Energy prices.

[fizzy]

Yes, there's been a lot of daft ideas in the name of green energy. Worst one must have been the wood pellet boilers that were being foisted on schemes to meet the renewables and carbon reductions. Remember looking at a school in the east end of London that had been sold a wood pellet boiler. Had to have a vertical silo for the pellets. Great idea as the artic lorry for replenishing it couldn't get down the narrow street to the school. At the time, the only source of pellets was from Canada and shipped in massive bulk ships. Clearly the energy consultant on that job needed a bit more training!
Think we are getting to the stage of more realistic products. Hopefully the gas fired CHP bubble has well and truly burst.

I used to work in IT. Went on a job to an open prison - fortunately they let me out again
They had their own managed woodlands. Some consultant had told them that they could make their own pellets. They had a very expensive looking installation. Talking to one fo the chaps on site they could never get the wood dry enough. The pellets need to be kiln dried which would take more energy than they got out of it. £150,000 of tax payers money down the drain.
Funnily enough I went back to the same site a few months later. Between Christmas and New Year. The place was freezing. They tested the back up gennies every month. The generators didn't shut down. So for a whole month they ran all the camp electric off their generators - which used the same tanks as the heating oil. Nobody realised until the power went off

 

[Gareth J]

Are the companies building this doing it for the sake of the planet or to make a big fat profit? I suspect the latter which means someone has to pay for it - us the consumers!

Does shell dig up oil for profit or to deliberately dump CO2 into the air? Do the financers of Hinckley do it as some kind of low carbon charity? Or because they've agreed a mahoosive price for generation with the government that'll give them a profit?

 

[fizzy]

Does shell dig up oil for profit or to deliberately dump CO2 into the air? Do the financers of Hinckley do it as some kind of low carbon charity? Or because they've agreed a mahoosive price for generation with the government that'll give them a profit?

Obviously ALL companies want to run at a profit. Except for people like Welsh Water who insist they don't

 

[500e]

Fusion is the answer if we had invested at the same level as fission we might be there.
Safer process much lower, radiation in spent fuel, the Tokamak is progressing slowly but with the Hinkley C budget we may have been there.

 

[My Old Landy]

Fusion is the answer if we had invested at the same level as fission we might be there.
Safer process much lower, radiation in spent fuel, the Tokamak is progressing slowly,....

Just in case there is anybody who doesn't know about the project, here is a link:

In a Few Lines

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is being built in the south of France. Learn more about this ambitious energy project here.

www.iter.org

I totally agree with your statement.

 

[daleyd]

Fusion is the answer if we had invested at the same level as fission we might be there.
Safer process much lower, radiation in spent fuel, the Tokamak is progressing slowly but with the Hinkley C budget we may have been there.

You mean we might be 10 years away instead of the 20 that it currently is (the same 20 years away we were 30 years ago).

Might be…

 

[m_c]

Fusion is the answer if we had invested at the same level as fission we might be there.
Safer process much lower, radiation in spent fuel, the Tokamak is progressing slowly but with the Hinkley C budget we may have been there.

If we can get fusion to work, it is the answer, but nobody has yet managed to create a sustained plasma. Best they've managed is a very short plasma where energy out exceeded the energy in.
Up until now, the main technology to achieve fusion hasn't existed, and it's probably safe to say that the technology to achieve it continually and reliably still doesn't physically exist.

There's a big difference between spending £xx billion on a proven technology, and spending it on technology that might not be physically achievable.
People have been saying fusion will be viable within the next decade, for several decades now, yet it's still not happened. Although with recent developments, it is getting closer.

 

[fizzy]

You mean we might be 10 years away instead of the 20 that it currently is (the same 20 years away we were 30 years ago).

