Jump to content

Energy Prices


MuckleMoo

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

As far as I can gather, this really is the major problem with Green energy.  Not to mention the fact that the mining for the raw materials required for the batteries to store the energy cause considerable local environmental damage.  Also, the disposing of the batteries once they are past their useful lifespan is another problem being stored up (no pun intended) for the next generation to deal with.

 

 

Storage does not automatically mean batteries.  Energy can be stored in many other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I posted the following just as you replied.  I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying but I would be interested if you agree this is a major problem with Green energy:

 

“I’m not expert in the generation electricity but do renewables such as wind and solar not need to be backed up with nuclear or fossil fuels for the days where there are no wind and the evenings and nights where there is no light?  From what I can gather the storage of solar and wind energy is not yet possible on the significant scale required given the current limitations on battery storage.”

I'm not fully convinced by the backup argument in a Scottish context*, but there's absolutely a contradiction in the green lobby regarding nuclear power. Anything that isn't being 'organically'  harvested from Mother Earth is viewed by the eco-lobby as A Bad Thing; even though competent nuclear power and electrification of all domestic energy off the back of it would be objectively better in terms of trade-offs than the current shitshow. I suspect at least a large minority of the green movement are just opposed to any form of mass energy consumption. 

The nuclear power issue won't solve anything for the next decade though. The decisions that could have provided more clean and reliable energy were fucked a long time ago, and in Germany as well. Not all nukes should have been funded - EDF and co. are chancers if they can get away with it - but a general policy of decommissioning and phasing it out was hopelessly wrong. 

 

 

 

* A day that is calm inland at sea level is almost never calm at 100/200m elevation or out at sea in our latitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Storage does not automatically mean batteries.  Energy can be stored in many other ways.

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'm not fully convinced by the backup argument in a Scottish context*, but there's absolutely a contradiction in the green lobby regarding nuclear power. Anything that isn't being 'organically'  harvested from Mother Earth is viewed by the eco-lobby as A Bad Thing; even though competent nuclear power and electrification of all domestic energy off the back of it would be objectively better in terms of trade-offs than the current shitshow. I suspect at least a large minority of the green movement are just opposed to any form of mass energy consumption. 

The nuclear power issue won't solve anything for the next decade though. The decisions that could have provided more clean and reliable energy were fucked a long time ago, and in Germany as well. Not all nukes should have been funded - EDF and co. are chancers if they can get away with it - but a general policy of decommissioning and phasing it out was hopelessly wrong. 

 

 

 

* A day that is calm inland at sea level is almost never calm at 100/200m elevation or out at sea in our latitude. 

I can certainly understand people being reluctant to use nuclear power given some of the events of the past.  It does appear though that the next generation nuclear power plants are far safer with far less nuclear waste (not sure if I’m just falling for the hype - and Public Enemy warned  me about that back in the ‘80s!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

I can certainly understand people being reluctant to use nuclear power given some of the events of the past.  It does appear though that the next generation nuclear power plants are far safer with far less nuclear waste (not sure if I’m just falling for the hype - and Public Enemy warned  me about that back in the ‘80s!).

Even the previous generations of nuclear power were far safer for everyone involved than gas or, above all, coal. Coal has killed thousands per year in direct industrial accidents alone in any significant producing country over 200-odd years. That's before you look at the long-term health effects on workers and the rest of the population in air pollution. 

Worrying about the safety of nuclear power because of a couple of high-profile accidents is as irrational as being feart of flying while choosing to drive every day. 

Fortunately we don't even need to rely on nuclear alone as a reliable power source, but it should definitely be part of that mix instead of the total nonsense that is domestic gas burning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Nuclear power is that there just isn't as much money to be made from installing the infrastructure to provide it. Wind farms, heat pumps etc all generate far more new money for the green lobby that simply generating perfectly good electricity in new nuclear power plants ever would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The problem with Nuclear power is that there just isn't as much money to be made from installing the infrastructure to provide it. Wind farms, heat pumps etc all generate far more new money for the green lobby that simply generating perfectly good electricity in new nuclear power plants ever would.

Probably why privatising our energy wasn’t a good thing 

Not everything should be about making money from it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadow Play said:

Funnily enough, just the other day I read an article about a study to store energy in warehouses full of sand.   The most meaningful storage of energy still appears to be by the use of batteries though.

It isn’t really though.  Gravity is an option.  Pumped hydro and the like are just as viable.  Simple solutions like using large weights over deep mineshafts are producing results.

Nothing should be assumed or discounted while trying to resolve this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Despite virginton's assurances that it's all perfectly safe, all of that safety depends on humans. All we need is a series of mistakes or that technology to fall into the wrong hands and the result could be permanently catastrophic. 

Do you have this irrational meltdown about your safety depending entirely on highly qualified and trained humans every time that you travel by plane? If not, why not? 

The final point of your post is ridiculous hair-shirted drivel. Human civilisation and progress has been driven by the consumption of more energy over time: that's what the Industrial Revolution was. Billions of people are not going to sit in dark and squalid slums for the sake of your green agenda - they're going to rightfully stake their claim to development. 

The solution therefore involves finding more sustainable sources of energy than fossil fuels rather than insisting on entirely renewable sources alone. Nuclear is therefore a crucial transition technology to get to that next level of energy production. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.


The ludicrous standing charges apaprently being heavily influenced by South also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:
1 hour ago, superbigal said:
Where the Scots are being shafted is that we used to pay premiums for producing reasonable quantities of electricity by expensive hydro rather than burning cheap coal.
Now that electricity production is 90% possible by green sources in Scotland we are still crippled by UK prices and the gas guzzlers down south.
I'm always a little surprised the SNP do not make more of this point.

 

The ludicrous standing charges apaprently being heavily influenced by South also.

What are they for? Infrastructure and maintenance thereof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/07/2022 at 22:03, virginton said:

Even the previous generations of nuclear power were far safer for everyone involved than gas or, above all, coal. Coal has killed thousands per year in direct industrial accidents alone in any significant producing country over 200-odd years. That's before you look at the long-term health effects on workers and the rest of the population in air pollution. 

Worrying about the safety of nuclear power because of a couple of high-profile accidents is as irrational as being feart of flying while choosing to drive every day. 

Fortunately we don't even need to rely on nuclear alone as a reliable power source, but it should definitely be part of that mix instead of the total nonsense that is domestic gas burning. 

This 100% , people don't know the difference between hazard & risk

Hazard- something with the potential for harm

risk- likelihood of harm occurring

Flying involves more hazards than driving,  nuclear power generation has more hazards than coal or gas,  they both have much much lower risks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...