Was wondering about batteries

[islaydarkblue]

Thanks AuldYin. I think it's the questions that are being asked that is worrying. For example, Is it possible to use batteries to store excess electricity generated by wind farms? I think of batteries as being the type that discharge when being used and can be recharged by electricity being generated by the turbine but not needed by the National Grid. If this is an impossible system surely there is scientific evidence to show that the metals needed to make these batteries are available at an economic cost.
There should be masses of evidence about Cruachan. How much does it cost to produce electricity? What costs are included in the calculations?
I am horrified by the reports that Sunak is going to force the adoption of heat pumps as the major source of heat for homes. How on earth can this be a policy?

The hydro electric dam at Pitlochry is also a pump storage scheme. However SSEN might not be willing to state how much it costs to produce electricity using a pump storage hydro electric scheme.
I know that after the end of the Second World War a lot of new hydro electric dams were built in the Highlands of Scotland to bring electricity at the flick of a switch to remote parts of Scotland.

[The AuldYin]

I'm not sure of the costs of storing hydro electricity, the way my daughter explained it the cost of storing potential energy in mechanical batteries is zero but you of course have the cost of building the dam, the wind turbines, the staff to both build and run these projects. Is it cheaper to build electrical batteries? Then you have to factor in the sustainability of the batteries, the mining of materials and chemicals in production. One thing that is absolutely set in stone we cannot continue to go through the earth's resources like we have been and I'm by no means a Greenie tree hugger.

[BCram]

I'm not sure of the costs of storing hydro electricity, the way my daughter explained it the cost of storing potential energy in mechanical batteries is zero but you of course have the cost of building the dam, the wind turbines, the staff to both build and run these projects. Is it cheaper to build electrical batteries? Then you have to factor in the sustainability of the batteries, the mining of materials and chemicals in production. One thing that is absolutely set in stone we cannot continue to go through the earth's resources like we have been and I'm by no means a Greenie tree hugger.

Agree with your last sentence but it seems to me that there are major areas of the world who have the view that they have massive amounts of these resources and if they exploit them, in the same way that Western economies have done so far, they will benefit and the world will just have to lump it.
The way to beat them might be to find a cheaper source of energy. Are we sure we are building an energy supply system that will allow us to compete with the rest of the world. I don't think we are. Trump fir all his faults made things better with his America first slogan. Sending jobs across the border to Mexico seems mad from the point of view of a citizen of the USA. Trump got that and found Democrat voters who voted for him. Just like Boris and Brent got Labour voters. I fear the rhetoric overplayed the benefit but just now it seems that Green energy might sound the decline of the Western world if the wider issues about it are not looked at.

[Deeranged]

Nuclear energy is clean, cheap (after initial investment), low carbon and sustainable. Why are we even discussing investing in a difficult to capture and store energy source when nuclear is the obvious long term answer?

Discuss

[BCram]

Nuclear energy is clean, cheap (after initial investment), low carbon and sustainable. Why are we even discussing investing in a difficult to capture and store energy source when nuclear is the obvious long term answer?

Discuss

Agree. Discussion is framed by the CND attitude which was all about nuclear weapons.

[islaydarkblue]

Nuclear energy is clean, cheap (after initial investment), low carbon and sustainable. Why are we even discussing investing in a difficult to capture and store energy source when nuclear is the obvious long term answer?

Discuss

I agree. Sadly the SNP and Greens are dead against them and they will not build any new nuclear power stations in Scotland whilst they have a controlling majority at Holyrood.
In my opinion a stupid view but that is typical of politicians representing both of these political parties.

[The AuldYin]

Nuclear energy is clean, cheap (after initial investment), low carbon and sustainable. Why are we even discussing investing in a difficult to capture and store energy source when nuclear is the obvious long term answer?

Discuss

Clean? Cleaner than wind?
Cheap? Cheaper than wind?
Low Carbon? Lower carbon than wind?
Sustainable? More sustainable than wind?

What's the difference in difficulty in capturing and storing wind energy than nuclear? I don't think you're quite grasping this, all energy either needs used at the time or stored for future use no matter where it comes from. Noo I'm no rocket scientist but to me the dangers of nuclear energy are pretty clear, ***ushima & Chernobyl spring to mind.

[noahrab]

Clean? Cleaner than wind?
Cheap? Cheaper than wind?
Low Carbon? Lower carbon than wind?
Sustainable? More sustainable than wind?

What's the difference in difficulty in capturing and storing wind energy than nuclear? I don't think you're quite grasping this, all energy either needs used at the time or stored for future use no matter where it comes from. Noo I'm no rocket scientist but to me the dangers of nuclear energy are pretty clear, ***ushima & Chernobyl spring to mind.

Wind isn’t the answer.

[Deeranged]

Clean? Cleaner than wind?
Cheap? Cheaper than wind?
Low Carbon? Lower carbon than wind?
Sustainable? More sustainable than wind?

What's the difference in difficulty in capturing and storing wind energy than nuclear? I don't think you're quite grasping this, all energy either needs used at the time or stored for future use no matter where it comes from. Noo I'm no rocket scientist but to me the dangers of nuclear energy are pretty clear, ***ushima & Chernobyl spring to mind.

I didn't say cleaner, cheaper, lower carbon or more sustainable than wind. I said clean, cheap (after initial investment) low carbon and sustainable.

The difference however is that energy storage isn't as essential with nuclear (of course some will need to be stored) because it can be processed and fed into the grid constantly and isn't dependent on the uncontrollable factor of weather so the need for longer term storage is massively reduced. It's the obvious choice (IMO) to supplement fossil fuel use until such time as technology develops the next best option.

Nuclear power stations can be sited where their presence will have the minimal effect on the visual and ecological environment. These wind farms, both onshore and offshore, are eyesores and the onshore ones encroach onto valuable ecological areas as well as being potentially lethal to rare and endangered bird and bat species. No brainer really.

[The AuldYin]

I didn't say cleaner, cheaper, lower carbon or more sustainable than wind. I said clean, cheap (after initial investment) low carbon and sustainable.

The difference however is that energy storage isn't as essential with nuclear (of course some will need to be stored) because it can be processed and fed into the grid constantly and isn't dependent on the uncontrollable factor of weather so the need for longer term storage is massively reduced. It's the obvious choice (IMO) to supplement fossil fuel use until such time as technology develops the next best option.

Nuclear power stations can be sited where their presence will have the minimal effect on the visual and ecological environment. These wind farms, both onshore and offshore, are eyesores and the onshore ones encroach onto valuable ecological areas as well as being potentially lethal to rare and endangered bird and bat species. No brainer really.

I don't mind getting into a bit debate about the ins and oots but if your argument is that nuclear fallout is less lethal to rare and endangered bird and bat species than wind or hydro then there's no much point even trying to debate with you. I think I'd rather my een were a wee bit sore than burnt oot at another Chernobyl.