The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy
Comments
-
First Aspect wrote:
whereas you are guilty of wishful thinking. We have more wind turbines than pretty much anywhere in the world and we are a very windy country. We generate 10% of our energy needs this way. There are 65 million of us. There are a billion Indians and a billion and a half Chinese. They are all just as entitled to electricity as I am. I'd love there to be a robust counter argument, but merely shooting off about not having statistics to quote isn't one.TheBigBean wrote:First Aspect wrote:
The part where you have 7 billion of something multiplied by more or less the amount of energy the highest consuming 1 billion of us currently use.TheBigBean wrote:First Aspect wrote:
Unless you accidentally acidify the ocean.rjsterry wrote:First Aspect wrote:CCS is possibly a dead end and not viable on a large scale at the moment, which rules out even the cleanest fossil fuels if you want to save the planet.
Funnily enough I was reading about a new project to pump captured could back into an empty North Sea gas reservoir. It's being promoted by the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Ghent to offset their emissions. The numbers at first sound big until you compare them with the emissions from just those ports. It'll help, but it's only ever going to be part of a solution.
Renewables aren't the answer. The maths just doesn't work, not globally.
What maths is that?
That sounds more like hand waving than robust maths.
Both countries are significantly larger. India has almost twice as much solar irradiance as the UK although it is also 50% more densely populated. Despite the higher density it still has large amounts of space that could accommodate solar. Furthermore, it has far more hydro potential.
China has a vast desert it could cover in solar panels (although this would make distribution harder). Irradiance is 50% higher than the UK. It also has lots of hyrdo.
None of this solves the storage problem, but if the problem was simply energy creation where timing isn't an issue then it could probably be done from renewables.0 -
There is a geopolitical question, similar to oil, regarding where uranium is found and dug out of the ground.
It is also complicated by uranium's use in nuclear weapons.0 -
I still don't understand the UK government's reluctance to invest in tidal. Doing it on cost grounds is ridiculous as something has to be done to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and to improve security of supply. All technology is expensive to start with but gets cheaper and better through development, we could be world leaders in an emerging and vital technology. As with all energy sources there will be some environmental impacts but from my limited knowledge these appear less damaging globally than many alternatives. We're surrounded by water, have areas with massive tidal ranges and the source is highly predictable. I'm sure with some clever design you could incorporate energy generation with the creation of wildlife habitats, leisure facilities and maybe even flood defence measures.0
-
Pross wrote:I still don't understand the UK government's reluctance to invest in tidal. Doing it on cost grounds is ridiculous as something has to be done to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and to improve security of supply. All technology is expensive to start with but gets cheaper and better through development, we could be world leaders in an emerging and vital technology. As with all energy sources there will be some environmental impacts but from my limited knowledge these appear less damaging globally than many alternatives. We're surrounded by water, have areas with massive tidal ranges and the source is highly predictable. I'm sure with some clever design you could incorporate energy generation with the creation of wildlife habitats, leisure facilities and maybe even flood defence measures.
There were large subsidies available for tidal and very little was deployed for a number of reasons not least the robustness of the technology. In addition to creating the tech, a developer needs to rent the land from the crown, get the electricity onshore and connect it to the grid. The last two may not be possible in the area you wish to deploy the tidal generator.
There are many different types of tidal technology. One such type is tidal stream which works like a wind turbine, but is much smaller due to the viscosity of water. So assuming you have successfully agreed to rent the land from the crown, worked out how to lay a transmission cable, found spare grid capacity onshore, found lots of money to deploy the technology, decided that the maintenance of a underwater turbine is similar to a ship propeller (unlikely), how do you keep the piece of technology in the middle of the tidal stream? Think of a ball in the middle of a river - does it stay in fastest stream?
Alternatively, you could go for a tidal barrage like Swansea. Damming the sea. Easy? Salt water on all the machinery.
I am not for a minute suggesting that people shouldn't continue to look at it, and many of the challenges that tidal faces were also faced by off shore wind (noting that it is easier to build something that is not in a tidal stream...) which has become a huge success, but deployment of tidal is not easy.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Pross wrote:I still don't understand the UK government's reluctance to invest in tidal. Doing it on cost grounds is ridiculous as something has to be done to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and to improve security of supply. All technology is expensive to start with but gets cheaper and better through development, we could be world leaders in an emerging and vital technology. As with all energy sources there will be some environmental impacts but from my limited knowledge these appear less damaging globally than many alternatives. We're surrounded by water, have areas with massive tidal ranges and the source is highly predictable. I'm sure with some clever design you could incorporate energy generation with the creation of wildlife habitats, leisure facilities and maybe even flood defence measures.
