Willing to bet that blinkered view takes no account of the energy needed to find and produce any form of conventional energy, and to transport and convert it into that needed.
But as a claimed engineer, Turnip has never been one for accuracy.
Don't forget coal before gas.
Do you really think producing 'our' electricity from gas is sustainable? Just curious.
That isnt true of electrical heating, internal combustion engines, power generation using coal, nukes etc etc etc.
In article <qgp466$jjl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, Harry Bloomfield snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes
And if your "non-renewable" is nuclear then why bother with the renewables in the first place?
that affects prices not the return on energy and why renewables don't have a significant effect on CO2 production.
It happens that bert formulated :
Exactly! You pay twice, for the same thing.
'Amazing' tells us nothing of facts. We still use 1940s mains plugs, 1800s headphone connectors, 1800s battery technology, 1700s building technology, 1913 technology kitchen knives and so on. Hype exceeds real tech progress massively. Most people are in fantasy when it comes to tech progress.
if you mean house electricity supply, it's fairly firmly in the never category
Batteries are the one part of the system that can not improve much. Renewable energy OTOH, eventually I expect we'll get very cheap solar electricity, but storing it is always going to be of limited practicality.
Ultimately the point is the human labour cost. All the materials we use are there available, what costs to get them & use them is the labour. Large scale renewables + storage is just a losing proposition in that respect, and that shows no real promise of ever changing.
Tiny scale renewables & no storage or just storage within products may eventually work, but only for small scale stuff. Silicon cost keeps falling, eventually we could put a film on building materials that collects something for trivial cost, and that could charge battery products, but it would only be of very limited use for non-battery stuff. It won't reduce peak non-renewable power generation capacity.
So far they've not proven very practical. Political subsidies have given them the impression of being workable.
NT
that's news to me.
they're already there. You can't increase battery charge density without them becoming dangerous, we've already seen the results of that with lithium. Denser is not going to see acceptance.
energy costs are labour costs
whatever that is. Just another way to scam money off people of course.
NT
It takes no account of the most popular colour of underpants either. That's about as relevant.
nonsequitur
NT
Exactly. That is wht the greenms hate nuclear. And fracking. They makes renewables totally pointless.
And since te Greens are now a 100% funded by commercial interest operation, thats a nono.
Are you saying finding then mining oil or gas or coal, and transporting it to where needed, then building a power station etc to convert to electricity produces zero CO2?
I rest my case. ;-)
Fairly par for the course from a so called renewables hater. Load one side of the argument only to try and justify your claim.
Just to get this clear. You think fracking can produce unlimited supplies of gas for ever?
Are you saying that making a windy mill with all that concrete and shipping and mining of the stuff used in that process and maintenance costs are significantly less? Don't forget all the extra infrastructure you need to service all that distributed generation and the cost of backing it up which includes the costs of mining and shipping that you are highlighting above. You still need it all because renewables are unreliable and until the public are happy to have their power turned off when the wind doesn't blow you have to pay the costs of both in cash and CO2. Even if the public accepted being cut off that would just lead to a load of generators running producing even more CO2.
I have a generator as backup, mainly to run the aquarium and heating if I need to.
I thought you were going to make a useful point.
And fwliw, I don't hate renewables. They're part of our future, just not a useful part of our present.
NT
I'm not saying anything. Since I don't know the true figures. And neither do you or anyone else. Since the energy used in finding, mining and transporting say gas is going to vary enormously.
But I do know the likes of Turnip, etc, only ever gives a very one sided view. At least as bad as the greens in this respect.
Would you be happy to have your power cut off when a conventional power station goes off line for maintenance or whatever? Of course not. You allow for that as part of overall planning.
So our current system isn't perfect, then?
Of course. Quite surprising how many Luddites there are on here.
Of course not but it doesn't need 100% duplication of power stations to do that but with windymills and solar it does require exactly the same number of conventional power stations as now to produce the energy when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. In fact it needs more as windymills use electricity to keep them selves usable when there is no wind or when there is too much wind.
No the underground cables have burnt out twice in the last 18 months.
Think that is a very simplistic view. No sun or wind anywhere in the UK all at the same time?
All the conventional power stations could fail at the same time too.
Wind power etc can reduce the amount of gas we need to burn at any one point in time. Surely that is a good thing?
it happens.
odds are vanishingly small
No. It's not too hard to think it through.
NT
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.