I agree that solar at UK latitudes and weather is not viable, and I agree that the subsidies are a giant fraud against, in particular, the poor, and against UK industry.
I would not write off solar around the equator quite so quickly though.
That surely depends on the state of the technology and costs? I dunno what the light to electricity conversion efficiency is at the moment - but it's possible that might improve dramatically in the future?
The same arguments can be applied to any sort of subsidy on anything.
I'd not write off any means of production. That usually implies some form of gut reaction.
Most of the global c£50B renewable energy subsidy is feed-in and tax breaks towards a technology that arguably needs a leg up.
Nothing like the direct c.£600B subsidy to fossil fuels.
Nothing like a made-up number, is there?
snip
snip
I actually agree with your conclusion, but I do think you need to factor in the cost of loss of containment of radioactive materials when it does occur. There is a very real cost in terms of human lives and health and loss use of land for quite a long time. Probably still a price worth paying, but it's not quite as clear cut as you say above.
I don't disagree with you. If I had my way, there'd be massive investment in new nuclear power stations around the country, following France's example; investment into development of new forms of nuclear power, both LFT reactors and fusion, and investment into pushing ahead with an underground depository in the UK for high level waste.
But we are where we are. And where we are is saddled with a range of unreliable, intermittent renewables, foisted on us for political reasons. So we have to make the best of it until either the renewables no longer get huge subsidies and drop out of the game for economic reasons, or the hypothesis of AGW is demonstrably shown to be without substance, when support for renewables will disappear.
There are times when wind power produces more electricity than can be handled locally, for various reasons. It would seem sensible to examine methods for storing that excess energy for times when it can be more effectively used. Hydrogen is one such; there are plenty of others. After all, once wind turbines are constructed and operating, the bulk of the investment has been made, so it makes sense to use as much as possible of the electricity they produce, provided of course the investment in whatever storage technique is chosen is paid for by the eventual sale of that stored electricity or its equivalent. 30% efficiency might be pretty poor, but it's surely better than in effect just throwing the electricity away. AIUI it was, after all, the reason Dinorwig was constructed, to store surplus energy produced by the nuclear power stations of the day, at times when there were surpluses on the grid.
the problem is that supply of hydrocarbons is limited (even if we aren't going to run out in our lifetime)
making it using electrolysis can continue indefinitely (well until we run out of water, in which case we would be dead anyway)
tim
Efficiency cannot be greater than 100% by definition. And my reading indicates that for solar, the theoretical limit is a bit above 80%. So we're prolly not far off what is possible.
And the max is governed anyway by the amount of energy that actually lands on the panels - not a lot at these latitudes.
Yes, and so they should be. Subsidies are a fraud, generally, and are an invitation to exploitation.
Someone who has a clue has actually done the sums, more like.
Oh, c'mon. If this had been 150 years ago, plenty would say flying would never happen.
It's of that order, and Fossil:Renewals > 10:1. Have a look at Wikipedia for a ball park figure(s). If you have access to peer reviewed literature, plenty of decent studies.
That is total nonsense.
There was no need to evacuate a single person from Fuku after a week to let any I131 fizzle out had elapsed. Everything was contained.
Probably still a price
In fact it is.
The worst that can happen to any reactor that isn't a windscale or Chernobyl design is a total core meltdown. At that point the secondary containment contains the core, and that is in effect that.
You may have some hydrogen to vent: Provided you just let it vent (instead of trying to contain it) there is no risk of a hydrogen explosion, and that means a small but controlled release of radiation. Nothing after that is in any way dangerous remote from the actual core.
Its is perfectly possible to build a reactor that can have a total meltdown and suffer nothing more than a minor radiation release. It wont stop the biased faux new press calling it a disaster, but it isn't. Its an expensive industrial accident, but its not unsafe for the public.
>
Only because they didn't have a compact enough power source until the ICE came along. Or they assumed that because some birds flap their wings, any man made device had to do the same - overlooking that many birds spend all day gliding.
Hydrogen is a crap fuel really - much better to make AtomicSynDiesel.
For very small values of "decent". Essentially they're all variations on the favourite mathematical system of most greenies; "makey-uppey numbers".
These are government subsidies - pretty much public record (with the notable exception of China). But carry on, do.
No, just pay them to throw it away,. Its cheaper. Do the sums
In fact it would be cheaper to buy all the wind turbines from whoever owns them and simply demolish them, than pay all the subsidies for the rest of their working lives.
Hydrogen is one such; there are plenty of
No., the storage would cost more and represent even more danger to the public than the turbines do already.
Do the sums, Unless you do this handwavey faux logic will fry your brains.
My feeling is that te cheapest way to solve the renewable energy problem is nationalise them then run them till they fall apart then demolish them
so it makes sense to use as
No, it doesn't, if it costs more than any other electricity - more faux logic. Remember on average every unit of renewable electricity ciost twice as much as a unit of ordinary electricity. The less they generate the cheaper electricity is.
WE£ didn't pay to erect them, but we pay over the odds for anything they occasionally produce.
provided of course
No, not if the cost of the storage exceeds the market price of the energy
AIUI it was, after all, the reason
And that just anout the only place where its cheap enough to make economic sense...
Possibly, Or possibly something worse than what we think is the worst could happen if people were stupid enough. It isn't sensible to underestimate human stupidity, let alone malice. But perhaps you're right.
No matter how stupid/maliciuous/evil genius your are its damned hard to kill someone with a marshmallow.
Its a lot easier to get into a car and kill someone, than a nuclear power station;
Nuclear reactions are very very tricky to get started and maintain. At the first oddity they stop, apart from decay heat
That's enough to melt a core, but its not enough to get through containment.
even a reactor ancient as Fukushima was *designed* to contain a melted down core, and it did.
Core meltdown IS the worst possible thing that can happen to a BWR or PWR.
Only Chernobyl could be worse, because there was no secondary containment, and so the damn thing BURNT. That type of reactor was never built in the west, basically because it was crap and dangerous. But even Chernobyl only killed 56 people give or take, The pint is that there is not even enough U235 in a bog standard reactor to even do a Hiroshima, and they radiation there only killed people for about 5 miles.
I know radiation is scary but its not that deadly at all.
Not compared with many other things.
Fossil fuel subsidies consist of the social costs in terms of pollution born in the main i.e. breathed in, by city dwellers, which will impact on their health in years to come.
You on the other hand despite professing not to believe all the "makey uppy" numbers concerning the deleterious effects of all this pollution just happen to chose to live in the country far away as possible from all this pollution. Along with a your sceptical mates, Streater, Hogg, The Natural Philosopher Now there's a surprise. Not being greens this can't because you all like looking at trees, and it can't be for the company as you all seem to spend all of your time applauding each other with your OT crap on here.
What's the old saying ? Don't do as I say, do as I do.
No "modest proposal" from you about all this OT shit I notice. Now there's another surprise.
For hypocritical bullshit you just about take the biscuit old chum. But then given your apparent expertise on banking matters this should really have come as no surprise to anyone.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.