Where will the electricity come from?

[WatcherZero]

Its interesting rapid progress is actually being made, in the last 7 years we have reduced the energy required to achieve fusion by 50%! Materials science also hold the prospect of materials that would be immune to decay from heavy neutron bombardment.

 

[HSTEd]

Its interesting rapid progress is actually being made, in the last 7 years we have reduced the energy required to achieve fusion by 50%! Materials science also hold the prospect of materials that would be immune to decay from heavy neutron bombardment.

Materials that are highly resistant to the ultra high energy neutron flux in a fusion reactor are also extremely resistant to the lower but still high energy neutron flux in a fast fission reactor, so its not really a net gain for the fusion system.

 

[eastdyke]

...... we now find ourselves as a nation, in a position where we have an ageing power generation network and no real plans for the future.

So we are pretty much in agreement then?

 

[michael769]

Fusion plants will likely produce a large amount of radioactively contaminated materials (such as core components) that are subject to neutron bombardment.

Most of the radioisotopes that result from the neutron bombardment in a fusion reactor have half lives in the order of seconds to a few days, a fusion reactor is likely to produce very little long lived radioactive waste. The reactor core itself would be the most persistent being high level waste for 50 years and low level waste for another 100 years. This compares favorably with the fuel rods of a fission reactor which will be high level waste for a few millenea. The overall volume of waste is also considerably less. A final advantage is that the isotopes are ones that are less readily absorbed by living organisms - reducing environmental danger of a containment breach far below that of the already very low risk from a fusion reactor.

The surprising thing is how poorly funded fusion research is. There is a growing school of thought in the physics community that the relative lack of funding is why fusion has been "50 years away" for the last 50 years, and that if the level of funding offered to oil exploration was available to fusion research there would be a realistic prospect of a viable reactor being built within 10 years.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As long as the powers that be rely on responding to a non-existant problem (CATASTROPHIC Mann Made Global Warming (tm)) through the pointless expansion of windmill and mirror sites we are all eventually going to be screwed through increased prices!

God forbid we have another bitter winter!

Mailman

Its irrelevant whether it is man made or not, we need to live more sustainably we cant just go on pumping damaging gases into the atmosphere willy nilly, chucking all our waste into landfills and hope someone else will clean it up. This isn't and arguement for or against wind farms or solar panels etc etc.
I just think you need to read up on things a little more before you starting making statements about things, which you clearly do not understand.

 

[mailman]

Its irrelevant whether it is man made or not, we need to live more sustainably we cant just go on pumping damaging gases into the atmosphere willy nilly, chucking all our waste into landfills and hope someone else will clean it up. This isn't and arguement for or against wind farms or solar panels etc etc.

Its highly relevant whether its Mann made or not SIMPLY because BS laws like the climate change act were passed based SOLELY on alarmism around Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

We are p1ssing hundreds of billions of pounds away on responding to a non-issue and in fact may be making things worse by bankrupting ourselves so that when things like massive floods or droughts or other natural disasters happen we are so poor that we cant even help ourselves!

We could be living "sustainably" if we used the natural resources that are at our finger tips. Instead we are almost solely reliant on non-friendly national governments for our gas and oil supplies.

BTW, what is so sustainable about building windmills? You talk about sustainability YET completely ignore the fact that mining for the rare earth metals that go in to the windmills destroys the environment in the area the metals are pulled from! Secondly, these windmills are so ecologically sound the laws had to be specifically changed to allow the killing of endangered native birds!

You talk about sustainability as if you actually know what you are talking about BUT turn a blind eye to the destruction of the environment and the elimination of endangered birds. Sadly this seems to be typical of your average sub-intelligence greenie...happy to get all cuddly with windmills or mirrors but utterly unconcerned about the destruction these fools idols bring.

I just think you need to read up on things a little more before you starting making statements about things, which you clearly do not understand.

You should perhaps take some of your own medicine because clearly you have very little understanding of the wider implications of our head long rush to bankrupt ourselves through chasing unicorn and rainbow generated power!

Dont get me wrong, Im all in favour of clean environments and looking after our surroundings BUT Im not so far stuck up my own rectum that Im prepared to destroy my country through brankruptcy to achieve that lofty goal.

Mailman

 

[142094]

Funnily enough Denmark has managed to move towards more sustainable energy production without bankrupting itself.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Its highly relevant whether its Mann made or not SIMPLY because BS laws like the climate change act were passed based SOLELY on alarmism around Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

We are p1ssing hundreds of billions of pounds away on responding to a non-issue and in fact may be making things worse by bankrupting ourselves so that when things like massive floods or droughts or other natural disasters happen we are so poor that we cant even help ourselves!

We could be living "sustainably" if we used the natural resources that are at our finger tips. Instead we are almost solely reliant on non-friendly national governments for our gas and oil supplies.

BTW, what is so sustainable about building windmills? You talk about sustainability YET completely ignore the fact that mining for the rare earth metals that go in to the windmills destroys the environment in the area the metals are pulled from! Secondly, these windmills are so ecologically sound the laws had to be specifically changed to allow the killing of endangered native birds!

You talk about sustainability as if you actually know what you are talking about BUT turn a blind eye to the destruction of the environment and the elimination of endangered birds. Sadly this seems to be typical of your average sub-intelligence greenie...happy to get all cuddly with windmills or mirrors but utterly unconcerned about the destruction these fools idols bring.



You should perhaps take some of your own medicine because clearly you have very little understanding of the wider implications of our head long rush to bankrupt ourselves through chasing unicorn and rainbow generated power!

Dont get me wrong, Im all in favour of clean environments and looking after our surroundings BUT Im not so far stuck up my own rectum that Im prepared to destroy my country through brankruptcy to achieve that lofty goal.

Mailman

Did you read what i put, i said this is not an arguement for or against windfarms and soalr panels i was staying well clear of them. I am fully aware of the metals needed to produce them and the mining and production of these metals which is why i am against them. The metal required can only be produced in china simply because they are the only country who have health and safety laws so lax that it can be done cheaply. They are now stockpiling this metal as they have realised its value, and are not selling much to other countries. Now america is having to build its own plant for this metal but it will cost twice as much because of all the saftey precations needed in the process, which i believe involes very aggresive acid. So yes i do know.

And the 90% i recieved in 3 seperate modules on sustainable engineering this year speaks for itself. It included the economics of it, so i am fully aware of that too. I am not a greenie as you so put it, I am a civil engineer. How you can argue so aggresively against 4 lines of writing which barely even touch what my opinion is on the whole subject of sustainability, is beyond me. I am not suggesting spending billions of pounds that is not what i put either, i think its a change in attitude that is required, and that is what i was arguing with. How could we live more sustainably? are you willing to stop using your car, i doubt it. we will still need fuel for them and no matter where coal/oil/gas comes from, its is polluting.

Whether our production of C02 is causing global warming or not it is making the atmosphere more acidic which is making the rain more acidic. which in turn is making rivers and lakes mroe acidic which is causing environmental damage. This is before we take into account the S02 induced acid rain.
The ocean too absorbs C02 but is not getting towards being as saturated as it can get with C02, this is damaging the coral reefs.
I could go on, infact one more fact for you,
Phosophorus will run out in 50 years, thats a lot more pressing than any fossil fuel.

So you see regardless of any global warming or whether it is partially or fully man made, we need ro reduce gas emissions, we need to be more sustainable, as yes its more expensive than coal. But im not talking about bankrupting ourselves.
And as 142094 says denmark and indeed scandinavia are some of the best countries for sustainable living, i dont think any of them need bailing out. Funny that isnt it?

 

[The Ham]

Its highly relevant whether its Mann made or not SIMPLY because BS laws like the climate change act were passed based SOLELY on alarmism around Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

We are p1ssing hundreds of billions of pounds away on responding to a non-issue and in fact may be making things worse by bankrupting ourselves so that when things like massive floods or droughts or other natural disasters happen we are so poor that we cant even help ourselves!

We could be living "sustainably" if we used the natural resources that are at our finger tips. Instead we are almost solely reliant on non-friendly national governments for our gas and oil supplies.

Even IF the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is 95% natural and 5% man made, there is little we can do about the amount that is natural, therefore we can and should limit the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Unless someone is going to arguee that the amount of man made CO2 now is less than pre-industrilsation.

Likewise I would rather assume that global warming is happening and be proved wrong than assume that it is not happening and be proved wrong.

Regardless of that, there is only so much fossil fuel around and there will come a point when it would cost so much to carry on burning it that it really bankrupts ourselves with no alternitive to fall back on. Therefore finding alternitives is required.

One way that we're going to reduce our energy demand (and therefore free up some for electric trains) is by the use of solar heating.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Even IF the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is 95% natural and 5% man made, there is little we can do about the amount that is natural, therefore we can and should limit the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Unless someone is going to arguee that the amount of man made CO2 now is less than pre-industrilsation.

Likewise I would rather assume that global warming is happening and be proved wrong than assume that it is not happening and be proved wrong.

Regardless of that, there is only so much fossil fuel around and there will come a point when it would cost so much to carry on burning it that it really bankrupts ourselves with no alternitive to fall back on. Therefore finding alternitives is required.

Very good point, regardless of CO2 and Global warming we still need alternatives. Maybe wind farms and solar panels arnt the answer but they are some of the best we have FOR NOW ANYWAY.

 

[Nym]

Oh lord I do hope you don't mean the idea of setting up masses of PV arrays is a good one?

PV Cells are a pain in the backside to make efficient and take up a lot of rare earth metals, it's not just Fossil Fuels we're short of on this planet.

The renewables for this country will need to be offshore and in the form of synchronous tidal / wave, and asynchronous wave, tidal and wind in the world of renewable, with a large baseline generation from Nuclear, using Hydrogen production to take up the slack of a large baseline, said hydrogen production going into Hydrogen powered cars, trucks and rail vehicles, as well as the production of legacy fuels.

The asynchronous generation systems will have an advantage shortly with National Grid's offshore HVDC distribution network coming online.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Oh lord I do hope you don't mean the idea of setting up masses of PV arrays is a good one?

PV Cells are a pain in the backside to make efficient and take up a lot of rare earth metals, it's not just Fossil Fuels we're short of on this planet.

The renewables for this country will need to be offshore and in the form of synchronous tidal / wave, and asynchronous wave, tidal and wind in the world of renewable, with a large baseline generation from Nuclear, using Hydrogen production to take up the slack of a large baseline, said hydrogen production going into Hydrogen powered cars, trucks and rail vehicles, as well as the production of legacy fuels.

The asynchronous generation systems will have an advantage shortly with National Grid's offshore HVDC distribution network coming online.

No thats not what i meant at all. Dont worry, i dont think PV cells are a good idea. Id prefer to see everything you meantioned. In small isolated installations PV cells can be useful i think. Im rather undecided on that. I think tidal/wave has the most potential. Them red snake like turbines that scottish sold to portugese look good.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think long term hydrogen cars will only be used in poorly developed countries or rural areas. A combination of fast charging points and under road charging in cities and main roads will eliminate the need for fuel of urbanites.

 

[brianthegiant]

Wave and tidal energy does have massive potential, but it's still quite a young technology, will take a few more prototypes before it gets anywhere near the cost/kWh for wind/solar/biomass.

the current economics for solar is pushing developers towards >1MW solar farms, often in weak grid areas, which despite good economics doesn't make the best technical sense. Technically the logical place for PV is on roofs of commercial buildings, no land take and the output correlates well with ~9-5 demand, so you reduce transmission losses as well as contributing to generating capacity.

Ultimately the thing about energy policy is that theres no 1 silver bullet, it's all about diversity.

Do we want to carry on financing dodgy and at times unpredictable regimes in Russia, the Middle East and South America with our fossil fuel imports? (yes, the North Sea boom is over & we're net importers of oil & gas again)

We need to increase use of solar/wind/biomass/energy-from-waste/wave/tidal/hydro, otherwise future generations wil be chained to ever rising energy bills. As fossil fuels are extracted from ever more extreme locations, the cost can only carry on rising, deepwater drilling in the arctic being a case in point.

Maybe even a bit of nuclear if we actually get a long term waste store built (50 years of nuclear and still no repository....).

 

[HSTEd]

Long term repositories are not really needed at the moment, they are something which is always demanded by greens to make nuclear power more expensive.

The cheapest way of dealing with spent fuel is to leave it to cool off in dry casks for as long as possible before reprocessing.
At that point the actinides can be recycled into MOX or into a fast reactor and the fission products have become a mix of strontium, caesium and the various long lived isotopes.
Once the strontium and caesium have been removed, and there are various processes ofr doing that, the remaining fission products aren't any more radioactive than uranium dioxide is before its been irradiated and the caesium/strontium mix can be easily disposed of since it only has to be contained for ~300 years after irradiation for it to be rendered effectively non-active.

Deep repositories are unnecessary, the long lived fission products can be disposed of as low level waste, or can be used as a source of a variety of interesting materials, like certain industrial platinoids, once the Cs/Sr and actinides are scrubbed.

As to PV, it won't really be viable until panels are so cheap adn thin that we can completely cover everything in them, and they still won't provide significant grid load, they would just be for supplementary power for air con on-site and the like.

 

[LE Greys]

Wave and tidal energy does have massive potential, but it's still quite a young technology, will take a few more prototypes before it gets anywhere near the cost/kWh for wind/solar/biomass.

the current economics for solar is pushing developers towards >1MW solar farms, often in weak grid areas, which despite good economics doesn't make the best technical sense. Technically the logical place for PV is on roofs of commercial buildings, no land take and the output correlates well with ~9-5 demand, so you reduce transmission losses as well as contributing to generating capacity.

Ultimately the thing about energy policy is that theres no 1 silver bullet, it's all about diversity.

Do we want to carry on financing dodgy and at times unpredictable regimes in Russia, the Middle East and South America with our fossil fuel imports? (yes, the North Sea boom is over & we're net importers of oil & gas again)

We need to increase use of solar/wind/biomass/energy-from-waste/wave/tidal/hydro, otherwise future generations wil be chained to ever rising energy bills. As fossil fuels are extracted from ever more extreme locations, the cost can only carry on rising, deepwater drilling in the arctic being a case in point.

Maybe even a bit of nuclear if we actually get a long term waste store built (50 years of nuclear and still no repository....).

Now this sounds like a sensible plan!

I had a whole course on marine energy from someone who is trying to make it work. There are a series of technical problems, not the least of which is trying to make something that can both withstand all the forces the sea throws at it (the Pentland Firth is a very stormy place) and still generate sufficient power to make it effective. He tended to favour vertical-axis turbines and relatively simple wave machines, placed in pinch points to help channel the energy using natural features.

 

[HSTEd]

There is the problem that wave power has been shown to significantly reduce average wave height, which has its own set of issues in places like North Cornwall. (Where the tourist industry is based upon it having large waves)

 

[LE Greys]

There is the problem that wave power has been shown to significantly reduce average wave height, which has its own set of issues in places like North Cornwall. (Where the tourist industry is based upon it having large waves)

The lecturer brought that up, along with the slightly more serious one that engineering the tide around Scotland sufficiently could flood London! hock:

 

[Holly]

The lecturer brought that up, along with the slightly more serious one that engineering the tide around Scotland sufficiently could flood London! hock:

Yes. I was astounded a few years back to read that government policy is based on the belief that the theoretical maximum tidal (lagoon) power that can be developed in the Irish Sea is less than the tidal energy that presently enters the Irish Sea. Like resonance does not exist?!
That's like assuming the highest possible power can be pulled from an electronic source using only resistive components.

The problems with tidal lagoon power are that (1) UK has better geography than countries from which technology is imported and (2) the civil engineering assets don't wear out for hundreds of years but accountants regard any benefits more than 40 years in the future to be worthless.

 

[jon0844]

The lecturer brought that up, along with the slightly more serious one that engineering the tide around Scotland sufficiently could flood London! hock:

I'm surprised that didn't have the Scottish parliament securing the funds straight away!

 

[John55]

Yes. I was astounded a few years back to read that government policy is based on the belief that the theoretical maximum tidal (lagoon) power that can be developed in the Irish Sea is less than the tidal energy that presently enters the Irish Sea. Like resonance does not exist?!

Out of curiosity how do you extract more power from a system then enters the system?

 

[mailman]

Even IF the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is 95% natural and 5% man made, there is little we can do about the amount that is natural, therefore we can and should limit the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Unless someone is going to arguee that the amount of man made CO2 now is less than pre-industrilsation.

Yet the 1930's WERE hotter than today, even though the amount of the universes most toxic gass (co2) was less than today...and that pattern repeats itself as you look back through the ages.

Likewise I would rather assume that global warming is happening and be proved wrong than assume that it is not happening and be proved wrong.

The Precautionary Principle is as bankrupt as the so called climate scientists are who keep throwing it out there as some form of justification for bankrupting the west.

Why dont you go and buy comet insurance for your car? After all...a comet MIGHT hit your car so its probably better to be insured for that event...just in case.

Regardless of that, there is only so much fossil fuel around and there will come a point when it would cost so much to carry on burning it that it really bankrupts ourselves with no alternitive to fall back on. Therefore finding alternitives is required.

Absolutely...however that time hasnt arrived yet. America is currently in the throws of its shale gas revolution where gas prices have halved! We should be following in their footsteps and doing everything possible to develop this natural resource WHILE at the same time continuing to develop real, alternative forms of power generation.

At the moment we are almost solely committed to propping up the cost of windmills and mirrors to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds/dollers! Its not cost effective...if it was companies like Solyndra wouldnt have gone bankrupt AFTER receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of state support.

The fact that this Government continues to remain dependent on non-friendly states for gas and other fuels is a travesty! We should be doing everything possible to exploit the UK's existing forms of energy so that we can protect ourselves from economic warfare by countries like Russia or regions like the Middle East. In fact, energy security should be the DECC's over riding mission! Not chasing fairy's and unicorns!

One way that we're going to reduce our energy demand (and therefore free up some for electric trains) is by the use of solar heating.

And how do you plan on doing that when power is most needed, ie when its cold and dark?

The sad fact for us all is that the Governments plan around energy use seems to depend on rationing! Forcing people to use less through raising prices (artificially) irrespective of the impact on the population! All we need now is another bitterly cold winter and the chickens will come home to roost once more people die due to not being able to afford the cost of heating their homes thanks to your beloved vanity mirrors being about as useful as a c*&k flavoured lollipop in a nunnary.

Regards

Mailman

 

[michael769]

Yet the 1930's WERE hotter than today,

Would you be so kind as to share your source for this? It appears to directly contradict every source I have ever seen.

 

[The Ham]

Why dont you go and buy comet insurance for your car? After all...a comet MIGHT hit your car so its probably better to be insured for that event...just in case.

Even if Comet damage wasn't covered by your standrad car insurance, the damage caused would (although be very expensive) would not cause you to never have a car again. As such the risk assessment is different.

And how do you plan on doing that when power is most needed, ie when its cold and dark?

I didn't say that solar heating was the only thing that we should do, just one way to reduce our energy demand. Also there has been an increase in summer energy usage because of the use of AC, which is when solar heating (hot water) would bring the most benefit.

 

[YorkshireBear]

MailMan, can you please come up with an arguement to my post please as i argued against alot of the points you keep repeating so i want to see what else youve got to say...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.


The Precautionary Principle is as bankrupt as the so called climate scientists are who keep throwing it out there as some form of justification for bankrupting the west.

Why dont you go and buy comet insurance for your car? After all...a comet MIGHT hit your car so its probably better to be insured for that event...just in case.


And how do you plan on doing that when power is most needed, ie when its cold and dark?

So because you cant win the arguement you turn to blowing our arguement out of proportion to make it sound stupid. Nice.

Also when do you think most power is needed to power electrified railways? during the day when solar power is effective. So actually The Hams point is very relevant as saving electricity during the day reduces the amount needed to be proudced to power the railways, which is the entire point of thi thread.

 

[Holly]

Out of curiosity how do you extract more power from a system than enters the system?

By changing the system. That's cheating only to a scientist, not to an engineer.

Analogy follows:
Electric source is 0.1 Ohm Resistive and 0.1 Ohm Inductive.
Existing load is resistive only.
Greater power transfer can occur if you also add 0.1 Ohm capacitive to the load even if resistance is increased. As an EE power engineer of the (very) old school, this is basic stuff.

Or, back to the Irish Sea, since it has two entrances the power entering can be changed by building structures that have and effect of adjusting the timings between tides at the two entrances. I.E. by building some loads. Tides and associated ebbs and flows are analogous to electric charge and current.

As I say, astoundingly, government policy is based on trivially wrong assumptions, presumably because it lines someone's pockets.

 

[LE Greys]

Not necessarily the world's most reliable source, but this article does have good referances. It shows both the record from instruments (back as far as 1850) and proxy records calibrated by instruments going back a lot further and showing the Milankovich Cycles.

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

 

[The Ham]

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

 

[TGV]

Would you be so kind as to share your source for this? It appears to directly contradict every source I have ever seen.

Depends where you read.

A quick interweb search finds this quote:

"The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.”

On this page:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Greenland.htm

This is another:
http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1282297360.PDF

Although you need to be careful what you read on this topic as people can use all kinds of stats and numbers to make their point rather than tell the truth. For example "rate of warming" doesn't mean hottest. Also - just because a decade was the hottest in the USA (where most of the data originates), doesn't mean it was so worldwide.

One thing is certain though, wherever you look, the 1930s was a hot decade everywhere, plenty of data to support that fact.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Depends where you read . . . . .

Indeed, (as is true for most historic data).

But I'd go further; if all we had to go on when considering climate change was archived logs, then I'd have to be a climate-change cynic. The measurement techniques were radically different (e.g. sea temperature measured by lowering a bucket on a rope over the side of a boat, hauling it up, placing it on deck then placing a thermometer in it with no record of the bucket being in sun or shade); the locations were radically different (mostly in urban and semi-sheltered locations e.g. Greenwich, with all the impact of urban life); the instruments were radically different (un-compensated and un-calibrated single-unit devices (e.g. glass and mercury thermometer); the logging was different (visual scale and hand-written notes); etc.

That's not the way we like our scientific data to be presented now, and is no way to present a valid comparison with contemporary techniques, locations, instrumentation and logging.