A warning about Renewable Energy

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really – high level waste from uranium-fuelled plants will be unsafe for about 1,000 years.
And that means an estimate of the cost cannot be made?

First of all I am loaking at the feasibility of thorium not uranium which most reserch is in but is associated with weapon's development as much as power generation and I believe it (uranium) is unsafe for well over 1000 years so in my mind it is not the ideal answer to our power generation issues.

Yes we can cost but my argument is that it is not being costed in reality and is only economic when there are tax incentives and uneconomic rates are paid to producers.

Thorium technology seems not to be developed as most power plants are developed with the weapons industry involved.

I was under the belief that the waste of current reactors is unsafe for thousands of years not a few hundred, but from Thorium is a few hundred.

The MAJOR advantage of Thorium is that in molton salt or L.F.T.R produce only 1% of the waste compared to current reactor waste.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Yes we can cost but my argument is that it is not being costed in reality and is only economic when there are tax incentives and uneconomic rates are paid to producers.

By that logic, farming is not economical because farmers receive subsidies.

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

By that logic, farming is not economical because farmers receive subsidies.

If you want to discuss farming subsidies open a thread about it and I will discuss however thsi thread is re renewables. I consider this just a snide post and not for the first time cast in my direction

Be nice now lads !

p1akuw47h5r3it

Imo Fusion reactors would be a better bet than L.F.T.R. However I can't see how Ireland could afford to start research into this area, or LFTR.

We simply haven't got the money or the infrastructure to. I think for now we would be better off concentrating on wind and wave power and wait for developments in Fusion and LFTR research from overseas.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you want to discuss farming subsidies open a thread about it and I will discuss however thsi thread is re renewables.

I don't want to discuss farming. I was simply making the point that the fact that something is subsidised does not necessarily mean that it's uneconomical. Just about every form of electricity generation has been subsidised at one point or another.

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't want to discuss farming. I was simply making the point that the fact that something is subsidised does not necessarily mean that it's uneconomical. Just about every form of electricity generation has been subsidised at one point or another.

No but when one section of an industry is subsidised ( renewables) and after twenty years cannot still provide a viable alternative to technologies we may need to get away from then it is time the Developed World ( not just Ireland ) investigated them

If farming was just subsidised in Ireland or the EU then I would be all for removing subsidises. However this is not the case also in return for the subsidies we have to farm under the most regulated farming policy in the world and have to complete with imports not farmed under the same regulations. However I will not discuss it here but this is the third thread (at least) where this remark has been used as a post to answer an argument I put forward and I just find it off putting.

I could post under any name and not be targeted like that

DanDan6592

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Imo Fusion reactors would be a better bet than L.F.T.R. However I can't see how Ireland could afford to start research into this area, or LFTR.

We simply haven't got the money or the infrastructure to. I think for now we would be better off concentrating on wind and wave power and wait for developments in Fusion and LFTR research from overseas.

Fusion would be fantastic but not even a hint of it being available in the next 50 years if ever.

Ireland can't afford not to invest in a future with a stable source of fuel, imagine a war that saw oil rise to 300 USD a barrel ?

So that would mean you get some electricity from renewables but transport would cease. People needing heating oil would depend on coal whose price would sky rocket, all those on gas would freeze because the price of gas is related to the price of oil and most people on gas have no chimney.

The rest of electricity that depends on foreign fuel would cease, so what does that leave us with ? a lot of dark cold miserable nights, business would be obliterated.

L.I.F.T.R produces electricity, we wouldn't need to import oil, gas, petrol, diesel, coal etc. We could make hydrogen for planes, trains, all HGV's, cars can run fine on leccy. Hydrogen cars are coming, not to Ireland of course, planes trains etc are a bit away yet.

Renewables will not or never be capable of providing all the energy required. You would want hundreds of square miles of land for all the solar panels and wind turbines.

On paper it all sounds good and now solar is cheaper than nuclear.

If every house had a 5kw/p solar system it would save a significant amount of imported fuel, but currently it's very heavily subsidized and too expensive for most domestic owners.

The other problem is storage of this energy, well one way of helping solve that is the use of E.V batteries and the E.S.B are investigating the possibility of a smart grid where all our cars would be the big energy storage with only a tiny amount being taken from every car so it wouldn't effect range but be more than enough to store the renewable energy, currently.

We still have the problem of importing all that energy that renewable can't cater for.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Deleted User wrote: »

Fusion would be fantastic but not even a hint of it being available in the next 50 years if ever.

Well you could say the same about LFTR:pac: Progress is being made with Fusion however, with the ITER being built. You are correct in saying that it may be a bit of a way off, I still believe we'll have it within 50 years. Fusion would also be safer and like LFTR the raw materials are cheap and abundant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Ireland can't afford not to invest in a future with a stable source of fuel, imagine a war that saw oil rise to 300 USD a barrel ?

Not from scratch no. We do however have scientists working with plasma and fusion and it's applications in the NCPST. They also contribute research to the ITER linked above.

The NCPST energy research programme is primarily concerned with the development of fusion power through participation in the international .Iter. project. NCPST is the leader and coordinator of the Irish Fusion Association, which is funded by the pan European EURATOM authority, the vehicle for European participation in the .Iter. project.

http://www.ncpst.ie/research/sustainable-energies.html

So that would mean you get some electricity from renewables but transport would cease. People needing heating oil would depend on coal whose price would sky rocket, all those on gas would freeze because the price of gas is related to the price of oil and most people on gas have no chimney.

The rest of electricity that depends on foreign fuel would cease, so what does that leave us with ? a lot of dark cold miserable nights, business would be obliterated.

L.I.F.T.R produces electricity, we wouldn't need to import oil, gas, petrol, diesel, coal etc. We could make hydrogen for planes, trains, all HGV's, cars can run fine on leccy. Hydrogen cars are coming, not to Ireland of course, planes trains etc are a bit away yet.

Just because they're coming doesn't mean people will buy them.Look at the uptake of electric cars, it's pretty poor. And anyway what are the chances of a war happening causing oil to rise to that much? Whilst I wouuld like it to be the case that LIFTR does eventually do all this, I think you are scaremongering here.

Renewables will not or never be capable of providing...

I don't neccesarily disagree, I still think fusion is a better option to research however, given that we already have people and money invested into it.

DanDan6592

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Well you could say the same about LFTR:pac: Progress is being made with Fusion however, with the ITER being built. You are correct in saying that it may be a bit of a way off, I still believe we'll have it within 50 years. Fusion would also be safer and like LFTR the raw materials are cheap and abundant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER



Not from scratch no. We do however have scientists working with plasma and fusion and it's applications in the NCPST. They also contribute research to the ITER linked above.


http://www.ncpst.ie/research/sustainable-energies.html





Just because they're coming doesn't mean people will buy them.Look at the uptake of electric cars, it's pretty poor. And anyway what are the chances of a war happening causing oil to rise to that much? Whilst I wouuld like it to be the case that LIFTR does eventually do all this, I think you are scaremongering here.



I don't neccesarily disagree, I still think fusion is a better option to research however, given that we already have people and money invested into it.

L.i.f.t.r could have been and can be, fusion isn't even close to being a reality. If people had worked on l.i.f.t.r as,long as they have fusion we would have no energy problems or oil spikes to worry about and the air would be a lot,cleaner and energy a lot cheaper.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Deleted User wrote: »

L.i.f.t.r could have been and can be, fusion isn't even close to being a reality. If people had worked on l.i.f.t.r as,long as they have fusion we would have no energy problems or oil spikes to worry about and the air would be a lot,cleaner and energy a lot cheaper.

But what does it say for LIFTR if people have willingly worked on Fusion for longer? There is obviously reasons for this. ANd fusion isn't that far off being a reality. A reactor is being built in France, albeit for test purposes. Have any LIFTR reactors been built, or even under construction?

They are all still in the planning stages, with China hoping to have one up and running in 20 years, and others up and running by 2030. It's by no means that much closer to becoming a reality than fusion.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

No but when one section of an industry is subsidised (renewables) and after twenty years cannot still provide a viable alternative to technologies...

You expected renewables to have displaced all other forms of electricity generation after just two decades of subsidies?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I could post under any name and not be targeted like that

For goodness sake – it was just an example. I was paying absolutely no attention to your username.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

ANd fusion isn't that far off being a reality.

Fusion may never be a reality. The reason it still attracts research funding is because the rewards would be so absolutely tremendous – humanity would never have to worry about energy production ever again. But, pinning our hopes on fusion is not smart.

lmimmfn

This is a crap solution......next

DanDan6592

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But what does it say for LIFTR if people have willingly worked on Fusion for longer? There is obviously reasons for this. ANd fusion isn't that far off being a reality. A reactor is being built in France, albeit for test purposes. Have any LIFTR reactors been built, or even under construction?

They are all still in the planning stages, with China hoping to have one up and running in 20 years, and others up and running by 2030. It's by no means that much closer to becoming a reality than fusion.

It says that more time , effort and money, a lot more was put into fusion than L.F.T.R or molten salt reactors. That's all.

You see the biggest difference between Fusion and L.F.T.R is L.F.T.R is already proven to work but it needs more investment to solve the corrosion problems that the fuel creates, there are a few other issues but the Nuclear industry isn't willing to put the money in to it, and Governments are concentrating on the Green movement.

The U.S Military abandoned molton salt reactors because they couldn't make nukes from it.

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

You expected renewables to have displaced all other forms of electricity generation after just two decades of subsidies?
For goodness sake – it was just an example. I was paying absolutely no attention to your username.
Fusion may never be a reality. The reason it still attracts research funding is because the rewards would be so absolutely tremendous – humanity would never have to worry about energy production ever again. But, pinning our hopes on fusion is not smart.

No I do not expect them to have replaced but I did expect that at this stage we would have an economic plan in place re wind however as no emphais is yes put on storage solutions then in reality they must not be an economic proposition. With the amount of wind energy we produce at present 10% of the nations requirment if it was totally usable. So whay have we or any other country looked at a feasible storage solution. We would need about 40-60 days storage I imagine maybe somebody else coud calculate the requirement. But is it feasible and what have we not started or another country started to plan such a project

Farmer Pudsey

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

No I do not expect them to have replaced but I did expect that at this stage we would have an economic plan in place re wind however as no emphais is yes put on storage solutions then in reality they must not be an economic proposition. With the amount of wind energy we produce at present 10% of the nations requirment if it was totally usable. So whay have we or any other country looked at a feasible storage solution. We would need about 40-60 days storage I imagine maybe somebody else coud calculate the requirement. But is it feasible and what have we not started or another country started to plan such a project

if 100,000 electric vehicles with an average of 20 kw/hrs of storage were to be used as storage you would have 2GW/hrs of storage, (if I got my zero's right lol ) that is a fair bit of storage, though they would only use some of it, it's still significant during peak demand.

This is part of E.S.B's future smart grid program.

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

if 100,000 electric vehicles with an average of 20 kw/hrs of storage were to be used as storage you would have 2GW/hrs of storage, (if I got my zero's right lol ) that is a fair bit of storage, though they would only use some of it, it's still significant during peak demand.

This is part of E.S.B's future smart grid program.

Yeah, minor problem with the "peak demand" storage - it tends to be rush hour when people using those electric cars are trying to get home.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah, minor problem with the "peak demand" storage - it tends to be rush hour when people using those electric cars are trying to get home.

Still a lot of watt/hrs storage available during the day when they are parked hooked up to their chargers all day.

Not to mention all the end of life batteries that would become available after a few years, the E.S.B are also looking into this. Maybe there would be a deal where the E.S.B make a deal with the car manufacturers that they offer x amount of money per x amount of available kw/hrs available. It could potentially significantly reduce the cost of a new battery.

End of life e.v batteries still have years of life left.

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah, minor problem with the "peak demand" storage - it tends to be rush hour when people using those electric cars are trying to get home.

Well, sort of - the peak is actually at about 7pm, which suggests that peak electricity usage corresponds to people having returned home - that initial phase where you turn on lots of lights and other devices. In turn, that suggests that the storage provided by electric vehicles may actually be coming on stream pretty much when needed.

That's something that would bear closer examination, but I think a dismissal based on the correspondence in 'time block' (ie the 5-7pm 'peak block' with 'rush hour') is potentially too simplistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, sort of - the peak is actually at about 7pm, which suggests that peak electricity usage corresponds to people having returned home - that initial phase where you turn on lots of lights and other devices. In turn, that suggests that the storage provided by electric vehicles may actually be coming on stream pretty much when needed.

Actually the peak depends very much on the season. During spring it's about 7pm, during autumn it's about 8.30. During the summer is's pretty flat (except when a lot of people are inside witching the euros).

The peak demand generally happens in winter around 6pm.

The eirgrid information suggests the winter peak at about about 6pm The peak for the past few years happened on (21/12/2010 @ 6pm).

Looking at the winter graphs, there's increased demand between 1600 & 2100. During the spring and autumn it's later, but then the demand is also lower (by about 1GW).

My instinct is to plan for the maximum demand, as the system is at a higher stress level that the rest of the year. During the winter peak the vehicles will be coming offstream when they're needed most and coming back on after the demand has already started to drop.

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually the peak depends very much on the season. During spring it's about 7pm, during autumn it's about 8.30. During the summer is's pretty flat (except when a lot of people are inside witching the euros).

