Did you actually bother to read the stuff?
What stuff, TJ? I've checked back through the thread, and I was the last to post links to any stuff on what tidal generation is getting rolled out - reposting the last links you put up. Maybe you'd do us the courtesy of actually reposting links to the data you're referring to (as it's clearly not the last set of links you put up) to save us all the trouble of going searching.
Just to remind you, as you seem to have forgotten:
[url= https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=16754ac3-5095-477e-abf8-ab802975e710&groupId=57143 ]Tidal stream and wave generation deployment could account for 1 to 2.5 GW of installed capacity in Europe by 2020[/url]
[url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15 ]By around 2015 Scotland will host 17.1 GigaWatts ( GW) of renewable capacity. At that stage only a minority of the capacity (3.0W) is likely to be from marine sources (of which 2.4GW is wind)[/url] ...with only 1.2GW of medium term future tidal+wave.
It seems there's not quite as much tidal appearing as you seem to think (particularly when you consider the quoted figures for tidal are peak, so need derating by at least 50% compared to nuclear - hence that's actually less than one nuclear power station in reality by 2020).
The hard data I was referring to was about the amount of tidal available. Aracer / Zokes claimed it was negligible
it's not even the first time I've had to point out I'm far from being against tidal or consider it's not an important part of our future energy supply, just that it's not coming onstream (SWIDT) quickly enough given the numbers published about how much we'll have in the next 10 years. Maybe in 20 years it will provide a significant chunk - good!
Aracer The numbers do vary from place to place for sure and that does lead to confusion. I may have been including some wind in the numbers as it is confusing. Every where I look now I see different numbers and with a few beers in me I ain't sure at all now. I cannot find the sources of the 5 GW I have been quoting from the sound of islay and pentland firth.
In February 2009 the Crown Estate Commissioners announced the awarding of ten 'exclusivity agreements' for offshore wind sites in Scottish territorial waters. This has since been revised to nine agreements, with a potential capacity to generate [b]5.7 GW[/b] of electricity. Some of these possible sites are controversial and all nine sites may not be exploited. In addition the Crown Estate Commissioners identified two Round 3 sites adjacent to Scottish territorial waters with the potential to generate[b] 4.8 GW [/b]of electricity.Offshore Wave and Tidal Energy, Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters - In March 2010, the Crown Estate Commissioners signed ten exclusivity agreements for six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate [b]1.2 GW [/b]of marine energy in the Pentland Firth. The anticipated capital investment required within the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters is estimated to be between £2-3 bn between 2010 and 2020. It is estimated that this will build up to £300 million per annum of operation and maintenance service requirements by 2020.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15
so thats tenders out / expressions -of interest asked for for 10GW of offshore reneaables and signed deals for 1.2 GW just from the pentland firth plus what is installed in the sound of Islay - and we haven't got to corryvraken or falls of lora yet. dunno why nothing proposed for the falls of lora - seems to me to be a perfect place
What is clear is that tidal generators are being installed in the tens of Mw and that the potential is many GW
Why do you need to discount tidal by 50%? can I discount nukes by big % as that is what the historical record shows? 🙂 tidal ratings are what it produces surely? tidal flows are fairly constant especially in the areas selected.
Anyway - this continues to go around in circles fairly pointlessly.
Can I go back to another question that has me very confused. What is the total Gw consumption?
Recent posts have been accepting 60 GW as the UK consumption.. further back aracer stated stated 25 gw as the Scottish consumption.
If Scotland has 10% roughly of the UK population I would expect 6 GW as the Scottish consumption.
AS I have repeatedly said this in the end its a faith argument and as such no one will change their mind.
Aracer and Zokes have faith that the next generation of nukes will be reliable and robust and will produce electricty for decades without serious incedent. Me I look to the appalling history and I have no faith in this
similarly I have faith the the potential of renwables will become reality. Others do not
Its a goodf job the Scottish government is making serious attempts to develop renwables considering Westminster is not.
I would also like to revisit a question I have asked several times but got no answer to
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?
If so where are you going to get the fuel from? My understanding is that the fuel is scarce and supply cannot expand that much
If its not nukes worldwide then what?
TJ - tidal schemes show a cyclical power output. The numbers shown above will either be averages or peaks. Some of the peaks and troughs can be dealt with by sitting tidal schemes at points where the strongest times occur at different times of the day. However, the Pentland Firth has such a strong potential that it's cycle swamps all of the others, including the Channel Islands sites (which one would have thought were useful for this purpose as they are furthest away.) I have seen figures of up to 10GW for the Pentland Firth alone, but again, this is probably peak.
Re the Falls of Lora - I don't see that location as being deep enough, plus it's currently navigable.
Don't expect to get an answer. The pro-nuclear lobby tend to put their heads in the sand about this one.TandemJeremy - Member
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?
Nah - I'm pretty sure there are supplies for centuries already discovered, even if not currently being mined. Plus, don't ignore the potential for "creating" additional fuel.If so where are you going to get the fuel from? My understanding is that the fuel is scarce and supply cannot expand that much
The equvalent to the dose at Hiroshima, that dose. If you were refering to the previous paragraph not he dose in the same sentence you should have made it clear.
First post I read on page 6. Looks like the fighting has really been coming along. Good effort. 😀
Creating fuel? Like the phoenix fast breeder in France? that worked really well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
Falls of lora is one hell of a tidal rip - you canactually see a slope in the water as it runs
druidh - Member"TandemJeremy - Member
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?"Don't expect to get an answer. The pro-nuclear lobby tend to put their heads in the sand about this one.
One can hope. I have asked it several times but am still awaiting an answer. perhaps as I have attempted to be humble and admit that the numbers I have been quoting are not as solid as I thought than someone might have the humility to try to answer this.
It is noticeable the lack of answers from the Pro nukes to the awkward questions.
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?
I say yes.
The deaths from the Fukushima plant, bearing in mind it has been hit by one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded, pale into insignificance against the number caused by the tsunami. Nuclear releases less radiation on average (even taking into account all the accidents ever recorded) than coal and desequesters far less carbon from the planet.
If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like so they can raise the living standards of their people in the same way as we did when we were burning all our natural resources, but without the pollution.
How would you guarantee that such a country would remain "stable"? What about those countries failing your test - would their populations never have their living standards raised?If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like
If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN
So what about the other countries not deemed responsible?
Is that not a horribly paternalistic idea?
cNuclear releases less radiation on average (even taking into account all the accidents ever recorded)
got a source for that? usually when this is claimed its excluding accidents and ignoring waste
What about those countries failing your test - would their populations never have their living standards raised?
It isn't my test, it should be the UN's test, in much the same way as they decide who can have Nukes and who can shoot their own populations. We are getting better at technology, we are beginning to yield incredible things, superconductors and carbon nano tubules and all sorts of wild stuff. All this stuff takes loads of energy to develop and nukes seem to be the best option until we can perfect cold fusion or turn the Sahara desert into a vast solar farm.
I don't see how abandoning one of our best technologies is the best way forwards. Don't get me wrong, I love renewables as much as the next man and hope we can use the sun like a big battery eventually but until then, nuclear is the best tech we have.
Answer the question.
got a source for that?
the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
Considering there are only relatively few major nuclear incidents, and considering the sheer number of coal power stations there are out there in the world, I would be willing to make a modest bet that I am right but I can't be arsed to prove it. I shall leave that to you google warriors. 😉
Answer the question.
Calm down you excitable oaf.
Torminalis - and the waste? And the radiation emitted in accidents?
want to answer Druidhs question?
druidh - Member"If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like "
How would you guarantee that such a country would remain "stable"? What about those countries failing your test - would their populations never have their living standards raised?
How would you guarantee that such a country would remain "stable"?
You can't. But then that is a calculated risk, we could apply the starbucks rule if you like.
What about those countries failing your test - would their populations never have their living standards raised?
Because we don't want the North Koreans to have it, we shouldn't let France either? Don't be silly.
the waste?
Not getting into that again, hows about soon we can send it up into orbit on our space elevator and send it back to the sun.
And the radiation emitted in accidents?
I think I heard on radio 4 the other day that standing 50 yards from the reactor core at Chernobyl was the equivalent of getting a Chest X ray per year. Measured in nanosieverts. Modern reactors are improving all the time. Don't panic chaps.
It's easy to take two extreme examples, but what about those rather more "grey" areas? Saudi Arabia? We're friends with them, right? Iraq? They were the good guys too.Torminalis - Member
Because we don't want the North Koreans to have it, we shouldn't let France either? Don't be silly.
Venezuela. used to be a pal of the US - not so much now
It's easy to take two extreme examples, but what about those rather more "grey" areas? Saudi Arabia? We're friends with them, right? Iraq? They were the good guys too.
I don't know old chap, but I am sure the chaps at the UN will think they do.
What about the grey areas? They are deeply nuanced political negotiations to be had over many years, always refining and improving the framework for solving poverty throughout the world by provision of the latest and best technologies. Hopefully it will be as successful as its opposite, the arms trade.
I daresay it is probably a little ambitious for us to think we can wrap it all up before bed.
Venezuela.
Used to be pals with the US until Chavez started trying to keep more of the oil money in Venezuela. Not sure who I trust most between 'em to be fair and what on earth does that have to do with whether we should abandon nuclear tech?
It would appear my work is done here. 😀
A more intelligent debate on the risks of radiation here...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110406/full/472015a.html
[i]"But the fact that you can't measure a risk in an epidemiological study doesn't mean that the risk isn't there." [/i]
Indeed, Zokes.
I'd love to know what constitutes a '"dirty green" house', T1000.
Torminalis - MemberVenezuela.
Used to be pals with the US until Chavez started trying to keep more of the oil money in Venezuela. Not sure who I trust most between 'em to be fair and what on earth does that have to do with whether we should abandon nuclear tech?
WE are asking you to define which countries deserve nukes and which don't - ie pointing out a significant flaw in the arguement that nukes can power the world.
TandemJeremy - Member
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?
Torminalis - Member"If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like "
druidh - Member
How would you guarantee that such a country would remain "stable"? What about those countries failing your test - would their populations never have their living standards raised?
druidh - Member (to TJ after TJ asking the question)Don't expect to get an answer. The pro-nuclear lobby tend to put their heads in the sand about this one.
Yup - lots of awkward questions with no answers.
I'd love to know what constitutes a '"dirty green" house',
[img]
[/img]
Zokes.
"We feel that those studies don't have a lot of value," says Maher. "They may make the public feel better, but they're not going to see very low-dose effects."
And its precisely these very low dose effects that concern me - and as edukator pointed out and indeed this agrees low dose effects get lost in the "noise"
And its precisely these very low dose effects that concern me - and as edukator pointed out and indeed this agrees low dose effects get lost in the "noise"
Try not to worry about things that are not statistically significant, particularly when compared to the harm to human health caused by burning fossil fuels for electricity.
How patronising. This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby. How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to "worry about it"?\ There is debate over this but many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.
On a point of technicality, if the risk to health is not statistically significant or 'lost in the noise' I wouldn't describe it as "real". It is conjecture.This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby.
It's all about where we do our worrying. All power generation harms human health in one way or another. If we know that burning fossil fuels kills more of us per MW than nuclear and if we believe that renewables are not yet the complete solution then it makes sense [u]to me[/u] to replace some coal with nuclear.
On the geopolitical thing... I agree there are places we shouldn't have nuclear due to political or geological instability. But then I've never thought of nuclear as the one solution for the entire world. It doesn't follow that because you shouldn't have one in Burma, we can't have them in the UK.
There are studies in Sweden showing a correlation between the decline of the stork population and the birth rate.many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.
So how will Burma generate its electricity then? Fossil fuels?
How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to "worry about it"?
[img] 
[/img]
You don't get it, do you TJ?
If a study shows a correlation that is not statistically significant, then its impossible to prove cause and effect, its entirely possible that the correlation is merely down to chance!
The numbers do vary from place to place for sure and that does lead to confusion. I may have been including some wind in the numbers as [s]it is[/s] I am easily confus[s]ing[/s]ed.
FTFY - so not exactly the "hard data" you were claiming.
I cannot find the sources of the 5 GW I have been quoting
Despite telling us to "read the links on the amounts of tidal being proposed"? Well what a surprise.
so thats tenders out / expressions -of interest asked for for 10GW of offshore reneaables
jeez - do you even read what you quote? That's the document I've been referencing for a while in which "marine" includes wind power. All but 1.2GW of what you mention is wind.
What is clear is that tidal generators are being installed in the tens of Mw
Given a new nuke is 1.6GW, tens of MW isn't really all that significant.
Why do you need to discount tidal by 50%?
Do you really need this explaining to you? The tide doesn't flow continuously, and numbers being quoted are doubtless peak.
can I discount nukes by big % as that is what the historical record shows?
Oh goody, lets argue this one again with TJ talking a load of rubbish. Can I just stop you right there by saying "Sizewell B"?
Anyway - this continues to go around in circles fairly pointlessly.
You mean with one side quoting referenced facts based on proper science, and the other side mentioning numbers they can't later find a reference for?
further back aracer stated stated 25 gw as the Scottish consumption
26GW actually - I even provided the link at the time I mentioned it (maybe a habit you should try). [url= http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece ]Here it is again.[/url] I can only assume you don't even bother reading the stuff you put up as references on the rare occasions you do, given it was originally one of yours 🙄
AS I have repeatedly said this in the end its a faith argument
Only if you're relying on something other than the hard data on which to make your judgements. For me it's a question of proper scientific assessment of the information available, not faith.
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?
So now you're using the same argument you've complained about others using. Can I just check are you a pot or kettle (I'll point out that I'm neither, given you only ever accuse me because you've not read what I've written)? Clearly nuclear is only part of the mix of worldwide energy generation. A part which will help to stop the lights going out in the UK. Just because it's a sensible solution for us doesn't mean it is for other countries, and suggesting that we shouldn't have nuclear power because some other countries don't is quite ridiculous. I can't believe others have even attempted to argue with this strawman of yours.
Falls of lora is one hell of a tidal rip
It might well be, but high water speed != potential for lots of energy generation. In any case are you proposing more environmental destruction?
That's Burma's problem. Maybe they have a lot of wood? Maybe they have a lot if rainfall and mountains? Maybe they could burn human rights activists? Maybe they will have to burn coal or oil. I just don't know.So how will Burma generate its electricity then? Fossil fuels?
It's not relevant to the argument that I think I'm having which is that the UK should:
1) get rid of as many fossil-fuel power plants as possible as quickly as possible
2) reduce consumption as much as practicable
3) generate as much power as feasible from renewables
4) fill the gap with nuclear
If we get through points (1-3) without needing (4) I'd be happy. In fact I'd do a little skip of joy.
Good science includes the philosophy of doubt, accepting that the current best fit hypothesis is there to be challenged and a recognition of the limits of statistical techniques.
If oil companies required the level of proof the nuclear industry requires to show a link between cancer and low doses of radiation before drilling they'd never drill. Holes costing millions are drilled because a geologist using his experience and some scruffy seismic log data has a hunch and is prepared to stick his neck out. Sometimes the hole is dry but more often it comes up trumps. Science isn't always exact but that doesn't make it unscientific.
How patronising. This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby. How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to "worry about it"?\ There is debate over this but many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.
TJ, I posted the nature article up there because it does a much better job of arguing both sides of the story than you or I have. I accept that it is clear that more research is needed, but if you are worried about long-term low-level radiation doses, then the nuclear industry ironically isn't the one you should be targeting. Instead, I'd take a long, hard look at coal (gaseous emissions that we all breathe) and PV (low-level radioactive waste from the refining of the REEs in the panels) in particular.
That's just radiation however. In all this, your argument seems to be that the very low risk of full-scale nuclear catastrophe, and other radiation emissions from nuclear power trumps all else, and that this is why no more should be built. My proposition throughout this is that if we're looking at environmental, ecological, and human costs associated with energy generation, you need to take a much more holistic, objective view as to the real damage caused by other sources of energy. An informed decision can then be made taking into account all these facts. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen whilst educated 'experts' go around screaming "OMG nuclear we'll all die!!!!"
Personally, I think Edukator just hit the nail on the head:
If oil companies required the level of proof the nuclear industry requires to show a link between cancer and low doses of radiation before drilling they'd never drill.
My personal viewpoint is that whilst current nuclear fission technologies are less than ideal, they are considerably less risky to the environment on a global scale than burning coal, even in reduced quantities. This is an educated viewpoint, based on my own consumption of the scientific literature, and is shared by many others. Given that there has been little R&D in nuclear following Chernobyl until recently, it is hardly surprising that the newest technology available hasn't advanced much in the last 20 years is it? However, thanks to decoupling from the military angle, thorium cycle reactors look to be a good way forwards. Assuming this decoupling can last, your statements about not enough uranium become a moot point, as reprocessing negates quite a lot of this.
I also take [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/beginners-guide-to-nuclear-power-stations/page/17#post-2457124 ]higgo's preferences[/url], however, I cannot conceive how we will reduce our energy demands enough so that we don't need (4).
Interesting article on Fukushima Iodine-131..
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-13003680 ]
[/url]So, we're already accepting a degree of radiological contamination for medial purposes.Monitoring for radioactive iodine believed to be linked to the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has been stepped up in Scotland.The Scottish Environment Protection Agency said very low levels of iodine-131 had been detected in almost all its air samples from across the country.
.......
[b]The agency has found the presence of iodine-131 in sewage sludge in Glasgow.
[/b]
Sepa said that this could be linked to a combination of the isotope in rainfall together with authorised releases from hospitals.
Good science includes the philosophy of doubt, accepting that the current best fit hypothesis is there to be challenged and a recognition of the limits of statistical techniques.
Would that apply to anthropogenic climate change too? Does the scientific consensus mean nothing?
Druidh - I've certainly conducted lab studies where urine and faeces contaminated with I-131 was cleared for disposal into normal sewage... so, its clearly out there, just that it doesn't last long
Would that apply to anthropogenic climate change too?
Yes
Does the scientific consensus mean nothing?
No
{edukator]
I'd love to know what constitutes a '"dirty green" house', T1000
I like Zulu-Eleven's description myself
where do I start...... all the houses / buildings with some PV / Solar thermal / wind tubines Slap'd on the roof etc.... where they've not fixed everything else 1st.... clearly in most cases they havn't
nothing sader than a badly insulated building with a 'environmental garnish' so often it's the oohh look at me I've gone green brigade......
lets not start on petrol hybrid's shall we....
such a waste of public subsidies... far better to fix the properties with the existing building stock 1st..... then look at neighbour hood/ district solutions than bolting short lift toy's on to buildings....which are wasteful in terms of asset life and maintenance costs......
In terms of climate change the hypothesis hasn't changed in decades j-me. Space probes gave us an insight into the atmopheres of other planets and how they influenced climate. Some gases were found to have disproportionate influence on the energy regime within the atmophere, the so-called greenhouse gases, which in the case of Venus explain an extremely high energy atmosphere. That knowledge was applied to how the Earth's climate reflected atmopheric composition and by the 80s the role of CO2 in climatic variations demonstrated. The hypothesis that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to a higher atmospheric energy regime still stands as best fit.
lets not start on petrol hybrid's shall we....
Go ahead, if you've got actual proper evidence.
