Today's news report that we could be facing a shortage of energy for our electricity needs in the near future.
Nuclear power stations are going to take to long to build and there are issues getting writ of the waste.Windpower could have some of the answers.Why can't we start using coal again?
We have enough coal underground to sustain our energy need for the future.Germany is heading towards using coal.
Not sure about fracking doesn't look that safe to me if it can cause small earthquakes.
|
Our coal isn't economical to mine. The pits are too deep, wet or hot, and many go miles out under the sea. And environmentalists would want a coal fired power station in their back yard about as much as a nuclear one.
I worked for the Coal Board during the 70s and 80s (HQ, not a miner) when the NCB was trying to alter shift patterns to make it more economical and the unions were just trying to wring the life out of the industry. One perfectly reasonable suggestion was for longer shifts, but less of them, which would have increased the time at the coal face thereby increasing productivity. The NUM soon saw that one off.
Even at that time it was cheaper to import it from Australia, where they were just shovelling it up from the surface, than mine our own.
Although they are developing different more environmentally friendly ways to burn coal, hat has also been going on for years with little success on a commercial scale.
Glad I got my solar panels. At least I can have my lights on during the day :-)
|
>> Not sure about fracking doesn't look that safe to me if it can cause small earthquakes.
Nothing is won without sacrifice Dutchman. Fracking looks good to me. But this country's very large coal reserves are very reassuring.There's a hell of a lot of stuff in coal, indeed it must have begun the chemicals industry that enriched and poisoned our land in the later stages of the
industrial revolution (of which we are rightly proud).
I would think these days huge plants could suck everything out of it without leaving too much filth.
I wonder how many oil wells are still flaring gas as the most 'profitable' way of dealing with it, snivelling evil archcapitalist carphounds? There used to be a lot of that in Arabia and in Nigeria too. Pure wickedness.
|
>Why can't we start using coal again?
The answer to that is that we never stopped using coal.
Currently 38% of UK electricity is derived from coal. About 36% is derived from Gas
Economically viable UK coal will run out in 10-15 years and is already expensive to mine. Half the coal used in the UK is imported.
As far as gas is concerned domestic reserves are running out so growing dependence on imports means increasing vulnerability to rising prices and instability in gas-producing regions.
Source BBC
news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456932/html/nn5page1.stm
|
|
Nuclear has to be the way ahead.
|
Making an economic case for nuclear appears tricky at present.
Actually using less energy might be a reasonable way forward.
It's definitely going to become relatively more expensive per kWh, so unless use falls the country becomes less wealthy - paying heating/domestic electric is like mortgage interest: not a good use of £££ for the nation's wealth.
At the end of the day economics will sort it out, as it will with the meat:vegetable diet equation, and personal transportation costs - if people can't pay for it, they can't have it.
|
|
Too long lead time - we need to start having built new reactors 15 years ago.
|
>> we need to start having built new reactors 15 years ago.
Heh heh... 'to have started building...' surely?
It's an awful pain when the afternoon power cut sets in - no phone, no internet these days, and of course no air conditioning. I wouldn't take kindly to it as a regular thing here.
|
'to have started building...' surely?
Yep that looks better ;-)
|
>> 'to have started building...' surely?
>>
>> Yep that looks better ;-)
>>
No, they don't mean the same thing.
"To have started building.." means we should have started the building programme 15 yeers ago.
"To start having built..." means we ought to be starting from a position of having built them 15 years ago.
|
>> Nuclear has to be the way ahead.
A balanced portfolio is the way ahead. Gas, wave, wind, hydro, bio mass, nuclear.
This forthcoming power hole has been forseen for some years, but of course government has pontificated and done nothing. Its too late now.
|
If all the plants that are strategically plan to close, actually close.
AND
If consumption continues to rise as now.
AND
If, despite being currently planned, no new and alternative plants and energy approaches come on line
*AND*
currently active plants break down or suffer a catastrophe.
*THEN*
it is possible that there could be an issue.
I believe also that the world's food supply will become critical in 1979 and all solid fuels will have run out by 1980 and the population will have exceeded 10bn by 2000. In 1984 the world will be controlled by Big Brother and, according to the Hotspur, we all drive around in jet cars.
|
|
Somehow, some way, energy companies and governments will sort it out, nobody will want the lights to go out on their watch. I think the chances of it actually reaching a critical point is very slim indeed.
Last edited by: FoR on Tue 19 Feb 13 at 23:28
|
|
Do they not have a power production shortage in South Africa?
|
|
Maybe when the power comes back on Ian will tell us? ;-)
|
I think the future regarding energy could be shale gas.In the UK there could be enough for the next 1500 years.Even if ten percent was found that would give us enough enrgy for 150 years.
Apparantly new findings estimate 1.300 Triljion cubic feet to 1.7 Triljion cubic feet.First estimates where 5.3 Triljion cubic feet.
According to a report we will be buying the gas from the States and transport it by ships in liquid form to the UK whilst we can found our own and be more independent.
