it isn't all bad news

[Nearly Sane]

http://tinyurl.com/ht79pth

[ippy]

Doesn't work on my PC

ippy.

[Shaker]

Get it to work somehow ippy - it's a good article.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

http://m.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14164957.Despite_it_all__something_is_going_right_and_we_should_celebrate/?ref=fbshr

Try the above.

I like the bit about the school, not rocket science, simply helping the kids to exercise.

Gonnagle.

[Jack Knave]

Except England doesn't get enough sun or wind throughout the year to make it viable for these energy sources. However, this could change if global warming continues a pace; so every cloud has a silver lining. 

[ippy]

Thanks Gonners, there's a lot going on here we have a lot of family coming tomorrow, however I have skim read through your post, I may print off later and read it later tonight sitting in comfort.

Just a quick one, a close friend of mine is a retired uni-lecturer in electronics he says that generally electricity is a moving source of energy and is difficult to capture in a bottle, so to speak, so even with my limited knowledge of the stuff I did think perhaps the whole of the world's governments should put every effort into finding the very best method capturing this electricity in some way for use at a later time/date, so that we can all share the knowledge.

How about those in the sun passing current on to those in the dark, switching around the globe as it rotates? I don't know, there would have to be a lot more co-operation globally for this idea, for that's all it is an idea of my own, it's probably impractical for all sorts of reasons some of them technical I'm sure, but there it's an idea.   

ippy   

[Hope]

Except England doesn't get enough sun or wind throughout the year to make it viable for these energy sources. However, this could change if global warming continues a pace; so every cloud has a silver lining. 

Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light.  Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity.   I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.

[Jack Knave]

Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light.  Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity.   I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.

The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!

[Shaker]

The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!

No; but as a well-known supermarket regularly tells us, every little bit helps.

[Jack Knave]

No; but as a well-known supermarket regularly tells us, every little bit helps.

But what that means is that we still need the regular energy sources yet governments have been closing down viable and efficient gas fired plants just to be Green and trendy with the stupid world in-crowd. This leaves us vulnerable to power cuts and the like. Also, it costs more and creates more pollution to keep turning down or off these gas fired plants, which we would need to do to cater for the short fall from renewables, than to have them running at full steam ahead. So we might as well have these plants running as they were designed at full tilt, give or take, and just have the  renewables as minor top ups. But no, those greeny nutters are going to play the insane game of trying to make renewables play a much bigger role which they can't possibly do because of some political rhetorical bullshit. 

[jeremyp]

Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light.  Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity.   I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.

Over 3 1/2 years, that's the equivalent of 500 watts continuously. Or enough to run a kettle for four hours a day.

[jeremyp]

Over 3 1/2 years, that's the equivalent of 500 watts continuously. Or enough to run a kettle for four hours a day.

Or about the same as 30 tankfuls of petrol

[Outrider]

The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!

Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.

We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.

O.

[Hope]

The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!

If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving.  The Government also needs to crack down on its own offices, as well as other office blocks, etc, that leave their lights burning all night even though the only people in them are the cleaners.  Judicial use of PIRs, low-wattage 'protection' lights, etc, would really help.

[Hope]

Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.

We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.

O.

Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms.  I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark.  The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting.  Would they be suitable to power an electric cooker, for instance?

[Shaker]

If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving. 

Not slashing the subsidies would have been a good first step.

[Hope]

Not slashing the subsidies would have been a good first step.

I'd agree, but having done that, they need to be re-established.

[jeremyp]

Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.

We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.

O.

Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this. Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.

In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.

[jeremyp]

Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms.  I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark.

You don't think batteries grow on trees do you? Batteries have their own serious ecological problems.

The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting.  Would they be suitable to power an electric cooker, for instance?

Well, you probably wouldn't power an electric cooker off them, you'd burn the hydrogen directly. Converting hydrogen to electricity and the electricity to heat is guaranteed to be less efficient than converting hydrogen to heat directly.

However as an alternative to a battery, fuel cells have good potential. I think that is the future.

[Jack Knave]

Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.

We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.

O.

It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.

Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc. Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!

[Rhiannon]

It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.

Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc. Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!

Relying on gas is insane unless you want to see the lights go out. The supply isn't reliable enough. That's without the environmental aspect.

[Jack Knave]

If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving.  The Government also needs to crack down on its own offices, as well as other office blocks, etc, that leave their lights burning all night even though the only people in them are the cleaners.  Judicial use of PIRs, low-wattage 'protection' lights, etc, would really help.

I'm not against common sense where it has been thoroughly thought through.

[Outrider]

Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms.

Given the knock-on effects on the environment of damming for hydro, nuclear is the best ecological option for the bulk supply.

I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark. 

It's getting there, but battery technology still suffers from two significant problems: size and charge time. Whilst we're making advances in both, slowly, we're not at the point where they're sufficient to replace the on-demand electricity supply that our current culture has been built around.

The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting.

Fuel cells are the best option on the table to replace internal combustion engines - electric cars are impressive, but they still have significant limitations over petrol and diesel in terms of range, cost and 'refuelling' time.

O.

[Outrider]

Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this.

There is a constant, background supply needed by the grid, and nuclear is the best option for this in areas where there isn't a readily available hydro/geothermal option. Whilst tidal power is reliable, it's environmentally damaging. Solar, where it can be relied upon, is fantastic of course, but outside of the tropics there aren't many places where that's the case.

Nuclear's output is controllable - unlike the others it doesn't have an 'off' option, but if you're using it to supply the background supply you're never going to need an 'off' option.

Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.

To a degree, yes - wind is not reliable enough to be the prime supply, however, and solar is only reliable enough or sufficient in certain areas.

In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.

I'd question the need for fossil back-ups in the long-term - perhaps in the short term - but I'd agree that a mix of supply types is probably the best option.

O.

[Rhiannon]

We rely far too much on imported gas for it to be anything other than a back-up at best in the long term. We need to focus on energy sources that we can be as self-sufficient in as is possible.