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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Rakas2142275128]Oh i mean that that when we build the new cables to transfer power from Africa, they can't simply join the poorer European grid and so you'd have to put the more modern cabling all across Europe to distribute the electricity which is pretty costly as you can imagine.

    Why not? Can you evidence this? If the current grid isn't compatible with the new cables, we could surely undertake the expense of making them compatible for long-term benefit.

    This i understand from a different article (afraid i didn't save the link) is the expensive part.
    Aye but ultimately profitable if we're the ones with the cables.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rugby7)
    That's not what I'm suggesting at all, it's not possible to have an energy system based on a single renewable, and it isn't really possible to get energy from the Sahara to the UK, the costs i gave were an example and it is likely they would be far greater....
    It seemed that's what you meant by 'people would just be happy to pay 8p/kWh for wind energy than the 10p/kwh for solar from the sahara energy'. Even still, you are suggesting even more emphasis be placed on wind and other renewable energy sources within our own borders. I just don't think the popular support is there for this.

    It is possible to get the energy to the UK. Rakas provided some articles illustrating this. Just because sahara solar wouldn't be the only renewable energy source doens't mean it wouldn't be in demand when other non-renewable sources had run out. There's already been billions of pounds of investment into sahara solar power alone. It has the potential to be extremely lucrative and I'd rather undergo short-term expense for long-term profit.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I will make one quick point which is that many of you are gung ho about resources running out. With the prospective UK shale gas/oil deposits alone let alone Thorium elsewhere there's really no risk of us running out of fuel for whatever energy route we go down.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I will make one quick point which is that many of you are gung ho about resources running out. With the prospective UK shale gas/oil deposits alone let alone Thorium elsewhere there's really no risk of us running out of fuel for whatever energy route we go down.
    Yes there is - 'non-renewable'
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Yes there is - 'non-renewable'
    Let me rephrase that then... With the prospective UK shale gas/oil deposits alone let alone Thorium elsewhere there's really no risk of us running out of fuel for whatever energy route we go down for several hundred years.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    >Nuclear
    >green energy

    what
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Let me rephrase that then... With the prospective UK shale gas/oil deposits alone let alone Thorium elsewhere there's really no risk of us running out of fuel for whatever energy route we go down for several hundred years.
    Can you evidence this claim? Consider also that having stable energy sources is not the only factor here; there's also the effect on the natural environment and the consequential effect on us. There is a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrating that use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. The fossil fuels you mention may be sustainable in the sense that we have enough of them to last for hundreds of years (not sure) but the consequences to the environment raised in using them certainly aren't.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Can you evidence this claim? Consider also that having stable energy sources is not the only factor here; there's also the effect on the natural environment and the consequential effect on us. There is a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrating that use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. The fossil fuels you mention may be sustainable in the sense that we have enough of them to last for hundreds of years (not sure) but the consequences of using them certainly aren't.
    Not only is the metal approximately three times as abundant as uranium in the earth’s crust, but it also contains up to 200 times the energy density.
    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ener...gy-Future.html

    The shale gas reserves sitting under the UK could heat every home in the country for the next 100 years, experts claim.
    Some time in the next week or two, the British Geological Survey is to release its estimate of Britain’s shale gas reserves. The speculation points to an eye-popping amount, perhaps 1,800 trillion cubic feet. Britain’s annual consumption is 3-tcf. The math suggests a 600-year supply but even if 10 per cent can be pumped to the surface, the supply would be enough to keep the lights on almost until the end of the century.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle11159890/

    ......

    Now i'm certainly not suggesting that we stop renewable development (cars for example need to become electric) but simply that there is no risk of us running out fuel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    x

    :yy: Thanks for source

    Still, I query the relevance of having 100s of years worth of fossil fuels when there's every chance of us being able to become mostly dependent on renewable energy in that timeframe, which would be far better for everyone.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    :yy: Thanks for source

    Still, I query the relevance of having 100s of years worth of fossil fuels when there's every chance of us being able to become mostly dependent on renewable energy in that timeframe, which would be far better for everyone.
    Mainly i was just dispelling some of the doomsday predictions which seem to arise in these debates (we're all going to burn, we're all going to run out water, we're all going to have to light candles). There's still a lot of merit to seeking renewable technology and realistically we could have a Shale/Thorium/geothermal mix by 2030 and meet /beat all our targets by which time chances are we will be running electric cars and solar power from the Sahara will be much more viable, the combination of which can take us through to 2050 at which point current indications suggest nuclear fusion will be commercially viable allowing for our 100% target.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Poor conjecture. You've basically said 'no more wind turbines because I think they're ugly and then put baseless opinions on efficiency next to it. So no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OP, I assume a load of socialists negged you so have some pos rep. Yet again people have negged a newbie, some people seem to love doing this.

    I hesitantly support this as I think other forms of power are much more productive and efficient and don't leave a horrible blot on the countryside (and no that's not being a NIMBY).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be honest, having travelled down to Cornwall recently and see many wind farms, they are useless in good wind and I feel that if they cannot work in good wind then there is no point in flushing money down the toilet with them. They are a great idea but they only work in certain situations which is rarely there for them.

    I favour tidal power and solar power from North Africa and the Middle East although how we'd get the power here is another question all together.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I quite like wind turbines. Hell, when I was a little toddler my dad actually took me on a trip to see one lol.

    We loved it when we could see them in the distance because it meant we were close to home, and having them on the hills in the distance was quite nice. So I disagree that they are ugly!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Tactical Nuclear Penguin)
    OP, I assume a load of socialists negged you so have some pos rep. Yet again people have negged a newbie, some people seem to love doing this.

    I hesitantly support this as I think other forms of power are much more productive and efficient and don't leave a horrible blot on the countryside (and no that's not being a NIMBY).
    thanks for your support. Also thanks for the rep the socialists are very ignorant and will neg rep anything

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tactical Nuclear Penguin)
    OP, I assume a load of socialists negged you so have some pos rep. Yet again people have negged a newbie, some people seem to love doing this.

    I hesitantly support this as I think other forms of power are much more productive and efficient and don't leave a horrible blot on the countryside (and no that's not being a NIMBY).
    I don't see how that's not being NIMBY. Lots of people negged OP (not including me) because they disagree with his view, which in political debate is to be expected.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tactical Nuclear Penguin)
    OP, I assume a load of socialists negged you so have some pos rep. Yet again people have negged a newbie, some people seem to love doing this.

    I hesitantly support this as I think other forms of power are much more productive and efficient and don't leave a horrible blot on the countryside (and no that's not being a NIMBY).
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    thanks for your support. Also thanks for the rep the socialists are very ignorant and will neg rep anything

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Now now stop throwing accusations around friends, CLS (An ignorant socialist) said he pos repped you. I haven't negged you as i'm sure most others haven't. Could have been anyone on TSR to be fair.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Do you follow Donald Trump on Twitter by any chance?

    But in all seriousness, it doesn't make any sense to scrap future plans for wind energy when the alternatives you suggest require massive amounts of investment when there's no real argument against wind farms besides them being ugly and noisy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Wind has its place and will serve as a useful interim measure while we develop cleaner nuclear fission plants, which will hopefully in turn bridge the gap towards fusion plants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    Do you follow Donald Trump on Twitter by any chance?

    But in all seriousness, it doesn't make any sense to scrap future plans for wind energy when the alternatives you suggest require massive amounts of investment when there's no real argument against wind farms besides them being ugly and noisy.
    The fact they are dreadful at producing energy and the manufacture of them is pretty environmentally damaging are also arguments against them.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.