[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

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?

Nuclear releases less radiation on average (even taking into account all the accidents ever recorded)

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.

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 - Member

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?

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',

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"

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.

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.

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.

I cannot find the sources of the 5 GW I have been quoting

so thats tenders out / expressions -of interest asked for for 10GW of offshore reneaables

What is clear is that tidal generators are being installed in the tens of Mw

Why do you need to discount tidal by 50%?

can I discount nukes by big % as that is what the historical record shows?

Anyway - this continues to go around in circles fairly pointlessly.

further back aracer stated stated 25 gw as the Scottish consumption

AS I have repeatedly said this in the end its a faith argument

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?

Falls of lora is one hell of a tidal rip

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 ]

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?

Does the scientific consensus mean nothing?

{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.

So from where I'm sitting:

going upwards: 1cm plaster, 100mm rockwool, 21mm pine, 1cm plaster, 200mm fibreglass, 85mm fibreglass, tiles or PV panels.

going outwards: 21mm pine, air gap, plaster, 2 x air brick wall, rendering.

going down: 29mm pine and 30cm air gap. The project for this year is to insulate between the floor beams in the kitchen.

Openings are at least double glazed, mostly with well sealed shutters at night, or when the room isn't being used and doesn't have sun on it. I'll start triple glazing sometime soon.

I know several people with PV roofs and the PV was the final touch having gone through all of the energy saving measures first. The energy advisor I went to see in 2005 set out the priorities as: 1/ Insulate 2/fit a wood burner, heat pump or condensing boiler. 3/ solar water heater 4/ PV. I followed his advice.

Dirty green house?

Dirty green house?

Clearly not, however some are.

going outwards: 21mm pine

You have pine clad interior walls? 😯

Yup, every external wall is pine clad, wood is a good insulator and stocks carbon. It's fairly cheap to do as nicely finished 21mm floor boarding only costs about 8e/m2 down here in SW France. As Fotopic is bust I'll have to set up a Flikr account and post some pics. The floor and most of the furniture is pine too so the overall impression is of living in a pine box. Not ot everybody's taste but my wife likes it.

Yup, every external wall is pine clad, wood is a good insulator and stocks carbon

It also looks awful 🙂

If we can't have nuclear is it OK to build loads of new gas fired power stations now that we've worked out how to get more gas out of the ground?

Dirty green house?

Clearly not, however some are.

as laudable as your efforts to do the right thing....

from where I'm sitting most are.....and those that try hard are only papering over the cracks...

hmmm woodburner..... regulate large combustion plant emmissions then allow joe public to pump out all those lovely particulates.....

Hmm heat pumps.....where does all that lovely electricty come from... nice if you can genrate enough via pv.......

domestic condensing boilers..... short life high maintenance.....

to do all these things properly don't use the energy in the 1st place..... if your serious about low carbon and using these technologies then you need to use a local distric system and generate your pv locally whithout shunting it back into the grid..... just bolting loads of small installations onto building means that society has higher maintenance cost and the installations have uneccessarily short replacement cycles...

these technologies have merit but only if properly evaluated...

Edukator - In terms of climate change the hypothesis hasn't changed in decades

T1000.

Micro PV installations have a similar life expectancy to large ones and require no more maintenance. Solar world guarantee the output of their panels for 25 years. Micro production cuts infrastructure demand and transmission losses. The ideal way of distributing the power they produce is through the grid which helps balance local variations in production due to clouds (or wind gusts in the case of wind turbines). Feeding into the grid also means that excess production can be stored in pump storage schemes (if avaibable)

Household wood burners are much more efficient and cleaner than large-scale commercail ones as householders generally respect long periods of drying before burning. The Jötul I have is somewhere between 75 and 80% efficient on fully dried wood given the length of flue pipe used. Green-wood commercial plants struggle to reach 35% (France Culture radio report on Metz which covered collective heating schemes and a green-wood power station). Drying wood on the required scale is a logistical headache yet to be solved.

In my case all the wood comes from local gardens. If I didn't burn it the small stuff would be composted and the bigger stuff burned in the local incinerator (which does produce electricity).

edukator.....noooo you plainly don't know anything about anything other than mickey mouse scale installations or about infrastructure....25yrs is no time doh..... waste of time trying to educate you.......

so amusing that you believe the advertisements......

They'll probably last longer than 25 years but that's how long the output is guaranteed for. PV panels have been around long enough to know how long they last and how the production tails off.

Solar hot water heaters are just plumbing and in the case of the one I've made requires no pumps, sensors or electrics of any kind. It therosyphons as soon as the water in the panel is warmer than the water in the primary tank. Hot enough for a shower now. Hot enough for the washing machine in December when it aminly serves as a preheater cutting electricity demand by a third even in the worst month.

Remind me of the design life of a nuclear plant, how often it needs to be refueled and how long the waste needs to be kept under controlled conditions for.

As for me knowing nothing about infrastructure, anyone that does know anything about infrastructure will read my posts and know I'm right.

I repeat: micro PV generation(or any other micro production close to the point of consumption) cuts transmission losses and reduces infrastructure needs. If you disagree with this statement then provide resoned arguements against it. I'm am totally confident of being able to back up my assertions with logic, maths and physics.

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). Here it is again. 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

Ah - another shift of the goalposts. 26 GW is the total energy consumption not just the electricity.

"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.

Doubtless peak? Assumption? tidal flows are for much much more than half the day especially in the pentland firth.

aracer - 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?

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.

so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn't it.

You cannot have this both ways - either nukes are essential to prevent global warming and thus everyone must have them or they are not needed so no one needs them.

Its a global issue remember.

edukator clearly you do not

theres an old saying those that can't teach those that can do.....

your replacing large scale long life infrastructure with short life systems 25yrs is nothing.... which require diversities of 800 % over large scale infrastructure...

oh + learn to read I comented that strapping toy's on individual houses isn't the answer for society ..... a far better way of using is in local district system.......

whilst you've been making laudable attempts on sorting out your own footprint, I've been doing this in the real world for the past 30 yrs.....

Go on then, post up your credentials and dazzle us all, T1000. Persoanlly I'd rather rely on the strength of my arguments than the strength of my CV.

A quick Google reveals 60 years as the highest projected life of a nuclear reactor after which it needs decommissioning. Solar panels will last beoyond 25 years and faultly panels are easily swapped out in a few hours. Hydro reservoirs silt up which isn't great but wind turbines and tidal turbines can provide power reliably for long periods with maintenance and replacement of individual units having little impact on total production. Nuclear stations require shut down for maintenance.

I've already gone into intelligent meters and tarifs to spread demand. The worst month's PV production was December with 120kWh and the best last April with 394kWh. You work it out.

You might be interested in the savings made by progressively improving the insulation of a house. Consumption of gas with a thermostat set at 18°C in the evening:

02 602m3 house with basic roof insulation and double glazing
03 468m3 properly insulated roof.
04 503m3
05 514m3
06 490m3
07 359m3 first rooms lined with wood
08 326m3 more insulation of shutters and windows
09 270m3 more wood and a double back door
10 236m3 yet more wood

At that point I cut off the gas and installed a wood burner. Electricity consumption has been between 1235kWh and 2385kWh so no, we haven't replaced gas consumption with electricity consumption.

It really is easy for households to cut consumption as I've proved. And it's cost effective so long as you do the work yourself. The total cost of the insulating work has been no more than 2500e. The saving in gas was worth about 400e a year before I changed to wood.

theres an old saying those that can't teach those that can do.....

Yep, and it's a stupid saying made up by those who want to discredit the teaching profession. Perhaps because they feel threatened, I dunno.

Doubtless peak? Assumption? tidal flows are for much much more than half the day especially in the pentland firth.

so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn't it.

You cannot have this both ways - either nukes are essential to prevent global warming and thus everyone must have them or they are not needed so no one needs them.

Its a global issue remember.

[b]TJ said...[/b]
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?

[b]Aracer said...[/b]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.

[b]TJ said...[/b] so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn't it.

(hopefully I've got the 'who said what' right)

Let me try and simplify this for you TJ. Nobody's said that nuclear is the complete solution for the whole world. Far from it. Nuclear is [b][i]part[/i][/b] of the solution and helpful. If new nuclear means we can close one coal-fired station, good. If we can close ten, great and if we can close a hundred, that's flipping fantastic.

I can get a train to London but I can't get a train to work. That doesn't make trains "pointless"

So there (again) is an answer to the question that you say nobody will answer.

My wife teaches. Before that she was a successful business woman. I taught. Before that I did lots of things. It's a job with its advantages and disadvantages, if you're good at it it's a great way to make a living. I doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife.

The original was "those that can do, those that can't teach". Anyone that's done a PGCE will add "those that can't teach, teach teachers".

I doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife

Druidh was right. None of the pro nukes people will provide an answer to that question.

Lots of obfuscation and beating around the bush but no answer.

Aracer - Higgo - it has been said by the pro nukes on here nuclear is [b]essential. [/b] to stop the lights going out an to stop global warming.

However it is only essential for the UK and other chosen countries - its not only not essential its not allowed for unfriendly countries.

No parallel with teh various case you make out.

Now try again. if it is essential / imperative for us to have new nukes why does this not apply to all countries?

My wife teaches...... I doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife.

There goes your credibility....

Druidh was right. None of the pro nukes people will provide an answer to that question.

You really do confuse me. What is the unanswerable question?

edit: can you phrase is so it only requires a yes/no answer? If you can, I will answer it for you.

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 you claim as people have done on this thread that it is essential for the UK to have nukes - not desirable but essential then explain why its not essential for Iran.

