OT One of the reasons we need renewable energy/

[harry]

[tabbypurr]

renewables don't solve that. I wish they did.

[Steve Walker]

Nuclear and using electricity from it to produce liquid or gaseous fuels is the solution for that.

SteveW

[harry]

Nuclear. The most expensive option. Nobody knows what to do with the waste. If they did, they'd be doing it and they aren't.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes.

The waste heat itself is actually useful in that context, and if stuck nect to a coal fired powerstation using metal oxide reduction to generate a stream of pure CO2, thet could be recycled back as synthetic hydrocarbon fuel.. a coal to oil route not used before

The problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is where to get the carbon. The atmosphere is short of it really. Plants need more

[nightjar]

Far from it. The most expensive is open cycle gas turbine, with coal running close behind, followed by offshore wind, then nuclear.

We do know what to do with the waste: Store it until the radioactivity drops to a level where it can be safely disposed of. Nuclear fuel rod radioactivity has dropped to about one thousandth of its initial level after 40 years in storage.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Total bollocks

The most expensive option is solar, followed by offshore wind, then onshore wind and then nuclear

CCGT and OCGT are similar in cost depending on the capacity factors. High usage needs CCGT but OCGT is cheaper as backup and peaking plant

Hydro and coal are cheapest

[harry]

The above statement is total bollocks.

[Andrew]

What is going to happen to billions of scrap solar PV panels in about 15 years time ?.

Are the Chinese going to take them all back and dispose of them ?

[Andrew]

Most expensive could be that braindead plan for Swansea bay.

If the Lib Dems hold the balnce of power this Winter, then it'll be back with a vengeance.

[nightjar]

Not what Wikipedia says, but I wouldn't claim it is necessarily accurate:

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. I did my own calcs. Based in not what operators said their numbers wre but bad on actual capital costs, lifetime, capacity factors and need for backup, using same cost of capital for all and eliminating government subsidy and carbon credits

Needless to say these were vastly different from what green leaning bankers and renewable energy lobbies claimed

Its another area where we are subject to endless lies and propaganda - just like climate change

And the EU. They all have the hallmarks of the same generaic trype of organisatins behind them.

Juts get as many allegedly different 'expert' organisations to repeat the same lie and idiots believe its true

[dennis]

Yes they do and yes they are doing stuff with it.

First step store it for a few half lifes.

Step two reprocess it into more fuel.

rinse and repeat.

Shame they didn't do this when they were rushing to make atom bombs.

[alan_m]

With wind and solar do they also factor in the cost of the backup when the wind doesn't shine and the sun doesn't blow? One could argue that those facilities already exist but if the green lobby has their wish alternative coal and gas will soon vanish.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No they dont. Nor do they factor in the grid stabilisation needed - see last months power cuts - nor yet the massive cables needed to absorb the full force of a nice stiff gale in Scotland when the demand is darn sarf, that lie idle when a high pressure zone lies over the mountains of bonnie Scotland

In addition, it's very easy to claim amortisation of capital over a 25 year period, for windmills when in fact they are useless after 12, and capacity factors up around 40% when in fact they average out at 22%.

Those two factors alone will make levelised costs 4 times higher than their 'models' suggest.

Likewise its very easy to use events like Fukushima to enforce a policy of massive cleanup to a level utterly unneeded that must come out of a privately funded insurance policy that alone will double the cost of nuclear power.

Should we be suing the renewable company for loss of power last month? How many people could have died as a result?

More than at Fukushima for sure.

Nope the dice are well loaded. Renewables can do no wrong and are given a free passage to trample on regulationns whilst coal and nuclear are demonized.

[bert]

Just switched energy supply from OVO (mostly renewables and suddenly horrendously expensive) to EDF (cheapest of the Big 5 and mostly nuclear).

Nothing - it's harmless. For a small fee they can come and bury it in a hole in my back garden if they wish.

Nothing needs doing.

[bert]

Very good question. How many CFL light bulbs are now going to landfill?

[bert]

The above statement is total bollocks.

[spuorgelgoog]

"Wind turbines generate more cash when switched off and Scots customers shouldering £650m blame

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, 2018 was a record year for constraint payments, reaching a staggering £124,649,106 - surpassing the total in 2017 of £108,247,860.

Of this, £115,716,335 was paid to Scottish wind farms, and nearly all of that - £115,313,091 - went to onshore wind farms.

In 2018, several wind farms were switched off for around a quarter of the year.

Bhlaraidh wind farm near Fort Augustus, Scottish Highlands - which has 32 turbines - was constrained for 29 per cent of 2018.

"Interestingly, because they're in a strong market position they make more per unit than when they don't sell than what they would sell per unit to the consumer."

Owain

[Roger Hayter]

Do they still get paid not to produce electricity when there is no wind anyway (assuming this is a somewhat local situation and there is enough production elsewhere)?