Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With Nuclear power stations costing an absolute fortune and having a life of probably max 60 years, should the UK be investing in tidal power where although it is initially expensive to build, the pay back is over a much longer period of over 100 years? " I would imagine it would be a decision based on the difference between the power generated and footprint on the ground. Also is tidal power a constant or will it be less predictable than nuclear power? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real answer is to use the nuclear capabilities we have while we move to wind/hydro/solar/bio. We also need to reduce usage. We need a combination of all these things to move away from fossil fuels, be energy Independent and have cheap energy bills. The technology is there, the lack of political will is the problem." I don't think the tech is 100% there, not quite yet, but that is like you say because of the politics. If the investment in a clean future gets made then the tech will get there. I also think Nuclear is a valid part of the long term solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone " The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable." They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now." *Started to go green. The tech wasn't available then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now." I have read reports that say otherwise, but am not willing to stake my entire argument on it. I completely agree that it needs to be treated seriously by the government, cos then it will get the funding to both provide the energy we need and address any issues that may still exist in the technology! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. I have read reports that say otherwise, but am not willing to stake my entire argument on it. I completely agree that it needs to be treated seriously by the government, cos then it will get the funding to both provide the energy we need and address any issues that may still exist in the technology!" There's a lot of misinformation about green energy. It's all traceable back to the fossil fuels industry. I've not heard this specific claim. So I can't comment. But this is a field in which I take a specific interest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. I have read reports that say otherwise, but am not willing to stake my entire argument on it. I completely agree that it needs to be treated seriously by the government, cos then it will get the funding to both provide the energy we need and address any issues that may still exist in the technology! There's a lot of misinformation about green energy. It's all traceable back to the fossil fuels industry. I've not heard this specific claim. So I can't comment. But this is a field in which I take a specific interest." I get that, from what I read there are issues with some of the green avenues, but they are fixable with appropriate investment and attention, the main reason they aren't fixed yet is money and political backing. Seems we are both on the same page, just having read slightly different articles! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. I have read reports that say otherwise, but am not willing to stake my entire argument on it. I completely agree that it needs to be treated seriously by the government, cos then it will get the funding to both provide the energy we need and address any issues that may still exist in the technology! There's a lot of misinformation about green energy. It's all traceable back to the fossil fuels industry. I've not heard this specific claim. So I can't comment. But this is a field in which I take a specific interest. I get that, from what I read there are issues with some of the green avenues, but they are fixable with appropriate investment and attention, the main reason they aren't fixed yet is money and political backing. Seems we are both on the same page, just having read slightly different articles!" Oh there are definitely challenges. There's a lot to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tidal energy would seem to be a good idea but the UK government seems reluctant to put in investment & its too financially risky for private companies alone The main issues with Tidal and Wind is that they can potentially have dramatic effects on local weather phenomenon. Which is something which needs to be addressed before moving too far forward with them And I want to move forward with them. Just without causing tertiary problems with them! In the right places they are hugely valuable. They don't effect the weather. But the are effected by the weather. IE, no wind or waves = no energy. The answer is a diverse clean energy portfolio. But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. *Started to go green. The tech wasn't available then." we were using energy from flowing water before steam engines were invented its not that complicated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With Nuclear power stations costing an absolute fortune and having a life of probably max 60 years, should the UK be investing in tidal power where although it is initially expensive to build, the pay back is over a much longer period of over 100 years? " Yes, they blew a good opportunity out the water in Wales a few years ago. If you've seen the tidal flows around Oban in Scotland and through the Menai Straights, the torque generated would be tremendous. Unfortunately, personally, I fear it is too little and too late to save the pain Russia will cause on the next couple of years and the catastrophe the climate damage caused. We've never in my lifetime had summers, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes like in the last few years. New houses would have been a good start, the government admitted last week that new builds 'today' won't meet insulation standards required in 5 years. They put bare minimum renewables (1kw) on 1500 houses built in last two years near me to 'pass planning'. Néw builds should have been almost 100% self sufficient for at least the last 5 years. This could be quickly addressed, leaving tidal, wind, solar for legacy housing energy, industry and people in dwellings unable to gave Solar. Quite frankly, it's a total f***ing travesty and multiple government failings starting with Blair. Now on our children's heads to live with the consequences and this is heartbreaking. I still believe self generation is best as you don't have to pay a penny for the power once the outlay is covered, support should be more available to finance it. As for the baseline and that right now in the middle of summer, 1am in the morning (writing this watching 4 guys banging a lady in the back of a car), that we are consuming gas to produce 65% of the 21GW Grid demand - yes, tidal could be significant. Cause, when gas supplynis scare, does anyone have a clue what we do? 2006 - Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country. No Nuclear, No Solar, No wind until 2012 when it was realised- we're phucked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real answer is to use the nuclear capabilities we have while we move to wind/hydro/solar/bio. We also need to reduce usage. We need a combination of all these things to move away from fossil fuels, be energy Independent and have cheap energy bills. The technology is there, the lack of political will is the problem. I don't think the tech is 100% there, not quite yet, but that is like you say because of the politics. If the investment in a clean future gets made then the tech will get there. I also think Nuclear is a valid part of the long term solution." The tech is absolutly there, I'm using it at a cost of £12k over the last 5 yrs. 8.5kwh Solar Panels 40kw battery storage* Hot Water - self sufficient 10 months. 3x Air Conditioners for efficient heat input from limited winter Solar Solar - big benefits in Summer - Free Air Conditioning. Surplus will charge car 7 months of the year completely free. I'll need Grid for 300-400kwh electricity and 1000kw Gas over Winter when low sun, short days. Today, 3x Air Con units running, Hot Water tank nearly boiling and car charging and still exporting 2kwh. *£12 based on 10kw battery, I've added more batteries to last longer on cloudy days and give 5kw rapid charging. I limit car charging overnight to 'from house battery only'. If there are blackouts this Winter, I can run 5 days with no sun, as long as I can generate 9kw, last indefinitely with care. Technology is there, its the lack of awareness, unwillingness to make the leap and numpties like Martin Lewis spouting off that "Solar isnt worth it" and other bullshit like "your house won't sell". Buyers will snatch the hand of anyone selling a house with minimal Energy bills. It's saving me £3000 the next 12 months and money saved now payback is complete is going towards paying mortgage off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My thought on this thread. In this country . People keep saying we need to insulate houses etc. If global warming correct for the UK . Then do we need to insulate ? . Next week is going to be a heatwave . Which if after last few days . Houses will need air conditioning ? , If they can afford to install and yes run.So do the UK go for a lot more insulation on house builds , upgrades as statutory or go for less insulation and more for keeping houses cooler due to climate change ? " I apologise if I got the wrong idea from your post, but as I read it there's a misunderstanding about insulation. Insulation works both ways, the same insulations that keeps heat in, keeps heat out... EG.. if you get a blanket and wrap yourself in it you get arm because it keeps your heat from escaping. Take the same blanket and wrap a frozen bottle of water in it. IOt will melt slower than a similar bottle outside of it because the blanket prevents the heat outside getting in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real answer is to use the nuclear capabilities we have while we move to wind/hydro/solar/bio. We also need to reduce usage. We need a combination of all these things to move away from fossil fuels, be energy Independent and have cheap energy bills. The technology is there, the lack of political will is the problem. I don't think the tech is 100% there, not quite yet, but that is like you say because of the politics. If the investment in a clean future gets made then the tech will get there. I also think Nuclear is a valid part of the long term solution. The tech is absolutly there, I'm using it at a cost of £12k over the last 5 yrs. 8.5kwh Solar Panels 40kw battery storage* Hot Water - self sufficient 10 months. 