Nuclear Powerplants

[Rave]

I'm another one who doesn't like it purely because of the overall cost (and potential danger) of storing waste for hundreds of years.

I personally am heavily in favour of wind power, according to the wikipedia (who may or may not be biased of course) it's actually the cheapest form of new build power generation in per-kilowatt terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

I would also like to see more small scale wind turbines- if every house in a modern developement had a 4' or 5' turbine on the roof then that could provide a significant proportion of their electricity usage.

I read once that Britain could generate all the electricity it needs by covering 1/3 of its landmass in wind turbines. Obviously that would be ridiculous but I see no reason why 5-10% couldn't be achievable, with significant further provision offshore (assuming that the cost doesn't rise exponentially when building ofshore). At the same time as building the offshore turbines, they could build wave power units too. As for the variability of supply- we've got Dinorwig and we could presumably build other pumped storage stations.

As for Solar power- photovoltaic panels are IMO never going to be a particularly useful technology for large-scale power generation, they're simply too inefficient and produce too little electricity- it's only recently that the designs got good enough that they'd even produce more energy in their lifetime than was used to make them! (Edit: seems I'm wrong about that- but the graph shows that PV is no use in the UK). Solar water heaters OTOH are a good idea and one that I'd like to see much more widely implemented. If production got started on a large scale I see no reason why the total cost of a system couldn't be reduced into the range of a few hundred pounds- after all they're basically a few pieces of painted black metal covered with glass, a pump, a control system and a few pipes. If a law was passed requiring every new build house to have it installed the cost would soon come right down.

[Lee H]

Really
So which renewable sources should we use then?

What about Geothermic power generation? This might be expensive, but its has the advantage that they release less than 4% of the greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel burning setups.

[badass]

A few posts ago you said only 2 bus fulls of nuclear waste had been created in 40 years when it is more than a thousand and it is still sitting around , so i'm not sure you are one to be questioning me What are we going to do with that waste, what about the radioactive pond of waste that the EU has taken the UK to court over? These are the kinds of problems we are storing up by using nuclear energy.

Well done for proving my point. You dont know what Intermediate level waste is. The ILW if it were to be dealt with properly could have its volume reduced hugely by seperating the radioactive parts from the non radioactive, much like they do for uranium enrichment. There have only been 2 busfulls of High level waste produced. Thats the nasty stuff. It accounts for 3% of the volume and 95% of all of the radioactivity produced.
As an added bonus, the redioactivity reduces to one thousandth of the level its buried at within 40 years. After that it can be further processed as it contains a lot of usefull materials.

Where they are needed and best used. Electricity using nimbys will complain but hey ho.

As will anyone that has any remote concern for the bird population of the world, but as you say "hey ho"

Of course it is, i'm not sure why you think it isnt, or maybe you have a restricted idea of what solar power is.

So yuo think we could just use solar power in its various forms, summer and winter and that would provide plenty of power?

What do you mean by hasnt got the capacity, we dont have enough water? We are surrounded by the stuff.

Hydroelectric power requires rivers to work. Unless you want to wreck all of teh countryside near most of out rivers, then we dont have the capacity.

The truth is there are a whole raft of renewable resources that could support us fine but we would rather choose the cheap and dirty short term option.

Or the incredible environmentally damaging so called renewable option?

[badass]

What about Geothermic power generation? This might be expensive, but its has the advantage that they release less than 4% of the greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel burning setups.

I think the point is that Nuclear power is a half decent stopgap, done properly untill we can get the infrastructure in for a large number of other forms of energy.
Then we could probably use a combination of Geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric and tidal power generation.
Personally I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for it to be made law for all new houses to have solar water heaters on their roofs. They can do 100% of the water heating in the summer and about 50% in the winter. That'll have an effect on energy usage over time and will reduce our reliance power delivered to our houses.
I also think the Gov't should be encouraging biodiesel related research/usage a lot more aswell as bioethanol.
European regulators bang on about catalytic converters and lower emissions of fashionable gasses etc but if they had a look at workable alternatives, they would see a change in fuel would result in a huge decrease.

[herulach]

What about Geothermic power generation? This might be expensive, but its has the advantage that they release less than 4% of the greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel burning setups.

With geothermal options you again have issues of siting, and i imagine you have to get pretty damn deep to boil water, i dont know the figures but i reckon itd be pretty damn expensive. Homever of all the renewables its probably the only one that actually makes sense, the rest of the suggestions for large scale generation seem to all be pretty unviable imo.

[Rave]

As will anyone that has any remote concern for the bird population of the world, but as you say "hey ho"

The RSPB only oppose wind farms when they think that they are poorly sited. In general, they think that the biggest threat to bird populations is climate change, and are in favour of wind power.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

According to the Wikipedia article I linked above, the average turbine in Britain has one bird strike a year. By comparison, 10m birds are killed by cars every year.

[autopilot]

I'm with Rave on this one, i think some people (no offence BTW, this is just forum banter) are in a fantasy world regarding this. Blasting rockets into space, bird deaths etc. WTF? The watse will be a massive issue, if not for us but future generations.

Nuclear proliferation will also increase the risks of terrorists gaining material. And how do will we convince countires like Iran to not proceed with nuclear programs if we ourselves are doing it on a large scale.

I only see nuclear as being a short term stop gap while we develop and deploy other types of power generation.

Anyone know anything about hydrogen turbines BTW? I heard somewhere that a simular method being tested for car engines could be employed on a larger scale for power production. But there are loads of technologies that will start apearing sooner or later. Most of which are being suppressed by oil firms etc (the water engine anyone?) while they squeeze the last bit of profit out of oil/coal etc.

[herulach]

I'm with Rave on this one, i think some people (no offence BTW, this is just forum banter) are in a fantasy world regarding this. Blasting rockets into space, bird deaths etc. WTF? The watse will be a massive issue, if not for us but future generations.

Nuclear proliferation will also increase the risks of terrorists gaining material. And how do will we convince countires like Iran to not proceed with nuclear programs if we ourselves are doing it on a large scale.

I only see nuclear as being a short term stop gap while we develop and deploy other types of power generation.

Anyone know anything about hydrogen turbines BTW? I heard somewhere that a simular method being tested for car engines could be employed on a larger scale for power production. But there are loads of technologies that will start apearing sooner or later. Most of which are being suppressed by oil firms etc (the water engine anyone?) while they squeeze the last bit of profit out of oil/coal etc.

The only thing with hydrogen turbines is that they need a massive amount of electricity to generate all the hydrogen in the first place (by electrolisis) Or something that can pull the oxygen out of the water in another way, until that happens all they do is move all the pollution to somewhere else.

[iranu]

The solutions to our emerging energy crisis are.

1. More energy efficient devices and reduction of wasted electricity - lighting left on etc.

2. Burning of domestic waste. High temperature incinerators can produce enough electricity for nearly 20% of our needs. With high temperatures the amount of pollution is reduced combined with "scrubbers" would reduce co2 emmisions. The great thing about this is that we will always produce domestic waste, it's a renewable source.

3. Conventional modern nuclear power plants (backed up in about 20 years time with ADS nuclear plants and reprocessing)

Wind, Solar, Tidal (snigger) are all losers and only misinformed dreamers think that this is the miracle solution. They simply cannot provide the amount of power at a steady enough rate for the national grid. Solar has potential in housing/business develpments.

Geothermal is brilliant BUT the cost and technological problems of drilling is prohibitive - I know a bloke who's spent the last 20 years in this field. It's fine where heat is near the surface, see New Zealand, Iceland, but is not possible in the UK with the current technology. We should encourage Iceland to produce more electricity this way and sell it to us.

We should also be looking at bio-fuels as they are co2 neutral and relatively cheap. This is why it's important to reform the CAP.

