1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Climate change, the facts, the theory

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Judgeneo, May 30, 2010.

  1. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,291

    They are turning the site slowly into an area for renewables with solar being installed at the moment - can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head but the area is generally uninhabitable for another 20-30 thousand years.

    Problem is the costs, etc. if nuclear generation isn't cheaped out on, is maintained properly and not extended significantly beyond its specced operational life it is actually incredibly safe - despite what happened Fukushima largely survived a significant natural disaster and probably would have survived without contaminating the wider environment if it had occurred within its original planned lifetime and operational parameters.
     
  2. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,994

    Location: Bristol, UK

    There are nuclear reactor technologies which are not vulnerable to melt down, the act of overheating would melt a plug in the bottom of the reactor and drain the contents away, stopping the reaction.
     
  3. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140


    But there lies the problem, Nuclear is just damned expensive, far more so than renewables that don't have issues with nuclear waste containment, contamination or critical failures.
     
  4. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,600

    Location: Leicestershire


    As with everything, lowest bidder is always going to be an issue, on both ends of the scale..

    Renewables, being greener, recycling etc are the way we should live anyway, regardless of anything else, however as a race I cant help but still think that we just dont give enough of a **** to do anything about it, greed will always be a major contributer, enough of those that have, dont want to lose or share so if they can make more by not being green, or as green as they could/should we'll never get ourselves out of this hole, until its so late that those people have their greed stopped by some huge natural disaster that makes all of us go live back in caves...
     
  5. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,012

    If you want a renewables only generation you can give up on our industrialised society. The intermittent nature of renewables just won’t support it.
     
  6. b0rn2sk8

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 4,684

    I don't agree with this point of view, renewable don't need to be that intermittent if they are created carefully and diversified. There is very few days where there isn't enough wind in the UK and it's car cheaper than putting in nuclear by miles. We haven't even started exploiting tidal power yet, its very consistent. There are some really good proof of concepts happening up in Orkney. Also the UK isn't really very 'industrialised' anyway, our economy is mostly services based. Most 'things' we buy are imported from overseas.

    Battery storage can effectively replace peak demand plants today, we just choose not to.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/0...-breaks-stranglehold-of-natural-gas-industry/

    Solar is viable in the UK contrary to popular belief, its even better if backed up with local battery storage and it isn't that expensive. If every building had solar the amount if grid energy needed would be vastly reduced. You can combine groups of buildings together to make build micro-grids. More importantly new buildings should be designed for solar, but there not. That's down to the gov not mandating it.

    Capitalism has a huge impact on the adoption of large scale renewable's because large utility companies have these large stranded assets that they have invested billions in that they still need to get a return on. There is little incentive for them to decommission their 10 year old gas fired plant that still has another 20 years of life left in it.
     
  7. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,012

    Statistical research of wind intermittency demonstrates that each winter there will normally be 3 periods of 3 days when wind is at less than 10% output. Solar during those same months solar provides practically zero output during the morning and evening peaks.
    Winter demand can reach 60GW if only 3-6GW of that is coming from generation you need a PHENOMENAL amount of battery storage. £240bn of storage might by you one day supply of winter demand. Also demand is set to increase as household heating, hot water and cooking has to move electric to meet the Climate Chane Act 2010 requirements. Without tidal barrages the requirement for battery storage is mind boggling to accommodate renewable only generation.

    Nuclear at a stroke makes battery storage a far more achievable peaking technology.
     
  8. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,481

    The correct response is "Why can't we have both?" We already use our least polluting plants for the majority of power, with the worst kept in reserve for emergency demand. Now we're adding renewable energy to the top of the chain, and the more we add the more polluting plants get mothballed. We could conceivably create a system with a backbone of renewable and nuclear energy and scrap the diesel plants entirely.
     
  9. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,600

    Location: Leicestershire

    I'd love to have the Tesla roof tiles that are solar, just waiting for my crypto to come in lol..
    All new builds should have them tbh

    Then on the otherside of the "green" thing, how do people feel about limiting offspring, you know, less resource so we need less kids and all that...
     
  10. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,012

    Solar is counter cycle with demand on a daily and annual basis. The more you install the more you have to pay the displaced power stations to sit there to supply electricity when you need it and solar isn't generating.
     
  11. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140

    It depends on several factors, but ion general electricity demand is much higher in the day due to industry uses, and higher in the summer due to AC. This is especially true in hotter sunnier climates where Solar performs better.

    With advnaces with battery tech we can already have economical grid storage to support evening and early morning supplies.
     
  12. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,994

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Several factors such as not being in the UK? Because day time and summer are not peak here.
     
  13. jimjamuk

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 30, 2007

    Posts: 2,819

    Location: Bristol, UK

    But you are focusing on money when it should be green energy first with those older systems as backup whatever they cost. Got to wean ourselves off them at some time
     
  14. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,012

    A fair point that in hot countries AC demand in tune with solar output but in the UK it is not. Peak demand in the UK is not during the day it is 4pm-6pm when kids and parents start getting home from school in the winter turning tv's, ovens, lights and heating on.

    Nuclear is a much much better solution to the UK's energy needs. Base load generation in conjunction with battery storage could actually provide a smoothed highly balanced demand and supply system. If you rely on non tidal renewables that battery storage requirement becomes unimaginably massive to accommodate the expected intermittency. Paying thousands upon thousands of engineers and operators to stand around at uneconomic thermal plant to cover this intermittency is madness. You would effectively need a one to one coverage of thermal for renewable (excluding tidal).

    The dogma taking nuclear off the table is a green hair shirt too far. We should be researching molten salt reactors and deploying them if we genuinely think the global Atkins Diet is the solution.
     
  15. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140

    But battery storage allows for the 4-6pm peak from renewables. This is frequently used in utility PV farms.


    I don't have massive issues with nuclear and it makes sense for some base load, but it doesn't price peak power - you can't just switch on a reactor for a couple of hours. Biogas would be better for peak demand and backup.

    It's also possible to use the electric vehicles that will have to dominate in the near future to meet any CO2 targets as mobile battery storage. Charged up in the day from solar, péugged into grid for peak evening hours and actually discharge, then recharge in the middle of the night from bsebload/wind/tidal.

    To have have any hope we also need some larger scale social changes. For example, put much heavier enohses on business using off-peak power. In placed like California on the hottest days they already require business to stop AC and many effectively close.we will have to accept such disruptions in effort to balance power load.
     
  16. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,012

    The problem specifically is that wind power regularly has extended periods of low output during the high demand parts of the year. Providing a few hours of cover for intermittency is entirely achievable. Providing 3 days or more is not. Even with distributed storage in peoples homes and cars the country would effectively come to a stop after the first day as their would be no energy for recharge. These events happen around 3 times a winter for 3 days.

    If you have an underlying nuclear base load short term battery storage is feasible if chuffing expensive and the peaking load required from regular thermal is a tolerable overhead. It is only if as is the green dogma that nuclear is off the table with tidal that paint yourself into a corner where the solutions are hideously difficult and expensive to achieve.

    We already have the infrastructure to support large scale centralised generation but the politics of climate change and mainstream environmentalism is pushing us to pursue a wholly different and untested and economically unrealistic solution.
     
  17. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,994

    Location: Bristol, UK

    You've missed again the point that there are two periods every year where statistically, we can expect there to be dead spots days in duration each time where there is much less or no solar or wind generation. It's not for 2 hours a day, it would be necessary to provide battery storage for multiple days including peak demands and this happens during the coldest darkest months. This would be prohibitive to provide with battery technology
     
  18. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140


    You missed the point where I'm not just talkin about 1 small island in the Atlantic but a global approach that is required to save the planet form catastrophic effects of AGW.
     
  19. offitmassive

    Associate

    Joined: Jun 1, 2012

    Posts: 94

    Location: Hereford

    Its a global issue, not just a local one unfortunately. I think some countries couldnt give 2 f**ks about the climate and what we're trying to achieve is a drop in the ocean. We can all dream