Solar powered road/paths

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can see you work for the nuclear power industry. Or you are seriously ignorant about geothermal power.

And I might point out that what I suggested has been put into practice by the aluminium smelting industry. But you don't have to go to Iceland to find suitable sites for geothermal energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_the_Unit ...[text shortened]... of heat, which could supply sufficient heat to meet the space heating demand in the UK;[/quote]

Neither actually.

And I have been to Iceland 😉

Geothermal power is great.

Moving all our industry to sit on top of geothermal power generation is not.

Maxing out any [energy] resource always gets more and more expensive the closer
you get to it's maximum.

This is one of the many reasons for having a diverse range of power sources.

Nuclear power has a lot of upsides that means it deserves to be squarely in the mix.

I promote it because it's the one that green activists always leave out.

In this instance, MSR's*** run at high temps ~800 C which is not only makes them more
efficient, but that temp is a great temperature to start doing some very useful chemistry.

You can use direct heat from such a reactor [plus electrical power output] to run the Haber Process,
as well as make synthetic fuels. [among a whole load of other reactions]
And synthetic fuels are potentially really useful in that they are [if created with carbon neutral
energy] able to be used as a direct replacement for fossil fuels with current infrastructure.
So planes and ships can be made carbon neutral without completely redesigning them or having
to invent new technology. This takes a lot of energy, but that's not a problem if you embrace
all of the available options for green power generation. And fundamentally, ALL of the options
for future transport require more energy generation, as we stop using the already stored up
energy in fossil fuels, and start storing our own power for re-use. Be it by batteries, or hydrogen
fuel cells, or synthetic fuels.

You can also use waste heat to heat homes and businesses just like geothermal
using the same infrastructure. Which means that doing both geothermal and nuclear
becomes cheaper and more efficient than doing either on their own.

On which subject, we have all this 'nuclear waste' that we have to deal with.
It's much cheaper to reuse that 'waste' as fuel in a new generation of reactors than to store it and
generate power by other means. [particularly with the ludicrously high requirements on the storage
facilities] And it's much cheaper [per GWhr produced] to build nuclear power stations in bulk than
to build just a couple of them as one-offs.


As ever, I am a supporter of all carbon free/neutral power sources [although I remain unconvinced about
solar roads/paths] and I believe that I believe we need a faster and more radical shift that you do.
But as nuclear is consistently the option that is forgotten about [or deliberately excluded] I will bring it
up where I feel that it is the best solution/tool for the job.

Industry which needs high concentration 24/7 reliable large scale power generation is one area where
nuclear reactors are a good fit. [and yes, so is geothermal, but we can't and wouldn't want to move
all our industry to locations where geothermal energy is abundant enough to cost effectively run heavy
industry. Which is generally {in effect} on top of volcanoes.]


***Which can be, but don't have to be, run as thorium breeder reactors.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nuclear power has a lot of upsides that means it deserves to be squarely in the mix.

I promote it because it's the one that green activists always leave out.

Then you shouldn't need to make dishonest 'jokes' in its support. You know very well that geothermal power does not need a volcano.

Of course nuclear should be in the mix if you can live with all the cancer 😕
See?

and I believe that I believe we need a faster and more radical shift that you do.
I doubt that. I believe we should switch to renewables ASAP. I am less fond of nuclear although you have persuaded me that there is a place for it in some instances.

I don't think South Africa should be going nuclear, but given that it is a corruption ridden industry, it is to be expected.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/126814-south-africa-to-build-6-new-nuclear-power-plants.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you shouldn't need to make dishonest 'jokes' in its support. You know very well that geothermal power does not need a volcano.

Of course nuclear should be in the mix if you can live with all the cancer 😕
See?

[b] and I believe that I believe we need a faster and more radical shift that you do.
I doubt that. I believe we should switch to ...[text shortened]... ttp://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/126814-south-africa-to-build-6-new-nuclear-power-plants.html[/b]

Then you shouldn't need to make dishonest 'jokes' in its support. You know very well that geothermal power does not need a volcano.

Actually I don't know that. Industry need lots and lots of high density energy.
You don't get high density geothermal energy away from geologically active areas.
To which I perfectly legitimately say, it's a bad idea to put all our industry on top of those areas.
Aside from any cost and practicality questions that go alongside that.
As I was [clearly] being humorous, phrasing that as 'on top of a volcano' is not 'dishonest'.
The theoretical max output you can get from an area with geothermal is going to be
unbelievably expensive and uneconomic to achieve. For a practical number that is
cost effective I would start by dividing the max by at least 2.
Where that number is still large enough to be a, or the, major power source is in places
like Iceland... which is essentially one giant volcano.

I don't think South Africa should be going nuclear, but given that it is a corruption ridden industry, it is to be expected.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/126814-south-africa-to-build-6-new-nuclear-power-plants.html

I support nuclear power where nuclear power makes sense, and with appropriate safety
built in. I might well agree with you that either nuclear isn't a good idea for SA in general,
or that it's not a good idea as they intend to implement it. But I would have to research
into your energy/political situation to know.

I mainly look at energy in Europe, North America, India, China, all of which can and do use nuclear.
And also are the overwhelming majority of CO2 emitters, historically and presently.

Africa also has a different energy resource balance than the countries in the north.
Africa has huge sunlight availability that makes solar power more reliable, attractive, and economic
than it is for us so far above the equator. This changes what a good energy mix looks like.
Just as it makes more sense for the UK to build lots more wind generation than solar, because
we get lots more wind than sunshine. We also have lots of potential tide energy that we can
[and should] tap into. That few other countries have access to.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually I don't know that. Industry need lots and lots of high density energy.
You don't get high density geothermal energy away from geologically active areas.
To which I perfectly legitimately say, it's a bad idea to put all our industry on top of those areas..

There was nothing 'legitimate' about the volcano comment. I also totally disagree that there is a major problem siting a lot of big industries near geothermal sites. Besides, I don't expect all industry to move to geothermal sites. I merely suggested that sonhouse's industry do so. Obviously many industries can get by on solar or other sources.

As I was [clearly] being humorous, phrasing that as 'on top of a volcano' is not 'dishonest'.
If you have legitimate arguments for nuclear, then use them and refrain from 'humorous phrasing'. All it does it ruin your case.

The theoretical max output you can get from an area with geothermal is going to be unbelievably expensive and uneconomic to achieve.
Are you assuming the figures on Wikipedia are max output? If so, have you checked that assumption?
In reality I would expect the UK to use a lot of wind and tide energy as you have said. Also most countries going green have a large proportion of their green energy coming from biomass. This would probably be true in the UK as well.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually I don't know that. Industry need lots and lots of high density energy.
You don't get high density geothermal energy away from geologically active areas.
To which I perfectly legitimately say, it's a bad idea to put all our industry on top of those areas.

According to Wiki: "In 2011, geothermal energy provided about 65 percent of primary energy [in Iceland]"

Who says 'all our industry'? Some is good enough.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I saw one building covered with about one acre of PV's and it generated only about 18 kilowatts on a 24/7 basis, say 50 Kw peak but that only for a few hours of peak sunlight.
That might be enough for a small business but our business here, our feed is a quarter MEGAWATT because we have some pretty energy intensive machines, furnaces that get up to 1000 de ...[text shortened]... and so forth so paving the whole roof would be a drop in the bucket for this particular company.

Clearly whether their energy use would be satisfied depends on the business. Even so it's there and may as well be used. All businesses use computers these days so it's plausible that the energy demands of (say) the admin. department could be satisfied by solar energy alone.