UKC

Eco-mentalists!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 phatlad 05 Dec 2005
Does anyone really have an idea about what energy we can use these days?
Oil - nop
Coal - Nope
Nuclear? - Nope

But HEP - well heats the water and screws up the aquatic life

Windfarms everyone hates them - especially Birds & they're unreliable

Solar - what in the UK????

Wave - doesn't work?

So what can we use? Or shall we just get back in the cars and said f4ck it
 DougG 05 Dec 2005
In reply to phatlad:

You never mentioned gas.
 The Crow 05 Dec 2005
In reply to phatlad:

Short-term (25-50yrs) Nuclear. Sadly it's a media bug-bear.
satori 05 Dec 2005
In reply to DougG:
> (In reply to phatlad)
>
> You never mentioned gas.

nor any kind of bio-fuel.
 ingo 05 Dec 2005
In reply to phatlad:
Windfarms at sea, seem a good one to me .. protects from bird flu, too ..
 haze01 05 Dec 2005
In reply to ingo:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_1.1.htm

Several renewable sources to choose from - some more viable than others for large scale projects, but all can work for more local schemes.
Combine these with energy conservation/efficiency to reduce consumer demand for energy and we'll get by.
 haze01 05 Dec 2005
btw, in the UK current electricity generation & national distribution loses about 7.4% from heating loss in long distance cables and substation equipment.
A change to more local power generation should help reduce this.
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01:

> Combine these with energy conservation/efficiency to reduce consumer demand for energy and we'll get by.

Pie in the sky thinking at best...

We will not "get by", for goodness sake industry is already being warned of potential for disruption to their energy supplies this winter.

OK, that isn't because of a lack of generating capacity (we have over capacity at the minute) but because of high gas prices. However come 2015/16 when coal plants start to shut (LCP Directive) and then 2020 when most of the nuclear capacity has gone then how will we replace 20-40% of the baseload generating capacity?

Renewables will not be able to provide that much capacity by then. Energy efficiency measures just do not cut it in the timescales required.
KevinD 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:

> We will not "get by", for goodness sake industry is already being warned of potential for disruption to their energy supplies this winter.

it is the CBI who are warning of this, mainly cos they want the taxpayer to underwrite certain businesses attempts to play the market. So completely irrelevant.

> Renewables will not be able to provide that much capacity by then. Energy efficiency measures just do not cut it in the timescales required.

Renewables are in their infantcy - which using the current patterns of development could provide massive leaps forward in a fairly short time period, if the money was thrown at at instead of being put into nuclear technology.

As for energy efficency - if it was enforced then improvements could be seen in that time span. for example requiring putting limits on power usage in sleep mode.
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to dissonance: Sorry that is not true - it is nothing to with the rubbish that the CBI has been spouting, it is National Grid in their winter supply predictions.

Where does this idea that it is a case of either/or - it isn't and it shouldn't be, but fundamentally what you are saying is that we should gamble on renewables....well we shouldn't. We have to have balanced energy sources.

Energy efficiency - yes exactly, IF it was enforced, but it won't be and no Govt is going to force it through (in fact while debating the current proposals for an energy efficiency directive the EU's Council of Ministers specifically rejected putting in mandatory targets).
 Dux 05 Dec 2005
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MJH)

> Renewables are in their infantcy - which using the

so is nuclear...
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01: PS IIRC heating losses are lower with high voltage lines (transmission lines) than with lower voltage lines (local distribution lines), so there may not be any actual saving in heat losses (and potentially it could be worse).
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to Dux: Compared to what??? So 50 years proven technology is still infancy...dream on.
Mr Rain 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:

You can actualise incinerate household waste and that will save on landfill and create energy.

There should be off shore wind farms, no more on land.

As for nuclear thats where I think many environmentalists are out of touch. Nuclear should be a way forward on existing brown field sites.

Stop global warming. Reduce your standard of living. Back public transport, stop using your car, get on your bikes. Pretty simple.

Car share would also be great. Has anyone set up a car share website that works in the UK yet?
KevinD 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:

> Where does this idea that it is a case of either/or - it isn't and it shouldn't be, but fundamentally what you are saying is that we should gamble on renewables....well we shouldn't. We have to have balanced energy sources.

The either/or is taking what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen again. After all at present the taxpayer is stuck with a huge bill for the old nuclear powerstations which could have been used for R & D.

As for the gamble, if the full spectrum of renewables is used, it is balanced. It would only be if we depended on one type - eg wind.

> Energy efficiency - yes exactly, IF it was enforced, but it won't be and no Govt is going to force it through

Because it is lobbied against by interested parties since it doesnt result in large amounts of money.
There is plenty of fairly subtle stuff that could be used without the normal user noticing.


 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> The either/or is taking what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen again. After all at present the taxpayer is stuck with a huge bill for the old nuclear powerstations which could have been used for R & D.

No what you actaully mean is the disparity in investment in nuclear vs investment in renewables (there has clearly been investment in renewables), but I suppose ultimately you back the technology most likely to provide a solution and even with the waste that would ultimately be nuclear.

>
> As for the gamble, if the full spectrum of renewables is used, it is balanced. It would only be if we depended on one type - eg wind.

