Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ken_ichikawa

Solar Power Iz Winnah!

Recommended Posts

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

:mellow:

Apparently the above report (unknown who funded it) says solar power when including the costs of EVERYTHING i.e. subsidies the costs of decomissioning etc... costs less than Nuclear.

HPC beging your deconstruction of this article!

Ready set GO!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

:mellow:

Apparently the above report (unknown who funded it) says solar power when including the costs of EVERYTHING i.e. subsidies the costs of decomissioning etc... costs less than Nuclear.

HPC beging your deconstruction of this article!

Ready set GO!!!

Best start cooking your mushy peas on it then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently the above report (unknown who funded it) says solar power when including the costs of EVERYTHING i.e. subsidies the costs of decomissioning etc... costs less than Nuclear.

Which just goes to show the problems of making your judgements only on money. Nuclear power has a rather big advantage over solar of working at night and when it's cloudy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Intermittent, so you need a storage battery.

Are we going to have one each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the above report (unknown who funded it) says solar power when including the costs of EVERYTHING i.e. subsidies the costs of decomissioning etc... costs less than Nuclear.

Solar costs falling as technology advances. If that's not true now, there's a strong likelihood it will be sometime in the not-too-distant.

Remember, nuclear costs are hugely inflated by being held to much higher safety and environmental standards than other energy sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which just goes to show the problems of making your judgements only on money. Nuclear power has a rather big advantage over solar of working at night and when it's cloudy.

*sigh* 100% solar, 100% nuclear, both would be incredibly stupid energy policies.

The argument about "no sun at night" is pretty, but pointless.

Existing energy sources have similar issues - hydro is susceptible to dry spells, and nuclear to heatwaves (as the French found out a few years ago).

Which is one reason why no sensible country would ever rely 100% on a single source of energy.

PS Another reason is national security - most of our energy is imported, and it makes sense to have several energy sources so we are not reliant on small handful of tinpot dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* 100% solar, 100% nuclear, both would be incredibly stupid energy policies.

The argument about "no sun at night" is pretty, but pointless.

Existing energy sources have similar issues - hydro is susceptible to dry spells, and nuclear to heatwaves (as the French found out a few years ago).

Which is one reason why no sensible country would ever rely 100% on a single source of energy.

PS Another reason is national security - most of our energy is imported, and it makes sense to have several energy sources so we are not reliant on small handful of tinpot dictators.

Being reliant on tinpot dictators is an excellent strategy.

We installed most of them, we can buy them off with bribes, they don't give a crap about their own people and we can invade their and kill them if they get unruly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it also win at night?

Solar thermal applications do.

I have a self installed solar water heating system that typically 'banks' 10-14 kwh of heat per day in a 210 Litre water tank. When I have a shower at 7.30am I am using solar heated water from the previous day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* 100% solar, 100% nuclear, both would be incredibly stupid energy policies.

The argument about "no sun at night" is pretty, but pointless.

Existing energy sources have similar issues - hydro is susceptible to dry spells, and nuclear to heatwaves (as the French found out a few years ago).

Which is one reason why no sensible country would ever rely 100% on a single source of energy.

PS Another reason is national security - most of our energy is imported, and it makes sense to have several energy sources so we are not reliant on small handful of tinpot dictators.

Far too Sensible DL ;)

What many here fail to see is that the days of cheap oil are numbered. Ghawar and other mass deposits of onshore, low sulphur, close to the surface oil are past their peak. What is replacing them is more expensive, and difficult to process and as this source predominates supply then prices will rise to cover exploration, production and processing costs.

Whilst we will be using fossil fuels for a long time failing to develop and deploy renwables now will come with a heavy price. As Sillybear said on another thread in reference to yet more delays in a nuclear programme - there is no signing of a cheque at 3am to buy ourselves out of this one :ph34r:

No nucs for at least another 10 -15 years - Condems have ensured that by pulling the plug on the £80m loan to Forgemasters to build a 15000 tonne reactor press - the one labour bailout I actually supported.

We're fukked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

:mellow:

Apparently the above report (unknown who funded it) says solar power when including the costs of EVERYTHING i.e. subsidies the costs of decomissioning etc... costs less than Nuclear.

HPC beging your deconstruction of this article!

Ready set GO!!!

is it cheaper than good old coal?

the enviro loons can rotate on it as far as im concerned if it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking outside the box for a minute, the argument for solar makes good sense.

Yes it's expensive right now. Installing solar panels in/on a home means waiting 25 years before they pay for themselves. But in the long run, the solar source lasts as long as the sun. That's a long time ;)

I don't know the figures on nuclear. But at a guess the plutonium source is finite, just like oil? So it may be relatively inexpensive (and work at night, yawn). But looking at the big picture for mankind, what's the point of investing in another finite energy source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking outside the box for a minute, the argument for solar makes good sense.

Yes it's expensive right now. Installing solar panels in/on a home means waiting 25 years before they pay for themselves. But in the long run, the solar source lasts as long as the sun. That's a long time ;)

I don't know the figures on nuclear. But at a guess the plutonium source is finite, just like oil? So it may be relatively inexpensive (and work at night, yawn). But looking at the big picture for mankind, what's the point of investing in another finite energy source?

Being pedantic here: nuclear power uses uranium; plutonium is man-made, usually in reactors.

There is a design of reactor called a "fast breeder" that, as a side-effect, converts uranium-238 into plutonium.

Normally only uranium-235 can be used in plants, but it represents just a tiny fraction of the uranium ore.

Fast breeders can change this useless uranium-238 into plutonium that can then be used as a fuel. The big thing then is that there is enough uranium-238 to keep the lights on for a long long time.

The downsides are 1) fast breeders are expensive and tricky (most designs employ liquid sodium metal as a coolant :o) and 2) they bring lots more plutonium into the world, which is fine as long as you believe that it will never ever ever ever fall into the wrong hands :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being pedantic here: nuclear power uses uranium; plutonium is man-made, usually in reactors.

I made an error and you corrected it. Nothing pedantic about that. In my defence I was very very drunk when posting last night :)

The points you raise about pollution and safety are also good arguments for going solar. It's relatively clean energy and doesn't have destructive potential.

Solar will only last as long as we have a sun in the sky. But that's possibly a super long time. I can't remember where I saw the diagram recently, but the idea was huge solar panels in space beaming down energy back to earth. Interesting stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an error and you corrected it. Nothing pedantic about that. In my defence I was very very drunk when posting last night :)

The points you raise about pollution and safety are also good arguments for going solar. It's relatively clean energy and doesn't have destructive potential.

Solar will only last as long as we have a sun in the sky. But that's possibly a super long time. I can't remember where I saw the diagram recently, but the idea was huge solar panels in space beaming down energy back to earth. Interesting stuff!

How about mirrors in space focussing sunlight on a very small spot on earth to boil water, create steam and drive turbines. Easy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.