Gas fired Power Stations

[donkey22]

We have hundreds of years of fossil fuels under our feet.

What source are using to claim this nonsense?

In figure 1 [4] we show the future energy reserves in billions of oil equivalent, Btoe, as a function of year. While we obliviously use up fossil fuels without taking stock of about what future reserves look like, we should take note of the endpoints shown here. These endpoints are dangerously close: Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out.

Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time

Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time

Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-it...sil-fuels-run/

[Alikado]

We have hundreds of years of fossil fuels under our feet.

Gas stretches out from under our feet and under the Irish sea and will be fracked to get it.

Coal there is
187 Billion tonnes according to the report I read.
I suppose we could use that and spend the green levy on cleaning up the emissions to some degree.

Were going to have to do something until we have reliable renewables capable of powering our electric future.

Nuclear brings our future generations a big problem.

Absolutely no need to frack, the current oil rigs in the Irish Sea don't frack.

[local]

Absolutely no need to frack, the current oil rigs in the Irish Sea don't frack.

I presume you mean't something else, again

Different thing, different case.

Shale gas In the UK


The Bowland Shale Formation is not restricted to the onshore environment; the basins extend offshore beneath the Southern North Sea and the East Irish Sea.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projec...gas-in-the-uk/


As we have seen the "ban" is somewhat flexible and getting fracked gas via ships from elsewhere is yet more faux green tosh.

Just how many deaths and business failures can we take to pursue this virtue signalling green sophistry.

[The PNP]

Or capturing the carbon.
Germany The US and in particular China are making anything we do irrelevant.

Therefore, let's do nothing to combat #Climate Change? And if the rest of the World thinks that same way and also does nothing?

Let's suppose the World does carry on as before, burning up every last drop of oil, every last ton of coal and every last cubic metre of gas...what then? We all go back to riding bikes, lighting candles, cooking on campfires and living in caves? All done on higher ground of course, since the sea will have risen over 200feet by that time, because we'll have completely melted both icecaps!

[local]

200 hundred feet, anything to back that?

[Alikado]

I presume you mean't something else, again

Different thing, different case.

Shale gas In the UK


The Bowland Shale Formation is not restricted to the onshore environment; the basins extend offshore beneath the Southern North Sea and the East Irish Sea.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projec...gas-in-the-uk/


As we have seen the "ban" is somewhat flexible and getting fracked gas via ships from elsewhere is yet more faux green tosh.

Just how many deaths and business failures can we take to pursue this virtue signalling green sophistry.

Not different, Morecambe Bay and Liverpool Bay are tapping into it conventionally and have been for years.

[Toodles McGinty]

There are enormous differences in what we should be doing, what we'd like to happen ideally, and what we will actually do when it comes to green energy.

We should have more green energy of course. Ideally we'd run the entire country - homes, industry, vehicles - on clean energy. Practically it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable.

In the 70s they said oil would run out in the 2030s. In 2024 we haven't got the infrastructure to charge the electric cars we have. Those that are practical in cold weather. We build greener houses, but millions of households are still heated by gas, powered by coal fired power stations and you could stick air source heat pumps on every available wall & roof, it won't heat them properly. Successive governments worldwide have done little but pay lip service to the problem.

No government, no matter how well meaning, will invest the billions it would cost to harness the obvious power sources such as tidal energy. Yes, there's a virtually untapped, endless source of energy out there. Is there the tech to make it useful?

Sadly we are going to depend on fossil fuels for decades to come. I neither like that, nor do I see a point to us selling the resources we do have to foreign companies (north sea oil & gas licences for example) when fossil fuel is finite. I have no clue what the solution is, apart from a massive amount of investment in the tech we need.

It appears our reach exceeds our grasp, technologically. Hopefully we'll have one of those leaps we had from the 80s with computing. Should be interesting politically when the oil rich wealthy countries find their pockets emptying.

[The PNP]

200 hundred feet, anything to back that?

Approx 70metres rise is the accepted figure....Knowing how many cubic km's of ice there is on Earth and taking the total surface area of seas/oceans into account (allowing for a 9% decrease in volume as ice melts) it's pretty much a straightforward calculation to arrive at a ball-park figure.

[The PNP]

There are enormous differences in what we should be doing, what we'd like to happen ideally, and what we will actually do when it comes to green energy.

We should have more green energy of course. Ideally we'd run the entire country - homes, industry, vehicles - on clean energy. Practically it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable.

