To Nuclear or not to Nuclear

[mr_e]

...or we could just consume less energy. Oh, wait, that's just too obvious, isn't it? It reminds me of a lovely observation relating to efficiency: if something is made twice as efficient, we'll just use twice as much. We're no better than microbes in a petridish, really. Exponential growth and crash, although we appear to be good at staving off the crash, so far.

I hope we are never dependent on a single energy source, it just doesn't bare thinking about. Hybrid solar/wind is a good start. At best, nuclear should be used as a stop-gap measure before we move onto something more sustainable that doesn't involve shed-loads of hidden CO2 production.

It'd be funny if those gas caverns were used and eventually destroyed the earth in a few thousand years when it all gets released at once. Ships would sink, and everyone in the area would suffocate! Yay! Then the climate change!

[Mike]

I don't there will ever be a time when this country is solely dependant on a single energy source. . . . . Wind and wave power would seem the most logical way forward but hundreds of thousands would be required to meet demands.

I agree with this tp an extent. However, we must consider that hundreds of thoasands waver and solar power (I am not solely talking about electricity generated from Solar energy as this is a common misconception) are going to cost less than any number of new nuclear power stations. To reach this conclusion I have tried to imagine what the eventual clean up costs are going to be for Nuclear waste, I cannot think of a number suitable! Just look at how much environmental damage was caused in the UK by the industrial revolution.

[Mike]

I hope we are never dependent on a single energy source, it just doesn't bare thinking about. Hybrid solar/wind is a good start. At best, nuclear should be used as a stop-gap measure before we move onto something more sustainable that doesn't involve shed-loads of hidden CO2 production.

We have reached the point of Nuclear fission being a stop gap. I think the only way nuclear has a future is to develop a fission reactor. We should be thinking of making the jump now, the technology is available and needs someone to take a strong decision to continue that technology. I believe in this so stongly that the current government would get my vote if they commissioned a more sustainable energy generation strategy and you all know how critical I am of them!

I think mr_e is right about the efficiency potential, we are just going to require more and more power, no one want to use their computers less!

Oh I forgot to mention there are super efficient solar generators being planning in US deserts already. If the US is doing it (being probably the most inefficient people on the planet) then the rest of us should be looking to innovate beyond that.

Before anyone says it, I know there are no deserts in the UK!

[TAOWBST]

I agree with this tp an extent. However, we must consider that hundreds of thoasands waver and solar power (I am not solely talking about electricity generated from Solar energy as this is a common misconception) are going to cost less than any number of new nuclear power stations. To reach this conclusion I have tried to imagine what the eventual clean up costs are going to be for Nuclear waste, I cannot think of a number suitable! Just look at how much environmental damage was caused in the UK by the industrial revolution

As much as I have to agree with this,Mike. I must say I woud be in favour of nuclear power over wave and solar, (more so if a use for nuclear waste can be discovered). Although wave and solar may seem a better option, (the lesser of two evils so to speak) what about the sheer amount of land required for such systems? And before someone says it yes I do know wave power is from the sea, (wind power can also be such). I think the same principle still applies. It is irrelevant whether it is land or sea as it still has the same effect. As it is many areas struggle to house current numbers, (hence why council housing waiting lists are so long), so I ask you is it better to provide more sustainable energy for those with access to it or provide slightly more volatile energy and use the land saved for other purposes, (such as housing)?

[Mike]

You can use housing as a viable energy generator. There are new tile systems for roof's which are individual solar generators. Thus each house in the entire country sould generate a good proportion of its own energy requirements and store excess electricity in high capacity batteries within the roof space.

Just imagine the surface area covered with buildings and then imagine all that area used for the generation of power. If my roof ever needs resurfacing then I will deffo be tempted to get a grant to install PV tiles rather than slate.

[TAOWBST]

You can use housing as a viable energy generator. There are new tile systems for roof's which are individual solar generators. Thus each house in the entire country sould generate a good proportion of its own energy requirements and store excess electricity in high capacity batteries within the roof space.

Just imagine the surface area covered with buildings and then imagine all that area used for the generation of power. If my roof ever needs resurfacing then I will deffo be tempted to get a grant to install PV tiles rather than slate.

Yeah I've heard of those before, and I must say it seems a viable option. However there is a problem....Do you honestly think the government would be willing to fork out to fit avery home with solar panels? Especially considering the power suppliers are big corporations. Its the same principle with the development of a hydrogen car. This being that the big companies with their hands in their pockets are simply not willing to let go of an industry that makes them so powerful and rich. Imagine the amount of space lost in the roof space, due to housing these batteries.

[Mike]

That is the problem at the moment, the government simply will not pay for it.

However, I think that they need not pay for it, simple introduce tax incentives for homeowners who install the devices. The simple way to avoid the need for batteries (which lets be honest are not that large) is to sell excess electricity to the national grid and then buy back when there is a deficit in the home. The tax incentive only needs to be equal to the extra costs from slate tiles to PV tiles.

Also they need to regulate so that the selling rate equals the buying rate so that you dont sell elec for 1p and have to buy at 99p a unit. . .

[TAOWBST]

That is the problem at the moment, the government simply will not pay for it.

However, I think that they need not pay for it, simple introduce tax incentives for homeowners who install the devices. The simple way to avoid the need for batteries (which lets be honest are not that large) is to sell excess electricity to the national grid and then buy back when there is a deficit in the home. The tax incentive only needs to be equal to the extra costs from slate tiles to PV tiles.

Also they need to regulate so that the selling rate equals the buying rate so that you dont sell elec for 1p and have to buy at 99p a unit. . .

I don't think the government can pa for it to be honest, whether the will is there or not. Although this may seem a viable possibilty,Mike consider what you describe. If everywhere were solar powered with PV tiles installed, batteries, the works.....Would there be a need for a national grid? Everywhere would be self-sufficient regarding power supply. On the point of regulating buying and selling....why not eliminate the buy and sell method? If buying is equal to selling you might as well not charge at all.

[Mike]

If they are going to invest 30 Billion pounds then they have several options. The money will be spent regardless and I would prefere autonomous generation of power than a centralised system.

There would be a need to track the 'buying' and 'selling' just as a way to make sure that those who did not maintain their panels were not leaching off the rest of the system (analogies spring to mind).

The national grid would be required maybe as either a central storage system of batteries (to reduce cost to individual households) and also because when it is winter there is less light so another alternative will be required to boost the solar generations. For this wave and wind power would be the most preferable. . . .

On the same topic I see in the paper today that there is a group of US oil companies lobbying (very posh word that actually means bribing) european business to abandon the Kyoto style agreement for reducing CO2 emissions. Let me be the first to say BO HISS! If we are going to abandon that system I want a reforendum on the topic.

[TAOWBST]

On the same topic I see in the paper today that there is a group of US oil companies lobbying (very posh word that actually means bribing) european business to abandon the Kyoto style agreement for reducing CO2 emissions. Let me be the first to say BO HISS! If we are going to abandon that system I want a reforendum on the topic.

As much as I agree with this,Mike. I must say I applaud these companies. I'm suprised it didn't happen sooner...then end is nigh. These companies can see they are soon, (Hopefully) going to be left without so much power as they have been take liberty of in the past. Its unbleivable how much power these companies have so much control over this industry. I think if anyone is solely responsible for the high pollution it would have to be these big companys that have no official power yet control ths industry to such an extent. They're just afraid of going out of business and lowing all that power and wealth. I say its about time things changed.

[Mike]

It looks like we have our answer. TB has declared Nuclear.

[Fez]

it was always going to be the way because it would reduce carbon emmitions and look good in line with global warming targets, despite the dangerous waste it causes. it's like decapitating someone and telling their dismembered head you've successfuly cured their athelete's foot.

[mr_e]

AArgh! It doesn't actually reduce CO2 emissions when you take into account the process of building the damn things and extracting the uranium, but unfortunately is the only viable large-scale solution at the moment. I'm concerned renewables are going to be neglected until it's too late now. We shall see...

[Mike]

I thinking more and more that governments do not want to look at the big picture. They are concerned about getting re-elected next time around and therefore go for fast, headline grabbing short wondercures.

We will be sunk unless somone decides to say, "We are going to do what is right for the UK's future, sod it if we are not re-elected for removing payments for kids going to school"

Look beyong 4 years you government types!!!!

[Lizzie]

Mike - did you find out about that power company that guarentees all it's energy comes from renewable sources?? :?