Comments on: Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant To Get Twice The Rate As Solar PV From UK Government

By: Will E

Will E — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:48:00 +0000

Remember decommission Sellafield.
until now cost 100 billion USD and not done.
UK state has to take over.
google Sellafield for more info.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:29:00 +0000

not that clever im afraid, was hoping someone would have the ans and also have panels improved output efficiency ?
was thinking one of you guys who have all the ans to everything else would be able to ans or work it out or is the ans not available or not able to be given ?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:47:00 +0000

Those are numbers you could work up yourself in a few minutes.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:38:00 +0000

As always no ans to any real questions .
Closed minds = no solutions
This all started with one question but no one has the guts to ans it ,
I will set it again just in case there is one person who actually knows what they are talking about .
How many square miles of solar panels would be needed to produce the same amount of power that Hinkley point c will produce .
Please bare in mind that we are talking about England not the U S A , this was set as a quiz question and haven’t been able to find an unbiased ans from any point of view ,
ans would need to be .
Power produced by Hinkley c = ?
Power produced by 1 panel = ?
Number of panels needed to produce same = ?
Area needed to accommodate panels in square miles = ?
need to take into account that there are gaps in the rows of panels and size and output power also not all need to be in the same area but just the total area needed and what the difference is for ,
Time of day
Time of year
please don’t say about roofs as its just the total area in square miles I need , thank you

By: A Real Libertarian

A Real Libertarian — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:21:00 +0000

“WHATEVER sounds like you are a teenage idiot”

Irony alert!

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:00 +0000

Actually, Paul, you aren’t at all trying to have a informed conversation.

You’re just ranting.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:10:00 +0000

Typical Bob , you have not got any ans , where do you live ,
bet its in a city or town and your job is not effected by this ?
Im trying to have an informed conversation but you cant do that with people with closed minds !!!!!
typical ans from someone with no mind of there own .
WHATEVER sounds like you are a teenage idiot
We might get a tidal barrage on the river Parrett , this could have Turbines built into it and could produce power day and Night 24/7 but then I bet the tree huggers will object to that and it wont get built . If you dont know where that is look it up !!
Oh and BTW there are plans being put in for a Hinkley D.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:42:00 +0000

Whatever, Paul.

By: PAUL

PAUL — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:44:00 +0000

I give up none of you is brave enough to tell it as it actually is , as I said before im all for renewable s but it needs to actually work for all our needs ,
what about hot rocks under ground
what about tidal barriers
what about elephant grass
and what about fuel from stinging nettles ,
all these would not effect my view and my countryside ,
if you live in a city make your own power where you live , and pay for it , and leave our countryside alone ,

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 06:18:00 +0000

Look over on the right side of the page for “100% Renewable Energy Possible?” and start reading.

BTW, word is leaking out that Hinkley may be ditched and the idea of dropping a long extension cord to Iceland is getting considered instead.

By: paul

paul — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:59:00 +0000

Sorry for getting the spelling wrong . but still not ans my questions , so here are a few more
what happens when the wind is not blowing
what happens at night
how many roofs are not suitable to take panels
in England we have planning restrictions on which houses can have panels
and I live in Cannington just a few miles from HINKLEY how dare you question that , if you don’t know where that is look it up on Google Earth !!!!!

By: globi

globi — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:37:00 +0000

The area on German buildings amounts to 2344 km^2:
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-7381.html (and Britain is not that much smaller than Germany).

Covered with PV 2344 km^2 is enough to produce approx. 350 TWh which is over 1300% more energy than what the new Hinkley point reactor which needs to import 100% of its fuel would be able to produce.

Also, as opposed to PV nuclear power plants cannot be placed on existing buildings and roofs and food can be grown around wind-farms but cannot be grown and harvested around Uranium mines which do also contaminate large areas…

Also, the renewable industry in German pays taxes and feed-in tarifs are not paid by taxes. And while Britain has a huge trade deficit, Germany has a huge trade surplus.

Btw, if you apparently live very close to Hinkley point why did you misspell it?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:30:00 +0000

i would like you to know that I am neither for or against , was just trying to get a simple ans to a question , my example of Exmoor was only to demonstrate a rough size of area , as I live very close to the proposed site of Hinckley point just wanted to know if there was a viable alternative but as always those who dont live here are very quick to ruin our country side with large areas of wind or/and solar,
the best alternative as far as I can make out after trying to sift through all the bias crap that different people are willing to let come out of their mouths is Tidal power as this is a known constant , but is constantly put down by all the bunny and tree huggers as it might affect the sea birds or fish , as always THEY DONT LIVE HERE
I am all for alternative renewable energy and it would be fantastic if it could be made to work , one of my ambitions is to build my own house that is totally powered of grid , but land is expensive and planning permission is near impossible .
I have lived in Germany , where things are very different but they started to invest a long time ago and spent a fast amount of money on there projects also taxes are a great deal higher than the uk. one point I have never been sure about is to do with solar panels , having owned a narrow boat that had panels on its roof we had to have five large batteries to store the power because the time you needed the power was at night ,
how would the solar or wind power be stored
how much space would be needed for this .
how long would it last before needing to be replaced
at what cost
also how many years do solar panels last
do they lose efficiency as they age
and how would they be disposed of at the end
I look forward to some ans as this is a very important and interesting subject that we as people must try and get right

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:38:00 +0000

Obviously your area for wind is wrong. I don’t even need to do any math to determine that.

Take the number of turbines you determined and multiply by 0.0004 square miles. Do that and you’ll get an accurate estimate. A wind turbine uses, on average, one quarter acre for footing, transmission, access roads and ancillary buildings.

640 acres per square mile. One acre = 0.0016 sq. miles. One quarter acre = .0004 sq. miles.

For example 1,000 wind turbines use 0.4 square miles. The UK would need to install 977,000 turbines to use as much land as you calculated.

Remember, the area between turbines is not used for turbines. It’s used for something else like farming or grazing. If you built a nuclear reactor at Landewednack and another at Thurso would you then say that two nuclear reactors require 50,350 square miles?

Now as far as putting panels on Exmoor National Park, are they going to build the Hinkley reactors in the middle of Exmoor National Park? If not, why would you suggest putting solar panels there? Would it be that you are a nuclear fanboi trying to support a foolish decision to build very expensive nuclear power in the UK?

Why would the solar panels be put where they belong – on rooftops?

Honest arguments, please Paul, honest arguments….

By: paul

paul — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:24:00 +0000

have i got it right , 203.13 mi sq for solar as this seems a lot to me !

390.63 mi sq for wind !

I think somerset is 1333 mi sq . Exmoor was designated as a National Park in 1954 and covers 689 square kilometres (268 square miles), of which 170 square kilometres (73.36 square miles) lies in Somerset. Exmoor National Park is specially protected as one of our finest landscapes and an important part of our national heritage. but if we covered it in solar panels then as long as it is sunny we would not need Hinckley Point ,!!!!!

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:27:00 +0000

Also I would like the ans for wind turbines as well either in area or number , this of course would be dependent on the wind blowing at the right speed !

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:22:00 +0000

Can anyone tell the truth and please ans this question for me , what area in sq miles of solar panels would be needed to produce the same amount of power as Hinckly Point on a normal winters day in the uk . I have been told it would be around 48sq miles as long as the sun is shinning ! and this is only at the best point of the day .
no bias ans , just the truth please .

By: Ted

Ted — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:54:00 +0000

But it will insure power for the next generation of children, hot stove are one of those thing that used too much energy we have to still work on how to lower that power factor.

By: A Real Libertarian

A Real Libertarian — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 10:55:00 +0000

I’m pretty sure even Dastardly Whiplash would be shouting “You Monster!” at that.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 10:35:00 +0000

It appears that one of the ways the cost of Hinkley C will be met is with a subsidy from other forms of generation including wind and solar:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors

This subsidy is small compared to the twin Godzilla’s of the 15 cents a kilowatt-hour minimum price and dumping the cost of insurance on the British public, but getting renewables to subsidize nuclear is very salt in woundy. It makes me wonder if their motivation is to get an award for Mustache Twirling Villainy.