Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Energy Prices
#31
(08-03-2017, 04:51 PM)Protheroe Wrote: When I'm reading by candlelight due to the lack of wind and chronic underinvestment in cheap baseload energy infrastructure I'll thank my lucky stars we 'diversified' energy supplies in a vain attempt to prevent me having to punt down the Victoria Embankment.

Where's the Vicky Embankment in the Grove mon? You've just about got a cut as I recall
Reply
#32
(08-03-2017, 04:51 PM)Protheroe Wrote: When I'm reading by candlelight due to the lack of wind and chronic underinvestment in cheap baseload energy infrastructure I'll thank my lucky stars we 'diversified' energy supplies in a vain attempt to prevent me having to punt down the Victoria Embankment.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. I suggest you do some research on how climate change will effect global sea levels, then you would understand the severity of the situation, especially for the Dutch. Unless you're willing to condemn tens of millions to homelessness just so you can have ugly coal power stations.

As for energy diversification, that is what promotes competition and stability in the energy sector. We need to get rid of fossil fuels. Coal has been surpassed by wind and solar combined if you haven't noticed and we don't have rolling blackouts. We need to build new nuclear reactors and in lye of a domestic programme at the moment, yes that does mean asking the french (who have one of the best and most advanced programmes in the world) and the Chinese (who have themselves more advanced nuclear infrastructure than ourselves and are churning new reactors out in China) for help. Nuclear power is extremely safe and never turns off. As for renewable energy, wind and solar are extremely cheap and quick to set up relative to any other power generation source. They are great at supplementing the grid and have been consistent enough to be expanding. Solar plants are being built in desert climates to take advantage of new advances in increasing light intensity and we now have the technology to expand offshore wind farms where wind is much more consistent (and with a potential 25GW in just offshore wind power possible by 2030, more than gas or coal has ever supplied to the grid). Once we analyse the effect of tidal power on sealife, that is another potential 10GW of energy we can tap into, energy that doesn't switch off ever. On top of that we are exploring introducing geothermal power, with Cornwall and Devon capable of producing 60 to 120 MW/m2 worth of power, again this doesn't turn off. In conclusion, your worries off needing to use candles to read books are absolute codswallop.
Reply
#33
(08-03-2017, 07:57 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(08-03-2017, 04:51 PM)Protheroe Wrote: When I'm reading by candlelight due to the lack of wind and chronic underinvestment in cheap baseload energy infrastructure I'll thank my lucky stars we 'diversified' energy supplies in a vain attempt to prevent me having to punt down the Victoria Embankment.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. I suggest you do some research on how climate change will effect global sea levels, then you would understand the severity of the situation, especially for the Dutch. Unless you're willing to condemn tens of millions to homelessness just so you can have ugly coal power stations.

As for energy diversification, that is what promotes competition and stability in the energy sector. We need to get rid of fossil fuels. Coal has been surpassed by wind and solar combined if you haven't noticed and we don't have rolling blackouts. We need to build new nuclear reactors and in lye of a domestic programme at the moment, yes that does mean asking the french (who have one of the best and most advanced programmes in the world) and the Chinese (who have themselves more advanced nuclear infrastructure than ourselves and are churning new reactors out in China) for help. Nuclear power is extremely safe and never turns off. As for renewable energy, wind and solar are extremely cheap and quick to set up relative to any other power generation source. They are great at supplementing the grid and have been consistent enough to be expanding. Solar plants are being built in desert climates to take advantage of new advances in increasing light intensity and we now have the technology to expand offshore wind farms where wind is much more consistent (and with a potential 25GW in just offshore wind power possible by 2030, more than gas or coal has ever supplied to the grid). Once we analyse the effect of tidal power on sealife, that is another potential 10GW of energy we can tap into, energy that doesn't switch off ever. On top of that we are exploring introducing geothermal power, with Cornwall and Devon capable of producing 60 to 120 MW/m2 worth of power, again this doesn't turn off. In conclusion, your worries off needing to use candles to read books are absolute codswallop.

I'm enjoying your posts on here BB, but can we have a few more paragraphs?

Ta
Reply
#34
+1.

Very interesting.
Reply
#35
I think I read that Germany will be almost totally reliant on green energy by 2050 can't imagine many candles will be needed. I imagine we have we have more natural resources than Germany as regards tidal and wind power
Reply
#36
(08-03-2017, 08:38 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: I think I read that Germany will be almost totally reliant on green energy by 2050 can't imagine many candles will be needed. I imagine we have we have more natural resources than Germany as regards tidal and wind power

Solution
Just bottle up all the hot air from the Borexiters and Remoaners
Reply
#37
(08-03-2017, 08:38 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: I think I read that Germany will be almost totally reliant on green energy by 2050 can't imagine many candles will be needed. I imagine we have we have more natural resources than Germany as regards tidal and wind power

Exactly, and when Africa has enough efficient solar plants will it help stop all those bloody immigrants coming over here?
Reply
#38
(08-03-2017, 07:19 PM)Ossian Wrote:
(08-03-2017, 10:05 AM)BoringBaggie Wrote: And as I've said before, as a liberal I may add, diversifying our energy supply and bringing in renewables has nothing to do with the economy. If we don't do something now, half of London could be underwater.

BB, upland turbines make the problems of lowland flooding worse. Digging up peatland (which is also nature's most effective method of carbon capture) and pouring concrete is only going to have one effect - compromised water retention/accelerated run-off. And it's not just the turbines, either: there are access roads; sub-stations; pylon runs extending to hundreds of miles (inevitable with power - such as it is - being generated so far from the areas of consumption) - all of them displacing a natural sponge with hardcore and concrete. There is really no sustainable environmental argument for onshore wind power; it's little more than a scam to line the pockets of landowners. As indeed is allowing grouse moors to be designated as agricultural land; presumably on the basis that, for a few days each August, they're loosely engaged in poultry production.

And then there's open-grazed sheep farming - the most inefficient and destructive method of producing insignificant amounts of food it would be possible to imagine. Perhaps that's best left for another day...


Onshore wind isn't a sham. It is very easy to set up, cheap to create a site and easy to connect to the grid. Over the past 10 to 15 years, those factors have meant it to be more suitable for developing a base in wind power. Obviously now the costs and technology for offshore has made it much more attainable than it was with the initial setup in Denmark in the early 90s and I would hope that the potential for offshore wind generation would allow it to catch up and surpass onshore within the next 5 to 10 years.

As for lowland flooding, the damage caused by removing natural upland defences near the banks is negligible compared with the damage possible from rising sea levels, with urban flooding becoming a serious possibility, but I won't deny that it is a problem that will hopefully be phased out as we diversify our renewable resources. The easiest ways to prevent this is to create new woods and forests upland and as you said, protecting peat bogs from destruction either through stopping the re purposing  of peat bogs, either as infrastructure or grazing fields. We also need to start looking at stopping deer grazing on them as that is becoming a serious issue especially in Scotland. I'm not sure on the feasibility of artificial bogs though.

As for nature's most effective way of carbon capture, I thought that was algae?
Reply
#39
Pro non-renewable resources supporters are the new Luddites.
Reply
#40
(08-03-2017, 08:38 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: I think I read that Germany will be almost totally reliant on green energy by 2050 can't imagine many candles will be needed. I imagine we have we have more natural resources than Germany as regards tidal and wind power

Germany has a huge reliance on coal at the moment which is an issue but they have huge potential for geothermal and offshore wind power. We have the highest potential for both offshore wind and tidal mainly due us being an island peninsula. We also have a connected grid with Ireland which can also use offshore wind and tidal power.

France already runs 15% off renewable energy and coupled with 75% from nuclear power, are only using 10% fossil fuels on their grid.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)