3x Air Conditioners for efficient heat input from limited winter Solar Solar - big benefits in Summer - Free Air Conditioning. Surplus will charge car 7 months of the year completely free. I'll need Grid for 300-400kwh electricity and 1000kw Gas over Winter when low sun, short days. Today, 3x Air Con units running, Hot Water tank nearly boiling and car charging and still exporting 2kwh. *£12 based on 10kw battery, I've added more batteries to last longer on cloudy days and give 5kw rapid charging. I limit car charging overnight to 'from house battery only'. If there are blackouts this Winter, I can run 5 days with no sun, as long as I can generate 9kw, last indefinitely with care. Technology is there, its the lack of awareness, unwillingness to make the leap and numpties like Martin Lewis spouting off that "Solar isnt worth it" and other bullshit like "your house won't sell". Buyers will snatch the hand of anyone selling a house with minimal Energy bills. It's saving me £3000 the next 12 months and money saved now payback is complete is going towards paying mortgage off." When the solar panels need replacing, what’s the typical cost, and how often ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now." In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives." This is inaccurate. The tide is not "risky". Unless the moon explodes of course. The tech is ready and in use. It's just lack of political will, largely driven by £££ from the fossil fuels industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives." Agree with that. But what are the less risky alternatives? I assumed that nuclear power is the way forward. But I didn't know that it's so expensive. I wonder how France managed to pull off so many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives. Agree with that. But what are the less risky alternatives? I assumed that nuclear power is the way forward. But I didn't know that it's so expensive. I wonder how France managed to pull off so many." Mix of solar, hydro, wind, nuclear is the way to mitigate risk. It spreads the load, so to speak. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives. Agree with that. But what are the less risky alternatives? I assumed that nuclear power is the way forward. But I didn't know that it's so expensive. I wonder how France managed to pull off so many. Mix of solar, hydro, wind, nuclear is the way to mitigate risk. It spreads the load, so to speak." Yeah. Mixing it up makes sense as most of the ones you mentioned above are seasonal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives." I read a bit on it the other week. Apparently in France they have had a tidal generator working since 1967 and still working today the same as day 1. Tides are pretty much guaranteed. I understand that the initial costs are high but they last longer than nuclear. As others say it needs several sources but tidal could contribute especially when some say the UK has the second highest potential for tidal power in the world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need more energy! Simple as, I only see one solution which will satisfy everyone. Getting people to connect a bike with a dynamo to the grid, and peddle for electricity. 1. It satisfies the nimby’s, cycling inside the house is hidden 2. It satisfies the health conscious 3. It’s humans, apparently in the UK we are full up(well if you believe farage et al.) so there is enough people to peddle away. 4. It can allow cycling fanatics not to clog the highways and be a bloody nuisance. Win/win." And the humans eat more, belch more and fart more which contributes to global warming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need more energy! Simple as, I only see one solution which will satisfy everyone. Getting people to connect a bike with a dynamo to the grid, and peddle for electricity. 1. It satisfies the nimby’s, cycling inside the house is hidden 2. It satisfies the health conscious 3. It’s humans, apparently in the UK we are full up(well if you believe farage et al.) so there is enough people to peddle away. 4. It can allow cycling fanatics not to clog the highways and be a bloody nuisance. Win/win. And the humans eat more, belch more and fart more which contributes to global warming. " Speak for yourself. I've never burped of farted.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real answer is to use the nuclear capabilities we have while we move to wind/hydro/solar/bio. We also need to reduce usage. We need a combination of all these things to move away from fossil fuels, be energy Independent and have cheap energy bills. The technology is there, the lack of political will is the problem. I don't think the tech is 100% there, not quite yet, but that is like you say because of the politics. If the investment in a clean future gets made then the tech will get there. I also think Nuclear is a valid part of the long term solution. The tech is absolutly there, I'm using it at a cost of £12k over the last 5 yrs. 8.5kwh Solar Panels 40kw battery storage* Hot Water - self sufficient 10 months. 3x Air Conditioners for efficient heat input from limited winter Solar Solar - big benefits in Summer - Free Air Conditioning. Surplus will charge car 7 months of the year completely free. I'll need Grid for 300-400kwh electricity and 1000kw Gas over Winter when low sun, short days. Today, 3x Air Con units running, Hot Water tank nearly boiling and car charging and still exporting 2kwh. *£12 based on 10kw battery, I've added more batteries to last longer on cloudy days and give 5kw rapid charging. I limit car charging overnight to 'from house battery only'. If there are blackouts this Winter, I can run 5 days with no sun, as long as I can generate 9kw, last indefinitely with care. Technology is there, its the lack of awareness, unwillingness to make the leap and numpties like Martin Lewis spouting off that "Solar isnt worth it" and other bullshit like "your house won't sell". Buyers will snatch the hand of anyone selling a house with minimal Energy bills. It's saving me £3000 the next 12 months and money saved now payback is complete is going towards paying mortgage off. When the solar panels need replacing, what’s the typical cost, and how often ? " 25 yrs, I can buy a full 5kw kit including Inverter for £3000 today, in 25 yrs, they'll be a third the price with twice the output. Even so, in 25 yrs, they'll still be 80% productive and from experience, someone will