Coal and gas versus renewables

If you use a Breeder reactor then through the wonders of nuclear physics you produce more fuel than you consume.

 

It's not just a renewable, you actually generate both electricity and more fuel.

Those are cool.

There's billions of years of fuel if you use that design. You put natural Uranium (rather than enriched) in which is normally petty useless stuff. And it turns into Plutonium.

Those are cool.

There's billions of years of fuel if you use that design. You put natural Uranium (rather than enriched) in which is normally petty useless stuff. And it turns into Plutonium.

Get a molten salt breeder reactor and it's a damn sight safer than anything so far, lets you burn the entire actinide series and runs on a milkcrate of metal a year.

The greenies hate them. That's why we cant have nice stuff like abundant power. I think we should burn greenies but apparantly that's naughty.

There is also the problem of nuclear proliferation but it's hard to steal most of the fuel as it's so damn radioactive whilst in the plant.

I've seen lots of designs for molten salt reactors, are there any commercial scale ones running yet?

Two stations now due to close by June this year. Yes... this year.

That's 2500mw that wont be available for next winter.

Two stations now due to close by June this year. Yes... this year.

That's 2500mw that wont be available for next winter.

They are keeping Eggborough open..so that's 2000Mw sorted..

By July, Fiddlers Ferry, Longannets, Rugeley and Ferry bridge are off the grid. Drakelow and Ironbridge have closed recently. This equates to circa 5,500mw.

Coal at the time of writing is 8770mw (which I assume includes Eggbborough) and wind supplying 2590mw.

Errr, yes, you seem to have missed the point.

 

We can't use sugar as an energy storage medium. We aren't plants.

 

We want electricity and we have no way to effectively store it, so we MUST generate it when we need it.

Solar can't supply base demand, or indeed even useful peak demand in the winter. It's of no practical use, much like wind.

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

And you figured that out how?

I'd be happy to have a chat in the pub with you and prove that I know about all sorts of things without ever having to go to google.

 

And you have a go at applying that to the storage of electricity in a meaningful way for the grid in the UK.

If you crack it you'll become a billionaire and I'll eat my hat.

I'm sorry for dredging up this thread, but once again Cyclone portrayed himself as the font of all knowledge on the subject and refused to accept what my input. My comments being that plants have the answer to our energy problems and we need to harness this.

Cycline belittled me and refused to accept my comments. Not much I can do, the SF know-it-all, wouldn't accept what I said.

Maybe Cyclone, you can accept what Professor Anthony John Ryan, OBE, polymer chemist and sustainability leader at our own University of Sheffield. Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University's Faculty of Science and Director of the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, says on the subject.

He stated, "We need to learn to do what plants do". And you can listen to him make this claim here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07142ls listen from 23:00 and you will hear one of the most knowledgable people in the UK, on the subject, backup my claim.

You were so sure of your own knowledge that you were willing to meet people in a pub to tell them how wrong they were

I don't expect an apology as Cyclone will try to weasel his way out, no doubt, but you are wrong, pure and simple.

I'll have a listen. I think it's unlikely that I'll need to apologise, but if there's something to learn then I'll do so.

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:04 ----------

He certainly says the same as you. I still don't agree with it. Sorry.

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:05 ----------

And to be clear, what I was happy to prove in the pub was that I know what photosynthesis is (along with lots of other things), like any reasonably well educated person.

That was in response to your ad hom attack about me having to google something and then being an expert. Typical of your debating style, someone disagrees with you and you attack them.

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:08 ----------

Correct, but this brings us back to the how plants survive angle. Plants don't create energy in the sunlight, its done in the dark stage.

 

Storage is the short term goal that will help the long term needs but if we can harness the suns energy in a similar way to how plants and their chloroplasts work, we would no longer need any other form of energy.

And this was your original claim.

I don't think you've any idea of how much energy we could collect from the sun and how much we as a country use.

And since you accused me of having to google things, perhaps you could explain how it is that you think that plants create energy in the dark. I missed that little gem the first time through.

I'll have a listen. I think it's unlikely that I'll need to apologise, but if there's something to learn then I'll do so.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:04 ----------

 

He certainly says the same as you. I still don't agree with it. Sorry.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:05 ----------

 

And to be clear, what I was happy to prove in the pub was that I know what photosynthesis is (along with lots of other things), like any reasonably well educated person.

That was in response to your ad hom attack about me having to google something and then being an expert. Typical of your debating style, someone disagrees with you and you attack them.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:08 ----------

 

 

And this was your original claim.

 

I don't think you've any idea of how much energy we could collect from the sun and how much we as a country use.

 

And since you accused me of having to google things, perhaps you could explain how it is that you think that plants create energy in the dark. I missed that little gem the first time through.

World renowned expert agrees with my claim but you feel the need to try and save face.

My debating style is a consequence of your arrogance and attempts to belittle my argument. It turns out I was correct and you were at best ill informed on the subject.

On your last comment, look up the Calvin Cycle and how it creates glucose, not forgetting you stated "We can't use sugar as an energy storage medium. We aren't plants" previously. I think we can and Professor Anthony John Ryan, OBE agrees with me.

You're trying to win or score points or something. Grow up and learn how to discuss.

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 12:38 ----------

Okay, I looked it up (not afraid to say that I had to google it, my biology stops at GCSE A grade).

These reactions take the products (ATP and NADPH) of light-dependent reactions and perform further chemical processes on them.

So... It doesn't create energy in the dark does it. It captures energy in the light, some of the chemical reactions to convert the energy created into the stored form continue in the absence of light (until the chemicals that ARE created in the light run out).

(We shouldn't talk about plants creating energy at all, they don't, they capture and store it).

You're trying to win or score points or something. Grow up and learn how to discuss.

No, I'm just showing how you were wrong, so that others can also see this. Now that has been shown as fact, you start attacking me

 

On your last comment, look up the Calvin Cycle and how it creates glucose, not forgetting you stated "We can't use sugar as an energy storage medium. We aren't plants" previously. I think we can and Professor Anthony John Ryan, OBE agrees with me.

Argument by reference to authority... But that notwithstanding, I'm not sure he does agree with you.