The peak demand generally happens in winter around 6pm.

The eirgrid information suggests the winter peak at about about 6pm The peak for the past few years happened on (21/12/2010 @ 6pm).

Looking at the winter graphs, there's increased demand between 1600 & 2100. During the spring and autumn it's later, but then the demand is also lower (by about 1GW).

My instinct is to plan for the maximum demand, as the system is at a higher stress level that the rest of the year. During the winter peak the vehicles will be coming offstream when they're needed most and coming back on after the demand has already started to drop.

Yes, I'd agree that the peak in winter is going to encompass the switch-on of workplace lights before people leave work - but electric vehicles could also be connected to the grid at work. While that does leave you with a sag in vehicular battery storage during rush hour to be compensated for, that doesn't make such storage entirely useless by any means, even during the peak period.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I'd agree that the peak in winter is going to encompass the switch-on of workplace lights before people leave work - but electric vehicles could also be connected to the grid at work. While that does leave you with a sag in vehicular battery storage during rush hour to be compensated for, that doesn't make such storage entirely useless by any means, even during the peak period.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm struggling to see the point of the batteries, other than to justify it as a storage medium for wind, which I'm not at all convinced on.

Do you have any information on how this "power sharing" of plugged in vehicles will work - i.e. if owners will be compensated for charge that's used while the car is plugged into a terminal, will there be a cut off point where the grid does not draw down power from a battery?

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm struggling to see the point of the batteries, other than to justify it as a storage medium for wind, which I'm not at all convinced on.

Do you have any information on how this "power sharing" of plugged in vehicles will work - i.e. if owners will be compensated for charge that's used while the car is plugged into a terminal, will there be a cut off point where the grid does not draw down power from a battery?

There's a fair body of literature and research on the subject - for example, as starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

and coverage:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_hopes_that_electric_cars_can_play_a_key_role_on_the_grid/2328/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10269723-54.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm struggling to see the point of the batteries, other than to justify it as a storage medium for wind, which I'm not at all convinced on.

Do you have any information on how this "power sharing" of plugged in vehicles will work - i.e. if owners will be compensated for charge that's used while the car is plugged into a terminal, will there be a cut off point where the grid does not draw down power from a battery?

I'm obviously not clever enough to cope with the complexities of this approach! My difficulty with using EI's to consume off-peak electricity and then put it back into the grid during peak consumption is what happens when you want to actually drive the damn thing? I understand that charging an EI off-peak and driving it during the day is an efficient use of electricity generation but I'm struggling to see how these cars can also be used to run your house at the same time. Will this approach result in a lot of people hopping into 'flat' cars in the future?

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

I'm obviously not clever enough to cope with the complexities of this approach! My difficulty with using EI's to consume off-peak electricity and then put it back into the grid during peak consumption is what happens when you want to actually drive the damn thing? I understand that charging an EI off-peak and driving it during the day is an efficient use of electricity generation but I'm struggling to see how these cars can also be used to run your house at the same time. Will this approach result in a lot of people hopping into 'flat' cars in the future?

I didn't want to put it as bluntly as that without getting some information on how it will be run here first, but that's a concise summary of one of my concerns.

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

I'm obviously not clever enough to cope with the complexities of this approach! My difficulty with using EI's to consume off-peak electricity and then put it back into the grid during peak consumption is what happens when you want to actually drive the damn thing? I understand that charging an EI off-peak and driving it during the day is an efficient use of electricity generation but I'm struggling to see how these cars can also be used to run your house at the same time. Will this approach result in a lot of people hopping into 'flat' cars in the future?

This would be my concern as well you also have the issue that will people when they arrive home first want to take the childern out of the car turn on the heating etc, etc, then if it raining what happens will they go out and plug in the car.

It has one davantage it will increase the range of cars cost effectively, howeverare battery's a green solution.

professore

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.

Ballydehob is full of blow-ins - retired actors and authors etc.

professore

djpbarry wrote: »

By that logic, farming is not economical because farmers receive subsidies.

That is the case. Farming as it is carried out in the EU is not economically sustainable. Farming is economically sustainable if done in a manner similar to New Zealand or Brazil.

Farmer Pudsey

professore wrote: »

That is the case. Farming as it is carried out in the EU is not economically sustainable. Farming is economically sustainable if done in a manner similar to New Zealand or Brazil.

Yes like Brazil, cut down the rain forrest, evict the native population and use hormones to finish cattle. In the USA get a subsidy use hormones to finish cattle and to produce milk no Indians left to shoot.