always buy used, even cracked panels for decent money. If you've saved over £35k in 20 yrs, are you really going to cry at having to replace them? This year, I needed to replace a £1500, Inverter, it's already paid itself £400 back in the last 3 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now." "In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives." "This is inaccurate. The tide is not "risky". Unless the moon explodes of course." I didn't say the tide was risky, I said that putting a complex machine with moving parts and tight tolerances into a hostile environment and expecting it to work flawlessly for 25 years would be a risky proposition. Add in the fact that tidal turbines would spend 15-20% of their time idle (at slack tide), and that the whole project might get cancelled at the last second when eco-worriers decide that your turbine will damage the marine environment, and you have a very risky investment. Who would put money into that when wind and solar are already available and are risk free? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it's 100% lack of will from the government. If we'd have gone green in the 80s when the science told us to. Then we'd be living the dream right now. In the case of tidal power, the restrictions are 100% technological and financial. Tides flow in and out twice a day. That means that there are 4 'slack tide' periods where the generators would be sitting idle. This would be acceptable if we had electricity storage systems, but at the moment we don't, so tidal power has a significant drawback. The other problem it has is the sea. We've all seen what stuff looks like after having been in the sea for a few months. Can we really make tidal turbines that will cope with all the corrosion and the wildlife growing on them? Will the cost of cleaning and repairing them, and in the worst case replacing them, mean that other options are more profitable? These issues mean that it's really difficult to get financing for tidal energy projects, because it's a risky investment in an area that already has plenty of less risky alternatives. This is inaccurate. The tide is not "risky". Unless the moon explodes of course. I didn't say the tide was risky, I said that putting a complex machine with moving parts and tight tolerances into a hostile environment and expecting it to work flawlessly for 25 years would be a risky proposition. Add in the fact that tidal turbines would spend 15-20% of their time idle (at slack tide), and that the whole project might get cancelled at the last second when eco-worriers decide that your turbine will damage the marine environment, and you have a very risky investment. Who would put money into that when wind and solar are already available and are risk free?" Where do you get this information from? It's contrary to most other information on tidal power generation. Using "eco-warriors" is a red flag. And especially misunderstanding what they might be campaigning for is a further red flag that you're getting your information from unreliable sources. However if you can direct me towards the source. I am interested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where do you get this information from? It's contrary to most other information on tidal power generation." Which bit is contrary to your sources? The damage that can be done by the marine environment to a complex piece of machinery is obvious. Part of the reason the Annapolis Royal Generating Station was closed is because a part of it failed, and it was simply too difficult and expensive to replace. The fact that turbines don't generate power at slack tide is clear too. The 15-20% estimate is for in-flow systems, which can generate power whichever way the tide is flowing. Barrage systems can only generate power as the tide goes out, so they are only working for about 40% of the time. "Using "eco-warriors" is a red flag." I actually said "eco-worriers", by which I mean those people that object to any infrastructure project that would change an established environment. Here's a link to an article on the Swansea Barrage project: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37863807. While environmentalists like the idea of green electricity, they are worried about the impact on wildlife. They say that the barrage should be built in stages, keeping track of the impact on various species, meaning that the project should be stopped if there was too much impact on the local environment. The other reason that the Annapolis Royal Generating Station was closed is because of an environmental campaign that claimed it was killing a quarter of the fish that passed through it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nuclear might still have some part to play in a balanced long term power strategy. However it is a fucking stupid suggestion that building new nuclear plants can be any type of solution to the current crisis where we need an immediate substitute to make up the gas and oil shortfalls within less than a year. The last nuclear plant built took 20 years from start until generating 1 watt of power. When lots of people are bleeding to death already, they need a solution now, not an executive pontificating about maybe opening a new hospital in 15 years time. The only short term fix for providing an increase in power supply without burning oil or gas would be to throw up a whole bunch more windfarms and solar panel farms. We know how to make them, there's no major new design process. Power can come on line bit by bit as each new one goes up, there's no 10 year wait for a single huge installation. We can be working on other longer term possibilities while already getting immediate relief and reduction in power cost. Government talk of new nuclear at the expense of doing anything right now might help a few more very wealthy people get even richer again, but it'll do sod all to keep lights and heat running this coming winter." I doubt the British government have any sort of plan for the coming winter, they are busy telling everyone how we are not (too) dependant on russian gas ... Worse than that is they actually seem to believe it !! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The solution for slack tide is batteries." Agreed, but currently grid scale energy storage is bulky and expensive. There are lots of systems in development, but the only one that works at present is batteries, and they cost a fortune and require metals that aren't all that plentiful. "Sorry MrD if misread your eco comment." No problems. That'll teach me for making up new phrases and expecting other people to know what I mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ultimately? No Tidal helps but it can’t generate enough power and it can’t generate power as and when we need it. Which means you either fall short, or invest in huge batteries to store power. Neither is ideal Nuclear however is very clean, very powerful and very reliable energy source. Nuclear should be the goal until better tech comes out for things like wind and solar so that they can take over " Problem is that everyone says they are going to build small nuclear power stations but never seems to actually get done 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ultimately? No Tidal helps but it can’t generate enough power and it can’t generate power as and when we need it. Which means you either fall short, or invest in huge batteries to store power. Neither is ideal Nuclear however is very clean, very powerful and very reliable energy source. Nuclear should be the goal until better tech comes out for things like wind and solar so that they can take over Problem is that everyone says they are going to build small nuclear power stations but never seems to actually get done
"I think they are finally pushing these small modular reactors through at last. I recall ages ago watching a documentary on nuclear submarines. In it they said the on board reactor could power a decent size town. Which begs the question why aren't they. No idea how long they take to build but quicker than a full scale plant and sooner started the better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where do you get this information from? It's contrary to most other information on tidal power generation. Which bit is contrary to your sources? The damage that can be done by the marine environment to a complex piece of machinery is obvious. Part of the reason the Annapolis Royal Generating Station was closed is because a part of it failed, and it was simply too difficult and expensive to replace. The fact that turbines don't generate power at slack tide is clear too. The 15-20% estimate is for in-flow systems, which can generate power whichever way the tide is flowing. Barrage systems can only generate power as the tide goes out, so they are only working for about 40% of the time. Using "eco-warriors" is a red flag. I actually said "eco-worriers", by which I mean those people that object to any infrastructure project that would change an established environment. Here's a link to an article on the Swansea Barrage project: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37863807. While environmentalists like the idea of green electricity, they are worried about the impact on wildlife. They say that the barrage should be built in stages, keeping track of the impact on various species, meaning that the project should be stopped if there was too much impact on the local environment. The other reason that the Annapolis Royal Generating Station was closed is because of an environmental campaign that claimed it was killing a quarter of the fish that passed through it." Yes they have effects on a local level. I'm just catching up, I'll read this article. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall ages ago watching a documentary on nuclear submarines. In it they said the on board reactor could power a decent size town. Which begs the question why aren't they." Because people are terrified of nuclear power, and it's impossible to get one built, especially a town-sized one that would need to be located fairly near the town in question. Thorium reactors show a lot of promise, and are inherently safe, but even those can't be built because of ludicrously over the top safety rules, and fear from the general public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall ages ago watching a documentary on nuclear submarines. In it they said the on board reactor could power a decent size town. Which begs the question why aren't they. Because people are terrified of nuclear power, and it's impossible to get one built, especially a town-sized one that would need to be located fairly near the town in question. Thorium reactors show a lot of promise, and are inherently safe, but even those can't be built because of ludicrously over the top safety rules, and fear from the general public." Not heard of those before. Are they a form of nuclear or completely different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thorium reactors show a lot of promise, and are inherently safe, but even those can't be built because of ludicrously over the top safety rules, and fear from the general public." "Not heard of those before. Are they a form of nuclear or completely different" A thorium reactor is very similar to current nuclear reactors, but uses thorium instead of uranium. The main advantage is that thorium is not naturally