Solar Panel Megathread

[apelike]

Again, this is not true.

Base load has to be continuous. Wind and solar are intermittent. It's that simple.

 

Why, because it does not match in with your ideas?

 

As already stated and linked with a comprehensive PDF, Germany are already doing it and are going ahead with more so it does work.

 

 

There is enough nuclear fuel available to outlast the earth. It's not short term.

besides, we're looking at what to use for the next century. There will be lots of options after that. Fusion for a start.

 

I find it strange that you complain about cadmium poisoning and yet advocate Nuclear power as the best option when given an accident occurring its radiation can easily spread to other countries and kill thousands. There was a meltdown at Chernobyl, the Fukishima disaster, over 150 reports of problems and accidents in the USA and our very own UK reactor leaks. It is and has shown to be dangerous and its very radioactive waste products cant be easily disposed of. On top of that the reactors are expensive to build, produce expensive electricity, dont last long and are expensive to de-commission.

 

We should not be looking at options for the next century but looking at options for this century. Its estimated that gas reserves could run out by 2070 and Fusion is a no go, has been promised for ages, and yet is always around 10 years away.

[truman]

Why, because it does not match in with your ideas?

 

As already stated and linked with a comprehensive PDF, Germany are already doing it and are going ahead with more so it does work.

 

 

 

 

I find it strange that you complain about cadmium poisoning and yet advocate Nuclear power as the best option when given an accident occurring its radiation can easily spread to other countries and kill thousands. There was a meltdown at Chernobyl, the Fukishima disaster, over 150 reports of problems and accidents in the USA and our very own UK reactor leaks. It is and has shown to be dangerous and its very radioactive waste products cant be easily disposed of. On top of that the reactors are expensive to build, produce expensive electricity, dont last long and are expensive to de-commission.

 

We should not be looking at options for the next century but looking at options for this century. Its estimated that gas reserves could run out by 2070 and Fusion is a no go, has been promised for ages, and yet is always around 10 years away.

 

Genuine question..how much per Kwh for nuclear leccy and how much per kWh for wind leccy?

[apelike]

It's all on wikipedia.

 

This is quite interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants

It seems that modern nuclear reactors can do peaking and on demand/load following. So we could go 100% nuclear.

 

 

That does not explain how our UK power-plants operate on an individual basis or what their power output is and if they operate on a continuous power output or a variable one.

 

What is need is data to back up your statement that they operate continuously at around a 50% output level regardless of whether that capacity is used or not.

[unbeliever]

Why, because it does not match in with your ideas?

 

As already stated and linked with a comprehensive PDF, Germany are already doing it and are going ahead with more so it does work.

 

 

 

 

I find it strange that you complain about cadmium poisoning and yet advocate Nuclear power as the best option when given an accident occurring its radiation can easily spread to other countries and kill thousands. There was a meltdown at Chernobyl, the Fukishima disaster, over 150 reports of problems and accidents in the USA and our very own UK reactor leaks. It is and has shown to be dangerous and its very radioactive waste products cant be easily disposed of. On top of that the reactors are expensive to build, produce expensive electricity, dont last long and are expensive to de-commission.

 

We should not be looking at options for the next century but looking at options for this century. Its estimated that gas reserves could run out by 2070 and Fusion is a no go, has been promised for ages, and yet is always around 10 years away.

 

 

Oh dear.

I've posted plenty of facts and sources.

If you choose to ignore them and assert without basis that they're just my ideas then you've obviously decided that evidence is irrelevant to you on this. I fear that this is increasingly common amongst the supposed green folk.

 

France gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and has done for decades.

Huge tidal waves are very rare in the UK.

The union of soviet socialist republics could screw up the matter up putting on a hat.

 

Modern nuclear power stations are incapable of melting down.

Still it's not without risks, but it works and the safety levels are good these days.

Everything has risks. Wind turbines kill people routinely through blade shear and other accidents. One indecent in South America killed 14 people in one go. Fukushima killed nobody despite all the hysteria.

Nuclear is far cheaper than renewables because it doesn't require backup and/or storage.

 

Methane is extremely common in the earth. I was told as a child 30 years ago that natural gas would run out in 25 years. That was based on the idea that it could only be recovered from oil fields. In other words is was an advanced for of bald faced lying. It's ridiculous to suggest we could run out of something so common.

 

Fusion is at least 30 years away from being viable. The ITER R&D fusion reactor is still under construction and even if it goes very well the first useable power station would not even start construction for at least 15 years.

Still it's all going to be fusion one day. That's an opinion, but it's based on the fact that all energy ultimately comes from fusion.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 14:50 ----------

 

That does not explain how our UK power-plants operate on an individual basis or what their power output is and if they operate on a continuous power output or a variable one.

 

What is need is data to back up your statement that they operate continuously at around a 50% output level regardless of whether that capacity is used or not.

 

Why is it that when people are losing an argument on this forum I get bombarded with demands for me to do their research for them.

UK power consumption varies between the low 30s and the high 50s in terms of GW. Base load is therefore in the low 30s.

Edited September 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[apelike]

Genuine question..how much per Kwh for nuclear leccy and how much per kWh for wind leccy?

 

The estimated cost is around the same.

[truman]

The estimated cost is around the same.

 

So wind power is expensive? (according to your earlier post) Why is that..the fuel is free,there's no decommission cost (or very little) and I'd have thought the turbines were cheap to install (comparatively)

[apelike]

Oh dear.

 

Why is it that when people are losing an argument on this forum I get bombarded with demands for me to do their research for them.

 

Maybe because you are not being entirely correct and need to prove your statement.

 

UK power consumption varies between the low 30s and the high 50s in terms of GW. Base load is therefore in the low 30s.

 

Now that better..

 

It also contradicts you statement that "Electricity supply is always at least 50% "base load". This is required 24/7 and has to be continuous."

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 15:19 ----------

 

So wind power is expensive? (according to your earlier post) Why is that..the fuel is free,there's no decommission cost (or very little) and I'd have thought the turbines were cheap to install (comparatively)

 

Wind power is expensive when you take into account the initial costs of setting up and compared to the output of a single new Nuclear reactor, many more are needed. But yes, like solar the fuel is free only after the costs of setting up are recouped.

 

The Government are also guaranteeing the Operators of the new Nuclear power plant being built a minimum feed-in tariff of 92.50 pounds/MWh (around 142 USD/MWh) plus compensation for inflation.

 

This means that Nuclear will get to be more expensive to produce and be more expensive than wind power. But.. that does not take into account the cost of decommissioning and storage of waste radioactive material. TBH I'm not sure who pays for that.

Edited September 3, 2015 by apelike

[unbeliever]

 

It also contradicts you statement that "Electricity supply is always at least 50% "base load". This is required 24/7 and has to be continuous."

 

 

No it doesn't. Any number in the low 30s is more than half of any number in the high 50s.

 

 

This means that Nuclear will get to be more expensive to produce and be more expensive than wind power. But.. that does not take into account the cost of decommissioning and storage of waste radioactive material. TBH I'm not sure who pays for that.

 

That's incredibly biased.

You include decommissioning for nuclear but neither storage nor backup for wind.

Edited September 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

Why, because it does not match in with your ideas?

 

As already stated and linked with a comprehensive PDF, Germany are already doing it and are going ahead with more so it does work.

 

 

 

 

I find it strange that you complain about cadmium poisoning and yet advocate Nuclear power as the best option when given an accident occurring its radiation can easily spread to other countries and kill thousands. There was a meltdown at Chernobyl, the Fukishima disaster, over 150 reports of problems and accidents in the USA and our very own UK reactor leaks. It is and has shown to be dangerous and its very radioactive waste products cant be easily disposed of. On top of that the reactors are expensive to build, produce expensive electricity, dont last long and are expensive to de-commission.

 

We should not be looking at options for the next century but looking at options for this century. Its estimated that gas reserves could run out by 2070 and Fusion is a no go, has been promised for ages, and yet is always around 10 years away.

 

Fukushima was actually proof that modern designs are incredibly safe. And are you really worried about a tsunami in the UK?

Nuclear is the only way forwards to reduce CO2 emissions.

[truman]

What he said ^^^^^