Here's a pic for the pro-nuclear to enjoy.
- Thread starter blacktimberwolf
- Start date
A square kilometre is a million square metres, not a thousand. So by my maths that less than a tenth of a km2, not 87km2
Re the water-lift for regeneration of electricity, its worth remembering that the electricity supply matrix is rather complicated. The electricity grid has to provide on-demand electricity at all times, within very tight voltage limits, regardess of the variability of demand. So there is a hierarchy of power generation methodologies to handle the big variabilities in demand. After all, you can't just fire up a nuclear generator if her indoors wants a cuppa!
So you have base-load generator stations - like nuclear, that operate 24/7, 365 days a year. Then as demand increases, you progressively bring on-line more and more power stations (based on price - the generator offers x amount of kwh based on $y per kw/h on a half-hourly basis.) Coal tends to be base-load, as it takes a while to get everything moving). Gas is pretty much an instantaneous source of electricity, but there are now so many gas stations that they have also taken over base-load duties as gas costs were relatively cheap when the stations were built. The hydro schemes that pump water up-hill then release it through turbines again, utilise base-load electricity that would otherwise go to waste (you can't "store electricity in national grid quantities - its normally use it or lose it), then release it again in times of peak demand. They are effectively a giant battery!
Base-load electricity is cheapest, and the industry pays more for add-in generation, because they aren't being used all the time. As well as higher unit payments, the generating companies also get a fee for just being there, even if electricity supply isn't required of them. This caused some major problems in some countries, where a scam operated as follows. Company A buys an old generation plant, asset strips it, yet still offers electricity for sale at a very high price/kw. Because the price is so high, it is never called upon to feed into the grid, but still gets a "stand-by" payment. Of course it all goes horribly wrong, when for some reason demand becomes extraordinarily high and their non-existent electricity is called in.
So you have base-load generator stations - like nuclear, that operate 24/7, 365 days a year. Then as demand increases, you progressively bring on-line more and more power stations (based on price - the generator offers x amount of kwh based on $y per kw/h on a half-hourly basis.) Coal tends to be base-load, as it takes a while to get everything moving). Gas is pretty much an instantaneous source of electricity, but there are now so many gas stations that they have also taken over base-load duties as gas costs were relatively cheap when the stations were built. The hydro schemes that pump water up-hill then release it through turbines again, utilise base-load electricity that would otherwise go to waste (you can't "store electricity in national grid quantities - its normally use it or lose it), then release it again in times of peak demand. They are effectively a giant battery!
Base-load electricity is cheapest, and the industry pays more for add-in generation, because they aren't being used all the time. As well as higher unit payments, the generating companies also get a fee for just being there, even if electricity supply isn't required of them. This caused some major problems in some countries, where a scam operated as follows. Company A buys an old generation plant, asset strips it, yet still offers electricity for sale at a very high price/kw. Because the price is so high, it is never called upon to feed into the grid, but still gets a "stand-by" payment. Of course it all goes horribly wrong, when for some reason demand becomes extraordinarily high and their non-existent electricity is called in.
a tenth of a km2 is about 24 acres
you reckon you can get 1,250 wind turbines in there
Done a bit of searching and found this.
http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
Best case scenario seems to be 8 wind turbines per mile (although it doesn't say if this is square mile).
1250/8 = 156 miles of wind turbines needed to give (on average as it differs tremendously depending on the weather) the same amount of MWe as Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station.
Theres a heck of a lot more than 8 per square mile (or linear mile) on some of the wind farms round here
a tenth of a km2 is about 24 acres
you reckon you can get 1,250 wind turbines in there
No idea, just correcting the errors in the maths in the original post
cbr6fs........I don't live in Brazil or China, I live in the UK.
As clearly said, our hydro schemes are stable and effective and we don't have vast forested lowlands to flood.
I really think it's horses for courses tbh. Flexibility to situation, and also as already said, adaptable technologies, and constantly more effective technologies for both production and end use.
Wind turbine technology is a case in point; it's improving all the time, whether it's yet really cost effective can be written off agin practical research application.
As for the tidal stuff, the technology there seems to be getting smaller and smaller, the lines of turbines only need to be where the current actually fluxes, they don't generally impede (though erosion barriers could end up double dutying) the tide so should have no problems with wading birds, migrating fish, and so on, and we have a huge coastline.
cheers,
Toddy
As clearly said, our hydro schemes are stable and effective and we don't have vast forested lowlands to flood.
I really think it's horses for courses tbh. Flexibility to situation, and also as already said, adaptable technologies, and constantly more effective technologies for both production and end use.
Wind turbine technology is a case in point; it's improving all the time, whether it's yet really cost effective can be written off agin practical research application.
