The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
It could be done, but needs a long term plan with government funding, and is competing with cheap unsubsidised wind and solar. Ultimately though, to remove carbon from baseboard generation is going to require some investment above the cost of a wind farm, so the question is what is that worth?
Condi said:
It could be done, but needs a long term plan with government funding, and is competing with cheap unsubsidised wind and solar. Ultimately though, to remove carbon from baseboard generation is going to require some investment above the cost of a wind farm, so the question is what is that worth?
What having a reliable electricity generator ? priceless I would say.A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
PRTVR said:
What having a reliable electricity generator ? priceless I would say.
A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
As safe as the undersea gas pipelines which have been powering the country for 40 years and nobody seemed to be too worried about. A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
tamore said:
like a BNFL board meeting in here 
i just can't see how nuclear is the future, certainly in the UK. takes too long, too expensive, boat sailed.
I think by the time we have electrified transport, heating, fertiliser, steel and heavy industry people will realise that renewables are great but we're going to need so much energy to be somewhat self reliant that we need nuclear too.i just can't see how nuclear is the future, certainly in the UK. takes too long, too expensive, boat sailed.
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
What having a reliable electricity generator ? priceless I would say.
A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
As safe as the undersea gas pipelines which have been powering the country for 40 years and nobody seemed to be too worried about. A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
What having a reliable electricity generator ? priceless I would say.
A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
As safe as the undersea gas pipelines which have been powering the country for 40 years and nobody seemed to be too worried about. A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
Steve vRS said:
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
What having a reliable electricity generator ? priceless I would say.
A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
As safe as the undersea gas pipelines which have been powering the country for 40 years and nobody seemed to be too worried about. A Russian sub had been lurking around the UK coast, how safe are the interconnections and wind turbine cabling ?
PRTVR said:
Things are different now, our gas pipelines will also be vulnerable due to Putin not being our best friend at the moment.
Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
But nuclear fuel comes from abroad too, much of it from somewhat dubious nations. Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
Else we may as well build much more wind, solar and batteries and keep a few coal stations on standby.
Also, by the time we've built enough new nuclear capacity the world will have changed again, and who knows what or where the next threat will come from. It is unlikely to be the same threat we face today, which incidentally we didn't face 5 years ago.
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 19th June 14:34
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
Things are different now, our gas pipelines will also be vulnerable due to Putin not being our best friend at the moment.
Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
But nuclear fuel comes from abroad too, much of it from somewhat dubious nations. Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
Else we may as well build much more wind, solar and batteries and keep a few coal stations on standby.
Also, by the time we've built enough new nuclear capacity the world will have changed again, and who knows what or where the next threat will come from. It is unlikely to be the same threat we face today, which incidentally we didn't face 5 years ago.
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 19th June 14:34
I agree we need a mix coal , nuclear and gas for a secure supply, everything else is just trusting to luck.
PRTVR said:
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
Things are different now, our gas pipelines will also be vulnerable due to Putin not being our best friend at the moment.
Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
But nuclear fuel comes from abroad too, much of it from somewhat dubious nations. Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
Else we may as well build much more wind, solar and batteries and keep a few coal stations on standby.
Also, by the time we've built enough new nuclear capacity the world will have changed again, and who knows what or where the next threat will come from. It is unlikely to be the same threat we face today, which incidentally we didn't face 5 years ago.
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 19th June 14:34
I agree we need a mix coal , nuclear and gas for a secure supply, everything else is just trusting to luck.
The UK fabricates its own fuel, the raw material is a commodity, is available from many places and can be stockpiled economically due to density. Short of discovering a rich seam of pitchblende in Wiltshire the UK is about as well placed as you'd want it to be for a nuclear powered future.
dickymint said:
Time to start fracking and opening a few more coal mines
We can't build power lines in this country without a charade, good luck finding anyone wanting an open cast coal mine nearby. I can't point you to a few case studies of what happens when the business Directors have taken the profits and leave communities with the bill.Condi said:
PRTVR said:
Things are different now, our gas pipelines will also be vulnerable due to Putin not being our best friend at the moment.
Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
But nuclear fuel comes from abroad too, much of it from somewhat dubious nations. Nuclear is the way to go regardless of cost.
Else we may as well build much more wind, solar and batteries and keep a few coal stations on standby.
Also, by the time we've built enough new nuclear capacity the world will have changed again, and who knows what or where the next threat will come from. It is unlikely to be the same threat we face today, which incidentally we didn't face 5 years ago.
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 19th June 14:34
For me Nuclear would be a baseload to spread the risks when unexpected things happen - or stuff that was expected but occurs so rarely to be designed for properly.
Today's ruling will have implications on UK energy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxwwzmn12g9o
Basically it says the council must consider at the planning stage the impact of the energy subsequently being used, and not just the energy used in it's construction.
I wonder if this is specific to the environment: what if I want to open a cake shop - do planners have to consider the "downstream" effect of my hugely unhealthy cakes on the NHS?
I guess it's a forgone conclusion that the environmental impact assessment including the downstream emissions won't pass, as the climate campaigner talks about this as a victory, whereas the ruling says Surrey needs to revisit the decision.
Also note: the developer plans to scale back production under the limit where an eia is needed. However that can't work everywhere (ie the oil fields in the north sea)
I guess we can just buy the oil in from overseas, so this decision on its own won't change the emission of carbon in any meaningful way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxwwzmn12g9o
Basically it says the council must consider at the planning stage the impact of the energy subsequently being used, and not just the energy used in it's construction.
I wonder if this is specific to the environment: what if I want to open a cake shop - do planners have to consider the "downstream" effect of my hugely unhealthy cakes on the NHS?
I guess it's a forgone conclusion that the environmental impact assessment including the downstream emissions won't pass, as the climate campaigner talks about this as a victory, whereas the ruling says Surrey needs to revisit the decision.
Also note: the developer plans to scale back production under the limit where an eia is needed. However that can't work everywhere (ie the oil fields in the north sea)
I guess we can just buy the oil in from overseas, so this decision on its own won't change the emission of carbon in any meaningful way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff