"Just stop oil"

given we are an island with an abundance of wind that seems dreadfully unambitious to me. (iirc we are routinely above those renewable percentages already and given its the cheapest type of power, even as an outsider that smells like the kind of deflection the fossil fuel funded experts would have said in the 1980s /90s
 
PlacidCasual said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Biomas = burning trees.

There simply isn’t enough trees and we can’t grow them fast enough to replace them as quickly as we are burning them or using them in other industries. I’m pretty sure the biomas plant we have at the moment imports it’s wood from Canada which again goes against the principles of getting to net zero because there is no simple way to decarbonise cargo ships.

Don’t forget to get to net zero, we need to use more wood in other sectors to replace things like bricks which are very CO2 intensive.

The quick fix for storage issues is to mandate EVs to have V2G capability, even if it’s just 7kw (which is nothing for a 50+ kWh battery).

7kw x 10 million cars is suddenly a lot of power and storage capacity.
 
Last edited:
Hagar said:
I would like nothing more than we buy nothing from China ever. That would solve our export of heavy industry. Unfortunately several major industries seem hooked on the cheap exploitable labour so for UK to be competitive with the EU and the USA we too are on the treadmill.

It will all end in tears, look at Russia and read China when they think that they are strong enough and rich enough.
Click to expand...

Take illegal immigrants coming into the country and detain them in cheap labour worker camps. Profit.
 
ver01@ said:
You shouldn't have a problem sharing the link from where you got your data from then?
Click to expand...

I already did that. The report I linked to isn't just the summary table. It's more detailed than that and it includes the sources plus links to more articles going into more detail on the methodology and on the sources. Which in the case of nuclear fission power is UNSCEAR - the United Nations Scientific Committee On The Effects Of Atomic Radiation. That's what the "Sources" section is for on the report I already linked to.

If you want a direct link to that, here it is:

ourworldindata.org

What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

When we think of nuclear safety, two accidents often come to mind: Chernobyl and Fukushima. What was the death toll and impact of these disasters?
ourworldindata.org ourworldindata.org

If you want all the UNSCEAR reports on Chernobyl dating back to the original one in 1988, here's another link:

www.unscear.org

The Chornobyl Accident

The accident at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at...
www.unscear.org www.unscear.org

That'll be enough because almost Chernobyl accounts for the majority of deaths from nuclear fission power station incidents.

You can ask for whatever links you want. If I'm referring to data, I have the data. That's why this is taking me far longer than it takes you - I look for data, for evidence.
 
We know that already. I asked for a link showing civilian deaths from solar/wind to compare with nuclear as you are claiming they are similar.

Shouldn't be that difficult - as you said you have the data.
 
Last edited:
ver01@ said:
We know that already. I asked for a link showing civilian deaths from solar/wind to compare with nuclear as you are claiming they are similar.

Shouldn't be that difficult - as you said you have the data.
Click to expand...

You won't read any of the UNSCEAR reports I gave you links to.

You won't read the report I gave you a link to, which gives numbers, full details of the methodology and a list of references to sources.

You won't even look at the simple summary table for that report, which has the numbers you claim to want. You've had a link for that too.

You'd have the data if you wanted it, but you don't want evidence.

EDIT: Are you classifying everyone working in any aspect of anything to do with electricity generation using any method as being military or police? That is a serious question, since you've repeatedly referred to them as not being civilians.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
given we are an island with an abundance of wind that seems dreadfully unambitious to me. (iirc we are routinely above those renewable percentages already and given its the cheapest type of power, even as an outsider that smells like the kind of deflection the fossil fuel funded experts would have said in the 1980s /90s
Click to expand...

Maybe they were talking in the context of energy security. We're currently dependent on other countries to maintain our grid already because of renewables destabilising it. There's also the fact that in the long term our electricity usage will be ~6 times what it is now because at present electricity is only ~1/6th of our energy usage and long term usually includes moving all energy use to electricity.

Also, how long term is long term? Did they mean 10 years from now? 30? 50? 100? Hopefully the best mix will change over time as new technology makes better methods possible.
 
Angilion said:
You won't read any of the UNSCEAR reports I gave you links to.

