I am sure it is just a coincidence that as the protests against fracking continue and the obscene amounts the gas and electric companies charge, the same companies begin warning that there is a chance that supplies may well fall short in the coming colder months and blackouts cannot be ruled out.
'The difference between peak demand and available supply were tighter than we have seen historically' announced one company in a perfect bit of scaremongering just as we enter the busiest period for their supplies.
Expect the call to be for more fracking farms and how we really need those nuclear plants and no mention of how the companies have not invested in more or larger storage facilities which of course cost money and that would hit the profits of the privatised utility companies who prefer to line the shareholders pockets rather than do what they are actually there to do.
As the country is about to launch a wide house building venture, why not make it regulation that each newly built house must incorporate solar panels so not to add a further drain to the national grid and could even sale any surplus to it or failing that, stick them on top of Government buildings and retail outlets like they have mobile phone masts.
Why must the demand be met by fracking or nuclear when we are surrounded by waves, have more wind than most and have more than enough places to hand solar panels from?
If the utility companies can't provide a proper service at an affordable price, then renationalise the lot of them.
10 comments:
> Expect the call to be for more fracking… (because if the government builds power plants they are free. Right?) and that would hit the profits… who prefer to line the shareholders (buy stock if it is so lucrative!)
> As the country is about to launch…
- solar panels won’t work well in the UK – too much cloud cover. By the way, the tree huggers in America came unglued because making solar panels appears to be very harmful to the environment – according to them not me
> Why must the demand be met by fracking or nuclear …
- you will just gripe about damage to the seas. In Texas the environmentalists are griping that wind mills are killing too many birds, make noise pollution, and the new power lines are destroying habitat. But, sure they won’t gripe about stuff in the ocean…
q
It will be 'Look, we either have fracking/nuclear or you have blackouts' that will be the choice.
I know people here with solar panels on their roofs and they actually sale surplus to the electric grid, (few pound, not much at all) and these are old solar panels so i'm guessing the newer models would be even better technology. If they put them on each new house built then no extra strain on the national grid and they generate extra electric for others. The sore point might be the extra cost to the price of the house.
Off shore would be the answer, its the NIMBY's that say about ruining the view, noise etc
I support 'the nuclear solution', and have done for a while... Private money/public oversight (both in terms of safety and ensuring no price gouging)... As the 21st century goes on, this will also be seen to be the cleanest method available.
If they found a solution to what to do with the waste hanging around poisoning the ground for tens of thousands of years then more people would join you in supporting Nuclear Power. I did suggest chucking it into a volcano but apparently that's not even hot enough.
The nuclear industry takes more responsibility for disposing of its waste products than the fossil fuel industry ever has - which has always 'externalised' the cost of its production to everyone else in society. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is paid for by the consumers of the power, so it's all paid for up front. Nuclear waste is also - currently - not as hazardous and science fiction would have us believe, and will become even safer in time.
Far from being the problem, nuclear waste could conceivably be the solution to the UK's energy problems. A recent study estimates that the amount of nuclear waste currently being stockpiled has the potential to power the UK for the next 500 years, if only we took the necessary steps to develop this idea. And it would do so very, very cheaply (compared to the current methods).
we can sell excess power back to the grid here as well.
when i looked at it 5 or 6 years ago the solar payback period was 30 years assuming no variables change significantly the next 30 years. assumes you have a place to store the batteries and controllers.
you also have to change your lights to 12 volt (all new lamps and light fixtures). you have to strenghten a typical roof to hold the extra weight... major appliances still need the normal power from the grid.
not sure how the insurance costs.
q
Not sure about that last sentence regarding nuclear waste, in a recent attempt to find somewhere to store nuclear waste, and despite inducements worth up to £100m per year and even the great Eric Pickles calling any risk very low, many councils eagerly undertook studies and concluded it would be better buried elsewhere.
Haven't heard of the study where nuclear waste could be used to power the UK but would be handy if it could, 2 problems 1 stone. Just leaves the problem of the devastation when it goes wrong.
Solar panels will become cheaper and the technology better so they will become a better option but i the additional cost of the roof strenghtening is a major drawback.
lucy,
i read that nano engineering is going to help solar panels be mroe efficient 7% to 9% which reduces the pay back period to 20 years or so.
but then i've been hearing about solar panels since 1978 or so.
q
My introduction to nanotechnology was from Red Dwarf in the late 80s/earlyu 90s and the nanobots so when they began talking about nanotechnology years later i was unsure if the Red Dwarf writers were years ahead of everyone else or the people who name these things were Red Dwarf fans.
Post a Comment