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

What do you think the answer is to our energy needs? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Coal power stations are cheap but too much CO2...

    Green energy like wind is too expensive and not reliable enough and the energy can't be easily stored.

    Nuclear is low co2 but negative stigma with fukishima etc.

    According to a recent article I read we're already too late to build new power stations for when our current ones retire. Meaning rolling blackouts and energy crisis in the future but noone seems to care...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Green energy is very reliable.

    The sun for instance is the most reliable source of energy that we could ever wish for. We just need to use it.

    In fact we can use it for more than just solar power. We can use it to grow crops such as maize which can be used in anaerobic digesters, this produces gas which can then be used in gas turbines which create electricity. Alternatively the gas can be used for cooking or any other process which requires heat.

    The argument about price is almost irrelevant, if we want to continue to survive we must become more sustainable.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Green energy is very reliable.

    The sun for instance is the most reliable source of energy that we could ever wish for. We just need to use it.

    In fact we can use it for more than just solar power. We can use it to grow crops such as maize which can be used in anaerobic digesters, this produces gas which can then be used in gas turbines which create electricity. Alternatively the gas can be used for cooking or any other process which requires heat.

    The argument about price is almost irrelevant, if we want to continue to survive we must become more sustainable.
    I wouldn't say that the argument about price is almost irrelevant when the world almost seems to revolve around money.

    High hopes for nuclear fusion!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AstroNandos)
    I wouldn't say that the argument about price is almost irrelevant when the world almost seems to revolve around money.

    High hopes for nuclear fusion!
    That is why it is almost irrelevant. Not completely irrelevant.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    That is why it is almost irrelevant. Not completely irrelevant.
    I know that you said almost irrelevant, but it seems like it is very relevant
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AstroNandos)
    I know that you said almost irrelevant, but it seems like it is very relevant
    Survival should be more important than cost no matter what.

    If we can make an infinite and clean power source should we ignore the price tag and just do it? Yes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Green energy is very reliable.

    The sun for instance is the most reliable source of energy that we could ever wish for. We just need to use it.

    In fact we can use it for more than just solar power. We can use it to grow crops such as maize which can be used in anaerobic digesters, this produces gas which can then be used in gas turbines which create electricity. Alternatively the gas can be used for cooking or any other process which requires heat.

    The argument about price is almost irrelevant, if we want to continue to survive we must become more sustainable.
    But we can't extract enough energy from solar energy for it to be worthwhile. Especially in the UK, we just don't get enough Sun.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILovePancakes)
    But we can't extract enough energy from solar energy for it to be worthwhile. Especially in the UK, we just don't get enough Sun.
    We have plenty of other options which can be used in combination with solar power.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Thanatos
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Large subsidies on LED bulbs combined with additional taxes on incandescent bulbs.

    Consider the introduction of standardised low voltage ringmains in buildings - so all your highpower devices run off the 230vac, and then you'd have a parallel 12/24vdc to run all your electronics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Survival should be more important than cost no matter what.

    If we can make an infinite and clean power source should we ignore the price tag and just do it? Yes.
    It would be nice if we simply could ignore the price tag, but sadly the world doesn't work that way. Although if the government got their spending right, then we can always invest into it, but it seems like they always have trouble with that...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    Coal power stations are cheap but too much CO2...

    Green energy like wind is too expensive and not reliable enough and the energy can't be easily stored.

    Nuclear is low co2 but negative stigma with fukishima etc.

    According to a recent article I read we're already too late to build new power stations for when our current ones retire. Meaning rolling blackouts and energy crisis in the future but noone seems to care...
    If i were Energy Sec and had to plan for 2030 then i'd probably do the following..

    Electricity

    60% - Thorium Nuclear
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    30% - Renewable

    Heating

    90% - Geothermal (Read interesting articles suggesting its possible even in the UK)
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If i were Energy Sec and had to plan for 2030 then i'd probably do the following..

    Electricity

    60% - Thorium Nuclear
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    30% - Renewable

    Heating

    90% - Geothermal (Read interesting articles suggesting its possible even in the UK)
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    From what I've read about geothermal power in the UK, it seems as though it's possible (e.g. in locations such as Bath, if my memory serves me correctly?), but hardly enough to support 90% of heating demands?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by acollins_)
    From what I've read about geothermal power in the UK, it seems as though it's possible (e.g. in locations such as Bath, if my memory serves me correctly?), but hardly enough to support 90% of heating demands?
    From what i understand the requirement for heating is far less than that needed to power the UK.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    From what i understand the requirement for heating is far less than that needed to power the UK.
    Truthfully, I have very little knowledge outside what is directly applicable to A2 Geography, but that would seem about right. It's just really a matter of efficient harnessing, isn't it?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by acollins_)
    Truthfully, I have very little knowledge outside what is directly applicable to A2 Geography, but that would seem about right. It's just really a matter of efficient harnessing, isn't it?
    Me too. I'm basing this on an article or two which could have been talking rollocks for all i know.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If i were Energy Sec and had to plan for 2030 then i'd probably do the following..

    Electricity

    60% - Thorium Nuclear
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    30% - Renewable

    Heating

    90% - Geothermal (Read interesting articles suggesting its possible even in the UK)
    10% - Fossil fuels (reserves as well)
    Tbh you'd struggle to build new nuclear power stations by then using uranium.

    Add in using thorium instead and you'll be lucky this side of 2040.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Me too. I'm basing this on an article or two which could have been talking rollocks for all i know.
    Depends on the reputability of the source, really.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    We'll start using more natural gas. It's cleaner.

    Then eventually the switch to nuclear.

    Then after a long, long, long time, finally solar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Green energy is very reliable.

    The sun for instance is the most reliable source of energy that we could ever wish for. We just need to use it.

    In fact we can use it for more than just solar power. We can use it to grow crops such as maize which can be used in anaerobic digesters, this produces gas which can then be used in gas turbines which create electricity. Alternatively the gas can be used for cooking or any other process which requires heat.

    The argument about price is almost irrelevant, if we want to continue to survive we must become more sustainable.
    The problem with solar is actually storing the energy from it easily.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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.