• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
So why are we comitting UK consumers to an electricity price that is literally double the current price, and doing so for 30 years?

Doesnt that rather dent the notion that nuclear is economical?
Click to expand...

As you well know I lament the passing of the indigenous UK nuclear industry. There is so much more that could be acheived.
 
Doctor Doog said:
I haven't heard of Partington, but I stopped reading when he was described as a former chartered engineer. The only way you can lose your chartership is if you bring the institution into disrepute. Unless he just stopped paying his subs, of course.
Click to expand...

I put that down to the author's misunderstanding the concept.
 
Well, we are where we are. And where we are is a place where nuclear cannot be done economically. The ship has sailed.
 
Asserting that wind isn't economical doesn't make the case that nuclear is.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
Well, we are where we are. And where we are is a place where nuclear cannot be done economically. The ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

I would be reasonably confident that someone will develop fission processes that can exploit thorium and spent uranium fuel in the not to distant future. India and China are certainly active in that regard.
 
Visage said:
Asserting that wind isn't economical doesn't make the case that nuclear is.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The point is that wind is intermitant and cannot be relied on during maximum demand. The situation becomes worse if the nonsense switch to electrically powered transport attempts to be mainstream. I don't mean railways by the way, electrification has always been the way to go once the capital investment has been amortised. At the same time I think HS2 serves no purpose and almost no one.
 
I guess the automotive industry is wrong then. Pop into BMW the next time you're in Germany and tell them their move to an electric car system is a waste of time.
 
Johnny75 said:
I guess the automotive industry is wrong then. Pop into BMW the next time you're in Germany and tell them their move to an electric car system is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

You still have to supply the energy, no? Look at the conversion efficiencies, per unit energy electricity is expensive versus internal combustion or for that matter home heating.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
You still have to supply the energy, no? Look at the conversion efficiencies, per unit energy electricity is expensive versus internal combustion or for that matter home heating.
Click to expand...

Internal combustion wouldn't be done away with completely, however acceleration is more efficient from batteries than the internal combustion engine ever will be due to power distribution directly to an axle (or better still a wheel) and will not have the energy loss over transmission systems. However I concede your point the ICE does have better efficiency once moving as energy conservation is almost immaterial as inertia has been overcome, therefore the engine needs steady power not constant charge.

If ever the automotive industry rectify this with kinetic energy regeneration and storage without loss then the need for the ICE will be always there. I think it will change in my lifetime though.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I would be reasonably confident that someone will develop fission processes that can exploit thorium and spent uranium fuel in the not to distant future. India and China are certainly active in that regard.
Click to expand...

But thats the same basis that you've used to criticise renewable technologies - that they're not ready now, so we shouldnt look at them. Yet you're willing to hang your hat on unproven nuclear technology. And if theres one thing we know about nuclear tech, its that it takes literally decades to get to market.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Elephants and all that:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/24/water-vapour-the-big-wet-elephant-in-the-room/
Click to expand...

No.

The argument skeptics try and make is that water vapour is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 (true), and that there is a lot more of it than there is of CO2 (also true). Therefore any change in CO2 levels are comparitively harmless (false).

What is being missed is that the effect of H2O is entirely reactive to temperature. The atmosphere gets warmer, more evaporation, more H2O, more wraming. The atmosphere gets cooler, less H2O, less warming, more colling. Its a positive feedback. But what it *isnt* is a primary driver. The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is almost entirely constant, regulated as it is by the water cycle that you may remember from your schooldays.

CO2, on the other hand is increasingly driven by mankind.

If pictures work better for you:

 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Like I've said the UK government has put it's head in the sand with regard to energy generation for 30 years. The consequences loom.
Click to expand...

that’s besides the point. you asked how the french cope with nuclear and i gave you the answer. it’s clear they subsidise the industry, which is their choice. pretending it doesn’t happen so you can challenge the cost of renewables is simply hypocritical, particularly given the cost of the edf deal to britain.

you could argue that the french can do it more cheaply for a number of factors, for instance:

a) as the french state owns edf it may be able to utilise french state borrowing costs for the build rather than a private debt rate – so may have cheaper borrowing than a uk build with edf as contractor;
b) if edf is ‘end supplier’ to the french consumer then it will be receiving retail revenues anyway. so any ‘profits’ are internalised whereas in the uk system they are being paid out to energy suppliers and to edf as contractor;
c) in france, edf as state supplier, will no doubt take a considerably lower return than they take as a private contractor in a foreign project.

but you didn’t made these points.

and just to note, it was you and i think only you on this thread, who said no new build should require subsidy which is why your half-hearted reservations about hinkley stand out.

and if all other baseload generation is so clearly economic without subsidy, why are we at risk of a baseload shortfall?
 
Visage said:
But thats the same basis that you've used to criticise renewable technologies - that they're not ready now, so we shouldnt look at them. Yet you're willing to hang your hat on unproven nuclear technology. And if theres one thing we know about nuclear tech, its that it takes literally decades to get to market.
Click to expand...

We have easily exploitable gas for the next decades.
 
Visage said:
No.

The argument skeptics try and make is that water vapour is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 (true), and that there is a lot more of it than there is of CO2 (also true). Therefore any change in CO2 levels are comparitively harmless (false).

What is being missed is that the effect of H2O is entirely reactive to temperature. The atmosphere gets warmer, more evaporation, more H2O, more wraming. The atmosphere gets cooler, less H2O, less warming, more colling. Its a positive feedback. But what it *isnt* is a primary driver. The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is almost entirely constant, regulated as it is by the water cycle that you may remember from your schooldays.

CO2, on the other hand is increasingly driven by mankind.

If pictures work better for you:

Click to expand...

Climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is disputed, climate is not the product of a single parameter that can be controlled by an international treaty.
The alarmist arguement (model driven) relies on positive feedbacks into water vapour from carbon dioxide radiative forcing. There are likely negative feedback mechanisms such as cloud albedo that have a controlling influence. I would suggest that the global system is pretty stable such that life has been permitted to develop the way it has.
 
nimrod said:
that’s besides the point. you asked how the french cope with nuclear and i gave you the answer. it’s clear they subsidise the industry, which is their choice. pretending it doesn’t happen so you can challenge the cost of renewables is simply hypocritical, particularly given the cost of the edf deal to britain.

you could argue that the french can do it more cheaply for a number of factors, for instance:

a) as the french state owns edf it may be able to utilise french state borrowing costs for the build rather than a private debt rate – so may have cheaper borrowing than a uk build with edf as contractor;
b) if edf is ‘end supplier’ to the french consumer then it will be receiving retail revenues anyway. so any ‘profits’ are internalised whereas in the uk system they are being paid out to energy suppliers and to edf as contractor;
c) in france, edf as state supplier, will no doubt take a considerably lower return than they take as a private contractor in a foreign project.

but you didn’t made these points.

and just to note, it was you and i think only you on this thread, who said no new build should require subsidy which is why your half-hearted reservations about hinkley stand out.

and if all other baseload generation is so clearly economic without subsidy, why are we at risk of a baseload shortfall?
Click to expand...

I'm aware of all your points, government policy in both countries needs to address energy supply, clearly France did a better job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top