Come on guys, nobody really wants an electric car or an ipad, everyone really wants to stop using electricity and start burning wood again to keep warm during the winter, you all know we don’t need nuclear power. We definitely don’t want to run a Mars mission or keep CERN finding out awesome things about the universe we exist in.

Also nuclear fission kills millions of people every day, Herbert L. Anderson, Eugene T. Booth, John R. Dunning, Enrico Fermi, G. Norris Glasoe, and Francis G. Slack are worse then Hitler don’t you know.

They just need to work on a cheap rocket and blast the nuclear waste into space, there’s relatively little of it generated in comparison to the power generated.
Then again if the UK shale gas reserves are as big as some are saying then who cares, we’re fine…

I’m happy to see more nuclear power here. It’s been proven over the last 20 years or so that it’s a reliable source of energy. I’m surprised that successive Govt’s here have been so reticent TBH. As for wind farms I’m all for them, more offshore if possible, but I’m happy with them in my back yard, shame others think differently, If there is some way of making wind farms more efficient and give better ROI then that would be good as currently they are inefficient, so too tidal gates, bit heath robinson at the moment with the only reaserch going into them are a few universities, shame the mahooosive energy companies aren’t ploughing more of our hard earned into finding other ways to supply humans with the basic needs of heat and light.

But really with all this talk of renewable energy.. .. we ought to have been thinking and putting in place this back in the 70’s at the latest
Never say never, now’s as good a time as any.
Only thing I worry about is if we build all this/these nuclear power stations is, do we have the skill base here in the Uk or indeed the world, to cover the builds.. I fear we don’t. I fear we’ll start some rushed programme and suffer the consequences.

so too tidal gates, bit heath robinson at the moment with the only reaserch going into them are a few universities,

tidal turbines are up and running and are being installed. This is proven tech

I doubt there are enough tidal turbine locations to meet the demand created by homes like yours though TJ.

TandemJeremy – Member
tidal turbines are up and running and are being installed. This is proven tech

How much output is expected? How many installations are needed to generate a flat-ish output suitable for base-load?

See dead spots here:

Tootall – the tidal is being installed now with proven tech. It will provide base load quicker than new nukes which will take more than ten years to do so. In ten years there should be enough tidal for Scotlands base load. Its a multiphase plan for many many years. stage 1 is get the north south interconnect up and install the offshore tidal wave and wind – this is all underway.

I’d be interested to see the reports that say that there will be enough tidal to support Scotland’s base load. It sounds fairly contrary to anything I’ve read. Who’s published this?

I take it you capture the carbon from burning the wood, edukator?
Well done for being energy negative. Out of interest, how do those figures tally against what the providers estimated that you’d get?

(Regarding Dounreay)

You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.

correct.

well done TJ, it seems that you do listen after all 🙂

retro – the two locations for the tidal flow generator arrays are such that the high tides are around 2 – 2 1/2 hrs apart IIRC so you would have another blue line almost exactly out of phase with the one on that chart.

Ian – “some base load” might have been better – but the potential is there

awhiles – but no one has actually decommissioned a modern generator yet and I for one do not believe the numbers from the nuclear industry – as they have been proven to be wrong time and time again and its very noticeable that no private company will have anything to do with a reactor unless the government underwrites the cost of decommissioning.

Its a huge open ended unknown cost

Aye, Scotland definitely has some good opportunities to make a lot more of it’s base-load renewable in the near future.

The wood is garden waste so carbon neutral assuming the bio-mass in the gardens it comes from doesn’t go up or down over the years.

The panels were predicted to produce 3089 kWh/year. They produced 3218kWh the first year and 3392kWh the second year. Obviously it’s weather dependent.

Yup I know the Scottish trials and all that, tidals a good idea but needs far larger generators. Only problem with sticking turbines in the sea are those pesky creatures that live in it.
But it’s a good step, small step. I’m not saying too little too late, far from it, but we’re at least 25 years away of even remotely coming up with viable ideas of solutions, currently we’re only scratching a very thin surface with very few people with vision and skills to to come up with ideas.

A simple example, planning for 3 solar powered conversion panels placed on a roof has been turned down because “it’s not in keeping with the environment”

Once you kick that limited and outdated view out of the system we’ll start to break through this limited and reticent view that’s so prevalent in this country.

But I’ll be dead long before any of this comes to fruition. I’ll be remembers as one of the infighting generation (the Now) with a whole world full of limited views, party politics and gerrymandering for the “latest quick short term hit”

Observing the world from my shoes it’s seems only a few lucky enough countries have been able to have foresight and tap into natural sources of energy, those left in this world without such are left holding an empty bucket, with a hole in it, hoping we can top it up from some else’s rather full bucket.

Before you get carried away with this renewables malarky, need to worry about this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111110125635.htm

Maybe more investment in fusion is the answer.

See dead spots here:

Blimey – so, realistically you’ve got to install at least 10 times the generation capacity needed to be assured reasonable continuity of supply, and then it still falls below that on occasion? 😯

Maybe we could have an extra bit tagged on to the end of the weather forecast? “well everyone, its going to be windy tonight, so don’t forget to turn your washing machines on when you go to bed” 😆

Bikebouy it is not “trials” as such it is large scale commercial installations 10 MW in the first phase but 1600 MW planned which is a significant % of Scotlands energy needs. No evidence of issues with sea creatures at all – the turbines move slowly.

The real problem will be the robustness of the system – How much of it will be left after the winter storms?

The wood is garden waste so carbon neutral assuming the bio-mass in the gardens it comes from doesn’t go up or down over the years.

I meant by burning the wood. The amount of wood you have burnt is small but if we all did it, we could not offset that carbon unless we capture it.
Another point RE turbines. A recent visit to CIBSE revealed that turbines are not even carbon neutral in such that they will not (at current figures) produce as much energy as it took to manufacture them.

“gearfreak – Member
Before you get carried away with this renewables malarky, need to worry about this”

In wind this is less of an issue for existing technology, and relates more to the emerging technology turbines that have no gearboxes and do everything within the generator.

wrecker – if he grows a tree to replace the one he burnt it is partly carbon neural – excluding the energy to cut and transport the wood

However it needs an unsustainable area of woodland to do this – it is not the answer for everyone. there is not enough area on the planet to grow biomass to supply everyones energy needs

Exactly what I was getting at TJ. He could capture and store the carbon, which as long as he has a sustainable source would be pretty much carbon neutral.

Wood from managed woodland (or gardens) is carbon neutral. Trees stock carbon as they grow so the trees now growing in the gardens are capturing the carbon as fast as I burn the wood. Even if we all burn wood it’s still carbon neutral so long as we don’t burn wood faster than we grow it.

Given the energy needs of a passive house, gowing sufficient wood to provide the very low levels of energy needed to heat all the homes in the land is entirely feasable – so long as all the houses are insulated to passive house standards.

Don’t know anything about the subject, so maybe you can help.
Can you have passive high density housing? Or does the building need a certain quantity of land and sky per a person to be effective?

edukator – the energy required to plant, cut, prepare and transport the wood?

The energy required to create the insulation, the energy required to build all these new houses?

Its as small part of the answer but can never be more than that – there is also the polution from the smoke to consider – a serious issue in cities

Not that I’mm suggesting we heat all the homes in the land with wood. Wood is just part of the energy mix suitied to individual houses in areas where the transport distances are short and land plentiful.

In cities then using electricity from renewables is the obvious option. Again, insulate to passive house standards and there’s already enough alternative electricity production in many European countries.

Improving standards of insulation is a huge part of the solution thats for sure along with other energy conservation methods

I don’t know what passive house standards are but part L of the building regs requires a high standard of insulation (and pressure testing).

The Prototype tidal turbine in Scotland, quotes below (from The Engineer)

“Installed as part of the Deep-Gen III project, co-funded by the UK government-backed Technology Strategy Board, the Rolls-Royce prototype tidal turbine is currently deployed at the European Marine Energy Centre’s (EMEC’s) offshore test site off the Orkney Islands, Scotland. It is the first EMEC-located project to receive Renewable Obligation Certificates and to reach 100MWh of supply to the grid.

The tidal unit’s three-bladed turbine is attached by a tripod to the seabed and can operate, fully submerged at water depth of 40m. It is reported that its design allows the turbine to continually rotate to face the incoming tide at an optimal angle. In addition, the turbine unit is semi-buoyant and can be towed to and from the point of operation, minimising installation and maintenance costs by avoiding the need for specialist vessels.

As part of the Energy Technologies Institute-funded ReDAPT (Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal) consortium project, Rolls-Royce is currently building a 1MW tidal turbine demonstration unit that will be deployed in mid-2012 at EMEC in Orkney.

