Renewable Energy

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

To get wind power we need oil and a single turbine costs over 3 million to make and they only work when the wind blows.. 

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, let alone 2050, we'll need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years - 'though that's dubious considering turbine failures are on the uptick across the world, sometimes with blades falling off or even full turbine collapses.

Transitioning electricity supply resources to 100% renewables means the end of power production from fossil fuel-based power plants such as coal, natural gas and oil...

So what will we use to make wind turbines with, without fossil fuels, beyond 2030/2050?

 

 

[Herman 9,863]

The heat coming from one gammon's head is enough to power three steel foundries. Problem sorted.

[Daz Sparks 1,204]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

The heat coming from one gammon's head is enough to power three steel foundries. Problem sorted.

That is premium gammon you got there Herman. 

[Mr Apples 1,335]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

The heat coming from one gammon's head is enough to power three steel foundries. Problem sorted.

With that glow he looks like he's nuclear-powered...when will he be decommissioned? 🥵☢️😁

Apples

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

11 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

To get wind power we need oil and a single turbine costs over 3 million to make and they only work when the wind blows.. 

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, let alone 2050, we'll need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years - 'though that's dubious considering turbine failures are on the uptick across the world, sometimes with blades falling off or even full turbine collapses.

Transitioning electricity supply resources to 100% renewables means the end of power production from fossil fuel-based power plants such as coal, natural gas and oil...

So what will we use to make wind turbines with, without fossil fuels, beyond 2030/2050?

 

 

You're the one with the answers. You tell us.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

15 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

To get wind power we need energy and a single turbine costs over 3 million to make and they only work when the wind blows.. 

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, let alone 2050, we'll need energy equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal, but which can come from any other source, be it renewables or nuclear.

The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years - 'though that's dubious considering turbine failures are on the uptick across the world, sometimes with blades falling off or even full turbine collapses. On the other hand, infrastructure for fossil fuel extraction and fossil fuelled power generation also needs continuous maintenance.

Transitioning electricity supply resources to 100% renewables means the end of power production from fossil fuel-based power plants such as coal, natural gas and oil...

So what will we use to make wind turbines with, without fossil fuels, beyond 2030/2050?

 

 

The corrections should make the answer to the final question obvious. 🙂

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The corrections should make the answer to the final question obvious. 🙂

In f**ks name, lyb, I had you down as one of the more sensible posters. 

Do you seriously believe we'll be 100% renewables by 2050?

The cost of your so-called 'corrections' are fantasy and would impoverish billions, which is why civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels well beyond 2050.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,199]

I love renewable energy. My energy bills are included in my current rent, but around 3 years ago, when I last had to pay for the electricity, it was about £25 a month. Cheap as chips*

There will always be a place for oil, particularly at places such as hospitals, as it can be stored locally and used as an emergency if the mains power goes down.

Just need to evaluate the right form of renewable for each particular region 

*chips may be considered expensive 😃

[Well b back 3,309]

6 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

In f**ks name, lyb, I had you down as one of the more sensible posters. 

Do you seriously believe we'll be 100% renewables by 2050?

The cost of your so-called 'corrections' are fantasy and would impoverish billions, which is why civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels well beyond 2050.

Cheaper than Brexit and we did that

[duke63 548]

53 dead and 1000 missing in Hawaii from severe forest fires tells you all you need to know about how soon we need to change. 
 

See that big yellow ball in the sky? That produces millions of kw every single day and we use such a very very small proportion of it. The rest is wasted. 
 

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

13 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

In f**ks name, lyb, I had you down as one of the more sensible posters. 

Do you seriously believe we'll be 100% renewables by 2050?

The cost of your so-called 'corrections' are fantasy and would impoverish billions, which is why civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels well beyond 2050.

"civilisation". 🤣

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

14 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

In f**ks name, lyb, I had you down as one of the more sensible posters. 

Do you seriously believe we'll be 100% renewables by 2050?

The cost of your so-called 'corrections' are fantasy and would impoverish billions, which is why civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels well beyond 2050.

That’s a different question. There are motivational, political, and social obstacles to it that can slow it down, but the problem you’re suggesting that renewables must always be dependent on fossil fuels is a false one. Even steel can be made without burning fossil fuels now.

Human advancement goes in phases, normally motivated by external pressures. The will to survive and win in world war 2 ushered in the nuclear age. The increasing evidence that climate change is going to kill off large sections of the human race is increasingly compelling. It will be a lottery as to who’s in survivable places and who’s not. The realisation of this is creating mental health issues for some people; pressure on governments to get a move on will only grow.

oil will get cheaper as demand grows, and some will continue with oil. At some stage, those who have made the effort will have to start sanctioning those who haven’t; a collapsed economy will have a much lower carbon footprint after all. Or maybe it will be a carrot approach and trade incentives will be part of a treaty in meeting carbon targets. 