On the point of Iran and nuclear power - Britain has never stated that a country should be wiped out. It's nuclear policy was one of detterence not offensive. After all Iran is sitting on a ton of oil and needs nuclear like a fish needs a bicycle.

[TeePee]

Do you have any idea how much noise a 5' wind turbine makes? I'm not having one on my house and nor are my neighbours, I like my sleep!

Solar? To run this country on solar energy we'd need to carpet an area the size of Wales. So far the total of solar panels manufactured worldwide wouldn't cover Cardiff.

I've not been following, but has somone mentioned the experimental fusion plant in France yet?

[herulach]

Do you have any idea how much noise a 5' wind turbine makes? I'm not having one on my house and nor are my neighbours, I like my sleep!

Solar? To run this country on solar energy we'd need to carpet an area the size of Wales. So far the total of solar panels manufactured worldwide wouldn't cover Cardiff.

I've not been following, but has somone mentioned the experimental fusion plant in France yet?

I mentioned the one at JET, just because i know a bit more about it, and its not run on cheese

[YorkieBen]

why dont we use coal? We have craploads of it sitting about underneath us (easily 100 years worth)

okay its not clean but its either that or nothing. Wind will not work (too f-ing ugly, and doesnt have the capacity) unless we invest in large scale off shore wind farms

[Rave]

Here's a nice story about radiation. I'd love that in my backyard! Yes Please!

Do you have any idea how much noise a 5' wind turbine makes? I'm not having one on my house and nor are my neighbours, I like my sleep!

No I have no idea how much noise a 5' wind turbine makes- but I would frankly bet my left little finger that overall it would make a small fraction of the noise that the superbikes revving up at 3am in the garage next to me, or my upstairs neighbour who seems to believe that 10am-12pm every day is REGGAE TIME!

The whole point is that giving up our reliance on oil and gas is not going to be easy. It will undoubtedly present some difficulties- in the long run, it'll be worth it.

[TeePee]

Thats actually some fascinating stuff. Theres more here (although be aware this site has dubious credibility): http://archive.corporatewatch.org/ne...ue14_part1.htm
Naturally it's a conspiracy, but the unlicenced nuclear reactor in a subterranean chamber theory is most enjoyable.
If anything, it's a case for such things to be properly regulated.

I regret the state of your neighbours Rave, I am fortunate that mine are generally quiet considerate people. Even so, you'd hear the turbine over the reggae, they make an incredible noise, which is why you'd never get planning permission.

[Rave]

Even so, you'd hear the turbine over the reggae, they make an incredible noise, which is why you'd never get planning permission.

Riiiight- so you're saying that a turbine roughly equivalent to my own head height could disrupt my late morning sleep more than my upstairs neighbour's Sound System?

Sorry mate, but you're talking absolute bollox. I generally wake up at about 10.30am to the tune of various forms of funky Jamaican reggae. Now thanks to my long standing Hi-Fi addiction I know that at most 30w is enough to power a moderately sensitive pair of speakers to neighbour irritation volume- as in way louder than the annoyance I have to put up with. I know for a fact that they could build a monster 100m tall wind turbine directly on top of my house, and I wouldn't give a toss- the noise simply would not bother me.

So, describe to me the 'incredible noise' which a small scale local turbine might make. There's a park next to 'my' little flat and 'Lewisham People's Day' revereberated right through my place when it was on. That took thousands of watts worth of noise pollution, and it was only during the day. When I was at home it was barely more that the normal traffic noise......and when I was partying for hours in the gay tent, I was positively enjoying the noise.

[TeePee]

Your neighbours sound system could be very loud for all I know. I don't have a clue. You could live in a block of flats that could acually have a windmill on top without bothering anyone, for all I know.

What I do know is that a five foot windmill on the roof of a normal size house would be enough to disrupt the slepp of the occupants. De bangarang be bad bwoi.