As for the tidal stuff, the technology there seems to be getting smaller and smaller, the lines of turbines only need to be where the current actually fluxes, they don't generally impede (though erosion barriers could end up double dutying) the tide so should have no problems with wading birds, migrating fish, and so on, and we have a huge coastline.
cheers,
Toddy
Trouble is, you can't just stick one windmill behind another behind another, and expect them all to turn at optimum speed - even in the wind is blowing. Its like racing yachts - the windward yacht blocks the wind from the leeward one. So calculating the total area and then dividing it by the turbine diameter ain't gonna work!
I have no idea about that Andy - I just know that when someone posts that there are 1,000 square metres in a square kilometre, its in error. I also know there can be more than 8 wind turbines per mile or square mile ....because I've seen them
Nothing more to add than that - personally I don't see it as an either / or situation.
Nothing more to add than that - personally I don't see it as an either / or situation.
You are very quick to pick fault but very reticent to put forward any actual work.
Your more than welcome to contribute.
Again a very short sighted and naive opinion (in that there has been no failures in the UK).
The floods of 2007 cost 27 lives with an estimated 48,000 propertied badly damaged.
There is also earthquakes to consider, UK has had 5 earthquakes over the magnitude of 4 in the last 12 years.
the last being a 5.2 in 2008.
What makes this threat worse is that non of our structures are built to any earthquake code, so it really wouldn't take much of a shaker to upset the apple cart.
Plus there is of course the worry of terrorism in this day and age.
It really wouldn't take too much of an explosion in exactly the right locations to cause a dam to fail.
It's also fair to say that there has been no catastrophic failure at a nuclear power station in the UK either, so in your way of thinking (only as far as your doorstep) nuclear is as safe a hydro-electric power.
I also think that it's very short sighted to sit back and smile, thinking there will be some miracle invention in the future.
The problem is we do not live in the future, we live in the here and now and can only make use of technology that we have available to us right now.
The facts remain that as we stand here and now, a well managed and well maintained nuclear power station offers good clean energy in a relatively small footprint.
It is not without it's risks and negatives, but as i pointed out in my previous posts, there is no other form of power production that is not without it's risks or negatives either.
What have you all been getting up to while I've been shopping for rucksacks?!
Mary is right that Scotland has high expectations for renewable energy, but she might not have mentioned that 40% of Europe's wind energy is visited on Scotland, and that the tides around the Scottish coasts are amongst the strongest anywhere in the world. Of course I'm sure she didn't mean to hide anything from us but it's important to know that what can be done in Scotland because of the fortunate geographical position in which it finds itself cannot necessarily be done elsewhere. Natural resources have to be harvested, and it's a lot cheaper to harvest them if they're abundant.
As AndyBB says, electricity generation and utilization in the quantities which we are accustomed is a complex business, made more complex by the fact that it's so difficult to store. If anyone wants to see the contributions of the various energy sources to the UK's electricity consumption there's an online report here
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#generation_by_fuel_type_table
Hydroelectric generation and pumped storage are separately reported in the table. That page contains a wealth of information and a little study of it will give you an idea of how complex and difficult a job the electricity industry has to meet the capricious demands of we, the people. Especially when there's something good on the telly, and the adverts start, and everybody goes into the kitchen to switch on the light, the kettle and the toaster.
To a first approximation, in the UK our electricity comes from coal, nuclear power and gas in that order. Coal is by far the biggest single contributor, nuclear and gas about equal second. The rest (renewables and direct electricity imports via the 'interconnectors') manage barely more than ten percent between them although on a good day you can see seven or eight percent wind power. The trouble is we don't get very many good days, and a lot of the time there's hardly any wind at all. As I write, the 24 hour average wind contribution was 2.9%.
Santaman, we use pumped storage because, currently, the most efficient method available we have to store very large quantities of electricity is to use it to pump water up a hill when we want to store it, and then to let the water run back down the hill again when we want it back. A sad but valid criticism of the, er, current state of our electrical engineering prowess.
Mary is right that Scotland has high expectations for renewable energy, but she might not have mentioned that 40% of Europe's wind energy is visited on Scotland, and that the tides around the Scottish coasts are amongst the strongest anywhere in the world. Of course I'm sure she didn't mean to hide anything from us but it's important to know that what can be done in Scotland because of the fortunate geographical position in which it finds itself cannot necessarily be done elsewhere. Natural resources have to be harvested, and it's a lot cheaper to harvest them if they're abundant.
As AndyBB says, electricity generation and utilization in the quantities which we are accustomed is a complex business, made more complex by the fact that it's so difficult to store. If anyone wants to see the contributions of the various energy sources to the UK's electricity consumption there's an online report here
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#generation_by_fuel_type_table
Hydroelectric generation and pumped storage are separately reported in the table. That page contains a wealth of information and a little study of it will give you an idea of how complex and difficult a job the electricity industry has to meet the capricious demands of we, the people. Especially when there's something good on the telly, and the adverts start, and everybody goes into the kitchen to switch on the light, the kettle and the toaster.
