But they are increasingly dependant on Russia for energy. Not very bright when it comes to energy security.
As I said, they're very good at building things. Long term strategies (especially involving Russia) - not so good.
Yes to Nuclear Power.
Safe
Nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source
Abundant, relatively inexpensive raw material from stable sources
Most concentrated energy source
Yes there are some negatives but at the moment until they get fusion working there is no alternative.
mikewsmith - Premier MemberWe do have a long term waste storage strategy
Interesting. What is it? As far as I am aware this is unresolved so I would like to know what this secret solution to the storage of the waste is as no one else seems to know.
The day a satisfactory solution to the issues around waste storage is found is the day I will consider support for nuclear.
I love the idea of a huge fusion reactor telling us that Nuclear power is bad.Exactly. The only huge fusion reactor which should be supplying us with energy, should be kept 90 million miles away.
Not next to a city.
Epic FAIL.
Even wikipedia can reliably tell you the difference between fission and fusion, ernie...
As for current technology, uranium fission has been managed very safely in the UK for the past 50 years. Energy efficiencies are great, but in the real world, will they happen? I fear not...
Add to this the bizarre idea that we should be focussing transport on electrical-based energy (H2 or batteries), and we'll need more stable baseline generation. The only viable forms of this energy in the UK are tidal and hydro - both finite in quantity as there aren't that many valleys left to flood, and not so many Severn estuaries to barrage.
Put simply, these are the facts:
1) Energy demand WILL increase
2) Greater strain will be placed on the electricity network due to decrease in use of oil for cars, and gas for heating as they become increasingly expensive, and the government 'makes' H2 / electric cars cheaper
3) Existing nukes due to be retired shortly - we need 25% more generation to replace them
4) Existing coal power due to be phased out - what will replace that?
5) Making the huge assumption that the several thousand-strong offshore windfarms announced shortly produce a significant amount of reliable energy, this will still be a fraction of that needed
6) Wave power and tidal lagoons are great, but untested in the sizes we require. This certainly needs more research, but can't possibly fill the gaping hole left by existing nukes, coal, and gas when it runs out
7) Increased interest in nuclear power will increase knowledge and research into better nuclear options. I see the [url= http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ ]thorium cycle has generated some posts above[/url].
8) Finally, someone may crack fusion. If they don't, the lights will eventually go out, no matter what.
9) It could be postulated that the risk of a very unlikely nuclear accident are worthwhile, given the dubious morals of not wishing a nuclear reaction near us, but blissful ignorance of the effects of burning more fossil fuels and slowly sinking 1 bn people who live in coastal regions throughout the world...
Zokes - there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.
There have been many serious accidents and discharges of radioactivity in the UK and these are still going on now.
The history of nuclear is full of accidents unreliability ane very expensive electricity. I have no faith that this will change and I would like to see the money being spent on nukes spent on energy conservation and research into alternatives.
Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.
what will you do with the waste?
Zokes - there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.
Really, do you see most of the 60m people on our rock listening to being told we can't drive, or watch TV? It's a fact that no political decision in a democracy can change
Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.
Correct, however I refer you to my final point above. How do you propose to tell the Bangladeshis et al who will lose most of their country if even the most conservative climate change predictions prove to be correct?
what will you do with the waste?
This is indeed the unanswered question, however, see my point about [url=what will you do with the waste? ]the thorium cycle[/url] above. In any case, morally what's worse for future generations? A comparatively small amount of highly dangerous waste, or the widespread loss of coastal areas, and high levels of draught and famine due to the changing climate. Your call...
Zokes - their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.
If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????
The waste question is critical.
I simply have no faith that nukes will be reliable enough to solve the issue and they do not reduce carbon release by a significant amount
It's to late, the building starts very soon. You can argue all you like but we will be getting lots of new nuc stations. All built by other countries over here.
Zokes - their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Most people in this country have no clue where their energy comes from, the implications of its use, or anything else. They are lazy. When oil prices go up they blame the government, when gas rises, they blame the supplier etc. Most simply do not care, and this is a fact that WILL NOT change. The only way it could would be by forced increases in prices through taxation. Just how quickly will any government forcing appreciable increases on energy prices last in government when every year we hear of impoverished elderly people dying because they can't afford to heat their homes?
If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????
And how 'safe' is forcing the CO2 back undergound? What would happen if it leaked out again? As for H2, how do you get it? Oh yes, by using lots of electricity to electrolyse water - do you see the flaw yet?
The waste question is critical.
I agree, although selfish national priorities versus taking a big step towards further cutting emissions that may reduce sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns that would affect billions. Your call...
TJ, whats wrong with out current nuclear waste storage statergy?
In the US they've been having the same debate, it's gone on so long that 'doing nothing' has become the prefered option. Leave the material in concreet flasks on the surface, in well secured, well inventoried sites.
We should have built Kingsnorth.................
Zokes - levels of energy consumption remain a political decision and there are many clear and obvious mechanisms available to reduce consumption. Its really simple to see but requires the political will. Capping usage. sliding scale pricing, compulsory insulation, price rises, stopping profligacy such as lighting commercial buildings overnight. Its possible but requires political will. I see several big buildings near me with lights on 24/7/365.
However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption
We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.
thisisnotaspoon - MemberTJ, whats wrong with out current nuclear waste storage statergy?
Which is? We have no capacity and no long term answer.
We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.
But why?
If I use a block lard to make some pastry for tonights pie I'll die of heart failiure.
If I make the patry with olive oil I'll stand a better chance.
If I make the crust form bread dough it's pretty much fat free (looks and tastes suprisingly like pastry too).
I still want my to eat my pie though. I just chose the method thats not going to kill me.
Which is? We have no capacity and no long term answer.
leave it on the surface as we do now, I said that. It works, its not going anywhere, its secure, its not casuing any polution. Once its cooled down we'll probably just put it in another concreet box.
Anyway, reprocessing technology means that theres a lot less waste generated now than there was 50 years ago.
But why?
Why not?
so where are you going to leave it on the surface? Reprocessing actually creates waste - smaller quantities of the very high level waste but more low and medium.
so where are you going to put this waste? The cooling ponds atr sellafield are full.
Probably put it in a concrete box? that sounds like a well defined and organised solution! What are you going to do with the concrete box?
TJ
"However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption
We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now."
Don't disagree but you sound so 1970's. Their is a lot of money in the various new technologies and it will be "big business" that provides it.
So you first with the reduced consumption, go on turn of the PC.
Zokes - levels of energy consumption remain a political decision and there are many clear and obvious mechanisms available to reduce consumption. Its really simple to see but requires the political will. Capping usage. sliding scale pricing, compulsory insulation, price rises, stopping profligacy such as lighting commercial buildings overnight. Its possible but requires political will. I see several big buildings near me with lights on 24/7/365.However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption
We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.
Right, lets see how long a government suggesting such policies will remain in power then in our 'democracy'?
Political will is one thing, but when such policy implementation will leave you out of power following the next election because the majority of the electorate can't see past their noses doesn't make that a likely prospect. To assume so, and base your energy policy around that fact is very naive indeed.
As to the waste question:
You still haven't justified how us making H2 from coal-fired electricity and actually increasing our use of coal will be preferable on a global scale to controlled use of U, followed by thorium, which again you've failed to comment on.
The policy decisions that can be made by our government relate simply to ENCOURAGING efficiency, and our choice of energy production. There is no conceivable way that a UK (or future independent Scottish one) can force compulsory efficiencies on the public. That may work on business re: lights 24/7, but this is small fry compared to the efficiency savings truly required if you want a renewables-centred energy policy.
The moral choice is quite simple:
Uranium fission and us dealing with the waste, with a view to thorium (and much less waste) in future
or
Burn more coal, and apologise profusely to the billions who WILL be affected by climate change
Anything else is utopian fantasy
Leave them on the surface, I don't work in the industry but know people who do research into this. Their oppinion is that there's no point moving it. You could stand next to the waste containers your whole life and suffer no ill efects (other than being a bit hungry as its a fair trek back to the cafe)
Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles
There's a hefty dose of wishful thinking in there I'm afraid. Also, either "simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly" OR "we must change our lifestyles", which is it? I'm afraid the answer in terms of meaningful, rather than at the margins, energy usage will mean radical changes to our lifestyle that will be extremely difficult to achieve.
I really, really, recommend the David MacKay book that has been linked to already above, and in other similar discussions. He carefully adds up all the numbers for how much we use, how much could be saved in various ways, and how much could be generated sustainably in various ways. The numbers are scary, and there are NO easy answers.
I don't work in the industry
Really!
yes there are
[img]
[/img]
"You could stand next to the waste containers your whole life and suffer no ill efects".
Is that why it's stored the way it is at Sellafield?
I dont know much about it, but being naturally cautious nuclear power doesnt seem a great idea.
this really is comedey genius though, very very funny:
Renewables are great, but largely unstable.
Nuclear is stable
For all the paranoid amongst you, have a little look for dosages of radiation from flying, or scarier - potassium-40. This is a natural radioisotope of potassium, present in all food. You willingly eat radiation every day, and quite a lot indeed of you like bananas. People have been eating bananas for a very long time without ill effects.
So yes, whilst some very low level radiation my be routinely released to the environment during modern nuclear industrial activities, maybe look where else you may be subject to radiation to get a sense of perspective...
this really is comedey genius though, very very funny:Renewables are great, but largely unstable.
Nuclear is stable
Not sure of the comedy. Wind energy is generated when it's windy - the lights go out when it isn't
Nuclear power is generated all the time.
Which is most stable?
Zokes - the two nukes in Scotland are running at around 40% of capacity and this fluctuates greatly. They simply are not stable As I said in the beggining of this debate
In the end it comes down to a faith argument. You either believe that the next generation of nuclear stations will be safe and reliable or you don't. I look to the history of nuclear power and I see accidents, pollution and expensive unreliable power generation. Others look to recent reactors in france and other countries and see cheap reliable and safe.
Yay...
It's inevitable given our lack of a real national energy policy and the current state of our generating and transmission systems. When you look at the options, unfortunately, I don't think we have a choice.
However, personally I'd prefer to see an upgraded European electricity grid with advanced storage technologies to handle a massive increase in renewables.
As for the current intermittency of wind, have you seen how much the national grid is affected if one or more of the current coal or nuclear stations, or the French interconnector, is on an unplanned outage?
But TJ, all you're doing is saying nukes are bad, yet failing to offer any [u]viable[/u] alternatives. With decision making like that you should run for government...
Nuclear power is the biggest government funded white elephant going. If you look at the political landscape at the time, it was all to do with weapons. Electricity was an added extra.
We have no native uranium, its a finite resource anyway, its hideously expensive to produce electricity (even when the cost models don't include waste disposal and management) and produces large volumes of waste that is very difficult to manage. TJ is right. There is no current established end-of-use storage solution, other than the existing 'do nothing' and keep it on the surface, which IMO is unacceptable for the very long durations it needs to be kept before it becomes safe.
If as much time, effort and money had been put into alternative sources, we'd be alot further down the renewables/hydrogen/fuel cell/incineration/gassification path than we are now and the energy supply composition of the UK would look alot healthier and alot more flexible than it is now.
Successive governments have neglected supply and generation infrastructure for years. We now have no choice but to go nuclear in the short-middle term, since other technologies are not suitably advance to make up the shortfall. There's really no point in arguing the toss.
Energy efficiency is easy. Government should legislate maximum power consumption for all mains supplied electronic goods (depending on what they are) and remove standby mode via statute. This takes it out of joe public's hands and is designed in during conception and manufacture of the device.
Zokes - I gave you my solutions. Increased energy efficiency, increased renewable s, decreased energy consumption, research into renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture and energy storage.