There were large subsidies available for tidal and very little was deployed for a number of reasons not least the robustness of the technology. In addition to creating the tech, a developer needs to rent the land from the crown, get the electricity onshore and connect it to the grid. The last two may not be possible in the area you wish to deploy the tidal generator.
There are many different types of tidal technology. One such type is tidal stream which works like a wind turbine, but is much smaller due to the viscosity of water. So assuming you have successfully agreed to rent the land from the crown, worked out how to lay a transmission cable, found spare grid capacity onshore, found lots of money to deploy the technology, decided that the maintenance of a underwater turbine is similar to a ship propeller (unlikely), how do you keep the piece of technology in the middle of the tidal stream? Think of a ball in the middle of a river - does it stay in fastest stream?
Alternatively, you could go for a tidal barrage like Swansea. Damming the sea. Easy? Salt water on all the machinery.
I am not for a minute suggesting that people shouldn't continue to look at it, and many of the challenges that tidal faces were also faced by off shore wind (noting that it is easier to build something that is not in a tidal stream...) which has become a huge success, but deployment of tidal is not easy.
Of course, but ultimately it is a source of 'clean' (nothing will ever be truly clean obviously) energy that could cover about 20% of the UK's needs as well as being about as secure a source as we could get. There are technical issues that will obviously need to be overcome but someone needs to take the lead in starting the process. If it is going to take 20 years of R&D to come up with mechanical systems that are robust enough to be used in such a harsh environment then we needed to have been starting that years ago. I can understand reluctance from private companies to invest until technology becomes more proven but really this is the sort of think that Governments should be supporting in a similar way to how (other) Government funding in space exploration has enable the significant advances in telecoms.
You obviously know a lot about the subject and it may be that the necessary research is ongoing. You would think that issues such as the Crown owning the land would be possible to overcome for something that is so much in the national interest. There are presumably already similar issues for things such as water pipes required by conventional power stations not to mention undersea telecommunication links.0 -
The crown owning the land is the easiest part to solve, but it takes time. Utility companies have rights over private land, but it is still a headache. Onshore solar and wind is mostly deployed as near to the grid as possible for this reason.
The tech to lay an undersea transmission cable exists and is robust, but it is very expensive. The point is it is hard to combine this with a 5MW pilot tidal scheme.
There have been lots of grants offered to tidal generators and there were very high tariffs available for it, so I would say that the research was going on.
What the government hasn't done is agree to fund Swansea tidal lagoon.
Here is an example of one such company and pilot scheme. Apologies for the Daily Mail link. The company was called Tidal Energy Limited and it received a grant to develop tidal stream technology. All sorts of patents to magically keep it in the same place on the sea bed, and it failed after three months.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... onths.html0 -
It's interesting that the largest tidal lagoon in South Korea makes use of a dam that was built for flood defence. When I suggested these things could be combined above I hadn't realised that it had already been done. Construction cost of that scheme was apparently $560 million and generating capacity 254 MW though only about a 25% capacity factor, Hinkley C has a construction cost of £20 billion and capacity of 3260 MW so roughly 50 times the cost for 50 times the energy generated. That said, if the dam was already in place that presumably saved a large proportion of the normal construction cost. Swansea Bay was predicted to generate 320MW off a construction cost of £1.3 billion so at face value to a layman appears to be significantly more efficient.
Rance has been generating tidal power for over 50 years so I'm surprised more development of the technology hasn't taken place.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:There is a geopolitical question, similar to oil, regarding where uranium is found and dug out of the ground.
It is also complicated by uranium's use in nuclear weapons.
So, to be specific, for a European nation; there isn't really any uranium worth mining in Europe, so it would be entirely reliant on imports.
If energy autonomy bothers you.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:There is a geopolitical question, similar to oil, regarding where uranium is found and dug out of the ground.
It is also complicated by uranium's use in nuclear weapons.
So, to be specific, for a European nation; there isn't really any uranium worth mining in Europe, so it would be entirely reliant on imports.
If energy autonomy bothers you.
IIRC you can mine from the sea apparently. With more than enough to go around for the world.
It's expensive, but you need naff all uranium compared to say, coal or gas.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Pross wrote:It's interesting that the largest tidal lagoon in South Korea makes use of a dam that was built for flood defence. When I suggested these things could be combined above I hadn't realised that it had already been done. Construction cost of that scheme was apparently $560 million and generating capacity 254 MW though only about a 25% capacity factor, Hinkley C has a construction cost of £20 billion and capacity of 3260 MW so roughly 50 times the cost for 50 times the energy generated. That said, if the dam was already in place that presumably saved a large proportion of the normal construction cost. Swansea Bay was predicted to generate 320MW off a construction cost of £1.3 billion so at face value to a layman appears to be significantly more efficient.
Rance has been generating tidal power for over 50 years so I'm surprised more development of the technology hasn't taken place.
Swansea tidal lagoon wanted a CFD with a strike price of around £140-£150/MWh which compares to £92.50/MWh for Hinckley. Both are 35 year terms. It was more expensive.
Clearly making use of an existing barrage is going to reduce costs.
Also, a capacity factor of 25% is quite a long way from base load. It might be more predictable, but it is worse that a lot of wind.0 -
lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!0 -
Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
I think he is confusing kinetic energy (the energy an object has) with work done. Consider a car travelling in a perfect vacuum tunnel. It does no work. In comparison, a car travelling at the same speed for the same distance in a wind tunnel on a muddy road would do a lot of work. In the first case, there is no power, in the second there is.0 -
Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
OK. Not the approach I was expecting. What about air resistance and transmission and tyre loss? To maintain speed needs no kinetic energy input so fuel used to overcome drag and other losses are not accounted for.
I think it is better to start from what is known i.e. the petroleum used. After reading https://www.quora.com/How-energy-effici ... nesreading I think my 50% correction is too high.
In any case everyone driving electric car fueled by renewable electricity is never going to happen.0 -
I fear the estimate for the mass of a car may be a little iffy to say the least! I'd imagine the distribution of weights is skewed towards the lower end and so the mean average is likely to be some way of the middle of the rangewww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
OK. Not the approach I was expecting. What about air resistance and transmission and tyre loss? To maintain speed needs no kinetic energy input so fuel used to overcome drag and other losses are not accounted for.
I think it is better to start from what is known i.e. the petroleum used. After reading https://www.quora.com/How-energy-effici ... nesreading I think my 50% correction is too high.
In any case everyone driving electric car fueled by renewable electricity is never going to happen.
Electric cars seem to use 10kWh/100km. Based on 30m cars and 8,000 miles a year. Total energy (kWh) for the year would be 8,000 x 8/5 x 10 / 100 x 300,000,000. Assuming they are charged equally over the year = 4.4 GW of power. That sounds sensible and eminently deliverable by renewables. It excludes trucks though...0 -
TheBigBean wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
OK. Not the approach I was expecting. What about air resistance and transmission and tyre loss? To maintain speed needs no kinetic energy input so fuel used to overcome drag and other losses are not accounted for.
I think it is better to start from what is known i.e. the petroleum used. After reading https://www.quora.com/How-energy-effici ... nesreading I think my 50% correction is too high.
In any case everyone driving electric car fueled by renewable electricity is never going to happen.
Electric cars seem to use 10kWh/100km. Based on 30m cars and 8,000 miles a year. Total energy (kWh) for the year would be 8,000 x 8/5 x 10 / 100 x 300,000,000. Assuming they are charged equally over the year = 4.4 GW of power. That sounds sensible and eminently deliverable by renewables. It excludes trucks though...
" cars seem to use" That's rather vague . However you do not have to rely on my opinion ,you can always find some evidence on the internet to suit your case. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -cars-use/. If we all drive around in a Nissan Leaf it would need an extra 25.6 gw of generator capacity. Delivery by renewables? I do not think so. At the moment our windmills are delivering 0.7 gw of their 20gw capacity. From where I am sat now I can see the wind farm on Scout Moor and it is obvious that they are not generating much.
However much you dislike the idea,that includes me ,there is no alternative to nuclear.0 -
lesfirth wrote:TheBigBean wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
OK. Not the approach I was expecting. What about air resistance and transmission and tyre loss? To maintain speed needs no kinetic energy input so fuel used to overcome drag and other losses are not accounted for.
I think it is better to start from what is known i.e. the petroleum used. After reading https://www.quora.com/How-energy-effici ... nesreading I think my 50% correction is too high.
In any case everyone driving electric car fueled by renewable electricity is never going to happen.
Electric cars seem to use 10kWh/100km. Based on 30m cars and 8,000 miles a year. Total energy (kWh) for the year would be 8,000 x 8/5 x 10 / 100 x 300,000,000. Assuming they are charged equally over the year = 4.4 GW of power. That sounds sensible and eminently deliverable by renewables. It excludes trucks though...