You won't read the report I gave you a link to, which gives numbers, full details of the methodology and a list of references to sources.

You won't even look at the simple summary table for that report, which has the numbers you claim to want. You've had a link for that too.

You'd have the data if you wanted it, but you don't want evidence.

EDIT: Are you classifying everyone working in any aspect of anything to do with electricity generation using any method as being military or police? That is a serious question, since you've repeatedly referred to them as not being civilians.
Click to expand...

Once again- we all know the death toll of the nuclear accidents. I need you to show us the data comparing civilian deaths of nuclear vs solar/wind. I'll make it easier to you so there is no ambiguity. How many children have died from nuclear vs solar/wind?
 
Members of the public is the phrase you use to describe those deaths not civilians if you wish to differentiate between workers and non workers.

Also the suggestion that workers deaths are somehow less meaningful than members of the public deaths is off. It would be ok for wind to have a higher fatility rate than nuclear if only workers were dying? WTF!

Given the man hours worked nuclear has historically had very low worker death rates because the controls are so over the top. The inherent hazards of wind are actually often harder to avoid, work at sea, work at height both high hazard factors historically.
 
bigmike20vt said:
I must admit in an ideal world we would not be using nuclear...... the waste takes 1000s of years to be fully safe and even the safest system can fail. the chances of disaster are low but IF disaster happens it's a doozy.
and that is ignoring potential for terrorism or acts of war.
that said for now (due imo to not doing enough over the last 30 years) nuclear is the only practical solution for a low carbon emission backbone.
renewables are amazing and unless fusion becomes viable are the future, but at a guess (numbers out of my rear) we probably need 3x the amount of off shore wind generation, 10x the amount of onshore wind, combined with solar, tidal and geothermal where possible , not to mention a boat load of storage (electric cars may help). none of which will happen over night.
so personally I consider myself resigned to nuclear for the next 30 years or so but I don't think we should be aiming to use it long term.
Click to expand...

I'll make a stab at numbers, assuming currently existing technology and assuming a single global (or at least transcontinental) electricity grid isn't part of the plan (which it shouldn't be as there's no reason to think that it's possible any time in the foreseeable future). I'll use rounding and assumptions for convenience - this is just ballpark stuff. I'll also lump onshore and offshore wind together to simplify things for myself.

Peak electricity usage is ~55GW.
Other energy usage is ~5.4 times electricity usage.

An assumption - peak overall energy usage and peak electricity usage could occur at the same time.

So if all energy use is met by electricity (which is part of the zero-emissions plan) that would put peak UK electricity usage at ~300GW.

Current nameplate generating capacity of wind in the UK is 25GW.

So that would mean needing 12x as much as we have now.

But nameplate generating capacity is a lie for renewables other than some implementations of geothermal, so 12x is nowhere near enough.

In the UK, well positioned wind power stations working perfectly will average a third of their nameplate generating capacity. Offshore is much better than onshore in that respect - high 30s and high 20s.

So that would mean needing 36x as much as we have now.

But average isn't enough when you're talking about wildly varying and uncontrollable sources of power. Wind quite often drops below 10% of nameplate capacity, across the whole of the UK.

So that would mean needing 120x as much as we have now. And that would still result in us being dependent on buying electricity from other countries. France, mainly, as that's by far the least difficult and expensive interconnect. But wind power generation in France would usually be reduced at the same time as wind generation in the UK (weather patterns are often much larger than the UK) so they might not have spare at that time if they also went 100% renewables.

Solar in the UK has a much lower load factor than wind in the UK, of course. We're not a very sunny place, on the whole.

If we had a boatload of storage that would help a lot. But the technology doesn't exist yet. Hopefully it will at some point in the future. Being able to go full renewables would probably be more about better storage than better generation.
 
ver01@ said:
Once again- we all know the death toll of the nuclear accidents. I need you to show us the data comparing civilian deaths of nuclear vs solar/wind. I'll make it easier to you so there is no ambiguity. How many children have died from nuclear vs solar/wind?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that all adults and adolescents are serving in the military or police, i.e. not civilians? That's would be a very strange belief, but that's the distinction you're making and I don't know how far your beliefs go. Before that post, it was only all people working in any job connected to electricity generation that you claimed to believe were serving in the military or police, i.e. not civilians.