Dr David Clarke, ETI chief executive, said: ’The UK is already a world leader in this exciting renewable sector. However, the long-term viability of tidal technology depends on it becoming competitive with other renewable energy sources. Continued investment and new partners are urgently needed to maintain momentum and bring the technology to scale.’”

Nice to see so many different organisations involved, all producing some sort of “certificate” and with similar tests being carried out in triplicate no doubt. Lots of grants and subsidies too, but those ought to fade out when it comes on stream (no pun intended) in the future months. All stil at prototype stage but better than nothing.

I still worry about deep sea wildlife migration/habitation and the ability of these turbines to withstand both pressure and corrosive nature of the sea/sand/mud environment.

But hey.. More please, more please without grants and susidies and we’ll be able to turn a ligh on somewhere.

If the events in Fukushima did anything they proved that even if you have a reactor that is decades out of date and of questionable safety you can site it right on a major geological faultline and hit it with a massive tsunami…..and it still doesnt do anything like the damage that Greenpeace would lead you to believe.

Germany bravely decided to decomission its nuclear industry but will be happy to buy nuclear generated electricity from the French.

Lets build more nuclear power stations and keep working on tidal, wind, solar and so on……I’d rather not have to buy gas from Russia or oil from the Saudis thanks.

The energy to build a passive house is one of the criteria in it being called a “passive house”. A timber framed house with straw insulation takes less energy to build than a traditional house.

This Belgian site is the one I use as a reference for passive house standards but I’m sure there are similar sites that you English configured browsers will find if you Google “passive house definition” or similar.

Yup insulation would improve things greatly, though I think there would need to be some changes in legislation. For instance in the rental sector there is currently no real reason for property owners to improve insulation as they don’t have to pay the heating costs.

In my own home I’ve so far used 128 m2 of locally grown FSC 22mm pine boards and I’ve secondary double/triple glazed rather than buy new windows, doors and shutters. I don’t use straw but recycled polyester (made from recycled bottles).

Unless the french cut their electricity consumption this winter we’ll be buying German electricity from their coal-fired power stations. There’s lots of energy-saving propaganda on our TVs as EDF braces for the 19:00 peak if we see -10°C again this year.

Bikebouy the AR1000 is already installed and running. Nice to see some competition going in this field. Competition breeds progress.

Oh and just how do you consult with everyone along the route the train is going past, and are going to suffer if it goes bumpty bump off the track spilling its contents.

Reminds me of the nuclear flask crash test from the 1980s… Saw it on the news at the time (I thought the whole stunt had some interesting flaws…)

Made interesting PR at the time though:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc[/video]

ETA – the YT clip had a link to this – whic had a “driver’s eye” view…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3iRu71PGDA[/video]

Bikebouy – and that is old stuff.

Its moving beyond that quickly. a full size 1 mw was installed this year and 10 of them are going in over the next two years. several different companies involved

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/09/worlds-largest-subsea-tidal-turbine-installed-in-scotland

Don’t worry, there’s a plan.

What the Govt/Whitehall is currently planning on doing is arguing about Nuclear and carbon capture until it is too late to do anything about any of them. They don’t actually want to build these things because they are too politically (financially) difficult. We will then be forced to build more gas power stations and some small amount of renewables, but no one will be able to criticise because by then there will be no option.

Of course we will then be totally at the mercy of Russia for our energy supplies.

And climate change will be completely out of control (but it probably is already and it now looks as if the politicians are off the hook on that “sorry, we were much too busy sorting out the debt crisis – not our fault”)

Best bet is to go down Edukator’s route and DIY your energy if you can, or at least start to wean yourself off overuse if you can’t.

Improving standards of insulation is a huge part of the solution thats for sure along with other energy conservation methods

I couldn’t agree more, but I will defend your right to choose where you live and put yourself in a position where you limit the level of insulation you can actually put in your own home while expecting others to implement the solutions so that your lifestyle doesn’t have to change.

Yup insulation would improve things greatly

It would, but space heating is only a small part of energy consumption (about 20% as far as I can make out) so improved insulation doesn’t get you away from having to make hard decisions about energy supply.

No – but its one place amongst many to reduce energy consumption.

…no one has actually decommissioned a modern generator yet…

well, we haven’t ‘finished’ one yet, but we’ve started several.

decommissioning sites

Nuclear decomissioning is something we have to do even if we all agree that nuclear = badness.