Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar? I thought England was big on solar like Germany. As I travel around in the city and country side I only see rooftop solar installed on maybe 1 out of 100,000 homes or even less. And so far I have not seen any solar powered signs.
I certainly don't think it's as rare as 1 in 100,000, certainly not in the south anyway. For quite a few years the subsidies were overly generous and they were going up everywhere, even on north-facing roofs and other places that didn't make a lot of sense. Around Southampton I would put the numbers at more like 1 in 100.
This article:
https://www.solar-trade.org.uk/uk-reaches-1-million-solar-homes-milestone/ suggests 800,000 PV + 250,000 solar-thermal across the UK but I am not sure of the date, this government publication
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment says 872,520 sub-4 kW installs as of last month, and another 25,050 4-10 kW, the vast majority of these will be domestic rooftop solar.
I see a few solar roadsigns around here. They're basically only installed where it would be expensive to get a cable to, existing signs with mains powered lights are not upgraded to solar ones but new signs in more remote locations are often solar.
The Brittish are clever and go for nuclear
Nope.
They progressively and consistently are replacing fossil by renewables. Renewables overtook Nukes since 2014:
And that's not even counting hydro.
Nuke electricity has peaked and will only go down.
Fossil electricity has peaked and will only go down.
At least for UK.
If you had read the article I linked to you would have read that the UK has commissioned 6 new nuclear power plants. The first one is to go live around 2024. Sure nuclear went down a little bit. Probably due to phasing out old nuclear power plants.
I don’t know about the UK alone, but for Europe as a whole, and the US, total nuclear power generation is set to continue to decline over the next few decades. This is based on current aging reactors scheduled retiring versus new reactors currently being built or in the planning stages.
Worldwide, some developing countries have plans to increase their nuclear generating capability, yet overall, even with that increase, the percentage of their of electricity generated by nuclear will decline. China is the prime example of this. See pages 100-101 of
this report for details.
The problem with nuclear is not just the safety and long term storage of waste. The problem is the enormous cost of building the power plants (requiring huge public subsidies) and even more problematic long term, the enormous fossil fuel inputs required to build a nuclear power plant.
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear? Solar panels also require massive fossil fuel inputs but nobody seems to care because at some point the factories which make solar panels won't need fossil fuel. That is what we call a 'transition period'.
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
Solar panels also require massive fossil fuel inputs but nobody seems to care
I care and that’s one reason PV will never fully replace FFs. The difference is that the FF inputs to PV production are much smaller and potentially replacable (but we’ve waited too long). And PV is on a rapid growth curve. Nuclear is on the decline - and for good reasons.
You continue to twist and turn trying to find a way out of the energy trap we’re in. There isn’t . It’s ok, I know what that’s like, I used to be there too.
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
You continue to twist and turn trying to find a way out of the energy trap we’re in. There isn’t . It’s ok, I know what that’s like, I used to be there too.
Perhaps you should visit some of the old Roman buildings in Italy and the pyramids in Egypt. Perhaps that will change your lack of confidence in human ingenuity. Even without fossil fuel people have managed to build huge structures.
You’re right. Slave labor may make a comeback!
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
Do you have some reliable sources for those "facts" because last year the iaea published estimations to the contrary, they are from double the capacity to equal the current capacity in 2050. Wild figures that depend if the retiring plants will be renewed or not. That depends except for $ also on, if there are other alternatives available.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-projections-on-global-nuclear-power-capacity-through-2050
You’re right. Slave labor may make a comeback!
One problem: the pyramids wheren't built by slaves.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar?
Have you been long enough to see the weather
I hate to make someone look stupid. But isn’t the weather less favorable for rooftop solar in Scotland due to the weather? In traveling trough Scotland I have seen more rooftop solar than in England. And doesn’t Scottland have far more rain and fog than England?
[
Do you have some reliable sources for those "facts" because last year the iaea published estimations to the contrary, they are from double the capacity to equal the current capacity in 2050.
Yes,
the source is in my post. Did you miss that?
The full Statistical Review of World Energy is a highly respected and anticipated annual report that is used by energy analysts worldwide, including he nuclear industry.
As I posted, it's regional. Nuclear generating capability in the US an Europe is declining and will continue to decline. It is increasing in absolute terms in some developing countries (most notably China) but that increase is much smaller than the current and projected increase in PV. The net result is that while there is some possible projected overall worldwide growth in nuclear power generating capability, all projections show that its overall percent contribution to world energy supplies will continue to markedly decrease, as it has been doing since 2006.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give
TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
Nuclear electric power production by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018. FSU is “Former Soviet Union” countries.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar? I thought England was big on solar like Germany. As I travel around in the city and country side I only see rooftop solar installed on maybe 1 out of 100,000 homes or even less. And so far I have not seen any solar powered signs.
So you inspected the roofs of at least 100k UK homes, and only found zero or one with solar panels? Must have been quite a search.
Roof solar panels are pretty common in the UK, although their density is very erratic. It seems when one house in a street gets them, many other houses in the same street soon follow suit. This means you may not find a panel for a few streets, and then suddenly find a long row of terraced houses with almost continuous solar panels down the entire block.
[
Do you have some reliable sources for those "facts" because last year the iaea published estimations to the contrary, they are from double the capacity to equal the current capacity in 2050.
Yes, the source is in my post. Did you miss that? The full Statistical Review of World Energy is a highly respected and anticipated annual report that is used by energy analysts worldwide, including he nuclear industry.
As I posted, it's regional. Nuclear generating capability in the US an Europe is declining and will continue to decline. It is increasing in absolute terms in some developing countries (most notably China) but that increase is much smaller than the current and projected increase in PV. The net result is that while there is some possible projected overall worldwide growth in nuclear power generating capability, all projections show that its overall percent contribution to world energy supplies will continue to markedly decrease, as it has been doing since 2006.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
Nuclear electric power production by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018. FSU is “Former Soviet Union” countries.
China ihas an agreement with TerraPower to have have a Next Itteration nuclear plant online in the next year or two. Any idea s to the status?
France is building ITER.
Page 47 of the most recent annual
Statistical Review of World Energy has a nice graph showing the percentage of electricity generation by fuel type from 1985 through the end of 2017. As you can see, coal remains dominant.
Also note: Nuclear continues to decline while "Other Renewables" (primarily wind and solar -excludes hydro) continues to rise dramatically and is set to surpass nuclear this year. You can see the breakdown by country for the past 2 years on page 48. Note UK and other parts of Europe are following the same trend - less nuclear while RE growths dramatically.
All the information you are linking to is about the past. Kjelt posted a forecast for the future. You can't ignore the fact that a lot of new nuclear power plants are being built. It is not like nuclear power is going to be abandoned (far from it).
Yes, the source is in my post. Did you miss that?
Yes I missed some pages.
As I posted, it's regional. Nuclear generating capability in the US an Europe is declining and will continue to decline.
On the short term coming 10 years yes, longer term it is unknown.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
Perhaps you should reread that article because I have quoted the high AND low scenario:
The high projections indicate an increase from 2016 levels by 42% in 2030, by 83% in 2040 and by 123% in 2050.
The low projections, on the other hand, indicate a decline in capacity by 12% in 2030 and 15% in 2040, before rebounding to present levels by 2050.
So they say by 2050 there will be equal or more nuclear energy used in the world.
As already stated this depends on so many parameters that it is hard to predict accurately.
The biggest unknown is will there be a viable alternative that can be used in the coming decades, if not I personally think nuclear power will boost because there are little alternatives that can generate the same amount of clean power.
When I was young I read in a popular science, or perhaps in an american scientific, I'm not sure, an article about how nuclear power would bring electricity costs close to near nothing. No wonder the powers that rule didn't like that even the slightest and soon after a (very successful) FUD campaign against it began: there's no shortage of useful idiots (*).
(*)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
When I was young I read in a popular science, or perhaps in an american scientific, I'm not sure, an article about how nuclear power would bring electricity costs close to near nothing. No wonder the powers that rule didn't like that even the slightest and soon after a (very successful) FUD campaign against it began: there's no shortage of useful idiots (*).
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
That idea of nuclear based electricity being super cheap was spread by idiots. With zero generation costs, the cost just to build and support the grid alone would keep electricity costs reasonably high.
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
Solar panels also require massive fossil fuel inputs but nobody seems to care
I care and that’s one reason PV will never fully replace FFs. The difference is that the FF inputs to PV production are much smaller and potentially replacable (but we’ve waited too long). And PV is on a rapid growth curve. Nuclear is on the decline - and for good reasons.
You continue to twist and turn trying to find a way out of the energy trap we’re in. There isn’t . It’s ok, I know what that’s like, I used to be there too.
Nuclear on the decline? Don’t think so. There are currently 75 companies working on NextGen Nuclear. This includes companies beinging funding by 2 billionaires as well as many nations.
China is is working with billionaire Bill Gates on building next itteration nuclear power plants in China. And France is building a NextGen nuclear plant in France.
All the information you are linking to is about the past.
Like most of what you've posted in this thread. That is demonstrably false.
I've posted
THIS LINK several times now, which is an outlook on the future of various energy sources including nuclear. It is entirely about the future -with OVER 100 PAGES OF FORECASTS about the future of various energy sources. As I've already posted - pages 100 and 101 specifically focus on nuclear. Below, in bold are the main points from the summary on page 101. My comments below each point are in italics
"•Nuclear and hydro power output continue to grow over the Outlook, although less rapidly than overall power generation, such that their shares within power decline."This is what I've repeatedly stated - over the next few decades the forecasts all show that even if total nuclear generating capacity increases, nuclear power as a percentage of total power production will continue to decline .
"• In the ET scenario, growth in nuclear energy (1.8% p.a., 59 TWhp.a.) is driven by China (51 TWhp.a.), which accounts for almost 90% of the total growth in nuclear energy. The share of nuclear energy within China’s energy demand increases from 2% today to 8% by 2040."Note that even with such large projected growth in China - even there, while total share of it's energy demand increased - it increases at a much slower rate than the share of Renewables (see page 94 of the report)."•The overall growth in nuclear energy is dampened by declines in both the EU (11 TWhp.a.) and US (10 TWhp.a.) as aging nuclear plants are retired and not
replaced"The forecasts consistently show that despite some building of new plants their will continue to be a net loss of nuclear energy production in the EU and US.You can't ignore the fact that a lot of new nuclear power plants are being built.
again! I've not ignored that at all. See above and my prior posts.
It is not like nuclear power is going to be abandoned (far from it).
In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....
So the bottom line is that your dreams of a nuclear energy future are not reflected in the facts of what has happened over the past 12 years or the forecasts for the future - and yes that includes the forecast from the IEAE (a nuclear lobbying group) posted by kjelt.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
Perhaps you should reread that article because I have quoted the high AND low scenario:
The high projections indicate an increase from 2016 levels by 42% in 2030, by 83% in 2040 and by 123% in 2050.
The low projections, on the other hand, indicate a decline in capacity by 12% in 2030 and 15% in 2040, before rebounding to present levels by 2050.
No, not exactly. In their low scenarios it rebounds almost, but not completely back to present levels (despite the spin they put on it).
So they say by 2050 there will be equal or more nuclear energy used in the world.
Yes but even in their high scenario - the percentage of nuclear power contribution to overall energy mix will have declined.
If you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading
the actual report not just the press release you linked. If you do you'll note that one of their primary sources of data is from the annual Statistical Review of World Energy which I've been citing - but they have not incorporated its most recent data.
Also - as I said - keep in mind that the IAEA is a nuclear power industry lobbying group so they are going to put a particular spin on the data and their forecasts.
Looking at the assumptions of their Low and High scenarios (page 9 of their full report) - you tell me which one seems more plausible:
The low projection assumes that current trends will continue with few changes in policies affecting nuclear power. It does not assume that all national targets for nuclear power will be achieved. It is a ‘conservative but plausible’ projection.
The high case assumes that current rates of economic and electricity demand growth will continue, with particularly high growth in the Far East. Nuclear power would also be accepted in many countries as a cost-effective climate change mitigation option.
Uninterupted growth for the next 32 years? That has never happened. Even China's growth has slowed dramatically since this was published -
so the high case has already proved to be wrong. A least they don't claim the high case is plausible
As already stated this depends on so many parameters that it is hard to predict accurately.
Yes, it's hard to make predictions. Especially about the future.
In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....
The pyramid of Cheops took 20 years to built. Not hundreds of years. The Collosseum in Rome took 8 years to built before opening and another 16 years to complete. I haven't been to the pyramid of Cheops but I did visit the Collosseum and it is freakishly huge even though half of the outer ring has dissapeared in the past few millennia.
In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....
The pyramid of Cheops took 20 years to built. Not hundreds of years. The Collosseum in Rome took 8 years to built before opening and another 16 years to complete. I haven't been to the pyramid of Cheops but I did visit the Collosseum and it is freakishly huge even though half of the outer ring has dissapeared in the past few millennia.
I wasn't referring to those specific structures in isolation- either of which is no where near as complex as a nuclear power plant. In any case, I was at the Colosseum in October 2016. Yes in it's original form you are correct. Its present form took longer.
Both structures required the hard manual labor of tens of thousands of men. Sure one theory says that in the case of the pyramids - they may not have technically been "slaves" - yet surely you don't believe the workers were working in conditions anything like even the most taxing manual labor jobs today.
Are you seriously suggesting that large, safe nuclear power plants could be built on a large scale in the future solely using human and animal powered labor?
The
volume of concrete and steel alone in a nuclear power plant greatly exceeds the total volume of simple limestone blocks in the pyramid at Cheops. Never mind the energy required to produce steel, concrete, piping, etc, etc.
As a reference point - one gallon of oil has the energy equivalent of approximately 23,000 hours of human work equivalent.