By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Allendale Jan 24th

Non-renewable energy

A good day for non-renewable energy !

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
J Hancock27/11/2020 09:52:18
539 forum posts

Today now.

Coal 7% Wind 1.7%

Other stuff red-lining to get to 39GW

Don't switch your kettles on all at once.

Hopper27/11/2020 10:16:16
avatar
5207 forum posts
115 photos

Posted by J Hancock on 27/11/2020 09:52:18:

...

Wind 1.7%

Eat more beans!

Ady127/11/2020 10:31:57
avatar
4235 forum posts
593 photos

In Scotland there will be no cars or gas boilers in 20 years so we are well prepared

The local car dealerships are selling donkeys from 2025

Government clergy only use taxpayer funded taxi rides as part of their sacrifice

Bo'sun27/11/2020 10:39:18
359 forum posts

"Carbon Neutral" energy for the future. What a load of old shoe makers. The tree hugging eco warriors need to get real!

J Hancock27/11/2020 10:58:42
539 forum posts

'Powering Britain',BBC 2 last night was very good. Heysham AGR's .

Even they are scheduled to go before 2030, along with Hinkley+Hunterston with nothing to replace them.

As Hopper suggested, beans ( curried ) may well be the answer.

not done it yet27/11/2020 11:04:23
5639 forum posts
20 photos

I don’t care a monkey about where or how the leccy is generated - except we need to reduce fossil burning to the absolute minimum as soon as possible.

I just looked at leccy generation on the ‘Real Time British Electricity Fuel Mix’ site and we are currently dishing up 3.3 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every second from burning fossil fuels.

The UK is a tiny part of the world. That is why it is unsustainable. Nuclear is preferable to burning fossil fuels - apart from the mess to clear up later - but there are cleaner nuclear technologies than our present fleet.

Fossil-burning luddites need to get real.

SillyOldDuffer27/11/2020 11:16:27
Moderator
6878 forum posts
1539 photos
Posted by Bo'sun on 27/11/2020 10:39:18:

"Carbon Neutral" energy for the future. What a load of old shoe makers. The tree hugging eco warriors need to get real!

On the subject of getting real, what's the answer then? Carrying on as we are is not an option.

  • Fossil fuels, especially oil, are running out. Expect prices to rise sharply over the next 10 years. Party over.
  • Fossil fuels are essential for many purposes other than energy - and we're burning them as if there were no tomorrow.
  • Burning fossil fuels has injected large quantities of gasses into the atmosphere that trap solar energy on the surface that would otherwise radiate back into space. The extra heat changes weather and - more seriously - our climate. Whilst it was possible to deny this 20 years ago, evidence that global warming is real has grown, not shrunk. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but there is no significant evidence that the 'Eco-warriors' are wrong. The facts suggest the exact opposite; it's those who don't believe in Global Warming who have blundered.

I'd happily accept the anti-green position if it had a more sensible logic than: 'This cannot be real.' So over to you Bo'sun: falling natural resources and global warming are both real, and both have serious consequences - what's your action plan? 'Do Nothing' is always an option, but you have to explain why it's the best choice.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 27/11/2020 11:17:25

Jon Lawes27/11/2020 11:20:09
avatar
472 forum posts

I think the time for burying the head in the sand is over. Sometimes you need to take drastic action in order to force progress; its too easy to sit back doing things the same old way waiting for a better solution to just appear of its own accord.

Even if they don't hit the guidelines, it will galvanise industry into making strides towards those goals rather than just counting the cash until retirement.

Paul Rhodes27/11/2020 11:20:43
23 forum posts

NDIY , if it were but so simple as to ignore scientific debate ,rename the devil as “CO2” and proselytise.

Hopper27/11/2020 11:28:08
avatar
5207 forum posts
115 photos

The internet is heading toward producing about 3.5 per cent of global emissions via the power it consumes. That would include posting on forums. Who would have thought?

J Hancock27/11/2020 11:34:48
539 forum posts

Nuclear was/is the 'way to go' but a certain policy decided to destroy heavy industry, sell everything and burn all the gas to make electricity instead of using it solely for domestic heating.

Wind has a place but ,as today, barely lights a candle even if we "quadrupled" it. Mr 'J's words.

Solar ? Won't boil an egg at night.

Hydro. Ignored. Why ?

Geothermal ?

Whicn leaves , coal.

Martin Kyte27/11/2020 11:44:44
avatar
2219 forum posts
38 photos
Posted by J Hancock on 27/11/2020 09:52:18:

Today now.

Coal 7% Wind 1.7%

Other stuff red-lining to get to 39GW

Don't switch your kettles on all at once.

update for 11.30am

Coal 6.73%

Gas 57%

Nuclear including France 18.49%

Hydro 2%

Pumped storage 0.7%

Wind 1.2%

Solar 1.75%

Much better than the past. We need more nuclear and more reduction in demand as well as more storage and green energy. The swapping of coal for gas helps with the CO2. Most days wind does far better than this but it shows we have the capacity to cope.

regards Martin

Nicholas Wheeler 127/11/2020 11:46:54
509 forum posts
28 photos
Posted by J Hancock on 27/11/2020 11:34:48:

Nuclear was/is the 'way to go' but a certain policy decided to destroy heavy industry, sell everything and burn all the gas to make electricity instead of using it solely for domestic heating.

Wind has a place but ,as today, barely lights a candle even if we "quadrupled" it. Mr 'J's words.

Solar ? Won't boil an egg at night.

Hydro. Ignored. Why ?

Geothermal ?

Whicn leaves , coal.

Hydro isn't ignored. But you can't just plonk a water wheel across a brook and call it a power station. I suspect that all of the potential sites for hydro-electric plants in the UK already have them.

As the numbers show, none of the lauded renewable sources are replacements for steam turbine power stations. But inelligent use of them would make significant reductions in their emissions. Unfortunately, intelligent long term integrated policies are not things our governments are any good at

Bazyle27/11/2020 11:48:52
avatar
5790 forum posts
216 photos

People are the problem. Need fewer people.

Also need everyone to understand that energy consumption is not just petrol and electricity but everything converts to energy. For example you employ a builder to build a house. It is starting to be recognised that the bricks represent energy use because of the kiln used to make them etc. However it is less recognised that the labour used is also 100% energy conversion. This is because the worker uses his pay to buy peetrol to get to the site but his food is also energy use, when he buys a car it had energy to make the steel but also teh people paid to make it convert to energy. It is like the trick with mirrors facing each other showing pictures of themselves getting ever smaller. Every little action ultimately converts to energy.
Whn you realise every little activity is actually energy use you realise how much it is being wasted.

John Haine27/11/2020 11:48:53
3667 forum posts
206 photos
Posted by Paul Rhodes on 27/11/2020 11:20:43:

NDIY , if it were but so simple as to ignore scientific debate ,rename the devil as “CO2” and proselytise.

Which debate would that be? There are few serious scientists with knowledge of the field that disagree with the consensus, plenty of people who try to promulgate the idea that there is violent disagreement.

Andrew Johnston27/11/2020 11:49:44
avatar
5933 forum posts
666 photos

Why do the computer modellers assume that a temperature change will be universally disastrous?

Andrew

Frances IoM27/11/2020 11:53:40
1006 forum posts
27 photos
Smaller nuclear power sources (5- 10MW or even larger 50-100MW) could be cheaper to build + possibly allow an new industry as they could be used to power the large freight vessels as well as being easier to site in small clusters within the existing national grid

Edited By Frances IoM on 27/11/2020 11:55:48

pgk pgk27/11/2020 12:11:10
2060 forum posts
290 photos
Posted by Andrew Johnston on 27/11/2020 11:49:44:

Why do the computer modellers assume that a temperature change will be universally disastrous?

Andrew

It'll cause a major ecological shift and slow evolution to accommodate - if you took people out of the equations. Apparently we lose the gulf stream and get colder which destroys my dream of growing bananas outdoors in Wales frown

Tidal energy folks? relaible if expensive to get going and the eco-warriors jump on every suggestion.

As to wind power and it's vagaries this is another case where excess capacity when it is blowing and some form of storage would make a huge difference - more pumped hydro perhaps.
Also note that net zero doesn't have to mean absolute zero - for instance we might be able to export leccy when we have excess wind power and therefore offset our need to generate when it's calm.

Siting small nuclear reactors around cities sound s afine ideal - assuming they are of a safe type and security prevents someone flying a plane full of semtex into it... and the darn thing is air-gapped from remote operation.

pgk

Paul Rhodes27/11/2020 12:19:51
23 forum posts
Posted by John Haine on 27/11/2020 11:48:53:
Posted by Paul Rhodes on 27/11/2020 11:20:43:

.

Which debate would that be? There are few serious scientists with knowledge of the field that disagree with the consensus, plenty of people who try to promulgate the idea that there is violent disagreement.

John, the debate that you question explicitly accepts exists!

You are aware that a "consensus" is a spread of views and is not "science".

Does a serious scientist differ from an ordinary one by agreeing with your interpretation? Next you will talk of settled

science.

mgnbuk27/11/2020 13:19:48
930 forum posts
65 photos

Fossil fuels, especially oil, are running out.

You keep posting that Dave, but the oil companies seem to believe otherwise ? Are BP mistaken when they stated last year that proven reserves were almost 50% greater than in 1999, despite having had 20 years production ? And as the price rises, more known reserves become economic to extract. No excuse not to try and economise on use, but I doubt oil (and gas) will be removed from the mix for a long time.

People are the problem. Need fewer people.

Indeed - but not politically acceptable to raise that.

Smaller nuclear power sources (5- 10MW or even larger 50-100MW) could be cheaper to build

I understand that is an area that is moving fowards. At one point it was mooted to repackage nuclear submarine reactors as small scale power plants, but there was discussion at work recently about this (we do work for the nuclear power industry) & apparently a specific small scale power generation reactor has been designed and (maybe) tested, with discussion now about going into production. Generating electricty nearer to demand would save grid losses - something that is an issue with large scale wind generation as the generating sites are rarely close to the point of consumption.

Tidal energy folks? relaible if expensive to get going and the eco-warriors jump on every suggestion.

The locals in Swansea were in favour of such a scheme IIRC, but it was still thrown out. Seems a better idea than wind to me - as long as there is the Moon we will get two reliable tides a day.

As with so many areas of life - too much politics & vested interests invoved to be able to make sensible progress.

Nigel B.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
JD Metals
emcomachinetools
ChesterUK
Eccentric July 5 2018
cowells
Warco
Eccentric Engineering
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest