Climate Change Cancelled

[Damik]

The UK lacks enough sunshine for reliable solar power, but has large tidal ranges (the Severn is the 2nd largest in the world), and a high mean wind speed. We'd be silly not to take as much advantage of them as we could.

please show me the high wind speeds for this evening:

you need at least 22 mph (10 mps)

Edited September 10, 2009 by damian frach

[cells]

Well if you count all energy consumption, it is a nonsense to suggest nuclear power could provide it all. It is not practical at this time to have a nuclear powered lorry or bus!

I am referring just to electricity consumption, and a great deal of it could be provided by renewable means. A barrage over the Severn estuary could provide about 8% of the UK electricity. The tide goes in and out without fail and will do so until the earth stops spinning or sea dries up.

I didn’t say nuclear could provide all our energy nor did I say I would favour nuclear over gas or coal.

However theoretically speaking nuclear could reduce fossil fuel consumption by 80%.

Roughly speaking we use 30% transport, 30% heating, 30% electricity, 10% other.

Electricity is easy, heating can be done via electricity so you already have 60% sorted.

we could then build more efficient transport, for example self drive cars would be about 3-400% more efficient so our oil usage will go down 70% for personal transport.

So overall if we went nuclear and self drive cars are built it would mean from today we could reduce CO2 usage by 80%

However I don’t think we need to rush to reduce CO2 at this time especially when all but the non nuclear options are far too expensive.

[cells]

I strongly recommend that anyone truly interested in this topic read the following book which you can purchase off amazon or is FREE TO DOWNLOAD

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

It isn’t the best book because it doesn’t really consider cost however generally the numbers are good.

[Damik]

trolley buses in the world:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?source=i...le&resnum=1

some pictures of the hydroelectric stations in the world - please check the difference between water levels. it is about 50/70 meters. do you know why? what is the tide height at the Severn estuary??? How is it going to affect the efficiency of the power generation???

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&am...sa=N&tab=wi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity

Calculating the amount of available power

A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is: P = Ïhrgk, where P is Power in watts, Ï is the density of water (~1000 kg/m³), h is height in meters, r is flow rate in cubic meters per second, g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s², and k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1. Efficiency is often higher with larger and more modern turbines.

Annual electric energy production depends on the available water supply. In some installations the water flow rate can vary by a factor of 10:1 over the course of a year.

[cells]

I have not said they are cheaper but on the par with fossil fuels, so why not use them.

The information I refer to is easily seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

http://www.bwea.com/ref/econ.html

They are not on par, if they were why would we need to subsidise them to entice people to build them?

And no matter how many times you say they are as cheap it doesn’t make it true. Say it a million times if you like, it aint gona change reality.

[cells]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity

Calculating the amount of available power

A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is: P = Ïhrgk, where P is Power in watts, Ï is the density of water (~1000 kg/m³), h is height in meters, r is flow rate in cubic meters per second, g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s², and k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1. Efficiency is often higher with larger and more modern turbines.

Annual electric energy production depends on the available water supply. In some installations the water flow rate can vary by a factor of 10:1 over the course of a year.

Plus the problem is that it might produce 8% of electricity (or about 4GW) but that would be on average. What happens in reality is that the tides come in twice a day so that dam will produce two big bursts of energy lasting say a few hours each.

So instead of a nice 4GW constantly like two big nuclear plants it will produce say for example 15GW for 3 hours and then nothing for 12 hours and then 15GW for 3 hours… and then nothing for 12 hours….

That is terrible and crap. It might produce the 15GW at night with no one to use it.

It would also need lots of gas backup

It’s a good idea to use hydro in general but in this case it is more complicated.

I think 2 nuclear plants would be better.

[Damik]

Plus the problem is that it might produce 8% of electricity (or about 4GW) but that would be on average. What happens in reality is that the tides come in twice a day so that dam will produce two big bursts of energy lasting say a few hours each.

So instead of a nice 4GW constantly like two big nuclear plants it will produce say for example 15GW for 3 hours and then nothing for 12 hours and then 15GW for 3 hours… and then nothing for 12 hours….

That is terrible and crap. It might produce the 15GW at night with no one to use it.

It would also need lots of gas backup

It’s a good idea to use hydro in general but in this case it is more complicated.

I think 2 nuclear plants would be better.

it is not about the maths and physics. it is about your faith and heart ... nuclear is the evil ... we will all turn to the teenage mutant turtle ninjas and die ... Homer Simpson has warned us!

[DiggerUK]

Many can argue as to whether nuclear or renewable are the cheapest.

Cost is a consideration in coming to a decision about future power generation, but not the only consideration.

One faction comes up with one set of figures, the others come up with a different set of figures.

The only issue we can all agree on is that the lights won't stay on for free, it will have to be paid for.

Putting the debate over what is the cheapest route to one side for a moment lets consider what will satisfy the ever increasing demand for power.

On that question I have to conclude that the unreliability of most *RE's is beyond question, and that should be the main consideration in the next generation of power supply.

Like it or not, the foundation of future energy can only be met by nuclear.

Nuclear is also a long term global solution for a very immediate problem.

*The only RE's that I have great praise for are geothermal and hydro (not stored hydro). Drawback being that it is not a global solution, only local. Nuclear is a long term global solution for a very immediate problem.

[blankster]

It's a great idea, but sorry, Google, it's not new, as others on this thread have said. The solar tower thing in Spain is up and running.

I think I'm right in saying that these solar refelector installations only work when the sun is shining, and on overcast days with gaps in the clouds the mirrors have to be directed away from the heat collector to prevent sudden destructive heat shocks when the the sun comes out from behind a cloud.

Photovoltaic solar panels, on the other hand, work when it's cloudy, although output goes down.

Edited September 10, 2009 by blankster

[DeepLurker]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...=124428&hl=

I'll stick to my basic premise which is that renewables are already cost-effective in marginal cases, and the trend over the past few decades is for their cost effectiveness to improve; can't see any reason why that should change.

Hi again Damian,

First of all, congratulations on bothering to read through all the rubbish that I post to this forum in order to prove a point

Now, a quick reminder: this conversation is the large-scale power generation that is necessary to keep our cities working.

The word marginal in my quoted post meant just that: marginal cases. The Outer Hebrides. The top of mountains. I was not saying that renewables are cost-effective for large-scale power generation.

Why do you insist on painting me as some nuke-hating tree-hugger? Does your mother not love you?

[DeepLurker]

Many can argue as to whether nuclear or renewable are the cheapest.

Cost is a consideration in coming to a decision about future power generation, but not the only consideration.

One faction comes up with one set of figures, the others come up with a different set of figures.

The only issue we can all agree on is that the lights won't stay on for free, it will have to be paid for.

+1

It's scary how the pro nuke/coal/renewables happily throw around claimed costs that differ by up to an order of magnitude...

[Kurt Barlow]

They are not on par, if they were why would we need to subsidise them to entice people to build them?

And no matter how many times you say they are as cheap it doesn’t make it true. Say it a million times if you like, it aint gona change reality.

I believe the current renewable obligations payment for wind is about 3.7p per kwh although stand to be corrected

How much does nuclear or coal or gas cost?

Noticed all them free market, subsidy free Nukes being built of late

Edited September 10, 2009 by Kurt Barlow

[cells]

I believe the current renewable obligations payment for wind is about 3.7p per kwh although stand to be corrected

How much does nuclear or coal or gas cost?

Noticed all them free market, subsidy free Nukes being built of late

There is no free market in power plants in the uk and most countries.

i believe wind turbines get 1.5 ROC onshore and 2 offshore at about 3.7p a kWh per ROC.

either way it isn’t cheap. if wind provided 100% of electricity it would add about £1000 per family assuming 4p over std and that before all the costs of getting wind past 20% of grid.

[Damik]

I believe the current renewable obligations payment for wind is about 3.7p per kwh although stand to be corrected

How much does nuclear or coal or gas cost?

Noticed all them free market, subsidy free Nukes being built of late

Kurt,

there was no wind yesterday evening. Did you switch off your PC during the blackout????

[Damik]

I believe the current renewable obligations payment for wind is about 3.7p per kwh although stand to be corrected

How much does nuclear or coal or gas cost?

Noticed all them free market, subsidy free Nukes being built of late

some subsidy data from the Czech Republic. As it is a part of EU I suppose that similar rules are applied in the rest of EU as well ...

http://www.infoenergie.cz/web/root/energy....3&nav02=252

minimal price (Czech crowns per MWh):

- combi electric/heat over 5MW 38

- combi electric/heat under 5MW 1100

- small hydro 1500

- windmill before 2004 2700

- windmill after 2004 3000

- biomass 2500

- biomass and fosil 2000

- biogas before 2004 2400

- biogas after 2004 2500

- geoterm 3000

- sun 6000

So for example windmills make 2 times more money per kWh than small hydro ...

Edited September 11, 2009 by damian frach

[DeepLurker]

some subsidy data from the Czech Republic. As it is a part of EU I suppose that similar rules are applied in the rest of EU as well ...

http://www.infoenergie.cz/web/root/energy....3&nav02=252

minimal price (Czech crowns per MWh):

- combi electric/heat over 5MW 38

- combi electric/heat under 5MW 1100

- small hydro 1500

- windmill before 2004 2700

- windmill after 2004 3000

- biomass 2500

- biomass and fosil 2000

- biogas before 2004 2400

- biogas after 2004 2500

- geoterm 3000

- sun 6000

So for example windmills make 2 times more money per kWh than small hydro ...

Your link would be a lot more impressive if it was in English rather than in Czech.

I've glanced at it, but I don't speak a single word of Czech (not even "beer please!" ) so it could well be a recipe for Smoked Salmon Canapes, rather than argument-winning data about the level of subsidies.

In other words: it's useless.

[Damik]

Your link would be a lot more impressive if it was in English rather than in Czech.

I've glanced at it, but I don't speak a single word of Czech (not even "beer please!" ) so it could well be a recipe for Smoked Salmon Canapes, rather than argument-winning data about the level of subsidies.

In other words: it's useless.

therefore I DID translate it for you ...

[DiggerUK]

therefore I DID translate it for you ...

So you say.

I think it is Shape Shifting Lizard Lingo.

Any Illuminati out there who can translate for us?

[sharpe]

Torygraph

Instead of direct photovoltaic, they're using mirrors to capture sunlight heat to boil water and run steam turbine generators.

It'll be good if it works...

didn't aristotle use this technology to destroy Roman ships?

[DiggerUK]

didn't aristotle use this technology to destroy Roman ships?

The Romans won.

[DeepLurker]

therefore I DID translate it for you ...

Thank you. And in reply, I will quote from my own authoritative source. It's in Turkish, but allow me to translate for your benefit:

Nuclear power is a plot by alien-lizards.

And it's true! My source says so (albeit in a language that no one here understands)! Believe me!

EDIT: typo

Edited September 11, 2009 by DeepLurker

[nixy]

Torygraph

Instead of direct photovoltaic, they're using mirrors to capture sunlight heat to boil water and run steam turbine generators.

It'll be good if it works...

Couple of us built one years ago. Strips of mirror glass arranged parabolically (?) around a focal point. Boiled water OK. Cost about 4 hours and £3 if I remember.

Probably not expensive enough to attract government funding.

[ROC]

Probably not expensive enough to attract government funding.

Think big. What about the Atlantropa plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa

Dam the straits of Gibraltar, use the Med as a very big evaporation pan, drop sea level. Voila! A huge hydroelectric plant.

Oh, you may need to divert the Congo northwards through Chad (actually OVER Chad, the freshwater inland sea where Chad is now will reform) to then drain freshwater into the Med to hold the salt balance.

Just a thought.

[Peter Hun]

Kurt,

there was no wind yesterday evening. Did you switch off your PC during the blackout????

You flew over the entire UK to check that did you?

[CrashConnoisseur]

It's also unreliable, can't be produced on demand, uses about the same ammount of resources as what it saves, and is not a universal solution to power needs now, or in the future.

Solar is not unreliable. It is there for as long as the sun shines. If we build the power plants in the places where the sun always shines, it is very reliable. A solar power station of this type produces far more energy than is used to build it. This may be the case for PV solar panels mounted in Scotland, but not a solar power plant in the Med!

For the latest printed thin-film PV technology Nanosolar claim an energy payback time (EPT) of less than two months for the panel [1]. They also claim parity for balance-of-system (BOS) costs with high efficiency silicon panels [2]. An earlier independent life-cycle analysis of an optimised silicon PV installation in Springerville Arizona calculated an EPT for the BOS of 0.21 years at that location and 0.37 years for average US insolation/temperature conditions [3]. For a Nanosolar Utility Panel in a near optimal location whole system EPT may therefore be under five months (two months for the panel plus 2.5 months for the BOS). In locations with lower insolation and higher latitude the EPT will be longer. In Scotland whole system EPT is likely to be almost three times longer at just over a year.

1. 'Nanosolar’s coating machine: Better than printing money?' [June 2008]:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/1980028598.html

Here’s another interesting energy number from the Nanosolar site: Energy payback time is the time that a solar panel has to be used in order to generate the amount of energy required to produce it. The energy payback time for a Nanosolar panel is less than two months. A typical silicon wafer solar panel has an energy payback time of around three years, and a typical vacuum-deposited thin-film cell has one of 1-2 years.

2. 'The Nanosolar Utility Panel' [september 2009]:

http://www.nanosolar.com/sites/default/fil...lWhitePaper.pdf

7 Summary

The Nanosolar Utility Panel is designed and developed specifically for utility-scale performance. By introducing a series of improvements to an industry-proven package with established reliability performance, the panel allows system integrators to significantly reduce balance-of-system cost, essentially achieving balance-of-system cost parity with high-efficiency silicon panels.

3. 'Energy Pay-Back and Life Cycle CO2 Emissions of the BOS in an Optimized 3.5 MW PV Installation' [2006]:

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Energy...issions_BOS.pdf

Abstract

This study is a life-cycle analysis of the balance of system (BOS) components of the 3.5 MWp multi-crystalline PV installation at Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP) Springerville, AZ field PV plant. TEP instituted an innovative PV installation program guided by design optimization and cost minimization. The advanced design of the PV structure incorporated the weight of the PV modules as an element of support design, thereby eliminating the need for concrete foundations. The estimate of the life-cycle energy requirements embodied in the BOS is 542 MJ/m2, a 71% reduction from those of an older central plant; the corresponding life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are 29 kg CO2-eq. /m2. From field measurements, the energy payback time (EPT) of the BOS is 0.21 years for the actual location of this plant, and 0.37 years for average US insolation/temperature conditions.

This is a great improvement from the EPT of about 1.3 years estimated for an older central plant. The total cost of the balance of system components was $940 US per kWp of installed PV, another milestone in improvement. These results were verified with data from different databases and further tested with sensitivity- and data-uncertainty analyses.