A warning about Renewable Energy

http://www.turn180.ie/?p=636

http://www.turn180.ie/?p=651

Though the articles were written in Britain, they are quiet relevant to us in Ireland as we are going down the same slippery slope.

I've been saying it for years that the world needs to waken up to the inevitability that we need to invest big time into the research and development in L.F.T.R Thorium power.

Thousands of years of clean cheap energy. And before anyone harps on about Nuclear, research before you come on saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

And also think about the fact electricity generation is only a part of our total energy needs. We can use Thorium for electricity generation which can also provide heating eliminating the need for heating oil and gas. It can be used for our transport both for Battery electric cars and Hydrogen for heavy goods use etc.

I know Thorium has been debated here before but the above articles only go to prove we need to invest now and stop the renewable madness.

I was shocked when I found out the price per kw/hr the German's have to pay which is almost twice what we pay, to pay for all the renewable madness and the German's will be paying for it for decades. (EDIT Seems like my facts were off, the German rate per kw/hr is 24 cent, I was mistakingly looking at u.s cents. )

We are already paying enough to the banks without paying greedy energy companies more, and more carbon tax which is just a justification for more revenue. How much do we have to pay to take notice ? look at petrol and diesel ? how much before we can't drive any more.

The Government will only realise it when it's too late, they are too focused on the green agenda and it isn't to save us from the theoretical threat of man made global warming, but for energy companies and foreign investors to benefit while you and I pay more on our bills.

Who is advising our Government ?

Farmer Pudsey

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.turn180.ie/?p=636

http://www.turn180.ie/?p=651

Who is advising our Government ?

Probally CRH the amount of concrete that is going into windmills is massive each one is the equivlent to a mini housing estate

robp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Probally CRH the amount of concrete that is going into windmills is massive each one is the equivlent to a mini housing estate

Some environmentalists pointed recently that as Britain attempts to source more and more renewable energy from Ireland they are effectively really just outsourcing and thus passing the buck on the negative environmental impacts of windfarms which is landscape destruction and public backlashes. That really makes me uncomfortable as the scenic beauty of the Irish landscape is a major asset but is very sensitive.

Diarmuid

This book is worth a read if you want the numbers behind the various sources of energy. Its very good and very transparent and objective.

Cookie_Monster

The obvious solution would be investment in PV solar rather than wind or tidal etc then simply coat every house roof with it, making each one a generating station. You would of course need to greatly increase the efficiency and the efficiency of storage batteries or preferably capacitors but definitely a much more viable longer term option compared to wind etc.
Geothermal is another source thats woefully under used, once setup a deep drill plant can provide very low cost low maintenance power too for commercial and ind use to supplement the solar.

Thorium doesn't exactly strike me as cheap and abundant enough to use as a large scale fuel source for too long...

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The obvious solution would be investment in PV solar rather than wind or tidal etc then simply coat every house roof with it, making each one a generating station. You would of course need to greatly increase the efficiency and the efficiency of storage batteries or preferably capacitors but definitely a much more viable longer term option compared to wind etc.
Geothermal is another source thats woefully under used, once setup a deep drill plant can provide very low cost low maintenance power too for commercial and ind use to supplement the solar.

Thorium doesn't exactly strike me as cheap and abundant enough to use as a large scale fuel source for too long...

There is at least 10,000 years supply of Thorium in Norway, I kid you not!

L.F.T.R reactors also use 99% of the fuel compared to Uranium which uses 1% so there is only 1% the waste from L.F.T.R compared to Uranium.

It's cheap and the reactors are a lot cheaper to build than the boiling water reactors in use today because L.F.T.R don't require the big mad concrete cooling towers.

You see the years of the Green movement failed to realise the other side of Nuclear, which is actually greener than all the other so called green technologies.

If we had a few reactors in Ireland it would mean much less imported fuel, much cleaner air, and much cheaper electricity bills.

It will cost but importing fossil fuels is an ongoing and ever increasing cost.

