Discussion
I'd disagree there.... Renewable power is very cheap, and is dragging down (unsubsidised) power costs in the UK. The fuel cost is £0, so a wind turbine is economic to run if power is worth £1, whereas a gas or coal station costing £40/MWh to run would have shut down long ago.
What will happen is probably a lower overall cost, but that will disguise periods of very very cheap (if not negatively priced) power, and periods of much higher priced power when gas stations have to cover the load. This spread will in turn increase incentives to use energy more efficiently. at times of low demand, but also to incentivise more large scale storage investment - batteries, pumped storage, etc.
Nuclear power is not cost competitive with coal or gas, but is our only way of producing reliable, carbon emission free power. The government has made a legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions and that is more important than cost at the moment. Hinkley Point C has a CFD for £90/MWh for 30 yearsfrom memory - about twice the price of average baseload power in the UK right now.
What will happen is probably a lower overall cost, but that will disguise periods of very very cheap (if not negatively priced) power, and periods of much higher priced power when gas stations have to cover the load. This spread will in turn increase incentives to use energy more efficiently. at times of low demand, but also to incentivise more large scale storage investment - batteries, pumped storage, etc.
Nuclear power is not cost competitive with coal or gas, but is our only way of producing reliable, carbon emission free power. The government has made a legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions and that is more important than cost at the moment. Hinkley Point C has a CFD for £90/MWh for 30 yearsfrom memory - about twice the price of average baseload power in the UK right now.
Renewable power is not very cheap and needs to be backed up by conventional sources of generation. Because guess what? It's not always windy, or it's too windy, and sometimes it's cloudy and gets dark.
There are several solar subsidy farms around where I live in Devon and they're a bloody eyesore.
There are several solar subsidy farms around where I live in Devon and they're a bloody eyesore.
Max_Torque said:
Gandahar said:
Why the UK is still going down the nuclear path when any problem has a huge cleanup bill is rather strange.
two words: Energy Density.IMO, Nuclear and Renewables make terrific partners to provide a robust generation mix. Nuclear is not cheap, but it is reliable and powerful. As we ween ourselves off our 100 year addiction to cheap, plentiful but massively polluting fossil fuels, the cost of our energy is going to increase, but we, imo, need a nuclear base load to provide both the necessary stability and the requisite quantity to meet future demands. You will hear people moaning about how expensive electricity generated by nuclear actually is, and they are right it is expensive, but that moaning is nothing compared to the moaning you'd hear when energy rationing is forced on those same people and the lights go out during the evening...........
) that CO2 is a pollutant?jet_noise said:
Max_Torque said:
Gandahar said:
Why the UK is still going down the nuclear path when any problem has a huge cleanup bill is rather strange.
two words: Energy Density.IMO, Nuclear and Renewables make terrific partners to provide a robust generation mix. Nuclear is not cheap, but it is reliable and powerful. As we ween ourselves off our 100 year addiction to cheap, plentiful but massively polluting fossil fuels, the cost of our energy is going to increase, but we, imo, need a nuclear base load to provide both the necessary stability and the requisite quantity to meet future demands. You will hear people moaning about how expensive electricity generated by nuclear actually is, and they are right it is expensive, but that moaning is nothing compared to the moaning you'd hear when energy rationing is forced on those same people and the lights go out during the evening...........
) that CO2 is a pollutant?Energy density is important because it fundamentally sets the work to reward balance. Whilst wind turbines have a low environmental impact, per turbine, the relatively low energy density of power extracted from the wind means we need LOTS of turbines to meet our total energy needs (ignoring the fact that a wind turbine needs more redundancy than a nuclear powerstation because its overall capacity factor is much lower (~40% for offshore wind ( http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacit... vs 80% for nuclear ( http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/c... )
Historically, nuclear power stations are actually really pretty in-efficient, turning just 30% of their thermal energy into electricity, but of course, because the energy density of the fuel is so vast, that was not really an issue. Today, Generation 4 plants are focusing on increased efficiency in order to bring the cost of the plant down, per MWh generated, in order to improve the competitiveness of those plants.
Max_Torque said:
jet_noise said:
Max_Torque said:
Gandahar said:
Why the UK is still going down the nuclear path when any problem has a huge cleanup bill is rather strange.
two words: Energy Density.IMO, Nuclear and Renewables make terrific partners to provide a robust generation mix. Nuclear is not cheap, but it is reliable and powerful. As we ween ourselves off our 100 year addiction to cheap, plentiful but massively polluting fossil fuels, the cost of our energy is going to increase, but we, imo, need a nuclear base load to provide both the necessary stability and the requisite quantity to meet future demands. You will hear people moaning about how expensive electricity generated by nuclear actually is, and they are right it is expensive, but that moaning is nothing compared to the moaning you'd hear when energy rationing is forced on those same people and the lights go out during the evening...........
