Renewable Energy

the playing mantis

is a load of bollox (mostly). nuclear is the only way forward.

opinions?

team47b

I live in a solar powered house it was sooo much easier to install than a nuclear power plant.

Best of luck with your plan to get someone else to be responsible for the energy you use

nweststeyn

For once I agree, with mirth, with what team47b says.

Wirral_paul

team47b wrote:

I live in a solar powered house it was sooo much easier to install than a nuclear power plant.

Best of luck with your plan to get someone else to be responsible for the energy you use

Dont you fancy digging yourself a basement and installing the generated from a decommissioned nuclear sub then? Imagine the money you could make selling the excess power back into the national grid.

I do have a couple of wind farms offshore that i can see - and i dont think they are particularly cost effective from what i understand. Still, without developing the technology - the costs wont come down.

Anonymous

From what I understand, nuclear seems to be the medium-term solution for our basic power needs. Obviously nuclear fuels are non-nenewable, but there is a lot of it and it's clean. (There is also a more effective replacement for Uranium/Plutonium - beginning with T?).

I believe the main issue is t the cyclical 24h or so nature of energy consumption, which looks like a sine wave. Nuclear is great for producing the bare energy required, but should a spike occur (half time in the world cup - everyone makes a cuppa, ad break during corrie, etc) then nuclear reactors can't just be 'turned up' to generate more. It takes a while to warm them up.

Solar and wind when working can be left generating and wasting energy - I believe an analagy is like revving your car engine while your foot is on the clutch. I.e it generates power but does not send it to the grid. During one of those aforementioned 'spikes' you just take your foot off the clutch (or flick a switch?) and you get that power delivered to the grid. The downside is that you can't guarantee wind/sun when you need it.
Solar energy seems to be improving rather well and the photovoltaic cells are getting more efficent in low light conditions. Wind on the other hand seems to be a joke.

One big oversight was not installing tidal power generators in the Thames Barrier, as tidal power is pretty awesome, and highly effective where you have a large tidal difference (North Wales/Liverpool etc) I think is 6m.

Then you have those stupid hair brained gravitational potential energy lakes, where you pump water up a hill when energy costs 3p/KWh then run it back down and generate it at 20p/KWh. The fact that it takes 3x more energy to pump it up the hill is by-the-by as you still make money in the end.

VTech

Ive just built an underfloor basement in the garden, im heating it all with air source heating through underfloor heating system. Its quite large but should be self contained with a 16kw system keeping both floors warm enough

Anonymous

* Thorium is the wonder fuel

Pross

coriordan wrote:

One big oversight was not installing tidal power generators in the Thames Barrier, as tidal power is pretty awesome, and highly effective where you have a large tidal difference (North Wales/Liverpool etc) I think is 6m.

12m range in the Bristol Channel which has huge generating potential. The only thing is, as with all power options, you have to balance against other environmental considerations and in the case of the Bristol Channel that's the impact on fish and wading birds. I think it will happen at some stage but in compromise form such as tidal lagoons rather than a full tidal barrage. What is essential I think is to have a good balance of options that don't rely on importing energy from other countries.

Anonymous

Could they not install something on the legs of the Severn Bridge for example?

the playing mantis

wind and solar are ineffectual and are simply being rolled out in this country because of the vast profiteering that can be made by those installing them from government grants. serious, respected environemntalist thinkers (not the ill informed typical green you meet on the street type) say so and say that nuclear is the only way to save the earth from global warming now. renewables would have worked had they been installed many decades ago. HEP and tidal have a place though.

nuclear really is the only sensible option. nuclear will last long enough, until we are all wiped out by overpopulation, for us to have develped the technology for a truely reliable unlimited alternative, along the lines of cold fusion or something.

nweststeyn

It is a twisted sort of logic when people say we are causing permanent change to our environment (undisputed by me) and then campaign for the use of nuclear power which (even without the 'disaster' scenario which is unlikely anyway) has an incredibly long and (as yet) non-reversable shelf life in terms of radioactivity.

Whilst renewables are costly at the moment, it is only by using this technology and developing/improving it that we have a shot at a succesful non-polluting and economically viable energy solution. Nuclear is the lazy option. Renewables have their problems too and thats the issue that needs to be solved.

Anonymous

It's not the lazy option. Its the ONLY viable option which can be implemented today and can produce power for the ever-growing population.

Renewables are of course the ideal solution, but it is simply not realistic to think that we can roll out windfarms, solar panels and other forms and expect them to meet the demand for power today. They are simply not effective enough at producing power and are not reliable enough to produce it when it is required.

Admittedly you make a valid point about the nuclear waste, and it is the thorn in the side of this issue. Encasing it in concrete and burying it isn't what I would suggest by a long shot.

Sell it to the arabs?

bompington

team47b wrote:

I live in a solar powered house it was sooo much easier to install than a nuclear power plant.

Best of luck with your plan to get someone else to be responsible for the energy you use

So you actually manufactured the solar panels yourself, using only hand-made tools? Wow, I'm impressed!

the playing mantis

coriordan wrote:

It's not the lazy option. Its the ONLY viable option which can be implemented today and can produce power for the ever-growing population.

Renewables are of course the ideal solution, but it is simply not realistic to think that we can roll out windfarms, solar panels and other forms and expect them to meet the demand for power today. They are simply not effective enough at producing power and are not reliable enough to produce it when it is required.

Admittedly you make a valid point about the nuclear waste, and it is the thorn in the side of this issue. Encasing it in concrete and burying it isn't what I would suggest by a long shot.

Sell it to the arabs?

spot on. anyone who says different is completely undermined by the actual environmentalists views themselves. the father of environmentalism, james lovelock, says nuclear is the only way. disagree with him if you want, but i suspect he knows more about it than most.

VTech

Part of my daily life evolves around the explanation of auto vehicles and the impact to the environment which some say are fake.

There are people reasoning that global warming from humanity links is fake and a reasoning for globalised tax increases.

team47b

bompington wrote:

team47b wrote:

I live in a solar powered house it was sooo much easier to install than a nuclear power plant.

Best of luck with your plan to get someone else to be responsible for the energy you use

So you actually manufactured the solar panels yourself, using only hand-made tools? Wow, I'm impressed!

...and using a homemade bodger I wittled a new road bike and knitted my own tyres :roll:

MichaelW

I don't think its wise to put all your energy eggs in one basket. When the chickens come home to roost, there could be omelettes for breakfast.
I like windmills. I think tidal barrages have potential BUT why start with the biggest most environmentally risky one, ie Bristol. Why not create a smaller scale prototype and see what harm it causes. Wave and current energy have to be a big one, there is far more energy in the top 1m of sea than in the whole height of the atmosphere.

nweststeyn

coriordan wrote:

It's not the lazy option. Its the ONLY viable option which can be implemented today and can produce power for the ever-growing population.

Renewables are of course the ideal solution, but it is simply not realistic to think that we can roll out windfarms, solar panels and other forms and expect them to meet the demand for power today. They are simply not effective enough at producing power and are not reliable enough to produce it when it is required.

Admittedly you make a valid point about the nuclear waste, and it is the thorn in the side of this issue. Encasing it in concrete and burying it isn't what I would suggest by a long shot.

Sell it to the arabs?

A fair point. The reason I referred to it as lazy is because, you rightly point out, it's the only option RIGHT NOW that will immediately provide the energy needs we require. However, the waste issue is one I feel strongly about - it's much the same as the legacy of fossil fuel burning. When it was new, nobody worried about it. In a few centuries, the waste is going to be a big issue (if we make it that far).

The One Planet Living principle suggests the use of nuclear power as one option for producing more energy and reducing carbon emissions but I'm not convinced by it in the long term, and I think all problems faced (and caused) by humanity are due to not considering long term impacts.

Another problem we have is that we fully agree with experts rather than argue out points ourselves. Lovelock may be the father of environmentalism, but he is still just one man and whilst I may agree with 95% of his arguments I'm torn on this one.

I think we would be better off trying to go the renewables route, pump more money into further development and most importantly of all make serious inroads in to the issue of the way we use the energy produced by current systems itself. Rather than trying to generate more electricity, we need to seriously cut the amount we use.

Globally, the problem of the ever increasing human population (as mentioned above) is what concerns me most.

My opinion (at the moment) but I'm certainly not convinced I am correct.

Anonymous

I agree, but read my post again:

"Its the ONLY viable option which can be implemented today and can produce power for the ever-growing population.

Renewables are of course the ideal solution, but it is simply not realistic to think that we can roll out windfarms, solar panels and other forms and expect them to meet the demand for power today. They are simply not effective enough at producing power and are not reliable enough to produce it when it is required."

That is to say, once nuclear is running and we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for energy generation in the short term, then we can seriously start looking at developing renewables to work alongside the nuclear plants - to deal with those spikes in power, and eventually supercede them altogether.

EKIMIKE

VTech wrote:

Part of my daily life evolves around the explanation of auto vehicles and the impact to the environment which some say are fake.

There are people reasoning that global warming from humanity links is fake and a reasoning for globalised tax increases.

Don't forget fuel adundance/scarcity! Frankly that's what i'm more worried about - not climate change (global warming is a misnomer!).

As with most things it's best to be diversified. I mean, look what happens when you put all your eggs into one basket with other important things such as the economy *cough*The City*cough*London*cough*

Arguably renewable are a load of balls right now but technology may change that...

Anonymous

I agree with this:

I think we would be better off trying to go the renewables route, pump more money into further development and most importantly of all make serious inroads in to the issue of the way we use the energy produced by current systems itself. Rather than trying to generate more electricity, we need to seriously cut the amount we use.

But there isn't the time to develop something, and there certainly isn't the willpower to cut usage.

I think another thing which would be interesting would be nuclear reactors on shipping vessels. A risk due to piracy etc, but I think global transportation accounts for a significant amount of CO2 production.

ooermissus

the playing mantis wrote:

wind and solar are ineffectual and are simply being rolled out in this country because of the vast profiteering that can be made by those installing them from government grants. serious, respected environemntalist thinkers (not the ill informed typical green you meet on the street type) say so and say that nuclear is the only way to save the earth from global warming now. renewables would have worked had they been installed many decades ago. HEP and tidal have a place though.

Nuclear and renewables work well together - as the former provides baseload.

But we're very bad at building nuclear at a reasonable cost. The amount of nuclear that can be plausibly be bought online in the next twenty years is dwarfed by renewables, which are likely to be provide more than ten times more additional capacity. Wind alone is projected to be four times more important than nuclear.

A lot depends on whether China can work out how to build nuclear plants more quickly and cheaply than the French and Americans have been able to, but I don't know of a single person who knows anything about energy markets who thinks that nuclear "is the only way to save the earth from global warming now."

sophidog

have to agree that nuclear is the only option that can consistently deliver the capacity as and when required. The current renewables are too dependant on mother nature to help them out and the long-term maintenance costs could prove a great disappointment to us all; after all the customer will be picking up the bill. Develop them later once we have a stable source of energy.
Shuffling slightly off-topic. I didn't like Mr Sarkozy much but i did respect the man when he told his Energy Minister to instruct their energy suppliers to limit their price increases to 3% one year. That same year my gas/elec both went up by double-digit percentages. My supplier at the time was EDF, Electricity de France; part-owned by the French government. Oh the irony!!
When was the last time our PM stood up for people of his country in such a way??????? Then again the PM can't upset the power companies because he uses them to collect 'levies' (are they really any different to taxes?)
Nuclear for me meantime.

nweststeyn

coriordan wrote:

But there isn't the time to develop something, and there certainly isn't the willpower to cut usage.

This is completely correct and a serious problem. I bet 85% of people you speak to on the street will say "oh yes we need to sort out the atmospheric carbon dioxide level issue" but how many of these people are willing to make real changes to their lifestyle to ensure this happens.

Of course we're now moving away from nuclear vs. renewables into a general discussion of carbon emissions.

My initial post was worded as it was mainly in response to the OPs comment which I think was something along the line of "renewable energy is bollox". That's not a very constructive approach.

ooermissus

nweststeyn wrote:

My initial post was worded as it was mainly in response to the OPs comment which I think was something along the line of "renewable energy is bollox". That's not a very constructive approach.

Especially when we currently have much greater global capacity to build renewables than we do to build nuclear.

VTech

Carbon output isnt a real issue (imo) its a manmade tax issue.

There are suitable energy methods available at the moment but for reasons outside of the realm of the average man (only in the sense of governments keeping it from the masses) they can not be released yet.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

Carbon output isnt a real issue (imo) its a manmade tax issue.

There are suitable energy methods available at the moment but for reasons outside of the realm of the average man (only in the sense of governments keeping it from the masses) they can not be released yet.

Two unsupported conspiracy theories in 50 words. Bravo.

VTech

I am unsure what I could do to support my opinion but I am aware of better technology for engines and money is the reason they are not in place now, not c0 reductions !

ooermissus

I am not sure I get your point. These engines are not being released because of "governments keeping it from the masses"? Or because they're too expensive at the moment? Or because of patent issues?

And in what sense would they be more suitable? Run on a different energy source? Much more efficient?

VTech

In cars we could have nitrogen engines, these would be far better for the environment but the way the system would work would allow people to fill the car with water, this of course would instantly cripple the planet as there would be far less taxable income from fuel.

At the moment we dont have a choice to fill a gasoline or diesel engine with fuel as we dont have refineries in the back garden.
As soon as water is the fuel they have 2 issues, how to lock the supply chain and how to prevent people breaking those locks.
Imagine the people who sell drugs on the street, the crime gangs would move to unlocking whatever locking device was fitted to cars to prevent people from not paying tax. And, there would be huge demand for such unlocking !

Tax is the reason we are being held back and it has to be this way for various reasons but it certainly is not for climate reasons.

There is more pollution pumped into the atmosphere from natural recourses than there ever has been from humanity.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

the way the system would work would allow people to fill the car with water, this of course would instantly cripple the planet as there would be far less taxable income from fuel.

Even I can't be tricked into believing that someone who works in F1 genuinely believes that we'd be running cars on water if only governments would let us.