CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547
I work in the power industry.

I live in the modern world.

Today in Ireland home-heating natural gas increases in cost by 33.8%. It increased last year too, and the year before, as did the cost of electricity (considerably). The cost of petrol increases exponentially all the time.

Europe is become unbelievably dependent on the corrupt authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin for its energy needs.

This year there is a risk of winter peak time blackouts as a consequence of a lack of generator capacity on the Irish network (partly a problem to do with aging plant and an uncompetitive electricity market but nonethless...). Wind generators, 'good clean' energy, is essentially useless when it comes to meeting power demand during winter - zero wind usually coincides with extreme cold and hence the winter peak. Nuclear energy is a political 'no no' in many countries.

Where on earth are we going to get the power to fuel the future? How can China and India, nations of over a billion people each, hope to grow to have comparable standards of living to us in the west with the energy crisis that confronts all of us today? How can their growth be sustained without destroying our own standards of living?

The issue of finite energy resources is a greater risk, in my opinion, to global stability than any other threat posed by any issue or entity at the present time.

What do you think?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6573|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

I work in the power industry.

I live in the modern world.

Today in Ireland home-heating natural gas increases in cost by 33.8%. It increased last year too, and the year before, as did the cost of electricity (considerably). The cost of petrol increases exponentially all the time.

Europe is become unbelievably dependent on the corrupt authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin for its energy needs.

This year there is a risk of winter peak time blackouts as a consequence of a lack of generator capacity on the Irish network (partly a problem to do with aging plant and an uncompetitive electricity market but nonethless...). Wind generators, 'good clean' energy, is essentially useless when it comes to meeting power demand during winter - zero wind usually coincides with extreme cold and hence the winter peak. Nuclear energy is a political 'no no' in many countries.

Where on earth are we going to get the power to fuel the future? How can China and India, nations of over a billion people each, hope to grow to have comparable standards of living to us in the west with the energy crisis that confronts all of us today? How can their growth be sustained without destroying our own standards of living?

The issue of finite energy resources is a greater risk, in my opinion, to global stability than any other threat posed by any issue or entity at the present time.

What do you think?
Whilst I'm not disputing that what you say is on the whole true, there are significant exceptions.

I'm not very familiar with all off Europes energy sources, I am quite familiar with those in the UK and in France. The UK gets less than 2% of it's energy from imports, I don't think any of those imports are from Russia - I could be wrong, but I think the bulk is from Norway (20% of our gas supply). The UK are also the second largest investor in Kazakstan, which has vast energy resverves (not in the same league as Russia or Saudi Arabia (who we also have very strong ties to)).

France gets 78% of it's energy from nuclear power plants, which is more than any other nation on Earth.

Europe does not have many severe blackouts compared to other regions at a similar level of development, North America for example is far worse. I know Ireland is a nation that has been hit quite hard by rolling blackouts in the recent past, but that is quite exceptional.

Many countries within Europe have been working on stengthening ties with other nations because of the energy they can sell us. Whether that is always a good thing is disputable, a relationship with the Saudis over the Russians is just as bad, probably worse.
Sh1fty2k5
MacSwedish
+113|6701|Sweden
The american way: Lets invade russia and take all the gas!!1!1!!!1klolz.!!!!
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6511|Finland
Finland is heavily reliant on foreign power sources and we have already seen what happens when there is a shortage. Scandinavia has a system called Nordpool - we sell our electricity to the 'pool' and then buy it back. Last year Sweden pulled out the cable between Swe-Fin - warning us only few minutes before - to prevent too high prices for their own market. They were able to do this because there was some sort of loophole in the nordpool protocol and thus saved their price increase, BUT created a huge price increase here in Finland.

Finland's electricity usage peaks around 15GW/h. I know that Cameron can appreciate the fuckeduppness of a situation where 1-2GW drops out essentially without warning, but I should probably tell to the rest of you that its a BIG deal!

So what to do then? Buy more form Russia, when we already buy more than 1GW/h. If Sweden doesn't hold its end of a bargain, will Russia? I wouldn't count on it!
Thats why we are building more nuclear power! Finland's fifth nuclearpowerplant is under construction and it should provide us with 1,6GW around year 2010. Sixth isnt probably far away either.

So we are essentially changing our dependency from imported electricity to imported flue rods. At least those can be stockpiled.

An electrical engineers joke to end the rant

If someone thinks that wind power is a plausible answer to electricity problems, then that someone doesn't know the difference between MW and mW
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6707

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

The american way: Lets invade russia and take all the gas!!1!1!!!1klolz.!!!!
Naw, too hard and may start a nuclear war. Invade Venezuela saying that Chavez is the real devil.

