Is there a glimmer of sense appearing on the horison at last?
- Thread starter Andy BB
- Start date
Are you having a bad day to come out with nonsense like that Mary
It isn't nonsense.
When the major energy suppliers build wind power, they have to pay a levi towards removal of the turbines etc at end of life. This makes it more expensive for them to initially build the turbines and infrastructure. It's much more attractive for them to build something like a gas turbine plant where they can leave the cost of decommissioning to the government in the future.
in my opinion the issue we have isnt generating electricity but storing it. The methods we use at the moment are incredibly wasteful and inefficient, I truly believe that the only way out of this mess we are in energy wise, is to move away from fossil fuels all together and to move onto something along the lines of the Hydrogen fuel cell. Its clean and cheap to run, the only issue is that the demand for it isnt big enough for there to be a market shift.
We have the technology already, the Honda Clarity is already in existence, it runs completely on Hydrogen slush, the only byproduct is WATER. the issue is that the hydrogen is made at the moment with electricity generated by coal fired power stations. we should be pumping every available penny into this technology and better ways to turn sporadic production (Wind, Wave, Hydro electric) into usable energy (i would say use this to produce hydrogen slush which can then be stored until needed, pretty efficient huh?)
Just my 2 cents
Dave
We have the technology already, the Honda Clarity is already in existence, it runs completely on Hydrogen slush, the only byproduct is WATER. the issue is that the hydrogen is made at the moment with electricity generated by coal fired power stations. we should be pumping every available penny into this technology and better ways to turn sporadic production (Wind, Wave, Hydro electric) into usable energy (i would say use this to produce hydrogen slush which can then be stored until needed, pretty efficient huh?)
Just my 2 cents
Dave
I do honestly think things like the offshore ideas are just shiny baubles designed to distract our attention long enough for companies to RAPE the earth some more. They are inefficient at best and at worst they provide little to no use at all.
Dave
Dave
Why does their efficiency matter, Dave? It's better than external combustion systems anyway.
Our big issue atm is the poor state of our grid. There is really little point adding generating capacity when we can't redistribute it to peak use or the pump-up storage facilities.
Incidentely, you know when you see those turbines not turning even when there isn't wind? That's because the grid in that area is demanding less than can be generated by the local stations. It is very easy to feather a turbine and stop it generating; very complex to stop coal-fired generation or even gas.
We urgently need to upgrade the grid and build more pump-up storage. Then the power can be stored for use during peak periods. Sod bloody HS2, upgrade the grid.
Our big issue atm is the poor state of our grid. There is really little point adding generating capacity when we can't redistribute it to peak use or the pump-up storage facilities.
Incidentely, you know when you see those turbines not turning even when there isn't wind? That's because the grid in that area is demanding less than can be generated by the local stations. It is very easy to feather a turbine and stop it generating; very complex to stop coal-fired generation or even gas.
We urgently need to upgrade the grid and build more pump-up storage. Then the power can be stored for use during peak periods. Sod bloody HS2, upgrade the grid.
100% agree with Dave Bromleys last comment and would add they are also a cash cow(for a select few) are very damaging to aquatic life in there construction
There is unfortunately not a whole lot to be gained from upgrading the grid, the technology has not really progressed. In some parts of the US 70% of electricity put into the grid is lost, mainly through heating of the cables. A far better option is to do away with a national grid and move to local power production. The tech is already there for perfectly viable combined heat and power solutions (even hydrogen ones) for areas of high centralised demand such as hospitals, universities, large businesses and manufacturing centres. This takes overall efficiency into the 90s. Unfortunately the people in decision making roles at these places do not have the foresight or courage to make these decisions.
As somebody who works in r&d I can tell you that no private equity is involved unless the tech is pretty much a finished product for them. The only body that drives innovation is government funding raised from taxes or levies. Or when the government forces it upon the private sector with regulation. If private companies are not forced to install renewables now, even if they are far from the perfect solution then development of the perfect solution will be very slow in coming.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Upgrading the capacity of the grid (which isn't about new tech, it is about more and bigger cables) would enable us to transfer power from wind farms and coal fired power stations to pump up storage.
Only one way to "Store" electricity for the grid is by using the two lake Hydro system like the one in Wales at Dinorwig. the "grid" itself cannot store electricity.
Wind and solar cannot store electricity.
Wind and solar cannot store electricity.
Upgrading grid capacity usually means increasing generating capacity to meet increasing peak demand.
Increasing cable gauge would be incredibly expensive not just in terns of all the aluminium for the cables but also because increasing cable gauge massively increases the weight of the cables meaning you have to have many more pylons which are expensive and don't exactly look any better than wind turbines.
As mentioned above the main way to sore electricity is to pump water up to a higher point during times or low demand then release it to regenerate electricity when demand peaks at the soap break kettle time.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
quiet simple -- if you don't like them reduce you energy usage enough to off set their building & stop being a NIMBY.
Every community that objects to renewable should have a small local nuclear reactor similar to how many towns used to have gas plant and power station.
Actually, to start getting people to pay heed to their energy consumption and stop so much of location X having to be polluted (inc. visual) so location Y can have power -- every community, say at district council level should have to generate a set percent (maybe 15%) of their power us or every one reduce their usage by that level
Every community that objects to renewable should have a small local nuclear reactor similar to how many towns used to have gas plant and power station.
Actually, to start getting people to pay heed to their energy consumption and stop so much of location X having to be polluted (inc. visual) so location Y can have power -- every community, say at district council level should have to generate a set percent (maybe 15%) of their power us or every one reduce their usage by that level
Last edited:
They will probably need it for when the "renewable" fails to provide enough for its needs... Solar needs sunshine, Lunar needs whatever... Wind Turbines need air movement.
We used to have a gas manometer and gas makers just across the road from where I live, HSG brought an end to that, but we do have a Small village with a generator running from the gas off the local landfill site that closed a decade ago... A nuke station would be handy, but being near to the coast would be needed to help with that, so Wales would need to move away making it look like this...
problem with solar and wind is the sheer cost at the moment. Wind kwh's are astronomically high along with solar, both technologies take 10 years just to break even on the equipment supplied, let alone the initial installment costs and maintainence. Amorphus silicone bought gosts down considerably, but current technology has a long way to go. God knows how much energy is required to manufacture and install a wind turdine. Wave holds alot more promise, each minute 7 waves strike the shores of Britian with immeasurable energy.
I would gladly have a thorium reactor in the garden at home, as for fusion isn't it just the distruction of certain atoms to make other atoms with the energy release, as is associated with e=mc2, I have my doubts whether it will be as simple as they say.
I would gladly have a thorium reactor in the garden at home, as for fusion isn't it just the distruction of certain atoms to make other atoms with the energy release, as is associated with e=mc2, I have my doubts whether it will be as simple as they say.
That Fission (the splitting of larger mass atoms). Fusion is the combining of (Lighter)atoms into more complex heavier atoms, the spare sub-atomic particles are what gives out the energy, sadly its the immense temperatures (starting at about 8,000,000 kelvin) needed to maintain the reactions thats the main problem, and of course maintaining stable fusion without ending up as a smoking hole in the ground, is something else that should definitely be avoided. The net benefit of using Fusion over fission is about 5-6 times the output per equal mass. and there is a very little radiation released in fusion as compared to fission, as most of the energy is thermal
Last edited:
