• This topic has 158 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by 11smithjilsss12-spam.
Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 159 total)
  • So where is this miracle source of unlimited green energy?
  • pictonroad
    Full Member

    Huge carbon nanotube rope anchored to satellites at one end and dynamos at this end. that’s as far as I’ve got tbh…

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    @Molgrips – I was thinking of this as a stopgap rather than an answer.

    Whatever the answer/s I suspect we will be one of the last generations to enjoy cheap air travel and energy on demand. Which may not be a bad thing.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Does the molecule size rule out using the existing gas network, or could individual installations be rechecked for leaks?

    I think it’s more a case of the gas diffusing out of containers and pipes, rather than leaking from cracks.

    This is correct. The hydrogen molecules are smaller than the gaps between the metal atoms and so they can just flow through the metal. As far as the hydrogen is concerned the pipewall would be more like a filter than a solid.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Someone needs to figure out how to make metallic hydrogen on Earth.

    fifo
    Free Member

    As far as the hydrogen is concerned the pipewall would be more like a filter than a solid.

    *looks nervously at H2 gas cylinders outside lab*

    Frankenstein
    Free Member

    Fusion?

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    *looks nervously at H2 gas cylinders outside lab*

    Specialist materials and linings are available but these are obviously expensive and not used in standard pipework.

    aracer
    Free Member

    So… what do you propose?

    Something other than the Severn Barrage – almost anything other than that. Obviously.

    Ok even if cycling were a feasible alternative for every journey, I reckon persuading everyone to get on their bike instead of into a car would be harder than developing fusion.

    There has to be a way to capture the irate energy generated if just told everybody they had to abandon their cars.

    fifo
    Free Member

    Something other than the Severn Barrage – almost anything other than that. Obviously.

    Such as? If we all want anything but [insert worthy on a national scale, yet contentious locally] generation, we’ll end up with nothing.

    No is just about as useful as “more coal please”

    aracer
    Free Member

    I agree that “more coal please” is a better solution than the Severn Barrage – thanks for that. The Severn Barrage is FAR from worthy on a national scale, or indeed a global scale.

    Anyway you’re using an argument fallacy there – can’t be bothered working out the technical name for it, but the point is I’m not required to come up with an alternative in order to point out that one proposed “solution” would cause more harm than good.

    fifo
    Free Member

    I’d just like to know what your proposed solutions are. It’s easy to sit there and say “no”. Much more helpfull to the debateto offer up other ideas

    aracer
    Free Member

    I’ve not got anything new to add there – don’t really see the point in proposing stuff which has already been mentioned on this thread. Are you expecting me to come up with some miracle technology which solves all our problems in order to criticise deeply flawed ideas? The fact we have a problem and no obvious single way of solving it doesn’t make bad ideas any more attractive.

    Is it not allowed to point out the flaws in potential “solutions”.

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    aracer – Member

    I agree that “more coal please” is a better solution than the Severn Barrage – thanks for that. The Severn Barrage is FAR from worthy on a national scale, or indeed a global scale.

    As you were so keen to dismiss my thoughts as being from a “very trivial perspective”, let’s hear your great solution Mr Environmental Saviour, and let’s not have any trivial nonsense, back it up with some hard thinking (showing your working our will earn extra marks :wink:)

    aracer
    Free Member

    Do you want me to repeat the post I’ve just made?

    TooTall
    Free Member

    What about looking at houses deriving as much energy in situ – VAWT on chimneys, ground heat pumps, solar panels and then energy saving/reduction – obviously there is a cost but can that be balanced off against the £xBn required for a new Nuclear Powerstation?

    Nope – reduce the requirement for energy. Cheaper and easier to get the fabric of the buildings sorted to reduce consumption. Unfortunately, the government stamped on much of that work with the Green Deal.

    Small scale wind turbines, particularly urban, are mostly not worth it. Most of the population doesn’t live in windy enough areas for it to be viable. Ridgeblades are a nice theory but far too specific to a location to be much use.

    fifo
    Free Member

    Do you want me to repeat the post I’ve just made?

    Nope, just give us a few suggestions as to what your preferred ideas might be.

    You say no to the Severn barrage, I say no to coal, doubtless someone will say no to nuclear, and there’s always the chance that the Russians will ssay no more gas. Then what?

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Nope – reduce the requirement for energy.

    That’s a seperate issue. We’ll still need to generate energy unless we can reduce our consumption to zero, which is unlikely.

    PS keep it civil people, no-one wants to read a slanging match.

    woody74
    Full Member

    To me it seems mad not to have something like the Severn barrage. It guaranteed pollution free energy with the tide never running out. I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things like wading birds would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out. I guess fish flows and spawning and the biggest issues. I still find it nuts that new houses don’t have to built with solar panels. As part of the cost of building a house the cost of fitting solar panels would be tiny. I just don’t see why all new houses don’t have to be the most efficient as technology will allow them.

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    @TooTall – ok get the issues re location etc, but would it be at all viable for those buildings/homes suitable for wind/solar/ground energy to be hooked into it, as part of an overall reduction plan?

    Often wondered who determines the number and brightness of the street lighting we have, travelling home yesterday and some towns have almost daylight lighting levels on empty streets.

    I understand that we will still need some form of large scale energy production if we are to continue to retain some semblance of today’s lifestyle.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things like wading birds would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out.

    It’s a pretty special ecosystem, not many like that in the world. Sad to see it go, no?

    And most new housing developments near us have solar panels, but that’s only been in the last couple of years so still not that many houses overall.

    aracer
    Free Member

    That’s a seperate issue. We’ll still need to generate energy unless we can reduce our consumption to zero, which is unlikely.

    But we have means of generating energy which aren’t about to disappear, it’s a question of capacity, which reducing consumption helps with significantly. Spending the money you could have spent on solar panels in a new build on better insulation instead is almost certainly a better use of resources in terms of overall energy flow (and don’t suggest doing both until we mandate far, far better house insulation – until then the answer is always forget the panels, spend more money on insulation).

    aracer
    Free Member

    To me it seems mad not to have something like the Severn barrage. It guaranteed a relatively small amount of pollution free energy with the tide never running out. I can see that it would have some environmental impacts but things like wading birds affected by climate change would just migrate elsewhere not necessarily die out.

    woody74
    Full Member

    Is the Severn really that special as an ecosystem? I have lived near it all my life and apart from Slimbridge can’t really say I have ever seen it as a wildlife hotspot. More a muddy river with lots of heavy industry on its banks for years.

    30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south. I think at the moment it is at the discretion of the builder. Seems nuts that any large building project has to pay a levy for social housing and the such but no requirement by law to install solar panels, ground source pumps, etc

    Its seems the government is hell bent on shale gas, so why not use a levy on that to pay for massive investment in local renewables. Wont cost the government anything and would reduce our need for fossil fuels

    fifo
    Free Member

    It is a pretty unique ecosystem, but it does have the capacity to produce a relatively large amount of electricity through a barrage system. It could produce a lesser amount of energy in a less environmentally damaging manner using tidal lagoons.

    These things could be done as well as PV on roofs, and insulation.

    Burning coal is not a better option

    mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    Weirdly enough, if you build houses with enough insulation and point them in the right direction to let all the sunlight in through windows, it almost doesn’t need heating at all. Or cooling.

    So, that’s our heating energy requirement sorted then.

    Now, just to sort out transport.

    TooTall
    Free Member

    30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south.

    The money would be better spent on reducing the energy needed than slapping some bling on the outside. ‘Fabric First’ every time.

    The first thing you should do when working out what power generation you require is to properly understand the demand – THEN try to optimise that. The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

    So – reduce the energy consumption now, because the generation companies will be changing how you use energy to suit them in the near future.

    aracer
    Free Member

    30 new houses around the corner from us have just been built and not one has solar panels even though at least half have roofs that point directly south. I think at the moment it is at the discretion of the builder. Seems nuts that any large building project has to pay a levy for social housing and the such but no requirement by law to install solar panels, ground source pumps, etc

    What you can’t tell is how well they’re insulated compared to older houses. It seems nuts to mandate solar panels or any of the other stuff until you’ve mandated measures to make significant reductions in consumption.

    gofasterstripes
    Free Member

    molgrips – Member
    Someone needs to figure out how to make metallic hydrogen on Earth.

    There’s better ways

    These guys are the business.

    I look forward to working with their gear quite soon.

    WRT energy generation/renewables – As I see it, what we need [apart from people turning off lights etc] is large areas of desert covered with solar energy capture devices [Photovoltaics, reflector and molten salt/steam stations etc etc]. A concerted international effort to build these systems could transform our energy mix, provide a huge number of jobs and promote world peace and understanding. Unfortunately this requires altruistic international world co-operation, and no-one to ransom the really long extension leads we’d be running everywhere.

    Ho-hum

    igm
    Full Member

    Tootall –

    The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

    I agree with your comment on optimising demand (flattening the load curve as I would see it), however there are a couple points to note.
    Firstly and this is a simple but interesting one, your 24 hours comment I quoted assumes generation capability is flat throughout the day. Nuclear, coal, gas and oil can be and preferably should be, but then it gets interesting. Photovoltaic clearly isn’t, and nor is tidal flow (barrages and lagoons might well be though). CHP varies with the heat requirement. Wind varies overtime, but as I recall there is a statistical diurnal rhythm.
    The second point leads on from that. Statistically there is more wind in the winter, and indeed traditional power stations have higher output at lower ambient temperatures. Biomass may well have an annual rhythm and who knows about hydro given recent rainfall patterns.
    Finally, for now at least, the grid has a higher rating (and marginally lower losses) in the winter. It also has a higher rating on windy days, but that is more difficult to generalise about.

    thetallpaul
    Free Member

    The first thing you should do when working out what power generation you require is to properly understand the demand – THEN try to optimise that. The most sensible first stage of optimisation is to reduce the requirement, then to even it out over the 24 hrs.

    I was lucky enough to attend a training course for a previous employer related to installing the software to connect smart meters to the existing energy companies software.

    The big cost to a power generation company is starting up another power station to cope with a sudden demand (i.e Eastenders finishing and the kettle goes on). IIRC the cost is ~10 times the norm.
    They will start implementing tariffs that heavily charge for these times, thus reducing the sudden demand over time.
    Smart meters will be used to profile everyone’s usage throughout the day.
    Smart meters are not there to save you money, they are for the energy companies to save money.

    Rather than look at solar photovoltaic cells, we are considering solar water heating cells. They are much more efficient that their electric versions and are likely to have a larger impact on your energy usage.
    Insulation is obviously the best first step for UK housing stock, but for large scale take up, the cost of exterior insulation will have to drop considerably.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Rather than look at solar photovoltaic cells, we are considering solar water heating cells.

    Good. Those are a far better use of the available solar energy.

    TooTall
    Free Member

    Current generation companies want to remove peaks in demand so they can run a constant base load. It is by far the most efficient way of doing business. I didn’t mention renewables in this mix because they are not why this work is being undertaken – too small when compared to power stations. Reducing consumption is of interest to the consumer – flattening demand is of interest to those generating. The only way to get renewables really in the mix is to improve storage to de-couple consumption from generation.

    Oh – rough figure to de-carbonize transport with electric vehicles would require 3x more electricity in the grid. Therefore, we still need base power.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    mrmonkfinger – Member

    if you build houses with enough insulation and point them in the right direction to let all the sunlight in through windows, it almost doesn’t need heating at all. Or cooling.

    So, that’s our heating energy requirement sorted then.

    except that there’s roughly 30million houses that aren’t built like this in the uk, we have to work with what we’ve got.

    unless you’re proposing knocking them all down, and starting again?

    30,000,000 x £100,000 = £3,000,000,000,000 (3 thousand billion quid)

    aracer
    Free Member

    People were suggesting requiring solar panels on new builds though.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Spending the money you could have spent on solar panels in a new build on better insulation instead is almost certainly a better use of resources in terms of overall energy flow

    You are quite correct, but the thread’s about how to generate power, rather than how best to invest in carbon reduction…

    TooTall
    Free Member

    but the thread’s about how to generate power, rather than how best to invest in carbon reduction

    But you don’t have to generate as much if you need less, so demand is rather closely related to generation. Or can carbon reduction and energy reduction not be the same thing on your planet?

    I’d say the thread started off as crap trolling anyway.

    igm
    Full Member

    Tootall – I don’t think I was disagreeing with your premise. Understanding load is great, and optimising is great. My point was that you also have to understand the nature of your generation (and given how long it takes to build generation, what will be happening in 10 plus years). I think you’re actually in agreement with that reading across your last few posts.
    I also agree that prices rocket around peaks, but there are mechanical commercial reasons for that as well as financial ones. Unfortunately smart meters may not help with this in the short to medium term at least – I may be wrong on that.

    Renewables ain’t that small any more, in terms of peak production at least, and they’re going to get bigger. We have distributed generation (not all of which is renewable) of around 20-25% of our peak load commissioned on the system – the Scots have more as I recall.

    Solar water is an excellent idea as you say, not least because you can store it.

    And 3 times more electric for electric vehicles? Possibly an under estimate if you’re talking about peaks, and I think they will be peaky, and more again (another 3 times?) if you want heat pumps.
    Note the difference of course between energy and power.

    igm
    Full Member

    Oh and the reason the smart meter work is being undertaken is because the government mandated it and the the EU backed them up.
    Supposedly to help renewables to connect and assist people to reduce their consumption, but the emphasis has changed over the years.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Small, portable generators attatched to the wrists of teenage boys and bicycle company executives.

    TooTall
    Free Member

    I agree that generation and construction take a lot of time, but reducing demand starts working now while the other stuff happens in parallel.
    Smart meters will be used like a more refined Economy7 system. Behaviour will be changed because the consumer will be charged different rates for different times of the day. A smart meter gives that increased granularity of data.
    Like paying more for your rail ticket during rush hour.
    Prices will be higher at 7am and 7pm and that – the financial cost to the consumer – will drive changes in behaviour. The peaks will be lowered and the load evened out across the day.

    I was using the rough figures from the ZeroCarbon work produced by CAT. They reckon 3x current electricity just to decarbonize transport in the UK.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 159 total)

The topic ‘So where is this miracle source of unlimited green energy?’ is closed to new replies.