solar thermal power

[David Judd]

Interesting lecture on solar thermal power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwKIQ2ON-M

 

Dave

 

 

[Dave Cockcroft]

Thanks Dave, it's a good presentation and to my mind CSP is a big part of a renewable powered future. Fortunately there are moves towards making this a reality although it isn't a technology that has local potential in our climate. Also its fit with Transition philiosophy is challenging and to the best of my knowledge has not been much discussed.

There are new efforts to build a European supergrid (try googling european supergrid) to allow export of excess UK wind energy in times of excess production and import of southern european and north african CSP at other times to help balance the national grid. The big benefit of CSP - apart from being economic in financial and net energy terms - is the ability to store heat and generate power on demand. None of the direct electricity generation technologies can match the price and performance of this (storing electricity is expensive and is conversion into other storage products like hydrogen is inefficient).

For more info see - http://www.desertec.org/ - which has had a major revamp since I last looked at it.

Of course world peace might well be a prerequisite for this to be workable in geo-political terms - imagine how vulnerable we are if the lights go out in England when someone bombs a load of mirrors in the sahara! - Dave C

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Transition Stroud - Energy Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to tts-e...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tts-energy+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tts-energy?hl=en-GB.

[Nick Mills]

I've goty a spare copy of the Offshore Valuation of the UK's offshore
renewable resource, including tidal barrages, lagoons, wave, wind, and
tidal stream technologies.
Interesting reading, especially as a concl;usion is that we could
generate 6 times our current total energy demand from the resource if we
had the determination. It would also generate a long term income under
all but the most cautious scenarios.
It was only published last week.
If the group or any member wants it I'm happy to pass it on. Otherwise
I'll give it to the library.

Nick

[Brian Turk]

I have always thought that we had more than enough renewable energy,and Britain could be an energy exporter, never expected 6 times, so with on land generation and energy saving, we don't have a problem or need NUCLEAR, only the will to do it. Brian Turk

[Angela Paine]

But the government is determined to build new nuclear, whether we need it or not. And we, the tax payers will have to foot the bill. See below:

 

A letter by Darren Johnson on nuclear power published today
The report that Darren refers to can be found here -
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/Nuclear_Power_No_Point.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/17/true-costs-nuclear-power

The real costs of nuclear power
The Guardian
Thursday 17 June 2010

Paul Spence says the nuclear industry expects to pay the full cost of
decommissioning a new generation of nuclear power stations (Response,
15 June). But his words about "our full share of waste management and
disposal costs" were carefully chosen. The consultation document
reveals that EDF considers their full share of these costs to be
around 20% of the total. As our report Nuclear Power? No Point!
highlighted last year, nuclear is only responsible for 4% of the
energy consumed in the UK. More energy can be saved by energy
conservation measures in homes and businesses. Focusing on the nuclear
industry takes resources away from building new renewable capacity,
which, given sufficient political will, could provide more than enough
electricity for the UK.

Darren Johnson
Green party spokesperson on Trade and Industry

--

• EDF's claim that they "have not asked for subsidy for new nuclear"
is not all that it seems. The nuclear industry, owned by British
Energy (in turn owned by EDF), will be receiving huge sums of windfall
profits under government proposals for a floor price on carbon
emission allowances. British Energy will greatly expand its profits
for no increase in nuclear power production, all subsidised by
electricity consumers.

Based on Royal Academy of Engineering analysis (a pro-nuclear source)
a carbon floor price of £30 per tonne is likely to lead to electricity
price increases of around 2.5p/Kwh. Given that British Energy produces
(according to their website) around 50 TWh per year, this would give
them annual windfall profits of around £1.25bn a year. Many argue that
the "floor price" would have to be higher than this to make new
nuclear power stations profitable. A floor price of £50 per tonne
would give EDF windfall profits (at 50 TWh a year) of over £2bn a
year. Indeed British Energy and EDF are already receiving hundreds of
millions of pounds a year of subsidy by another name through existing
levels of carbon prices.

Dr David Toke
Senior lecturer in energy policy, University of Birmingham

--

• Paul Spence's defence of new nuclear power stations based on the
assertion that they won't be a financial burden to the public ignores
the taxpayer's liability in the event of a "new Chernobyl". No
insurance company will offer cover for such an event or the
consequences of a terrorist attack or any other less serious but still
unquantifiable risk. In its determination to sanction new nuclear
power plants, the government is underwriting these risks; without such
an undertaking no commercial company would even contemplate building a
new nuclear power station. No hidden subsidies?

Eddie Dougall
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk


--
Scott Redding
Senior Press Officer
Green Party of England and Wales

020 7561 0282
0759 004 6504

==

Published and promoted by Tracy Dighton, for the Green Party of
England & Wales, both at 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.

_______________________________________________
gpmedianet mailing list, subscribed as philip...@virgin.net
unsubscribe: gpmedianet-...@lists.greenparty.org.uk
https://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpmedianet

[Brian Turk]

If EDF are so keen to build nuclear power stations, then put them in France and run some more undersea grid cables to the S/E of UK. When the power stations are decommissioned THEY CAN PAY FOR IT. The new grids can be used for the French to import clean green electricity from the UK. So can we build our RENEWABLE SYSTEMS NOW PLEASE. I am not anti French but is it not time our Government said a firm NO, not now, not ever to all companies wanting to build nuclear here. Profits and nuclear energy must never be allowed to mix, for evidence of why not, see B.P on T.V 

Regards,Brian Turk

[Angela Paine]

Say this to EDF and the Government, not to me.

I have been blogging about the iniquities of the nuclear industry for months. www.stopoldbury.blogspot.com

Please spread the word.

Not enough people see nuclear new build as something worth worrying about.

But the money that will be used to subsidize new nukes (carbon offset price is a subsidy that taxpayers will have to pay) will not be spent on developing renewables. This is why we are so behind with the development of our fabulous renewable resources.

Germany, which produced the KiKK report (double the incidence of childhood leukemia within a five kilometre radius of EVERY nuclear power station) has decided not to build any new nukes. Consequently they are spending many billions of euros on the development of renewables. Guess where the German nuke corporations have decided to do their new build? in the UK. Because the UK i.e. we, the British public, will let them. They couldn't do this in Germany.

Angela