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

Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
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...
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
AstroNandos
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(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!
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(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.
0
reply
AstroNandos
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(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
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(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.
0
reply
IFoundWonderland
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(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.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(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.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
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.
0
reply
AstroNandos
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(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...
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(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)
0
reply
acollins_
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(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?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(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.
0
reply
acollins_
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(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?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(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.
0
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#16
(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
0
reply
acollins_
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(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.
0
reply
KrazyKoala
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
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.
0
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#19
(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.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Motorbiker)
The problem with solar is actually storing the energy from it easily.
The National Grid?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (60)
23.81%
No (192)
76.19%

Watched Threads

View All