War’s an expensive and pointless business other than removing a credible threat to yourself and the ironic advances in technology from it. Even so, fortunes get spent on war. We send off missiles at hundreds of thousands each just to be blown up in Ukraine just to blow people up, and blow buildings and vehicles up in a bid to prevent Russia establishing the first precedent for successful conquest by force in the 21st century, but there’s no financial return for the taxpayer, just an extra on the national debt. Arguably, the cost of the first Iraq war could be put down as a cost of maintaining enough access to enough oil. Indeed, the biggest bonus of a fossil free future is forgetting the Middle East entirely, which has little to offer other than oil and getting caught up in some unsavoury geopolitics.

The cost of technology transition is also a false obstacle, anyway. For example, latest generation solar panels last over 20 years and deliver a 14% roi over 10 years.

Nuclear will also play a part and fusion is also coming, but fusion unlikely by 2050. If we’re not completely there, we’ll be close, but humanity is going to suffer some nasty consequences for already being too late.

Edited August 11, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

In f**ks name, lyb, I had you down as one of the more sensible posters. 

Do you seriously believe we'll be 100% renewables by 2050?

The cost of your so-called 'corrections' are fantasy and would impoverish billions, which is why civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels well 

What would you know about sensible posting?

[Nuff Said 5,248]

On 10/08/2023 at 00:43, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

To get wind power we need oil and a single turbine costs over 3 million to make and they only work when the wind blows.. 

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, let alone 2050, we'll need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years - 'though that's dubious considering turbine failures are on the uptick across the world, sometimes with blades falling off or even full turbine collapses.

Transitioning electricity supply resources to 100% renewables means the end of power production from fossil fuel-based power plants such as coal, natural gas and oil...

So what will we use to make wind turbines with, without fossil fuels, beyond 2030/2050?

 

 

So let the world burn and civilisation collapse because it’s a bit expensive and tricky? FFS.
 

I would call you a troll but it appears you really think you (or the RWNJs you get all your b*llocks from) are right. It’s amazing you managed to make it to adulthood without walking into traffic.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nuff Said

[If wed kept Howie.. 217]

i read quite a lot of tedious nonsense about this subject. The level of science literacy among journalists, politicians and the general public is shocking..

To be clear - the technology exists right now, the question of using it is political and economic (although the economic case is steered by the political will)..

For the OP, once the RE generation capacity reaches the level we need, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from - a joule of electrical energy is the same whether it comes from coal, nuclear or solar farms.. that can then be used to create materials, manufacture wind turbines etc.

Energy can absolutely be stored (no - it doesn't need magic/expensive batteries) - we already do it via pumped water storage in the UK.. add that to the interconnectors that share base load across Europe.. 

Whats the plan - keep using fossil fuels until they are all used up.??? in the words of Don Hurberts (of Royal Dutch Shell) in 1999 "the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones"..

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

On 11/08/2023 at 09:15, littleyellowbirdie said:

Nuclear will also play a part and fusion is also coming, but fusion unlikely by 2050. If we’re not completely there, we’ll be close, but humanity is going to suffer some nasty consequences for already being too late.

It's a given that nuclear is the only feasible way to go, but then the ret**ded eco-loons also vehemently oppose the former -- Then there's the huge costs of new nuclear stations whilst remaining reliant on the French who ordered EDF to shut 17 of its nuclear generating sites due to safety fears - On top of that our existing nuclear power stations are set to close by 2030...

Nay, the UK's reliance on total renewable energy by 2050 is the stuff of fantasy.. Try the year 3000...

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

On 11/08/2023 at 15:39, If wed kept Howie.. said:

Whats the plan - keep using fossil fuels until they are all used up.?

Obviously not - The subject of this thread is the UK ending the use of fossil fuels by 2050. 

In the meantime there's 64.6 trillion cubic metres of shale gas underneath us, but then of course last year the stupid pr*t Rishi Sunak announced that the Government would be reinstating the moratorium on fracking in England.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

6 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Obviously not - The subject of this thread is the UK ending the use of fossil fuels by 2050. 

In the meantime there's 64.6 trillion cubic metres of shale gas underneath us.

It's so easy to find that you're talking b0ll0x.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/shale-gas/shale-gas-in-the-uk/#:~:text=Where is shale gas found,Carboniferous Midland Valley in Scotland

Andrews (2013) estimated a total gas-in-place estimate for the Bowland Shale Formation and Hodder Mudstone Formation between 822 and 2281 trillion cubic feet (tcf). As a comparison, the total gas consumption in 2018 in the UK was 2.98 tcf. Since then, other estimates have suggested the total gas-in-place volume could be considerably less (around 140 tcf; Whitelaw et al., 2019).

..............

According to the British Geological Survey, initial estimates in 2013 suggested that the Bowland-Hodder area may have held between 23.3 and 64.6 trillion cubic metres (tcm), but a more recent analysis in 2019 suggested the figure is closer to 4.0 tcm.

