BLUE Solar Farms to blanket the countryside! :)

We'd be better off with nuclear power and landfill gas imo. Solar power is better for countries that have sun (eg Spain).

Still better than coal & oil though.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Joeman560

10

It's funny how 3000 is supposed to be an impressive number.

We need fusion.

Reply 3

SHallowvale

14

Original post by Joeman560

It's funny how 3000 is supposed to be an impressive number.

We need fusion.

To bad we don't have fusion. :gthumb:

Reply 4

Rakas21

21

Original post by Carol R. Lawson

Giant Shropshire solar farm gets go-ahead http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/01/10/giant-shropshire-solar-farm-gets-go-ahead/ via @ShropshireStar

Wow! 3000 houses powered by each new solar farm. I love blue x

This is good news.

Original post by No Man

We'd be better off with nuclear power and landfill gas imo. Solar power is better for countries that have sun (eg Spain).

Still better than coal & oil though.

In my opinion our future energy mix (dependent on development of Thorium fission and monochromatic cells) should be 90% made up of Thorium nuclear, solar and geothermal.

Original post by Joeman560

It's funny how 3000 is supposed to be an impressive number.

We need fusion.

ITER may well be the first successful fusion reactor that is commercially viable, that won't have completed its goals until around 2040 though so fusion for the masses is still decades away.

Reply 5

I don't really think PV Panels are the best option for the UK and I'm not entirely sure why they're investing in it when there are much more suitable renewable alternatives for Britain. Nevertheless, any step away from fossil fuels and nuclear is a step forward.

Reply 6

KICHMYARSE

12

Original post by Chlorophile

I don't really think PV Panels are the best option for the UK and I'm not entirely sure why they're investing in it when there are much more suitable renewable alternatives for Britain. Nevertheless, any step away from fossil fuels and nuclear is a step forward.

I am totally with you on this. Solar isn't really the best option in the UK and no one who actually lives in the countryside wants it. Wind is a better option. I don't care much about politics, but good that they decided to cut support for the solar.

Reply 7

joey11223

I appreciate that this benefits coastal communities more, but surely solar farms aren't exactly the best energy source for this country? I'd have thought tidal would be a better route for a good renewable part of the mix, personally though I think we need more nuclear.

Reply 8

Original post by Chlorophile

I don't really think PV Panels are the best option for the UK and I'm not entirely sure why they're investing in it when there are much more suitable renewable alternatives for Britain. Nevertheless, any step away from fossil fuels and nuclear is a step forward.

Nothing is wrong with nuclear, unless you live somewhere like Japan.

Reply 9

Original post by No Man

Nothing is wrong with nuclear, unless you live somewhere like Japan.

Look, will you please not blurt out things before you know what you're talking about? Even the biggest proponents of nuclear power will admit that there are issues with nuclear energy. Just for starters, we still do not know how to deal sustainably with waste, they are incredibly difficult to decommission, and it is extremely expensive - the only reason why nuclear energy appears to be so cheap at the moment is as a result of government subsidies. Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewables in the long term.

And whilst they have a good safety record in terms of the average, when they go wrong, they go catastrophically wrong. However unlikely it is, if a Chernobyl happened in Britain, we would have a very serious problem, to use a gross understatement.

Original post by joey11223

I appreciate that this benefits coastal communities more, but surely solar farms aren't exactly the best energy source for this country? I'd have thought tidal would be a better route for a good renewable part of the mix, personally though I think we need more nuclear.

Tidal power has not been developed very much, and it its current state it isn't in the position to provide us with a meaningful amount of power. However, with investment, this could change.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

Original post by Chlorophile

Look, will you please not blurt out things before you know what you're talking about? Even the biggest proponents of nuclear power will admit that there are issues with nuclear energy. Just for starters, we still do not know how to deal sustainably with waste, they are incredibly difficult to decommission, and it is extremely expensive - the only reason why nuclear energy appears to be so cheap at the moment is as a result of government subsidies. Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewables in the long term.

These people to seem to know what they're talking about and it seems fine to me.

And yes it is more expensive then renewables in the long term, but it's better than fossil fuels.

As for the Chernobyl argument, you could apply the same concept towards not eating pork or poultry because of swine flu and bird flu.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Original post by No Man

These people to seem to know what they're talking about and it seems fine to me.

And yes it is more expensive then renewables in the long term, but it's better than fossil fuels.

As for the Chernobyl argument, you could apply the same concept towards not eating pork or poultry because of swine flu and bird flu.

Firstly, that website you've linked very blatantly has a conflict of interest. An organisation "representing... the global nuclear profession" is not going to exactly criticise the industry, will it? Secondly, there's already some nonsense on that page ("the amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to the wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation" - yes, but the waste from fossil fuels isn't radioactive...) and all that site really says is that there isn't very much HLW produced. Whilst that is true, the fact remains that this waste is extremely harmful and simply dumping it into the ground is a disaster waiting to happen.

If it's more expensive than renewables, why not just use renewables?

And no, that analogy is absolutely irrelevant. We can't wipe out the world's main sources of meat, but we can easily use alternate fuel sources to nuclear power.

Reply 12

Rakas21

21

Talk regarding the danger of nuclear meltdowns is laughable. There are 185 nuclear power stations under the regulatory regime of the EU (and increasing) and there has been not a single meltdown. Even if there were that would be a failure rate of 0.5% which is something just about any industry would kill for.

Waste aside nuclear plants are very safe.

Reply 13

amongsttheweeds

18

Original post by KICHMYARSE

I am totally with you on this. Solar isn't really the best option in the UK and no one who actually lives in the countryside wants it. Wind is a better option. I don't care much about politics, but good that they decided to cut support for the solar.

Are you implying that said people would want a wind farm in their back garden instead?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

KICHMYARSE

12

Original post by addylad

Are you implying that said people would want a wind farm in their back garden instead?

Posted from TSR Mobile

No of course not. Wasn't that the whole point of Cameron's new policy (to reduce the number of small renewable energy developers and persuade them and their financial backers to go offshore)? Based on the price changes, the solar was the least wanted source of renewable energy.

Solar is cheap, I get it. Anyone can start a solar developing business. There are so many solar developers, aren't there? Including ones that visited my girlfriend's home - her family owns land in the countryside.

I just think you get more energy from the solar PVs abroad where the sun is a lot stronger, but the government had been quite generous in supporting solar developers. Even with the limited output, the developers still made good £££ because of the subsidiaries. Not any more. I am glad that that happened.

Reply 15

amongsttheweeds

18

Original post by KICHMYARSE

No of course not. Wasn't that the whole point of Cameron's new policy (to reduce the number of small renewable energy developers and persuade them and their financial backers to go offshore)? Based on the price changes, the solar was the least wanted source of renewable energy.

Solar is cheap, I get it. Anyone can start a solar developing business. There are so many solar developers, aren't there? Including ones that visited my girlfriend's home - her family owns land in the countryside.

I just think you get more energy from the solar PVs abroad where the sun is a lot stronger, but the government had been quite generous in supporting solar developers. Even with the limited output, the developers still made good £££ because of the subsidiaries. Not any more. I am glad that that happened.

You just happened to slate solar before talking about wind as a great option...

Feed-in tariffs are a joke anyway. They just serve to create a false economy. What needs to happen is a range of investment, starting with ground source heat pumps as they provide a hell of a lot of heat per kWh electricity. Then move on to hydroelectric, wind, solar thermal, thermodynamic (although they need to be tested in the UK more).

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 16

Snagprophet

17

Original post by No Man

We'd be better off with nuclear power and landfill gas imo. Solar power is better for countries that have sun (eg Spain).

Still better than coal & oil though.

And do what with the waste?

Reply 17

Original post by Chlorophile

Firstly, that website you've linked very blatantly has a conflict of interest. An organisation "representing... the global nuclear profession" is not going to exactly criticise the industry, will it? Secondly, there's already some nonsense on that page ("the amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to the wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation" - yes, but the waste from fossil fuels isn't radioactive...) and all that site really says is that there isn't very much HLW produced. Whilst that is true, the fact remains that this waste is extremely harmful and simply dumping it into the ground is a disaster waiting to happen.

If it's more expensive than renewables, why not just use renewables?

Original post by Snagprophet

And do what with the waste?

If/when they master the technology related to reprocessing/recycling the waste, it won't be an issue.

And if I was in charge of these things, I would be all for large scale renewable projects (i.e the creation of a Thames and Severn tidal barrage) but the people in charge seem reluctant about taking on the capital cost of them (despite being all for HS2).

Reply 18

amongsttheweeds

18

Original post by No Man

If/when they master the technology related to reprocessing/recycling the waste, it won't be an issue.

And if I was in charge of these things, I would be all for large scale renewable projects (i.e the creation of a Thames and Severn tidal barrage) but the people in charge seem reluctant about taking on the capital cost of them (despite being all for HS2).

It should be mentioned that one purpose of depleted uranium hexafluoride from the enrichment process is to act as a shield for high level nuclear waste. If I remember rightly, it's several times more effective than lead.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 19