Wind, Solar while they sound good you have the problems as in the articles above, + all the turbines on land, and all the cables etc, it's not exactly cheap.

We are charged carbon tax on our bills and all fuel, so if our electricity is generated carbon free there will be no need for carbon tax.

Most of the billions of Euro we send to other countries for our fuel can be instead spent in Ireland.

Whiskeyjack

You'll have to forgive me for questioning the validity and objectivity of your source material given the banner above it says "Humans are not causing global warming", which flies in the face of evidence that's been mounting for decades, not least of which the research into the cause of hurricane Sandy.

Scofflaw

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me for questioning the validity and objectivity of your source material given the banner above it says "Humans are not causing global warming", which flies in the face of evidence that's been mounting for decades, not least of which the research into the cause of hurricane Sandy.

Turn180 aren't for turning, I suspect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

robp wrote: »

Some environmentalists pointed recently that as Britain attempts to source more and more renewable energy from Ireland they are effectively really just outsourcing and thus passing the buck on the negative environmental impacts of windfarms which is landscape destruction and public backlashes. That really makes me uncomfortable as the scenic beauty of the Irish landscape is a major asset but is very sensitive.

Hmmm, think that horse has long since bolted with the Bungalow Blitz of the 70's and the McMansion fever of the naughties tbh. We've already destroyed most of our pristine views already.

bbsrs

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, think that horse has long since bolted with the Bungalow Blitz of the 70's and the McMansion fever of the naughties tbh. We've already destroyed most of our pristine views already.

What would you call a pristine view?

SeanW

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is advising our Government ?

It doesn't actually matter which government we have in power as Ireland (and many other countries including Greece which is nearly destroyed by its involvement with the European Project). The reason is that we are bound by an EU directive (2009/28/EC if I am not mistaken) to push more renewable power into the grid regardless of cost. The target is 20% by 2020. There is also a target for 10% in trasnport ... I have no idea how but.

This means that our national government has to rubber-stamp legislation demanding the meeting of these targets, so if that means massive paydays for renewable project developers, insane levels of subsidies and taxes, so be it. And there's not a damn thing we the people can do about it.

antoobrien

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, think that horse has long since bolted with the Bungalow Blitz of the 70's and the McMansion fever of the naughties tbh. We've already destroyed most of our pristine views already.

Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

Whiskeyjack

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me for questioning the validity and objectivity of your source material given the banner above it says "Humans are not causing global warming", which flies in the face of evidence that's been mounting for decades, not least of which the research into the cause of hurricane Sandy.

We're not debating the existance of man made global warming in this thread thank you!

If people want to debate it start another thread, and do your research and don't base your decisions on media information.

Research both sides of the argument.

www.wattsupwiththat.com is a good one very informative and will be the opposite of information we are used to hearing in the media it's based on real facts.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote: »

I was shocked when I found out the price per kw/hr the German's have to pay which is almost twice what we pay, to pay for all the renewable madness and the German's will be paying for it for decades.

Once you throw in a single outright and verifiable lie, the rest of your post becomes meaningless.

http://www.energy.eu/

Cost per kWHr:
3,500 kWh/year (± 25%) Consumption: 7,500 kWh/year (± 30%)
Germany € 0.2541 Germany € 0.2406
Ireland € 0.1920 Ireland € 0.1604

The vast majority of households would be in the region of 3,500 kWh/year.
They're paying ~25% extra in Germany. Not 'almost twice'.

Gurgle

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, think that horse has long since bolted with the Bungalow Blitz of the 70's and the McMansion fever of the naughties tbh. We've already destroyed most of our pristine views already.

Pristine views?
Ask feckin Cromwell, he saw them last when he was setting them on fire.

bbsrs

antoobrien wrote: »

Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

The holiday home and hill walker brigades deserve to have the countryside protected for their pleasure after all they are the ones paying taxes which subsidize the rural dwellers taxes to maintain rural infrastructure.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote: »

Once you throw in a single outright and verifiable lie, the rest of your post becomes meaningless.

http://www.energy.eu/

Cost per kWHr:
3,500 kWh/year (± 25%) Consumption: 7,500 kWh/year (± 30%)
Germany € 0.2541 Germany € 0.2406
Ireland € 0.1920 Ireland € 0.1604

The vast majority of households would be in the region of 3,500 kWh/year.
They're paying ~25% extra in Germany. Not 'almost twice'.

Indeed you are correct, seems I was looking at U.S cents.

You could simply have said that wasn't correct instead of calling me a liar, and you are a moderator ?

Anyway saying the rest of my post is meaningless is your opinion , I'll let others decide for themselves if that's okay with you !

SeanW

antoobrien wrote: »

Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

Almost exclusively by non-locals worried about their holiday area? To hell with wht the people there think or want? So wind farms don't attract NIMBYs then? That would be news to some of the good people around Ballydehob Co. Cork.

SeanW

Gurgle wrote: »

Cost per kWHr:
3,500 kWh/year (± 25%) Consumption: 7,500 kWh/year (± 30%)
Germany € 0.2541 Germany € 0.2406
Ireland € 0.1920 Ireland € 0.1604

In the first scenario, the difference is over 6c/kWh, in the second it's greater than 8c/kWh.

It's been a while since I've been to a maths class (thought not as long as you I suspect) but I seem to recall that adding 8 to 16 results in a difference of 50%, not 25% as your equally egregious "calculations" imply.

Even in the first scenario, it's more like 1/3 than 25%

Icepick

Nothing wrong with wind farms.
One-off housing, ribbon development and deforestation are an actual problem and eye sores.

murphaph

bbsrs wrote: »

What would you call a pristine view?

Hard to say, but I don't see any major difference between carpeting the countryside in one off houses and carpeting it in windmills. The Irish countryside has already been suburbanised.

Icepick

murphaph wrote: »

Hard to say, but I don't see any major difference between carpeting the countryside in one off houses and carpeting it in windmills.

(increases unsustainability)

VS


(decreases unsustainability)

Farmer Pudsey

Wind farms are the next white elephant. They are at present a tax incentivised driven project. We are about 10 years into them and they still cannot tanmd om there won two feet even though carbon fuels have gone up by 200% in that time.

If we are intrested in wind energy we should stop subsidising them, instead we should be funding a electricity storage project along the west of Ireland if it is feasible.

It may not make economic sence to continue it at this time. If that is the reality then we should start to move away from wind farms.

murphaph

Icepick wrote: »

image removed

I think you misunderstand. From a visual amenity perspective I have nothing against windmills and I think many that do have probably already built themselves their own private eyesore in a field somewhere.

I'm not convinced by wind power without storage however. We can build all the wind farms we want, but we need to be able to store the energy or it's largely pointless.

I think transport will be able to use wind in the form of more efficient battery storage for electric vehicles, but that's not enough.

sharper

murphaph wrote: »

We can build all the wind farms we want, but we need to be able to store the energy or it's largely pointless.

Of course it's not pointless, it just means that without storage you need some other form of energy to supplement it when the wind isn't strong enough.

The current situation is that we burn fossil fuels for energy even when the wind is blowing strong, now that's pointless.

Farmer Pudsey

sharper wrote: »

Of course it's not pointless, it just means that without storage you need some other form of energy to supplement it when the wind isn't strong enough.

The current situation is that we burn fossil fuels for energy even when the wind is blowing strong, now that's pointless.

The reality is that other than gas there is no fossil fuel that can be turned on and off fast or that you can control the output of so that if wind is blowing at half speed you can supplement. The reality is that what is happening in Ireland at present is that we are producing electricity from wind that has no purpose as we have little or no control of it. On top of that we are paying the producers top dollor for it even if it is produce at 3am in the morning and we have no use for it so it is increasing our energy costs with little economic benifit.

