wolfie Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Bloody hell Lt, first you say name some places, then you say name some places with a big population and now it's because of rivers. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Hang about Wolfie, your example of China is not a good one as many rural Chinese do not have electricity. And you need places to dam the rivers. they are normally dammed at the head of valleys or in gorges. not many places in England to do that near population centres. And as you answered Asp you know about topography :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 We have a national grid - not some primitive DC local grid. According to you - with your "electricity doesn't travel well" - we'd have to have a nuclear power station for each Town. Just in case you havn't noticed, there are mountainous areas within the UK, with suitable catchment areas for all that water that falls from the sky and seemingly floods through Towns and Villages on it's way to the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Can you imagine the length of time and amount of money that would have to be spent just having the public enquiries before a dam could even be considered? And even if a plan was approved the ecoloons would do their damndest to hamper the construction. And, as Lt Kije has pointed out, there aren't many suitable sites for a large enough project in the UK to be viable. Meanwhile in the real world, China is still building coal fired power stations at the rate of one a week, and buying all the coal Australia can dig up for them. The British government has dragged it's heels for too long over this issue and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Useless politicians. Hanging is too good for them. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Depends how you hang them. You could make it really painfull for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Do you really think we can transport energy from Scotland to the south coast of England Obs, It takes energy to move energy, The national grid losses 7% of its power though Transmission and that is over relatively small distances It is not a coincidence that all our conurbations have power stations near by, It is need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 The national grid losses 7% of its power though Transmission and that is over relatively small distances The National Grid loses only two or three per cent. It's the local distribution networks run by big power companies that have losses of between five and seven per cent, and that's because they operate at lower voltages. The losses of a National grid are relatively small over distances as large as 2000 miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Depends how you hang them. My next door neighbour said they should be strung up by the town halls at least I think that's what he said had water in my ears at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think you might be getting mixed up with train lines Wolfie, they use HVDC, that looses less power over transmittian, the national grid use AC, but I had forgot about power loss when they ramp it down for domestic use? National grid normally use 110kv or above to try to counter energy loss, another thing that needs to be taken into account is the higher the Kv, you use the more energy is lost when you ramp it down for the local networks. Most nuclear power stations are within 40 miles of the conurbations they serve. Heysham serves Lancaster and surrounding towns Sizewell serves Norwich, Ipswich ect Hinkley serves Bristol and surrounding area Dungerness serves London and South East Hartlepool Newcastle and surrounding area Torness Serves Edinborough Hunterston serves Glasgow. There was a good reason why these power stations were built where they were, move them further away and you are adding to the cost, as you start to loose more energy and your power stations are not as efficient. Power can be moved around are national grid, but it is very inefficient , and is normally only done when power stations break down, they normally just ramp up supply from the next nearest power station. Slightly off subject Fawley power station is a power station near Southamton, it burns oil, it only ever runs if another power station goes down, oil is very expensive, it is just their for emergencies. Oil has the advantage of being quick to turn on and quick to turn off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 The long, drawn out planning process applies to all major infrastructure projects in the UK Asp; so all options are moving at a snail's pace. You've actually brought the conversation back to earth, with your comment about China building coal fired power stations: which actually begs the question - why bother at all? If half the planet are going to be pumping out crap into the atmosphere, as they go through their "industrial revolutions"; all that smoke ain't going to stay in their half is it? It's a bit like giving up smoking in a smoker's hut! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think one of the problems with green energy is that it's something everybody would like to champion , but i believe it is an ideal that will never be realised in Britain simply because of the density of population of such a small country & the Nimby attitude of that population, especially the landed gentry who would probably have to bear a large brunt of any hydro or wind optional power systems.I am sure we will continue paying over the odds & moaning about the price for many years to come until the government of the days is confronted with depleted fuel reserves & has no option other than to build nuclear power stations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 7 nuclear power stations are on the cards, 2 of which we have started to build, Sizewell C and Hinkley point C, we need alot more as most of our coal fired and all of our current nuclear power stations shut have shut years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I did hear that the existing (or some of the existing) nuclear stations have had their life extended. Don't know if it's true but wouldn't be suprised. Even this government must be realising that time is running out :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 All of our existing nuclear power stations should have shut years ago! Sizewell B was finished in 1995, EDF energy were planning to add 20 years to its life span. All other nuclear power stations and most of our coal fired power stations should have shut years ago, Heysham 2 has just had a ten year extension for the second time. They are well past what they were designed to last for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Just imagine how much more of a load will be put on the grid when these ecoholics have forced us all into electric cars & they are all being charged for 12 hours overnight just to get to work the following day !I could imagine an increase in popularity of four legged horse power again & push bikes for local journeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Bring back the horses! They were good for the roses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Wonder if the Chinese are worried about green energy?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Probably not Obs, but your plan to use coal over here would be far to expensive, as we shut our coal fields, we would have to import. We do not produce enough coal. Have you given up on hydro then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris1066 Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Slightly off subject Fawley power station is a power station near Southamton, it burns oil, it only ever runs if another power station goes down, oil is very expensive, it is just their for emergencies. Oil has the advantage of being quick to turn on and quick to turn off. Another moderator in times of demand is a hydro station in Wales , which pumps water upto it's reservoir during off peak so that it can come on to line immediately when required. Quite a neat idea I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Yes good one Boris, why didn't I think of that one, for my sins I work their a couple of times a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Not given up on hydro at all Kije; one of many alternate options available. Just not in favour of nuclear, on a cost of commissioning and de-commissioning, and the creation of waste that's so dangerous, they don't know what to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 On the waste I agree, but it is the only option at the moment that can handle are growing energy needs at a price we can afford to pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Not given up on hydro at all Kije; one of many alternate options available. Just not in favour of nuclear, on a cost of commissioning and de-commissioning, and the creation of waste that's so dangerous, they don't know what to do with it. Isn't all the nuclear waste destined to find it's way passing though Warrington soon Obs and then find it's final resting place not very far away from us too.... or something like that anyway, I can't quite remember the actual 'alleged actuals' that I was told Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's coincidental, that concerns have been expressed in Scotland about the high incidence of lung cancer, which is being blamed on naturally occuring radon gas, caused by uranium in local granite - do we really want to add to the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 So you are concerned about uranium in the ground, but not CO2 in thr atmosphere , odd that you will add to a gas that will add to the risk of skin cancer, but you have a problem with a naturally occurring rock. Now that's well thought ut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.