I'm taking a leaf out of your book - a bit like calculations you pretend to have done.
All you have to do is find a GW nuclear reactor and look at it. These things are tiny for their output. They also use a tiny amount of fuel
- about 20tonnes a year per GW.
Find a wind farm anywhere in the world which actually produces more than 1.5W/m2. Cities can consume 15W/m2!
By the way, at 1.5W/m2, wind is still about 10 times better power density than biomass, which is about 10 times better than hydro.
If wind power is so good, explain why Denmark, the country with the highest installed wind capacity in the world is the second worst CO2 per capita producer of the EU 15 countries?
Precsiely. I suspect what he is saying is that in bright california sunshine the PANEL COST is about $1 per watt generated.
The capital cost of a nuclear set, which DOES work in dull overcast conditions, and at night, is around $2000 per KW. Or $2 per watt.
(its about 3-10 times that for a windmill)
Now of course its not in the costings as to how much tranmission line and ancillary control stuff you need to manage around 3 million square meters of solar panels..Thats 3 square kilometers..to generate the same amount of electricity as a large power station.
The avearge insolatin of California is about three times what it is in the UK.
In December/January - when wee need the MOST energy, the average insolation is is less than 1Kwh/day/sq meter..
formatting link
total energy consumption is 160GW average. More in winter, Say
300GW. Say 12.6GWh per day.
At 100% efficiency, - probably ten times what is realistically achievable by ANY technology - that means AT LEAST 300 square kilometers of solar panes. Realistically at 10% efficiency thats 3000 square kilometers, and thats daytime only power. So an area the size of the lake district covered in solar panels. Right. And a hell of a lot of overnight storage heaters or batteries.
Its greenmyth nonsense.
Sure it can help a little, but like all greenwash bollocks, it can't do more than nibble at teh edges of the problem.
There's no technical reason why nuclear can't produce hot water for piping to homes rather than (or as well as) electricity. Nuclear doesn't have to be big either, Nuclear powered subs don't have Gigawatt power reactors.
There may be disadvantages of Nuclear, but home heating at great efficiency isn't one of them.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:38:19 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Ah, proof by assertion.
Then the nuclear lobby would be building their power stations. There is nothing to stop them and has never been anything to stop them. Instead they want the planning system fixed and a number of other risks transferred elsewhere before they do anything.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:10:36 GMT someone who may be wrote this:-
None at all. It is done in Russia.
However, in order to do this there is a need to place the power stations close to where the heat is used. As I have said for a long time, let's put say three nuclear power stations in London and one in the other large cities in England.
Neither do some forms of spacecraft. However, to generate electricity for general use large stations have always been favoured for various reasons. So far nuclear power stations have been bigger then their predecessors.
Then I imagine Mr Brown will soon be calling for nuclear power stations to be placed in the English cities.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:29:25 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
It is interesting that when it suits them the nuclear lobby say that there is no such thing as green electricity, as it all goes into one grid.
The evaporator to concentrate highly active waste and the glass block making plant are two examples of processes where there are carbon dioxide emissions.
Wind farms involve a fair amount of concrete, they also involve things like copper in the cables. Solar panels don't involve much concrete.
While much of a nuclear power station is no different to a coal fired one, the reactor is a different matter. This is full of all sorts of large scale precision assemblies made from various materials.
The usual claim is that they don't mention conserving energy enough in their enthusiasm for promoting renewable generation. It is mildly amusing to see how the claims vary.
Their position is actually available for those seriously interested in the subject to see, "Our energy needs could be met with safe and efficient renewable energy technologies and serious investment in energy efficiency. Investment in these sensible alternatives would be undermined if UK ministers are allowed to foist a new nuclear power programme on Scotland."
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.