fissile, so it can't produce a run-away reaction. You have to bombard it with neurons to get it to split, so if you turn the power off, it just stops working. It also has the advantage of producing much less waste, and waste that is a lot less hazardous. But it's almost impossible to get one built because it's experimental, and people don't like that word when it appears next to 'nuclear reactor'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrapping nuclear in favour of small scale renewables would take the huge pressures off the grid system ... " Except that renewables only produce power when the conditions are right, and they don't produce anything at other times. That would be fine if we could store the power they produce, but we can't, because there is no grid scale storage system. What we need is reliable base level power, something that can be counted on 24 hours a day, every day. Currently that's nuclear for 10-15% of our needs, and gas for the rest. We can turn down the gas when the renewables are working well, but we can't get rid of it, because there will be days when the renewables just don't work. If we want to go carbon-free, and still have a reliable electricity supply, nuclear is the only option currently available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrapping nuclear in favour of small scale renewables would take the huge pressures off the grid system ... Except that renewables only produce power when the conditions are right, and they don't produce anything at other times. That would be fine if we could store the power they produce, but we can't, because there is no grid scale storage system. What we need is reliable base level power, something that can be counted on 24 hours a day, every day. Currently that's nuclear for 10-15% of our needs, and gas for the rest. We can turn down the gas when the renewables are working well, but we can't get rid of it, because there will be days when the renewables just don't work. If we want to go carbon-free, and still have a reliable electricity supply, nuclear is the only option currently available." That's why you need to combine solar, wind, tidal, bio, hydro etc. Dinorwig Power Station. Is a great example of how to store large amounts of energy. And it was opened in the 80s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrapping nuclear in favour of small scale renewables would take the huge pressures off the grid system ... Except that renewables only produce power when the conditions are right, and they don't produce anything at other times. That would be fine if we could store the power they produce, but we can't, because there is no grid scale storage system. What we need is reliable base level power, something that can be counted on 24 hours a day, every day. Currently that's nuclear for 10-15% of our needs, and gas for the rest. We can turn down the gas when the renewables are working well, but we can't get rid of it, because there will be days when the renewables just don't work. If we want to go carbon-free, and still have a reliable electricity supply, nuclear is the only option currently available." nuclear is a proven non-starter ecomnomically speaking. the cost of just one nuclear power station is more than the cost to roll out solar to every domestic property in the country and would solve our energy insecurity at a stroke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrapping nuclear in favour of small scale renewables would take the huge pressures off the grid system ... Except that renewables only produce power when the conditions are right, and they don't produce anything at other times. That would be fine if we could store the power they produce, but we can't, because there is no grid scale storage system. What we need is reliable base level power, something that can be counted on 24 hours a day, every day. Currently that's nuclear for 10-15% of our needs, and gas for the rest. We can turn down the gas when the renewables are working well, but we can't get rid of it, because there will be days when the renewables just don't work. If we want to go carbon-free, and still have a reliable electricity supply, nuclear is the only option currently available. nuclear is a proven non-starter ecomnomically speaking. the cost of just one nuclear power station is more than the cost to roll out solar to every domestic property in the country and would solve our energy insecurity at a stroke. "And therein lies the tragedy of it. Instead of funding people themselves to be energy Independent by making the bulk of it themselves at home on their own roofs, they are blindly spending £billions on projects that will keep them reliant on plants far away at per kw prices that will make eyes water in the future. The reality being, for £7.5k per property, 90% of Grid reliance is removed with benefits of not having to even buy electricity for 9 months of the year, the CO2 output, the infrastructure upgrades and many other benefits. I'm selling 14kwh batteries for less than £3,600, potentially saving £30k over its 25 year life. Not many ISA's offer that kind of payback for the investment, more if used to top up an EV overnight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The solution for slack tide is batteries. Agreed, but currently grid scale energy storage is bulky and expensive. There are lots of systems in development, but the only one that works at present is batteries, and they cost a fortune and require metals that aren't all that plentiful. Sorry MrD if misread your eco comment. No problems. That'll teach me for making up new phrases and expecting other people to know what I mean." Taking battery further, why put the batteries at source? By allowing