" cars seem to use" That's rather vague . However you do not have to rely on my opinion ,you can always find some evidence on the internet to suit your case. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -cars-use/. If we all drive around in a Nissan Leaf it would need an extra 25.6 gw of generator capacity. Delivery by renewables? I do not think so. At the moment our windmills are delivering 0.7 gw of their 20gw capacity. From where I am sat now I can see the wind farm on Scout Moor and it is obvious that they are not generating much.
However much you dislike the idea,that includes me ,there is no alternative to nuclear.
The article you posted uses exactly the same calculations I did except that it has double the electric consumption and 50% more average milage. Therefore, it arrives at a figure 3 times mine.
My consumption source is below.
https://www.energuide.be/en/questions-a ... r-use/212/
Here's some info in support of 8,000 being the correct mileage
https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advic ... 8581-0.htm
Finally, they decided to double the figure because charging would need to be done at night. This completely ignores the current unused nighttime capacity. This is the whole point of demand side storage being a very good storage solution.
You will see in my first post on this thread I recognised that there are limited options instead of nuclear. My point is that renewables could meet the electric demands if there was a storage solution.0 -
mmm. No maths either then?TheBigBean wrote:First Aspect wrote:
whereas you are guilty of wishful thinking. We have more wind turbines than pretty much anywhere in the world and we are a very windy country. We generate 10% of our energy needs this way. There are 65 million of us. There are a billion Indians and a billion and a half Chinese. They are all just as entitled to electricity as I am. I'd love there to be a robust counter argument, but merely shooting off about not having statistics to quote isn't one.TheBigBean wrote:First Aspect wrote:
The part where you have 7 billion of something multiplied by more or less the amount of energy the highest consuming 1 billion of us currently use.TheBigBean wrote:First Aspect wrote:
Unless you accidentally acidify the ocean.rjsterry wrote:First Aspect wrote:CCS is possibly a dead end and not viable on a large scale at the moment, which rules out even the cleanest fossil fuels if you want to save the planet.
Funnily enough I was reading about a new project to pump captured could back into an empty North Sea gas reservoir. It's being promoted by the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Ghent to offset their emissions. The numbers at first sound big until you compare them with the emissions from just those ports. It'll help, but it's only ever going to be part of a solution.
Renewables aren't the answer. The maths just doesn't work, not globally.
What maths is that?
That sounds more like hand waving than robust maths.
Both countries are significantly larger. India has almost twice as much solar irradiance as the UK although it is also 50% more densely populated. Despite the higher density it still has large amounts of space that could accommodate solar. Furthermore, it has far more hydro potential.
China has a vast desert it could cover in solar panels (although this would make distribution harder). Irradiance is 50% higher than the UK. It also has lots of hyrdo.
None of this solves the storage problem, but if the problem was simply energy creation where timing isn't an issue then it could probably be done from renewables.0 -
0
-
WRT wind resistance and trucks, with autonomously operated vehicles, communicating by 5G, there is the likelihood that only the first truck in a convoy would combat wind pressure.
With such convoys we would also avoid the absurd situation when a truck travelling marginally faster than another truck decides to overtake. Cars travelling faster are obliged to slow, often in large numbers then speed up. This too uses excess energy.
Autonomous vehicles could reduce energy use considerably in these and many other ways. Human drivers are very uneconomical of energy.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:lesfirth wrote:TheBigBean wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:lesfirth wrote:Lagrange wrote:My opinion YES.
My (15yo) son - not quite...
The fuel sold is in the tank and the electricity generated is not 'in the car'. You have to take in to account the difference in efficiency between electric and internal combustion engines and transmission losses.
He said he can do an output based estimate but I told him to FO and finish his GCSE stuff. He'll post it tonight..
Your son has a valid point. I look forward to his answer. I think it could reduce my estimate of power generation needed by around 50%. What is half of a hell of a lot? It is still a hell of a lot.
OK here goes.
Firstly he says the answer is unrealistic at 2.43 MW.
What he did was calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars and the total time driven, divide KE by time to get power output to match power generation.
Kinetic Energy:
Mass of a Land rover is 2.1T, mass of a Fiat 500 is 0.9T - average mass of a car thus 1500kg.
Avg dist travelled = 8000miles ((*8/5)*1000m)
Avg speed = 40km/h
Therefore average KE = 92407J and therefore the total KE of30M cars is 2.8x10**12J
time is dist/speed = 1.15x10**6secs (320hrs)
Power = KE/T = (2.8x10**12)/(1.15x10**6) = 2.43x10**6
He is re-thinking the logic!
OK. Not the approach I was expecting. What about air resistance and transmission and tyre loss? To maintain speed needs no kinetic energy input so fuel used to overcome drag and other losses are not accounted for.
I think it is better to start from what is known i.e. the petroleum used. After reading https://www.quora.com/How-energy-effici ... nesreading I think my 50% correction is too high.
In any case everyone driving electric car fueled by renewable electricity is never going to happen.
Electric cars seem to use 10kWh/100km. Based on 30m cars and 8,000 miles a year. Total energy (kWh) for the year would be 8,000 x 8/5 x 10 / 100 x 300,000,000. Assuming they are charged equally over the year = 4.4 GW of power. That sounds sensible and eminently deliverable by renewables. It excludes trucks though...
" cars seem to use" That's rather vague . However you do not have to rely on my opinion ,you can always find some evidence on the internet to suit your case. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -cars-use/. If we all drive around in a Nissan Leaf it would need an extra 25.6 gw of generator capacity. Delivery by renewables? I do not think so. At the moment our windmills are delivering 0.7 gw of their 20gw capacity. From where I am sat now I can see the wind farm on Scout Moor and it is obvious that they are not generating much.
However much you dislike the idea,that includes me ,there is no alternative to nuclear.
The article you posted uses exactly the same calculations I did except that it has double the electric consumption and 50% more average milage. Therefore, it arrives at a figure 3 times mine.
My consumption source is below.
https://www.energuide.be/en/questions-a ... r-use/212/
Here's some info in support of 8,000 being the correct mileage
https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-advic ... 8581-0.htm
Finally, they decided to double the figure because charging would need to be done at night. This completely ignores the current unused nighttime capacity. This is the whole point of demand side storage being a very good storage solution.
You will see in my first post on this thread I recognised that there are limited options instead of nuclear. My point is that renewables could meet the electric demands if there was a storage solution.
Are these renewables the ones we already have or the new ones we need to power the electric cars or those to replace obsolete nuclear capacity or the renewables the anti frackers say will take the place of gas?0 -
lesfirth wrote:
Are these renewables the ones we already have or the new ones we need to power the electric cars or those to replace obsolete nuclear capacity or the renewables the anti frackers say will take the place of gas?
In 2018, renewables generated 33% of electricity production. Further deployment is required.0 -
Look at https://gridwatch.co.uk/ now. ( 9.15 pm 18/09/2019) Demand for electricity is 35 gigawatts. All our wind turbines and solar panels are producing 0.915 gw i.e. less than 3%. To reduce carbon dioxide emission nuclear generation is essential. The alternative is to sit in the dark with your overcoat on when the wind does not blow.0
-
lesfirth wrote:Look at https://gridwatch.co.uk/ now. ( 9.15 pm 18/09/2019) Demand for electricity is 35 gigawatts. All our wind turbines and solar panels are producing 0.915 gw i.e. less than 3%. To reduce carbon dioxide emission nuclear generation is essential. The alternative is to sit in the dark with your overcoat on when the wind does not blow.
That should certainly give the sandal wearers food for thought.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:lesfirth wrote:Look at https://gridwatch.co.uk/ now. ( 9.15 pm 18/09/2019) Demand for electricity is 35 gigawatts. All our wind turbines and solar panels are producing 0.915 gw i.e. less than 3%. To reduce carbon dioxide emission nuclear generation is essential. The alternative is to sit in the dark with your overcoat on when the wind does not blow.
That should certainly give the sandal wearers food for thought.
Quite a lot of sandal wearers are aware that nuclear is pretty much a necessity rather than an option.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
lesfirth wrote:Look at https://gridwatch.co.uk/ now. ( 9.15 pm 18/09/2019) Demand for electricity is 35 gigawatts. All our wind turbines and solar panels are producing 0.915 gw i.e. less than 3%. To reduce carbon dioxide emission nuclear generation is essential. The alternative is to sit in the dark with your overcoat on when the wind does not blow.
Or storage or something that involves carbon capture.0 -
Here are three possible mixes for the UK.
0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Here are three possible mixes for the UK.
Is there a comparable chart for the current mix?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, but I'd need to find it. Gridwatch provides a live version.0
-
Here you go. The historic mix. Note the declining production. Also, not sure how it treats roof-top solar.
0
