Forum menu
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