Soldato
Yeah mine was just a quick wiki copypasta. It's from 2007 also.
The clean green energy thread - Lets talk about alternatives to nuclear power and how we can save th
- Thread starter SkScotchegg
- Start date
Associate
What percentage of new power-stations being built in the UK is renewable or nuclear?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,940
So far no nuclear applications have been made because the nuclear inspectorate is doing safety studies of the 2 proposed designs. 10 sites have been identified and various companies are making plans but no committment has yet been made.
As to renewables I don't know the in progress figures but the Government licencing target is 32GW over the coming decades for wind I believe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8448203.stm
As to renewables I don't know the in progress figures but the Government licencing target is 32GW over the coming decades for wind I believe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8448203.stm
Taken from wiki, looks like 2004 figures
* gas – 39.93% (0.05% in 1990)
* coal – 33.08% (67.22% in 1990)
* nuclear – 19.26% (18.97% in 1990)
* renewables – 3.55% (0% in 1990)
* hydroelectric – 1.10% (2.55% in 1990)
* imports – 1.96% (3.85% in 1990)
* oil – 1.12% (6.82% in 1990)
Man of Honour
Don't know if this has been posted yet but...
http://news.discovery.com/tech/nuclear-reactor-designs-future-110316.html
Discovery outlined and details the benefits of modern Nuclear power.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/nuclear-reactor-designs-future-110316.html
Discovery outlined and details the benefits of modern Nuclear power.
Man of Honour
Agreed. Presumably they're intentionally making it difficult to compare tariffs.
The pretence of no longer having a standing charge niggles at me too. They all have standing charges still - they just fold it into the first x units, hence the very different price for the first x units.
Here you go - Data taken from a report I publish for National Grid and as at 31st Dec 2010.
Year = Connection date
All contracted future generation
Renewable fuel types: Biomass, Hydro, Tidal, Wave, Wind Onshore, Wind Offshore
Contracted future Nuclear generation - included in the above data
Also pleease stop saying allot. It's not a word!
It might not be the correct usage for what he's trying to say but it is very much a word
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allot
Soldato
I hate that. Our yearly billing count starts in October, so we spend the winter using loads of the "peak" costed units, then roll around summer when our consumption is lower we're on the cheaper tarrif
Soldato
I hate that. Our yearly billing count starts in October, so we spend the winter using loads of the "peak" costed units, then roll around summer when our consumption is lower we're on the cheaper tarrif
I wonder why that is?
LOL
Associate
Thanks Sdk, so looking at that there seems to be around 40% renewable energy and around 28% nuclear at 2025 but nuclear plants are only going to go on-line in 2017. That seems a fairly big gap from now! The 32% from other non-renewable seems a big drop, I know that there are currently plans for some large offshore wind-farm plans for near where I live in Humberside but I think they are just in the process of application now and won't be built until a few years later if they get planning! It's good to see we are moving more towards renewable energy at last!
Today I even rode my bike to college!
Today I even rode my bike to college!
Soldato
One of my essays I've just done for my part one was on vernacular architecture and its relevance to a modern contemporary society. Its worth remembering that a lot of our energy requirements placed on new housing can be reduced significantly by readressing some of our building designs.
I should clarify - the data above is in addition to current connected generation. It is all new power going through the scoping, consents and construction stages.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
We're not, as SDK said thats adding to the current power generation, more non renewable being added than renewable, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the renewable costing a heck of a lot.
Theres smeg all wrong with Nuclear, the problem is people aren't looking at the real comparisons.
Coal/oil/gas will eventually become so expensive power stations run on them wouldn't be worthwhile, will that happen in our lifetimes, with the way China is gobling up energy, and India and other eastern countries are growing its a distinct possibility.
What you should be comparing is not nuclear and renewable, or pipe dreams of fusion. But Nuclear, or life, without power on tap as we know it.
Given the choice I'd choose nuclear, renewable, nothing currently buildable is remotely, even close to feasable. Everything we can get as renewable simply takes too much time, space and money to build something with very low efficiency. Solar panels are fine but because the need for large surface area, production/size/shipping/parts we wouldn't ever, ever come close to keeping up with growth if we tried to switch with solar, let alone supplying all the power. Wind, just too big, too much space, noise, expense and when it doesn't blow, you're screwed. Wave, again the trouble is building the thousands upon thousands of units we'd need to dump into the ocean for the wave generation ones, or the loads of dam's we'd have to build of which very few would provide anywhere near worthwhile quantities of power.
Look at the epic amount of land Venezula flooded behind a damn, the only country to remotely come close to worthwhile levels of hydro electric, and why, just because the country didn't use much power, as power growth increases hydro electric is fast giving up its ability to power the country, they've made the biggest dam they can.
China has made a mammoth dam, scarily big, generates huge power, cost billions upon billions, flooded huge area's, displaced loads of people, and now provides 2-3% of their power and shrinking by the month.
We need something renewable, but as efficient/condensed in terms of size, space and building materials as current oil/gas/coal/nuke power plants, THAT is their key advantage. Speed, time, efficiency, one plant, power a whole town, or two, or three in a fairly small space, same power from wind or solar would cover a ridiculous amount of area, and take so long to build its a joke.
Woke up at 3:30 and haven't been able to sleep.
But got thinking about house design and renewables.
Was wondering why seemingly no one or at least not common. Haven't used mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a solar panel. computers are cheap as are basic electric motors. It would be fairly simple to build a motorised mirrors, although a bit harder software wise. To track the sun and concentrate the light onto an upside down solar panel. so you could have 8squared meters of mirrors to 1 square meters of solar panel, is there any reason this wouldn't work. Other than space restraints and most people don't have a flat roof. Seems silly buying lots of expensive units when they aren't producing anywhere near their maximum. When you could buy say one and use mirrors.
But got thinking about house design and renewables.
Was wondering why seemingly no one or at least not common. Haven't used mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a solar panel. computers are cheap as are basic electric motors. It would be fairly simple to build a motorised mirrors, although a bit harder software wise. To track the sun and concentrate the light onto an upside down solar panel. so you could have 8squared meters of mirrors to 1 square meters of solar panel, is there any reason this wouldn't work. Other than space restraints and most people don't have a flat roof. Seems silly buying lots of expensive units when they aren't producing anywhere near their maximum. When you could buy say one and use mirrors.
Last edited:
I don't agree with that, that's an outdated way of thinking. I think important changes will be to use less energy (efficient house design(insulation, thermal mass, triple glazed windows with coatings that sort of thing), energy efficient appliances and local generation, to supplement the grid. Which of course will be nuclear and renewables.
greensburg is a good example of the future the way I see it. Although all the council buildings are being built to green standards, there is no laws/planning permission to say that locals/business have to. yet everyone is on board. probably as it is giving the population skills and income. From building skills to green tourism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensburg,_Kansas
Last edited:
Associate
I thought it did, its showing a tendency away from coal, oil and gas in the future.
I agree that Nuclear is currently the way forward until a better solution such as fusion can take over but how long until a power producing fusion plant will be active? I think at the moment we are years off, although I think more money will be spent on research as power usage increase and we need more energy.
Soldato
I have seen one that used mirrors but it was in the desert and heated up water or something.
Nuclear is fins as far as I am concered. So are electric cars. Job done.
Associate
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/artificial-leaf/#more-55284
Just read this and it reminded me of this thread; there has been talk of nuclear, fusion and other green sources of power but not much about possible other sources of energy such as engineered leaves breaking down water to its constituent elements so the hydrogen can be used elsewhere with relatively low amounts of energy input needed in the first place.
Just read this and it reminded me of this thread; there has been talk of nuclear, fusion and other green sources of power but not much about possible other sources of energy such as engineered leaves breaking down water to its constituent elements so the hydrogen can be used elsewhere with relatively low amounts of energy input needed in the first place.
Soldato