Wind is not choosey when it blows so we have to make sure that we can cover the peak demand periods from 8am to 10am, and from5pm to 7pm. Unless we put in a storage system and at present there is only one option wheather it is feasible or not is the 20 billion euro question

antoobrien

SeanW wrote: »

Almost exclusively by non-locals worried about their holiday area? To hell with wht the people there think or want? So wind farms don't attract NIMBYs then? That would be news to some of the good people around Ballydehob Co. Cork.

Don't be absurd, almost every project in the country - from a house to a skyscraper - attracts the ire of NIMBYs. To my experience the massed objections are usually misguided, as is the case in the example given - the view is most certainly not destroyed by the windfarm, it's hardly noticable unless you are in certain locations.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote: »

You could simply have said that wasn't correct instead of calling me a liar, and you are a moderator ?

I apologize, it was an inappropriate knee jerk reaction to a misinformed post.
On a pure technicality, I was calling your source a liar rather than yourself.

I am very much on the skeptical side of global warming, but the bullshìt pimped by the likes of turn180 is about as scientific as the old testament.

(btw I'm not a moderator on this forum, my posts have neither more nor less weight than yours)

Gurgle

sharper wrote: »

Of course it's not pointless, it just means that without storage you need some other form of energy to supplement it when the wind isn't strong enough.

Well then we need a smart strategy for storage.

antoobrien

bbsrs wrote: »

The holiday home and hill walker brigades deserve to have the countryside protected for their pleasure after all they are the ones paying taxes which subsidize the rural dwellers taxes to maintain rural infrastructure.

So the needs of the few outsiders, who pollute the environment to get there and build eyesores for their holiday homes (e.g. Michael McDowell's holiday home in Roscommon, which wouldn't look out of place on Embassy Row) outweigh the needs of the locals.

The bit about the infrastructure is as laughable as it is wrong. About half the population of the country live outside of urban areas. Where rural people have to pay to build and maintain sewage systems, wells or group water schemes, residents of Cork, Dublin, Galway & Limerick don't have to pay a red cent towards their ongoing costs (and it shows in the state of the water network in the cities).

There's a subsidy paid in this country to keep the townies quiet and to hell with the rest of us, so take your hiking boots and hike along grand canal quay.

Gurgle

SeanW wrote: »

In the first scenario, the difference is over 6c/kWh, in the second it's greater than 8c/kWh.

It's been a while since I've been to a maths class (thought not as long as you I suspect) but I seem to recall that adding 8 to 16 results in a difference of 50%, not 25% as your equally egregious "calculations" imply.

Even in the first scenario, it's more like 1/3 than 25%

I'm good with the maths thanks, but its a long time since I studied semantics.

.192 / .2541 = 0.7556 ~75.6%
"The cost of electricity in Ireland is 75% of that in Germany"

.2541 / .192 = 1.323 ~132.3%
"The cost of electricity in Germany is 32.3% more than in Ireland"

antoobrien

Icepick wrote: »

(decreases unsustainability)

At the moment the sustainability of wind is very unproven. Right now it's making other more flexible sources of fuel more important to balance the unpredictability of wind. Just take a look at today's generation figures - wind is producing more than forecast, which one might think is a good thing, but it creates other problems. There are other problems, when as often is the case that wind creates less power than forecast.

Wind energy has to be used immediately as it can't be easily stored. Fine you say close the wiers on Ardnacrusha and Inniscarra. Except we all remember what happened in Cork a couple of years ago when the water wasn't released form Inniscarra when it should have been (due to the search for somebody who went into the Lee).

Now the flooding in Cork was not the result of wind and I'm not trying to claim that, there were other factors involved such as the once in 300 year rainfall that happened at the time, which was worse than Dundrum got last year (it affected everything west of an imaginary line between Sligo and Youghal).


Coal and turf plants are harder to control, which is why the act as baseload for the system, so they can't be turned down easily.

That leaves us with natural gas - which still produces CO2, contributing to making it harder to meet those targets.

Before we start calling for wind power and other "renewable" sources we need to know the potential side effects and consequences of each type of generation equipment. E.g. what are the side effects of mining the raw materials? It's well known that the rare earth elements needed for the motors are largely mined in China, who don't give a rats ar*e about the environment - or the health of the workers. Could we be doing more damage by creating the turbines than burning fossil fuels or using nuclear reactors (if you're going to answer this one scientific evidence is required because it's not a no-brainer).

What are the effects of having the turbines too close together? It's well know than the turbines create wake turbulence, if they are too close together they interfere with each pother, drastically reducing the efficiency of the motors.

The motors themselves are not particularly efficient and have other problems. In cold weather they use electricity to keep the motors from seizing. This creates an extra burden on the grid at a time when (here in Ireland) we need the energy most.

They also interfere with local wild life, especially birds (though they're smart enough they'll figure out that they shouldn't fly near those big white things that move).

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

So the needs of the few outsiders, who pollute the environment to get there and build eyesores for their holiday homes (e.g. Michael McDowell's holiday home in Roscommon, which wouldn't look out of place on Embassy Row) outweigh the needs of the locals.

The bit about the infrastructure is as laughable as it is wrong. About half the population of the country live outside of urban areas. Where rural people have to pay to build and maintain sewage systems, wells or group water schemes, residents of Cork, Dublin, Galway & Limerick don't have to pay a red cent towards their ongoing costs (and it shows in the state of the water network in the cities).

There's a subsidy paid in this country to keep the townies quiet and to hell with the rest of us, so take your hiking boots and hike along grand canal quay.

I hate to say it, but we've been over this many times on this forum, and there is simply no way anyone can honestly claim that rural dwellers are anything but heavily subsidised by urban dwellers except through almost complete ignorance of the figures involved. If you're going to repeat this old chestnut, please provide evidence to back up what is otherwise rather visibly a cock and bull story intended to deny urban dwellers any moral right to have a say in rural issues.

We are all Irish citizens. Rural voters have a strong influence on - and proper interest in - primarily urban matters, and vice versa, because it's all the same country. The cities are there if rural dwellers need their services or wish to live in them - and vice versa.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

Scofflaw wrote: »

there is simply no way anyone can honestly claim that rural dwellers are anything but heavily subsidised by urban dwellers except through almost complete ignorance of the figures involved

Would you be so kind as to point me towards a thread where this was established with numbers?

I've seen a few 'discussions' but its usually a case of more urban dwellers posting rather than conclusive figures.

antoobrien

Scofflaw wrote: »

I hate to say it, but we've been over this many times on this forum, and there is simply no way anyone can honestly claim that rural dwellers are anything but heavily subsidised by urban dwellers except through almost complete ignorance of the figures involved.

Scofflaw, take a look at the employment numbers in the urban areas vs the actual urban population. Unless we have all the kids working and going to school at the same time the employment figures don't stack up. We can say what we like about taxation and employment creating social transfers but it's distorted by the fact that a lot of rural people commute to towns.

Dublin is a good example of this. In the 2006 Dublin City had a population of 505k. Here's the entry from the census town profiles

394,720 workers resided in Dublin City in April 2006. Of these 56,752 worked outside the city leaving 337,968 who both lived and worked in the city. A further 104,865 workers travelled into Dublin to work resulting in a working population of 442,833. Dublin City was therefore a net gainer
in employment terms.

Please don't try to con us with figures that support the notion that towns pay for rural areas when the census tells us otherwise (and the outcry of townies against paying for water makes it more laughable).

Farmer Pudsey

antoobrien wrote: »

Please don't try to con us with figures that support the notion that towns pay for rural areas when the census tells us otherwise (and the outcry of townies against paying for water makes it more laughable).

