Nuclear power : how visions change

chris_m

cells wrote: »

Storage of energy is just that, storing energy until its needed and a lump of coal is storage hence why our coal plants store the stuff in large coal beds near the power station awaiting use.

And what do you do once you've burnt it? Ah, dig up some more or, worse, have to go off to find some to dig up.

I was under the impression that we were discussing storage of electricity that has been produced in excess of immediate demand for use later when demand is greater than the generating capacity. Just burning another lump of coal is not the answer to that .

cells

chris_m wrote: »

And what do you do once you've burnt it? Ah, dig up some more or, worse, have to go off to find some to dig up.

I was under the impression that we were discussing storage of electricity that has been produced in excess of immediate demand for use later when demand is greater than the generating capacity. Just burning another lump of coal is not the answer to that .

Storing excess electricity costs so much that you would simply turn down your wind/PV/nuclear than to try and uneconomically turn it into some thing else.

This is actually the real problem with wind and solar. Not when they produce too little but when they produce too much. This excess will just be grounded. With solar output the correlation is so high that its difficult to push it beyond 15% of a UK type grid without mass storage. Wind is better in that sense in that the capacity factors and correlation work better so you could go to 50% with little grounding.


Anyway of all the green energy tech I have seen I think googles project makani wind drones have the biggest potential. They could be so cheap that they can be overbuilt and allow grids to be 70% wind in a potentially subsidy free way. However even they would need gas/coal backup

kinger101

cells wrote: »

if it aint broke.....

My view is the next 15 years will see quite a lot of change so trying to put in place a system now will be a little silly.

Within 10 years it will be much clearer if PV/Wind will indeed get cheaper, if EVs will work, if self drive cars will be viable and if china is able to build nukes to an affordable budget

At that point it will be better to make a decision on the best course of action

It is broke. Any credible scientist believes man-made climate change is real. The continual delaying of decisions is why it's taking us forever to get some new nuclear power up and running. I think the only technical progress will be with renewables, nuclear and energy storage/grid balancing. Carbon capture is just a theoretical exercise.

kinger101

stator wrote: »

There's not been any significant improvement in lithium-ion batteries for quite a few years.

In 20 years, lithium batteries will be about as relevant as sticking two electrodes into a lemon.

kinger101

stator wrote: »

7kwh? That's about £1.05 worth of electricity. At a cost of $3000 I don't think their battery is any different to what is currently used in Electric cars.

In theory, you could set up something similar in your own home if you sourced all the right parts, and found someone to install/certify.
The exciting bit about the Tesla battery is that it's one box.

I think it's an okay investment with solar panels (rather than selling the excess). The problem that solar panels for generation of electricity has it that their peak performance happens to be when you're out at work.

It might also make sense on Economy Seven if the price could be reduced. Which it might be with scale/new technology.

Many countries already have battery packs in homes to run fridge and lighting circuits off, because they can expect power outages daily. In India for example.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

It is broke. Any credible scientist believes man-made climate change is real. The continual delaying of decisions is why it's taking us forever to get some new nuclear power up and running. I think the only technical progress will be with renewables, nuclear and energy storage/grid balancing. Carbon capture is just a theoretical exercise.

every credible scientist knows that man made climate change will save the world from a devastating ice age.


leaping to use the wrong technology will only delay the proper and appropriate solutions to both our need for energy and to stabilise the warming gases.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

It is broke. Any credible scientist believes man-made climate change is real. The continual delaying of decisions is why it's taking us forever to get some new nuclear power up and running. I think the only technical progress will be with renewables, nuclear and energy storage/grid balancing. Carbon capture is just a theoretical exercise.

No doubt claimitchange is real but what we are less certain on is the magnitude of negative or positive. Even the doom mongers conceded claimitchange is a positive for 70 years before it might become a negative

At some stage we will be rich enough to convert to wind mills or nukes but right now we aren't. Subsidies to nukes or PV panels are no different coming from citizen or the state. And the question should be should the population subsidise wind mills over education/NHS and I think at this stage its a no

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

every credible scientist knows that man made climate change will save the world from a devastating ice age.

The Hunan race probably already has the technology to cool the planet by reflecting more light out to space but to heat it up and save it from an ice age would be far more difficult and devastating

In this regard a slight warming is possibly a wise insurance policy

Also ocean fertilisation might be capable of mass carbon capture and storage for virtually nil cost. Actually probably for a profit as fish stocks massively increasee. Read up on it its fascinating

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

every credible scientist knows that man made climate change will save the world from a devastating ice age.


leaping to use the wrong technology will only delay the proper and appropriate solutions to both our need for energy and to stabilise the warming gases.

That's a very flippant remark. No scientist believe that. Climate change and fossil fuels are going to cause major problems to agriculture. Yield penalties in farms near cities have already been measured as a consequence of ozone release by fossil fuels.

Technologies are ultimately tested in the field, and get additional funding based on success of failure. There's no point waiting for the right one. Try them all, because more than half will fail.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

That's a very flippant remark. No scientist believe that. Climate change and fossil fuels are going to cause major problems to agriculture. Yield penalties in farms near cities have already been measured as a consequence of ozone release by fossil fuels.

Technologies are ultimately tested in the field, and get additional funding based on success of failure. There's no point waiting for the right one. Try them all, because more than half will fail.

How should humanity stop an ice age?

They have happened before and will happen again

Or is thaybsort of destruction and loss of life OK cos you know its organic

---

Food isn't a problem and never will be (unless we get a monster ice age)

Wild life can be further enhanced by humanity be it greening deserts or fertilising oceans. Humans aren't evil we are the saviours of this planet. We will alter its orbit in a few hundred million years and save it from the suns expansion

Is the polar bear or three eyed newt or aby other part if gia capable of that?