Chris Packham - Champion for the Countryside or Out of Touch Fool ?

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

and expensive

The original quote was about coal.

CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

I was up in Suffolk which used to be prime arable, before it became giant pigs

I will name oil and gas as an industry that not only has no subsidy but pays a lot of tax and throw in FS as a back-up

Oil and gas would have had a lot of subsidies back in the day but it would be odd to do so now that policy is to move away from fossil fuels.

Oil and gas isn't subsidised?!!!

The OECD’s inventory in 2015 determined an overall value of $160bn-$200bn per year between 2010 and 2014 relying on the WTO's 1994 definition of fossil fuel subsidies as “financial contribution by a government” which “confers a benefit” on its recipient. This is the only internationally agreed definition of the term.[14][15]

A 2016 IMF working paper (not representing the views of the IMF) estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3]

Copied from Wikipedia, but makes the point.

Like you said: a very wealthy lobby. UK fossil fuels subsidies are estimated at £11bn, a large proportion of it in support for overseas projects.

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

Oh FFS ugo, just think about what you write occasionally. Roughly 80% of UK housing stock is more than 40 years old. Nearly half of it is pre-war. Of course houses are not primarily optimised for PV panels.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing,... .

Snipped to save space, but this. Passive solar gain is great in winter but a big problem in summer. It's quite difficult to design something that is comfortable to live in all year round on that basis. BedZed tried it on a reasonable scale with quite mixed results.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing,... .

Snipped to save space, but this. Passive solar gain is great in winter but a big problem in summer. It's quite difficult to design something that is comfortable to live in all year round on that basis. BedZed tried it on a reasonable scale with quite mixed results.

Smart glass is the answer. Suspended Particle technology.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

and expensive

The original quote was about coal.

CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

Solar panels can provide useful shelter for sheep.

robert88

Back OT, Springwatch presenter Chris Packham receives 'very serious' death threats

The 57-year-old said: "I'm very resistant to this sort of thing. What worries me is that the charities that I'm affiliated with, the small businesses that I work for, these people aren't set up to take this sort of abuse, and yet they've had to close their websites, their TripAdvisor accounts have had to be shut down, because they've been bombarded by these bullies who want to take aim at me.

"My message is clear. Please, take aim at me, but leave all of the charities, all of the other businesses that I work with, leave them out of it. They're not necessarily sharing my views.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing,... .

Snipped to save space, but this. Passive solar gain is great in winter but a big problem in summer. It's quite difficult to design something that is comfortable to live in all year round on that basis. BedZed tried it on a reasonable scale with quite mixed results.

Smart glass is the answer. Suspended Particle technology.

Given that upgrading older homes to even basic levels of insulation is considered 'too big a job', I don't think more tech is the answer.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing,... .

Snipped to save space, but this. Passive solar gain is great in winter but a big problem in summer. It's quite difficult to design something that is comfortable to live in all year round on that basis. BedZed tried it on a reasonable scale with quite mixed results.

Smart glass is the answer. Suspended Particle technology.

Given that upgrading older homes to even basic levels of insulation is considered 'too big a job', I don't think more tech is the answer.

More tech is always the answer. It's simply that you haven't thought of it yet.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

john80 wrote:

But hey when did the eco warrior not feel good about his electric car powered from a coal power plant because he can't look at the overall picture.

Except those charging their cars right now

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

.. well maybe, but the issue, of course, is that most of the time people are not charging their cars on a sunny and windy afternoon.

Of course, if they were all charged from nuclear, it would be a whole lot more eco-friendly, economical and safe.

EDIT: I'm quite surprised that solar is such a high %. A good thing though, on balance (it's not without its downsides)

Do you have shares in Dounreay or something?

Dounreay is so last century.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

(By randomly I assume you mean not following an obvious grid pattern as modern housing developments certainly aren't random).

NO I mean houses built to be south facing and all that... these days nobody cares

I'm not convinced houses were ever built to be south facing,... .

Snipped to save space, but this. Passive solar gain is great in winter but a big problem in summer. It's quite difficult to design something that is comfortable to live in all year round on that basis. BedZed tried it on a reasonable scale with quite mixed results.

Smart glass is the answer. Suspended Particle technology.

Given that upgrading older homes to even basic levels of insulation is considered 'too big a job', I don't think more tech is the answer.

More tech is always the answer. It's simply that you haven't thought of it yet.

:roll:

TheBigBean

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

and expensive

The original quote was about coal.

CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

Solar panels can provide useful shelter for sheep.

If only someone had told Amber Rudd she might not have axed the subsidies.

bompington

Robert88 wrote:

Dounreay is so last century.

Sadly that's true. Just ask anyone looking for a job in the far north of Scotland (or, for that matter, anyone looking for safe, cheap, low carbon energy)

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

1/2 the demand is being met by Gas ... pretty sure that's not carbon neutral ...

and expensive

The original quote was about coal.

CCGTs are preferable to coal, but not carbon neutral. Until there is a storage solution CCGTs are not going anywhere.

Expensive in comparison to what? The energy industry is so full of subsidies and taxes it is hard to work out what is actually cheap at producing energy. Plus, you also need to factor in the cost to society of dirty production.

Shhh. You'll set SC off again.

Have just realised it must have been decades ago that I was told gas was convenient but expensive.

RJS - had noticed that farmers have been planting more and more solar panels. I had not considered that they were subsidised

There are a lot on the M4 corridor. It's chalk downland so only really good for sheep grazing. Like I said, name an industry with no subsidies.

Solar panels can provide useful shelter for sheep.

If only someone had told Amber Rudd she might not have axed the subsidies.

They definitely make good pigeon shelters judging by the number of them that roost under the solar panels on my neighbours house. Still, it keeps them from crapping on my roof quite so much

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Dounreay is so last century.

Sadly that's true. Just ask anyone looking for a job in the far north of Scotland (or, for that matter, anyone looking for safe, cheap, low carbon energy)

Dounreay is many things but safe and cheap it really really really isn’t.

Folk who bang on about how cheap nuclear is usually haven’t considered the cost of decommission and hazardous waste storage (stuff with 100,000 odd year half-life) and who is supposed to bear the cost of decommission. Wanna hazard (pun intended) a guess on how much the Uk’s legacy and no longer operating nuclear power decommissioning is gonna cost? Around $150bn. That’ll take around 120 years to complete, over double the amount of time they were operational.

Given how the costs are distributed it’s like the ultimate baby boomer energy source. Cheap for them, a very expensive headache for everyone else who comes after.

And the “safe” comment amuses me as usually folk who are pro any other energy form don’t usually feel the need to say it’s safe.

On balance nuclear probably has some benefits but there needs to be a more rational understanding of the actual cost, who bears that cost and long term consequences.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

And the “safe” comment amuses me as usually folk who are pro any other energy form don’t usually feel the need to say it’s safe.

On balance nuclear probably has some benefits but there needs to be a more rational understanding of the actual cost, who bears that cost and long term consequences.

I think that's usually meant in relation to the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, both of which could hardly be described as safe, despite most people being content with that risk.

ugo.santalucia

Nuclear is a con... there's folks who will spend their entire working life decommissioning nuclear power plants... not to talk about nuclear waste.
Fission is the past, not the future... fusion could be the future, maybe, one day

tangled_metal

There's people who've spent their entire working life decommissioning oil rigs/fields. Although the halflife issues (halfords issues according to autocorrect) aren't there for oil and gas. I once saw a documentary where one generation built the oil and gas field, the next decommissioned it. It's like the ship building /breaking town rivalry in ne England in one family. You makem, we'll brek 'em!

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Dounreay is so last century.

Sadly that's true. Just ask anyone looking for a job in the far north of Scotland (or, for that matter, anyone looking for safe, cheap, low carbon energy)

Dounreay is many things but safe and cheap it really really really isn’t.

Folk who bang on about how cheap nuclear is usually haven’t considered the cost of decommission and hazardous waste storage (stuff with 100,000 odd year half-life) and who is supposed to bear the cost of decommission. Wanna hazard (pun intended) a guess on how much the Uk’s legacy and no longer operating nuclear power decommissioning is gonna cost? Around $150bn. That’ll take around 120 years to complete, over double the amount of time they were operational.

Given how the costs are distributed it’s like the ultimate baby boomer energy source. Cheap for them, a very expensive headache for everyone else who comes after.

And the “safe” comment amuses me as usually folk who are pro any other energy form don’t usually feel the need to say it’s safe.

On balance nuclear probably has some benefits but there needs to be a more rational understanding of the actual cost, who bears that cost and long term consequences.

On waste:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 32e7d7562e
On safety:
https://fee.org/articles/if-climate-cha ... ear-power/

A common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than the burning of coal

As for economics, by far the greatest factor in the cost of nuclear energy is the imposition of unreasonable saftey measures caused by the superstitious fear-mongering of the anti-nuclear zealots.

robert88

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Dounreay is so last century.

Sadly that's true. Just ask anyone looking for a job in the far north of Scotland (or, for that matter, anyone looking for safe, cheap, low carbon energy)

Dounreay is many things but safe and cheap it really really really isn’t.

Folk who bang on about how cheap nuclear is usually haven’t considered the cost of decommission and hazardous waste storage (stuff with 100,000 odd year half-life) and who is supposed to bear the cost of decommission. Wanna hazard (pun intended) a guess on how much the Uk’s legacy and no longer operating nuclear power decommissioning is gonna cost? Around $150bn. That’ll take around 120 years to complete, over double the amount of time they were operational.

Given how the costs are distributed it’s like the ultimate baby boomer energy source. Cheap for them, a very expensive headache for everyone else who comes after.

And the “safe” comment amuses me as usually folk who are pro any other energy form don’t usually feel the need to say it’s safe.

On balance nuclear probably has some benefits but there needs to be a more rational understanding of the actual cost, who bears that cost and long term consequences.

On waste:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 32e7d7562e
On safety:
https://fee.org/articles/if-climate-cha ... ear-power/

A common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than the burning of coal

As for economics, by far the greatest factor in the cost of nuclear energy is the imposition of unreasonable saftey measures caused by the superstitious fear-mongering of the anti-nuclear zealots.

Why are safety measures unreasonable?

shirley_basso

I read a really interesting article about the community of decommissions wondering what to do with it.

Bearing in mind - it will take 1000s of years to fully decay and the risk of standards, symbols, locations etc may change - how would someone know what they were stumbling across?

They were also considering whether it would be possible to deliberately forget where it was stored so it wouldn't be found.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... te-storage

Also consider that technological improvements will be made and costs will come down while the process is ongoing. Like coal mining, for instance.

bompington

Robert88 wrote:

bompington wrote:

... unreasonable saftey measures caused by the superstitious fear-mongering of the anti-nuclear zealots.

Why are safety measures unreasonable?

Who said that safety measures are unreasonable?
I didn't: I just said just that the safety measures insisted on by superstitious fear-mongering anti-nuclear zealots - and those are the views that have become mainstream - are unreasonable. I'm all in favour of evidence-based safety measures.

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

bompington wrote:

... unreasonable saftey measures caused by the superstitious fear-mongering of the anti-nuclear zealots.

Why are safety measures unreasonable?

Who said that safety measures are unreasonable?
I didn't: I just said just that the safety measures insisted on by superstitious fear-mongering anti-nuclear zealots - and those are the views that have become mainstream - are unreasonable. I'm all in favour of evidence-based safety measures.

Like what?

There are surely some areas where you would rather not find out through conclusive evidence that your safety measures were insufficient.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

I read a really interesting article about the community of decommissions wondering what to do with it.

Bearing in mind - it will take 1000s of years to fully decay and the risk of standards, symbols, locations etc may change - how would someone know what they were stumbling across?

They were also considering whether it would be possible to deliberately forget where it was stored so it wouldn't be found.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... te-storage

Also consider that technological improvements will be made and costs will come down while the process is ongoing. Like coal mining, for instance.

If we look at what we've done with fossil fuels - the lengths we will go to to get more of it - I would guess that it won't be long before we've worked out a way to make use of nuclear waste.

Ben6899

Tangled Metal wrote:

There's people who've spent their entire working life decommissioning oil rigs/fields. Although the halflife issues (halfords issues according to autocorrect) aren't there for oil and gas. I once saw a documentary where one generation built the oil and gas field, the next decommissioned it. It's like the ship building /breaking town rivalry in ne England in one family. You makem, we'll brek 'em!

Never really thought about it... Is that why Sunderland folk are "Mackem"?

Ben6899

Ben6899 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

There's people who've spent their entire working life decommissioning oil rigs/fields. Although the halflife issues (halfords issues according to autocorrect) aren't there for oil and gas. I once saw a documentary where one generation built the oil and gas field, the next decommissioned it. It's like the ship building /breaking town rivalry in ne England in one family. You makem, we'll brek 'em!

Never really thought about it... Is that why Sunderland folk are "Mackem"?

Anyway, ship building is coming back now we've left the EU.

tangled_metal

Shirley Basso wrote:

I read a really interesting article about the community of decommissions wondering what to do with it.

Snip

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... te-storage

Snip.

Interesting article in the culture section of the Guardian. Not disputing it's a serious summary of the topic but...

At the risk of downgrading the expertise of those pretty picture architects it'll be scientists and engineers determining what will be done. People like the guy I used to know who reached his 60s and then finished one project working on a nuclear decommissioning project panel determining and monitoring for best practise / techniques.

After a career in nuclear waste and decommissioning he was a senior expert in the field and his name was put into the hat for heading the scientific team tasked with finding and implementing a solution for the Dounreay waste pit. So you know what good reaction was?

Retirement as soon as his current role ended!

I think that said more than words could about that pit of waste. Apparently the guy had no idea how it could be dealt with safely. Looking online there's been rows about how to safely deal with it for decades. The second link down was a newspaper story about a row over it from 1995 when I last looked it up.

BTW Dounreay was a case of weak oversight allowing incredibly bad practise to go unchallenged. I don't believe there is any other site to compare with it. It was not the lax standards of the day but much worse. It has tarnished the nuclear sector badly I reckon.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW Dounreay was a case of weak oversight allowing incredibly bad practise to go unchallenged. I don't believe there is any other site to compare with it. It was not the lax standards of the day but much worse. It has tarnished the nuclear sector badly I reckon.

Err....sellafield?

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW Dounreay was a case of weak oversight allowing incredibly bad practise to go unchallenged. I don't believe there is any other site to compare with it. It was not the lax standards of the day but much worse. It has tarnished the nuclear sector badly I reckon.

Err....sellafield?

If you think Sellafield is even in the same league as Dounreay (league of one in the UK) then you don't know enough about Dounreay.

mr_goo

Tangled Metal wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW Dounreay was a case of weak oversight allowing incredibly bad practise to go unchallenged. I don't believe there is any other site to compare with it. It was not the lax standards of the day but much worse. It has tarnished the nuclear sector badly I reckon.

Err....sellafield?

If you think Sellafield is even in the same league as Dounreay (league of one in the UK) then you don't know enough about Dounreay.

The father of an old work colleague was an engineer working at Sellafield. The stories I heard sounded like a Hollywood disaster movie, but for real.

robert88

Mr Goo wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW Dounreay was a case of weak oversight allowing incredibly bad practise to go unchallenged. I don't believe there is any other site to compare with it. It was not the lax standards of the day but much worse. It has tarnished the nuclear sector badly I reckon.

Err....sellafield?

If you think Sellafield is even in the same league as Dounreay (league of one in the UK) then you don't know enough about Dounreay.

The father of an old work colleague was an engineer working at Sellafield. The stories I heard sounded like a Hollywood disaster movie, but for real.

I visited Sellafield years ago and still have the souvenir mug. It's very useful because I can see it in the dark.