We do not have the fuel for them to say nothing of the need to build in places of political and geological instability
Numbers please.
On a UK scale we need new generating capacity more quickly than new nukes can be online.
Numbers please
poor reliability record of nuclear plants
Numbers please.
and no one is listening or wants to hear anything
Just asked you three questions.
. Zokes and Aracer keep doing the same
No we do not, the discussion progresses significantly whilst you don't post. You then reiterate your 'bullshine' with very little link to actual reality, and drag us back into it.
On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK's ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.
At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.
And with that I bow out of this completely
TFFT!
[url= http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_mar%C3%A9motrice_de_la_Rance ]Usine marémotrice de la Rance[/url]
The Rance (aptly named) tidal scheme has been running for years. As a water scientist I can't be overly enthusiastic about widespread adoption of such schemes but if you aren't worried about water quality, fishery status, wildlife habitat and so on they are certainly econmically viable.
In the right place then by all means but the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way.
[b]D ![/b]
Oh go on then - I can't resist
On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK's ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.
Yup - the data that shows how unreliable they are 🙄 Load factor way way down. ten reactors. One running at 100% for part of the year. others at 70% because of major cracks in the cores. Others running well below capacity or shut down. How much electricity has HUnterston produced in the last few years?
At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.
Yes you are. Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables
"I can't resist"
This is your #1 problem and why you have a reputation on here.
Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?! Do you mistakenly believe you could be right about "everything", without even a cursory check?
Experts on here, with proper knowledge and experience, who are not random tandem cyclists, disagree with you on this. Challenge them yes, but why don't you trust them?
Because I have nothing further to add at this juncture, I'm just watching from now on. Let's hope the lads Fukushima have some luck.
and I simply do not believe the nuclear lobby given their record of lying,misleading and obfuscation
TJ- Have a read of Monbiot's column in the Guardian today.
He points out that the anti-nuclear lobby is doing exactly that by exaggerating the risks of nuclear, overstating the capabilities of renewables.
[url= http://www.lepoint.fr/fil-info-reuters/plus-de-1-000-incidents-nucleaires-recenses-en-france-en-2010-16-03-2011-1307011_240.php ]A 1000 incidents in French nuclear plants last year of which three level 2.[/url]
As a commentator on Europe 1 noted. If we are recording this number of incidents in relatively modern reactors built to a quality rather than a cost it is quite astonishing that other countries report much lower numbers of incidents.
As for overstating the capability of renewables Monbiot should take a trip across Spain to see how few of the potential sites are needed to make a very significant contribution to total energy demand.
Edit: the numbers Monbiot quotes are by his own admission conservative. He then massages them to support his arguement. It's very much a case of lies, damned lies and fudged numbers which take no account of what other countries are already achieving - with an enormous potential still remaining. He doesn't even consider the impact of micro generation. Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in the country and you cut demand dramatically.
Insulate every building, legislate electric resistance heaters out of existance, favour heat pumps, fix consumption limits for appliances and Monbiot's objections disappear.
Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in [s]the country[/s] Spain or the South of France and you cut demand dramatically in those areas
FTFY
We'll see what the production is from TJ's parent's panels. There aren't many worse locations.
Yup - the data that shows how unreliable they are
You're still claiming that? I thought you'd given up.
What does it tell you about SB? You explain to me how the reliability of far older power stations than SB is more relevant to the reliability of any future build nuclear power stations than the reliability of SB and we might have something to discuss. Here's some data for you to help you out:
Nuclear fission: 1938
Pile-1: 1942
EBR-I (first electricity generation): 1951
Obninsk supplies electricity to the grid: 1954
Calder Hall is first commercial nuclear power station: 1956
Hunterston B began construction: 1968
Sizewell B began construction: 1987
Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Hunterston B starting construction: 12
Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Sizewell B starting construction: 31
Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables
OK, so answer me the question nobody has yet managed - where does our electricity come from when it's not windy in December (or October, November, January, February and March)? Are you really totally sure that we'll be able to cover all of our electricity needs with tidal - even with energy efficiency - something which isn't at all proven on a large scale?
the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way
Thank God for that. We didn't decide to destroy a natural ecosystem and a unique (to the UK) natural phenomenon for the sake of making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.
AFAIK it's not a tiny dent tho is it? It would do something ridiculous like power the south west...?