Also large Urban area's are subsdised by spending on Bus/train services, large inter city motorways. The other reality is that all government offices/hospital etc are base in large urabn centres so again a taxpayer subsidy to these area's from Rural/small urban centres. So just counting the cost of county councisl is misleadind

antoobrien

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Also large Urban area's are subsdised by spending on Bus/train services,

In fairness, rural bus services are probably as heavily subsidized (if not more so) as city services

Gurgle

antoobrien wrote: »

In fairness, rural bus services are probably as heavily subsidized (if not more so) as city services

And largely consist of almost empty busses that operate twice daily at 11am and 3pm. It would make more economic sense to do away with these altogether and give pensioners vouchers to use taxis.

robp

antoobrien wrote: »

Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

It worries me greatly that a more industrially country like the UK is taking a cautious approach to preserve their landscapes. In UK this approach is infact driven by rural dwellers. I am not sure why rural dwellers would support them unless its on there own land. Windfarms are only going to be private enterprises and they offer only limited local employment as the work is too specialised for the workforce already present.

Hundreds of wind farms could be built on Ireland’s great bog of Allen to generate electricity exclusively for the UK’s national grid under plans being considered by ministers.
...
The plans have been discussed among the coalition and appear in theory to appease both political parties. Liberal Democrats wish for an increase in green energy but have concerns over the high price of building wind farms offshore. Conservative ministers are worried about the backlash in some rural communities as wind turbines have become more common in Britain.
...
Mike O’Neill, the president of Element Power, said the project would solve a number of thorny problems for the British government. “Our experience is that it is easier to get planning permission in the Republic of Ireland, if you do it in a sensible and sensitive way,” he said.

http://www.evwind.es/2012/10/09/wind-energy-on-irelands-bog-of-allen-could-provide-uk-electricity/24508/

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote: »

I apologize, it was an inappropriate knee jerk reaction to a misinformed post.
On a pure technicality, I was calling your source a liar rather than yourself.

I am very much on the skeptical side of global warming, but the bullshìt pimped by the likes of turn180 is about as scientific as the old testament.

(btw I'm not a moderator on this forum, my posts have neither more nor less weight than yours)

Apology accepted.

To be honest I'm not interested in what turn180 has to say either on global warming, but the wattsupwiththat.com is very much different and very factual.

But I did find interesting his articles on wind energy and I've read it before on I Think the U.K times website, it has come up before about the German situation and the British have spent a lot of money on paying wind farm investors to keep them turned off for certain periods of time. I don't have the exact figures but the cost is quiet substantial because the wind companies are guaranteed income regardless of energy created.

Farmer Pudsey

antoobrien wrote: »

In fairness, rural bus services are probably as heavily subsidized (if not more so) as city services

Yes per head using them however the overall cost of subsidy to Dublin Bus, Irish rail which is now little more that an intercity train service. the building cost of Luas, Bus Eireann which again has most of it routes between large urban centre's ( yes it put's on morning and evening buses around some small urban area's but not many) the reality is that the level of subsidy per head of population in the urban area's would be much higher for these services.

Often urban dwellers fail to see the amount of subsidised facilities available. From tax incentivised leisure centre's, museam's, parks etc. Even the fact that someone in dublin when going on holidays can leave there car at home and get a bus to Dublin airport while the rural dweller has to pay a large sum to park in DA. This in turn subsidise the cheap fight of the dublin dweller. People often have tunnell vision re what is a subsidy and what is not.

antoobrien

robp wrote: »

if you do it in a sensible and sensitive way

That one line says a lot about the planning approaches involved. Dogmatic (in the uk) vs practical (here).

It's probably worth looking at the motives of the people looking to protect the "landscape" in both cases.

In the UK it's generally the rich and the landed aristocracy who can afford homes in the countryside and are trying to preserve "the landscape". As one relative of mine up it: You want to build a house in my countryside - faff off the council answer to me not the voters.

Here it's largely city dwellers trying to save the landscape from the "clueless" locals - You want to build a house, but it'll spoil the view I see once every few months!

Maybe we should import country people to lobby in favour of the oil exploration off Dalkey Island the same way as most of the protesters in at Shell to Sea are not from Mayo, or even Connacht.

Why do people not understand that electricity generation is only part of our energy requirements ?

If we were to add up the energy required by transport and heating from Gas and Oil it would be quiet substantial.

So when I say renewables will never be good enough I mean for our total energy requirments and that is where the Thorium fits in, the idea is to reduce our independence on foreign imported fuels, Thorium can produce electricity for heating, and transport, and hydrogen for heavy goods use. I'm not convinced global warming is a result of man, Or that it even at a stage or ever will be that will be a cause for concern, but I am a believer that the real danger to human health is exhaust emissions , now bare in mind Co2 is a harmless gas and we are taxed crazily on it. The other emissions from exhaust in particular Diesel is harmful, along with burning coal, turf etc. So the emphasis at the hand of the mighty E.U is on C02, taxing us on an energy we have no choice but to use, a wonderful scam to screw us for taxes!

E.U says, hmmm think of a plan to get more tax, oh I got it, isn't there much debate on global warming ? sure, ok then what we'll do is tax energy and use some of that revenue to fund campaigns, and universities to prove it's real, they will create computer models that give 100 year predictions so that means we still got time to do something about it, who cares if global warming is real or not or caused by man, and we'll create lots of jobs in the process helping even more to convince the world it's real, they will never question it and they will keep paying us more and more to save the planet, in fact they will beg us to stop global warming, wonderful idea sir, you deserve a promotion.

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

So when I say renewables will never be good enough I mean for our total energy requirments and that is where the Thorium fits in, the idea is to reduce our independence on foreign imported fuels, Thorium can produce electricity for heating, and transport, and hydrogen for heavy goods use. I'm not convinced global warming is a result of man,

There was a debate on nuclear power in the infra forum - including thorium (see post 174 for the start of that) - however there are serious issues with it here. the first being that it's currently illegal (and our government has re-iterated a commitment not to look at it), the second being cost - for the price of one we cam build a motorway system, a few dozen hospitals or a few hundred schools.

While I like the idea of nuclear, the Thorium powered types are only at a research stage and are probably 10-20 years away from commercial development.

Gurgle

antoobrien wrote: »

Thorium powered types are only at a research stage and are probably 10-20 years away from commercial development.

As of now it may not even be possible, never mind commercially viable.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

There was a debate on nuclear power in the infra forum - including thorium (see post 174 for the start of that) - however there are serious issues with it here. the first being that it's currently illegal (and our government has re-iterated a commitment not to look at it), the second being cost - for the price of one we cam build a motorway system, a few dozen hospitals or a few hundred schools.

While I like the idea of nuclear, the Thorium powered types are only at a research stage and are probably 10-20 years away from commercial development.

Thorium Plants are being build in India and I think Pakistan. Though I don't think they are L.F.T.R which would be significantly cheaper to build.

And by the looks of it renewables are going to work out just as expensive if not more than Nuclear.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Thorium Plants are being build in India...

India has plans to build thorium reactors, but they are nowhere near realising those plans.

Deleted User wrote: »

And by the looks of it renewables are going to work out just as expensive if not more than Nuclear.

How so? A rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation will give you a pretty accurate estimate of how much a wind farm, for example, will cost over it's lifetime. But, how much will a nuclear power plant cost? That's a question that is extremely difficult to answer.

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

A rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation will give you a pretty accurate estimate of how much a wind farm, for example, will cost over it's lifetime. But, how much will a nuclear power plant cost? That's a question that is extremely difficult to answer.

Nuclear is mature enough to know the ongoing costs over the lifetime of a plant - it's been around since the 50s. The newer plants will have lower costs due to the efficiencies and smaller amounts of waste produced.

Wind - well that's a different story. We think we know the maintenance costs, but they haven't been operating commercially long enough to see if our estimates are correct.

In a thread in sustainability & environment discussing the pollution being caused by china's production of the rare earth metals required for the turbines, one of the posters used eirgrids figures to do the back of the envelope calculations. Nuclear came out as only marginally more expensive than onshore wind (€80/TWH vs €75/TWH), with offshore wind being significantly more expensive (€125/TWH).

The poster's calculations are interesting because it takes into account the expected availability, various capital and operating costs associated with each type of energy - including storage of spent fuels, extra infrastructure required for bringing power from wind farms to the grid, costs associated with maintenance of offshore turbines etc.

djpbarry

antoobrien wrote: »

Nuclear is mature enough to know the ongoing costs over the lifetime of a plant...

Is it? Tell that to Finland:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?pagewanted=all

antoobrien wrote: »

Wind - well that's a different story. We think we know the maintenance costs, but they haven't been operating commercially long enough to see if our estimates are correct.

Turbines have been in use since the dawn of electricity generation – I think estimates of maintenance costs are going to be pretty accurate.

antoobrien wrote: »

The poster's calculations are interesting because it takes into account the expected availability, various capital and operating costs associated with each type of energy - including storage of spent fuels...

Well that is interesting, given that the cost of storing spent fuel is extremely difficult to quantify, as nobody really knows how long it will need to be stored for.

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it? Tell that to Finland:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?pagewanted=all

Take a read of the should we go nuclear thread - I'm not going over it again it was covered there extensively. IMO the poster has dealt with your issue adequately, i'm not going to argue the point, and I suspect we're not going to change each other's minds on the matter.

djpbarry wrote: »

Turbines have been in use since the dawn of electricity generation – I think estimates of maintenance costs are going to be pretty accurate.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but to say that we know the costs because turbines have been around is a bit silly considering the fact that the power source driving the turbines is not continuous. It brings up a few common sense questions:

Are the stresses are the same as for wind turbines those used in hydro, thermal or steam powered turbines?
What effect does the fact that, unlike other turbines that act within closed systems, wind turbines act in the open are have on the turbine?
The what effect does the variability of the power source have on the turbines?

Sorry but without quantifying the effects of these we simply don't know the maintenance costs or what effect they will have on the efficiency of the turbines over their lifetime.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that is interesting, given that the cost of storing spent fuel is extremely difficult to quantify, as nobody really knows how long it will need to be stored for.

Isn't science wonderful, it can be used to calculate the half-life of radioactive materials, tell you when they will decompose into at what, at what rates and how much shielding is required to seal it.

If you wish to ignore the accumulated knowledge of the past several centuries of science, engineering and construction's knowledge, you might want to revise your statement that we "know" what the maintenance costs of turbines will be - lest you be described as a hypocrite.

I don't have time to reply to a few posts right now, but I want to say that I am opposed to Nuclear plants in their current form, ie the boiling water type that uses uranium.

The L.F.T.R plants are what I would like to see built in the next 20-30 years. The waste from these plants is 99% less than from current plants, and becomes safe after 300 years compared to 10,000.

The point I would like to make is that there is a whole bigger picture, which is energy independence. Not just normal electricity generation but for transport too, in the form of electricity for battery cars and hydrogen for HGV etc.

You see even if wind generation can meet our current electricity generation needs at a cost comparable to Nuclear, and thorium can do it cheaper but meet most of our total energy needs, which do you think is better ? In fact current Nuclear technology can meet a whole lot more than just electricity generation for normal use. The costs come down significantly when you take into account the amount of imported oil and gas that would not be required for heating and transport.

Renewables do not have that kind of generation capability of providing 100% of our total energy needs, not that I'm aware anyway.

Thorium is estimated to be much cheaper both in generation and total costs. The cost involved in building is much cheaper because you don't need the huge water towers made from concrete. Only using L.F.T.R which is why we should be doing our own research into making the reactors.