But a lot of wars for the American nation wasn't about profit, it was more likely show their powers and keep up their military experience.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6573|SE London

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Finland is heavily reliant on foreign power sources and we have already seen what happens when there is a shortage. Scandinavia has a system called Nordpool - we sell our electricity to the 'pool' and then buy it back. Last year Sweden pulled out the cable between Swe-Fin - warning us only few minutes before - to prevent too high prices for their own market. They were able to do this because there was some sort of loophole in the nordpool protocol and thus saved their price increase, BUT created a huge price increase here in Finland.

Finland's electricity usage peaks around 15GW/h. I know that Cameron can appreciate the fuckeduppness of a situation where 1-2GW drops out essentially without warning, but I should probably tell to the rest of you that its a BIG deal!

So what to do then? Buy more form Russia, when we already buy more than 1GW/h. If Sweden doesn't hold its end of a bargain, will Russia? I wouldn't count on it!
Thats why we are building more nuclear power! Finland's fifth nuclearpowerplant is under construction and it should provide us with 1,6GW around year 2010. Sixth isnt probably far away either.

So we are essentially changing our dependency from imported electricity to imported flue rods. At least those can be stockpiled.

An electrical engineers joke to end the rant

If someone thinks that wind power is a plausible answer to electricity problems, then that someone doesn't know the difference between MW and mW
I you think wind power isn't a plausible answer (other than in terms of cost, where it is not too far behind nuclear power) then you haven't done your sums. A single wind turbine can provide upto 6MW. That's really quite a lot. Germany is the world leader in wind turbine usage, producing more than 19GW using wind turbines. Personal wind turbines producing more than a KW are also a very sensible way of supplementing a households power supply.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6619|IRELAND

I don't know about the Republic Cameron but here in the north, the building regulations change at the end of the month to meet Tony's commitment to lower CO2 emissions. The 'U' Value is increasing. U value is the amount of heat escaping from your house. Windows get smaller, walls and insulation get thicker, conservatories and open fires are a no no as they are Major sources of heat lose, so to have say a sunroom on your house now, you must put 150mm cavity insulation in instead of just 60 High density or 100 blown.

The big and best changes IMO come in the second stage 2008, were every new house will require a solar panel and or wind generator. I don't think its going to a really big problem if everyone on their own little piece of land was forced to generate some of their own energy and make their own house energy efficient instead of a penis extension, ie back to traditional construction 100-200 years ago with the house south to south westerly facing, small windows only half meter thick walls. Its Ireland, we get South westerlies and Atlantic winds that could move a mountain. By placing a few small wind generators and solar panels on every house you cut out the need for huge wind farms, which are currently being proposed. As small wind generator to the rear of every house is a much less impact on the visual environment. The power stations would then be feeding industry as apposed housing and industry.
malarkeycoon
Member
+16|6631|Cardiff
The future is underwater tidal turbines. Like wind turbines but underwater. Water is approximately 800 times as dense as air so the turbines can be significanly smaller than on land for the same energy output. Plus the tides never stop moving (with the exception of high and low tides obviously) so they can be used much more consistently. Having said this you have to have large tides for it to be effective. The UK is ideally placed with its large tidal movements. I don't know why we don't build any. Cost I guess.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6832|Cologne, Germany

the problem with wind turbines though, is that they rely on - you guessed it - wind. The stronger, the better.

Thus, they cannot be used in all areas. Most "Wind parks" I know are actually off-shore installations, as the coastline is usually pretty windy most of the time.

I also know that several nations work with other renewable resources such as water ( either through a dam or as a tidal power plant, I believe one is operating in the UK ).

Nevertheless, as hard to accept as it might be, nuclear power is still the best way to create electricity, at least until renewable energy sources have been developped that can supply all of a nation's population.

We will run out of gas and oil eventually, there is no way around it. Even big suppliers like russia or the gulf states will have to face the cold hard truth eventually, and they'd better be prepared to contribute to a truly global resolution of the energy crisis that we are going to be faced with.

The more interesting part of the issue will be though, what will the car of the future run on ?
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6734|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Geo thermal heating soulutions for the home FTW!! If I was building a new house that's what i'd be heating it with for starters...
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547
It's like this: WIND IS NOT THE LONG TERM ANSWER.

Supply of power must meed demand for power at every second of every day of every year. The National Control Centre of every nation on earth dispatches generators all across their nations in order to meet the constantly fluctuating demand. Usually at a certain point in the day the demand for power peaks, usually at about 6pm. Wind power, given the erratic nature of the source of the power - wind, cannot be relied upon to carry out the function of meeting demand. All it does is reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn over time and garner energy from nature for next to nothing.
The fact remains that the need for conventional dirty power plants is not alleviated one bit by wind - because when the wind ain't blowing, something has to meet the demand. As such, there has to at least be as much conventional plant as there is wind generation. So our supply of electricity is still extremely dependent on scarce, finite and rapidly depleting energy resources such as coal, oil and gas. I am an advocate of nuclear power but in Ireland that is a political hot potato. I'm worried that Ireland will realise too late that we are screwed as China and India continue to squeeze the gas/oilfields dry in their rise to the top. 
France have the right idea: 80% nuclear. But the rest of Europe saw how tied they are to Russia last year when Ukraine started illegally siphoning off natural gas from teh Russia-Europe gas pipeline during a dispute between the two nations.
I just don't think people realise the urgency of the problems we are facing.
jonsimon
Member
+224|6486
Nuclear is the only solution, with renewable sources filling the gaps between nuclear output and demand.

Edit: Oh, or better infrastructure, wires, batteries, etc. Anything that moves power from one place to another. Forgot about that for a sec.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-23 07:56:25)

IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6734|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Here what about that Irish hoax by the ones who reckoned they had sorted perpetual motion? what was the link again, anyone?
1927
The oldest chav in the world
+2,423|6665|Cardiff, Capital of Wales
Its only through luck I find myself in this section.

Without trying to belittle your post in anyway Cameron.

Did you recieve a wage rise or about to?

Or is the 33.8% hike in price pure profit for the end supplier.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547

1927 wrote:

Its only through luck I find myself in this section.

Without trying to belittle your post in anyway Cameron.

Did you recieve a wage rise or about to?

Or is the 33.8% hike in price pure profit for the end supplier.
I work for the independent transmission system operator - a non-profit government run company that regulates the electricity sector. Energy prices have no impact on my salary.
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6637

IG-Calibre wrote:

Here what about that Irish hoax by the ones who reckoned they had sorted perpetual motion? what was the link again, anyone?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=36321
Not
Great success!
+216|6568|Chandler, AZ
Ethanol from burning corn.

Unfortunately the climates and terrain of many places don't allow for massive corn crops, and they're known to fail frequently. It's an amazingly efficient and clean burning fuel, but the trouble is in being able to produce enough of it. However once the dependence on petroleum becomes too economically inconvenient to be considered feasible, farmers may see an opening to change crops.

Also sugar cane produces quality ethanol. Unfortunately for the United States, we protect our sugar farmers with such an unbelieveably high tariff on imported sugar that we wouldn't be able to use that method here unless those protections are dramatically weakened, since we don't have the clmate to grow a lot of cane here. Certainly not enough to use as a primary energy source.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547

malarkeycoon wrote:

The future is underwater tidal turbines. Like wind turbines but underwater. Water is approximately 800 times as dense as air so the turbines can be significanly smaller than on land for the same energy output. Plus the tides never stop moving (with the exception of high and low tides obviously) so they can be used much more consistently. Having said this you have to have large tides for it to be effective. The UK is ideally placed with its large tidal movements. I don't know why we don't build any. Cost I guess.
That's a science in it's infancy. Also - maintaining metallic and electrical equipment that sits in the highly corrosive oceans of this planet will be a problem.
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|6560|Oxford
Just build more nuclear fucking power stations. What is the problem? Ok they're expensive, but once they're built and costed over the half century or so of use they work out relatively cheap. On top of that they're clean. Chernobyl happened because the people running the plant were underfunded and incompetent. Not really an issue in the UK/US or most of Europe.

Wind turbines are great but would you live next to a wind farm? No. Stick them under water and you're looking at years of expensive maintenance for little return. They're not going to catch on.

Fusion will be with us when energy, or lack of it, starts to become a real problem. It's being pioneered in the UK and on mainland Europe but they just don't have the levels of funding needed for the final research push.

Stick with nuclear and pump money into fusion research.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6520|Global Command
Have those leprecauns get on treadmills.



                      or



Trust nuclear power.
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6484|Connecticut

jonsimon wrote:

Nuclear is the only solution, with renewable sources filling the gaps between nuclear output and demand.

Edit: Oh, or better infrastructure, wires, batteries, etc. Anything that moves power from one place to another. Forgot about that for a sec.
The only time I will agree with Jonismon. With the advances that have been made, beleive it or not nuclear is the cleanest and it has a huge initial cost but lasts a very very long time. The ROI (return on investment) is the greatest because it costs an average home about $7.35 a month to power and heat. France has this I beleive in some parts and coincidently that would be the only thing I approve that they do as well.
Malloy must go
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6749|Argentina
Pig Manure Converted to Crude Oil.

I think in Iceland and Denmark they use pig manure for energy.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6510|Πάϊ
Clean nuclear energy. Cleaner anyway...
ƒ³
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6707

oug wrote:

Clean nuclear energy. Cleaner anyway...
Fusion is pretty much, not possible.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6573|SE London

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

oug wrote:

Clean nuclear energy. Cleaner anyway...
Fusion is pretty much, not possible.
That's not true. Fusion is very much possible. We just haven't thought up any way of extracting power from it. It's not a viable power source, but it could be one day.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard