Saw something today which I thought was interesting regarding solar panels and where to put them. Many people are bothered about seeing swathes of them covering fields etc so a Swiss company have come up with a novel idea. Putting them in a place which is already there, does not affect the either te landscape, nature or animals and only has one drawback.

Were is this Nirvana for solar panels I hear you cry!….in between railway lines.

There are millions of miles of railway lines. This company say they can fit 1 × 2 metre panels and for every 1000km of rail they would use ½ million panels and could generate as much as a 450 megawatts solar farm. Even the trains themselves could use the energy provided.

The one drawback…. trains that still use the old system for getting rid of human waste…which used to be to flush it onto the lines. Surely we are not still doing that!

when i was in wales we past a field of solar panels went on for quite a while, horrible to see really

Decent De1pro v1.45 - Niche Duo - Niche Zero - Decent is the best machine ever made -

There are quite a few near me but they are mostly pretty well placed and you can hardly notice them. I always think new factory rooftops should be forced to have them on top as well as new build housing.

Get a pretty, enthusiastic hand waving girl to present stupid. She tries to make it believable that this is the answer. That energy storage system could power the grid for 30s at 3am (obviously it can’t discharge at that level, it’s just for an idea of scale). To power the grid for 1 hour, you would need 140 of them….or for 1 night of no wind and sun in the winter. 1,400 of them. this assumes a 100% discharge capacity and no grid losses, in reality probably 2000 would be needed. During the day our power consumption almost doubles.. So a non windy, rainy winter day would need 4000 of these batteries to provide power for 10 hours. More than 10 hours of rain, no sun and no wind…then the lights go out, even if we build 4000 of these things. Someone’s getting rich on the back of all this, because funnily, energy isn’t getting cheaper…quite the reverse,

We have one answer….conventional nuclear if we want long term energy security…especially when built with up to date tech.

Contact me

I agree that renewables aren’t enough on their own at the moment. Tidal always seems like the sensible choice to fill the gaps when it’s dark and still but doesn’t seem to gain any traction.

    Decent De1pro v1.45 - Niche Duo - Niche Zero - Decent is the best machine ever made -

    DavecUK Nah. If you mean tidal barrage we have one of the best conditions in the world for it, and we just don’t use it. Rance is a good example of cost efficiency.

    The idea that tidal doesn’t work isn’t evidenced in fact.

      Oh, and bidirectional charging EV’s (like the Rivian) would provide plenty of capacity for the domestic user.

      I get it that renewables is not the total answer, but a mixture of them along with nuclear and wave would work.

      For me any solar or wind making electricity would help so why not make it law that EVERY new house, flat, commercial building etc built have solar and battery back-up installed as standard. Even if 23 weeks out of 52 or 2 days a week it contributes, that is still a massive help if millions of properties have it. Oh and while we are at it, make Every new builidng have rain capture for flushing thier toilets.

      I worked in government building for 22 years and it had rain capture water to flush the loos and it worked a treat.

      It seems that people like to put up doors rather than give or even try solutions and like anything be it energy, poverty whatever, if there is a will by governments it CAN be done. The trouble is that whilst polititians of all colours bleat on about the warming of the planet and the cost of energy they are all more worried what the electorate might do if they raise any taxes or come down harder on big business to pay their fare share. Whilst many people say ’yes I would pay an extra tax hike to help the NHS, how many then cried foul when it was suggested to hike NI to help pay for it.

      Having said that, it doesn’t help when billions are wasted by those holding the purse strings. I mean, it’s not like they would offer tens of millions to some friend to produce some PPE even though they had never done it and didn’t have a business that could produce it, would they….cough!

      There seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions to things without anyone actually sitting down and looking at it in detail and getting those who are experienced or know, in on the conversation.

      As for not giving any more new licsenses for oil or gas drilling…I have no problem with that, as long as what we are already extracting will last long enough or provide enough whilst we transition, the time it takes to build the nuclear power plants, wind farms, wave generators etc we will need? The way large projects in this country go, that is a very pertinant question. Oh, and one other thing… WE should own them, not France or China or any other country. And that goes for our water companies too!

      RANT OVER.

        Pompeyexile I get it that renewables is not the total answer, but a mixture of them along with nuclear and wave would work.

        The issue is that Nuclear reactors work best when running at 100% capacity, you can’t really turn them down (the Xenon problem)…so all that would happen is the steam produced would bypass the generators when renewables are producing power. Renewables simply add extra cost over the nuclear baseload that would always be running at close to 100% anyway… Wave is super expensive per MW…

        If every home had batteries and solar, there would be massive e-waste, expense and again, unnecessary if we have the Nuclear baseload.

        It would take 10+ years for Nuclear reactors starting build now to come on stream….or current policies are an act of self harm. The harm it’s causing is of gargantuan proportions and we will only see the effects of it when it’s far too late to save our industries and country unless we do something now. The rest of the world is laughing at our stupidity and won’t be stepping up to help us..

        Nick Clegg was responsible for stopping Nuclear some 11 years ago, the reactors would have been coming on stream now…Nick of course no longer lives in the UK, he is well tucked up in LA, after leaving us “tucked up” for energy (add an f).

        Contact me

            DavecUK Nick Clegg was responsible for stopping Nuclear some 11 years ago, the reactors would have been coming on stream now…Nick of course no longer lives in the UK, he is well tucked up in LA, after leaving us “tucked up” for energy (add an f).

            To be fair to Nick, who only ever managed to get to power as a deputy prime minister for a very short lived coalition in the UK, could not have predicted this would have happened (energy insecurity from natural gas from Russia). Compare it to Germany, which became nuclear free. The French are laughing.

            I get the all eggs in one basket scenario and yes, when we look back in history it’s easy to conclude it was coming upon us. But humans and society in general have short lived memories, and definitely don’t seem to learn from previous events that much. Politicians can only be elected with the support of the masses, and fortunately or not, they are the ones responsible for us as a nation going forwards. There are plenty of mess ups politicians did over the past many years - I won’t got into details, and ultimately my opinion, in a coffee forum. Energy security “mess up” is only one amongst many.

              There was an article in the press the other day stating there would be a problem in the future regarding solar panels.
              The panels have a finite use life before they need replacing, when you consider the numbers of them there is only one place equipped to deal with them and extract the chemicals and residues and deal with the waste.
              Did anyone else see the article ?

                @DavecUK Perhaps you can explain why Nuclear makes sense but tidal barrage doesn’t, given the economics are so similar?

                Or in our country, different. Hinkley C base strike price now comes out to around $134/KWh and around 4 cents/KWh thereafter. Sihwa cost 117/KWh and around $0.02 thereafter.

                Now obviously energy security requires a comprehensive strategy (and Nuclear should be included), but discounting cheap short term sources like wind, and other stable long term options like tidal barrage is pointless.

                Every EV has a big battery, and many homes are already equipped. They don’t need batteries etc. And Nuclear balancing is perfectly viable without homes having battery.

                Ps. You can use pumped storage or other options for storing nuclear power. No need to ‘run it slow’ - In fact, it’d possibly horrify you to know just how many big batteries are used at those plants.

                Elcarajillo Yea it’s been a bit of a concern for a while. If I recall correctly it could only be recycled to low grade glass too. The current problem with solar is the lifespan and reuseability.

                  DavecUK The only arguments I have ever seen for no power generation mix and that all power should come from nuclear is from you! The idea of baseload generation coming from large power plants is already outdated - future production will be distributed as we are already starting to see - whether that is onsite solar, wind farm or SMR.

                  Tidal has historically been very expensive but that shouldn’t be a surprise as it it is relatively new and still small scale. But costs are already falling - by over 40% in the last five years and are now comparable with nuclear. Of course nuclear still costs between 2 and 4 times more than onshore wind and solar - so that’s nothing to shout about but there is nothing to suggest that tidal costs won’t continue to reduce as scale and efficiencies continue to develop.

                  eWaste is an issue and will need careful handling - much the same as waste from nuclear. Some might see eWaste from renewables as less problematic that spent nuclear fuel.

                      Gagaryn Not an expert in the waste/recycling field by any stretch, but there’s certainly some concern, mostly with solar. With regards to tidal you have a few completely different types of tech there. Rance is pretty old and a good example of cheap stable power generation, whilst South Korea have taken it to a new level. Canada on the other hand decided it wasn’t hugely cost effective but I think are heavily researching tidal stream. Problem with barrage is similar to nuclear, huge upfront costs and a need for ecological planning.

                      Load balancing/management is becoming easier in most places in the world, though the UK certainly has some unique ‘challenges.’

                        Gagaryn The only arguments I have ever seen for no power generation mix and that all power should come from nuclear is from you! The idea of baseload generation coming from large power plants is already outdated - future production will be distributed as we are already starting to see - whether that is onsite solar, wind farm or SMR.

                        Tidal has historically been very expensive but that shouldn’t be a surprise as it it is relatively new and still small scale. But costs are already falling - by over 40% in the last five years and are now comparable with nuclear.

                        I have never made an argument for no generation mix?

                        I do however feel that windfarms and solar are not ideal goals to pursue and work out much more expensive than people realise. Much of that cost is hidden and will come over the lifetime of the systems, which are relatively ineffective.

                        I wouldn’t be opposed to a mix of some Tidal and mainly Nuclear. The problem with Tidal:

                        • It’s still intermittent
                        • Varies in it’s capacity daily
                        • damages the environment
                        • limited number of suitable and cost effective sites in the UK
                        • Long build cost

                        Energy production needs to be very reliable, not intermittent. I also believe we need to stop burning fossil fuels as a world objective, not because of climate change, but because it is literally liquid gold. Hugely wasteful to use it up creating energy, when it is so valuable for other things. Sadly, the world will continue to use oil and gas until there is none left. Nothing on earth can stop this….fortunately the amount of fossil fuels is finite and I firmly believe the world will not end due to climate reasons if we burn it all up….Once it’s gone of course…the world might end for reasons completely unrelated to climate, as countries compete for ever diminishing resources.

                        Nuclear is expensive in the UK, only because we have not invested national effort into doing it right and keep wanting to pay the French and Chinese to do what we should be doing.!, whilst lining the pockets of other worldwide billion dollar companies (oil, gas, renewable etc.). Meanwhile people wait for fusion thinking we will have it in 20 or so years, another cruel joke, which the scientists perpetrate, because it’s good for business and jobs (their jobs). Progress reports and information from that “industry” are deliberately deceptive.

                        P.S. The problem with intermittency is we then need power that comes on stream rapidly (fossil fuels). If we have just bypassed a Nuclear power stations steam turbines, then what’s the point. There are reactors proposed by the EU (who want to dictate this), having manoeuvrability, the ability to ramp up and down. This significantly increases their cost, reduces efficiency and is still selling us a crock. I read the scientific papers on these reactors and basically they are only 40% reducible in power until 20 or so % of the fuel is used up, then you have to run them at 100% (Xenon problem again)..

                        Contact me

                          Elcarajillo Yes I did see it, I think I first saw it a while ago, unless there is a different article on the same thing. The Windmill blades are not so recyclable either!

                          Contact me