||
| |||