Grid Supplier DSR access to home battery chargers, the can set home batteries and EVs to charge remotely and at what rate, meaning only one set of batteries and charging from multiple surplus sources such as wind, hydro etc. More domestic batteries would smooth the peak demand and allow onloading cheap surplus when it hits the Grid such as an early hours tide surge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dinorwig Power Station. Is a great example of how to store large amounts of energy. And it was opened in the 80s." Dinorwig is indeed an excellent example of grid scale storage. But its maximum output is 1.8GW. We'd need another 20 of them to store enough energy to power the whole country, and then they'd run out after 6 hours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Instead of funding people themselves to be energy Independent by making the bulk of it themselves at home on their own roofs, they are blindly spending £billions on projects that will keep them reliant on plants far away at per kw prices that will make eyes water in the future." That's because we need the plants anyway. If we spend the money to make each home self-sufficient, we'll still need large power stations to run industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dinorwig Power Station. Is a great example of how to store large amounts of energy. And it was opened in the 80s. Dinorwig is indeed an excellent example of grid scale storage. But its maximum output is 1.8GW. We'd need another 20 of them to store enough energy to power the whole country, and then they'd run out after 6 hours." Definitely, thats why the real answer is a combination of all the different types of solutions. If we had the tech to build this in the 70s, and open it in the 80s. Then imagine what we could do with proper investment right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Instead of funding people themselves to be energy Independent by making the bulk of it themselves at home on their own roofs, they are blindly spending £billions on projects that will keep them reliant on plants far away at per kw prices that will make eyes water in the future. That's because we need the plants anyway. If we spend the money to make each home self-sufficient, we'll still need large power stations to run industry." Would we need as many though? Not everyone has roof space, those in flats etc, bur making many self sufficient for nearly all thier power would free up capacity for others. Could be installed concurrent, I have already many times out details of how it could be self funding with no commitment from government. Reduce Gas input for electricity and prices should cool off. Which do you prefer, electricity you pay for, electricity you pay at a rate inflated to satisfy investors or free at home from your own roof? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... they are blindly spending £billions on projects that will keep them reliant on plants far away ..." "That's because we need the plants anyway. If we spend the money to make each home self-sufficient, we'll still need large power stations to run industry." "Would we need as many though?" Probably, yes. Household consumption takes up 33% of electricity production in the UK. Making every house as self-sufficient as possible would significantly reduce demand, but we'd still need the generating capacity for those calm winter days when solar is producing nothing and the wind isn't blowing. Don't get me wrong, self-sufficiency is a great idea and we should be doing more to make it happen. But we'll still need big power stations, and they'll need to be the sort that can be easily turned on and off, i.e. hydro, nuclear, and gas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thorium reactors show a lot of promise, and are inherently safe, but even those can't be built because of ludicrously over the top safety rules, and fear from the general public. Not heard of those before. Are they a form of nuclear or completely different A thorium reactor is very similar to current nuclear reactors, but uses thorium instead of uranium. The main advantage is that thorium is not naturally fissile, so it can't produce a run-away reaction. You have to bombard it with neurons to get it to split, so if you turn the power off, it just stops working. It also has the advantage of producing much less waste, and waste that is a lot less hazardous. But it's almost impossible to get one built because it's experimental, and people don't like that word when it appears next to 'nuclear reactor'." Thank you for the information, it does sound very interesting. On a side note I read the other day about octopus energy. Apparently they have been given the go ahead with another company to manufacture a sea bed cable that will go from the UK to Morocco where it seems they will build a large solar and wind farm. 20 hours a day of energy ( so they say). Still not as regular as nuclear but could contribute | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Crabs hate DC cables, causes issues with mobility.. The cable to Morocco, let's hope along with the Gas pipe from Norway, Internet cables and other Interconnect cables that when the shit hits the fan - that Russia don't use their new found expertise in sabotage of under water infrastructure and cut one for us. Royal Navy have been monitoring Russian ships, surveying our underwater feeds for the last few years.. It is still reliance on another country." I think they describe them as submarine cables. Sounds like fried crab will be on the menu if they get a taste for cables. I now have a vision of Putin in divers suit and some wire cutters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