Edit
Yes / no answer. - difficult as it requires a rationale.

maybe in a few parts.
Is it [b]essential [/b]for the UK to have new nukes?
If it is essential for the UK is it essential for Iran and other similar counties

(can't be done in yes/ no)

If you answer yes to the first ( as people have claimed on this thread) and no to the second what is the fundamental difference?

Well some countries don't need them, do they?

No parallel with teh various case you make out.

In order to clarify exactly the question you want answering, I'm going to have to ask you a question - you think it would be OK for us to have nuclear power if all countries around the world had nuclear power?

araer - it is not the same argument as I don't claim it is essential to have those other things Thats the key. You have claimed it is esential that the UK has nukes. Essential. Imperative.

Geothermal is not essential, hydro is not esential - they are desirable

you claimed that nukes were essential in the UK but not in other countries.

BTW there is geothermal potential in England.

Given a new nuke is 1.6GW, tens of MW isn't really all that significant.

I think that regardless of scale EROEI is something we should always be thinking about.

Just looking for info on EROEI of nuclear (other than figures produced by the nuclear industry) and came across this.

Have to say it's good to see that there are people out there discussing these things (both sides of the argument) who actually seem to know what they are talking about.

It's hard to follow, but interesting, and the discussion in the comments even more so.

[url= http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.html ]EROEI for nuclear.[/url]

Surely Iceland doens't need nukes, nor do many Middle Eastern/North African countries?

TJ wriggled about a bit and came out with:

You have claimed it is esential that the UK has nukes. Essential. Imperative

I very much doubt I've said nuclear is any more essential than you've said tidal is essential. [b]Something[/b] new is essential to stop the light going out. Nuclear is the best solution from those available. Essential, no, we could build more fossil fuel powered stuff instead I suppose - I don't suppose the world would end if we did.

Geothermal is not essential, hydro is not esential - they are desirable

On a different tangent I said I would ask my folks about their PVs and see what they get fronm them

The only data my dad had to hand was in the form of monetary value.

Over the Autumn they got about £40 a month worth of electricity from the panels, over the winter around £20 a month ( and there was snow on the panels for weeks)

Expecting to get £60 a month over summer.

Thats on a roof in suburban Glasgow.

I don't know what the KWhr that translates into - about 20p a Kwhr? - so its what - a few KWhr a day? Have I worked that out right?

Not covering all their electricity consumption but in summer will be nearly enough. I think

That would cover our consumption.

How much did it cost them to install?

Thats Great TJ - **** knows what difference their PV cells are going to make when they want to boil a kettle when its dark outside mind 😉

I don't go to work, Aracer, I haven't for nine years, though official retirement age is still a long way off.

Whilst I'm not going to demand the closure of existing nuclear power stations before time I am convinced we won't need as many as we have now if we commit to energy saving and renewable sources.

There were two reasons I wanted to cut off the gas. 1/ less greenhouse gas emissions. 2/ I'd rather my country didn't have to sell its vinyards to pay to keep me warm in winter.

I'd rather not consume nuclear electricity. 1/ the real cost is high and we leave a legacy of waste for future generations. 2/ accidents are messy resulting in human suffering beyond what the industry will admit and tracts of land written off for long periods. 3/ renewable alternatives are viable and adequate if only we shift the emphasis from producing more to consuming less.

Is it essential for the UK to have new nukes?

If it is essential for the UK is it essential for Iran and other similar counties

Local solutions for local problems (where the problem is providing power for the populace)

Molgrips - about £9000 IIRC but some grant available - I don't know the details

Unlikely to pay back the cost of them at current ellecy prices but the grant makes it worthwhile for the housholder

Higgo - so nukes are not essential to stop the lights going out in the UK and to prevent global warming? So actually they are a choice not an imperative.

global warming is a global problem

As I have it to hand here is my PV production for the last year at 43°N/ Our highest consumption is about 240kWh a month in December with 2200kWh consumed last year (you can add a bit for what we consumed when on holiday which was quite often).

306 kWh March 2011
199
129
120 Dec 2010
138
280
324
320
373
356
394 Avril 2010
312

Whilst I'm not going to demand the closure of existing nuclear power stations before time I am convinced we won't need as many as we have now if we commit to energy saving and renewable sources

Meanwhile here in the UK we're looking for something to replace aging nuclear and conventional plants, not to rival France for proportion of nuclear.

As I have it to hand here is my PV production for the last year

Higgo - so nukes are not essential to stop the lights going out in the UK and to prevent global warming? So actually they are a choice not an imperative.

global warming is a global problem

global warming is a global problem

Goodnight all.
Same again tomorrow no doubt.

I didn't say that, suggest it or imply it. I said December was the worst month. We were in deficit for three months last year. This year looks better thanks to the 3W bulbs and more efficient kitchen appliances.

Goodnight Higgo. Tomorrow is MTBing in the morning and a visit to the DIY shop in the afternoon. There has to be a way of getting electricity consumption below 120kWh for December, perhaps a longer ski holiday. 😉