Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Interesting interview on the link between electric cars and renewable energy  (Read 4299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rods2

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Sandhurst Berkshire
  • Posts: 7604
    • 1999 3.0 Elite Estate
    • View Profile

EROEI (Energy recovered over energy invested) is the dominant factor in all of our lives. This defines the cost of the energy production with energy company profits being decided by supply v demand. The reality is if the green fantasists had their way, we will quite literally be going back to the stone age with massive famines and starvation.

For every calorie of food, you consume, 10 calories are used in producing it. If we go down the limited very expensive renewable energy route then we will need millions of volunteers and their families in the UK to go on to TB's cull list, that way for the more sensible among us we won't go short and starve to death with them!

We have already lost most of our high energy industries to lower energy price countries. This includes glass making (Pilkington were a world leader and are no longer UK company with any UK production), cement making, steel production, our chemical industry and petrochemical industries. All manufacturing are high earning one-to-many industries that could afford to pay much better than the minimum wage. The jobs have been replaced by, minimum wage, one-to-one service ones, like social care, burger flipping, coffee pouring, retail assistant type of jobs. The jobs market is becoming more and more polarised with well-paid degree level jobs and the minimum wage rest.

What I have read about Cardiff Bay boondoggle is that it is taking energy costs and subsidies to a whole new level of absurdity (like biomass madness) and subsidy.

Yes, we will eventually go over to renewable energy, so we don't run out for 3.1billion years, but I suspect to create and mature the technology for a smooth costable transition it will take around 100 years.

If you want to compare the problems, difficulties and cost of variable cyclic energy production, just look at food production, so we can store the energy when it is available to when we want to consume it. This includes canning, bottling, drying, pickling, smoking, freezing, specialist storage, global transportation from where it is in season etc, etc, etc, and the best efficiency we can currently manage is 10:1 against. Saudi oil is the cheapest where about 5% is used in extraction and production, so it has a ratio of 20:1 for. Because of the erratic nature of food production also think about the short, medium and long-term reserves. All of these food issues apply to renewables. So a few immediate awkward questions, that you never ever see being asked let alone discussed are: With current technology what is the projected EROEI including storage? What are the short-term storage technologies and capacity? What are the minimum strategic reserves to stop regular energy famines and with that size of the reserve, how often can we statistically expect an energy famine?

Until there is a coherent, sensible route ahead for affordable renewables, thank goodness as part of #Brexit the next Tory government is committed, to cut right back on these EU energy madness subsidies, so we can create the wealth, so we can afford them as and when they have matured and fallen in cost enough to compete with fossil fuels.
Logged
US Fracking and Saudi Arabia defending its market share = The good news of an oil glut, lower and lower prices for us and squeaky bum time for Putin!

scimmy_man

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • yorkshire
  • Posts: 1111
    • View Profile

was that a yes? ;D
Logged

Nick W

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chatham, Kent
  • Posts: 11057
    • Ghastly 1.0l Focus
    • View Profile

how hard can it be to dam up a few upstream valleys? it stops flooding as it holds back the peaks of flow, and can be opened up as corrie finishes and everone puts the kettle on.



How many do you think there are? Dams are hardly enviromentally friendly either and all of the UK's rivers have lots of towns along them. Sudden increases of water flowing downstream already causes all sorts of problems!


We need to accept that renewable sources of electricity are not replacements for the traditional industrial means(fossil fuels, hydro-electric and nuclear), but if used intelligently complement them. Unfortunately when politicians, the public and  industry get involved with environmental concerns intelligence is the last thing that is used.

Logged

ronnyd

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Bury St Edmunds Suffolk
  • Posts: 9215
    • Vectra 1.8 SRI Silver
    • View Profile

When I come into Power, Im going to insist every Household has a Zirk Eco FanTM fitted to their Toilet, basically its a fan fitted below the Waterline which is mechanically linked to a Generator, so that everytime the Loo is flushed it feeds Volts back to the National Grid System.

Its still in its development stage at the moment but when its finished I reckon the Shit really will hit the Fan.
Just make sure the sparkie installing your invention wires it up the right way round.or :o :o :o :o ;D
Logged

Viral_Jim

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Telford
  • Posts: 4471
    • Too many, mostly broken
    • View Profile


What I have read about Cardiff Bay boondoggle is that it is taking energy costs and subsidies to a whole new level of absurdity (like biomass madness) and subsidy.

Yes, we will eventually go over to renewable energy, so we don't run out for 3.1billion years, but I suspect to create and mature the technology for a smooth costable transition it will take around 100 years.

I find it funny that subsidies are only ever mentioned when it comes to renewables. Fossil fuels are also heavily subsidised, we just don't call it that. Tax breaks and government backing for fracking (to circumvent planning), paying power stations to sit idle and not produce electricity, U.K. plc covering the cost of nuclear cleanup. It's all our money going to fund it, but we only use the dirty S-word if it's renewable.

100 years in this country maybe, because yet again we're well behind the curve. Some of the nordics for example are looking to do it within 25 yrs and that's only because they're running off their nuclear power. I appreciate their geography is very different to ours, but at the moment we're firmly going in the wrong direction.
Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36415
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile

When I come into Power, Im going to insist every Household has a Zirk Eco FanTM fitted to their Toilet, basically its a fan fitted below the Waterline which is mechanically linked to a Generator, so that everytime the Loo is flushed it feeds Volts back to the National Grid System.

Its still in its development stage at the moment but when its finished I reckon the Shit really will hit the Fan.
Just make sure the sparkie installing your invention wires it up the right way round.or :o :o :o :o ;D

OMG! I didn't even think of the hazards if it starts "motoring". :o
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

Rods2

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Sandhurst Berkshire
  • Posts: 7604
    • 1999 3.0 Elite Estate
    • View Profile


What I have read about Cardiff Bay boondoggle is that it is taking energy costs and subsidies to a whole new level of absurdity (like biomass madness) and subsidy.

Yes, we will eventually go over to renewable energy, so we don't run out for 3.1billion years, but I suspect to create and mature the technology for a smooth costable transition it will take around 100 years.

I find it funny that subsidies are only ever mentioned when it comes to renewables. Fossil fuels are also heavily subsidised, we just don't call it that. Tax breaks and government backing for fracking (to circumvent planning), paying power stations to sit idle and not produce electricity, U.K. plc covering the cost of nuclear cleanup. It's all our money going to fund it, but we only use the dirty S-word if it's renewable.

100 years in this country maybe, because yet again we're well behind the curve. Some of the nordics for example are looking to do it within 25 yrs and that's only because they're running off their nuclear power. I appreciate their geography is very different to ours, but at the moment we're firmly going in the wrong direction.

Perversely, gas and very inefficient diesel backup plants are getting government subsidies to provide backup for unreliable renewables to stop widespread power brown and blackouts. The solution if you don't want these subsidies is to get rid of the unreliable renewables and then they won't be necessary. :y :y :y

Nuclear decommissioning is subsidised but personally, I would much rather we used the uranium and then return it to the ground, rather than let is decay in the ground without being used. :-[
Logged
US Fracking and Saudi Arabia defending its market share = The good news of an oil glut, lower and lower prices for us and squeaky bum time for Putin!

Viral_Jim

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Telford
  • Posts: 4471
    • Too many, mostly broken
    • View Profile

Not really. They're necessary because that's the model we're choosing to pursue. Other countries magically do without them while making much bigger use of renewables than we do. I guess they must use different electricity to us...

I totally agree that decommissioning should be done correctly, but these plants are hugely profitable enterprises (hence why big corporations will get involved) so why not make it an up-front condition of tendering for the plant?

The bottom line is that renewables use a free generation source, and that's not much good for big. Business
Logged

Rods2

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Sandhurst Berkshire
  • Posts: 7604
    • 1999 3.0 Elite Estate
    • View Profile

Not really. They're necessary because that's the model we're choosing to pursue. Other countries magically do without them while making much bigger use of renewables than we do. I guess they must use different electricity to us...

I totally agree that decommissioning should be done correctly, but these plants are hugely profitable enterprises (hence why big corporations will get involved) so why not make it an up-front condition of tendering for the plant?

The bottom line is that renewables use a free generation source, and that's not much good for big. Business

As I explained in my previous post, energy costs are directly related to EROEI. Oil and gas are both cheaper 'free' energy sources which in past times have converted previous sunshine energy into oil and gas. No human intervention. until it comes to harvesting, this 'free nature created energy resource' has been required. The only major issue that we need more of it than it is freely generated by nature and so we will eventually run out, but as we are finding more and more which innovation and technology is making more and more commercially harvestable we currently have about 200 years of reserves, so there is no point in creating mass poverty and starvation along with energy famines by rushing to convert to very expensive, very unreliable renewables.

EROEI - The bigger the number, the cheaper the energy. EROEI = Gross energy yield / energy expended

Hydro 100
Coal 80
Nuclear 75
Geothermal (with water heating) 32.4
Oil and gas (1970) 30
Wind 18.0
Oil and Gas (2005) 14.5
Geothermal (no water heating) 9.5
Photovoltaic 6.8
Shale oil 5.0
Oil tar sands 3.0
Solar collector 1.9
Biofuels 1.3
Logged
US Fracking and Saudi Arabia defending its market share = The good news of an oil glut, lower and lower prices for us and squeaky bum time for Putin!

STEMO

  • Guest

Not really. They're necessary because that's the model we're choosing to pursue. Other countries magically do without them while making much bigger use of renewables than we do. I guess they must use different electricity to us...

I totally agree that decommissioning should be done correctly, but these plants are hugely profitable enterprises (hence why big corporations will get involved) so why not make it an up-front condition of tendering for the plant?

The bottom line is that renewables use a free generation source, and that's not much good for big. Business

As I explained in my previous post, energy costs are directly related to EROEI. Oil and gas are both cheaper 'free' energy sources which in past times have converted previous sunshine energy into oil and gas. No human intervention. until it comes to harvesting, this 'free nature created energy resource' has been required. The only major issue that we need more of it than it is freely generated by nature and so we will eventually run out, but as we are finding more and more which innovation and technology is making more and more commercially harvestable we currently have about 200 years of reserves, so there is no point in creating mass poverty and starvation along with energy famines by rushing to convert to very expensive, very unreliable renewables.

EROEI - The bigger the number, the cheaper the energy. EROEI = Gross energy yield / energy expended

Hydro 100
Coal 80
Nuclear 75
Geothermal (with water heating) 32.4
Oil and gas (1970) 30
Wind 18.0
Oil and Gas (2005) 14.5
Geothermal (no water heating) 9.5
Photovoltaic 6.8
Shale oil 5.0
Oil tar sands 3.0
Solar collector 1.9
Biofuels 1.3
Errr...you forgot to mention that, as well as it being a finite source of energy, it also kills the planet when used.
Logged

Rods2

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Sandhurst Berkshire
  • Posts: 7604
    • 1999 3.0 Elite Estate
    • View Profile

Obviously, a localised Wakefield issue as the planet is fine all around the area where I live. Green meadows with plenty of wildlife, healthy heathland, plenty of tree and flowers like an English landscape should look like. :y :y :y
Logged
US Fracking and Saudi Arabia defending its market share = The good news of an oil glut, lower and lower prices for us and squeaky bum time for Putin!

Viral_Jim

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Telford
  • Posts: 4471
    • Too many, mostly broken
    • View Profile

Rods, that EROEI calculation, in no way accounts for the damage which is done by those forms of energy. All that digging stuff up and burning it is doing is selling future generations down the river. Another stock in trade for the uk.

The damage in both obtaining and using fossil fuels is well documented and has Arguably contributed to the poverty and instability in a number of regions in Africa.
Logged

Sir Tigger KC

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • West Dorset
  • Posts: 24711
    • BMW 530d Touring
    • View Profile

If we don't invest in clean energy now, how can we develop it into a reliable cost effective source of energy for future generations?  ???

We can either stick our heads in the sand and carry on digging stuff up and burning it, which we all know is slowly but surely destroying our planet.  Or we do something about it.  ::)  :y
Logged
RIP Paul 'Luvvie' Lovejoy

Politically homeless ......

aaronjb

  • Guest

Those countries all using clean energy .. are they as densely populated as the UK?
Do they have the same geography as the UK?

The answer, I am pretty sure, is no to both.

Norway is vastly unoccupied beside the coastal regions, has oodles of natural water courses that enjoy a large 'fall' - it's perfect for hydro and/or wind.
Germany is a lot bigger than us last time I checked, their population density is about a third of ours - it's perfect for wind

England.. well, we could cover the whole of Scotland with wind farms, I suppose, until they follow wee Jimmie and slice themselves off from us. We could surround our entire coastline with tidal barriers and cut ourselves off from the rest of the wo.. hold on, that one sounds like an excellent plan. Where do I sign? ;)

I seem to remember reading that, had we not wanted our nuclear reactors to provide a steady stream of by-products that just happen to be suitable for sticking in warheads, we could have developed much cleaner Thorium reactors back in the 60s..
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.015 seconds with 17 queries.