Solar power hits 23.9% of UK power generation

paulmapp8306

grungebob;1141023" said:

Just to add balance. That's no a true percentage. Coal fire or chp power plants are purposely under run or made to operate at lower than designed output in favour of wind and solar so yes on that day solar made up a sizeable chunk of generation it was actually at the expense of the environment. Modern chp plants are very efficient and have low emissions , emissions that over a 10 year span won't match that of the factories and plants needed to generate the concrete for wind turbine bases or the large battery packs for solar.

I'm sure the green energy policy was put in place for legitimate concerns for the environment but alas they where done so by people outside of the industry

Or indeed the polution from transport to get the windfarms into place, and for the maintenance engineers to fix and maintain them.

ICBM

paulmapp8306 said:

Or indeed the polution from transport to get the windfarms into place, and for the maintenance engineers to fix and maintain them.

That's exaggerated. I'm no great fan ( ) of wind power, but it's nowhere near as bad as opponents have tried to make out. My main objection to it is that it just isn't effective or reliable enough in comparison to any other type of renewable energy. Its major advantage is that the piecemeal-build cost is low - which is why it's become popular with government. But the best solutions in the long run need bigger investment and have longer return times.

Sporky

ICBM said:

That's exaggerated. 

By orders of magnitude.

It reminds me of when someone tried to argue with me that videoconferencing (my trade at the time) was killing the environment because the codecs were generally made in the Far East, shipped to the US, shipped back to the UK, trucked to a warehouse, then truck/van to the customer.

I made him do the sums. Turns out if you save a single 200-mile 'round trip by car you're already ahead. His company was saving about a dozen trips a week.

paulmapp8306

chrispy108;1141075" said:

Snap said:



paulmapp8306 said:

I dont believe in global warming - its was warmer when the dinosaurs were around.  Just natures way.





me neither. There was also a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere apparently.










If you don't believe in Science perhaps you should turn off all your electrical devices and get back in your cave?

I believe in science, but independent science, mot that funded by governments or business to give the results they want.

Much independent science shows gw is not that much to do with us bur natural things. Solar flair cycles for one which explains much on its own.

ICBM;1143596" said:

paulmapp8306 said:Or indeed the polution from transport to get the windfarms into place, and for the maintenance engineers to fix and maintain them.





That's exaggerated. I'm no great fan ( ) of wind power, but it's nowhere near as bad as opponents have tried to make out. My main objection to it is that it just isn't effective or reliable enough in comparison to any other type of renewable energy. Its major advantage is that the piecemeal-build cost is low - which is why it's become popular with government. But the best solutions in the long run need bigger investment and have longer return times.

It isn't reliable at all.

If you look at cradle to grave environmental assessments of wind farms (solar is cruelly much better), there's not a lot of difference between it and modern but more traditional generation. The whole "environmentally friendly" isnt really true. They are less reliable The traditional methods but don't use fossel fuels - but the only + for that is the decrrasing supply of those. it's more costly per kw to generate using wind as well (cradle to grave costs).

Rocker

Solar seems to be the best method for renewable electricity generation. By now most people know that wind generation of electricity is 100% scam - due to the need to have a fossil fuel or nuclear backup ready to kick in at a moments notice. Wind can generate electricity but too much power on the grid will destabilise the grid causing it to shutdown automatically. Not a good thing. Wind does work at night, if there is wind, which solar does not. A better option is to build and insulate houses to a much higher standard. And for consumers to use less electricity!

grungebob

The simplest solution is one I mentioned earlier, algal farming. Algal blooms are the blite of every water treatment works around the world and the % yield of combustible oils plus the left over biomass makes it a no brainier. You can farm it on every roof top around the world and produce more energy than acres of soy or rapeseed.
It's fast growing, easy to grow and essentially free thanks to countless water companies not knowing how to work an ETP properly ( I'm not moaning on that last one if they did my company wouldn't exist).

Sporky

paulmapp8306 said:

I believe in science, but independent science, mot that funded by governments or business to give the results they want.

So anyone funded by a government is corrupt and untrustworthy?

The vast majority of qualified scientists agree on climate change; the disagreements are on the very fine detail.

Rocker

Here we are doing exactly what Governments want us to do: discuss the problem but focusing on the least significant parts of the problem. Electricity generation contributes to the problem but globally only in a small way. If everyone reduced their electricity usage by 10%, then the existing generating capacity is sufficient to meet the demand. But 10% less of a small overall percentage is still very little - almost insignificant in fact. The producers of most of the global warming problem are: transport, agriculture, heavy industry, construction and the massive deforestation of the planet. But Governments will not touch these as they are major employers and serious backers of politics. All of us can do our bit by reducing our electricity usage, by reducing our car journeys and flights abroad, by eating food that is grown locally (and not imported from South of the Equator) and by wearing more clothes thus reducing the need for extensive heating of homes, offices and buildings. Doing something about the problem of global warming will have its effects on us. Not doing anything will have an even greater effect on us all. The choice is up to us.......

paulmapp8306

Sporky said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I believe in science, but independent science, mot that funded by governments or business to give the results they want.

So anyone funded by a government is corrupt and untrustworthy?

Not necessarily, but if any institution pays for science on a specific thing, its in the interests of those doing the science to favour the body funding it.  In most cases it wouldn't happen, but if theres lots of money involved (from the funers side) they may push to get some facts buried or omitted.

Dont get me wrong, I think Global warming/climate change does exist - but its not as "down to us" as were led to believe.  Much is natural fluctuation, some is to do with us.  A lot of human responsibility iis in the past, industrial revolution times, along with developing nations now (China specifically).  

I think the argument for "non fossil fuel" electricity if driven far more by the fact that its a limited in supply than by environmental issues at this point.

I think the algal farming is interesting, and along with solar panels (with power storage) compulsary on any new build and a few nuclear and/or traditional stations as backup for when solar/algal supply doesnt meet the demand and were good.

ICBM

Well it does seem like someone has *finally* woken up and realised that selling off the UK's vital interests (eg energy generation) to foreign companies and governments isn't a good idea. Unless there's something else behind it, but it sounds like that's the reason.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36932027