Give us a fracking break!

[Du1point8]

hidetheelephants said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Everyone thinks fracking is the new tech

it isn't

It is ancient

What is the new kid is horizontal drilling which allows you to go along the shale instead of going through it in a vertical plane.

So instead of having 100 foot of shale you can have thousands of feet.

What they can do with horizontal drilling is utterly stunning

Directional drilling isn't new either really; Good ol' Saddam invaded Kuwait on the pretext the cheeky Kuwaitis were nicking his oil by drilling sideways across(under?) the border, the scamps. The difference is the precision with which the string can be placed has gradually improved to the point that it can be 'flown' along even a narrow band of productive shale which might be only 10m deep.

Directional drilling isn't new but that is mainly singular vertical wells, Multilateral drilling is the horizontal drilling off a vertical well, or many horizontal drills off a vertical well.

I only know as my father was a directional driller, but moved onto Multilateral drilling quite a few years ago after starting as a mud logger.

Edited by Du1point8 on Wednesday 18th February 19:06

[Vizsla]

fttm said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Care to explain how high a pressure they use to keep it liquid?

Care to explain how it is pumped down the well as a liquid?

Care to explain how they add the water?

Care to explain how it will explode?



Care to explain if you have ever actually worked in oil field services?

1, a little as 10psi
2,using a properly cooled cryogenic pump
3,water is previously pumped down
4,Doesn't explode as you are well aware ,what does water do when it freezes ?
To answer an earlier post LN2 weighs 0.84372kg/cm3

You sure about that? My fag packet reckons that's more than 800x as dense as water!! ?0.84372g/cm3

[Mojocvh]

Scuffers said:

yea, it's not like the turbines need loads of big trucks is it?







then all the concrete and re-bar trucks etc to build these:




then the buildings

like yeah man those turbine bases are like so,so,so concrete...





well at least they can be dug up in 20-25 years MANNNNNNN

Hint. Sometimes it's best to stfu when your starting point is in the bad ol dark days...

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 20th February 18:49

[Oakey]

hidetheelephants said:

Directional drilling isn't new either really; Good ol' Saddam invaded Kuwait on the pretext the cheeky Kuwaitis were nicking his oil by drilling sideways across(under?) the border, the scamps. The difference is the precision with which the string can be placed has gradually improved to the point that it can be 'flown' along even a narrow band of productive shale which might be only 10m deep.

I drink your milkshake, I drink it up!

[hidetheelephants]

Mojocvh said:

like yeah man those turbine bases are like so,so,so concrete...
well at least they can be dug up in 20-25 years MANNNNNNN
Hint. Sometimes it's best to stfu when your starting point is in the bad ol dark days...

No-one is digging up anything; in the enviro-statements that I've seen for windfarms the decommissioning is removal of the towers and landscaping over the concrete. As for showing us some pictures of the big tin shed at Chernobyl, how do you like your strawman, Flambé or fried? If people want a significant reduction in carbon output(or the greens ludicrous zero carbon goal) the only option without destroying the economy and going agrarian is nuclear power of some kind. Windmills and solar panels are window dressing of an economically ruinous nature.

[Mojocvh]

hidetheelephants said:

Mojocvh said:

like yeah man those turbine bases are like so,so,so concrete...
well at least they can be dug up in 20-25 years MANNNNNNN
Hint. Sometimes it's best to stfu when your starting point is in the bad ol dark days...

No-one is digging up anything; in the enviro-statements that I've seen for windfarms the decommissioning is removal of the towers and landscaping over the concrete. As for showing us some pictures of the big tin shed at Chernobyl, how do you like your strawman, Flambé or fried? If people want a significant reduction in carbon output(or the greens ludicrous zero carbon goal) the only option without destroying the economy and going agrarian is nuclear power of some kind. Windmills and solar panels are window dressing of an economically ruinous nature.

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations? it's ok you don't need to answer as actually YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CAN NOT ESTIMATE. Bullst detector below.

[4v6]

Mojocvh said:

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations?

It matters not one jot because c02 isnt doing anything nasty to the planet.

Measuring whats important is more sensible than making important what you can measure.

[Mojocvh]

4v6 said:

Mojocvh said:

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations?

It matters not one jot because c02 isnt doing anything nasty to the planet.

Measuring whats important is more sensible than making important what you can measure.

what's

[Oakey]

Whenever 'nuclear' is mentioned Mojo turns crazy

[hidetheelephants]

Mojocvh said:

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations? it's ok you don't need to answer as actually YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CAN NOT ESTIMATE. Bullst detector below.

No idea, but here are some numbers; at the moment the largest windfarm in Scotland is Whitelees, with 210 windmills and a plated capacity of 550MW, each one will have 1500-2000 tonnes of concrete at the bottom giving 570-760 tonnes per MW. But windfarms don't produce their plated capacity, more like 25% so it's really 2200-3000 tonnes per MW. The manufacturers reckon on a life of 20 years(this is often disputed, but for these purposes I'm not arguing), so it's 110-150 tonnes/MW/year. Sizewell B, the last nuclear power station built in the UK, used ~1.2m tonnes of concrete and has a capacity of 1200MW, giving 1000 tonnes per MW and 25 tonnes/MW/year with a predicted operational life of 40 years.

I like those numbers, they're actually better than I thought they were.

Oakey said:

Whenever 'nuclear' is mentioned Mojo turns crazy

Evidently.

[Scuffers]

hidetheelephants said:

Mojocvh said:

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations? it's ok you don't need to answer as actually YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CAN NOT ESTIMATE. Bullst detector below.

No idea, but here are some numbers; at the moment the largest windfarm in Scotland is Whitelees, with 210 windmills and a plated capacity of 550MW, each one will have 1500-2000 tonnes of concrete at the bottom giving 570-760 tonnes per MW. But windfarms don't produce their plated capacity, more like 25% so it's really 2200-3000 tonnes per MW. The manufacturers reckon on a life of 20 years(this is often disputed, but for these purposes I'm not arguing), so it's 110-150 tonnes/MW/year. Sizewell B, the last nuclear power station built in the UK, used ~1.2m tonnes of concrete and has a capacity of 1200MW, giving 1000 tonnes per MW and 25 tonnes/MW/year with a predicted operational life of 40 years.

I like those numbers, they're actually better than I thought they were.

Evidently.

all good stuff, but consider that's based on it's initial 40 year life, and that been extended by another 20.

[johnfm]

Mojocvh said:

"Personally, I'm more for the development of tidal-power, "

Best you contact the power generation cartel as they just aren't interested in tidal...

It will take a while, but I think tidal lagoons will take off. Not as disruptive as tidal barrage, I expect to see a few projects built over the next 10-15 years. Much more reliable basis than wind and solar.

[johnfm]

hidetheelephants said:

Mojocvh said:

What is the "carbon output" for building and decommissioning atomic power stations? it's ok you don't need to answer as actually YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CAN NOT ESTIMATE. Bullst detector below.

No idea, but here are some numbers; at the moment the largest windfarm in Scotland is Whitelees, with 210 windmills and a plated capacity of 550MW, each one will have 1500-2000 tonnes of concrete at the bottom giving 570-760 tonnes per MW. But windfarms don't produce their plated capacity, more like 25% so it's really 2200-3000 tonnes per MW. The manufacturers reckon on a life of 20 years(this is often disputed, but for these purposes I'm not arguing), so it's 110-150 tonnes/MW/year. Sizewell B, the last nuclear power station built in the UK, used ~1.2m tonnes of concrete and has a capacity of 1200MW, giving 1000 tonnes per MW and 25 tonnes/MW/year with a predicted operational life of 40 years.

I like those numbers, they're actually better than I thought they were.

