Think things are ever going to get better ?, think again.

A_fiend_for_life

stephen163 wrote: »

However, a lot of people don't realise that the current state of the electrical grid would not allow their wide-scale deployment. Reinforcements are needed, taking time and a substantial amount of investment. It's the same for nuclear, they can't simply be placed onto the grid at a whim.

At the moment, the world is at a crossroads. We know there's a problem to be solved and we have a good idea what the potential solutions are. However, because of the massive investment required, the costs of making a wrong decision now are astronomical.

This bit on reinforcing the grid is something I don't understand. Why does it need reinforcing? How is it achieved? What factors influence the need to reinforce it?

stephen163

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

This bit on reinforcing the grid is something I don't understand. Why does it need reinforcing? How is it achieved? What factors influence the need to reinforce it?

Today's grid was built in the 50's and 60's and designed to accommodate centralised power generation. Calculations showed that it was cheaper to generate power centrally, for instance at the coal field, than to transport the coal to the load centres and generate there. The problem is, an overhead line is physically restricted by the capacity of power it can transport. The situation we have today is a bulk power flow from the North (Scotland and northern counties of England), to the load centres in the south, where most of the UK population is. Routinely, generators that want to produce power are not allowed to because it would overload the circuits. You might say, build more overhead lines, but the last time National Grid tried to build a major line, they were faced by 12 years of planning disputes.

So because the Nuclear plant have a far greater capacity than the fossil fuel plants they will be replacing, you would need to either build more lines or reinforce existing lines.

The second major problem is that the distribution networks (lower voltage) aren't geared up to accepting a large proliferation of renewables. The whole thing was designed with the big assumption that electricity always flows one way, whereas now, it has to go both. Without going into the details, believe me when I say that this is a very big problem.

And there's also the balancing issue. If generation exceeds demand, the frequency increases above 50 Hz. If demand exceeds generation, the frequency drops. If the increase or drop is too great, you get blackouts. As it is, things like Hydro, coal and spinning reserve are used to match generation to demand, with the understanding that output from Nuclear and fossil fuel stations is constant and known. Now you have a large number of renewables with unpredictable output - how do you balance that?

indianropetrick

stephen163 wrote: »

I know what you're saying but the problem we face requires a co-ordinated response and the development of solutions now that was take many, many years to be implemented. For instance, most people are now agreed that we need more renewables. However, a lot of people don't realise that the current state of the electrical grid would not allow their wide-scale deployment. Reinforcements are needed, taking time and a substantial amount of investment. It's the same for nuclear, they can't simply be placed onto the grid at a whim.

At the moment, the world is at a crossroads. We know there's a problem to be solved and we have a good idea what the potential solutions are. However, because of the massive investment required, the costs of making a wrong decision now are astronomical.

Belief that oil will 'run out' is based on the completely false and fraudulent notion of Biotic oil. Oil is Abiotic in nature and exists in potentially endless quantities within the earths mantle. The propaganda that oil is the product of rotting foliage and ancient animals is exactly that and is no more true than the idea that the earth was created in 7 days.

This is of course well known to the oil companies (and the Russians who publish regularly about this in their Industry journals) and if you dig deep enough you will find many examples of Exxon providing huge finance to 'scientific studies' (propaganda) which 'prove' that oil is finite resource. There is of course still the problem of getting it out of the ground but there is more and more sophisticated methods for this being developed all the time.

The only reason for oil to rise above $60 a barrel ever again will be chronic tension/war in the middle east which obviously does hamper the global supply. I also believe that there may possibly be some crucial information within the public domain within the next 2 years which will lead to oil falling to below $10 a barrel.

(Awaits abuse and ridicule)

Really2

indianropetrick wrote: »

I also believe that there may possibly be some crucial information within the public domain within the next 2 years which will lead to oil falling to below $10 a barrel.

(Awaits abuse and ridicule)

What is that my 2.4D Automatic is very intrested.

indianropetrick

Really, too long and complex to get into here (and it's the wrong forum in all honesty). But I promise to come back to this if it ever hits the mainstream papers/TV.

Really2

indianropetrick wrote: »

Really, too long and complex to get into here (and it's the wrong forum in all honesty). But I promise to come back to this if it ever hits the mainstream papers/TV.

Thanks but I think I would have found out then:)

PasturesNew

I watched a fascinating programme on TV the other 'middle of the night'.

It's about:
- peak oil
- agricultural dependency on fossil fuels
- the decline in farmer numbers and old-style skills (only 150,000 farmers now, 1/10th of before, with an average age of 60).
- how there is no way farming can return to how it was 100 years ago using manual labour, it'd need too many people and the physical side of the job isn't something many could do
- it would be impossible to feed everybody
- permaculture

Anyway ... I could write a book about it, it was so interesting. Watch it here on iPlayer (in a very easy to follow format with no scientists in offices, nor dull naff presenters)

A Farm For the New World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hs8zp/Natural_World_20082009_A_Farm_for_the_Future

PasturesNew

Masomnia wrote: »

We can generate power from nuclear power stations, amongst the many other options. It's viable, we found the money to bail out banks so if we really had to we could build more nuclear power stations.

It's viable to run a car on hydrogen in California. There are filling stations there with hydrogen pumps, so again it is possible, and if it became absolutely necessary we could do it.

It's not about people running cars, there's not enough fuel for agriculture. Not enough for us to grow, transport and process our food. Not enough for modern farming to do all the ploughing/silage operations it does.

Watch this that explains it in detail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hs8zp/Natural_World_20082009_A_Farm_for_the_Future

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

I watched a fascinating programme on TV the other 'middle of the night'.

It's about:
- peak oil
- agricultural dependency on fossil fuels
- the decline in farmer numbers and old-style skills (only 150,000 farmers now, 1/10th of before, with an average age of 60).
- how there is no way farming can return to how it was 100 years ago using manual labour, it'd need too many people and the physical side of the job isn't something many could do
- it would be impossible to feed everybody
- permaculture

Anyway ... I could write a book about it, it was so interesting. Watch it here on iPlayer (in a very easy to follow format with no scientists in offices, nor dull naff presenters)

A Farm For the New World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hs8zp/Natural_World_20082009_A_Farm_for_the_Future

Thanks for the link...sounds like my sort of show.

You know, we could do it though. Would it be hard-of course, but it would also help the obesity crisis. Farmers in the old days ate loads....My g.grandfather lamented the end of his steak breakfasts!

It wouldbe a different face of farming though....

mardatha

Absolutely ! I think it's people who wear blinkers nowadays, not the horses... The victorians did it without oil, so we can do it. If there's room for a few small holdings in between all the new houses that is. If people would learn to think in new ways instead of running on tram lines then there is always a way !