Might be…

I agree nothing proven - but venture capital is throwing loads of money at it these days.
Most of the projects that are closing in are British which is very nice to see.
The Victorians would have sorted it by now - we know fusion bombs work - so they would build a massive beam engine and keep exploding bombs in the cylinder

 

[fizzy]

If we can get fusion to work, it is the answer, but nobody has yet managed to create a sustained plasma. Best they've managed is a very short plasma where energy out exceeded the energy in.
Up until now, the main technology to achieve fusion hasn't existed, and it's probably safe to say that the technology to achieve it continually and reliably still doesn't physically exist.

There's a big difference between spending £xx billion on a proven technology, and spending it on technology that might not be physically achievable.
People have been saying fusion will be viable within the next decade, for several decades now, yet it's still not happened. Although with recent developments, it is getting closer.

Remember fusion DOES work. It is not pie in the sky.

 

[daleyd]

I agree nothing proven - but venture capital is throwing loads of money at it these days.
Most of the projects that are closing in are British which is very nice to see.
The Victorians would have sorted it by now - we know fusion bombs work - so they would build a massive beam engine and keep exploding bombs in the cylinder

The problem is fusion bombs work nothing like a workable controlled process for producing energy. It’s literally the opposite of what’s needed…

 

[Maker]

Just in case there is anybody who doesn't know about the project, here is a link:

In a Few Lines

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is being built in the south of France. Learn more about this ambitious energy project here.

www.iter.org

I totally agree with your statement.

@toddy would be the man to talk to.

 

[daleyd]

Remember fusion DOES work. It is not pie in the sky.

Literally no one has said it “doesn’t work”. What no one has done is to reliably recreate this for any meaningful length of time to produce something useful on earth.

 

[fizzy]

The problem is fusion bombs work nothing like a workable controlled process for producing energy. It’s literally the opposite of what’s needed…

Indeed so! But I am certain there is a way. With the amount of money pouring in now hopefully someone will crack it sooner or later.

 

[fizzy]

Literally no one has said it “doesn’t work”. What no one has done is to reliably recreate this for any meaningful length of time to produce something useful on earth.

All it needs is a humungous beam engine

 

[daleyd]

All it needs is a humungous beam engine

I have to admire your optimism

 

[500e]

The only thing that pushed fission was a war.
Up till then it was not viable
The amount of money that has gone into fission is mind boggling.
And still more into coping with the residual fuel & plant, this appears to be a never ending cost both in money and long term danger.
If that had been put into fusion we might be using it.
We have a member that is working with the UK Tormak, they have had some small success, but I expect like @Kayos he is not allowed to say much, if we as a country can produce a pilot plant the world will want it.

 

[daleyd]

The only thing that pushed fission was a war.
Up till then it was not viable
The amount of money that has gone into fission is mind boggling.
And still more into coping with the residual fuel & plant, this appears to be a never ending cost both in money and long term danger.
If that had been put into fusion we might be using it.
We have a member that is working with the UK Tormak, they have had some small success, but I expect like @Kayos he is not allowed to say much, if we as a country can produce a pilot plant the world will want it.

We might also be little further forward and not have had the decades of power provided by fission?

Don’t get me wrong I think we should continue funding and research but it seems tantalisingly out of reach…I really hope not but there does appear to be some huge hurdles to overcome to make it viable.

 

[DAPPH]

I've decided we should construct thousands of massive 200 person power generating tread mills near to jails . Only give the prisoners food and water after a six hour shift that generates a set amount of KWHR @ 240 volts , pop them in incontinence pads if needs be . Six six hours shifts every seven days , no holiday's or time off unless out put exceeds the required rate by 35 %

That solves two probs at once ....plenty of power 24/7 and it stops idle minds & hands from doing the devils work

 

[mike os]

Fusion, the modern version of alchemy… by and large perused for the same reason

It’s been 20 years away all my life

 

[fizzy]

Fusion, the modern version of alchemy… by and large perused for the same reason

It’s been 20 years away all my life

Remember Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He was way ahead of his time. He might not have turned lead into Gold but he made some amazing discoveries along the way!