Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

And what is “excessive consumption”? Should we make electric trains go slower or do we put up rail fares? What about an aluminium smelter – do we put up the price of metals or do we just import from countries with more enlightened energy policies? What about other manufacturers – again, maybe we import from other countries as ours get uncompetitive? Can’t see any of this leading to much of a future for this country.

Rio – DOMESTIC! that bit of discussion was about fuel poverty

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries – energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take – the companies that are more fuel efficient will have a significant advantage

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries – energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take – the companies that are more fuel efficient will have a significant advantage

Yes, but on the assumption that an aluminuum smelter has already made their process as efficient as possible, they’re going to build their new plant in a country with a cheep reliable source of energy. At the moment UK renewables provide neither of those.

I’ll have to pull you up on that one tinas – many aluminium smelters are located right next to hydroelectric dams for cost reasons – renewability is a side-effect here of course. Especially in developing countries afaik.

EDIT: although re-reading, I think I see your point as being slightly different to what I thought.

I’ll accept that, and ammend it to UK renewables (as we AFAIK dont have any big hydro plants?).

Dinorwig excepted (which doesnt count)

Am I right in thinking I’m detecting a fair bit of this kind of thinking driving certain behaviours on here…? 😉

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries – energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take

So while we’re getting all touchy-feely about wind farms, tidal etc, the Chinese are telling the environment to **** right off! and building loads of coal fired power stations, supplied by open cast mining!

And this has no bearing on prices, or commercial competitiveness on which particular planet Uncle Jez?

Rio – DOMESTIC

The original point was that expensive energy will reduce demand; my point (possibly not well made) is that there is a limit to how far that will take you.

energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take

Not true – we can go on lobbing cheap coal into power stations for the foreseeable future if we want. A policy of expensive energy is a decision that someone has taken, and it is one that may well be reversed by popular demand when people understand the consequences – after all, people are not typically good at taking the long term view when it comes to impact them.

FIFY

Physics fail? In general the reactors convert uranium to plutonium, plutonium being used in warheads.

I’m sure I saw a stat that 16% of worldwide nuclear fuel in one recent year was from decommissioned weapons. As this is the internet and not a dissertation I’m not going to cite it.

If there really was more energy used getting uranium out of the ground and into a reactor than it produced in the reactor we’d just fuel the power stations with diesel!

Well there’s obviously not more, but the nuclear industry still emits a lot of CO2, 30% comes to mind… the cost of the carbon fuels in the mining regions may not be the same as here in the UK…. Oh and the cash crop was traditionally weapons grade material with energy being a happy by-product.

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it’ll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol…

Yes because energy poverty is a great idea. Hypothermia anyone?

Well deaths from hypothermia are part of the mechanism of reducing demand… No, obviously not. But I guess this is why the 60’s futurists wanted grannies to live in tower blocks instead of bungalows.

The hazards of typing in yellow on white are massively under represented in the public’s perception.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

I’ll accept that, and ammend it to UK renewables (as we AFAIK dont have any big hydro plants?).

There is a fair bit of hydro in scotland both straight hydro and pumped storage

why does Dinorwig not count?

I find this hilarious. The second time this has been posted by pro nuclear folks on here who would normally decry Monbiot.

If the pro-nuclear folk would normally decry Monbiot because he used to be anti-nuclear (and used TJ style dodgy arguments), then it what way is that not consistent?

Personally though, I’ve had to totally change my thinking having read that article. If George thinks nuclear is a good thing, then clearly I was wrong all along and it’s a load of rubbish. That’s a far easier paradigm shift than to assume he’s talking sense.

Monbiot is far more reasoned, balanced and pragmatic than most a massive arsehat.

TFIFY

Like it aracer

Blimey. First two posts on this thread summed it up for me.

why does Dinorwig not count?

Dinorwig doesn’t generate power, it stores it.

First two posts on this thread summed it up for me.

Don’t be coming around here with that kind of heresy! All threads on here are ultimately a repeat of the diametrically opposed positions stated in the opening posts, repeated ad nauseum with increasing venom. Does that make all the following pages of nonsensical vitriol any less valid? Does it?!!

Oh…. erm…. actually….. hang on a minute……

There is a fair bit of hydro in scotland both straight hydro and pumped storage

why does Dinorwig not count?

What 5thElephant said, it’s not generating anything.

Are there any actual power station sized renewable energy sources in the UK. Let’s say for the sake of argument that a powerstation has to be 500MW to count (so a quater the size of a conventional fossil fuel fired station).

Hoover dam = renewable energy
3 Gorges dam = renewable energy
Anything less is a token jesture really, every little helps, but we need big projects if we’re to replace (or mitigate the lack of through energy conservation) the entire fossil fuel and nuclear power geenrating capacity.

Manly small – but the total is significant – local power generation is good as it reduces transmission losses a list of scottish wind farms as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Scotland#Conventional_hydro-electric

Wait a couple of years and the tidal will be up there as well as will the wave

Pump storage is good as it can smooth peaks and troughs in demand and is almost essential alongside nukes as they are not responsive

320 mw windfarm

Anybody solved this whilst I’ve been asleep?

Wait a couple of years and the tidal will be up there as well as will the wave

Great, it can replace Drax and other coal-fired power stations.

Pump storage is good as it can smooth peaks and troughs in demand and is almost essential alongside nukes as they are not responsive

It is, but short of building some new hills, we’re a bit out of places to put them in the UK.

TJ, please answer this:

Why do you have such a dislike of nuclear, yet you seem happy enough with the most dangerous per kWh and most polluting form of energy generation – coal?

You obfuscate your way away from it every time someone asks, but I’m not going to be placated.

Second question:

How are we going to reduce our electricity consumption (bearing in mind the aforementioned shift to electricity for transport and heating) in a capitalist democratic society?

I am prepared to listen, provided your answer comes from this world, as opposed to a communist dictatorship. I think we’ve established that electrically-powered transport and heating are actually pretty well developed technologies.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale

I refer the honourable gentleman back to where we answered this a few pages back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

Rest assured that TJ will totally ignore this post, much as he did when I posted it in the last nuclear thread, and will continue to trot out the “never been done” line in any future thread too.

Why do you have such a dislike of nuclear, yet you seem happy enough with the most dangerous per kWh and most polluting form of energy generation – coal?

You are comparing third world mining with first world nucler tech.
I do not accept it is. How do you equate the pollution given out by a coal station tho the pollution given out by a nuclear power station. Same for the dangers which for coal could be much reduced anyway.

Remember we have to deal with the high level waste for thousands of years – it has the potential to kill for all that time.

. I think we’ve established that electrically-powered transport and heating are actually pretty well developed technologies.

Really – news to me. Electric cars are not viable and there is no sign of them ever being so. a half tonne battery costing tens of thousands of ponds will last a few yers and provide a range far inferior to a petrol car

How are we going to reduce our electricity consumption (bearing in mind the aforementioned shift to electricity for transport and heating) in a capitalist democratic society?

teh crack about a communist dictatorships shows how little you are actually grounded in reality on this.

The way we use energy has to change – there can be no doubt. even if all the pie in the sky nuclear comes true it will still be very much more expensive.

We need to look at our overall energy usage and consider our overall CO2 production so even if wedon’t save much on electicity generation huge amounts can be saved elsewhere

Short term

all energy cost to ratchet up over a generation

Domestic energy – you have a sliding tariff – the more you use the more expensive it becomes – balanced so that average use costs as much as it does now. half average use is half the cost per unit, all use after that is 3 times the cost per unit -average usage cost remains the same but small energy savings give large cash savings and small energy extravagances cost large amounts of money. possibly punitive rate at a higher usage again. ratchet this slowly over time.

Domestic transport – ratchet up fuel cost and use the money raised to fund alternatives. People will simply need to move around less – there is no alternative. Oil will end, electricity cannot replace it without huge leap in storage tech

Commercial – legislate to stop wastage – offices with lights on all the time. that sort of issue. Use waste heat from commercial buildings usefully. heat capture and storage. Micro generation from waste heat

Reduce food miles. Absurd movement of foodstuffs around the country at the moment – two way journeys a lot of the time

General – big drive on insulation, energy efficient lighting and heating. Big drive on energy efficiency of consumer goods – outlawing standby and making all electrical goods turnoff when turned off would save the output of a nuclear power station

We need to make it viable to have capital outlay to reduce bills.

then there is generation Local combined heat and power. micro hydro, serious efforts at renewable – spending on R&D for nukes is hundreds of time the spending for R&D on renewables

thses sort of step will drive energy usage down

Longer term we need to move to a carbon tax based economy – the polluter pays. everything costs in proportion to its embedded energy and energy consumption. everything. this will have dramatic effect on energy usage. Stuff with high embodied energy becomes more expensive and stuff with low embodied energy cheaper. Locally produced stuff will be much cheaper than transported stuff

Remember we are talking a generation to make a significant movement down this road and 50 years to be getting there

There is lots more but quite honestly I know the reception this will get – people will leap in to flame without even stopping to consider so I am not wasting any more time.

So here are some questions for the pro nuke folk that no one will answer

1) if nuclear is going to be a significant part of the answer it needs to be expanded hugely. where is the fuel coming from for 100X the number of reactors worldwide we have now – proven tech only please

2) are you going to share the tech worldwide? if you don’t it can never be a significant part of the solution. Korea. Zimbabwe. iran.
3) how are you going to fund the massive increase in costs
4) what are you going to do with the waste

Tenuous

i did not know about the Russian reactor before however its still small scale,not repeated elsewhere and has been unreliable.

it may be a part of the solution in the future, it is not a viable part of the solution now. where is the massive building programme for these reactors?

I do not accept it is. How do you equate the pollution given out by a coal station tho the pollution given out by a nuclear power station. Same for the dangers which for coal could be much reduced anyway.

Reduced how? By, erm, storing it somewhere (CCS)? I think you perhaps need to have a little read about climate change on the IPCC website if you’re unaware of the dangers of anthropogenic CO2. You summed it up quite well (if rather over melodramatically…):

Remember we have to deal with the high level waste for thousands of years – it has the potential to kill for all that time.

Really – news to me. Electric cars are not viable and there is no sign of them ever being so. a half tonne battery costing tens of thousands of ponds will last a few yers and provide a range far inferior to a petrol car

Obfuscation once again. We’ve all shown you numbers of examples of electrically powered transport that exists, now. Even your beloved edinburgh is getting trams is it not? How are they powered? Are you honestly saying that it can’t be improved, ever? And what about hydrogen – as said, several cities power their bus fleets on it.

As for the lengthy answer on how to reduce energy usage, you’re right, that’s exactly the way to reduce energy usage, and reasonable, educated people who accept the cost of their use of finite resources will likely accept this. Unfortunately, most of the UK’s population does not fit into this category, and will blame government for anything that impinges on their lifestyle – increased energy costs being a major part of this.

I think you’ll see I actually have a very good grasp of this. Forcing perceived negative change on an electorate usually results in you being unelected.

Interesting that you mention a carbon tax. Australia have just passed such a tax, and in all likelihood it will result in the Gillard government falling and it being repealed by the opposition. Labor have done a good job of building a lot of things into the carbon tax legislation that would make repealment difficult, but Gillard is so hated by most of the population over this (and Abbott is a big enough idiot) that the coalition probably would just pull the whole lot as their first act in power. Have a little read of the Australian press for more info on this.

proven tech only please

Why? Using this impediment, we’ll be powering the world by windmills in a solely renewable way then will we? Not much else proven on a large scale

are you going to share the tech worldwide? if you don’t it can never be a significant part of the solution. Korea. Zimbabwe. iran.

Using thorium cycle generation, there’s much less of an issue in terms of weapons-grade by-products, so I doubt this would be the same security issue

3) how are you going to fund the massive increase in costs

Presumably the same way you would if fossil-based pollution was managed in the same way that nuclear waste is i.e. polluter pays

4) what are you going to do with the waste

I refer the honourable gentleman back to where we answered this a few pages back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

Seriously? You’re still arguing?

FFS, people…

I dropped it for hours but was asked a direct question – I did go and do loads of useful stuff after you told me to captain honest sir
*tugs forelock*

So zokes – the predicted rubbishing and flaming and misquoting.

Lots of wishful thinking from you

thorium cycle. Electric cars that come anywhere near petrol ones, Hydrogen fast breeders. Huge technical issues that are not yet solved but these are your solutions. None of those are viable yet. Maybe in the future. but a long way off

No attempt even to answer question 1)

Really – news to me. Electric cars are not viable and there is no sign of them ever being so. a half tonne battery costing tens of thousands of ponds will last a few yers and provide a range far inferior to a petrol car

Hmm not convinced but I accept that electric batteries are less energy dense than chemical fuels, and this I think is the problem.

I like the idea of refillable standardised hydrogen cartridges which plug into cars/houses etc to power them, including the trucks/trains that deliver them. These are re-filled adjacent to the power plant who’s primary job is cracking sea water to make the hydrogen.

The advantages I see are that the energy units are properly storable but still extremely mobile without significant additional loses, very energy dense and can be combusted where needed very efficiently. So the overall efficiency and flexibility is very high compared with hydrocarbons or electricity as usable energy units.

Isn’t Shetland prototyping something like this?

————–

The Liquid Thorium Salt thing frustrates me. We knew decades ago that this could be made to work, and it’s advantages over Uranium in terms of nuclear non-proliferation, fuel security, cleanness, plant safety. But in the intervening decades, almost nothing has been done to commercialise the technology. It’s soooo frustrating that just when we need it, it’s still “20 years away”, to quote the minister. And still governments will not start investing in the technology, like they have, for example, in fusion technology.

Buzz – the tesla which is the best electric car – the battery costs tens of thousands of pounds, weighs half a tonne and gives a small two seater a range of a couple of hundred miles when new and driven slowly. Drive it hard and the range is dozens of miles and it takes a long time to recharge Its life will be short – a few years max and it needs rare earths to make it. its miles off a practical solution.

Hydrogen looks like a decent bet but there is a series of major issues with storage and transport. Its bulky, require refrigeration to very very low tempt to liquefy and escapes thru normal steels and so on. its a slippery character. Fuel cells require rare metals as well.

Unst project is a smale scale experimental project tht looks good. But its a long way from a practical solution now.

” escapes thru normal steels “

yeah that would be a problem! I guess they are looking for a cheap way to loosely bind it and make it liquid/solid and then the mechanism to unbind it in a smooth delivery to the combustion. At least, I think that’s the gist of fuel cell technology.

I’d like to see some credible figures comparing the overall efficiency of such systems compared with delivery/use electricity and hydrocarbons. But it does feel like it would be better.

I think if you use wind to make electricity to make hydrogen to make electricity to power a vehicle you get about 10 – 20 % of the kinetic energy out that you put in at the beginning. But the wind is free(ish)

Ah well if we start talking about HOW the seawater will be cracked we will fall out again 😀

So zokes – the predicted rubbishing and flaming and misquoting.

No rubbishing, just facts. Unlike the willful ignorance which you trot out ignoring the pollution of fossil fuels.

Lots of wishful thinking from you

Nope, lots of logical, reasoned progressive technologies that already exist to some extent, though as you haven’t touched or seen them yourself, they don’t work, right?

thorium cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle – note the last two entries

Electric cars that come anywhere near petrol ones

Yet…

Hydrogen fast breeders

Eh? Hydrogen fuel-cell cars and buses (like those here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus). I’m not sure there is such a thing as a hydrogen fast breeder.

No attempt even to answer question 1)

There was. I pointed out that your ‘current proven technologies’ impediment was unjustified unless it also applied to renewables.

should be a comma between hydrogen and and fast breeder. – that make a bit more sense?

It is purely wishful thinking =- you claim these things are solutions when they are simply not now. we need solutions that will be widely available in ten years – not some experimental tech that might be available in 25.

Fuel cells – where are yo going to get your catalysts from? How are you going to transport and store the hydrogen? Electric – show me an electric car with a £5000 price tag and a 400 mile range with a lifespan in decades?

Thorium generators – lead time? 20 years +

. Unlike the willful ignorance which you trot out ignoring the pollution of fossil fuels.

what wilful ignorance?

logical, reasoned progressive technologies that already exist to some extent

ie experimental, not proven, wishful thinking.

Have a look at yourselves and ask a few questions;

Have you achieved anything here?
Have you changed any opinions?
Have you typed endless posts that really haven’t had any impact at all?
Why do you keep arguing?

(Please note, this applies to other threads and posters, such as anything to do with politics, religion and the environment)

Yeah OK,

what wilful ignorance?

The fact you target nuclear, over the much more polluting use of coal as a means of power generation we must stop using. How about this for an argument: No coal or gas, but nuclear and renewables?

ie experimental, not proven, wishful thinking.

Erm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus.

If we’re following the wishful thinking route, then I’m afraid you lost this discussion a long time ago. New nuclear plants will be built in the UK. It’s wishful thinking to think otherwise.

What proven, existing, renewable technologies are there that will replace nuclear, coal and gas generation? They don’t have to be single big-ticket plants, but they do need the collective capacity of those plants.

And CFH, why do you keep reading (and contributing to) a thread which you clearly have no interest in? Ask yourself that…

Too hundered.

You’ll note that’s only my second contribution to this thread, TJ – I’ve learnt how to walk away (not even read much – have better things to do with my time, like troll on really long threads 😉 )