Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think solar power is the best way forward. Due to its lack of reliability and the difficulty to store power it isn't enough on its own but if everyone who could afford it bought solar panals and put them on their roof we would eventually see a big drop in how much power is needed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    'No'.

    Putting a blanket ban of any one form of energy production seems naive to me, in addition i'm given to understand that offshore wind farms are more expensive than onshore wind farms and so its these kinds of NIMBY attitudes pushing up energy production.

    Nuclear is great and with fusion not viable until around 2040 i would like to see the UK to lead the way on Thorium (Norway has plenty to provide us with) however i'm given to understand that nuclear is best at a stable energy level and cannot effectively cope with the peaks and troughs we see through the day and week. This i feel however should make up the largest part of our energy mix.

    Geothermal is an avenue, contrary to popular knowledge there are a fair few places capable of energy production and i believe notably that Cornwall is going down that route and that significant potential exists on the west coast of Scotland, that is before we consider an Icelandic plan to export geothermal energy to the UK. I believe however that no significant research has been done in large parts of the UK as to the viability of potential geothermal energy sites.

    Wind has been discussed above and to my knowledge onshore wind power is actually quite cheap.

    Solar in my opinion presents the best chance of a renewable front. Again there's a popular myth that you need total sunshine to power the technology when actually you just need a large degree of light and additionally as monochromatic technology develops the efficiency will increase markedly, in addition the cost of solar power in the likes of California is rapidly approaching grid parity so given a decade or so it would not surprise me to see large scale development.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    The problem with solar power in Britain is this: it'd be in Britain.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    The problem with solar power in Britain is this: it'd be in Britain.
    Not necessarily. You can theoretically base the panel fields elsewhere and channel the energy back to the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Solar in my opinion presents the best chance of a renewable front. Again there's a popular myth that you need total sunshine to power the technology when actually you just need a large degree of light and additionally as monochromatic technology develops the efficiency will increase markedly, in addition the cost of solar power in the likes of California is rapidly approaching grid parity so given a decade or so it would not surprise me to see large scale development.
    Agreed, although I would like to see us building on desert when the storing technology is cost effective.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Thanks for the rep, but honestly the poor soul who negged me doesn't phase me :P Nuclear power could easily cover the energy requirements for all that green energy could produce. It is time to start cancelling inefficient means of getting energy, the developers of wind turbines have said themselves that their designs are inefficient. It is a money grab by them and the government trying to hard to pander to EU targets.
    Whilst we did sign up to an EU target i'm pretty sure we also signed up to our own even more ambitious target.

    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Solar power yet. It seems to me the most harmless route is to layer the Gobi desert et al with fields of solar panels. The effect on the natural and human environments would be zero. If we invest now we could find ourselves with considerable clout in the energy market and politics by extension in the near future as non-renewable sources begin to dry up.
    From what i'm given to understand the prohibitive cost to that (there was a plan to build in Africa) is that to do it would require a vast overhaul of the European power transfer mechanism to support a higher voltage.

    (Original post by Smack)
    No-one really gives a damn about efficiency, it's all about cost per kW. Much of what you say about wind turbines is nonsense picked up from the Daily Mail anyway. For example, " the developers of wind turbines have said themselves that their designs are inefficient" - source? Hardly likely given that they can approach 45%, which is pretty good given that the absolute maximum they can be is 59.3%.
    Any chance you could rank the various technologies by cost per KW?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    I think solar power is the best way forward. Due to its lack of reliability and the difficulty to store power it isn't enough on its own but if everyone who could afford it bought solar panals and put them on their roof we would eventually see a big drop in how much power is needed.
    That's true, its something I've wanted to put a bill forward for involving the private sector.

    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Agreed, although I would like to see us building on desert when the storing technology is cost effective.
    I'm probably in the minority but i think railways, wind turbines and solar fields actually add to the beauty of our countryside.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Not necessarily. You can theoretically base the panel fields elsewhere and channel the energy back to the UK.
    Not at the moment because the power loss along the transmission cables would be too great.

    Maybe when superconductors exist and can be used in cables.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Not at the moment because the power loss along the transmission cables would be too great.

    Maybe when superconductors exist and can be used in cables.
    Key-word being 'theoretically'; the storing technology is I gather not cost-effective yet. With time.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Any chance you could rank the various technologies by cost per KW?
    I'm sure such information is readily available on the internet. It wouldn't tell the full story either as the capital costs are a huge factor as well. Nuclear is one of the cheapest per kW/hr but the cost to actually build one is massive. So big in fact that they aren't generally built without massive state investment. Wind is one of the more expensive options, but turbines are very quick to erect and cheap to build, too. Others, like gas and oil, vary quite depending on the price of, well, gas and oil.

    Coal would probably be the cheapest way to power Britain per kW/hr. I don't think the plant is particularly expensive to build either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    From what i'm given to understand the prohibitive cost to that (there was a plan to build in Africa) is that to do it would require a vast overhaul of the European power transfer mechanism to support a higher voltage.
    With time we will find ways to deliver the energy more efficiently. The deserts are mines of space and sun for solar power.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Key-word being 'theoretically'; the storing technology is I gather not cost-effective yet. With time.
    It's not about storing it, it's that you couldn't actually transmit it from the African deserts to the European mainland.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear is a future, but it's not completely renewable. I think we should switch to nuclear as much as possible for the very foreseeable future while we research other forms of energy (perhaps one day fusion will be possible).

    Having said that, I don't support the petition. Wind farms are better than coal plants, and I think they look quite nice in a landscape, particularly out at sea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Thanks for the rep, but honestly the poor soul who negged me doesn't phase me :P Nuclear power could easily cover the energy requirements for all that green energy could produce. It is time to start cancelling inefficient means of getting energy, the developers of wind turbines have said themselves that their designs are inefficient. It is a money grab by them and the government trying to hard to pander to EU targets.
    Nuclear power and wind energy are completely different. They however do compliment each other extremely well, nuclear power can only be used as a base load due to low response time. This is where wind/renewables come in, when combined with a suitable storage system CAES or PHES can meet the peak demand.

    Also there's only around 100 years of uranium left, but they're working on improving waste...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    It's not about storing it, it's that you couldn't actually transmit it from the African deserts to the European mainland.
    Well we could, it would just be astronomically expensive. It's just about developing more cost-effective technology. Tunnels, of course. Stored was a poor choice of words on my part.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    With time we will find ways to deliver the energy more efficiently. The deserts are mines of space and sun for solar power.
    We have the technology to do that but as i say, it requires an overhaul of the European power transfer mechanism. It seems that's like our Victorian water pipes its just easier to maintain the system than replace it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackS94)
    Nuclear is a future, but it's not completely renewable. I think we should switch to nuclear as much as possible for the very foreseeable future while we research other forms of energy (perhaps one day fusion will be possible).

    Having said that, I don't support the petition. Wind farms are better than coal plants, and I think they look quite nice in a landscape, particularly out at sea.

    (Original post by rugby7)
    Nuclear power and wind energy are completely different. They however do compliment each other extremely well, nuclear power can only be used as a base load due to low response time. This is where wind/renewables come in, when combined with a suitable storage system CAES or PHES can meet the peak demand.

    Also there's only around 100 years of uranium left, but they're working on improving waste...
    Uranium is behind the times, until we get fusion we should for Thorium of which we have a millennia or so of.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We have the technology to do that but as i say, it requires an overhaul of the European power transfer mechanism. It seems that's like our Victorian water pipes its just easier to maintain the system than replace it.
    Can you explain what you mean by 'European power transfer mechanism'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    It's not about storing it, it's that you couldn't actually transmit it from the African deserts to the European mainland.
    I'm sure I've read about this in a journal before, it was crazily stupid and expensive.


    Can renewable energy sources
    sustain affluent society?
    F E Trainer

    Read this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rugby7)
    I'm sure I've read about this in a journal before, it was crazily stupid and expensive.
    All the more reason for us to get our hands on the land ourselves so that when non-renewable energy runs out we can charge extortionate amounts. It being expensive could become very profitable for us.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.