This puts the Virus into the shadows

[Ozi]

haha wow.

I think you might need plans for a bigger tinfoil hat.

Sorry but have you EVER really LOOKED at the planet and what's happening? There are seriously unstable countries with nuclear arsenals at thier disposal and that's just for starters of the things we have no control over in the UK, that are a bigger threat than using nuclear power stations.

So are you suggesting we in the UK just go back to how it was 100 years ago when electricity was scarce, because we are only using green energy that just doesn't provide, and won't for many decades yet, thus we devolve into a 3rd world nation while other countries with a smaller "snowflake" population thrive.

Sure we'll be green but at what cost - you want electric cars in the road? NOPE, not enough juice for everyone. (so back to petrol or nothing**)
You want all children in schools to have access to computers, the internet and mobile learning on tablets? NOPE, not enough juice for everyone.
You want to be able to walk at night with well lit streets? NOPE, not enough juice for everyone. (or go back to gaslamps**)

Enjoying using your home computer are we Spectric? Won't have that if we did as "the greens" suggested.

and on and on.

Then there's the Kyoto Accord and that quite a few big countries have not signed up for it, and still burning fossil fuels and a ridiculous rate - protip - google how much coal Australia is exporting each year and where it's going, if that isn't enough to make you realise that "greenifying" the UK's power at the cost of a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced standard of living will be utterly pointless as we share the SAME ATMOSPHERE as the rest of those countries. sheesh.

All the while STILL being a target for those aforementioned ICBM's

**seems your plan for greening isn't really working is it?

This is cut from a site Dashboard – MyGridGB showing the actual generation in this country, there is a huge amount of research going into "Green" energy and it is working. Back in the 1980s it was well understood that renewable could never produce 10% of our energy requirements "and what about the cold still nights" etc. Two very encouraging developments ongoing as we speak are development of fuel cells and hydrogen by electrolysis. Fuel cells greatly increase the efficiency of generation from gas, when combined with district heating efficiencies in the 90% range have been achieved, there are currently over 500MW of this type of generation being run in the USA of all places. This still produces CO2 but at a much reduced rate. Run fuel cells on hydrogen and the CO2 is gone. When (not if) hydrogen from off shore wind becomes viable excess wind power can be stored as hydrogen then used for everything from domestic heating to electricity generation. Removing our reliance on Gas imports from some very questionable countries. To say it's pointless is saying it's better to give up.

 

[Jacob]

This is cut from a site Dashboard – MyGridGB showing the actual generation in this country, there is a huge amount of research going into "Green" energy and it is working. Back in the 1980s it was well understood that renewable could never produce 10% of our energy requirements "and what about the cold still nights" etc. Two very encouraging developments ongoing as we speak are development of fuel cells and hydrogen by electrolysis. Fuel cells greatly increase the efficiency of generation from gas, when combined with district heating efficiencies in the 90% range have been achieved, there are currently over 500MW of this type of generation being run in the USA of all places. This still produces CO2 but at a much reduced rate. Run fuel cells on hydrogen and the CO2 is gone. When (not if) hydrogen from off shore wind becomes viable excess wind power can be stored as hydrogen then used for everything from domestic heating to electricity generation. Removing our reliance on Gas imports from some very questionable countries. To say it's pointless is saying it's better to give up. View attachment 103712

Wind + Solar + Biomass = 33%.
Surely that's a huge figure and shows that 100% zero carbon could be achievable, in theory?
A 2/3rd reduction in energy consumption - most of us individually could do that!
Over simplified but the scales of magnitude look good.
One thing which will probably have to go is the idea of individual powered transport - I have doubts about electric cars - not that they won't work but that they won't be economically viable as energy prices go high.
Big changes are possible if we discard the illusion that we can somehow carry on as we are?

 

[Jonm]

Wind + Solar + Biomass = 33%.
Surely that's a huge figure and shows that 100% zero carbon could be achievable, in theory?
A 2/3rd reduction in energy consumption - most of us individually could do that!
Over simplified but the scales of magnitude look good.
One thing which will probably have to go is the idea of individual powered transport - I have doubts about electric cars - not that they won't work but that they won't be economically viable as energy prices go high.
Big changes are possible if we discard the illusion that we can somehow carry on as we are?

You are forgetting the huge increase in electrical energy required for heating and transport to replace gas and oil. Your figure of 33% of current energy consumption is probably about 10 to 15 percent of our future needs when heating, cooking and transport are all electric.

 

[Jacob]

You are forgetting the huge increase in electrical energy required for heating and transport to replace gas and oil. Your figure of 33% of current energy consumption is probably about 10 to 15 percent of our future needs when heating, cooking and transport are all electric.

33% is 33% and on the face of it is only going to rise higher.

 

[D_W]

Wind + Solar + Biomass = 33%.
Surely that's a huge figure and shows that 100% zero carbon could be achievable, in theory?
A 2/3rd reduction in energy consumption - most of us individually could do that!
Over simplified but the scales of magnitude look good.
One thing which will probably have to go is the idea of individual powered transport - I have doubts about electric cars - not that they won't work but that they won't be economically viable as energy prices go high.
Big changes are possible if we discard the illusion that we can somehow carry on as we are?

Wind production cost here is 6 cents a kw/hr. Why would energy prices have to go high?

Solar is probably trending lower installed in places like the south and southwest due to the fantastic decline in the cost of chinese panels. I remember not that long ago when a 2kw array for equipment and tie in was $25k, and that wasn't with some kind of scammy brand name something or other installing $4k of equipment for $25k to old ladies.

Self-installation other than hookup now is in the $1k per kw range (still need to hire an electrician for grid tie in if you don't want the electric company to say "no"). Gas here is profitable at 4, which means wind needs to be subsidized to 6 - but 6 cents a kw/hr to break even isn't exactly expensive. If anyone thinks it is, see how much it costs to generate a kw for an hour on your own premises.

 

[D_W]

Dont forget earth crust displacement or magnetic field flipping. also the overdue massive comet strike, oh and andromeda is going to hit us in 4.5 billion years, should be quite a show

merging with another galaxy at this point is thought to be unlikely to have any significant effect due to the enormous distance between actual stars.

late cycle sun poses a problem, though.

mass extinction events seem to be far more likely before either. At least 3 discovered so far and maybe 5? The last a short what...66 million years ago?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

A meaningless, but meaningful thought:

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year.

From this perspective, green energy from solar, wind and tidal is but a trivial engineering problem (an oversimplification I know).

We make it more problematic through the language used to how it impacts - eg: every hill will be covered in giant intrusive wind turbines vs 98% of views will be completely absent of wind turbines big or small.

 

[DBT85]

So... They want to build another tokamak. Is that all?

 

[Ozi]

Wind + Solar + Biomass = 33%.
Surely that's a huge figure and shows that 100% zero carbon could be achievable, in theory?
A 2/3rd reduction in energy consumption - most of us individually could do that!
Over simplified but the scales of magnitude look good.
One thing which will probably have to go is the idea of individual powered transport - I have doubts about electric cars - not that they won't work but that they won't be economically viable as energy prices go high.
Big changes are possible if we discard the illusion that we can somehow carry on as we are?

If you include Nuclear as carbon free which like it or fear it we should the figure was 52.8%, I'm including bio mass which isn't completely correct but should be viewed as low carbon.

Heating, cooking and transport are all very big problems to solve but are being addressed, current house building standards are way above the efficiency of houses build 30 years ago and there are still practical improvements to make. I don't expect one solution to fix all issues and we need to change peoples attitudes as well, stop heating our homes to tee shirt temperatures all year round, stop flushing toilets with potable water etc. When I go to work I shouldn't be taking a ton and a half of metal with me that sits outside all day. The thing that makes me optimistic is that self interest takes us in the correct direction. I have fitted my house with solar panels and a condensing boiler, we use LED lights not because there good for the planet but because they save me cash. Make me pay the environmental cost of the water I use and I will soon be harvesting rain water, I saw this done in rural areas of New Zealand 30 years ago and the cleaner the air gets the easier it gets. The thing that exasperates me is seeing solar farms set up on good farmland while new build industrial estates leave the roofs unused. Electric transport is becoming more feasible at an astonishing rate, but we need to get away from the idea of having one car for all uses. Most new cars in this country are on HP, it's a small step to go to a contract that lets you hire one small car to commute and exchange it for a larger car for a family holiday or small pick up the weekend you need to take rubbish to the tip.

Sorry about the rambling essay - do you like my soap box, I built it myself.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... The thing that exasperates me is seeing solar farms set up on good farmland while new build industrial estates leave the roofs unused ...