I could be wrong - though I'm fairly sure it's not as much as you're suggesting. Definitely not worth it anyway IMHO.
Wiki suggests 5% of the UK's total for a 10 mile barrage.
Interesting article actually - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage#Power_generation_potential
Suggests lots of alternatives to a barrage, including turbines on the sea bed that could generate 13TWh/year
The Severn projects I was privy to in the 80s were good for a least 10% of UK power needs with the most ambitious being well over that. Google it, something must have made it onto the Web.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage#Bondi_Committee_.E2.80.93_1981 ]Wiki quotes 5 or 6% for the 80s projects.[/url]
There are less environmentally degrading options afloat now.
buzz-lightyear - Member
Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?
Yes its my opinion based on facts. what that I have been shown to be wrong - reliability - a matter of opinion. I ask again. How much electricity has hunters ton produced recently?
aracer - Member.................
making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.
Renewables - each turbine in the islay array is a megawatt. ten are going in as a trial this year. Proven technology reliable and robust. Feasible non barrage potential for tidal generation just in Scotland is 30 gw or 3 sizewell bs.
!0 new nuclear power stations have been mooted as needed. Well thats 3 we don't need of the ten just on tidal. Tehn add in solar for water and heat, add in a bit more wind, wave, go for local CHP in cities for massive efficiency improvements, go for massive energy conservation measures etc etc.
You say
to me.the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding.
well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago. Aracer seems to think tho that you need a destructive barrage and that its an insignificant amount of energy still.
As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts. it all becomes about asserting your own point of view and refusing to hear and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices.
well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago.
The issue often is that your links raise further questions. You seem to think that as soon as you link to something then that makes it an irrefutable fact. Well sources can be debated also.
As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts.
It's ONLY the threads where you get involved that end up like this!
and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices
Don't call me prejudiced you arrogant fkwit! I take part in these debates to LEARN, you seem to only care about WINNING. I do not pretend to be a world authority and I want to listen to those who know more than me.
You never do, I suspect you believe that no-one knows more than you. It's certainly how you act.
*bangs head on wall*
Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.
No one disputed the links or info - after all its hard info from the government.
I do not pretend to be a world authority. 🙄 I merely can read the articles and make my own mind up.
earlier Buzz told me to respect the experts on here - all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links.
Pentland firth tidal scheme - 4 GW
Am I getting my megawatties confused? 30 GW is the total tidal resource that is practical to extract. thats 30 sizewell Bs is it not?
everywhere I look for the numbers they vary. Not suprising as they are estimates. It certainly many GW of tidal available play wave and wind.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15
Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.
We've had lots of nice pleasant debates without you. It really is JUST YOU that does this.
after all its hard info from the government.
Lolz at that for a start!
all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
No they bloody well don't! They are saying that there are issues with it. Everyone knows that.
I ask again. How much electricity has hunters ton produced recently?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!
I ask again. What relevance has the performance of a nuclear power station who's construction was started only 12 years into the commercial nuclear power age to new ones designed with the benefit of over 40 years more knowledge?
Aracer seems to think tho that you need a destructive barrage and that its an insignificant amount of energy still.As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts
Well at least you're a little bit self-aware. Strange that you've not noticed one of the supporters of nuclear power is also one of those who likes the idea of undersea tidal and has been supporting you with information on that.
the experts on here - all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
Well clearly I'm not an expert, as I'm not dismissing (practical) renewables - I'm really struggling to think who is, you're going to have to name names.
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out.
Its a huge capital investment and research programme to do this. We cannot afford to waste the money on the nukes we don't need. Its an either / or proposition to some extent.
What as surprise - I wake up and the flouncer is still at it. Give it a rest TJ, unless you have something new and factual to add.
[b]NOONE HERE IS SAYING RENEWABLES SHOULD BE REPLACED BY NUCLEAR, OR THAT NUCLEAR SHOULD BE BUILT IN LIU OF RENEWABLES[/b]
Got that? Need it repeating? A few exclamation marks to get it into your clearly obtuse brain?
all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
I have posted three links to [i]Science[/i] and [i]Nature[/i] on this thread. If you care so much to keep arguing black is white, I'd suggest you get yourself down to your local library to read them. I think you'll find the top two peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world are probably [i]the[/i] most reliable sources that anyone can cite.
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out
No - I reject the idea that renewables and efficiency can stop the lights going out because they can't - nothing to do with the fact I'm not hysterically scared of nukes. Your own links provide the proof - [url= http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece ]Professor MacKay[/url] reckons only 12.5GW from tide and wave for Scotland when current consumption is 26GW - and that's including very unproven wave. Bearing in mind Scotland has far better tidal resources than the rest of the UK and far lower consumption the gap only gets bigger if you look outside Scotland. I have to admit I actually thought tidal would do a bit better than that eventually! Meanwhile [url= https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=16754ac3-5095-477e-abf8-ab802975e710&groupId=57143 ]KTN[/url] reckons on a maximum of 2.5GW installed marine capacity for the [b]whole of Europe[/b] by 2020, at which point new nuclear could well be coming online to plug that 23.5GW (minus efficiency savings) gap for Scotland if all of that capacity is there!
We cannot afford to waste the money on the [s]nukes we don't need[/s] windmills which don't do any practical good
FTFY
Its an either / or proposition
Given the current renewable installation/research isn't about to stop if we get new nuclear (which will be privately funded), no it's not! Why do you continue to lie like this?
Renewables have been starved of investment over decades and will continue to be so if we go ahead with nukes.. Its a tiny fraction of the money spent on R&D into nukes. The Scottish company that makes the best wave generator had to build the prototype in Portugal FFS
We need massively increased investment in renewables.
The Scottish Govt report linked to above suggests over 3GW of marine capacity [b]for Scotland alone[/b] by 2015, with an early Pentland Firth Tidal scheme generating 1.6GW soon after 2015. These are still small number compared to what is required overall, but it does call into question some of the figures being bandied about.aracer - Member
Meanwhile KTN reckons on a maximum of 2.5GW installed marine capacity for the whole of Europe by 2020
the uk demands around 60GW of power, the largest realistic severn barrage plan would produce around 10GW of power (and destroy it as an important area for wildlife)
but we've only got 1 severn estuary, any more will probably have to come from individual turbines.
the big ones would give us around 5MW each: so we'd need 2000 of them to match the 10GW from a severn barrage.
if the 10Gw severn scheme is a massive engineering project, then 2000 individual turbines is a step into the realm of fantasy - these things aren't as easy to install as wind turbines.
so, even ignoring the slack times of the tide, tidal power is unlikely to ever provide more than a third of our power.
a welcome contribution, and it can be done, it probably will be done, but the cost of getting there will be very high.
so where do we get the other 2 thirds from? (40GW) - wind and wave don't count cos we'll need back up for when it's not windy/wavey.
40GW? anyone? remembering of course that we're not allowed coal, gas, oil, any form of nuclear, hydro, waste incineration, bio-mass, or to buy it from a euro-super-grid*.
(*some of the juice might come from the naughty-list, and buying it is just as bad as producing it)
i'd be just as happy as TJ to abandon 'nukes' if you can tell me a way to produce 40GW...
as ever, i'm an idiot, and mainly just thinking out loud - please feel welcome to point out my mistakes, and gaps in my ponderings, it's all good interesting stuff.
good night all.
X
the uk demands around 60GW of power
The idea that renewables can power the UK mandates that IN ADDITION to the power generation we slash our consumption.
Some folk are saying that we can slash by 75%, which would make your above idea feasible (kind of, since it's simplified as you pointed out).
I suspect that whilst we may be able to slash domestic energy consumption by a large figure, much of that is gas or oil rather than electricity.
But still - 40GW, that's what, 2kW per household? So if we put solar panels on every house.. we probably wouldn't match that but we could maybe make half of it, and bear in mind that there are plenty of factories, sheds, barns etc we could use too. Of course that wouldn't work at night so you'd need storage...
So we need:
Massive roll-out of renewable generation
A means of storing vast amounts of energy and I mean VAST
Significant infrastructure investment
All of which need to happen without any direct economic imperative since there's plenty of coal still available overseas, so it'd have to be done via public funds.
Not asking much, is it? A lot more difficult than building a few nukes imo.
Are you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go? there are only 10 new nukes planned IIRC. I thought the aim was a reduction in CO2 output and replacement of agiing generators of all sorts.
so now you want what 40 or 50 new nukes?
so now you want what 40 or 50 new nukes?
Eh what? I just showed some sums.
The Scottish Govt report linked to above suggests over 3GW of marine capacity for Scotland alone by 2015, with an early Pentland Firth Tidal scheme generating 1.6GW soon after 2015.
Except if you check Figure 12.10 (just above those figures) it seems they're including offshore wind in marine capacity, meanwhile further up it says "six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate 1.2 GW of marine energy in the Pentland Firth" - so that's 1.2GW potential peak in the middle of a spring tide with just the perfect amount of waves.
I don't see renewables getting anywhere near even covering the 10 proposed new nukes by 2020 - proposed new capacity is 16GW BTW. The thing is, I think you'll find that a large chunk of renewables has been factored into the budgets anyway, so you'd need to find 16GW beyond what is currently planned!
Don't forget spreading demand, Molgrips. If the financial incentive is great enough then people will not consume when asked not to. French and Italian experience proves this. France with its punitive tarifs for a few days/weeks of the year if you sign up to very cheap electricity the rest of the year, and limited capacity meters. Italy with intelligent meters that vary tarifs through the day. Combine the two and you knock the peaks off demand both daily and in winter.
Demand is quite predictable, so much so that I knew when to turn up at a hydro scheme to get my samples. I took the before samples, wandered up to the control room, played the amused spectator as they went from zero to lots of watts in a few seconds (more intersting was watching the sagging frequency meter rise as a consequence), then wandered out to take the generating samples.
Give a financial incentive to fit a meter that trips off at 20A and people will adapt. For most of my adult life I've lived with meters limited to 3, 6 or 9 kW and it just hasn't been an issue. You simply don't put everything on at the same time. Industry is happy to play this game too, electricity intensive industries such as aluminium shutting down during peak demand periods.
Edit: I've curently got a 9kW meter and checked to see what the highest load we've ever drawn was - 29A or 6.7kW. Probably my wife turning on three rings and the oven. I knew I should have bought the model that only had two rings but it was more expensive 😉
Ah - bluddy semantics again! If folk could all stick to the same definition of "marine capacity", these discussions would be so much easier 🙂aracer - Member
Except if you check Figure 12.10 (just above those figures) it seems they're including offshore wind in marine capacity,
My understanding is that tidal is pretty much a guaranteed baseload for 23 hours per day? Seems that's a better bet than wave power then.meanwhile further up it says "six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate 1.2 GW of marine energy in the Pentland Firth" - so that's 1.2GW potential peak in the middle of a spring tide with just the perfect amount of waves.
And that's surely TJs argument. The more we spend on nuclear, the less we have available to spend on alternatives - i.e. it [i]is[/i] an either/or situation due to cash constraints?I don't see renewables getting anywhere near even covering the 10 proposed new nukes by 2020 - proposed new capacity is 16GW BTW. The thing is, I think you'll find that a large chunk of renewables has been factored into the budgets anyway, so you'd need to find 16GW beyond what is currently planned!
POSTED 6 HOU
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out.
Well that's just a false dichotomy. You really don't do yourself or your argument any favours with comments like that.
TandemJeremy - MemberAre you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go?
basically yes.
you've convinced me that nuclear power is too dangerous.
that means fossil fuels, and hydro-power/storage are off the list too - for being even more dangerous; climate change, deaths during mining, deaths on oil-rigs, air-quality, dam-collapse, etc.
well done, you've convinced me! - i'm onboard!
but we still need to find 40GW...
(i'm assuming we're not going to reduce our consumption - there's no harm preparing for the inevitable)
that means fossil fuels, and hydro-power/storage are off the list too - for being even more dangerous
Don't forget that when you calculate deaths in proportion to the amount of electricity generated, wind is also more dangerous than nuclear.
In fact I think the only things we're left with are those which haven't actually been tried yet.
Could we capture hot air from internet forums?
Are you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go?
basically yes.
Agreed - isn't that the aim?
I'd also close coal and gas before existing nuclear. And if we're left with a gap (as I believe we will be), I'd build new nuclear to fill the gap.
I'd like to think that this is the last generation of uranium nuclear that we'll have to build.
Could we capture hot air from internet forums?
and methane.
wind is also more dangerous than nuclear
Ah, someone else who's been to the Khana Peena curry house on Croham Road.
