Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target

Based on what? Our sterling efforts at reducing energy usage to date?

What efforts? We haven’t made any significant ones.

Lets see – sensible achievable measures that we could do.

Proper insulation of all housing stock.

Creat mechanisms to prevent commercial buildings leaving lights on overnight ( could be legislative could be financial)

Stop lighting up historic buildings all night

Move to LED lighting

Turn some streetlighting off in the small hours of the morning

Build local CHP plants

Give consumers a greater financial incentive to reduce consumption.

And many many more.

Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction and in use of renewables then it does make nukes look reasonable which is why Aracer does this

Neatly glossing over the enormous CO2 production burden in building the nuclear plants and the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.

What efforts? We haven’t made any significant ones.

That’s exactly my point – the post was sarcastic.

Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction

No-one’s ignoring it – I’m certainly not.

to those of you still arguing, it’s best to remember the serenity/engineers prayer,

“Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.

I was wondering just how long it would take you to lie about something where you’d already been proven wrong.

When the vast majority of people can’t afford anything other than either a load limiting or expensive time of use peak tariff that should help solve the energy reduction conundrum. The problem is that it will inevitably be seen as a tax on the poor, so whilst the rich will still be able to consume energy, the less well off simply won’t be able to afford to put (all) the lights on. Look at countries like SA, using aircon in peak demand is prohibitably expensive for all but the rich.

Of course we will need to be a significant way into the smart meter roll out programme for that to start to have an effect and Distribution Networks are predicting supply issues as early as late next year.

Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.

Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.

I’ll check back in another 800 odd posts then…

I’ll check back in another 800 odd posts then…

Give it 8000 to be on the safe side

Aracer – Its not a lie its an opinion based on looking to the record. to build ten new nuclear power stations in 10 years when the sites to build them have not been selected let alone the tender documents written or contractor appointed is a very tall order.

Look at thelead times for other major construction projects and for reactor builds in other countries.

DJGlover – again – scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor. 🙄

It does amuse me how the pro nukes make loads of assertions without a shred of evidence but atttack me for the same. Gross hypocrisy

Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor

Like your fuel duty increase idea from a few weeks back?

quite simply the ‘edukator’ guy is a numpty…. my comments about his own effort have been that he’s effort for his own lift are laudable….

Do you often praise numpties for their efforts? 🙄

unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole….
no need to be so personal but if one person can live like this it is therefore possible to do it. I am a vegan it is possible to do this. The fact you choose not to does not make it impossible.

DJGlover – again – scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor

Could well be, but I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come..!

For example a programme of real house insulation. In rented accommodation the landlord pays, in owner occupier the owner pays unless they are on benefits when the taxpayer pays.( obviously simplified) Thats an energy reduction measure that is no tax on the poor

Do you often praise numpties for their efforts?

Particularly laughable 😀

For example a programme of real house insulation

But gas provides most of the heat in UK homes and insulation won’t solve that problem, its the lights, TVs and white goods we are talking about really TJ.

I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come

Hmm, but there’s an easy way round the stick – it’s called democracy.

Eh? Insulating homes won’t save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won’t save gas?

I am talking about reducing energy usage thus CO2 production accross the whole country in every energy using way.

unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole….

if you are referring to Edukator there, he’s not german he’s a British faux Frenchman call John with a chip the size of the eiffel tower on his shoulder.

Eh? Insulating homes won’t save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won’t save gas?

No, he’s saying that saving all the gas in the world won’t address the nuke issue. Which is true.

Eh? Insulating homes won’t save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won’t save gas?

I am talking about reducing energy usage thus CO2 production accross the whole country in every energy using way

Sorry, confused, late to the debbate which I thought was about power, not gas. Yes insulation cleary helps save gas, but doesn’t save much power, so won’t help the power demand situation and need for future nuclear in the UK

You are right about efficiencies TJ, I’ll give you that.

Molgrips – but it is not true at all see my explanation above.

The aim is to reduce the CO2 output of the country as a whole. Put very simply if you reduce Co2 output from non electric sources you don’t need to do so much from electricity generation to have a reduction in CO2 overall.

You see I am looking at what is achievable to reduce CO2 output from the country as a whole to meet Kyoto pledges without using nukes.

And we are looking at whether or not you need nukes to keep the lights on whilst reducing CO2 from electricity generation.

DJGlover – its about reducing the CO2 output from the country in line with Kyoto pledges. I want to do this without using nukes. Because of the various factors with electricity I might need to increase and certainly will find it hard to reduce fossil fuel usage in electricity generation. (as electricity efficiency and renewables will be hard pushed to fill the gap created as the nukes are taken off line) however If i reduce energy usage across the rest of the energy using areas thus reducing CO2 output then I can meet Kyoto pledges in CO2 reduction without using nukes.

You see to me its about looking at the broad picture.

Now that’s false accounting.

You are saying taht we need to get down to a certain value so we can rob Peter to pay Paul.

However, our emissions need to be as low as they can be. Why don’t we aim for lower than Kyoto?

I want to do this without using nukes

I might need to…

I can meet Kyoto pledges

If i reduce energy usage across the rest of the energy using areas

Sounds like you are very serious about sorting things out Jez. I hope they are paying you well for solving the worlds problems.

You also need to balance it against energy security then, nuclear is attractive from that point of view as the russians can’t just turn off the tap, or push up prices too high.

Hi, Klunk. T1000 can’t read. Read the thread through and you’ll find all the information you provided except my name. My passport in French BTW. Care to post your own name in the intersts of fairness?

The japanese are currently demonstrating that cutting electricity demand is possible. The government has asked the population to reduce consumption and they have.

but if one person can live like this it is therefore possible to do it

It proves it is possible for one person to do so. Not that it is possible for everybody to do so. One obvious fundamental flaw being that he relies on his electricity company pumping water to provide him with power at night – not enough pumped storage (nowhere near) for everybody to do that.

T1000 can’t read

Can we not just leave off the cattiness? Jeez, it’s almost as if you WANT everyone on this thread to be annoyed.

You’re forgetting my investments in other alternative energies, Aracer, which means that even when the sun isn’t shining things I’ve helped finance are producing. Check back through the thread and one of the first things I demonstrated was that there is enough hydro to support my level of consumption for everyone in Europe.

I’m convinced that we can’t rely on governments to do the right thing. Political parties and governments are reliant on the “baddies” for cash and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Change will come from the bottom up if change there is to be. If you look at countries with a high proprtion of renewables it’s where the people are prepared to invest themselves, vote accordingly and also get out and protest.

How reliable is hydro btw? River flows go up and down a fair bit don’t they?

Change will come from the bottom up if change there is to be.

Ah yes, you’ve summed it up there nicely.

What you are saying is that we need to persuade people to actually give a sh*t about each other and the environment.

Not asking much is it?

Blame Thatcher! (Does this finish the game? Is it like Mornington Crescent?)

I actually want everyone on this thread to insulate their home, buy some energy efficinet appliances and invest in renewable energy, Molgrips.

T1000 can’t read. I have never stated or implied I’m German. I said I have German friends and I’ve linked German news sources when they report things the BBC haven’t such as the “out of control” quote when the technicians had to evacuate the control room. He jumps to lots of strange conclusions so I’m not too worried about him calling me a numpty.

Hydro schemes use reservoirs which have capacities ranging from a few hours to several months.

T1000 can’t read.

He clearly can…. Why the aggro?

I actually want everyone on this thread to insulate their home, buy some energy efficinet appliances and invest in renewable energy, Molgrips.

Me too. I also want world peace and an end to hunger.

Are you prpared to put your money where you mouth is though, Molgrips? Or will you spend it one some consumer toy instead?

Where’s the aggro from me? Quote please, Molgrips. I’ve said T1000 can’t read because he’s stated I’m a German living in rural France. I’m a French national of English origin living in a town of 150 000 and have never stated otherwise.

I specifically mentioned working for Welsh Water before emigrating. As I’ve also stated that I’m living at 43°N in SW France.

Are you prpared to put your money where you mouth is though, Molgrips?

Yes, eventually.

I have so far spent it on other things, quite right. Like a house on which to mount the panels, a modern car, that kind of thing 🙂

Where’s the aggro from me? Quote please, Molgrips.

Saying T1000 can’t read is aggro. He blatantly can. Perhaps he wasn’t concentrating quite hard enough on the general drivel on here (which has been going on for weeks), so he made a mistake. We all do that, no need to accuse someone of illiteracy.

Pretty negative attitude that, and I hate it 🙁

T1000 calls me a numpty and then posts a factually incorrect paragraph about me and you think it’s me being negative. I think saying he couldn’t read was a remarkably restrained response. It was either that or acuse him of being… #forum rules prevent honesty#

T1000 calls me a numpty and then posts a factually incorrect paragraph about me and you think it’s me being negative.

Yeah. Two possible responses:

1) “Well you clearly can’t read!”
2) “Check back, that’s not quite what I said”

Which do you think is more egregious?