Lib Dem vote backs nuclear power plants

just liars and u-turners

I don't think they are, the problem however is that they have such a varied set of beliefs between them in other areas that they tend not to have any kind of image as to what they do stand for. The truth of course is that the party political era is coming to an end and people have to start to realise that there is no one clear answer based in any one system to solving all ills.

If only compromise was a subject at school. Brian

Probably is, at Eton. I loved the radio comedy sketch the other day pointing out that once upon a time Etonians only had a very limited choice of careers, but now they could become TV actors, Archbishop of Canterbury, Mayor of London, etc. etc.

Or just more sites. Yes the output from a given site would still be variable but predictably so and I wouldn't be surprised if you could predict within a very small margin most of the time and for years into the future. Unlike wind which is at best described as randomly variable and intermittent.

predictability does not lessen the effects of intermittency

Ed Davey, the LibDem energy minister took over when Chris Huhne resigned, he understands the numbers, that coal power stations are being closed, and old nuclear ones being closed, he's trying to be green but also trying to keep Britain with enough electricity so we dont have power cuts in a few years. And encouraging insulation of houses which are wasting heat.

To a large extent it does. There is as much predictability of tidal as there is with any other generation. No restrictions on fuel supply, no chance of a failure at a bulk gas terminal, or a train derailing causing a restriction or stopping just in time coal imports, or any one of the many hundreds of problems that can restrict or cause a shutdown at a thermal power station. Of course with a 'new' technology, in an extreme environment, you will have reliability problems, but essentially its just a few parts, rotating at relatively slow speeds, and a bit of sealing.

With tidal generation the variability from the prediction after a year or two of operation would be absolutely negligible. Large scale tidal would fit into the existing generation portfolio with far less impact on the operation of that conventional generation than wind has caused.

I suspect that when or if we ever get to generating most of the energy we need sustainably - not just our current electricity demand but also the vastly larger amount we current consume for transport, space heating, agriculture and manufacturing etc - then intermittency will become pretty much a non-issue because we'll probably convert a lot of electricity to chemical fuels in processes and plants which can easily be scaled to absorb electricity surpluses and store resultant chemical fuels easily.

Whether wind, tide, PV etc are economically viable alongside the sort of large scale nuclear which, realistically, we will need to get us to this level of sustainable generation is another question, but the flexibility of converting leccy to other easily-stored fuels is good news for nuclear too since attempting to follow the diurnal fluctuations of our current electricity demand with nukes is probably not desirable.

as there is with *conventional* generation

To a very small extent only.

But then I have done the calculations and you have not.

What counts in terms of cost and backup is not when the variation in output from renewables happens, but how deep it goes.

Consider: you are wiring up a house. You mneed to have the wiring handle the peak load. Not the average load. The costs of te wiring is all about the peak load. It doesn't matter that you know when the peak load will occur. What matters is how big it is.

Neither is it helpful to you to have your neighbours peak load coincide with your low load. Unless you run yet another cable from his house to yours.

Utter tosh, because predictability is not the issue: its the capacity factor and the peak to mean and trough to mean ratio.

Sunlight is predicable, but it doesn't make solar any more than a joke, : once the sun goes down, even if you know exactly when it will, all the backup has to come online.

Utterly irrelevant, since predictability is not a major issue with generation.

still completely missing the point.

If you get paid one a month on the 1st of every month and the money has to be spent there and then, its still as useless as being paid at some random point in the month, compared with having a bank account.

Why NOT rewrite the laws of physics?

use of liquid fuel derived from nuclear is very cost ineffective unless you have abundant cheap energy from nuclear at the sort of prices that make it 'too cheap to meter'

IN the end, its a financial tradeoff. Up around $500 a barrel, it might be cost effective to syntheise fuel. IF that is the only option for luxury off grid transport.

But to synthesise it from windmills, it would need to be up around the $1000 a barrel level.

BTW the universe does not as we currently understand physics, admit of such a concept as 'sustainable energy'. Entropy is a one way ticket.

Fuel cells? I did look that up a while back, a long while back. Can't remember now what the issues were.

But what type of nuclear? Unless it's based on breeder, or perhaps thorium, technology, forget it.

Unlike all other renewables the variation in output from tidal is entirely predictable, so there is significantly less concern about when it occurs and how big the variation is, all you do is alter your loading of conventional plant accordingly. It's no different to the daily loading curve. Of course it has an impact on the conventional generation, its efficiency and profitability, but so does Joe Public going home,going to bed and switching the TV and all the lights off.

With tidal you provide for the peak because you know, with a great deal of certainty that it will occur.

Sunlight in its daily duration is predictable, the output of panels that may be under cloud isn't It's a VERY, VERY BIG difference to tidal.

Predictability is a very major factor with conventional generation. Without it you cannot have reliable operation of the grid system.

Did you actually read what I wrote? the daily loading curve already costs us enough, making it WORSE simply adds to the cost

hat you are saying is that bashing your head with a stick is no different from banging your head against the wall, which you do already, so why not do both?

Really Mike!

It is irrelevant that you knowits there, just as its irrelevant that you know the demands peak is there. Its still costs money fuel and redundant plant to cover it, and the problem is made worse by the internmittency than it is already.

why are you missing the point completely?

That predictability does not affect fuel burn or costs of covering short term dispatch?

Shheesh! more straw men. We are not talking about relaibility, but about cost.

Good, I say. What we need is MPs that don't start from some (extreme) dogmatic view so they're completely unable to see that their policies are not working.

I think you find that parties reflect broad social positions of a given time: the pronblem happens when the broad social issues vanishes, but the parties do not.

Then when new broad social issues arise, new parties arise....

Which broad social issues have vanished that are still reflected by a current political party?

What new broad social issue has arisen recently?

Natch. And I think technically Thorium is a breeder technology.

Pretty sure there are other processes, and no doubt more will/would be developed when/if we generate enough electricity to want to do so.