Hard numbers on sustainable energy

[domtyler]

Aha! dom[mutated]tyler - it explains everything.

I'm afraid I wouldn't. I had my chance to work in the Nuclear industry but rejected it on the grounds that I don't like it, want it, or trust it.

We already have issues disposing of waste, if you want to see bigger issues, look at France. The waste legacy is too great but the frustrating thing is successive governments have ducked the issue until we may really only have Nuclear as an option.

I suppose some of these tossers who object to windmils won't mind a nuclear power station in their garden though.

Have you actually read the article? If you want to go down the renewables road we will need to turn the entire country into one enormous industrial site, covered in wind and tidal generators. There will not be a scrap of countryside left untouched. If that is what you call the environmental option then you can keep it quite frankly.

 

[Crackle]

Have you actually read the article? If you want to go down the renewables road we will need to turn the entire country into one enormous industrial site, covered in wind and tidal generators. There will not be a scrap of countryside left untouched. If that is what you call the environmental option then you can keep it quite frankly.

Nope! I couldn't be ar@ed. It's another in a long line of them.

As for renewables: They have a place. Perhaps not for industry but for generating local power or individual power and if the government stuck the kind of subsidies into those schemes they're about to lob into Nuclear, they would actually be affordable - it really pi@@es me off, especialy this morning.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Reading the article, if not the paper, would show you why that wouldn't work.

As for living next to one, I lived a few miles from Sizewell once and would very happily do so again.

Ben

 

[Crackle]

Reading the article, if not the paper, would show you why that wouldn't work.

As for living next to one, I lived a few miles from Sizewell once and would very happily do so again.

Ben

There's bugger all in it on micro-generation. They work but they cost. As for saving energy, he's snottily dismissive. It's the same old tired sh!te not the work of somebody with vision.

 

[Crackle]

Here's one small example

http://www.gigha.org.uk/windmills/TheStoryoftheWindmills.php

 

[domtyler]

The most interesting thing to come out of that article is the way different people on here have interpreted it. The dreamers have largely dismissed it as biased propaganda whereas the realists have accepted that we will probably see a growing nuclear energy industry in the future.

 

[Crackle]

The most interesting thing to come out of that article is the way different people on here have interpreted it. The dreamers have largely dismissed it as biased propaganda whereas the realists have accepted that we will probably see a growing nuclear energy industry in the future.

So you see yourself as 'the glass is neither half empty nor half full, 'cause I drank it' type person. Me too, that doesn't mean there aren't other things that can be done as well, it particularly doesn't mean you can divest yourself of individual responsibility.

 

[domtyler]

So you see yourself as 'the glass is neither half empty nor half full, 'cause I drank it' type person. Me too, that doesn't mean there aren't other things that can be done as well, it particularly doesn't mean you can divest yourself of individual responsibility.

I think a world where no individual need concern themselves with how much or how little energy they use would be the ideal. Other people see a world where everyone eeked out each individual joule (or preferably didn't exist in the first place) as the ideal.

 

[LLB]

We could harness the hot air being generated in this thread as a sustainable source

 

[hubgearfreak]

The dreamers --------- the realists

you crack me dom. that's not the first time that sensible people are the ones that agree with your opinion and the silly are those opposed i can't be arsed to search for it, so don't bother asking

 

[CopperBrompton]

As for saving energy, he's snottily dismissive.

Hardly snotty, just realistic. As he points out, to save power on the scale that would be required isn't about driving a bit less or not putting TVs on standby, it's about not heating our homes or taking baths.

As for wind power, read the article!

Ben

 

[Crackle]

Hardly snotty, just realistic. As he points out, to save power on the scale that would be required isn't about driving a bit less or not putting TVs on standby, it's about not heating our homes or taking baths.

As for wind power, read the article!

Ben

Sorry Ben, I was in a bit of a grump before.