Interesting how it is going to pan out,can't see nuclear power or windmills.
|
This is a subject I have always been deeply interested in. The problem with Neclear power is the clean up costs can be massive. We still have not sorted out the Sellafield problem and until we find a viable solution to nuclear wage processing it will be hard to build many new plants.
Shale gas is the answer, but fracking does have risks but it is worth a try I think. Better than being in the dark and cold.
Natural Gas plants - we don't have enough supply of gas in the long term but shale gas can be used instead.
Coal plants - Even with efficient burning, extraction methods and filters they are still very dirty.
Solar energy - We don't get enough sun! Still too expensive for most householders.
So for now fracking looks like a good compromise.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 11:12
|
>
>> Interesting how it is going to pan out,can't see nuclear power or windmills.
You cant see windmills? Good lord man, the country is covered with them, and more to come.
|
>> >
>> >> Interesting how it is going to pan out,can't see nuclear power or windmills.
>>
>> You cant see windmills? Good lord man, the country is covered with them, and more
>> to come.
I think the term is wind turbine unless they are grinding flour as a sideline. And they will become part of the supply chain - they will have to pay for themselves at least partly given the amount of money spent installing them.
Maybe solar panels could be installed on everyones roofs on a much greater scale, making them cheap by heavily subsidising them, then linking them together to form a grid. If some fail, power can be drawn from the rest of the grid until they are repaired. A bit like the Borg. And no relying on one central power station that is open to potential attack.
Part of the portfolio of course.
Last edited by: corax on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 17:26
|
|
Most solar panel installations are on grid, i.e. they already feed into it. The exceptions do not get any subsidy or feed-in tariffs, as I understand it, as they do not feed in!
|
>> Most solar panel installations are on grid, i.e. they already feed into it. The exceptions
>> do not get any subsidy or feed-in tariffs, as I understand it, as they do
>> not feed in!
And anyone that wants to install solar now have much lower feed-in tariffs. Plenty of encouragement from the government then.
|
>> And anyone that wants to install solar now have much lower feed-in tariffs. Plenty of
>> encouragement from the government then.
probably because it was over generous, and we dont need a shed load of solar power on a sunny afternoon when no-one is using it.
|
>> probably because it was over generous, and we dont need a shed load of solar
>> power on a sunny afternoon when no-one is using it.
Over generous. Yes, we can't have that from the government can we.
|
No FM2R>>IF.. AND... AND...
As I am fond of saying, man has been forecasting the end of the world ever since he could speak about it. It hasn't happened yet.
|
Of course the world is not going to end but is entirely possible that our civilisation will. I'm sure that the average citizen of the Roman Empire in 250AD couldn't envisage the end of their way of life but we don't have any more guarantees of the continuances of our civilisation any more than they did.
In fact if you look at the effects of a spiralling population, destruction of the environment and and using up of natural resources on a colossal scale you would be a brave man to argue that our civilisation could last more than a 100 years at most.
You can argue that something will turn up to save the day like the discovery of North America or the Industrial Revolution did in the past but we do seem to be running out of options.
|
>> Of course the world is not going to end but is entirely possible that our
>> civilisation will.
>>
Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "our" civilisation?
The 1000-year reich?
If the British Empire and Commonwealth lasts for 1000 years ....
Or do you mean humans on earth?
The Roman civilisation only ended if you were a Roman. If you were a Vandal or a Goth you might well have felt that your turn for a bit of civilisation was only just beginning.
|
Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "our" civilisation?
I mean a democratic Western style industrialised society with a comparatively wealthy population as found for example currently found in Europe. If food or energy or natural resources deteriorate significantly it is inherently doomed.
|
>> Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "our" civilisation?
Western capitalist hegemony must be what he means. You can't really call it a civilisation although it can only function if its movers and shakers understand the meaning of the word. Now hopelessly overblown and decadent and already mutating eastwards where it is being inflected by Chinese communist state-capitalism ...
We just have to hope everyone important understands the need to keep it on the island, avoiding global crises, major wars and revolutions. So far so good eh? But alarming in general, as it always has been to a thoughtful person.
|
Coal...... All these new housing estates might have something to say that sit above the old mine.
Thank god in the next month or two the multi fuel stove is going in stuff you mr gas man.!
|
I run out of energy after lunch. A nice siesta helps to (slightly) revitalise me.
I work on the principle that I will do what is necessary WHEN it's necessary, but have no desire to actively look for tasks.
SWMBO is the opposite. She LIKES "doing things"!
|
>> Thank god in the next month or two the multi fuel stove is going in
>> stuff you mr gas man.!
>>
I presume you have a plentiful and either free or very cheap source of wood? If you haven't, don't bank on long-term savings.
|
I was under the impression that a good solid fuel stove is more cost effective burning coal-based product than natural gas.
Gas appears to be on the up as far as cost goes.
Coal will presumably not follow the same curve as less is used to produce electricity.
|
>> I presume you have a plentiful and either free or very cheap source of wood?
>> If you haven't, don't bank on long-term savings.
>>
A guy at work is taking broken up wooden crates home to use for his stove. Thats cheap.
|
Are we running out of Energy in the UK? - smokie