) that CO2 is a pollutant?Energy density is important because it fundamentally sets the work to reward balance. Whilst wind turbines have a low environmental impact, per turbine, the relatively low energy density of power extracted from the wind means we need LOTS of turbines to meet our total energy needs (ignoring the fact that a wind turbine needs more redundancy than a nuclear powerstation because its overall capacity factor is much lower (~40% for offshore wind ( http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacit... vs 80% for nuclear ( http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/c... )
Historically, nuclear power stations are actually really pretty in-efficient, turning just 30% of their thermal energy into electricity, but of course, because the energy density of the fuel is so vast, that was not really an issue. Today, Generation 4 plants are focusing on increased efficiency in order to bring the cost of the plant down, per MWh generated, in order to improve the competitiveness of those plants.
And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
jet_noise said:
Agree with much of your observation but "CO2 is a pollutant" is an extraordinary view.
And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
A rather facetious position. Man-made CO2 is not a natural occurrence in the carbon cycle, therefore it is a pollutant.And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
Just like overflowing man-made dam would be a pollutant to the homes it would flood and destroy, but a high tide on a storm from would be a natural occurrence.
CrutyRammers said:
A bit OT, but how do they align themselves with the wind direction? I was wondering the other day.
Small electric motor in the nacelle (the top bit), and some wind sensors. I suspect some clever bit of software will co-ordinate the whole wind farm from a central point, rather than each turbine doing its own thing. jet_noise said:
Agree with much of your observation but "CO2 is a pollutant" is an extraordinary view.
And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
A "pollutant" is anything that exists that "pollutes" it's environment. That therefore covers things that are only "toxic" (ie cause that damage or change) by nature of their very abundance. For example, you rely on Oxygen to breath, but you can be poisoned and killed by excessive oxygen absorption. Same with water, your body is about 70% water, yet if i hold your head under some water, you'll die. And so it's also the same with CO2, an excessive concentration is now understood to result in effects that are "abnormal" when compared to a condition when that self same CO2 does not exist in excess.And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
Max_Torque said:
jet_noise said:
Agree with much of your observation but "CO2 is a pollutant" is an extraordinary view.
And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
A "pollutant" is anything that exists that "pollutes" it's environment. That therefore covers things that are only "toxic" (ie cause that damage or change) by nature of their very abundance. For example, you rely on Oxygen to breath, but you can be poisoned and killed by excessive oxygen absorption. Same with water, your body is about 70% water, yet if i hold your head under some water, you'll die. And so it's also the same with CO2, an excessive concentration is now understood to result in effects that are "abnormal" when compared to a condition when that self same CO2 does not exist in excess.And I suspect no amount of describing how essential its presence is to life on earth is going to change that.
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
I suggest that CO2 levels now and as are likely to obtain from any of little ol' man's contribution are entirely within earth's normal range. Indeed the minimum concentrations seen in the last millennia were getting close to being too low to sustain life.
jet_noise said:
What is the "toxic" level of CO2 to which you refer?
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
I suggest that CO2 levels now and as are likely to obtain from any of little ol' man's contribution are entirely within earth's normal range. Indeed the minimum concentrations seen in the last millennia were getting close to being too low to sustain life.
Is your opinion based on science or gut feel. I suspect you are basing it the fact you don't want to embrace the issue so you are happily sticking your head in the sand.And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
I suggest that CO2 levels now and as are likely to obtain from any of little ol' man's contribution are entirely within earth's normal range. Indeed the minimum concentrations seen in the last millennia were getting close to being too low to sustain life.
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
And of course you know better!
I was a big fan (no pun intended) until there was one built about 1km away from me. I think it is an older, less sophisticated, design but the thing is noisy as f
k. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all.
Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
k. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all. Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
BugLebowski said:
I was a big fan (no pun intended) until there was one built about 1km away from me. I think it is an older, less sophisticated, design but the thing is noisy as fk. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all.
Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
Realistically they make a lot more sense off shore and huge.k. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all. Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
BugLebowski said:
I was a big fan (no pun intended) until there was one built about 1km away from me. I think it is an older, less sophisticated, design but the thing is noisy as fk. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all.
Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
Have a noise survey done. I've stood directly under some moderately sized, onshore turbines and can't say I've ever heard that noise.k. Depending on the direction of the wind obviously, but it's a kind of high pitched screech that sounds like a train braking from speed except it's constant. It's so annoying it has stopped me from sleeping with the window open at night. First world problems and all. Yes I realise I am a literal NIMBY
Max_Torque said:
IMO, Nuclear and Renewables make terrific partners to provide a robust generation mix. Nuclear is not cheap, but it is reliable and powerful. As we ween ourselves off our 100 year addiction to cheap, plentiful but massively polluting fossil fuels, the cost of our energy is going to increase, but we, imo, need a nuclear base load to provide both the necessary stability and the requisite quantity to meet future demands. You will hear people moaning about how expensive electricity generated by nuclear actually is, and they are right it is expensive, but that moaning is nothing compared to the moaning you'd hear when energy rationing is forced on those same people and the lights go out during the evening...........
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night, neither do the waves stop breaking on the shore.There is something worth mentioning there which you've failed to notice. Despite a growing population and industry, energy consumption has dropped, we are now back to the same usage as we were in 1995 when it should have grown massively.
So if you plot a graph with the gain in renewables against the fall in demand you'll see one falling and the other rising to meet it. We are of course becoming much more energy efficient in many ways.
227bhp said:
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night, neither do the waves stop breaking on the shore.
There is something worth mentioning there which you've failed to notice. Despite a growing population and industry, energy consumption has dropped, we are now back to the same usage as we were in 1995 when it should have grown massively.
So if you plot a graph with the gain in renewables against the fall in demand you'll see one falling and the other rising to meet it. We are of course becoming much more energy efficient in many ways.
I've never said that wind or wave are not continuous. But of course, they aren't in a practical sense. If you want "un-interrupted" access to wind or wave power 24/7 then you need to build enough generation sites to ensure that you can always generate the power required, and those sites are likely to be geographically separate, and hence require extensive network infrastructure to link together. The load factor of wind is roughly speaking half that of a conventional power station, and therefore it's simply a matter of fact that for every 1MWh of conventional generation assets we replace, we need to install about 2 MWh of renewables. I'm a big advocate of renewables, they are going to have to play a significant part in all our energy futures, but today, there is no valid projection that suggests we can meet all our demands from only renewables in the UK. There is something worth mentioning there which you've failed to notice. Despite a growing population and industry, energy consumption has dropped, we are now back to the same usage as we were in 1995 when it should have grown massively.
So if you plot a graph with the gain in renewables against the fall in demand you'll see one falling and the other rising to meet it. We are of course becoming much more energy efficient in many ways.
It's also worth noting that today, our major energy demands, those of transport and domestic heating are also pretty much entirely supported by hydrocarbon fuels and if we want to replace those with renewables, then we are going to have to significantly bolster our generation facilities. Just 1 kg of gasoline has after all approx 12 kWh of energy in it!
springfan62 said:
jet_noise said:
What is the "toxic" level of CO2 to which you refer?
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
I suggest that CO2 levels now and as are likely to obtain from any of little ol' man's contribution are entirely within earth's normal range. Indeed the minimum concentrations seen in the last millennia were getting close to being too low to sustain life.
Is your opinion based on science or gut feel. I suspect you are basing it the fact you don't want to embrace the issue so you are happily sticking your head in the sand.And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
I suggest that CO2 levels now and as are likely to obtain from any of little ol' man's contribution are entirely within earth's normal range. Indeed the minimum concentrations seen in the last millennia were getting close to being too low to sustain life.
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
And of course you know better!
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
My opinion is wholly base on the science.
Rather than sticking my head in the sand I view this as putting my head above the clouds (pun intended).
The clouds of hand waving, repent-ye-o-fossil-fuel-using-sinners' authority-appealing catastrophism.
That sounds a bit pompous doesn't it!
I should probably stick with:
Drive a V8, feed a tree
jet_noise said:
?
My opinion is wholly base on the science.
er, no. no it isn't. My opinion is wholly base on the science.
You are specifically ignoring the science, which said, quite clearly and i quote:
current scientific consensus said:
Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
Read all the statements here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o...Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
Max_Torque said:
jet_noise said:
?
My opinion is wholly base on the science.
er, no. no it isn't. My opinion is wholly base on the science.
You are specifically ignoring the science, which said, quite clearly and i quote:
current scientific consensus said:
Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
Read all the statements here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o...Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?
Consensus is not science.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff