UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power risk

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Geothermal power is being used in some countries. And it is said to be viable in the UK.

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

Iceland is a big user

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Iceland also happens to have the advantage of sitting above the Mid Atlantic Ridge:



With hot lava welling up to shallow depths it is easy to get high pressure steam directly from boreholes.

The UK on the otherhand is geologically quiet. Such hot springs that we have like those in Bath are of low grade and while these can be utilised for district heating schemes cannot be use for large scale power generation.

Yes I do know about Icelands geology and I know that Geothermal power is the solution, but we should look at a way of gerenating power in the local area

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Or we could build more biomass power stations?

Not everybody agrees.

A Green Party MEP has described a £300m biomass power station planned for Southampton as a "nightmare".
...
Most of the wood to be burnt in the power station would be shipped from Europe, the Americas or Scotland.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Not everybody agrees.

Something has go to give and we have no choice but to look at biomass and renewable energy, unless you are keen on polluting or dangerous forms of generating energy

I am well aware of the waste issue involved with nuclear but we are on a tight timeline and the other options will not generate enough electric to keep the country going in the next ten years. Being honest it is exactly the debate we are having on here that has stagnated our energy policy for so many years and what we need is true leadership to decide an option and just go with it. Interesting to bear in mind that if we don't get this sorted out soon we won't be having these debates on forums because there will not be the power to use computers.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I am well aware of the waste issue involved with nuclear but we are on a tight timeline and the other options will not generate enough electric to keep the country going in the next ten years. Being honest it is exactly the debate we are having on here that has stagnated our energy policy for so many years and what we need is true leadership to decide an option and just go with it. Interesting to bear in mind that if we don't get this sorted out soon we won't be having these debates on forums because there will not be the power to use computers.

Yes, they need to get a move on with biomass and renewable energy

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Iceland is a big user

Well they would be silly not to, as it is a volcanic island

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Yes I do know about Icelands geology and I know that Geothermal power is the solution, but we should look at a way of gerenating power in the local area

No Alan, as usual you know what you have just read.

If you knew about Geothermal power then you would know that it is possible to harness it in the UK. It just means drilling deeper, and the technology has now been developed to drill deep enough.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

No Alan, as usual you know what you have just read.

If you knew about Geothermal power then you would know that it is possible to harness it in the UK. It just means drilling deeper, and the technology has now been developed to drill deep enough.

You are right, we should look into it, cetainly more than we are into Nulclear power

[AdamD]

Just did a quick estimate regarding nuclear power and wind turbines

The highest rated nuclear power plants tend to churn out about 1000 megawatts of power

The largest turbine that Vestas make right now, is 7 megawatts (which is actually more powerful than the first nuclear power station ever built (USSR's Obninsk plant, 1954 )

But you'd need 150 large turbines (7mw X 150 = 1050mw), to replace one advanced gas-cooled reactor.

EDF Energy has 8 reactors in the UK with a total output of 7000mw

You would need 1000 of the largest wind turbines with ideal conditions, to meet that level of power. Yikes

I'm all for renewables, but until the technology has a major breakthrough, it isn't really feasible to depend on it right now.

Given how densely populated this country is, perhaps another idea might be to tell people to stop having kids for a few years.

But naw, I think they should open new nuclear stations, but the fast breeder variety, so we can use the waste we have stored, as fuel.

The future however, will probably be fusion power, IF they can make it work.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Fusion

Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium and boron. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[74] Although this process has yet to be realized, many experts believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by AdamD

Just did a quick estimate regarding nuclear power and wind turbines

The highest rated nuclear power plants tend to churn out about 1000 megawatts of power

The largest turbine that Vestas make right now, is 7 megawatts (which is actually more powerful than the first nuclear power station ever built (USSR's Obninsk plant, 1954 )

But you'd need 150 large turbines (7mw X 150 = 1050mw), to replace one advanced gas-cooled reactor.

EDF Energy has 8 reactors in the UK with a total output of 7000mw

You would need 1000 of the largest wind turbines with ideal conditions, to meet that level of power. Yikes

I'm all for renewables, but until the technology has a major breakthrough, it isn't really feasible to depend on it right now.

Given how densely populated this country is, perhaps another idea might be to tell people to stop having kids for a few years.

But naw, I think they should open new nuclear stations, but the fast breeder variety, so we can use the waste we have stored, as fuel.

The future however, will probably be fusion power, IF they can make it work.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Even if it takes 1000s of wind turbines, then we should still pursue renewable energy (rather than nuclear) until they get to fusion power

Would you rather live next to a wind turbine or a nuclear power station?

[nomadking]

You can build 100s of millions of wind turbines and if the wind is to low or TOO HIGH, then they are completely useless. Even if the wind is at the right level, it has to be consistently at the right level, 100% of the time, otherwise again they are completely useless.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by AdamD

Just did a quick estimate regarding nuclear power and wind turbines

The highest rated nuclear power plants tend to churn out about 1000 megawatts of power

The largest turbine that Vestas make right now, is 7 megawatts (which is actually more powerful than the first nuclear power station ever built (USSR's Obninsk plant, 1954 )

But you'd need 150 large turbines (7mw X 150 = 1050mw), to replace one advanced gas-cooled reactor.

EDF Energy has 8 reactors in the UK with a total output of 7000mw

You would need 1000 of the largest wind turbines with ideal conditions, to meet that level of power. Yikes

I'm all for renewables, but until the technology has a major breakthrough, it isn't really feasible to depend on it right now.

Given how densely populated this country is, perhaps another idea might be to tell people to stop having kids for a few years.

But naw, I think they should open new nuclear stations, but the fast breeder variety, so we can use the waste we have stored, as fuel.

The future however, will probably be fusion power, IF they can make it work.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

There must be well over 1000 wind turbines already. They seem to be off every coast, and on the top of many hills.

The risk is still far too high to build more nuclear power stations, so I still think the best clean option is Geothermal.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can build 100s of millions of wind turbines and if the wind is to low or TOO HIGH, then they are completely useless. Even if the wind is at the right level, it has to be consistently at the right level, 100% of the time, otherwise again they are completely useless.

They have variable pitch blades, so there is a very wide wind speed range.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can build 100s of millions of wind turbines and if the wind is to low or TOO HIGH, then they are completely useless. Even if the wind is at the right level, it has to be consistently at the right level, 100% of the time, otherwise again they are completely useless.

Thats where biomass comes in

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Those turbine numbers soon mount up, and you've only talked about substituting the nuclear requirement, then replace all those fossil fuel sourced stations that contribute several times the load of the nuclear plants and that's just the beginning: What about all these electric cars that will need juicing up, so replace all the diesel and petrol energy as well, diesel trains, air transport (hydrogen fuelled but you need electricity first to split the hydrogen)

Fusion power is touted as a replacement and if it can work it's likely to be much safer but the reactors suggested work on rare forms of hydrogen isotopes, not the readily available hydrogen from water so again the dirth of raw feedstock could rear it's ugly head, but at least the Arabs wouldn't have a monopoly on it.

Britain has huge renewable energy resources for starters, also a drive to renewable energy would generate jobs.

[nomadking]

If you're having to ship in biomass material from the other side of the Atlantic for a mere 100MW power station, how much energy is actually being saved.

From Renewable Energy Foundation:-

Wind power output is significantly variable and difficult to predict over several timescales, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.
Variability over short time scales has been much discussed, and it is now well known that low wind conditions can prevail at times of peak load over very large areas. For example, at 17.30 on the 7th of December 2010, when the 4th highest United Kingdom load of 60,050 MW was recorded, the UK wind fleet of approximately 5,200 MW was producing about 300 MW (i.e. it had a Load Factor of 5.8%). One of the largest wind farms in the United Kingdom, the 322 MW Whitelee Wind Farm was producing approximately 5 MW (i.e. Load Factor 1.6%).

Where is the missing 98.4% supposed to come from?

Starting in 2005, the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) commissioned a series of reports which have played a key role in this debate. These include the 2005 Telford Gold Medal winning papers by Hugh Sharman on the Danish wind experience2; the work published between 2006 and 2008 by James Oswald and his co-authors, which models the output of a 25 GW wind fleet distributed across the UK3; and the work of Paul-Frederik Bach on the impact of wind power intermittency on electricity spot prices, which was published in 2009 and 2010.
Oswald showed that, contrary to previous statistical work by the Environmental Change Institute (Oxford), smoothing of wind-generated electricity output would be modest at best, with the entire wind fleet functioning effectively as one power station, with frequent power ramps of significant scale and rapidity, and extended periods of near zero output, indicating that even a 25 GW wind power fleet produced little or no firm, or reliable, capacity. The Pöyry study is consistent with these results.

If the wind drops even for a few seconds or minutes, you cannot suddenly start up generating capacity elsewhere, even if it was available.

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If you're having to ship in biomass material from the other side of the Atlantic for a mere 100MW power station, how much energy is actually being saved.

From Renewable Energy Foundation:-
Where is the missing 98.4% supposed to come from?
If the wind drops even for a few seconds or minutes, you cannot suddenly start up generating capacity elsewhere, even if it was available.

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

It not just win turbines, but also wave power (like the one that has been suggested on the river Seven), it we had a lot more Wind and Wave turbines, combine that with biomass and it would be enough to reduce our dependency towards fossil fuels

Also note, there is also carbon capture and clean coal