On a large scale no, on a small replacement scale, probably no but as a means of supplementation yes, in certain circumstances. Read the Gigha example, there are many more. Up here in the highlands I know of several folk who use wind power, solar and heat pumps to provide their heat and power. There are grants available on new builds if you want to install such things. Unfortunately they are expensive and will remain so until either more people opt for them or there are higher grants available. It's not a replacement but if it lowers our dependency, decreases the overall amount of energy we need to generate through other means, then it's a step forwards.

Currently there is a new school being built up here. It has some very good environmental credentials and will cost little to heat. The build cost is high but the life costs are very low. In comparison to the cheap portacabins thrown up some years ago, it will actually cost less and last longer.

Clearly such schemes are not going to provide for industry but perhaps larger schemes for specific projects might.

Everything helps, it's rather defeatist to assume that nothing makes a difference so you might as well not do anything.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

i've only read the summary so far, not the whole book. Based on this, he's broadly right given the assumptions he makes, especially on nuclear. However, there seems to be very little on: micro-generation and a proper energy grid; improvements in renewable technologies, particularly solar; or, crucially, efficiency and demand-management. It seems to be based on the assumption that nothing can really be done to adjust demand and that therefore we plan to keep on generating huge amounts of energy most of which gets wasted.

Just in one area - the introduction of proper building standards could practically wipe out domestic and bsuiness heating demand. It is perfectly possible to build houses (or retrofit many existing houses) so that they need almost no external energy supply and are heated throughout the year on ambient heat and passive solar. Offices and factories similarly - and waste heat from industrial sources is hardly used at all yet.

Much transport energy demand could be solved by better urban and transport planning...

Technology-forcing through investment and pro-active regulation could encourage much faster development of both more efficient industrial processes and better renewable and continuous energy generation. Solar tiles and paints (in which you could effectively coat a lot of buildings) could make a great deal of difference if the investment was there. If you compare the R&D investment in renewables compared to nuclear or conventional generation, you will see how tiny our investment is and why this sector isn't producing the innovations and gains in efficiency that one might expect. In fact we could have started 30 years ago when we first realised all this was going to be an issue.

Those are just three things that could make a massive difference. I still think nuclear is the medium-term option, but we need a bit more innovative positive thinking than this article is proposing.

 

[CopperBrompton]

On a large scale no, on a small replacement scale, probably no but as a means of supplementation yes, in certain circumstances. Read the Gigha example

Absolutely, some alternative methods can provide small amounts of top-up power, and those need to be considered on their merits. Personally, I absolutely hate the impact of wind-farms on the landscape, and the noise close by then is horrendous, so for me they are not an approach I'd want to see expanded.

Solar, on the other hand, may well be a useful top-up source as the technology improves, especially in paint form.

Everything helps, it's rather defeatist to assume that nothing makes a difference so you might as well not do anything.

I don't think he's arguing that. He's arguing that it isn't realistic to cut power by the amount that would be required to do nothing, and that most forms of alternative energy being proposed would amount to tinkering around the edges. By all means, let's do some tinkering too, but we need to build nuclear power stations today given the lead-times involved before they come into service.

Ben

 

[CopperBrompton]

It seems to be based on the assumption that nothing can really be done to adjust demand

Not that nothing can be done, but rather that the sorts of things we can realistically do amount to rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

Just in one area - the introduction of proper building standards could practically wipe out domestic and bsuiness heating demand. It is perfectly possible to build houses (or retrofit many existing houses) so that they need almost no external energy supply and are heated throughout the year on ambient heat and passive solar.

I haven't read anything quite that optimistic, but certainly it's clear that this area has huge potential, it's simply very expensive.

Solar tiles and paints (in which you could effectively coat a lot of buildings) could make a great deal of difference if the investment was there.

The efficiency isn't there yet, but it will improve and certainly play some small useful role.

I still think nuclear is the medium-term option, but we need a bit more innovative positive thinking than this article is proposing.

That seems a reasonable summary to me.

Ben