The future of energy, is moving steadily towards long-distance power transfer between countries across the globe. New HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) technology make possible the trading of power over thousands of miles.

In other words, when it's windy in one place but not in another, power can be sent from country A to country B and vice-versa. Same with solar; when it's daytime in country A and night in country B, power can be sent from where there's a surplus, to where it's needed.

No government, no matter how well meaning, will invest the billions it would cost to harness the obvious power sources such as tidal energy. Yes, there's a virtually untapped, endless source of energy out there. Is there the tech to make it useful?

Imo, there's a good case for bringing in private investment there. After all, who wouldn't want a share of something that has a cast-iron guaranteed permanent return. Tides aren't about to stop rising and falling, neither is there likely to be a reduction in demand for power - quite the opposite. Where Govt's can help, is expediting additional infra to connect remote tidal (and wind/solar) sites, to population centres where the customers are.

[silver fox]

The future of energy, is moving steadily towards long-distance power transfer between countries across the globe. New HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) technology make possible the trading of power over thousands of miles.

In other words, when it's windy in one place but not in another, power can be sent from country A to country B and vice-versa. Same with solar; when it's daytime in country A and night in country B, power can be sent from where there's a surplus, to where it's needed.

Imo, there's a good case for bringing in private investment there. After all, who wouldn't want a share of something that has a cast-iron guaranteed permanent return. Tides aren't about to stop rising and falling, neither is there likely to be a reduction in demand for power - quite the opposite. Where Govt's can help, is expediting additional infra to connect remote tidal (and wind/solar) sites, to population centres where the customers are.

HVDC has possibilities, but there are still many technical and equipment needs to be properly solved, bear in mind the first use of this system was in the 19th century, I wouldn’t say progress has been dramatic nor swift, there are a number of HVDC systems in use, but are mainly used for transfer power to a more isolated region.

For instance between North and South Island NZ, the longest one currently in use is in China transferring power over 11,000 km, the difficulties and costs are mainly in the conversion needed to supply to an electric grid and of course on to the consumer.

Nice idea, but still leave users reliant on outside sources, would be good if it was so simple, but sadly like so many ideas not fully developed.

[local]

What source are using to claim this nonsense?

In figure 1 [4] we show the future energy reserves in billions of oil equivalent, Btoe, as a function of year. While we obliviously use up fossil fuels without taking stock of about what future reserves look like, we should take note of the endpoints shown here. These endpoints are dangerously close: Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out.

Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time

Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time

Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-it...sil-fuels-run/

Would you like to try that again and possibly read your links

[The PNP]

HVDC has possibilities, but there are still many technical and equipment needs to be properly solved, bear in mind the first use of this system was in the 19th century, I wouldn’t say progress has been dramatic nor swift, there are a number of HVDC systems in use, but are mainly used for transfer power to a more isolated region.

For instance between North and South Island NZ, the longest one currently in use is in China transferring power over 11,000 km, the difficulties and costs are mainly in the conversion needed to supply to an electric grid and of course on to the consumer.

Nice idea, but still leave users reliant on outside sources, would be good if it was so simple, but sadly like so many ideas not fully developed.

True, it's still relatively early days for HVDC. But I see nothing significant from a technological perspective, to block eventual worldwide adoption of the technology...Biggest barriers are the inevitable political issues, particularly when dealing with troublesome dictatorial-type rulers.

[donkey22]

Would you like to try that again and possibly read your links

Published 5 years ago, a quick google shows the timeline is still relevant.
Instead of deflecting, how about a link to your ‘hundreds of years of fossil fuels remaining claim?

[Little Londoner]

What astounds me is Rolls Royce have perfected mini Nuclear reactors and other countries are years behind yet there could be mini reactors all over the Country BUT if the mini reactors are chosen it obviously has to be put out to tender and we will have to wait for the other producers to catch up and then wait to see who offers the biggest bribe to the Government and we will probably end up with Amazon selling them to us but like the rest of their crap "Made in China".

[Alikado]

What astounds me is Rolls Royce have perfected mini Nuclear reactors and other countries are years behind yet there could be mini reactors all over the Country BUT if the mini reactors are chosen it obviously has to be put out to tender and we will have to wait for the other producers to catch up and then wait to see who offers the biggest bribe to the Government and we will probably end up with Amazon selling them to us but like the rest of their crap "Made in China".

One problem with going down the mini reactor route would be protection of the sites, 40 new sites would probably require another 5,000 nuclear police recruiting.