 

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

31 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

It's so easy to find that you're talking b0ll0x.

And vice versa, but I'm going with the original estimations because they are likelier to be accurate and it's not as though the new estimates aren't worth fracking for is it, dunderhead?

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

3 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

And vice versa, but I'm going with the original estimations because they are likelier to be accurate and it's not as though the new estimates aren't worth fracking for is it, dunderhead?

Not according to Cuadrilla.

He said that when Cuadrilla had operated here, it had discovered that the geology of the UK was unsuited to widespread fracking operations

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

15 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Not according to Cuadrilla.

He said that when Cuadrilla had operated here, it had discovered that the geology of the UK was unsuited to widespread fracking operations

 

There are many other UK fracking companies that will eventually take up the mantle -- They'll have to.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

1 minute ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

There are many other UK fracking companies that will eventually take up the mantle.

Again, I give you a real world example and you give me a (nonsense) opinion.

Dodgy stats, estimates and crack pot opinions.

Give up, every road you take is a cul-de-sac.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

20 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Again, I give you a real world example and you give me a (nonsense) opinion.

Dodgy stats, estimates and crack pot opinions.

Give up, every road you take is a cul-de-sac.

You and your Lefty cohorts need to get in the real world, ffs! No fossil fuels by 2050 is utter madness and we need energy independence - Fracking would help with that - It would be in.the best interests of the British people because it would create up to 64,500 jobs and up to £80 billion in tax revenue and reduce reliance on foreign imported energy. It's also safe, especially under the conditions of the existing regulatory framework. 

Back in 2012 over 200 wells had been hydraulically fractured in the UK in the previous 40 years.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-shale-gas.pdf

Edited August 13, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[Herman 9,863]

I'm pretty positive we've been through this before. Fracking sounds good on paper but in reality it has been proven to be neither clean, safe nor cheap.

[ricardo 7,445]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

I'm pretty positive we've been through this before. Fracking sounds good on paper but in reality it has been proven to be neither clean, safe nor cheap.

Great for the Yanks though. That's why their energy costs are a third of ours.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

I'm pretty positive we've been through this before. Fracking sounds good on paper but in reality it has been proven to be neither clean, safe nor cheap.

Wind and solar sounded good in theory, but they're industrialising the countryside more than fracking ever would and they're constantly having to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer - They're also devastating where nature is concerned and they're obviously unsightly -- Fields of barley, corn, wheat, potatoes etc.. with nature in abundance or fields of wind turbines and solar panels producing inadequate sources of energy? That's a mightily tough question for you hypocritical, Lefty, eco-loons to answer isn't it? And that's because you seldom if ever deal with the practicalities of anything...

You see the world how you want it to be, not how it actually is.

I don't actually like the idea of fracking, but if one is being practical one would prefer it to industialising the country side with solar panels and wind turbines - We can't frack on the scale of the US, but for obvious reasons we don't need to. There's methods being used to make fracking cleaner in the US which have proven to work - It's also a given that CO₂ is required to make stuff green, so I believe the emphasis put on it that it's destroying the planet is hugely exaggerated.

Then there's the sea and the energy that could be garnered from that...

Full on Renweables by 2050? Forget about it.. 

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

If only we could connect Jool's up to the grid. At least a 100GW generation of pure unlimited bio methane bull s h i t.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

8 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Wind and solar sounded good in theory, but they're industrialising the countryside more than fracking ever would and they're constantly having to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer - They're also devastating where nature is concerned and they're obviously unsightly -- Fields of barley, corn, wheat, potatoes etc.. with nature in abundance or fields of wind turbines and solar panels null of nature producing inadequate sources of energy? That's a mightily tough question for you hypocritical, Lefty, eco-loons to answer isn't it? And that's because you seldom if ever deal with the practicalities of anything...

You see the world how you want it to be, not how it actually is.

I don't actually like the idea of fracking, but if one is being practical one would prefer it to industialising the country side with solar panels and wind turbines - We can't frack on the scale of the US, but for obvious reasons we don't need to. There's methods being used to make fracking cleaner in the US which have proven to work - It's also a given that CO₂ is required to make stuff green, so I believe the emphasis put on it that it's destroying the planet is hugely exaggerated.

Then there's the sea and the energy that could be garnered from that...

Full on Renweables by 2050? Forget about it.. 

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

If only we could connect Jool's up to the grid. At least a 100GW generation of pure unlimited bio methane bull s h i t.

The horsesh*t you Lefties have posted in the Brexit thread alone would supply the world's energy needs 'til time immemorial..

[Herman 9,863]

8 hours ago, ricardo said:

Great for the Yanks though. That's why their energy costs are a third of ours.

I'm talking about the UK specifically. A whole load of difference considering geography, population, urbanisation etc.