Britain powers on without coal for three days

[carlt]

4 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 

How are we going to recycle all these old solar panels that are no longer viable?

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, carlt said:

Virtual Greenie Carl, I get so fed up with people that just dont want something better because in their mind it cant be done

[carlt]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Virtual Greenie Carl, I get so fed up with people that just dont want something better because in their mind it cant be done

 

We have to get beyond the "Wind generators rotting in fields" mentality and realise that one man's decommissioned wind generator is another man's recycling and scrap opportunity.

 

Wind generators are a huge pile of recyclable materials...unlike decommissioned nuclear power plants.

 

Somebody has already mentioned the nightmare that is the decommissioning of Sellafield so multiply that by 100 or more (if we take Robbo's figure as accurate) and what sort of crap could we be leaving our grandkids to clear up?

Edited May 1, 2018 by carlt

[peterboat]

I am at the minute getting all the stuff together to convert my big boat to electric drive, I have experimented on the bathtub and it works so now its down to my 57 x 12 widebeam with wheelhouse. At the moment its powered by a 50hp barrus shire that will go and be replaced by 2 x 60 volt saietta motors I have 10 Lifepo4 12v x 138ah batteries for the drive and 2 for leisure, I have 9 x 310 watt solar panels for drive and 3 x 100 solar panels for leisure.  The leisure side is also backed up by a 24 volt 35 amp whispergen which will do hot water and central heating along with charging the batteries. I am at the moment buying biodiesel which is slightly more expensive than red but for me its a greener way of doing things. I am only bothered about cruising for a couple of hours a day in summer so the boat should work fine for me, and because its electric i will get 10% discount on the license. Yes some bits have been expensive [batteries] solar panels secondhand £845 motors £1800 but when its done it for me will be worth it. I will be selling the old low hours Barrus shire at the end so will recoup some monies, but if you want to be greener you have to try and put your money where your mouth is

16 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

We have to get beyond the "Wind generators rotting in fields" mentality and realise that one man's decommissioned wind generator is another man's recycling and scrap opportunity.

 

Wind generators are a huge pile of recyclable materials...unlike decommissioned nuclear power plants.

 

Somebody has already mentioned the nightmare that is the decommissioning of Sellafield so multiply that by 100 or more (if we take Robbo's figure as accurate) and what sort of crap could we be leaving our grandkids to clear up?

The smaller wind turbines sometimes end up powering other stuff when they are sold on

[Robbo]

13 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I am at the minute getting all the stuff together to convert my big boat to electric drive, I have experimented on the bathtub and it works so now its down to my 57 x 12 widebeam with wheelhouse. At the moment its powered by a 50hp barrus shire that will go and be replaced by 2 x 60 volt saietta motors I have 10 Lifepo4 12v x 138ah batteries for the drive and 2 for leisure, I have 9 x 310 watt solar panels for drive and 3 x 100 solar panels for leisure.  The leisure side is also backed up by a 24 volt 35 amp whispergen which will do hot water and central heating along with charging the batteries. I am at the moment buying biodiesel which is slightly more expensive than red but for me its a greener way of doing things. I am only bothered about cruising for a couple of hours a day in summer so the boat should work fine for me, and because its electric i will get 10% discount on the license. Yes some bits have been expensive [batteries] solar panels secondhand £845 motors £1800 but when its done it for me will be worth it.

Do you have a page on your electric drivetrain?  Would be interesting to see (more for a technical PoV for me).

[peterboat]

And further to what Carl and myself think France will be getting rid off nuclear in favour of wind turbines and storage seems to be the way forward http://www.powermag.com/renewable-energy-storage-takes-off-in-europe/?pagenum=1

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, carlt said:

 

We have to get beyond the "Wind generators rotting in fields" mentality and realise that one man's decommissioned wind generator is another man's recycling and scrap opportunity.

 

Wind generators are a huge pile of recyclable materials...unlike decommissioned nuclear power plants.

How do you recycle the blades and other parts of the structure? It is not commercially viable to do so. The gate fee would be too high for the owner. Recycling only works when there is i)  a way to do it AND ii) it is commercially econonmic to do it. People have been trying to recycle composites for years without success. Decommissioning is not going to happen. They will just be left.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Dr Bob

[carlt]

9 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

How do you recycle the blades and other parts of the structure? It is not commercially viable to do so. The gate fee would be too high for the owner. Recycling only works when there is i)  a way to do it and ii) it is commercially econonmic to do it. People have been trying to recycle composites for years without success. Decommissioning is not going to happen. They will just be left.

