Electricity....why is it still called CLEAN energy?

[iMc]

The next government whomever it may be really needs to get their asses in gear and start doing something about this. It needs £BILLIONS of investment.

[Flibb]

Its taken 30 years to decide what to do with nuclear waste, well they haven’t actually decided, they have more decided in principle, probably, to possibly bury it. Basically put it back where it came from. The sites where this can be done are based on geological data and where the current governments’ main voters live.

[Stoo]

Cold fusion tbh

[speedy_s]

Electric cars work in a very different way. They are not just batteries connected moters. U have a normal engine connected to batteries. So when u brake while travelling @ 40-50mph the energy isn't wasted but stored in your batteries. So next time u drive in town and you need momentum to reach cruising speed the battries do the hardwork instead of the engine which saves a LOT of CO2 and gives u a nice >60mpg on average (4rm what i have heard).

About the dams, every time a ton of concrete that is needed to make a dam another ton of co2 is released to make the concrete.

[Rave]

Woohoo! Science time. This will be a bit handwavy, but: from what I can tell a fair estimate of the energy density of coal is 24MJ/Kg. Even if a power station was 50% efficient (which I'm pretty sure they are not) that means that a ton of coal produces 3300-ish KWh of electricity, and maybe 3 tons of CO2. Now, 3300KWh is 3.3MW/h. The Grand Coulee dam contains 12 million cubic yards of concrete so by a rough estimate that's 24 million tons of concrete. It produces 6,000 MW of electricity, thereby 'saving' the release of 6000-ish tons of CO2 per hour. In a day, that's 144,000 tons. In a year, that's 52,560,000 tons, more than twice the total mass of concrete in the dam. Of course there's other CO2 expenditure in the production of the dam, but over it's 60 year lifespan so far it must have resulted in a massive reduction in the amount of CO2 produced compared to if the electricity had been produced by burning coal.

[Zak33]

but over it's 60 year lifespan so far it must have resulted in a massive reduction in the amount of CO2 produced compared to if the electricity had been produced by burning coal.

if thats even HALF accurate, it is a BLINDER of an arguement for HEP

good work Rave my man ace number crunching

[Rave]

I had a very interesting hour researching that, I must say.

Edit: in fairness there are a lot of arguments against HEP too, especially for the very large scale projects like that, like the damage and loss of land caused by the flooding, downstream erosion etc., but in general most sources or renewable energy will easily be 'carbon negative' over their lifetime, I.E. they will save more CO2 emissions than the amount of CO2 than was expended creating them.

[poindextermatic]

QFT.

I hate mummies in their 4x4s. Naff off... Yes we all know you cant reverse or drive at all...get a sensible car ffs!

I know! What what is that all about? Seems to be a phenomenon of the past few years, 'look at me in my big car', 'I own the road, move pedestrian before I splat u!!'. Who do they think they are, Americans? We just don't have the space on the road for these things!

Totally pedestrianise town/city centres except goods vehicles, and public transport!!

[speedy_s]

Woohoo! Science time... by burning coal.

[G4Z]

On the SUV topic, I used to drive to work past 2 schools before I moved (I now walk to work, how green am I?? ). and I tell you the whole SUV situation was INFURIATING, firstly these cars are NOT fuel efficent like a previous poster said, I bet a RAV4 will get 32mpg under best conditions, bet its more like 22mpg doing normal city driving. Second thing is they are just too big, they litteraly jam up roads because they are so big, I dont wanna hear any measurements because your not gonna convince me, I have driven alongsde enough to know they are just too big. Where i used to drive along there wasw traffic lights at the end of the road with the schols on (only way into town from that area) and every morning the traffic was queued up to the roundabout (say, 3/4 of a mile) there would be 4x4's pushing thier way into and out of the school gates, when the schools were off, miractulous no traffic at all, 2 minute wait at the lights. Why do people drive thier kids to school at all? never mind why they use frigging tanks to do it, why do it at all???

Thing is I wouldnt mind if I ever seen one of these 4x4's or MPV's (just as bad tbh) actually full of kids, I have yet to see more than 2 kids in a car and usually its just the one.


Edit: Also, the safter of a higher driving position? yeah maybe but to the detriment of all the drivers stuck behind them!
I used to walk to school when I was a kid and it was no problem at all, if the weather was really bad there was allways the bus. I just dont get why these parents need to drive thier kids into school (distance is no argument imo, there will allways be a school near where you live if you live in an urban area.

[G4Z]

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/fe...p?story=607484

Interesting story on the topic

[Auran]

I'll have to look into this when I get time, but I've come up with an idea about CO2 and hydro-electric powerstations;

Now water has disolved gases in it, amongst which is CO2. The process of generating hydro-electricity involves a lot of heat, pressure and energy. So there is the potential of the water involved to be "degassed", consequently evolving CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence, the worry that they are not as clean as previously thought

Of course this idea could be a lot of hooey, but you never know

[Flibb]

The Rav 4 gets 32 mpg combined it actually gets more on the motorway. As to the roads being jamemd up with cars one reason is parental choice. When I was a kid you went to the nearest school, now parents have some choice and will try and get their kids in to the best school. This results in more traffic as there are no bus links because the kids live outside the original catchment areas of the schools.

As i have said before MPVs are no worse than people carriers, or many estate cars. If you want to restrict them, then sports cars should be harder hit as they are less efficient, and can carry less people.

[Rave]

I'll have to look into this when I get time, but I've come up with an idea about CO2 and hydro-electric powerstations;

Now water has disolved gases in it, amongst which is CO2. The process of generating hydro-electricity involves a lot of heat, pressure and energy. So there is the potential of the water involved to be "degassed", consequently evolving CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence, the worry that they are not as clean as previously thought

Of course this idea could be a lot of hooey, but you never know

I seriously doubt there are more than a few grammes of CO2 in an average cubic metre of river water.

[Auran]

Water and Plants are the two biggest "sinks" for CO2 so there may be more evolved than you think.

As I said I'll look into it.

[Rave]

As a sensible person I detest SUV-style four wheel drives. As a liberal and proponent of free choice I can't justify any discrimination against them really. My only legitimate concern with them is that they're heavy and they handle poorly. As a result you're less likely to be able to avoid an accident, and you'll do a lot more damage slamming a 2.5 ton truck into something than you would have done in a 1.5 ton estate car or MPV. I think there should be a law that if an accident that you caused is more serious than it need have been as a result of you driving an overweight vehicle (and I include Bentleys, Mercedes SLs etc. in this category) then you get a harsher punishment as a result.