Coming Energy problems.....

[gasbanni]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...turning-off-the-lights-wont-be-up-to-you.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ish-households-face-blackout-warns-Ofgem.html


and so much for the wind farms.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...reate-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

And what you don't see on the news here is that oil prices aren't just going up because of the weak pound Cnn was reporting its because of china's ever increasing demand for oil.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...laying-politics-with-our-energy-8508028.html?

sounds like a right mess

 

[Harbourwoodwork]

Our country has some of the cleverist people in the world,students come from all over the world to get clever and take it back home,how come the people that run the country are not.

 

[gasbanni]

It seems that we're heading in to disaster when you read what wind farms actually produce compared to electrical consumption they're pointless and the closing of coal powered power stations seems to be ridiculous.

All to do with green house emissions and meeting eu targets

Its inevitable, we're importing compressed nat gas, importing coal...... the coal mines will have to be opened up again !

 

[gasbanni]

"Around lunchtime last Monday, for instance, National Grid was showing that all our 4,300 wind turbines put together were providing barely a thousandth of the power we were using, 0.1 per cent, or a paltry 31MW (as compared with the 2,200MW we can get from a single gas-fired plant).

The harsh fact is that successive governments in the past 10 years have staked our national future on two utterly suicidal gambles. First, they have fallen for the delusion that we can depend for nearly a third of our future power on those useless and unreliable windmills – which will require a dozen or more new gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing. "


Its obvious we need coal powered power station !!!!!

 

[Dave54]

What we need is a well balanced mix of all types of energy production. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear. And yes I know how unpopular nuclear is, but we might still want to make a cup of tea when the oil's run out, and someone's turned off the valve in the gas pipe from Russia because some politician had said the wrong thing.
The windmills are a waste of time. The always have been. A nice idea, but that's about it.
All this "green" stuff is lovely, but I wonder how lovely it will be when people are freezing when the power goes off for long periods of time during the coldest weather.

 

[joe-90]

I've been warning you all for years but you used to laugh at me. Not laughing now though are you?

 

[JBR]

In the late 1980s, whilst at university, I presented a paper to the rest of my class suggesting that nuclear power is the only practical way forward. I was shot down in flames, largely because in those days almost all students were 'green' and, moreover, didn't understand nuclear power and were therefore frightened of it. Many people still are, yet it is one of the safest forms of power generation.

Over 20 years on and even the government are beginning to see the wisdom of developing and extending the nuclear power industry. Unfortunately, probably because they have left it too late, we now seem to be reliant on foreign countries to produce what we once pioneered for the whole world.

It's a shame that we are still allowing ourselves to be dictated to by the EU, not only with regard to power generation, but with almost everything else as well.

Yes, I fully expect to see power cuts happening routinely in the not-too-distant future.

 

[joinerjohn]

Nuclear is clearly the way to go. Coal and gas are going to run out, so we need something which isn't going to rely on fossil fuels. Wind power, just can't fulfil our energy needs , so what's left ? Perhaps solar could go some way towards this? After all, the sun does shine everyday,,,,,, some where in the world.

 

[wobs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9889184/One-day-turning-off-the-lights-wont-be-up-to-you.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ish-households-face-blackout-warns-Ofgem.html

Many of us have been warning about the lights going off. Its something anyone with a smattering of knowledge on energy policy knows.

and so much for the wind farms.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...reate-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

Utter nonesense.
Two articles twisting facts to be critical on wind turbines.

Show me one person who believes wind turbines work all the time.

As for producing Co2... even the article states that its only for when situated on intact peat. Given we don't even harvest such peat (we only harvest damaged peat), this is hardly news. And given that the bulk of wind power is going to be off shore in the coming years for the UK, its hardly an issue.

And what you don't see on the news here is that oil prices aren't just going up because of the weak pound Cnn was reporting its because of china's ever increasing demand for oil.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...laying-politics-with-our-energy-8508028.html?

sounds like a right mess

Successive Governments have been dodging the issue. We know this.

Chris Hulme was one the later ones who was clueless, (who even had meeting with Greenpeace and FotE - says it all).

Those complaining about oil - we rely very little on oil for our electricity supply.

Gas is getting more expesnive, as we import more.

We need nuclear, and it shouldn't take ten years to build one.

The Government needs to give the anti-nukes a slap, and get on with building new plants. Companies have been shy on investing owing to a total lack of comittment for successive Governments.

 

[joe-90]

It's all well and good saying 'go nuclear' but there is a shortage of uranium too - and reactors are very expensive.

 

[ntb]

The sensible way to go is LFTR's - Liquid Flourite Thorium Reactors. They are far more thermally efficient, produce much less nuclear waste and are vastly safer for a number of reasons. E.g. they are not pressurised, if the reaction begins to overheat the power output goes down and they can be passively cooled. They can even consume high level nuclear waste from uranium reactors.

The technology was proven in the 60's but dumped because it's not much use for making nuclear bombs. Surprise huh?

There's far more Thorium than Uranium on the planet - in fact it is present in coal and released as a radioactive pollutant when coal is burned.

China and India are already working on it. If any of our idiot politicians wake up and start pushing this, vote for them. Without it we are fcked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

 

[Dave54]

No doubt about it Joe, reactors are horribly expensive. Both building and eventual de-commissioning. Something has to be done though. I can't see that relying on the French for our energy (from their nuclear stations mostly) is a good idea, and while the green energy sources might make a useful part time alternative to burning fossil fuel, we will still need to get the bulk of our energy from somewhere. Apart from anything else we need huge amounts of energy all the time (probably supplied by nuclear) with the ability to easily "turn up" the output as required at times of peak demand (oil, gas, or coal)

 

[wobs]

It's all well and good saying 'go nuclear' but there is a shortage of uranium too - and reactors are very expensive.

There is no shortage of uranium. We have had decades of a lack of prospecting for new reserves, as there had been no real increase in demand. Basically, why would mining companies look for more uranium when ther wasn't any need to.

Now there looks to be an increase demand, there are people looking for it again. The time it takes to build reactors gives us plenty of time to find and develop new sources. There is no reason we won't find more. History tells us that will almost certainly find more.

There is also the fact that the majority of countries do not re-process the fuel (the UK does of course), meaning that the world is sitting on a huge potential resource. Finland is building its repositery for final disposal without reprocessing (go figure).

More countries need to reprocess their fuel (or we can do it for them), as it makes more use of an important resource, and makes the waste at the end far less dangerous. The radioactivity in reprocessed fuel with drop back below the level of the ore within about 500years. Something easily engineered to be safe. It will also reduce the amount of waste we need to dispose of.

There are secondary sources as well, such as certain types of coal ash. But not much.

And if push comes to shove, we can either a. push for fastbreeder techology, or b. develop uranium from sea water, which would last for millions of years.

Also, rare earth metals that are needed for wind and solar technology, is often found with uranium. I love that irony.

Cost: While they are expensive to build, they are cheap to run, meaning they are a good investment if a company can be confident that the Government isn't going to change its mind mid way through building. Hence its can be little suprise that few companies have taken the plunge in the UK when we have a Government that is, shall we say... flaky.

 

[ellal]

As ever the obvious is ignored...

Use less energy!

Still, that will be forced on us via smart meters anyway...

 

[wobs]

As ever the obvious is ignored...

Use less energy!

Still, that will be forced on us via smart meters anyway...

See my post in the previous thread on energy, regarding Jevons Paradox.
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=355629&start=30