Britain powers on without coal for three days

[Tumshie]

There is quite a lot of interesting stuff going on and a lot of progress is being made but the companies involved say that it will be about 15 or 20 years before these projects become more mainstream. But they will, in some form or another.

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, Robbo said:

The land taken by a Nuclear power plant is in order of magnitudes less than the equivalent Wind or Solar farm.   The radiation from Nuclear power plants is lower than coal.

Order of magnitudes? 100 times or more? I very much doubt that, unless you include all the area in between the wind turbines, which usually remains as farmland or forest. In any event, I was talking about the nuclear waste storage dump. 

[Robbo]

12 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Order of magnitudes? 100 times or more? I very much doubt that, unless you include all the area in between the wind turbines, which usually remains as farmland or forest. In any event, I was talking about the nuclear waste storage dump. 

One Nuclear plant is around 2000-3000 wind generators.   Nuclear Waste is usually stored onsite, very little waste actually lasts the 1000 of years and the majority of Nuclear Waste is very low in radiation.

In addition Wind (and solar) doesn’t store energy.  If we ever get a solution of mass storage and only use wind/solar then the land usage will probably be quite a lot as well.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[mark99]

Tidal barrage stores potential energy. Shame we have no sea near us.

[Robbo]

46 minutes ago, mark99 said:

Tidal barrage stores potential energy. Shame we have no sea near us.

Does it?  I thought they just worked with the tide?  How do they store it?

 

edit, just googled.   Yep we don’t have enough areas where that could be installed to generate anywhere near the amount of energy that would be required.   We already use/have Hydro storage, about 3GW capacity but only used for when needed.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[carlt]

5 hours ago, Robbo said:

The land taken by a Nuclear power plant is in order of magnitudes less than the equivalent Wind or Solar farm.   The radiation from Nuclear power plants is lower than coal.

You can't graze animals on a nuclear power plant.

I recall the protests to stop wind turbines being built where the Rugby radio masts were...

...The campaign was so successful that there will now be 6000 houses overlooking the canal rather than wind turbines and sheep.

[Robbo]

12 minutes ago, carlt said:

You can't graze animals on a nuclear power plant.

I recall the protests to stop wind turbines being built where the Rugby radio masts were...

...The campaign was so successful that there will now be 6000 houses overlooking the canal rather than wind turbines and sheep.

We need around 150-200 Nuclear plants to cover our current needs in energy if we remove fossil fuels.   That’s a lot of wind generators, we don’t have enough land or sea for that amount.   Wind may have a small contribution, but unless we have a mass storage breakthrough, the backup for wind and solar will be Gas.   If we do have a breakthrough in mass storage, the amount of land needed will more than likely be the amount used for Nuclear.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[carlt]

44 minutes ago, Robbo said:

....unless we have a mass storage breakthrough, the backup for wind and solar will be Gas....

Better Gas than Nuclear...

...better Coal than Nuclear.

It isn't the land needed that is my, and many others', concern about Nuclear.

[mark99]

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

Does it?  I thought they just worked with the tide?  How do they store it?

 

edit, just googled.   Yep we don’t have enough areas where that could be installed to generate anywhere near the amount of energy that would be required.   We already use/have Hydro storage, about 3GW capacity but only used for when needed.

Stores a renewable head of water = potential energy.

You choose when to release.

[Robbo]

17 minutes ago, carlt said:

Better Gas than Nuclear...

...better Coal than Nuclear.

It isn't the land needed that is my, and many others', concern about Nuclear.

Gas is one of the main sources of greenhouse gasses!

[Tumshie]

59 minutes ago, Robbo said:

If we do have a breakthrough in mass storage, the amount of land needed will more than likely be the amount used for Nuclear.

I can understand this to a certain extent every area of green land that is lost seems to be lost forever - but I think a lot of the storage plants will end up under ground, there is already a lot of industry underground in this country, Dinorwig and Cruachan for example. It's amazing what can be hid in a hollow mountain. 

[Robbo]

13 minutes ago, mark99 said:

Stores a renewable head of water = potential energy.

You choose when to release.

Yes and we have some of it already, but we don’t have enough tidal areas for the amount of storage we need.   Nuclear is the only real solution to cover our energy needs.  The others have a real problem in providing 24/7 coverage without the help of fossil fuels.

3 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I can understand this to a certain extent every area of green land that is lost seems to be lost forever - but I think a lot of the storage plants will end up under ground, there is already a lot of industry underground in this country, Dinorwig and Cruachan for example. It's amazing what can be hid in a hollow mountain. 

All we need now is a breakthrough in storage!  I doubt that will happen anytime in our lifetimes.

[Tumshie]

6 minutes ago, Robbo said:

All we need now is a breakthrough in storage!  I doubt that will happen anytime in our lifetimes.

I suppose that depends how old you are.    

The energy companies investing in these projects seem to think its doable. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Tumshie

[Robbo]

Just now, Tumshie said:

I suppose that depends how old you are.    

The energy companies inverting in these projects seem to think its doable. 

Only for around 30 minutes.  If wind and solar could provide our full energy needs we would need around 7 weeks worth of storage.

[Tumshie]

.........

Edited April 30, 2018 by Tumshie

[carlt]

27 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Gas is one of the main sources of greenhouse gasses!

A prime example of a blinkered view of environmental matters.

If greenhouse gases were our only concern then we could produce limitless amounts of nuclear waste and not give a jot about how we will deal with it.

Climate change is one concern but we really should be taking a holistic view rather than just cherry picking the latest fads and sound bites.

 

[Robbo]

13 minutes ago, carlt said:

A prime example of a blinkered view of environmental matters.

If greenhouse gases were our only concern then we could produce limitless amounts of nuclear waste and not give a jot about how we will deal with it.

Climate change is one concern but we really should be taking a holistic view rather than just cherry picking the latest fads and sound bites.

 

Your right it’s only one of our concerns, but Gas is a major greenhouse gas as the leaks release a lot of methane which is 4 times worse than CO2.   Nuclear waste is contained and not released. Majority of the waste only lasts decades and hundreds of years with a tiny amount lasting thousands.   Solar waste isn’t controlled and is very hard to recycle.  

If there way any other solution to provide our curren and future needs without Nuclear then please let us know as renewables can’t with out something else and that something else is either fossil fuels or doesn’t exist. 

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

Nuclear waste is contained and not released....

Of course...

That's okay then...

(Eyes raised heavenward smiley)

[Tumshie]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Nuclear waste is contained and not released. Majority of the waste only lasts decades and hundreds of years with a tiny amount lasting thousands.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/02/radioactive-waste-contaminating-uk-sites

I can think of some folk in Caithness who might disagree with that.  

[Robbo]

Just now, carlt said:

Of course...

That's okay then...

(Eyes raised heavenward smiley)

Well yes it is okay.  I rather store the waste than release it in to the atmosphere to breath or cause future drastic changes to the climate.   So what would you suggest we use if Nuclear wasn’t an option?  No other technology comes close to providing clean energy 24/7 for the amount we require or will require.

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/02/radioactive-waste-contaminating-uk-sites

I can think of some folk in Caithness who might disagree with that.  

One isn’t even from Nuclear power and I think we have better control over our waste now.  Don’t look at what we did on the past but how we handle now!

[carlt]

Just now, Robbo said:

Well yes it is okay. 

No it's not.

It is short sighted views like this that has put us in this situation now.

We could have been investing in renewables, CO2 scrubbers and other technology decades ago but the "Quick profit regardless" merchants have left us playing catch up as usual.

Nuclear isn't the only option if we get on with researching alternatives now instead of relying on a system that we know will leave future generations with similar problems that our predecessors have left for us.

Waste storage is just saving the crap for someone else to clean up. 

[Robbo]

14 minutes ago, carlt said:

No it's not.

It is short sighted views like this that has put us in this situation now.

We could have been investing in renewables, CO2 scrubbers and other technology decades ago but the "Quick profit regardless" merchants have left us playing catch up as usual.

Nuclear isn't the only option if we get on with researching alternatives now instead of relying on a system that we know will leave future generations with similar problems that our predecessors have left for us.

Waste storage is just saving the crap for someone else to clean up. 

I see you’ve not come up with a solution then.  If we and other countries went fully Nuclear like France then perhaps we wouldn’t have a green house problem to leave our future generations and be more advanced in developing Nuclear Fusion.

Cost will always be a factor, their is no point developing a solution that only rich countries will be able to implement.  Developing countries need something that will work.   It’s kinda of global issue.

Storing waste is better than releasing waste.   

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

I see you’ve not come up with a solution then.  If we and other countries went fully Nuclear like France then perhaps we wouldn’t have a green house problem to leave our future generations and be more advanced in developing Nuclear Fusion.

Yes I have...

Nuclear waste management is no more advanced than solar, wind, clean coal or hydro-electric energy production.

Just because Nuclear can produce the energy now does not mean it is safe or good for the environment.

The solution is to keep on with what we've got and invest the billions that are wasted on Nuclear into renewable and clean energy production and also energy use reduction.

Nuclear energy is not clean energy...it just hides its filth better,

[Robbo]

15 minutes ago, carlt said:

Yes I have...

Nuclear waste management is no more advanced than solar, wind, clean coal or hydro-electric energy production.

Just because Nuclear can produce the energy now does not mean it is safe or good for the environment.

The solution is to keep on with what we've got and invest the billions that are wasted on Nuclear into renewable and clean energy production and also energy use reduction.

Nuclear energy is not clean energy...it just hides its filth better,

Well you haven’t really said a solution so no you haven’t.   If I said invest I would put the investment money into Nuclear Fusion as that would give is the current Nuclear benefits but without the waste.

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Well you haven’t really said a solution so no you haven’t.  

No less a solution than suggesting that Nuclear is the answer.

We are producing adequate amounts of energy using unacceptable methods.

Substituting one unacceptable solution for another far more expensive one is no solution...We might as well stick with what we've got and invest in clean, low (inert) waste alternatives.

As for fusion...It is the energy solution for the future and always will be.

Usable fusion energy is at least decades away despite generous funding (such as the multi-billion pound ITER programme.

40 minutes ago, Robbo said:

 

Storing waste is better than releasing waste.   

No it isn't.

Especially when that waste is potentially so dangerous.