I think you're well aware that generating electricity from nuclear fission, wind and solar are about equal in terms of safety and you're getting into progressively wilder claims in your attempts to pretend otherwise.
 
Angilion said:
I think you're well aware that generating electricity from nuclear fission, wind and solar are about equal in terms of safety and you're getting into progressively wilder claims in your attempts to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
You still haven't provided any evidence to support this.
I asked you specifically about number of children (members of the public) that have died as a consequence of wind/solar energy generation and you haven't given an answer or provided any relevant links (your links were only about nuclear which we all knew about already).
Sorry, but can't make it more clear.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
I'll make a stab at numbers, assuming currently existing technology and assuming a single global (or at least transcontinental) electricity grid isn't part of the plan (which it shouldn't be as there's no reason to think that it's possible any time in the foreseeable future). I'll use rounding and assumptions for convenience - this is just ballpark stuff. I'll also lump onshore and offshore wind together to simplify things for myself.

Peak electricity usage is ~55GW.
Other energy usage is ~5.4 times electricity usage.

An assumption - peak overall energy usage and peak electricity usage could occur at the same time.

So if all energy use is met by electricity (which is part of the zero-emissions plan) that would put peak UK electricity usage at ~300GW.

Current nameplate generating capacity of wind in the UK is 25GW.

So that would mean needing 12x as much as we have now.

But nameplate generating capacity is a lie for renewables other than some implementations of geothermal, so 12x is nowhere near enough.

In the UK, well positioned wind power stations working perfectly will average a third of their nameplate generating capacity. Offshore is much better than onshore in that respect - high 30s and high 20s.

So that would mean needing 36x as much as we have now.

But average isn't enough when you're talking about wildly varying and uncontrollable sources of power. Wind quite often drops below 10% of nameplate capacity, across the whole of the UK.

So that would mean needing 120x as much as we have now. And that would still result in us being dependent on buying electricity from other countries. France, mainly, as that's by far the least difficult and expensive interconnect. But wind power generation in France would usually be reduced at the same time as wind generation in the UK (weather patterns are often much larger than the UK) so they might not have spare at that time if they also went 100% renewables.

Solar in the UK has a much lower load factor than wind in the UK, of course. We're not a very sunny place, on the whole.

If we had a boatload of storage that would help a lot. But the technology doesn't exist yet. Hopefully it will at some point in the future. Being able to go full renewables would probably be more about better storage than better generation.
Click to expand...
if those numbers are even close to accurate that really does shine a light on how far we still have to go. unless fusion actually becomes a thing ( and that seems perpetually 40 years away) I guess nuclear is here for a while.

but if so imo alternatives to uranium have to be properly investigated. Thorium (spoken by smeone who hated the chemistry part of my degree so keep that in mind) seems an order of magnitude safer.
also uranium is limited in supply as well
 
bigmike20vt said:
if those numbers are even close to accurate that really does shine a light on how far we still have to go. unless fusion actually becomes a thing ( and that seems perpetually 40 years away) I guess nuclear is here for a while.

but if so imo alternatives to uranium have to be properly investigated. Thorium (spoken by smeone who hated the chemistry part of my degree so keep that in mind) seems an order of magnitude safer.
also uranium is limited in supply as well
Click to expand...

They’re not even close to being accurate, although the sentiment of us being miles away is still the reality.

Taking the current energy demands of fossil fuels and crudely slapping it onto the current electricity demand curve to make a point isn’t really how reality works. It takes no account for for the relative efficiency of fossil fuels vs electrification and how they can be consumed.

For example, very few people actually need to charge an electric car between 4.30 and 8pm and they can be easily incentivised not to do that so why would that add significantly to peak electricity demand. They also consume significantly less energy than a fossil fuelled car.

Modern heat pumps use 4x less energy than a typical gas boiler setup. That said there isn’t really get a credible plan to decarbonise heat. The technology is there but the U.K. plan is to hope people ‘do the right thing’ when their boiler comes to the end of its life.

Aviation and shipping are basically non starters at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom