MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I ain't looked at them all. Longgannet has has issues on a similar level IIRC,
However it gives lie to the pro nuke folks denial of nuclear poor reliability
size B is the best of our reactors... shutdown for months in 2008
No it wasn't.
The rest of our reactors admittedly old
Hence not really a good basis on which to determine likely performance of future ones - even SB isn't exactly that modern.
However it gives lie to the pro nuke folks denial of nuclear poor reliability
Not if you refuse to compare the reliability with the reliability of other power stations it doesn't. Given nothing is perfect we're just after the best reliability, and (modern) nuclear still does better than anything else.
Though of course we've done all this before - even back before the major shutdown last year when SB's record was almost spotless you were already doing the "nuclear is unreliable" line, presumably in the hope if you said it often enough it might come true?
It is true tho - simply look at the record. 🙄 Sizewells Bs record almost spotless? Pull the other one
You keep saying they are reliable - in the face of the history which shows they are not. If you keep saying it often enough do you think it will become true?
In the light of most of our electricity being in the hands of EdF, what's the record of nuclear in France? They generate something like 70% of their electricity via nukes, don't they? And I certainly haven't heard of any major problems there. There again, they respect engineers.
in the face of the history which shows they are not
Until someone shows me a list of down-time of ALL power stations of a similar age regardless of fuel then we can't say if nuclear is reliable or not. Yes, we understand that there has been downtime.
To make it absolutely clear - I am listening and understanding what you say, but I do not feel that you have supplied sufficient information to conclude your argument in this area. I am asking for this information, not ignoring your argument.
As an aside - anyone know how much fuel a nuke requires on a yearly basis? A coal power station relies on a supply train - mining, transport, shipping etc. How many tons of fuel per year do nukes consume and from where does it come?
In 2008 Sizewell had a [u]planned[/u] refueling shutdown (completed ahead of plan) and a [u]1 day[/u] outage that was nothing to do with the nuclear side of things (I think it was power transmission but I could be wrong). The four day outage in Feb this year was due to a low oil level in a pump, something that could happen in any technology using pumps.
The 2010 outage was unplanned and lasted about 4 months, mostly because the problem could not be fixed using existing approaches so a number of new techniques had to be developed. The event was rated zero on the INES safety scale, with no safety significance.
In itself though, one major unplanned outage is not enough to declare that "nuclear is unreliable". All power generation has unplanned outages so without comparing actual/planned over operational lifespan for all technologies it's a meaningless statement.
I really am not anti-renewables - these are provided for balance:
http://ws9.iee.usp.br/SipdaXI/papersX/palestras/yokoyama.pdf
I'm sure there's plenty of evidence of unreliability in gas and coal too. I suspect tidal is too new to have meaningful history but anything with moving parts is going to have failure.
I really am not anti-renewables - these are provided for balance:
I wouldn't bother, where the word 'nuclear' is concerned, there is no balance for TJ.
I do wonder what his views of nuclear technology would be if he ever needs any medical attention in the form of nuclear medicine. Thanks to moronic views such as his, the medical terminology for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (nothing to do with radioactivity) is known as MRI - Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Quite how anyone intelligent can be scared of a word, but there you go.
In fact, ironically enough, a lot of climate science is based on either chasing 'bomb carbon' about the place, or short-term 14-C tracer studies. The former wouldn't have been possible without nuclear weapons testing, and the latter require a nuclear reactor to make the 14-C.
Thank you for calling me moronic. I think the same of your views in your slavish devotion to nukes despite all the evidence and your dismissal of renewables / energy efficiency despite all the evidence.
Its really simple - nukes cannot be a part of the solution. They cannot be on stream quickly enough, they cannot do anything meaningful on a world scale. The history of nukes shows how unreliable they are.
I have no issue with research reactors. Its just the case for new power stations based on current designs does simply not add up.
Sizewells Bs record almost spotless? Pull the other one
Go on then - if you think it's not, you provide a list of the unplanned outages. Just to save you wasting your time, it didn't have a single one for the 3 years before 2008, so you'll need to look further back than 2005.
You keep saying they are reliable - in the face of the history which shows they are not
The history of 1950s design reactors I presume, as that's what you normally like to use to back up your assertion that any 21st century nuclear power stations will be unreliable? Are you completely incapable of accepting that of those power stations in this country SB is far more representative of any new builds (though still a couple of generations behind), hence it's far more realistic to look at the reliability of that? It would be equally valid for me to suggest that wind power is completely incapable of generating electricity at all, given it didn't for the first several thousand years of use - as opposed to you using the example of reactors designed less than a decade into the use of nuclear power.
If SB is unreliable, then so is every other method of electricity generation - only more so. Yet you consistently refuse to compare reliability of other electricity generation methods. In fact whilst you have some valid points in other areas, given your complete refusal to consider the facts properly on this aspect, your opinions are totally worthless.
Or are you just trolling, given how ridiculous it is suggesting something with >90% availability is unreliable when advocating wind power?
[s]The history of nukes shows how unreliable they are[/s] I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about
FTFY
You're doing it again TJ, reiterating your original stance instead of progressing the discussion...
Pot kettle black. Zokes and Aracer keep doing the same. its the limitation of these debates and why they are useless.
No, zokes and aracer are trying to add more to the conversation. You're just repeating yourself with more and more vitriol (which is totally unnecessary and brings the tone down).
You simply cannot say nuclear is unreliable without comparing it to coal or gas. How can you?
Thank you for calling me moronic
I did not call you moronic, I said that blinkered views such as those you and others appear to portray about the word 'nuclear' are.
You can choose to be insulted if you like - I'll assume the cap fits in that case.
You then spout a load of 'bullshine', backing up my assertion that some of your views are certainly unfounded and totally biased to the point of being totally irrational - probably verging on moronic in an objective person's eyes.
You appear to think the cap fits. You then back this up. Looks like you'd better wear it...
For example - on a world wide scale nuclear only meets a very small % of demand. For nukes to a part of the solution we would need thousands more plants. We do not have the fuel for them to say nothing of the need to build in places of political and geological instability.
On a UK scale we need new generating capacity more quickly than new nukes can be online.
By going for a few huge powers stations rather than lots of smaller ones we compromise our energy security considering the poor reliability record of nuclear plants - which is there and I simply do not believe the nuclear lobby given their record of lying,misleading and obfuscation
There is still no answer to the issues of waste and decommissioning. a toxic legacy for thousands of years
And with that I bow out of this completely. Its just a complete waste of energy as everyone is simply repeating entrenched positions and no one is listening or wants to hear anything that does not fit in with their position.
We do not have the fuel for them to say nothing of the need to build in places of political and geological instability
Numbers please.
On a UK scale we need new generating capacity more quickly than new nukes can be online.
Numbers please
poor reliability record of nuclear plants
Numbers please.
and no one is listening or wants to hear anything
Just asked you three questions.
. Zokes and Aracer keep doing the same
No we do not, the discussion progresses significantly whilst you don't post. You then reiterate your 'bullshine' with very little link to actual reality, and drag us back into it.
On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK's ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.
At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.
And with that I bow out of this completely
TFFT!
[url= http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_mar%C3%A9motrice_de_la_Rance ]Usine marémotrice de la Rance[/url]
The Rance (aptly named) tidal scheme has been running for years. As a water scientist I can't be overly enthusiastic about widespread adoption of such schemes but if you aren't worried about water quality, fishery status, wildlife habitat and so on they are certainly econmically viable.
In the right place then by all means but the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way.
[b]D ![/b]
Oh go on then - I can't resist
On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK's ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.
Yup - the data that shows how unreliable they are 🙄 Load factor way way down. ten reactors. One running at 100% for part of the year. others at 70% because of major cracks in the cores. Others running well below capacity or shut down. How much electricity has HUnterston produced in the last few years?
At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.
Yes you are. Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables
"I can't resist"
This is your #1 problem and why you have a reputation on here.
Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?! Do you mistakenly believe you could be right about "everything", without even a cursory check?
Experts on here, with proper knowledge and experience, who are not random tandem cyclists, disagree with you on this. Challenge them yes, but why don't you trust them?
Because I have nothing further to add at this juncture, I'm just watching from now on. Let's hope the lads Fukushima have some luck.
and I simply do not believe the nuclear lobby given their record of lying,misleading and obfuscation
TJ- Have a read of Monbiot's column in the Guardian today.
He points out that the anti-nuclear lobby is doing exactly that by exaggerating the risks of nuclear, overstating the capabilities of renewables.
[url= http://www.lepoint.fr/fil-info-reuters/plus-de-1-000-incidents-nucleaires-recenses-en-france-en-2010-16-03-2011-1307011_240.php ]A 1000 incidents in French nuclear plants last year of which three level 2.[/url]
As a commentator on Europe 1 noted. If we are recording this number of incidents in relatively modern reactors built to a quality rather than a cost it is quite astonishing that other countries report much lower numbers of incidents.
As for overstating the capability of renewables Monbiot should take a trip across Spain to see how few of the potential sites are needed to make a very significant contribution to total energy demand.
Edit: the numbers Monbiot quotes are by his own admission conservative. He then massages them to support his arguement. It's very much a case of lies, damned lies and fudged numbers which take no account of what other countries are already achieving - with an enormous potential still remaining. He doesn't even consider the impact of micro generation. Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in the country and you cut demand dramatically.
Insulate every building, legislate electric resistance heaters out of existance, favour heat pumps, fix consumption limits for appliances and Monbiot's objections disappear.
Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in [s]the country[/s] Spain or the South of France and you cut demand dramatically in those areas
FTFY
We'll see what the production is from TJ's parent's panels. There aren't many worse locations.
Yup - the data that shows how unreliable they are
You're still claiming that? I thought you'd given up.
What does it tell you about SB? You explain to me how the reliability of far older power stations than SB is more relevant to the reliability of any future build nuclear power stations than the reliability of SB and we might have something to discuss. Here's some data for you to help you out:
Nuclear fission: 1938
Pile-1: 1942
EBR-I (first electricity generation): 1951
Obninsk supplies electricity to the grid: 1954
Calder Hall is first commercial nuclear power station: 1956
Hunterston B began construction: 1968
Sizewell B began construction: 1987
Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Hunterston B starting construction: 12
Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Sizewell B starting construction: 31
Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables
OK, so answer me the question nobody has yet managed - where does our electricity come from when it's not windy in December (or October, November, January, February and March)? Are you really totally sure that we'll be able to cover all of our electricity needs with tidal - even with energy efficiency - something which isn't at all proven on a large scale?
the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way
Thank God for that. We didn't decide to destroy a natural ecosystem and a unique (to the UK) natural phenomenon for the sake of making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.
AFAIK it's not a tiny dent tho is it? It would do something ridiculous like power the south west...?
I could be wrong - though I'm fairly sure it's not as much as you're suggesting. Definitely not worth it anyway IMHO.
Wiki suggests 5% of the UK's total for a 10 mile barrage.
Interesting article actually - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage#Power_generation_potential
Suggests lots of alternatives to a barrage, including turbines on the sea bed that could generate 13TWh/year
The Severn projects I was privy to in the 80s were good for a least 10% of UK power needs with the most ambitious being well over that. Google it, something must have made it onto the Web.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage#Bondi_Committee_.E2.80.93_1981 ]Wiki quotes 5 or 6% for the 80s projects.[/url]
There are less environmentally degrading options afloat now.
buzz-lightyear - Member
Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?
Yes its my opinion based on facts. what that I have been shown to be wrong - reliability - a matter of opinion. I ask again. How much electricity has hunters ton produced recently?
aracer - Member.................
making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.
Renewables - each turbine in the islay array is a megawatt. ten are going in as a trial this year. Proven technology reliable and robust. Feasible non barrage potential for tidal generation just in Scotland is 30 gw or 3 sizewell bs.
!0 new nuclear power stations have been mooted as needed. Well thats 3 we don't need of the ten just on tidal. Tehn add in solar for water and heat, add in a bit more wind, wave, go for local CHP in cities for massive efficiency improvements, go for massive energy conservation measures etc etc.
You say
to me.the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone's understanding.
well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago. Aracer seems to think tho that you need a destructive barrage and that its an insignificant amount of energy still.
As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts. it all becomes about asserting your own point of view and refusing to hear and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices.
well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago.
The issue often is that your links raise further questions. You seem to think that as soon as you link to something then that makes it an irrefutable fact. Well sources can be debated also.
As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts.
It's ONLY the threads where you get involved that end up like this!
and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices
Don't call me prejudiced you arrogant fkwit! I take part in these debates to LEARN, you seem to only care about WINNING. I do not pretend to be a world authority and I want to listen to those who know more than me.
You never do, I suspect you believe that no-one knows more than you. It's certainly how you act.
*bangs head on wall*
Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.
No one disputed the links or info - after all its hard info from the government.
I do not pretend to be a world authority. 🙄 I merely can read the articles and make my own mind up.
earlier Buzz told me to respect the experts on here - all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links.
Pentland firth tidal scheme - 4 GW
Am I getting my megawatties confused? 30 GW is the total tidal resource that is practical to extract. thats 30 sizewell Bs is it not?
everywhere I look for the numbers they vary. Not suprising as they are estimates. It certainly many GW of tidal available play wave and wind.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15
Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.
We've had lots of nice pleasant debates without you. It really is JUST YOU that does this.
after all its hard info from the government.
Lolz at that for a start!
all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
No they bloody well don't! They are saying that there are issues with it. Everyone knows that.
I ask again. How much electricity has hunters ton produced recently?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!
I ask again. What relevance has the performance of a nuclear power station who's construction was started only 12 years into the commercial nuclear power age to new ones designed with the benefit of over 40 years more knowledge?
Aracer seems to think tho that you need a destructive barrage and that its an insignificant amount of energy still.As I said earlier - people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts
Well at least you're a little bit self-aware. Strange that you've not noticed one of the supporters of nuclear power is also one of those who likes the idea of undersea tidal and has been supporting you with information on that.
the experts on here - all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
Well clearly I'm not an expert, as I'm not dismissing (practical) renewables - I'm really struggling to think who is, you're going to have to name names.
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out.
Its a huge capital investment and research programme to do this. We cannot afford to waste the money on the nukes we don't need. Its an either / or proposition to some extent.
What as surprise - I wake up and the flouncer is still at it. Give it a rest TJ, unless you have something new and factual to add.
[b]NOONE HERE IS SAYING RENEWABLES SHOULD BE REPLACED BY NUCLEAR, OR THAT NUCLEAR SHOULD BE BUILT IN LIU OF RENEWABLES[/b]
Got that? Need it repeating? A few exclamation marks to get it into your clearly obtuse brain?
all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links
I have posted three links to [i]Science[/i] and [i]Nature[/i] on this thread. If you care so much to keep arguing black is white, I'd suggest you get yourself down to your local library to read them. I think you'll find the top two peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world are probably [i]the[/i] most reliable sources that anyone can cite.
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out
No - I reject the idea that renewables and efficiency can stop the lights going out because they can't - nothing to do with the fact I'm not hysterically scared of nukes. Your own links provide the proof - [url= http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece ]Professor MacKay[/url] reckons only 12.5GW from tide and wave for Scotland when current consumption is 26GW - and that's including very unproven wave. Bearing in mind Scotland has far better tidal resources than the rest of the UK and far lower consumption the gap only gets bigger if you look outside Scotland. I have to admit I actually thought tidal would do a bit better than that eventually! Meanwhile [url= https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=16754ac3-5095-477e-abf8-ab802975e710&groupId=57143 ]KTN[/url] reckons on a maximum of 2.5GW installed marine capacity for the [b]whole of Europe[/b] by 2020, at which point new nuclear could well be coming online to plug that 23.5GW (minus efficiency savings) gap for Scotland if all of that capacity is there!
We cannot afford to waste the money on the [s]nukes we don't need[/s] windmills which don't do any practical good
FTFY
Its an either / or proposition
Given the current renewable installation/research isn't about to stop if we get new nuclear (which will be privately funded), no it's not! Why do you continue to lie like this?
Renewables have been starved of investment over decades and will continue to be so if we go ahead with nukes.. Its a tiny fraction of the money spent on R&D into nukes. The Scottish company that makes the best wave generator had to build the prototype in Portugal FFS
We need massively increased investment in renewables.
The Scottish Govt report linked to above suggests over 3GW of marine capacity [b]for Scotland alone[/b] by 2015, with an early Pentland Firth Tidal scheme generating 1.6GW soon after 2015. These are still small number compared to what is required overall, but it does call into question some of the figures being bandied about.aracer - Member
Meanwhile KTN reckons on a maximum of 2.5GW installed marine capacity for the whole of Europe by 2020
the uk demands around 60GW of power, the largest realistic severn barrage plan would produce around 10GW of power (and destroy it as an important area for wildlife)
but we've only got 1 severn estuary, any more will probably have to come from individual turbines.
the big ones would give us around 5MW each: so we'd need 2000 of them to match the 10GW from a severn barrage.
if the 10Gw severn scheme is a massive engineering project, then 2000 individual turbines is a step into the realm of fantasy - these things aren't as easy to install as wind turbines.
so, even ignoring the slack times of the tide, tidal power is unlikely to ever provide more than a third of our power.
a welcome contribution, and it can be done, it probably will be done, but the cost of getting there will be very high.
so where do we get the other 2 thirds from? (40GW) - wind and wave don't count cos we'll need back up for when it's not windy/wavey.
40GW? anyone? remembering of course that we're not allowed coal, gas, oil, any form of nuclear, hydro, waste incineration, bio-mass, or to buy it from a euro-super-grid*.
(*some of the juice might come from the naughty-list, and buying it is just as bad as producing it)
i'd be just as happy as TJ to abandon 'nukes' if you can tell me a way to produce 40GW...
as ever, i'm an idiot, and mainly just thinking out loud - please feel welcome to point out my mistakes, and gaps in my ponderings, it's all good interesting stuff.
good night all.
X
the uk demands around 60GW of power
The idea that renewables can power the UK mandates that IN ADDITION to the power generation we slash our consumption.
Some folk are saying that we can slash by 75%, which would make your above idea feasible (kind of, since it's simplified as you pointed out).
I suspect that whilst we may be able to slash domestic energy consumption by a large figure, much of that is gas or oil rather than electricity.
But still - 40GW, that's what, 2kW per household? So if we put solar panels on every house.. we probably wouldn't match that but we could maybe make half of it, and bear in mind that there are plenty of factories, sheds, barns etc we could use too. Of course that wouldn't work at night so you'd need storage...
So we need:
Massive roll-out of renewable generation
A means of storing vast amounts of energy and I mean VAST
Significant infrastructure investment
All of which need to happen without any direct economic imperative since there's plenty of coal still available overseas, so it'd have to be done via public funds.
Not asking much, is it? A lot more difficult than building a few nukes imo.
Are you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go? there are only 10 new nukes planned IIRC. I thought the aim was a reduction in CO2 output and replacement of agiing generators of all sorts.
so now you want what 40 or 50 new nukes?
so now you want what 40 or 50 new nukes?
Eh what? I just showed some sums.
The Scottish Govt report linked to above suggests over 3GW of marine capacity for Scotland alone by 2015, with an early Pentland Firth Tidal scheme generating 1.6GW soon after 2015.
Except if you check Figure 12.10 (just above those figures) it seems they're including offshore wind in marine capacity, meanwhile further up it says "six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate 1.2 GW of marine energy in the Pentland Firth" - so that's 1.2GW potential peak in the middle of a spring tide with just the perfect amount of waves.
I don't see renewables getting anywhere near even covering the 10 proposed new nukes by 2020 - proposed new capacity is 16GW BTW. The thing is, I think you'll find that a large chunk of renewables has been factored into the budgets anyway, so you'd need to find 16GW beyond what is currently planned!
Don't forget spreading demand, Molgrips. If the financial incentive is great enough then people will not consume when asked not to. French and Italian experience proves this. France with its punitive tarifs for a few days/weeks of the year if you sign up to very cheap electricity the rest of the year, and limited capacity meters. Italy with intelligent meters that vary tarifs through the day. Combine the two and you knock the peaks off demand both daily and in winter.
Demand is quite predictable, so much so that I knew when to turn up at a hydro scheme to get my samples. I took the before samples, wandered up to the control room, played the amused spectator as they went from zero to lots of watts in a few seconds (more intersting was watching the sagging frequency meter rise as a consequence), then wandered out to take the generating samples.
Give a financial incentive to fit a meter that trips off at 20A and people will adapt. For most of my adult life I've lived with meters limited to 3, 6 or 9 kW and it just hasn't been an issue. You simply don't put everything on at the same time. Industry is happy to play this game too, electricity intensive industries such as aluminium shutting down during peak demand periods.
Edit: I've curently got a 9kW meter and checked to see what the highest load we've ever drawn was - 29A or 6.7kW. Probably my wife turning on three rings and the oven. I knew I should have bought the model that only had two rings but it was more expensive 😉
Ah - bluddy semantics again! If folk could all stick to the same definition of "marine capacity", these discussions would be so much easier 🙂aracer - Member
Except if you check Figure 12.10 (just above those figures) it seems they're including offshore wind in marine capacity,
My understanding is that tidal is pretty much a guaranteed baseload for 23 hours per day? Seems that's a better bet than wave power then.meanwhile further up it says "six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate 1.2 GW of marine energy in the Pentland Firth" - so that's 1.2GW potential peak in the middle of a spring tide with just the perfect amount of waves.
And that's surely TJs argument. The more we spend on nuclear, the less we have available to spend on alternatives - i.e. it [i]is[/i] an either/or situation due to cash constraints?I don't see renewables getting anywhere near even covering the 10 proposed new nukes by 2020 - proposed new capacity is 16GW BTW. The thing is, I think you'll find that a large chunk of renewables has been factored into the budgets anyway, so you'd need to find 16GW beyond what is currently planned!
POSTED 6 HOU
By the very nature of supporting nukes you reject the proposition that renewables and efficiency can ensure the lights don't go out.
Well that's just a false dichotomy. You really don't do yourself or your argument any favours with comments like that.
TandemJeremy - MemberAre you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go?
basically yes.
you've convinced me that nuclear power is too dangerous.
that means fossil fuels, and hydro-power/storage are off the list too - for being even more dangerous; climate change, deaths during mining, deaths on oil-rigs, air-quality, dam-collapse, etc.
well done, you've convinced me! - i'm onboard!
but we still need to find 40GW...
(i'm assuming we're not going to reduce our consumption - there's no harm preparing for the inevitable)
that means fossil fuels, and hydro-power/storage are off the list too - for being even more dangerous
Don't forget that when you calculate deaths in proportion to the amount of electricity generated, wind is also more dangerous than nuclear.
In fact I think the only things we're left with are those which haven't actually been tried yet.
Could we capture hot air from internet forums?
Are you all now arguing for zero emmisions ? All conventional generation to go?
basically yes.
Agreed - isn't that the aim?
I'd also close coal and gas before existing nuclear. And if we're left with a gap (as I believe we will be), I'd build new nuclear to fill the gap.
I'd like to think that this is the last generation of uranium nuclear that we'll have to build.
Could we capture hot air from internet forums?
and methane.
wind is also more dangerous than nuclear
Ah, someone else who's been to the Khana Peena curry house on Croham Road.
Combine the two and you knock the peaks off demand both daily and in winter
You can't iron the peaks out completely. We all want the lights on when the sun goes down, and we all want a cuppa at half time in the FA cup final. Plus factories will want to be running in the daytime.
ahwiles - Member
(i'm assuming we're not going to reduce our consumption - there's no harm preparing for the inevitable)
Does anybody really think the consumption will go down significantly?
Gas is presumably going to go up in price making it less attractive for heating/cooking, and a lot of new builds don't seem to have it included any more.
Secondly due to rising petrol prices & tax breaks on electric cars I personally think we are going to see electric cars taking off over the next 15-20 years in a big way.
Does anybody really think the consumption will go down significantly?
Not voluntarily.
For every 1 TJ (or Edukator) there are 2 of 'me' (understand the problem, doing what we can to reduce [u]where it's easy[/u]) and 10 who couldn't give a flying fig. (completely made-up numbers)
Consumption will go down if/when either costs go up or we legislate for it. We're already doing that (e.g. insulation, double glazing, the death of the 100w light bulb) but would have to do more, probably stepping into politically unpalatable areas.
Electric cars will take off of their own accord (no, not a Toyota recall issue) once they become affordable and practical. Even the shorter ranges models today would be popular if they were the same price as a petrol car.
I mean the Leaf is what, 25 grand? If you can afford a 25k car then you're going to have to be pretty environmentally committed to spend it on a car that would be half the price in petrol form...
probably stepping into politically unpalatable areas
And this is the biiig problem. As long as people want stuff they'll vote for the party that offers it. Major flaw in democracy there.
We all want lights on, I agree. Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet? More light than an 11W "economy bulb" instantly. My town is replacing all the traffic lights with LEDs. The potential for saving in lighting is enormous.
You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time. You can't/won't run all those at teh same time if you've opted for a power-limited meter that significantly cuts the tarif you pay.
molgrips - MemberElectric cars will take off of their own ... once they become affordable and practical...
agreed, then we'll need 65GW...
Congratulations Edu - you've got me looking a bit more into energy efficiency. Only another 59,999,999 people to go.
Yes, in the fittings that will take them. It cost a fortune but we replaced 20 GU10s with LEDs. As a side benefit, they don't scorch the top of my head either like the ones on the (low) landing.I agree. Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?
I hope they're turning off the streetlighting in the dead of night too. I'm a big fan of that one, starting with the one outside my bedroom window.My town is replacing all the traffic lights with LEDs. The potential for saving in lighting is enormous.
And therein lies the problem. We have a god-given right to run all our conveniences exactly when we want them, don't we? We don't have an immersion heater or any electric heating but I don't intend to wait for the washing machine to finish before I brew up.You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time.
Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?
Been wanting them for ages but they were £30 each last time I looked 🙁
You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time.
Whilst that causes peaks in your own consumption, surely over the whole country it'll smooth out and simply be the usual (and hard to avoid) peaks in the evening and morning?
Ok so you can set your diswasher and washing machine to run in the middle of the night, but with lighting and cooking it's less easy.
Can someone suggest how much energy would be saved if our fridges and/or freezers had a cold-air intake from outside to save energy in winter?
Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?Been wanting them for ages but they were £30 each last time I looked
They were more like £20 when I did it (to get decent ones with the right colour balance) and I know academically that I'll get all that (and more) back over the lifetime. But it's still a wallop in the wallet when you do it. Maybe I am £20 a month better off this month and every month but I don't feel it. I certainly felt it when I had £400 less to spend on shiny bike bits.
First thing is to change the ones in the kitchen cos we have early GU10 CFLs which are awful. That's £80 right there.
They were more like £20 when I did it (to get decent ones with the right colour balance) and I know academically that I'll get all that (and more) back over the lifetime.
The question is, are you saving money with them faster than they're getting cheaper? Can't believe they're going to stay that expensive for all that long.
The question is, are you saving money with them faster than they're getting cheaper? Can't believe they're going to stay that expensive for all that long
Dunno - had to dive in at some point.
Can you get leccy meters that tell you where your power is going in general terms? Ie lighting, cooking etc?
I think the TV and the fridge are the only big consumers in our house. I'm sorely tempted to add my own cold-air induction system to it...
I think the TV and the fridge are the only big consumers in our house.
I think the wife and kids are the big consumers in our house.
So..... Edukator, how would you edukate someone that light switches can go 'off' as well as 'on'?
(as my Saturday morning family meetings are not working)
if no-one else noticed, oil just went through $120/barrel...
(well, a coupla days ago)
crumbs. 😐
Higgo - fit automatic light on and off sensors.
I understand that replacing every bulb with a 3W LED right now might be a little costly but doing the lights you use most is a start. The bulb in the cupboard you open once a year can wait. They're down to 7e now for basic ones and 15e for "quality" brands.
Perhaps it's something to add to the conspicuous greed thread.
Is there a green thread? I've got more questions about domestic savings...
Just came across some figures in the BMAs 'Guide to Living with Risk' (from 1990 i think). I assume that's regarded as an OK source?
A selection of risks of an individual dying in any one year from various causes:-
Smoking 10 cigarettes a day - 1 in 200
All natural causes , age 40 - 1 in 850
Road accident - 1 in 8,000
Accident at work - 1 in 43,500
Hit by lightning - 1 in 10,000,000
Release of radiation from a nearby power station - 1 in 10,000,000
And on radiation in particularit gave some annual doses (in microsieverts):-
Eating 135g of brazil nuts - 10
Dental X-Ray - 20
A glass of mineral water each day for a year - 65
Return flight to LA - 140
Minner annual dose - 1,200
Brain scan - 5,000
It equated an annual dose of 1000MicroSv = 1 in 25,000 risk of death (the same as playing football).