I thought I'd take this away from the other thread.
There are a few people in the anti-turbine camp. However, saying 'not that' without proposing an alternative isn't exactly cricket. It is a bit NIMBYism.
So - given that wind turbines are part of a mixed bag of generation techniques and we can't have coal / gas / oil for ever, what do you propose? Other than nuclear, which should IMHO be a part of the answer.
more nuclear
Nuclear, gas, solar, wave.
The gas from abroad will last us ages and is fairly clean and safe
Takeover somewhere sunny, like Libya, fill it with solar panels, and lay a superconducting power cable back to Blighty.
Energy from waste
biomass
solar (PV and thermal)
more efficient building stock (requires no/minimal heating)
ground- and air-source heat pumps
hydro
hydrogen
Nooclear, preferably Thorium cycle, plus thin-film photovoltaics and massive cables from S. Europe & N Africa for piping in the power.
Yeah, Nuclear seems fine. At the end of the day we've already got loads of Nuclear power stations, either in service or being decommissioned, so we may as well go ahead and build new ones next to the old ones now - the workforce are already there, and the technology is only going to get better.
There was a bit on the news this morning about using fracking in the UK to release loads of natural gas from shale deposits.
What they didn't mention is that we would then have this too look forward to.
Beats lighting farts 🙂
Land based wind turbines are hideously inefficient. If we have to have them stick massive ones in the North Sea - or turn them upside down and use sea currents.
Combined heat and power makes a lot of sense here.
Tidal. New installation off Islay promises guaranteed power for 5,000 homes 23 hrs a day and the capacity around the rest of the coast dwarfs this.
Add on off-shore wind, biomass, hydro, solar etc
Energy efficiency to reduce waste has to be number 1 though.
There will be no new nuclear north of the border.
A mix of tech is needed. but the most important thing is a reduction in energy consumption.
Wind is a part of the answer as is wave, tidal, geothermal. chp. burning waste etc etc
No need for expensive unreliable polluting nukes
Reduce the need for more power - lower the population.
There will be no new nuclear north of the border
Best o' mates wi' Alex are ye'?
This site's pretty good if you want a breakdown off what is possible (though not necessarily viable) from a variety of energy sources
[url] http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c14/page_87.shtml [/url]
ocean tides & waves, definitely.
Kev
Kit - neither the SNP nor Labour want new nuclear power stations in Scotland and it's unlikely any other party will ever get into power.
New build projects should be made to incorporate solar electricity and water heating panels and/or geothermal heat pumps. If fitted at the new build stage the cost would be greatly reduced.
This could apply to both commercial and domestic buildings.
The reality is though that the only viable source of future power for electricity is the latest generation of nuclear power.
Prisoners in spin classes furiously pedalling.
neninja - bullshine! Nukes are not viable at all and worse than almost any other solution.
The reality is though that the only viable source of future power for electricity is the latest generation of nuclear power
Depends how far into the future you're looking. There's enough coal to last us a couple of hundred years.
stop having so many kids.
there, i've just fixed almost all of our problems.
more efficient building stock (requires no/minimal heating)
Great idea! Let's pull down every building in the UK and replace it with an eco one 🙂
water based heat pumps....oodles of latent heat energy going to waste
Modern Coal fired power stations = Jobs and Industry
We have lots of coal so become self sufficient for power generation
We have lots of people with out jobs
Simples
The problem is
"tidal power for 5000 homes" - great, but it's not going to power london is it?
"biomass and waste incineration" - great, but there isn't enough biomass or waste to heat/power the cities that produce it. Take Sheffield, one of the newest plants, it manages to heat the hospital and bits of the university, the other 750,000 people still need energy.
We need big power stations or big renewable projects. Because theres not much you can make more efficient about living in a flat and commuting by tube.
If we want renewables we need to stop thinking "tidal power for 5000 homes" and start thinking "Hoover dam over Loch Ness to power Edinburgh and Glasgow".
Either that or build Nukes.
oh, and
- isn't an energy source.hydrogen
- growing fuel instead of food? - think of the starving children, etc.biomass
- Nimby's love this.burning waste
There is no single answer, it's a mix we need, differnet circumstances are best met with differnt solutons.
energy from waste seems a good way of getting rid of rubbish, but all the waste in the country would run 1, maybe 2 power stations
biomass needs huge areas of land to grow the fuel...if the fuel is a waste product frm somhig else then it makes sense to use it as part of a solution
solar, in the uk? Yeah it will add to the mix, but it isn't reliably sunny here for it to be the answer for us
wind, again winds vary...I'm for turbines though and think they are part of a solution
wave and tidal...now this could make a difference. The UK is in one of the best places in th world to harness this, island nation, edge of the atlantic, big tides and big waves. The Severn barage, if it was ever biult, could supply a significant chunk of power to the UK (I've not looked it up but IIRC it could be over 10%)....very costly to biuld though
Nuclear. We are getting it. The 'Need' doesn't seem t be solely for the electricity it produces.
Coal....I think there is still a place for coal fired stations possibly, possibly.
And a change of lifestyles, reduce the transportaton of people, of food, better insulation, less of the 'disposable' behaviour.
Perhaps I should have said sustainable rather than viable.