Yes. I said back in the early '80s when my friend put solar panels in that every new build and major renovation especially shopping centres and industrial estates should have solar and maybe wind and ground source by law. It would be a fraction of the price by now if this had been done.
One of my sister's houses in NZ uses entirely grey water. Apparently it was mooted to M. Thatcher's government that as 98% of mains water was not drunk, it would be cheaper to subsidise the sales af drinking water and not treat mains water to same degree - it was turned down out of hand as it would look third world. Perfectly sensible, I have thought.

I remember many years ago hearing Andrew Neil saying how embarrassed he felt telling American friends that we were short of water ......... on a wet island.

 

[NormanB]

current house building standards are way above the efficiency of houses build 30 years ago and there are still practical improvements to make.

Sorry about the rambling essay - do you like my soap box, I built it myself.

Actually, that is the problem our building standards have not actually improved very much at all. I live in what was a brand new home in 2000 and part from the fact it had double glazing fitted at build and minimal (box ticking) badly fitted loft insulation (cold roof system). The home I left to buy this new home built in the early 60s was built to a very similar standard sans double glazing I cannot comment about loft insulation as I was not the first owner. Of course Like many people I put in DG and Loft insulation.

So, respectfully, I would say there has been no material improvement in UK domestic house building standards in the last 60 odd years, especially when you contrast that with the standards of our friends in Northern Europe.

However, leaving building standard aside the actually execution of the building process and checking to see if the build conforms to any sort of quality standard is pretty woeful. The quality of ‘as built‘ UK homes is, to be frank is, shockingly poor UNLESS a private individual has commissioned a bespoke build.

 

[bansobaby]

As far as I can make out (it’s actually quite difficult to know what information is reliable and unbiased), the power generation capacity in the UK has actually decreased over the last 10 years or so. This is also likely to get worse before it gets better. Hinckley Point C will not come on line for years (and the agreed cost of the power it supplies is another issue), several older nuclear stations will go off line in the same period and whilst renewables are increasing rapidly, they are unlikely to take up the slack.
The situation is, I believe, similar in the US as demonstrated by the recent weather events in Texas and the mid west leading to power rationing. I don’t believe this is down to failures particularly, more demand outstripping supply.
I have lived in various countries in Africa where daily power rationing (also known as intermittent unplanned power cuts) was a way of daily life. There the normality of the situation and particularly the climate made it simply an inconvenience. BUT the byproducts (everyone who could afford one ran a generator, and most fridges ran on gas) would make Greta Thunberg wince.
Modern day life in most of the Western World would simply not cope with such a situation.
This is always brought to mind when people bang on about the EV situation. Just back of the envelope calculations suggest to me that we require at least a 10% increase in generating capacity to be even close to being able to charge the EVs that will be needed if we are to meet stated targets. That’s above and beyond any increase required otherwise. Admittedly, power demand per capita could go down but its not a given....
Dont get me wrong, I’m all in favour of anything we can do to decrease pollution, but it’s been a while since you heard about the lights going out being a serious option.
I think that certain parties are being very economical with the truth.
Incidentally, our extended family are going to holiday on a remote island with no electricity for a couple of weeks next year. It will be interesting to see who copes best, the teens and twenty somethings or those a few decades older......

 

[Phil Pascoe]

While we're on power, I'll start another thread on the A.S.A.

 

[Jacob]

......
Modern day life in most of the Western World would simply not cope with such a situation.

We may have no choice

....
Dont get me wrong, I’m all in favour of anything we can do to decrease pollution, but it’s been a while since you heard about the lights going out being a serious option.

The serious option is the collapse of civilisation as we know it. It's not about pollution - the issue is climate change. Having the lights going out would be nothing in comparison!

I think that certain parties are being very economical with the truth.
.....

Truth staring us in the face. Biggest problem is people choosing to ignore it.

 

[sirocosm]

If the panic **** media hadn't scared the public off nuclear power in the 70s, the UK would already be zero carbon on electricity, there wouldn't be windmills and solar panels soiling the countryside, and energy would be cheap. There is (mostly) no such thing as nuclear "waste". Nowadays "waste" from old reactors can be processed as fuel for new reactors.

For those worried about a nuclear apocalypse how about this, supply the power at 1/2 price within a mile of each reactor and see how many people want to live near them. Serious question, would house prices near reactors go up or down?

 

[bansobaby]

We may have no choiceThe serious option is the collapse of civilisation as we know it. It's not about pollution - the issue is climate change. Having the lights going out would be nothing in comparison!Truth staring us in the face. Biggest problem is people choosing to ignore it.

I agree wholeheartedly, I think people’s expectations of what modern life looks like will have to undergo a serious review, particularly with regards to use of resources. The waste of water in the west in particular really upsets me, given how fundamental and scarce it is for people in other countries....

 

[sploo]

As far as I can make out (it’s actually quite difficult to know what information is reliable and unbiased), the power generation capacity in the UK has actually decreased over the last 10 years or so. This is also likely to get worse before it gets better. Hinckley Point C will not come on line for years (and the agreed cost of the power it supplies is another issue), several older nuclear stations will go off line in the same period and whilst renewables are increasing rapidly, they are unlikely to take up the slack.
The situation is, I believe, similar in the US as demonstrated by the recent weather events in Texas and the mid west leading to power rationing. I don’t believe this is down to failures particularly, more demand outstripping supply.
I have lived in various countries in Africa where daily power rationing (also known as intermittent unplanned power cuts) was a way of daily life. There the normality of the situation and particularly the climate made it simply an inconvenience. BUT the byproducts (everyone who could afford one ran a generator, and most fridges ran on gas) would make Greta Thunberg wince.
Modern day life in most of the Western World would simply not cope with such a situation.
This is always brought to mind when people bang on about the EV situation. Just back of the envelope calculations suggest to me that we require at least a 10% increase in generating capacity to be even close to being able to charge the EVs that will be needed if we are to meet stated targets. That’s above and beyond any increase required otherwise. Admittedly, power demand per capita could go down but its not a given....
Dont get me wrong, I’m all in favour of anything we can do to decrease pollution, but it’s been a while since you heard about the lights going out being a serious option.
I think that certain parties are being very economical with the truth.
Incidentally, our extended family are going to holiday on a remote island with no electricity for a couple of weeks next year. It will be interesting to see who copes best, the teens and twenty somethings or those a few decades older......

For EVs remember that it's the peak power requirement on the grid that's the issue. There is work in progress (Google "HCALCS") to control charging of such high draw devices; such that the power use can be smoothed out overnight (where there's traditionally low load on the grid).

Power issues in the USA are an odd situation. There's a great chapter in Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" that details some of the corruption present in the US power industry. I think it's that chapter that details how energy companies were deliberately sabotaging their own plants, as their contracts allowed them to charge a higher unit price in the event they had to fall back to using one of their older (and less efficient) stations; but the end result was that they then often couldn't meet peak demand. I'm sure many other countries will have similar tales of corrupt behaviour.

 

[Droogs]

I think the problems in Texas were mainly down to the following facts:
In winter they take a 1/3 of their generation capacity off line for servicing - Texan demand is in summer for AC not heating in winter
No de-icing systems are fitted to Texan wind turbines generealy - it never gets cold enough and they don't rely on wind in winter as there is less of it
The sudden massive demand for heating had caused the supply pressure in the pipe system feeding the gas generation station to fall below that needed for them to operate and they automatically started shut downs - This is reported as due to pumps at wells having valvles freeze there not able to regulate flow.

A very interesting article on "Flipboard" yesterday about it all

 

[Jacob]

For EVs remember that it's the peak power requirement on the grid that's the issue. There is work in progress (Google "HCALCS") to control charging of such high draw devices; such that the power use can be smoothed out overnight (where there's traditionally low load on the grid).
....

Can't see how mass EV use charging could work until they switch to removable batteries which could be charged overnight. Drive in, swap battery, drive out.

 

[sploo]

If the panic **** media hadn't scared the public off nuclear power in the 70s, the UK would already be zero carbon on electricity, there wouldn't be windmills and solar panels soiling the countryside, and energy would be cheap. There is (mostly) no such thing as nuclear "waste". Nowadays "waste" from old reactors can be processed as fuel for new reactors.

For those worried about a nuclear apocalypse how about this, supply the power at 1/2 price within a mile of each reactor and see how many people want to live near them. Serious question, would house prices near reactors go up or down?

Not sure that really matches the available evidence. The original industry claim of "power too cheap to meter" has been around for decades with regard to nuclear, but the reality is still that nuclear plants costs huge sums of money and take years to build.

The "no such thing as waste" surprises me too - at least, I understood that there are still problems with dangerous waste products.

I'm not inherently anti-nuclear; but (fission energy generation, at least) doesn't appear to be a panacea.