Oakey said:

Whenever 'nuclear' is mentioned Mojo turns crazy

Evidently.

Decent analysis that. Surprised at how much concrete is used per windmill.

[Scuffers]

johnfm said:

Mojocvh said:

"Personally, I'm more for the development of tidal-power, "

Best you contact the power generation cartel as they just aren't interested in tidal...

It will take a while, but I think tidal lagoons will take off. Not as disruptive as tidal barrage, I expect to see a few projects built over the next 10-15 years. Much more reliable basis than wind and solar.

really?

wind yes, but Solar is pretty reliable and predictable, as well as being somewhat more scaleable.

Tidals a dead end, the costs are staggering, maintenance is horrendous, and it has devastating real environmental impacts.

I would argue it's worse than wave-power, and look what happened to that.

at the end of the day, we have got into this crazy situation where the subsidies and carbon taxes are just screwing the finances of power generation up so much it's become a competition of subsidy, not engineering merritt.

Until Fusion or something like that becomes viable, Nuclear is the only real mass-generation tech that's not burning stuff.

[Diderot]

Scuffers said:

johnfm said:

Mojocvh said:

"Personally, I'm more for the development of tidal-power, "

Best you contact the power generation cartel as they just aren't interested in tidal...

It will take a while, but I think tidal lagoons will take off. Not as disruptive as tidal barrage, I expect to see a few projects built over the next 10-15 years. Much more reliable basis than wind and solar.

really?

wind yes, but Solar is pretty reliable and predictable, as well as being somewhat more scaleable.

Tidals a dead end, the costs are staggering, maintenance is horrendous, and it has devastating real environmental impacts.

I would argue it's worse than wave-power, and look what happened to that.

at the end of the day, we have got into this crazy situation where the subsidies and carbon taxes are just screwing the finances of power generation up so much it's become a competition of subsidy, not engineering merritt.

Until Fusion or something like that becomes viable, Nuclear is the only real mass-generation tech that's not burning stuff.

Solar is pretty reliable? Two words: night time. Another word: snow. Another one for good measure: overcast.

[98elise]

Diderot said:

Scuffers said:

johnfm said:

Mojocvh said:

"Personally, I'm more for the development of tidal-power, "

Best you contact the power generation cartel as they just aren't interested in tidal...

It will take a while, but I think tidal lagoons will take off. Not as disruptive as tidal barrage, I expect to see a few projects built over the next 10-15 years. Much more reliable basis than wind and solar.

really?

wind yes, but Solar is pretty reliable and predictable, as well as being somewhat more scaleable.

Tidals a dead end, the costs are staggering, maintenance is horrendous, and it has devastating real environmental impacts.

I would argue it's worse than wave-power, and look what happened to that.

at the end of the day, we have got into this crazy situation where the subsidies and carbon taxes are just screwing the finances of power generation up so much it's become a competition of subsidy, not engineering merritt.

Until Fusion or something like that becomes viable, Nuclear is the only real mass-generation tech that's not burning stuff.

Solar is pretty reliable? Two words: night time. Another word: snow. Another one for good measure: overcast.

You need light (photons) for solar, not direct sunlight. Of course you will get more power on a clear bright day but but daylight is fairly reliable, and solar panels will continue to generate.

[johnfm]

Scuffers said:

johnfm said:

Mojocvh said:

"Personally, I'm more for the development of tidal-power, "

Best you contact the power generation cartel as they just aren't interested in tidal...

It will take a while, but I think tidal lagoons will take off. Not as disruptive as tidal barrage, I expect to see a few projects built over the next 10-15 years. Much more reliable basis than wind and solar.

really?

wind yes, but Solar is pretty reliable and predictable, as well as being somewhat more scaleable.

Tidals a dead end, the costs are staggering, maintenance is horrendous, and it has devastating real environmental impacts.

I would argue it's worse than wave-power, and look what happened to that.

at the end of the day, we have got into this crazy situation where the subsidies and carbon taxes are just screwing the finances of power generation up so much it's become a competition of subsidy, not engineering merritt.

Until Fusion or something like that becomes viable, Nuclear is the only real mass-generation tech that's not burning stuff.

Sun doesn't shine at night - but agree it is relatively predictable. Of course I think tides are probably moreso.

Not sure why turbines in a tidal pool installation would present 'horrendous' maintenance issues - they're not miles offshore.

Tidal lagoons have devastating environmental impacts? Really? Not convinced a tidal pool constructed along a shoreline is all that catastrophic at all for the environment. A sea wall running along a coastline doesn't shout 'impossible, expensive engineering task' to me. Agree a tidal barrage across, say, the Severn Estuary would have some of the issues you mention - though not tidal lagoons.

Given the massive potential and our length of shoreline, I'd be surprised if this doesn't feature.

[Scuffers]

johnfm said:

Sun doesn't shine at night - but agree it is relatively predictable. Of course I think tides are probably moreso.

Not sure why turbines in a tidal pool installation would present 'horrendous' maintenance issues - they're not miles offshore.

Tidal lagoons have devastating environmental impacts? Really? Not convinced a tidal pool constructed along a shoreline is all that catastrophic at all for the environment. A sea wall running along a coastline doesn't shout 'impossible, expensive engineering task' to me. Agree a tidal barrage across, say, the Severn Estuary would have some of the issues you mention - though not tidal lagoons.

Given the massive potential and our length of shoreline, I'd be surprised if this doesn't feature.

That's a question of scale, to be big enough to be worth doing, the costs are silly.

Just how much power do you think they can make?

As for tidal turbines, maintaining something in seawater, and underwater at that, is really challenging/expensive.

And once again, just how much power do they make?

To put this in context, we have over 12Gw of wind turbines, yet annually the 2Gw interconnect with France provides almost as much Mwh's over the year.

One new nuclear station will make more Mwh than just about all the countries renewables we have now.

[hidetheelephants]

Scuffers said:

all good stuff, but consider that's based on it's initial 40 year life, and that been extended by another 20.

It's possible that the site licence might be extended, but I wanted to be conservative with the numbers and any extension beyond 2035 will need quite a big investment in upgrading systems; it's already a pain managing supply of components for stuff that was designed in the 1980s, desktop manufacturing dreams aside god knows what keeping stuff moving will be like in 20 years time.

johnfm said:

Sun doesn't shine at night - but agree it is relatively predictable. Of course I think tides are probably moreso.

Not sure why turbines in a tidal pool installation would present 'horrendous' maintenance issues - they're not miles offshore.

Tidal lagoons have devastating environmental impacts? Really? Not convinced a tidal pool constructed along a shoreline is all that catastrophic at all for the environment. A sea wall running along a coastline doesn't shout 'impossible, expensive engineering task' to me. Agree a tidal barrage across, say, the Severn Estuary would have some of the issues you mention - though not tidal lagoons.

Given the massive potential and our length of shoreline, I'd be surprised if this doesn't feature.

Tidal lagoons are predicted to be cheaper than barrages, but they're still more expensive than nuclear power; this also does not address the fact that a Severn barrage won't just make power, it will probably be a rail and road link and it will be flood mitigation for a gigantic part of England and Wales. How do you assess what that's worth on the bottom line, or whether it's worth the damage and alteration to habitat? Engineering systems to live in salt water, resist turbid erosion and marine growth, and last 40> years is not cheap; possible but not cheap.

[Art0ir]

Solar power currently isn't viable.

That said, the efficiency and production costs are improving at a promising rate. I imagine in 20-30 years they will be a valuable contributor to our energy requirements.

I'm all for funding research into renewables. What I am entirely adverse to is rolling out substandard tech before it's ready nationwide, where the only people that benefit are those with their snouts in the trough.