Energy chat


#21

It’s not obvious to me. What I do think is obvious is that nuclear power is our only hope for sustained energy. We just have to hope that we can find a way to handle the waste safely.


#22

I used to be staunchly anti nuclear and still am re weapons and all weapons for that matter. But I’m coming round to the idea that, yes for energy nuclear is the best long term option. It’s certainly the best bang for the pound - no pun etc.

I should have said it’s obvious we’ll need an alternative energy source rather than rely on fossil fuel types.


#23

I’d bet my pension that once the initial hurdles are overcome and the technology is scaled up solar power will be a great deal cheaper than nuclear. It doesn’t matter how attractive nuclear is, cheap will always win in the end.

VB


#24

Indeed. Which is why I posed the earlier question about the lifespan of the solar gear in hostile desert conditions.


#25

Not sure I agree that the two examples are the same. Shipping Bauxite on the high seas is relatively risk free. Running transmission lines across the Middle East and N Africa, well its hardly a part of the world renowned for political stability.


#26

True dat, nuclear fission is dead in the water. The two power stations planned for Cumbria have just seen a collapse in their backers. No one wants to fund them and no one wants them in their back yard.

Get peddling!

image


#27

My point was precisely that it can be easier to move the demand to where the energy is rather than trying to move the energy across a risky landscape. If Europe isn’t prepared to invest in the future of energy then we will go down the toilet. As a destitute backwater we won’t need electricity. The world’s economy will have moved to within easy reach of the sunshine.

VB


#28

We’re already there!

Info from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566567/BEIS_Electricity_Generation_Cost_Report.pdf

Solar is going to get even cheaper, nuclear is expensive even without taking into account the disposal issues. That said, it’s hard to see renewables covering all energy usage because the storage is such a massive issue. Maybe once tidal is feasible, but that has loads of issues as well. Or if sodium can replace lithium in batteries where weight is not an issue, but I don’t know if the chemistry works.

I can understand the government removing the feed in tariff, as solar now pays for itself quickly enough without it, but I think that we should be trying to move to a solar panel on every roof, and that kind of thing needs government action. Oh well.


#29

Looking at that table, onshore wind is surely an avenue the Government should be taking.


#30

LOL, this is a Tory government, and all nimbies vote Tory!


#31

All the Tory farmers down here seem only too keen to take the bribe & have turbines erected thus diminishing the amenity of the landscape. Offshore is the way to go.


#32

Even Nimbies need electricity. We will see how they behave once the power cuts hit.They will be gagging for wind turbines and solar panels to be installed.


#33

Even offshore, it looks hideous.

FFS, even Redcar is suffering

image

It’s all just a token gesture to renewables. It will never be the answer to our energy issues.


#34

I actually really like wind turbines. I’m always really pleased when I see any. I find them elegant, both in form and function.

I think that offshore is great for large wind farms. Having driven through enormous wind farms in California I’m less keen on that, but the small ones we have in Europe are fine IMO.


#35

It certainly looks a lot closer to the shore than the huge Rampion farm nearing completion off Brighton/Worthing…


#36

the only problem with offshore is the cost. Currently they provide up to to 20 percent of demand (baseload varies but doesn’t drop below 6% at current capacity) but cost twice as much as land base wind farms. If that is a price consumers are prepared to continue to pay, then so be it.


#37

How much does Nuclear cost, about 2 - 3 times coal or gas powered?


#38

I thought there were allegations of impact on sea birds & indeed fish movements although I haven’t looked at whether there’s any real basis for those concerns. I’m generally in favour of them too particularly as the turbines can be a lot larger.

I do think an attractive landscape has some amenity value for those living in or visiting it & it’d be a shame if all the better examples were punctuated by turbines. I realise the aesthetic value is a subjective thing so it’s very much imho.


#39

Depends where you bound the cost. If you treat disposal costs as a separate issue then

Estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015, £/MWh

Power generating technology

Low

Central

High

Nuclear PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)(a) 82 93 121
Solar Large-scale PV (Photovoltaic) 71 80 94
Wind Onshore 47 62 76
Offshore 90 102 115
Biomass 85 87 88
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 65 66 68
CCGT with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) 102 110 123
Open-Cycle Gas Turbine 157 162 170
Coal Advanced Supercritical Coal with Oxy-comb. CCS 124 134 153
IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) with CCS 137 148 171

(a) new nuclear power: guaranteed strike price of £92.50/MWh for Hinkley Point C in 2023[54][55])


#40

So you ignore the £5billion disposal costs?