it seems fitting for both
It is. I guess I tongue-in-cheek recycled the anti-nuclear argument for PV...
Anyway, this has somewhat degraded into the usual straw man argument of either renewables [i]or[/i] nuclear, when any vaguely educated person should be able to see that the correct answer is both.
Either that or carry on polluting with fossil fuel on a scale magnitudes higher than Chernobyl in terms of health and environment. One thing is for certain, energy usage will not decrease by the levels needed for either nuclear or renewables to deliver the majority of requirement individually any time soon. (Unless any government imposing such regulation has no wish to remain in government...)
EDIT: What people forget is that by stopping investment into nuclear after Chernobyl, research was all but stopped into [u]better[/u] nuclear - thorium and fusion, as well as improved conventional designs
However, they are certainly not all good either, which is the point (I accept, rather obtusely) that I was trying to make
True, but beware of inadvertently jumping on the anti bandwagon - just because something can be done badly doesn't mean it's intrinsically useless as you understand - but this argument gets absolutely mired in people thinking the pro side is stupid and thinks that some solution is the golden bullet.
Everyone with half a brain knows that it's not. So there's no point in people (not necessarily you) trying to prove the obvious and widely accepted.
Why wouldn't I vote for a government that's given us a bonus/malus system on cars that mean low emmision cars are cheaper than ever, tax breaks on home improvemnts that save energy (and also make the house more comfortable), tax relief on renewable energy investments. I might hesitate to vote for a man that wears a Rolex but it won't be his energy policy that holds me back.
Why wouldn't I vote for a government that's given us a bonus/malus system on cars that mean low emmision cars are cheaper than ever, tax breaks on home improvemnts that save energy (and also make the house more comfortable), tax relief on renewable energy investments. I might hesitate to vote for a man that wears a Rolex but it won't be his energy policy that holds me back.
I've news for you chum. I suspect that (sadly) people as environmentally concious as you are are very much in the minority. As most of the western world works under a democratic system, I feel you may find that a disadvantage in getting whoever you vote for into power with policies such as those. Just google the furore happening here in Oz because the PM has mentioned 'carbon tax'....
I doubt merely bonuses and enticements will get you the 75% saving you were aiming for a few pages back.
true true. people are generally either ignorant (as in unaware not stupid) or they just dont care. governments base their policy on the wants of people educated by a hysterical media. one thing i like about combined renewable is that it can create jobs locally but as you say it has to be a combination of nuclear and renewable. the uk gov are still trying to build COAL power stations for f sake!
but both need to be sited well. its stupid to build pv at high lat just as its stupid to build nuclear close to the sea.
its a shame the world wont share power in an on/off peak system
Well the French government has just introduced a 1000e scrapage programme for non -condensing central heating boilers, we'll see how the uptake for that is. I reckon it wil be pretty good as the pay back period is very short. Between the bonus, tax breaks and an interest free loan the cost of the boiler is low enough to pay for itself quickly with the roughly 30% saving in gas/fuel oil.
Heat pumps and air to air air-con units heat much more efficiently than simple resistance heaters.
The biggest problem is the buy-to-let owners that don't pay the bills and therfore have no incentive to invest in energy saving.
That's quite laudable Edukator, but it's hardly 75%, is it? I believe there was something similar in the UK too.
Nor, for that matter, is it electricity, which is presumably what we're talking about when disregarding nuclear as an option.
governments base their policy on the wants of people educated by a hysterical media
Not entirely. Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when it knows better. All three parties are somewhat eco (although they could be way way better they could also be worse, be fair), despite most of the electorate not giving a flying fig. Plus they are all pro Europe and I doubt if most voters are - at least for the Tories.
its a shame the world wont share power in an on/off peak system
Too technically difficult I feel.
We could cover the Sahara desert in PV but how would we get the energy to where it's needed? If we could use the power to synthesize some kind of carbon based fuel from the air that we coudl then ship around then we'd be onto a winner I reckon.
Or better still - algal biofuel, let nature do the work.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899[/url]
So Germany are shutting down their reactors in a response to an earthquake on the other side of the world. I am genuinely perplexed.
Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when [u]thinks[/u] it knows better
They're hemmed into Europe and have no choice there, the last lot started an illegal war based on fabricated evidence; and the current lot seem to think the best way to stimulate the economy is to sack everyone, take money from the poorest, and let the people who caused the whole mess carry on earning their millions.
from the horses mouth.
[url= http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300252224P.pdf ]http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300252224P.pdf[/url]
Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when thinks it knows better
It [s]often[/s] sometimes does. Tonto just slagged off the electorate for being stupid mind, so knowing better than the majority of us isn't hard.
I've already given the example of my 30s house Zokes but I'll repeat it.
The house already had double glazing (which your Oz house may not) and roof insulation and gas consumption with a conventional boiler was 600m3 a year. With further insulation consumption went down to 220m3. I installed a wood burner but had I continued with gas a condensing boiler would have reduced consumption to 150m3. That's a 75% saving.
Since installing the wood burner I've further insulated. The room I'm in is currently at 19.7°C and hasn't changed since my first post this morning. It's 11°C and raining outside. The TV, amp and computer are maintaining the temperature with no heating (the appliances are consuming less than the solar panels are producing). I can do a lot more and will.
Edukator, that's great. I'm not disputing that it can work in some cases. What I am disputing is your apparently naive view (and that of TJ on previous anti-nuclear threads) that these cuts can be made on a national or international level without a dictatorial political system. As discussed above: sadly, most don't know, the rest don't care.
Also, whilst those cuts are fine, what if everyone needs wood for their heating, and what happens when people need to charge their cars in some way rather than burning fossil fuel? The very reason we moved on to coal in the first place was that there weren't enough trees back then, and there's a [b]lot[/b] more demand for energy now.
not stupid, ignorant
big difference
Naive maybe but I think that if the US and British populations were exposed to responsible media reporting without red herrings they they would start making similar choices to the Germans and French. Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It's just the attitude of domestic consumers.
[img] 
[/img]
They are linked though tonto, often.
And Edukator - those energy savings seem to refer to gas, no? Saving 75% of leccy is harder. Once you've already gone to energy saving lights.
MrSmith - Memberfrom the horses mouth.
Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?
Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It's just the attitude of domestic consumers.
Interesting edit - surely a person's / country's emissions should include those deferred to other countries like china who do the emitting when manufacturing goods for us 'clean, green' westerners?
Saving leccy:
Solar heated water for your washing machine and dish washer (if you have one). The pumps consume very little, it's the water heaters that consume a lot.
A solar hot water heater to feed your electric immersion heater if you have one.
Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box.
More efficient appliances: Our old oven consumed 3.5kW but the new one only 2.2kW
If you heat with electricity use an air to air air-con unit which is at least three times more efficent unless it's really cold outside.
I don't worry much about the electricity I consume in the day as we're nearly always producing more but three of us only consume 2200kWh per year in a house with no gas.
I agree Zokes, blaming the Chinese is not fair when we consume a significant proportion of what they produce. I think you'll agree that the US figures are particularly disturbing considering that they too buy massively in China.
But as I keep trying to point out, your situation is laudable on a personal scale, but it cannot work for everyone. Not enough biomass for heating to start with, and no possible political means of staying in government, and forcing those who don't want to / see the need to take what to most appear to be quite drastic measures.
Crossed post - yes, the US figures are disturbing but hardly surprising. An interesting question came up at a meeting I was in yesterday along these lines:
"When considering exported carbon emissions, who do they actually belong to when the fossil-derived energy source is what's being exported i.e. Australian coal to China?"
Logic says it's an Australian emission, but in that case, someone's nice made-in-china flat-screen in the UK isn't causing emissions in China, it's causing emissions in Australia instead. I know this may appear semantics, but in a carbon trading economy, it's actually quite an interesting question....
the french who know more then most about nuclear are extracting people from japan
This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.
The industry minister, Eric Besson, told BFM television:
Let's not beat about the bush. They have visibly lost the essential of control (of the situation). That is our analysis, in any case, it's not what they are saying. (from the guardian)
Where are you putting these tidal generation stations?
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/wave-tidal
and barrages like the severn certainly aren't the main technology being focussed on, more like great things like this:
http://www.marineturbines.com/
In terms of having a constant supply of tidal energy, even within Orkney waters alone there can be over an hours difference in timing of slack tide between locations, never mind between locations further apart around the UK.
Corryvrekan is very interestig 'cos it has great potential for little impact on the ecosystem. Estimated 2 GW of energy available - how much we can get out is as yet unknown. Thats worth having. How much does a nuke generate ( I can't be bothered looking it up)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the child in me can't resist this:
This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.
So the French are retreating - quelle surprise!
Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box
Interesting one this. Which uses less energy:
a) growing veg locally in season and storing it in the freezer either industrially or at home
b) using heated polytunnels to grow out of season
c) ship from overseas by boat?
Of course the best option is
d) if it's not local, don't eat it - use tinned/dried/pickled/preserved stuff
.. but that's not palatable to many folk who want broccoli year round.
Bottled not tinned, Bisphenol A! 😉
The forzen food industry requires a long series of refigerated buildings and trucks before it ever gets to the home freezer. Eat fresh or bottled.
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.
Estimated 2 GW of energy available
Just another (badly needed) drop in the ocean then...
Eat fresh or bottled
Like I said. But which is best out of a, b or c?
i get most of my veg out of my garden year round. ok i am getting a little sick of kale and leeks but the purple-sprouting broccoli has just started yum yum
still as talked about earlier its not the norm to think like this. ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped 😯 ! needles to say they were short relationships
(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)
"ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped "
One of the staff at work was almost sick at the idea of eating the apples i brought in from my tree because they had not been bought in a supermarket so "insects could have crawled on them".
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.[/s]
Oh and bin the PV’s & toy windmills and buy energy from the power company where it's made in a communal power station. 😉
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.
Thanks for the useful advice - I'll drive to the bakers to pick up my loaf instead of using that wasteful breadmaker in future.
(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)
My understanding was that c beats b even if air transport is used.
I read about a big farm next to a power station that not only used waste heat from the power station for most of its needs but also piped CO2 from the chimneys into the tunnels to help the plants grow.
CO2 makes plants grow like mad, apparently atmospheric levels are only just above starvation for plants.
Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?
on the internet.
if i told you i would have to kill you.
never compromise your source....
If 'c' involves purchasing from a developing country, there's plenty of other reasons why it can be a lot better than 'b', and occasionally 'a'...
It's a boiling water reactor, so it's supposed to have steam in the top part of the core - think of it like a constantly boiling kettle that they collect the steam from to run turbines for power generation. You have to keep adding water or it'll boil dry. If it boils dry you could damage the kettle.
Nope. It's a closed system. The water is converted to steam in the reactor core. This steam drives a turbine. It is then converted back to water in a condenser fed by external cold water, then reintroduced to the reactor core to start over again.
If it ever gets to a serious danger point they can just drain out all the coolant and let it all melt with no danger of gasses building up that could cause blowouts, at the cost of wrecking the reactor totally.
Right, I am aware that it is closed - but you have to keep pumping the water through the heat exchanger or you'll have too much steam and expose the fuel elements, which is precisely the problem they are having - they have no power to drive the pumps, and thus the pressure in the core is rising too much, due to too much steam. My kettle analogy is apt, but if you want to be pedantic, extend it so the kettle boils and the steam rises from the spout and turns a child's toy windmill thing (the turbine), and then condenses on a baking tray above the kettle that has one end submerged in a large amount of water to keep it cool. The kettle is replenished from this supply of water (so it cycles) [assume the kitchen is closed and you only have as much water as is in the big tank that the baking tray empties into].
The problem they have is that they need electricity to move the water from the tank back into the kettle, and they don't have enough. More modern BWRs have been designed with this sort of thing in mind, to operate with passive cycling of water. The 40 year old BWR1 in this plant needs power to be able to maintain that circulation.
I can safely say that we're all glad you're not in charge. You seem to be suggesting that a meltdown situation wouldn't be that bad. Google 'China syndrome'. Whilst melted fuel would hardly reach the opposite side of the globe, the reactor would not be able to contain the fuel as you suggest. It would burn through the base of the reactor and end up in the earth below, contaminating water tables and goodness knows what else.
No, it really wouldn't. The fuel will melt and be contained by the concrete containment structure as it was designed to do in the event of a full LOCA with no one left on site to do anything else (like flood the thing with seawater). The physical properties of melted nuclear fuel are well understood, and the containment structure was designed with them in mind. It would not burn through and contaminate the water table - although that was a possibility during the meltdown of Reactor 4 at Chernobyl after the explosion due to inadequate containment underneath the reactor.
They test this sort of thing - here's some, for example [url= .jpg)
]fuel and reactor lava - "corium"[/url], to see what effect is has on concrete as it cools and flows. They design the containment structure to spread it out more thinly so it can cool more effectively, and make the concrete thick enough that it won't be able to burn all the way through. The concrete containment under the BWR's in Japan are shallow-dish-shaped, for example, for just this reason.
The containment was designed so that in the worst possible case (the core melting completely due to no coolant being present), it would still be contained inside the concrete.
They don't want it to melt like this of course, because it will be harder to clean up than if the core is still intact but partially damaged, hence the attempts to cool it, but if it does totally melt it will stay inside the containment structure.
Edit: and "China Syndrome" is a film, and a *theoretical* postulation by a physicist about what would happen in the event that the core melted through the containment structure. It's hardly "proof" that in the event of a LOCA or a meltdown that groundwater contamination or fuel escape at all would occur.
and make the concrete thick enough that it won't be able to burn all the way through
And crack proof after having been subjected to a massive earthquake and hydrogen explosions ?
China Syndrome. I suppose what worries is that it's not just that the fuel is molten at around 3000C, but it's actually reacting and generating vast amounts of energy as long as it's coalesced. But I can imagine how an upturned dish shape will spread it out and make it go sub-critical. I'm reassured somewhat by the picture of molten lava spreading over the "catcher".
Bump. The first pages make make interestign reading with hindsight, Graham. "Where's the problem" you asked. Well you have your answers now. Care to comment now, Flying OX, Aracer, Olly, Buzz and Co.
Can't we just build some in Scotland? It's so bloody cold and wet up there all the time, there'd be no issue with cooling.
And if one went a bit wrong, then it wouldn't have anywhere near disastrous consequences as one nearer civilisation.
As I said on the wind turbine thread; you could bung em inside mountains, then they'd be protected and safe.
