Hinkley C

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

I fear that the politicians will take the easy way out of the coming catastrophe of energy 'shortages' by

invoking the fracking trump card and going for gas CCGT stations.

And guess what, all the turbines/boilers will be German or French.

Just such a shame it isn't all under their homes.

[Steven VineParticipant @stevenvine79904]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 10:01:59:

Posted by not done it yet on 04/09/2016 09:21:38:

Renewables are here to stay.

.

This may sound flippant, but I'm serious:

Could someone please explain to me what defines 'Renewables' ?

 

In my shallow thinking, I have been regarding the term 'renewables' as energy production that is not depleting the earth of natural resources. I have totally disregarded the word renew and what it appears to mean.

Wind = renewable Tide = renewable Solar= renewable Coal = not renewable Oil = not renewable.

Once its gone its gone.

Steve

(I could do with one of Johns armchairs, once he starts production)

Edited By Steven Vine on 04/09/2016 12:02:11

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by J Hancock on 04/09/2016 11:43:26:

I fear that the politicians will take the easy way out of the coming catastrophe of energy 'shortages' by

invoking the fracking trump card and going for gas CCGT stations.

.

**LINK**

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/states-effort-to-curb-fracking-related-earthquakes-appear-to-be-paying-off/2016/08/15/d0a71108-49ce-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Steven Vine on 04/09/2016 11:58:26:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 10:01:59:

Posted by not done it yet on 04/09/2016 09:21:38:

Renewables are here to stay.

.

This may sound flippant, but I'm serious:

Could someone please explain to me what defines 'Renewables' ?

In my shallow thinking, I have been regarding the term 'renewables' as energy production that is not depleting the earth of natural resources. I have totally disregarded the word renew and what it appears to mean.

Wind = renewable Tide = renewable Solar= renewable Coal = not renewable Oil = not renewable.

.

But, Steve … That was exactly my point of concern …

Is the Wind, or Tide, really incapable of being depleted; or do we simply not understand the maths. ?

MichaelG.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

They aren't even including the decommissioning costs for us here either…. if Hinkley does go ahead it will cost more than the Great Pyramid

============================

What is the most expensive object on Earth?

True or false? A new nuclear power station in the south-west of the UK will be the most expensive object on Earth. That's the claim about the proposed plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset – but has anything else ever cost so much to build?

"Hinkley is set to be the most expensive object on Earth… best guesses say Hinkley could pass £24bn ($35bn)," said the environmental charity Greenpeace last month as it launched a petition against the project.

This figure includes an estimate for paying interest on borrowed money, but the financing arrangements for Hinkley C are so opaque that it is impossible to calculate exactly what the final cost will be.

**LINK**

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

You know, one of the reasons the coal has been largely left alone is probably a strategic decision, as a reserve incase other energy was cut off in a hostile political environment. It's possible, and they like to think of what could happen and prepare for it. The only puzzling thing was why did they close the shafts, if they wanted to get at it again?

It's no secret that theres still plenty to use down there, so i'm thinking they'll use north sea gas as long as they can before reopening the mines one day. 

Michael W

Edited By Michael Walters on 04/09/2016 12:40:24

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 12:05:08:

But, Steve … That was exactly my point of concern …

Is the Wind, or Tide, really incapable of being depleted; or do we simply not understand the maths. ?

MichaelG.

That's a good question. We used to think the sea was big enough to dump all our waste into it and it would just be absorbed and disappear. Even in the 1960s we were taught at school that the sea would feed the world in the future because it's resources were pretty much limitless. Tell that to all the former fishermen in the North Sea, Newfoundland, Australia's east coast etc.

And of course the air was limitless too, so we could just pump coal ash up into it and it would disappear with no problem.

But now, wind and the energy it entrains is limitless and can power the world. But what WILL happen if all that energy is pulled out of the eco-system and used instead to power computer servers and and sandwich toasters?

And tidal, entailing damming off bays and letting them drain out slowly through turbines etc will be a catastrophe for coastal environments, for a very small return in killowatts per bay compared with nukes or coal powr stations.

 

Edited By Hopper on 04/09/2016 13:04:47

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

The whole concept of 'environmentally friendly energy' strikes me as the usual political woolyness and short-termism. Why anyone would allow a different politocal or economic rival to have anything to do with the construction of a plant where distasters can be devastating – makes no sense to me. Just as no-one considers the decommisioning of these items.. even solar panels have a short life and are doubtless full of toxic metals that'll costa heap to remove. It also makes no sense to me that we import timber as fuel with no apparent regard for the environmental costs of cutting and transport.

I have more wood fuel on my land than i'll ever use but the sheer hysical effort in processing and carting it to my own stove… the depreciation and fuel for saws and PPE and finally the dust and soot and chimney clenaing involved: it's far from a friendly process.

Wind, tide and hydro and perhaps reflected sunlight methods are the closest ideals.

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

The problem with wind and solar is the storage issue and having back up generation when there is no wind or sun light. Nuclear is very good for covering the base load as nuclear works best under constant load. I often wonder how green all the renewables actually are when you take the carbon foot print of manufacture/infrastructure into account.

UK power usage today and nuclear just sitting at the same load day to day and the only time it changes is if they are doing maintenance.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Michael Walters on 04/09/2016 12:38:43:

…

It's no secret that theres still plenty to use down there, so i'm thinking they'll use north sea gas as long as they can before reopening the mines one day.

Michael W

Edited By Michael Walters on 04/09/2016 12:40:24

Sadly not really true.

Britain's proved recoverable coal reserve (2006 figures) was 3164 million tonnes. Of that we extract about 17 million tonnes per year.

3164 million tonnes sounds a lot until you find that world consumption of coal in 2011 was 7783 million tonnes. It means that Britain's entire coal reserve is only sufficient to satisfy world demand for just under 6 months.

'Recoverable' means coal that's worth extracting. The reserve would become somewhat larger if the sale price of coal rose sharply or if a cheaper way of getting it out were discovered. Unfortunately, a good deal of British coal is deep underground in very thin seams. Much of it is gob-smackingly expensive to extract.

Britain was once rich in mineral resources. Lead, tin, copper, iron, coal, arsenic, tungsten, limestone, clay and salt were all abundant and – at first – cheaply extracted, provided you ignore the human cost. It fuelled the Industrial Revolution. Today most of Britain's accessible mineral wealth has gone, which is why we can't simply wind the industrial clock back.

Dave

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 12:05:08:

.

But, Steve … That was exactly my point of concern …

Is the Wind, or Tide, really incapable of being depleted; or do we simply not understand the maths. ?

MichaelG.

No such thing as perpetual motion.

Most of the energy that drives the tides comes from the moon, which slows down in its orbit and drifts outwards, and the Earth's rotation gradually slows to match. Some comes from the sun, and therefore slowly lengthens the year.

Wind energy largely comes from the sun's heating effect, as does hydroelectric (via evaporation) and biomass energy (via photosynthesis).

Ultimately all of these energy inputs degrade to heat anyway (except for any biomass that is buried and ends up as coal or oil in the far future), so diverting some to provide energy sources for our use is just that, a diversions, not a gross change in the energy balance.

The effects of wind turbine on the climate are unlikely to be any different from the effects of buildings or trees, similarly tidal generation's ecological effects may be major on a local level but are unlikely to change gross water movements enough to have a significant impact on the Moon or sun.

Neil

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 12:05:08:

Posted by Steven Vine on 04/09/2016 11:58:26:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 10:01:59:

Posted by not done it yet on 04/09/2016 09:21:38:

Renewables are here to stay.

.

This may sound flippant, but I'm serious:

Could someone please explain to me what defines 'Renewables' ?

 

In my shallow thinking, I have been regarding the term 'renewables' as energy production that is not depleting the earth of natural resources. I have totally disregarded the word renew and what it appears to mean.

Wind = renewable Tide = renewable Solar= renewable Coal = not renewable Oil = not renewable.

.

But, Steve … That was exactly my point of concern …

Is the Wind, or Tide, really incapable of being depleted; or do we simply not understand the maths. ?

MichaelG.

Wind is caused directly by energy from the sun, which delivers about 1.3kW per square metre at the earth's surface. Some is reflected back into space but a lot of it ends up evaporating sea-water and heating the atmosphere. As the world spins on a tilt, the energy appears as 'weather' and there's an awful lot of it. I don't think mankind could extract enough power from the system to disturb the weather much, and the sun shines every day.

So far as the tide goes the sums are beyond me, but again the forces involved are huge because the earth and moon are both large masses. As the tides have been moving the oceans of the world for millions of years, and the earth only slowing down slightly each year, it's unlikely that mankind could extract enough power to disturb the system.

The challenge is how to get at the energy in the first place.

It's worth solving the problem because burning as a way of obtaining power is bad. Apart from the destruction of irreplaceable minerals needed for making plastics and pharmaceuticals etc, relatively small rises of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere result in disproportionately large increases in global heat retention. As nature responds to warmth by generating even more Carbon Dioxide there's a serious risk of a run away. Extra heat causes changes in the way energy flows across the planet. The type of weather we get is likely to change permanently, where and how we get our food from will also change and there is a strong possibility of mass migrations as parts of the planet become incapable of sustaining their populations.

Scary stuff.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 04/09/2016 15:12:41

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 04/09/2016 15:12:27:

.

it's unlikely that mankind could extract enough power to disturb the system.

.

A lot of "unlikely" things have happened in recent decades.

… Ref: Hopper's recent post.

Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: For convenient reference, I should link this

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

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 04/09/2016 15:26:12

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

This sort of discussion always reminds me of a few things.

An interview with the founders of green peace apologising for campaigning against nuclear. They had worked out the amount of coal that had probably been burnt as a result. Also pointed out that large number of people live in areas that are very energy inefficient – if they didn't use it they wouldn't be able live there. Hence a real need to be realistic.

Mrs T being begged to ok another UK nuclear plant so that we could retain the ability to build one. Have to ask if that had been done would we still be abler to produce the parts that are needed.

North Sea gas and oil. Cheap loans for people to start up power stations and use it all up more quickly. Some hope there because it seems the licensing was pretty strict on who it could be sold to so not much profit or incentive to find all of it. Also I understand oil was sold some how or the other even though methods of extracting more and more were continuously under development.

Wind turbines do have a carbon foot print. Wonder how long they last before they need replacing. Are they capable of supplying all of our needs. Seems not but depends who you listen to. As Blare pointed out who was anti nuclear – if the lights are to be kept on when needed we will always need one as there isn't any viable alternative. The gov doesn't come up with statements like this just off the cuff. They have a need to be slightly more realistic than some pundits. Always short term though and of course votes are more important.

We are currently importing gas in pretty large quantities to prop up our needs. According to some one involved in the rather long and large pipework needed for that it will last about 30 years. Take away gas from the UK and an awful lot of houses are gong to need a 3 phase supply to get the energy in or a lot of houses will have to be knocked down and rebuilt. Bricks have a carbon foot print. No worry. Maybe Sweden via Ikea can sell us them flat pack until they run out of trees.

Maybe fusion will happen – seems to be a long time coming.

Tide – the rather large Severn estuary more correctly called the Bristol Channel seems to offer something but rather a lot of fish breed there so who knows what side effects that might have. It would probably have an effect on flooding which is already a problem. Mustn't forget the wild life too – more important than us according to some.

The uk population has grown from 55m to 65m since 1960. This hasn't grown on the basis of all kids eventually producing 2 off springs but it's well above a pair producing one. It will continue to grow.

I understand that Sweden has been more or less nuclear for some time and is now switching to ethanol, France largely so.

It's possible to look at all sorts of things with this google thingy. Energy costs are interesting as is usage.

WE&ifdim=region&tstart=-294282000000&tend=1409785200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false”>https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR:AUS:CAN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=greenhouse_gas_emissions_co2_equivalent&fdim_y=greenhouse_gas:1&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:DEU:FRAWE&ifdim=region&tstart=-294282000000&tend=1409785200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Personally as I suspect the uk has never done the correct thing it will probably continue to do so mostly down to short termism.

John

–

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Not done it yet.

While I agree wholeheartedly – more renewables and lots of storage required (pumped, battery, hydrogen and any others) – do remember that those 30 turbines will not be running at full power, most of the time they are turning.

The first two turbines I pass are a pair at a farm,rated at 55kW nominal, 77kw peak, giving a full power output of 154kW These are small compared with the rest, and according to the guy who runs them, they are peaking about 60% of the time. The problem is the gold plated deal that the nuclear industry has with the grid, they will buy EVERY watt the nuclear industry produces, and then trim renewables to match the peak load at the top end. This is why you see turbines idle on breezy days. If the grid offered this deal to wind and other renewables we would be using far more green energy, because there is far more available, but it is shut down so the nuclear industry gets the biggest bite of the cake. The problem is, offering this deal to wind would put the nuclear industry out of business, and they know it, that is why they are running scared of renewables. Remember, the nuclear industry can only provide about 24% of the peak load with all their power stations running flat out, something which hardly ever happens!! see http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/. At the moment nuclear is producing 34% of the very low sunday load, CCGT is picking up 47% with the rest being produced by wind. this tends to give people the idea that wind produces a very small amount of energy, whereas what you actually see at gridwatch is the amount of wind energy that is being used, not the amount that is available!

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

My solution.

Get digging, geothermal is down there waiting for you, everywhere.

Clean as a whistle !

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

It's interesting to compare the costs of electricity generation and wonder why it differs from country to country.

**LINK**

John

–

[Author]

Posts