 

It is a problem that is recognised and being addressed.

 

It is certainly a less complex problem than triggering a sustainable fusion reaction or decommissioning nuclear power stations without leaving a massive waste problem for future generations.

Quote

 

Turbine Blades Present a Problem

 

Turbine blades are lighter, longer and more aerodynamic than the blades of yesteryear for better performance, but they are not well designed for durability and recyclability. Some of the blades of the largest new wind turbines are 288 feet long, creating a large-scale waste reduction issue. Unfortunately, blades are made of a reinforced composite glass or carbon material and create a recycling dilemma. Unlike other wind turbine components, they do not have good scrap value, making them less appealing to recyclers.

 

Currently, many wind turbine blades end up in landfills, yet some reinforced plastic wind turbine blades have been downcycled into cement products. Other more creative projects have repurposed wind turbine blades to make playground equipment and outdoor seating. There is also research underway to more effectively recycle turbines into higher-value goods.

 

Planning Ahead

 

Most wind farms are planned at least five years in the future, and even longer for offshore wind projects. This means that the wind energy projects that are being planned today will be decommissioned and recycled in 25 to 40 years. Because of the long time horizon, this presents some difficulties that many wind turbine blade manufacturers are starting to address.

Unfortunately, decommissioning and recycling wind turbines has been identified as a blind spot in the wind energy industry when considering the total environmental impact of wind energy. Many studies have focused primarily on the manufacture and operation of wind farms and not the decommissioning phase. Many older wind turbines have been recommissioned and sold in Eastern Europe and North Africa, prolonging the useful life of the equipment. Although some thought has been given to restoring the wind farm site, in many cases this isn’t necessary for a long time. As wind turbines need to be replaced, some sites are retooling with newer technology instead of decommissioning projects completely.

 

 

If only those preaching the "Nuclear is good" gospel didn't just bury their head in the sand declaring that nuclear waste isn't a problem.

 

Safely encapsulating radioactive waste then burying it in guaranteed geologically stable land fill is a bit trickier and a lot more costly than safely decommissioning a lump of largely inert composite material.

 

Some of a wind turbine might have to be land filled but at least we won't be having to keep our fingers crossed that it won't one day leak radiation. 

[Dr Bob]

1 minute ago, carlt said:

It is a problem that is recognised and being addressed.

 

If only those preaching the "Nuclear is good" gospel didn't just bury their head in the sand declaring that nuclear waste isn't a problem.

Carl, I think you should have got from my initial post that I am not preaching nuclear is good. My view it is the best of a bad lot. I think it is our best bet based on 30 years experience working for an energy company. I may be wrong.....but I am certainly not putting my head in the sand. This is not a black and white issue.

On your issue of recycling, a big problem now is the people claim to be able to recycle so that it allows them to make the products they sell but in reality it doesnt work commercially. Composite recycling is a huge issue. They only way at the moment (and I cant see much other option in  the future) is to grind it up and use it as a filler. Therefore a £1-2,000/te product is being turned into something with a value of £150/te. That certainly is not a cyclic economy and the uses for the "filler' are and will be restricted. For the recycler to get £1-200/te for the recycled product, he will need to charge a 'gate fee' to the disposer of likely over £100/te. That just isnt going to happen. Economics will rule.

I am linked to a company introducing a new way to recycle mixed rigid waste polyolefin (ex consumers not just industrial waste). The recycled PE and PP we produce can sell for £500/te so it is commercially viable to run the whole recycle chain, from collection through to sale of the recycled product with everyone making money.....so it happens. This isnt going to be the case for composites ....and I doubt solar panels either (despite the graphic your produced). I havent got the detail of the price for recycled semiconductor material so I dont know...but dont believe everything you read about recycling. I know the industry well.?

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I am at the minute getting all the stuff together to convert my big boat to electric drive, I have experimented on the bathtub and it works so now its down to my 57 x 12 widebeam with wheelhouse. At the moment its powered by a 50hp barrus shire that will go and be replaced by 2 x 60 volt saietta motors I have 10 Lifepo4 12v x 138ah batteries for the drive and 2 for leisure, I have 9 x 310 watt solar panels for drive and 3 x 100 solar panels for leisure.  The leisure side is also backed up by a 24 volt 35 amp whispergen which will do hot water and central heating along with charging the batteries. I am at the moment buying biodiesel which is slightly more expensive than red but for me its a greener way of doing things. I am only bothered about cruising for a couple of hours a day in summer so the boat should work fine for me, and because its electric i will get 10% discount on the license. Yes some bits have been expensive [batteries] solar panels secondhand £845 motors £1800 but when its done it for me will be worth it. I will be selling the old low hours Barrus shire at the end so will recoup some monies, but if you want to be greener you have to try and put your money where your mouth is

The smaller wind turbines sometimes end up powering other stuff when they are sold on

Have a greenie. I admire your drive (pun!) to get a green boat and becoming the leading edge. I am also watching with interest.

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

. ...but dont believe everything you read about recycling. I know the industry well.?

 

I certainly don't believe everything I read about anything and having worked in the composites industry I am aware of the recycling problems and, as mentioned earlier, I have "inside" knowledge of the problems facing the nuclear industry also so I don't believe any of the "Nuclear waste is safe" propaganda either.

 

Recycling and safe disposal of materials is expensive but that should be costed into the price of the equipment (like the WEEE directive) and safe disposal should be a legal requirement.

 

We will need to pay for the clean decommissioning of Wind and Solar equipment but, as someone who understands the science enough to see past the propaganda on both sides that is a much smaller price to pay than nuclear waste disposal (which will definitely end up in land fill of one sort or another.

[KevMc]

Perhaps we should be reducing our demand ..... how much energy is wasted all around the planet by transporting millions of people from homes that they keep heated all year round so they are nice and warm when they back home from offices that are air conditioned 24/7.

 

Save the cost and environmental impact of building and heating office blocks

Save the cost and environmental impact of commuting

Revitalise local economies

Prioritise transport links for movement of goods (rather than people) - reducing the cost and impact of doing so

 

[Dr Bob]

6 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

I certainly don't believe everything I read about anything and having worked in the composites industry I am aware of the recycling problems and, as mentioned earlier, I have "inside" knowledge of the problems facing the nuclear industry also so I don't believe any of the "Nuclear waste is safe" propaganda either.

 

Recycling and safe disposal of materials is expensive but that should be costed into the price of the equipment (like the WEEE directive) and safe disposal should be a legal requirement.

 

We will need to pay for the clean decommissioning of Wind and Solar equipment but, as someone who understands the science enough to see past the propaganda on both sides that is a much smaller price to pay than nuclear waste disposal (which will definitely end up in land fill of one sort or another.

I cant disagree with anything you say. I just think that nuclear is the best bet today and as I said before, the best of a bad lot but I am not passionate enough about it to get worked up over it. I wouldnt trust any politicians to get it right wotever happens in the future.?

[Detling]

On 29/04/2018 at 08:41, cuthound said:

Indeed wind and solar are just not reliable enough to rely on 100% of the time.

 

The only renewable you can rely on 100% is wave power which is an order of magnitude more costly than wind or solar.

Denmark generates a lot of its power from wave generators, but in this country they are considered too expensive at the moment.

While there is nearly always a small swell at sea the destructive power of a 30 foot high greybeard is colossal and not much survives. Big ships divert rather than meet them, so to survive the impact the wave generator has to be made of strong stuff, and probably is to heavy to operate on a small wave.

 

Now you could rely on tidal power, you can predict the time and height of high water years in advance. The big problem is as always the greenlobby as damming estuarys changes them from salt to brine and different creatured. There is also the not inconsiderable cost to fund with a payback in decades like any hydro scheme, the UK will only fund projects with a payback of a few years preferably months.

[carlt]

3 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 I wouldnt trust any politicians to get it right wotever happens in the future.?

 

The engineer's mistrust of politicians means that there are not enough engineers in Parliament thereby perpetuating the engineer's mistrust in politicians and allowing them to screw it up just as predicted.

 

I suspect that there are several engineers on this thread who disagree with each other so maybe we would be just as useless after all.

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

While there is nearly always a small swell at sea the destructive power of a 30 foot high greybeard is colossal and not much survives. Big ships divert rather than meet them, so to survive the impact the wave generator has to be made of strong stuff, and probably is to heavy to operate on a small wave.

 

Now you could rely on tidal power, you can predict the time and height of high water years in advance. The big problem is as always the greenlobby as damming estuarys changes them from salt to brine and different creatured. There is also the not inconsiderable cost to fund with a payback in decades like any hydro scheme, the UK will only fund projects with a payback of a few years preferably months.

 

Along with several other countries, including the UK, Denmark is trialling wave power and has several working prototypes already generating electricity from wave power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wave_power_projects

 

Wavestar Energy are in the process of trialling a 1 MW wave generator.

http://wavestarenergy.com

 

Unlike other wave generators, differential pressure wave generators are submerged, so that the destructive power of surface waves is minimised.

http://www.wavepiston.dk

 

I believe these are the future of renewable energy as the can generate significant amounts of electricity 24/7, unlike present renewable energy sources, which can only work alongside fossil fuel base load generators.

 

I agree that at present the cost of wave generation is too high to be competitive, but that will fall once companies begin to produce wave generators commercially.

 

 

 

 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Have a greenie. I admire your drive (pun!) to get a green boat and becoming the leading edge. I am also watching with interest.

Others have done it before me but I am going for the integrated package to make it viable and a pleasant place to live as well.

Bob you should have read the link I posted France are going to be moving away from nuclear as well they are going the offshore giant turbine route

[mark99]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

 

 

 

 unlike present renewable energy sources, which can only work alongside fossil fuel base load generators. 

 

Yes correct.

 

I'm energising one tomorrow. 16 MWe.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by mark99

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, KevMc said:

Perhaps we should be reducing our demand ..... how much energy is wasted all around the planet by transporting millions of people from homes that they keep heated all year round so they are nice and warm when they back home from offices that are air conditioned 24/7.

 

Save the cost and environmental impact of building and heating office blocks

Save the cost and environmental impact of commuting

Revitalise local economies

Prioritise transport links for movement of goods (rather than people) - reducing the cost and impact of doing so

 

 

I read an article about 5 years ago about the greenest cars based on "womb to tomb" costing.

 

By the time you had costed in mining & transporting materials for the car,  building and energy costs for the factories, design offices and showrooms etc, it turned out the greenest vehicles were those with the longest lifespans. 

 

For example the original Mini, Land Rover Defender and Jeep Wrangler.

[Machpoint005]

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

it turned out the greenest vehicles were those with the longest lifespans. 

The Memsahib took delivery of a brand new Skoda Octavia (turbodiesel) in 2004. It is still going strong at 14, now in my daughter's care.

[peterboat]

Oh Ian my Moggy minor pickup truck is 49 on LPG and still going strong but soon to leave my care for another ? however I still have plenty of clean toys to keep me amused

[Machpoint005]

12 hours ago, peterboat said:

Oh Ian my Moggy minor pickup truck is 49 on LPG and still going strong but soon to leave my care for another ? however I still have plenty of clean toys to keep me amused

With respect, Peter, I wouldn't want to undertake a 500-mile round trip in your Moggy, however charming it may be. The same journey in the Octy would be no problem - and the car would return at least 55 mpg.

(The Memsahib regularly got over 60mpg)

[canals are us?]

18 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I read an article about 5 years ago about the greenest cars based on "womb to tomb" costing.

 

By the time you had costed in mining & transporting materials for the car,  building and energy costs for the factories, design offices and showrooms etc, it turned out the greenest vehicles were those with the longest lifespans. 

 

For example the original Mini, Land Rover Defender and Jeep Wrangler.

I bet when the government say we should scrap our old cars and buy new, I bet these calculations aren't included in the CO2 outputs, only when driving?

 

I have a 1989 Volvo 240 GLT petrol automatic, was my daily and only car for 8 years, now on 233,000 and a 1996 Volvo 940 Turbo auto petrol on 194,000. This is my work vehicle. I have probably ruined it now with buying a 2006 Lexus IS 220d! Its high mileage at 175K, but lovely and comfortable and cheap at £1500.

 

We should be encouraged to keep old cars on the road and not buying new.

 

James

Edited May 2, 2018 by canals are us?

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

With respect, Peter, I wouldn't want to undertake a 500-mile round trip in your Moggy, however charming it may be. The same journey in the Octy would be no problem - and the car would return at least 55 mpg.

(The Memsahib regularly got over 60mpg)

Ian I have!! it has a 1275 GT engine, ford type 9 gearbox, high ratio back axel, fiesta seats and brakes and suspension to suit, as well as being on LPG! It is cheaper to run than your Octy and cruises at 70MPH Without those mods you are right I wouldnt like to do 30 miles it it!!

[WotEver]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Ian I have!! it has a 1275 GT engine, ford type 9 gearbox, high ratio back axel, fiesta seats and brakes and suspension to suit, as well as being on LPG! It is cheaper to run than your Octy and cruises at 70MPH

In that case it isn’t a Moggy Minor. It’s a kit car. 

 

It might have the jelly mould body and chassis but everything that makes it a Moggy has been replaced.