Forum menu
There are things you can do at consumer end to reduce peaks and troughs in demand. smart chargers for electric cdars is one whereby they effectivly become a part of the grid charging only on excess electricity and stopping charging or even putting some energy back into the grid when demnand is high
IIRC Aus uses this sort of tech on electric water heaters
Alex – what are you going to do with the waste – thats the pollution problem along with the huge amounts of concrete used and the fossil fuels required to get the fuel.
The waste is a convenient solid format. Stick it in a hole.
Unlike CO2 which we just pump into the air.
Doesn't get greener than that.
Gubuchal - generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.
Nice shift of the goalposts BTW. You claimed it was not available at commercial levels now you insist a 3+ year commercial scale plant is only small scale.
you said there was only one commercial scale project. Untrue
What I honestly think would help is a little joined-up technology being deployed off-shore.
So you install a tidal stream generator, with a wind turbine on top of it. Then stick a cowl round the columns in the water and pass the air being pumped in/out the cowl through a turbine to generate power from the wave action.
Obviously, optimally positioning for tidal stream means it's likely to be non-optimal for wave/wind, but it means you get increased generation from a single location, and can use the infrastructure being installed anyway to increase overall generation.
I thought of this 20 years ago, and cannot believe no-one has done it yet...
1) what to do with the waste?
Well depending on the ACTUAL (rather than perceived) hazard you encase it properly and store it somewhere geologically stable and monitor it for the long term. By no means a perfect solution but if you waited until you had perfect solution you'd never do anything.
2) where to get the fuel
Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.
To be clear although I am generally pro nuclear I don't disagree that we also need other power generating options.
BTW are you going to back up that "20% of UK energy" claim you made earlier?
The waste is a convenient solid format.
Wrong IIRC.
What's wrong with sealing nuclear waste underground for 300 yrs? 300yrs is a tiny amount of time in lifespan of the earth, and we might have figured out what to do with it by then!
Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.
that is no answer. We know of 40 years worth of fuel deposits at 5% of the worlds energy needs. Where are you going to find 10X that to actually make a difference to climate change?
Re "waste" or spent fuel - mined uranium is so abundant and cheap that it's not worth reprocessing at the moment i.e. separating the "unburnt" uranium from the rest.
Fast spectrum reactors can use the waste with minimal reprocessing i.e. no need to seperate the minor actinides. When they do so, the resultant waste stream is less radioactive than the ore in ~ 300 years.
Example is Moltex
Another waste burner but thermal spectrum is Candu
Gubuchal – generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.
Really? Floating ones? Some one better get a Nav Warning out as they aren't charted!
[url= https://i.ibb.co/NjYkhYv/pentland.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/NjYkhYv/pentland.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I think you are just coming out with what you want to believe!
mined uranium is so abundant and cheap
Eh? according to the stuff I have seen we have 40 years supply and much of it it unstable countries - and extracting it is expensive
those two things are not yet built are they? - another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech
Yes floating ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445
that is no answer.
It is literally the only answer to your question.
and much of it it unstable countries
I think Australia has the biggest deposits of Uranium, doesn't it? and Canada has loads as well. I know the Aussie like a drink or two, but I don't think it makes them unstable...
Yes floating ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445/blockquote >That is not the Pentland Firth.
It is location that is well protected from the worst of the weather.
There is not sufficient room for the installation of the thousands that would be required.
those two things are not yet built are they? – another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech
Which is exactly what you are doing!
There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.
If it was ready to go then a lot of the struggling high tech Aberdeen based O&G companies would be all over it.
Or are you suggesting it's being held back?
I think this point has been comprehensively proved by this thread
the arguements pro nuclear folk use are so contorted relying on next generation nuclear tech ( thorium, fast breeders) and comparing it with last generation renewables.
There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.
When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven
and yes - its being deliberately held back for political reasons
tjagain
and if the energy “market” was not rigged so as to make generation in Scotland uneconomic. ( done purely for political reasons)
tjagain
Access charges I think they are called – to allow generators to connect to the grid. the further you are from london the more you pay to be allowed to put your electricity to the grid. This means that any electricity generated in scotland starts off with a huge disadvantage in the marketplace. Build a generator in the south of england you get subsidised. Build one in Scotland you pay to access the grid.
Why do you think this is the market being 'rigged', as opposed to it reflecting the high cost of installing and maintaining the high voltage transmission lines needed to move electricity long distances?
Scotland already produces more electricity than it needs (around double, i think?) so it is not being used locally.
Well TJ I've made no such claims regarding nuclear power and Fast Breeder reactors aren't next generation tech, Dounreay was a fast breeder plant, was brought online in the 1960s and is no longer in operation.
Now about this "20% of the UKs energy" claim you made...
and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons
What political reasons are those?
There has been major investment in that location off Eday for years now.
Why would any government hold back energy technology that could be the equivalent of the North sea oil boom? Even BJ isn't that thick.
Offshore O&G is in decline. The UK has invested billions in offshore wind. I know I have worked in the industry one and off for 10 years and have seen the step changes in that period. To suggest it's being held back is absolute nonsense.
So why would they "hold back" tidal?
According to the website, it's all underwater.
Interesting discussion though.
scotgov publications - look it up. 14 gb from the pentland firth alone altho that is a disputed figure
Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose
No one has made a fast breeder work for electricity generation ( or is superpheonix actually online yet?) No one has made a commercial scale thorium generator yet have they altho IIRC india has a pilot plant
When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven
How much though? Just because a small scale plant works doesn't mean that it will scale up to all our energy needs, does it?
Your tendency towards being single minded does not help give you a broad overview of the problems and issues.
and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons
Really, 50p says this is nonsense. Any govt of any stripe would be all over this like a rash if they thought it would work, renewable energy, built "in country" what possible reason could there be?
On this tech it does molgrips. You do not build a bigger one - you build more of the smaller units. this has huge implications because repairs do not mean the whole plant goes offline as you are in effect having thousands of small generators. It also means economies of scale as you can build the units on a production line.
Molgrips - this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.
when people are pretending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows t e poverty of the arguement.
anyway - as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.
So why would they “hold back” tidal?
Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.
Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.
According to the website, it’s all underwater.
Interesting discussion though.
It's still basically 4 prototypes. They seem to be struggling to get it working properly.
faults-found-on-tidal-turbines-in-the-pentland-firth/
Like I said, potential but not yet proven.
The very fact that it's an excellent source of tidal power, means it's a very hostile environment particularity subsea.
Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose
It was I believe the worlds first fast breeder reactor to export electricity in January 1975.
Molgrips – this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.
I'm afraid you don't.
when people are prentending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows th epoverty of the arguement.
Literally no one has said that on this thread.
anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds
Pot meet kettle.
"Now about this “20% of the UKs energy” claim you made…"
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels
Except it's not currently available.
Last summer I went for a fascinating tour round Dinorwig hydro power station
It's not a power station it's a pumped storage scheme. Basically just a big battery.
Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.
Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.
What a load.
Non engineer/non mariner thinks that installing sub sea turbines in one of the most hostile marine environments on the Planet is not going ahead because of political motives, to restrict growth for a particular area of the UK, despite the fact that the whole of the UK would benefit if it was successful!
It's not happened yet because it's ****ing difficult and the tech isn't proven!
another reason is the SNP are in thrall to the O&G industry and really do not get it.
No gobuchal - when its been producing electicity for years then its proven - ior as proven as nuclear.
Its al rehashing old arguements as folk are wedded to the glamour of hi tech nuclear rtathrrt than low tech tidal
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming
No TJ you're just ignoring the answers same as you're ignoring my repeated question to you to back up your claim of 20% of the UKs energy that could be available from the Pentland firm I believe it was.
Literally no one has said that on this thread.
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
Gonfishing - so where are you going to increase the supply of uranium by a factor of 100 or more?
What are you going to do with the waste?
anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.
Talk about arrogant!
1) You're the most intransigent person I've ever known, so chastising us for not changing our minds in response to a weak argument (and yes, it is weak as we've shown) is a bit rich and extremely self-unaware.
2) You're assuming we haven't read up about it. There are people here who actually work in the industry and are aware of the projects and their problems, and you refuse to accept their input because you've 'read up a bit'.
Honestly, have a word with yourself.
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste
Who's pro-nuclear? We're simply trying to educate you on the issues with tidal that you seem to be ignoring.
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels
Except it’s not currently available.
Fission is available, fusion is not.
anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.
Prize for the least self aware post of the year goes to...
Edit, Molly beat me to it...
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
TJ I posted the details of the tidal flow turbines in strangford lough. At no point have I EVER said that tidal generators do not exist. No one has. I've questioned their suitability to provide base load but that is a totally different thing. Now how about you
"back up your claim of 20% of the UKs energy that could be available from the Pentland firm I believe it was."
Estimates for the potential of the pentland firth are in the 10 GW range - and that is NOT the only site available. ( the range of estimates is huge tho)
another reason is the SNP are in thrall to the O&G industry and really do not get it.
Aberdeen is on its arse.
There are so many people out of work and companies going to the wall, it's terrible.
If this was viable on a large scale then people would be jumping on it.
There are loads of construction vessels sitting idle. They are desperate to find work.
4 prototypes, that have a number of faults, is not proven. Why can't you understand that?
The SNP have been going on about it for years. From wiki:
Currents of up to 5 metres per second (11 mph) make the Pentland Firth potentially one of the best sites in the world for tidal power. This has taken on a political dimension. The SNP Energy Review of July 2006 claimed that the Firth could produce "10 to 20 GW of synchronous electricity" and First Minister Alex Salmond claimed that the Pentland Firth could be "the Saudi Arabia of tidal power"with an output of "20 gigawatts and more than that"In July 2013 Dr Thomas Adcock of Oxford University stated that the Firth "is almost certainly the best site for tidal stream power in the world" although a peer-reviewed study he led suggested that the maximum potential of the Firth was 1.9 GW of tidal power, with 1 GW being a more realistic figure.
So 1 GW, could replace 1 typical Nuclear power station.
No you are not mate. People are basing their arguments on false premises
and I still await the answers to those two questions on nuclear.
Estimates for the potential of the pentland firth are in the 10 GW range – and that is NOT the only site available. ( the range of estimates is huge tho)
Back up your actual claim that it can provide 20% of the UKs energy needs and whilst you're at it quote me where I said Tidal didn't exist.
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
No, I stated that there were none in the Pentland Firth.
TJ - that floaty thing you linked to, have you any idea how difficult it would be to safely moor that in an area that has extreme currents and terrible winter weather?
The engineering involved would be pretty impressive.
Then you have to maintain it.
x 50.
Can you imagine what dynamic loads would be on that structure with it's turning turbines in a 5kt current below and heaving up and down in 20m seas?
and that is NOT the only site available
How many other sites have identified?
From what I understand, you need around 5kts of current to make it worth while.
Where else is suitable?
People are basing their arguments on false premises
What like the Pentland Firth supplying 20% of UK energy needs?
When a peer reviewed study estimated it could produce 1 MW?