If every TV in the country was turned off rather than left on standby that would save the electricity of one average power station.
Wind power to produce electricity with fluctuations smoothed by hydrogen production and burning at the site of generation looks good to me - but obviously still needs work. Small scale it is working.
I simply believe that nuclear is too unreliable to be the solution. Thats the lesson from history.
yes,
get an all party 50 year plan, anybody who deviates has a methane extractor surgically attached, and see which of the renewables does actually work then start a planned and realistic migration strategy.
(* also maybe charging for power along the following lines might help
- below 3/4 average use @ 3/4 price
- 3/4 - average use = price
- 1/4 above average use = price + 1/4
- above that price + 50% etc etc
If as much time, effort and money had been put into alternative sources, we'd be alot further down the renewables/hydrogen/fuel cell/incineration/gassification path than we are now and the energy supply composition of the UK would look alot healthier and alot more flexible than it is now.
Fair point, however:
1) Hydrogen, as I have said before, needs large amounts of electricity to electrolyse it from water. Any move to a H2 economy relies on a massive increase in electricity generation
2)Incineration is quite lossy in terms of energy liberated by burning vs investment of new energy and materials if things aren't reused / recycled. In any case, despite what people may think, there isn't actually that much rubbish to burn in the grand scheme of things
3) Gasification / pyrolysis. See my above point re EfW. If we're talking about biofiels, then you have the world's greatest white elephant. The planet can barely sustain our food and water requirements as it is, just where do you propose we find all this fertile land to grow the vast amounts of biomass required?
Everyone says money on nuclear is wasted and should have been invested into renewables. This is a puzzling argument. Renewables are as follows:
1) Wind - we know how to do this, but we also have limited space, and are limited by its unreliability
2) Tide - space limitations, tides go in / out at fixed times, not necessarily when needed. Huge ecological implications.
3) Solar - in this country?!? Although this is certainly one area where improvements in panels can be made, at present many panels will last for a shorter length of time than that required to pay back their energy during manufacture
4) Biofuel - See above: feed us, or our cars, but not both
5) Wave - again under used and under-researched, but hardly likely to be a panacea
I'm sure I'll have missed one...
Energy efficiency is easy. Government should legislate maximum power consumption for all mains supplied electronic goods (depending on what they are) and remove standby mode via statute. This takes it out of joe public's hands and is designed in during conception and manufacture of the device.
Have you seen the fuss now they're phasing out incandescent bulbs? This is the British public we're talking about. In any case, it'll take a lot more than limiting power consumption per appliance. We need to limit the use of appliances full stop. Everyone points to improved efficiencies etc. I wrote enough on this further up the thread to demonstrate why it simply won't work
Zokes - I gave you my solutions. Increased energy efficiency, increased renewable s, decreased energy consumption, research into renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture and energy storage.
OK, so just how were you going to make the British public change their habits, and remain in office, were you the person who had to call it? You're basing the whole of the UK's energy economy on a fantasy utopia then. Just how much faith do you have in joe public's ability to see the issues, let alone understand and act?
The rest is small fry, and something I've just gone into detail in response to scienceofficer above...
I simply believe that nuclear is too unreliable to be the solution. Thats the lesson from history.
Yes, because designs haven't improved in 50 years? 🙄
AGAIN, see my comments on the Thorium cycle for further evidence.
The whole lot is pi$$ing in the wind if we can't crack fusion anyway. In 50 years time we'll be nearly out of oil, and there'll be some very big wars to decide who gets / keeps the remainder...
Zokes - It won't wotrk [b]IN your opinion[/b]. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that. Some well researched people believe 25% energy usage cut could be made before lifestyle changes need to be made simply buy increasing efficiency sand reducing waste.
Really it needs a multi pronged approach and I personally beleive that the dirty, CO2 generating, unreliable and expensive nuclear has no place in it. Others may believe differently. We will see as England and Scotland are heading in diffferent directions - no new nukes up here.
Zokes - It won't wotrk IN your opinion. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that.
Yes, obviously my opinion isn't well researched then? Just what do you do for a living again? 🙄
Some well researched people believe 25% energy usage cut could be made before lifestyle changes need to be made simply buy increasing efficiency sand reducing waste.
Great, and with the world population set to grow, where does that leave us? Yes, that's right, with GREATER energy demand. If we want to replace oil as the fuel for transport, we're going to need a hell of a lot more generation capacity. At present, roughly 50% of UK energy usage is in transport. Then there's heating too. Not enough gas to go round, let alone fuel yet more gas power stations. They'll need to be replaced, and are some of the most efficient generation capacity we have...
Really it needs a multi pronged approach and I personally beleive that the dirty, CO2 generating, unreliable and expensive nuclear has no place in it. Others may believe differently. We will see as England and Scotland are heading in diffferent directions - no new nukes up here.
You're correct, so why dismiss out of hand one very large prong? You still haven't passed any views on alternatives to uranium in nuclear generation. Why don't you have a read?
Lastly, as I said before, there isn't the renewable resource on the planet to sustain our ever increasing demands. We therefore need another solution once fossil-based energy runs out. The only infinite resource we are currently aware of is nuclear fusion, and we're still 50 years away from it being a commercial reality. That's where we need to focus our research funding and attentions...
I watched a program the other day about the next generation finnish nuclear power stations,which are supposed to be the same design as the ones they want to build over here.
the gist was.
they are years over due.
they are over budget.
at the moment they would not be certified to run due to construction problems.
there are serious concerns over there safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
no thanks to this.
they are years over due.
they are over budget.
Apply this to [b]any[/b] large project [b]any[/b]where.
So because poor quality subcontractors have been used and screwed up means no more reactors should be built anywhere? The fact it has been noticed that they screwed up at this stage is actually quite reassuring.
Even Chernobyl only blew up because the staff disobeyed several safety procedures, and pretty much disabled every safety device installed before carrying out a banned experiment. As testament to this, the two undamaged reactors continued to generate without further issue for some years after. And this was a very crude soviet design that would never have been allowed to run in the west even back then. The world has come on some way in design since then...
Even Chernobyl only blew up because the staff disobeyed several safety procedures
Oh, that's all right then.
zokes - Member"Zokes - It won't wotrk IN your opinion. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that."
Yes, obviously my opinion isn't well researched then? Just what do you do for a living again?
I did not mean to imply that. You obviously are well informed. Others can read the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.
I do not dismiss nukes out of hand. I have read the evidence and looked a the record and have concluded that they have no part in the solution.
Oh, that's all right then.
And leaving 1bn plus people to be flooded out of their homes, and having their crops ruined isn't? Clearly wrongplacewrongtime....
I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change...
Zokes, it's all about human fallibility:
We make mistakes, it's a simple built in design flaw.
No matter what we do, what safeguards we put in place, this will still inevitably happen.
When it's something trivial, like forgetting to feed the cat, you just get a hungry cat.
When it comes to something more serious, like mixing up imperial and metric measurements, you get a ruined space program or the closure of an innovative and inspirational motorcycle company.
Do you really think that mixing inevitability of the human capacity for cock-ups with a technology that has the potential to ruin our planet for ever is a seriously good idea?
Oh, and every single nuclear scientist I have ever heard defend his chosen profession will claim that design has moved on, these mistakes can never happen again, designs are much improved now etc etc.
It's what the designers of Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl all said, and of course, they were wrong.
I don't advocate taking no action on climate change. But neither do I see a simple either/or proposition.
I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change
Breathtaking.
I do not dismiss nukes out of hand. I have read the evidence and looked a the record and have concluded that they have no part in the solution.
And that's an understandable opinion to have. It is one I also share to some extent of uranium fission. In my opinion however, it's the best option we have, preferring to balance the small risk of nuclear accidents and the waste issue for those of us using the energy against the certainty of catastrophic destruction as the effects of climate change become more severe. To counter us running out of oil and gas and becoming nuclear-free, we'll need more renewables than will be physically feasible, and burn a lot more coal than we currently do.
Thorium on the other hand? The Indians appear to be getting somewhere with that, and it's a lot cleaner and more efficient than uranium-based technologies, and apparently promises greater reserves of easily extractable fuel.
The final answer has to be nuclear fusion however, but thanks to lack of long-term funding that's still at least 50 years away, as it was 50 years ago...
Sadly I suspect the final answer will be the human race destroying itself as we fight over the ever-decreasing oil reserves, but that's another debate entirely.
I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate changeBreathtaking.
Quite.
You clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world. At least if one of our nuclear plants were to go TU, for the most part it would be a western problem, which would be considerably fairer than them facing the consequences of our continued use of coal and oil...
Zokes,
Just gone back over a few of your recent essays and found this gem:
Tide - space limitations, tides go in / out at fixed times, not necessarily when needed.
You've really looked into this haven't you?
"Space limitations" - What are you on about?
"fixed times" - Well looking at today's tides I see first high water in Ullapool was at 1.53 a.m whilst in Portsmouth it was at 5.55 a.m. That's a 4 hour spread. Given that tides are strongest about 3 hours after they are slack (a 3 hour spread), that would lead me to believe that if you built tidal power generation around the coastline then you could have a pretty constant supply of electricity from them. Follow that?
Zokes, Seems you're getting a little bit rabid about this, but thanks for your critique of renewables. Clearly I haven't listed all the possible options and those I did were examples. I do note that you completely fail to list the downsides of nuclear or the, frankly, incredible capital spend required.
Hopefully you'll realise that they were to highlight the fact that there is plenty more that could be being done to contribute to the energy mix of the UK and thus reduce dependency on nuclear.
Ultimately, I agree that fusion power is the final step.
On the energy efficiency thing you miss the point. If manufacturers are made to produce efficient devices, the public will not see any impact.
On climate change - most people can't appreciate how much of an effect it will have on them, let alone developing nations. I'd not bother preaching TBH. You'll just get upset up about it.
You clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world.
I think I do actually. OTOH you seem remarkably chipper about the potential consequences of nuclear accidents.
Its an issue of scale.
Nuclear accidents are really quite small scale though, even if they are nasty.
I don't doubt the capacity for them to seriously affect hundreds of thousands of people, however, global climate change is liable to affect millions, if not billions. Have you ever stopped to actually think about what a billion, or even a million actually is? Its a staggering number. Been to a packed out Wembly for a gig? That feels like the whole of London is there, but its only 72,000.
A dead person is still a dead person, whether by radiation, starvation, drought, or the wars that will happen over life giving resources.
I think some people are still thinking that "nuclear accident" = "nuclear explosion", and that makes it impossible for them to think clearly.
Which was the worse industrial accident, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ]Chernobyl[/url] or [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster ]Bhopal[/url]?
Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
The point is, no-one claims that Bhopal means we shouldn't have a chemicals industry.
To paraphrase, are you saying "sh1t happens, get over it"?
Chernobyl, by some margin.
You've really looked into this haven't you?"Space limitations" - What are you on about?
"fixed times" - Well looking at today's tides I see first high water in Ullapool was at 1.53 a.m whilst in Portsmouth it was at 5.55 a.m. That's a 4 hour spread. Given that tides are strongest about 3 hours after they are slack (a 3 hour spread), that would lead me to believe that if you built tidal power generation around the coastline then you could have a pretty constant supply of electricity from them. Follow that?
Yes, I have actually.
With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides, and certainly not on a balanced approach. Have a look at the shape of the country. For comparison, the Severn is estimated to be able to generate a massive 7GW at peak as the tide goes out. One of the few other places seriously considered is the Mersey, but that would offer a paltry 300MW. I'm sure there are a few more, but to generate useful amounts of electricity, there really aren't any more. Don't think these are totally green either - there are massive ecological implications for the estuaries affected, and quite possibly appreciable methane gas fluxes as a result of the altered 'tides'.
Zokes, Seems you're getting a little bit rabid about this, but thanks for your critique of renewables. Clearly I haven't listed all the possible options and those I did were examples. I do note that you completely fail to list the downsides of nuclear or the, frankly, incredible capital spend required.
It all comes back to money then? Stuff the third world because it's too expensive?
On the energy efficiency thing you miss the point. If manufacturers are made to produce efficient devices, the public will not see any impact.
Other than increase in price to them? One would assume that the companies would pass the blame for those price increases to the government's door for the electorate to digest and selfishly act upon? New plasma TV suddenly twice the price of old plasma TV? - I'm fairly sure they'd want to know why...
rightplacerighttime - MemberYou clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world.
I think I do actually. OTOH you seem remarkably chipper about the potential consequences of nuclear accidents.
Clearly you don't. Short of nuking a lot of major cities (and it's already been noted that power stations are rarely built close to large centres of population), I can't imagine a death toll of greater than one 6th of the world's population resulting from what is an extremely unlikely event that several nuclear power stations fail as catastrophically as Chernobyl.
However coastal flooding and changes in rainfall as a result of global warming will almost certainly cause that number of deaths. Oh, and to make it even cheerier, the amount of methane likely to be released from melting permafrost and the oceans if we continue will make our contributions seem quite minor by comparison...
On climate change - most people can't appreciate how much of an effect it will have on them, let alone developing nations. I'd not bother preaching TBH. You'll just get upset up about it.
Not really, although it's quite useful to demonstrate why asking or forcing people to be efficient simply won't work
With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides
Utter crap
Next time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.
rightplacerighttime - MemberWho was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
rightplacerighttime - MemberTo paraphrase, are you saying "sh1t happens, get over it"?
Looks like it. As you clearly don't care about global warming, why should you care about whether we use nuclear electricity to power your computer. I'm alright Jack...
José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind."We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020," he told El PaÃs newspaper.
Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country's nuclear plants.
Experts estimate that by the end of the year, Spain will have provided a quarter of its energy needs with renewables, with wind leading the way, followed by hydroelectric power and solar energy.
There's got to be some hope for wind power - I'd quite happily see a large portion of East Anglia covered in Turbines and it is in my back yard.
Utter crapNext time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.
Ah, those underwater 'wind' turbines? Or maybe tidal pools? Yes 🙄
Any idea of the area of the Severn estuary? To give us 7GW all the time, how many tidal pools would have to be built around the coast? Is there enough relatively shallow sea in which to do this?
As for the sea-current turbines, they're a great idea, but limited by areas in which they can be deployed, and somewhat lacking in energy output. They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.
zokes,
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?
You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.
The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.
They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.
And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?
rightplacerighttime - Memberzokes,
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?
You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.
The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.
Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people. If you wish, we can work out just how many times Chernobyl would have to explode to kill the same number...
Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people.
When have I said anything about the effect it will have?
When have I said anything about the effect it will have?
You haven't. I'm simply trying to draw your attention to the scale of numbers. Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000. Just how many multiples of that number are there in 1bn?
You're also assuming that a catastrophic accident (which as I said earlier was the direct result of staff disobeying orders and disabling all the safety backups before carrying out an experiment on a reactor that would never have been allowed to run in the west, even then) will happen in a modern, much better designed and managed reactor?
And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?
The UK government is proposing 12.5 GW at this stage new nuclear build.
However, we've gone back to arguing about current technologies. The tides are fixed, it's unlikely we're going to get more usable wind. There are physical boundaries to where renewable generation can be built.
The future of nuclear is very different. Go back through the thread again, and look for my mentions of thorium....
With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides
Several place in scotland. pentland firth and the falls of lorn are the most obvious but the forth and the clyde could be as well as well as one or two others. One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.
One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.
Which is good, but you only have 5m people to supply. There simply isn't enough for the UK as a whole. I personally think tidal barrages are one of the more promising renewable options, but in their own way, locally they are very destructive. I agree this is nothing compared to the effects climate change would have, but in terms of local decimation of wildlife, a 2GW nuke in normal operation wouldn't be much worse.
Tidal power is ace... Until of course you get to slack water and all the lights go out
Dont worry though, because we've got wind turbines to cover for then haven't we 🙄
Ratty- Z-11
However coastal flooding and changes in rainfall as a result of global warming will almost certainly cause that number of deaths.
Is that the same global warming that you are arguing is not occurring on this thread?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming
dont read it we argued a bit on there
Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes
Z-11 what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to decieve... I file you under trolling BS ratty.
Nice line BTW RPRT
Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
Zulu - wrong. Have a look at how they work - tides are different in different parts of the country and different designs take the power in different ways. With all renewables you need some power storage - hydrogen is my fave but pump storage is possible as welland there are various schemes for getting power storge domestically / locally as well
Do try harder. If you want to rubbish something get your facts right.
Zokes - you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here - enough to make a difference UK wide - maybe 10 - 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal - but it does have an environmental cost of its own.
I'm pleased Z11 has moved across from the climate change thread to add his critical thinking to this subject!
Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
Curiously, Hitler, on death-toll alone....
Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes
Good for him. I haven't looked at that thread. Seeing as it looks to be about 10 pages long, I'm not going to start.
Was there a point to your post, Junkyard?
only for the intelligent reader Zokes - I learnt from that thread the art of trading pointless insults with random starngers - not a great debating technique IMHO
Only that RTRP is not denying climate change and he has not done so in this thread - I thought it was a fairly clear point now made explicit for you.
That and ratty just argues for the sake of it.
Zokes - you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here - enough to make a difference UK wide - maybe 10 - 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal - but it does have an environmental cost of its own.
I chose that as the most obvious example, mainly because it's also the one that got closest to being built.
I am certainly not 100% for current nuclear, I see it as part of a mixture of advances for future generation, and hope we can move away from messy uranium as quickly as possible. However I do take exception to those who dismiss nuclear out of hand without offering a viable low-carbon solution.
When full LCAs are carried out on most 'low-carbon' technology, you'll realise it's not just nuclear that's dubious in its claims of being 'low carbon'
The bottom line is as we're most unlikely to appreciably cut our energy demands, we'll all find nuclear risks and even global warming a bit of a small problem compared to the chaos that will ensure when oil truly starts to run out, and people try to enforce their claims to what's left...
Junkyard - Premier Memberonly for the intelligent reader Zokes
You must have missed it then
tides are different in different parts of the country and different design
So TJ - you need to build just how many levels of redundancy into your system?
If you need a national draw of, say, 10 GW - you need to build power generation capacity for what? 20 maybe 30 GW to account for the problems and lack of continuity?
there wouldn't be an inch of coastline or unblemished hillside left in the country!
nice retort BTW - still a bit pointless though
nice retort BTW - still a bit pointless though
Well, put your handbag away and contribute to the debate, rather than the poor attempt at trolling you're currently pedalling.
Zokes said:
Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000.
Zokes also said:
I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change...
Actually Zokes, I agree with you that the carrying capacity of the earth may well fall by 1 bn because of global warming (and other things, like peak-oil) - how that will play out is a matter for debate - depends how we manage things.
But what I take exception to is your your self-righteous assertion that a few hundred thousand killed in nuclear accidents is "small fry"
No zulu. You don't understand at all. As on the climate change debate you have so little idea of what is actually happening. Not good considering you are supposed to be a scientist.
One tidal barrage at the falls of lorn, another at the dornoch firth ( for example) each one will fluctuate but the two together will produce a smooth stream of power as they are out of phase.
Local power storage ( there are many proposed ideas - using domestic hot wate heating for example) also smooths it out.
YOu are supposed to be a scientist. try learning a bit about what yu spout on about. Try not to show your ignorance and stupidity.