|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2009 13:24:44 GMT
I recall reading a report saying similar to what poitsplace said. I think they were talking about very very large numbers of wind turbines. Yes I know about the issues with windy/not windy days. That's why for "renewables" you need a new grid (to allow power to be transmitted from windy to non-windy areas) using new technology such as high voltage DC (to reduce power losses), new storage mechanisms (dams, batteries) and new equipment that can cope with outages ("intelligent" meters and equipment that can afford to run when there is an excess of power and shut down when power is expensive). None of that stuff will get developed without the odd subsidy here or there. The best kind of subsidy is like buying a public right of way for utility delivery. . . .you have a clear cost per mile. Subsidies for inventions though you have no idea what a dollar gets you.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 28, 2009 19:59:28 GMT
steve. yes, the French are a strongly market-oriented country that wouldn't dream of using tax-payers money to subsidise their industries
Yes steve, but they use taxpayers money to subsidise industries that actually work and provide abundant reliable power. Giving huge subsidies to pie in the sky technologies that could never generate even a modest proportion of our energy is just plain stupid. Ever heard of energy density, I have a 20kw battery bank in my boat, it weighs 700kg. How big would a 2MW battery bank be? 60 tons of lead and acid x 100,000 windmills, how many cycles would you get before it needs replacing, where do you dump the lead and acid, siberia maybe. Better spend the money trying to get cold fusion to work.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2009 5:49:34 GMT
steve. yes, the French are a strongly market-oriented country that wouldn't dream of using tax-payers money to subsidise their industries Yes steve, but they use taxpayers money to subsidise industries that actually work The French subsidise all sorts of uncompetitive industries. The fact that their electricity industry appears to be successful now is not evidence that it is "excellent", sustainable or that they've solved the waste problem.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 29, 2009 7:56:36 GMT
The French subsidise all sorts of uncompetitive industries. The fact that their electricity industry appears to be successful now is not evidence that it is "excellent", sustainable or that they've solved the waste problem. The only problem with nuclear waste disposal is the fact that we've got a bunch of ignorant tree huggers placing impossible demands on it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2009 8:55:44 GMT
The French subsidise all sorts of uncompetitive industries. The fact that their electricity industry appears to be successful now is not evidence that it is "excellent", sustainable or that they've solved the waste problem. The only problem with nuclear waste disposal is the fact that we've got a bunch of ignorant tree huggers placing impossible demands on its disposal. They have skips of stuff at BNFL where they have no idea what is in them because the radiation destroys the detectors they are trying to use to view it? And when they've destroyed the detector by trying to use it, the detector itself is a radiation hazard. If you could let me have the location of your back yard, I'll let the guys at BNFL know.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 29, 2009 12:23:50 GMT
The only problem with nuclear waste disposal is the fact that we've got a bunch of ignorant tree huggers placing impossible demands on its disposal. They have skips of stuff at BNFL where they have no idea what is in them because the radiation destroys the detectors they are trying to use to view it? And when they've destroyed the detector by trying to use it, the detector itself is a radiation hazard. If you could let me have the location of your back yard, I'll let the guys at BNFL know. For the actual fuel it's pretty straight forward. Remove any isotopes we need, seal the remainder in glass, seal the glass inside steel containers for transportation/storage, store the steel containers a kilometer or two under ground in geologically stable areas. And no...I wouldn't have a problem with that being buried a couple kilometers underneath my back yard.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 29, 2009 22:50:57 GMT
Whereas wind turbines are totally safe in your backyard. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQIt's not that difficult steve, you dig a tunnel a km down and stack them neatly. You are pretty much stuck between coal, oil, gas, nuclear or power cuts. Nuclear is the only viable one if you really believe in the CO2 nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 30, 2009 7:21:24 GMT
Whereas wind turbines are totally safe in your backyard. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQIt's not that difficult steve, you dig a tunnel a km down and stack them neatly. You are pretty much stuck between coal, oil, gas, nuclear or power cuts. Nuclear is the only viable one if you really believe in the CO2 nonsense. Nobody has built such a deep storage facility yet! And I've not seen any mention of methods to deal with the skips of crap I mentioned. Sometimes the contrast between the distrust of a few scientists compared with the utmost, almost obsequious, faith in a process to deal with a highly dangerous material is quite shocking! Only a day or so ago the decontamination of an ex-steelworks has been shown to have caused 18 birth deformities due to careless handling.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 30, 2009 8:13:09 GMT
Thats why you bury the stuff steve. If you drive it around on the back of an open back lorry, it's not a good idea. The birth defects were not from nuclear waste BTW but just everyday heavy metals just like you would need to build your 600,000 ton battery bank for your wind turbines.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 30, 2009 9:28:53 GMT
Thats why you bury the stuff steve. If you drive it around on the back of an open back lorry, it's not a good idea. The birth defects were not from nuclear waste BTW but just everyday heavy metals just like you would need to build your 600,000 ton battery bank for your wind turbines. Do you need help to draw conclusions from the disaster in Corby (which is just one topical example), the fact that quite a lot of nuclear power stations are a long way from the likely location of any storage facility, and the fact that most of the waste is not quite so easily packaged as you insist on believing? A senior engineer from BNFL gave me his opinion of their average work-staff member by telling me that for most of them their knuckes scrape the ground when they walk. Let me say that I don't rule out the possibility that nuclear power is a "least worse" option. It's just this enforced adoration of its certain perfection as compared with wind power (which, being a countryside lover, does not enamour me either) is what irritates me.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 30, 2009 12:00:38 GMT
I'm not anti wind power steve, i actually have a wind generator on my boat, and solar panels. But I'm also a realist and my wind generator does not generate anywhere near enough to power my requirements. This is even after installing led lights etc. It does power the fridge pretty much but not the freezer as well. Thats why I need a 6kva diesel genny to charge the batteries. If you go cruising on a boat for a while you get used to not having unlimited power available and the restrictions it places on you. The general population would not accept this in their homes.
Wind power would be a great idea if the population of the UK was 1 million. But it just cannot scale to the requirements of a modern economy of the size of the uk let alone the usa. The best solution would be a mixture of coal/gas,nuclear and a little bit of wind.
Hang on a minute that's what we already have, why not just leave it alone.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 30, 2009 17:30:49 GMT
Thats why you bury the stuff steve. If you drive it around on the back of an open back lorry, it's not a good idea. The birth defects were not from nuclear waste BTW but just everyday heavy metals just like you would need to build your 600,000 ton battery bank for your wind turbines. Do you need help to draw conclusions from the disaster in Corby (which is just one topical example), the fact that quite a lot of nuclear power stations are a long way from the likely location of any storage facility, and the fact that most of the waste is not quite so easily packaged as you insist on believing? A senior engineer from BNFL gave me his opinion of their average work-staff member by telling me that for most of them their knuckes scrape the ground when they walk. Let me say that I don't rule out the possibility that nuclear power is a "least worse" option. It's just this enforced adoration of its certain perfection as compared with wind power (which, being a countryside lover, does not enamour me either) is what irritates me. "enforced adoration". What exactly do you mean by that?
|
|