To a first approximation, in the UK our electricity comes from coal, nuclear power and gas in that order. Coal is by far the biggest single contributor, nuclear and gas about equal second. The rest (renewables and direct electricity imports via the 'interconnectors') manage barely more than ten percent between them although on a good day you can see seven or eight percent wind power. The trouble is we don't get very many good days, and a lot of the time there's hardly any wind at all. As I write, the 24 hour average wind contribution was 2.9%.
Santaman, we use pumped storage because, currently, the most efficient method available we have to store very large quantities of electricity is to use it to pump water up a hill when we want to store it, and then to let the water run back down the hill again when we want it back. A sad but valid criticism of the, er, current state of our electrical engineering prowess.
I have a question for everyone who is against Nuclear Power.
Are you willing to live in a Nuclear Power free area/country but only have 4hrs electricity per day?
Yes there are alternatives to Nuclear Power such as wind farms and solar power which I agree we have far to few of in the UK.
But the sad fact is without Nuclear Power we as a country do not produce enough power to support ourselves.
(I don't know why Wind Turbines cant have Solar Panels attached to them, to produce more power, after all when the sun shines the brightest there is usually very little wind, and when the wind is really blowing there is usually not too much sunshine, so IMO the compliment each other very well.)
I have often wondered why our government doesn't implement a scheme to give each household Solar Panels and Wind Turbines, that we we as a nation will have not only enough green renewable free power to supply our homes but enough to export to other nations.
Industry and Business would supply there own Solar Panels and Wind Turbines to produce there own green renewable free power or buy power from the government owned Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.
This may seem far fetched at first glance, but when you think about it, there are people who produce so much Solar and wind Power they sell some back to the energy companies.
Are you willing to live in a Nuclear Power free area/country but only have 4hrs electricity per day?
Yes there are alternatives to Nuclear Power such as wind farms and solar power which I agree we have far to few of in the UK.
But the sad fact is without Nuclear Power we as a country do not produce enough power to support ourselves.
(I don't know why Wind Turbines cant have Solar Panels attached to them, to produce more power, after all when the sun shines the brightest there is usually very little wind, and when the wind is really blowing there is usually not too much sunshine, so IMO the compliment each other very well.)
I have often wondered why our government doesn't implement a scheme to give each household Solar Panels and Wind Turbines, that we we as a nation will have not only enough green renewable free power to supply our homes but enough to export to other nations.
Industry and Business would supply there own Solar Panels and Wind Turbines to produce there own green renewable free power or buy power from the government owned Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.
This may seem far fetched at first glance, but when you think about it, there are people who produce so much Solar and wind Power they sell some back to the energy companies.
BR wasn't really criticising what you had said. He was simply pointing out an arithmetic error. I don't think that any slight was implied or intended in his post.
I don't have a problem with, properly and accountably inspected, nuclear power.
Again, it's an evolving technology though. Last week our newspapers were reporting that the last of the polluted coolant waters had been removed, ahead of schedule, from the reactor in Caithness at Doureay.
http://www.dounreay.com/particle-cleanup
As technology improves older less efficient, less safe and secure, sites are decommissioned and hopefully properly cleaned up without simply transfering the problems elsewhere.
There's a rash of small wind turbines appearing on folks houses, apparantly the energy so gained can be sold to the National Grid to defray the set up costs, but there's some kind of scam going on because the householder gets pennies (eventually) while the set up company gets pounds
Solar power, maybe it'd work in Fife ? is a definite 'unreliable' here..........so far
cheers,
Toddy
Again, it's an evolving technology though. Last week our newspapers were reporting that the last of the polluted coolant waters had been removed, ahead of schedule, from the reactor in Caithness at Doureay.
http://www.dounreay.com/particle-cleanup
As technology improves older less efficient, less safe and secure, sites are decommissioned and hopefully properly cleaned up without simply transfering the problems elsewhere.
There's a rash of small wind turbines appearing on folks houses, apparantly the energy so gained can be sold to the National Grid to defray the set up costs, but there's some kind of scam going on because the householder gets pennies (eventually) while the set up company gets pounds
Solar power, maybe it'd work in Fife ? is a definite 'unreliable' here..........so far
cheers,
Toddy
It wouldn't matter even if they did work efficiently that way. They would still have to be spaced slightly more than blade length apart (in ALL directions) to allow them to turn with the wind.
It's not just far fetched, it's completely unrealistic. Ask yourself where the government gets money from. Answer? From you.
Solar panels are a hideously expensive way to produce electricity. You're looking at a payback period on the order of thirty years.
So what you're asking is why doesn't the government send us all a tax demand for the equivalent of our next thirty years of electricity consumption and then spend it all on solar panels.
We wouldn't vote for that in large numbers, would we?