Alternative energy like tidal, wave, hydro etc is worth utilising but will not be able to provide for UK energy requirements.
Fossil fuels are getting harder to source.
That leaves nuclear as the main long term provider.
Hamsters?
[img] 
[/img]
Let's pull down every building in the UK and replace it with an eco one
Yeah that's one of the challenges in this country, unfortunately. Something like 70% of current building stock will still be present in the UK in 2050.
This means retrofit options are required. In some cases, gutting buildings can be possible for installation of triple glazing, solar heating, insulation etc, but for others it may be a case of changing their boiler to a micro-CHP running on natural gas (or biomass pellets in the future).
tides & waves - could this not potentially harm marine life and marine environment, especially sea defences in fragile areas?
Solar stands out as being different as its the only one external to the closed system of planet earth. It doesn't seem ridiculous to think that photovoltaic efficiencies will steadily increase.
I read a few fundamental photovoltaic papers in the chemistry journals now and again and they always sound exciting, but often involve quite sophisticated systems. Seems a long way from the lab to rolling them out at 10p a sq meter.
Trimix - MemberReduce the need for more power - lower the population.
Unlikely that this will happen significantly, especially given the environmentalists are pushing for electric cars.
We need big power stations or big renewable projects.
Not necessarily - wouldn't energy be better provided through small local initiatives, where communities get to be more actively involved in generation and usage? Makes people more aware of where their energy comes from, and so may change attitudes to its use. Also BIG projects require BIG infrastructure, power losses on transmission, and what about all the waste heat from thermal power stations?
biomass
- growing fuel instead of food?
Biomass can include food waste and animal/people 'waste', so no biomass doesn't necessarily mean extra pressure on food and land use.
burning waste
- Nimby's love this.
Waste isn't necessarily 'burned' - anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis don't involve burning and can be contained in a sealed unit. Projects such as these need good public engagement to make sure that locals are educated and know what they're getting, instead of the knee-jerk reactions (such as on this thread).
I love the idea that guy has in the States, set up a massive solar collector on the moon and transfer the power via microwaves to a collector on the Earth.
The Islay scheme will generate around 10MW. It is generally recognised that schemes in the Pentland Firth could generate 8TW - around 8% of the total UK electricity requirement. That's just one location.thisisnotaspoon - Member
The problem is"tidal power for 5000 homes" - great, but it's not going to power london is it?
Mass use of Turbo trainers could supply enough power as back up to windturbines on those cold none windy days. We'ed all be really fit and the fat people could still watch telly.
they always sound exciting, but often involve quite sophisticated systems. Seems a long way from the lab to rolling them out at 10p a sq meter
I know what you mean, but do you know how silicon chips are made? Amazing manufacturing process and incredible high tech to make CPUs that we can hand out for free and throw away when we've finished with them.
I love the idea that guy has in the States, set up a massive solar collector on the moon and transfer the power via microwaves to a collector on the Earth
That's been around for decades. If you think wind turbines are bad for bird life...!
Biomass can include food waste and animal/people 'waste'
Burn every scrap of food/animal waste in the world and it won't be anything significant AFAIK.
tides & waves - could this not potentially harm marine life and marine environment, especially sea defences in fragile areas?
- it could be a mer-child's face next time
a quick google says there's 9 million cats in the uk, break out the copper rods and we're away..
[img] 
[/img]
The Islay scheme will generate around 10MW. It is generally recognised that schemes in the Pentland Firth could generate 8TW - around 8% of the total UK electricity requirement. That's just one location.
Exactly, this is what we need.
I like the localy generated argument, but but what did the Islay scheme cost? And did 5000 local people pay for it? and would they have rather paid a smaller ammount for a share in a much bigger (economies of scale) project elswhere? In Holland each village gets its own wind-turbine and they love it, in the UK you cant build on in the middle of nowhere without someone crying "won't someone think of the view/aura/children/migrating lesser spotted wendyball bird" let along within sight.
Reducing consumption is a massive part of it. 'Fabric first' is a mantra that really works - 57% of the UK household energy is for space heating. Reduce that and you are on the way.
Burn every scrap of food/animal waste in the world and it won't be anything significant AFAIK.
Yeah, but we're not talking about supply 100% of the world's energy needs from burning 100% of this waste! It's simply another option in delivering electricity and heat to communities that could benefit from it i.e. a rural Scottish lowlands community would be better suited to this (using excess manure) than central London. Energy provision in the future is about finding the best available solution to fit the needs of individual houses, communities and cities. It will have to be different in each case.
Reducing consumption is a massive part of it.
Absolutely. The amount we waste is staggering.
Retail is one culprit, showy sales lighting (often left on overnight), AC blowing with doors wide open.
Do we need 100A supplies into our houses?
We just need to find a way of harnessing our body's natural... ahem.... energy generation
[img] 
[/img]
then simply eat more beans. Sorted!
Yeah, but we're not talking about supply 100% of the world's energy needs from burning 100% of this waste!
No I know, but it's about costs too. Collecting manure from every cow farm would be really expensive for not much power and end up using more energy anyway.
This kind of thing is best for local generation imo.
Energy provision in the future is about finding the best available solution to fit the needs of individual houses, communities and cities
Typed the first part of my reply before reading the last part of yours - agreed.