But not in the timescales that we are talking about - feasible mass energy production from most renewables is not going to happen in 10-15 years (think how long wave, tidal and solar have been around for).
>
> [...]
>
> Because it is lobbied against by interested parties since it doesnt result in large amounts of money.
> There is plenty of fairly subtle stuff that could be used without the normal user noticing.

That is complete utter nonsense - as some one who lobbies for some of the companies involved I can quite honestly say that that only evers appears on the radar of the anti-industry/green bodies. Most companies that I have been involved with fully recognise the market opportunities for them of new technologies, especially as "service" providers eg smart metering etc etc

 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to Mr Rain: Indeed you can and the rest of the EU happily does this, but in the UK we don't like incinerators for some bizarre reason (they are one step away from nuclear in the media's eyes).
mik 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01:
or just have everyone move to scotland when they put down the new windfarms.
O Mighty Tim 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH: Medium term there really is only 1 option right now. Nuclear.
Renewables are fine, if the wind keeps blowing, or whatever source they use provides more juice than it does now. I got beaten up a while back because I had some out of date figures, but basic physics says that there isn't enough energy to be extracted to run the UK?

The governments 'dash for gas' has backfired spectacularly, has it not? Encourage building 'local' gas fired electric generation, then the price of gas goes ballistic. Wow, what a surprise...

TTG
 haze01 05 Dec 2005
The resolute pessimism about renewables & the dismissal of practical environmental solutions like energy efficiency as idealistic, unrealistic nonsense is (in my opinion) the single biggest factor holding back their development.

So the politicians are too scared to tell society (and enforce) that it needs to modify its lifestyle - understandable since they're generally not thinking a great deal further ahead than the next election. But if enough people demand those changes then the politics will follow.

I'm sick of people saying that environmental issues they would in principle support won't work and aren't worth it because not enough other people are behind them to give political weight. If everyone who thought like that actually stood up to be counted it would be a very different situation!


/rant over ;0)
 alanw 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01: well said!

Everybody should be doing their bit, no excuses.
mik 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01:

we just need more big cars burnin off all the fuel real fast. When nothin left the change have to come wheter we like it or not :0)
KevinD 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:

> But not in the timescales that we are talking about - feasible mass energy production from most renewables is not going to happen in 10-15 years (think how long wave, tidal and solar have been around for).

Yup - and think about the levels of investment made in R & D as opposed to it being thought of as just wacky nutters technology. Solar is advancing fast, but tidal/wave havent had serious investment and design yet. This is opposed to the recent >£500 million spend by the government in the cleanup (let alone R & D) of the nuclear plants. A payment which incidently gives the private British nuclear company a chance of making a profit.

> That is complete utter nonsense - as some one who lobbies for some of the companies involved I can quite honestly say that that only evers appears on the radar of the anti-industry/green bodies.

Ah, thats reassuring a lobbyist claiming they do not campaign against some legislation.
So the companies you lobby for would never push for a particular point of view simply because it would result in the best result for them or vice versa?



 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01: It is called reality - and practicality - live with it. Ideals only get you so far.

Yes I do think that renewables are generally a good thing (though not large scale windfarms - though I can appreciate that there is little choice in the market place), however I don't for one minute want to rely on renewables to provide significant chunks of energy in the next 10-25 years.

Mike
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> Yup - and think about the levels of investment made in R & D as opposed to it being thought of as just wacky nutters technology. Solar is advancing fast, but tidal/wave havent had serious investment and design yet.

Again ill-informed codswallop - there has been investment programme after investment programme.

> This is opposed to the recent >£500 million spend by the government in the cleanup (let alone R & D) of the nuclear plants. A payment which incidently gives the private British nuclear company a chance of making a profit.

Assuming you are talkiing about BNFL (or whatever the constituent part is called that looks after decommissioning - NDA?), then again more b*llocks as it isn't a private company, but wholly owned by the Govt.


>
> [...]
>
> Ah, thats reassuring a lobbyist claiming they do not campaign against some legislation.
> So the companies you lobby for would never push for a particular point of view simply because it would result in the best result for them or vice versa?

I don't really work for large scale power generators, but I do get a fair amount of contact with them and whta they are working on and to be honest I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. However as a lobbying strategy the one thing guaranteed to get politicians jumping up and down would be for power generators to lobby against energy efficiency, much safer to keep quiet (there really would be no convincing arguments about increasing efficiency!). As I said in my experience as someone who works in this area a lot most companies are in favour of energy savings - see earlier.

 alanw 05 Dec 2005
In reply to dissonance: The problem with the Government's current incentive scheme for renewables, the Renewable Obligation Certificates, is that they don't distinguish between different types of renewable energy. As a result, whichever new technology gets a head start will tend to be favoured by investors - hence the large number of onshore wind farms and the lack of investment in offshore wind, solar, tidal, wave etc.

Also, as far as nuclear waste is concerned. Many other countries including USA and Finland have built up large amounts of money earmarked to deal with the waste. This has been done by setting aside a percentage of the cost of the electricity generated. Britain aslo did this but when the CEGB was privatised all this money disappeared into the Treasury. This will not happen with any new nuclear build. In general, many mistakes were made in the past in nuclear power, we just have to make sure we don't make them again and there are enough successful models from around the world for us to learn from.
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to alanw:
> (In reply to dissonance) The problem with the Government's current incentive scheme for renewables, the Renewable Obligation Certificates, is that they don't distinguish between different types of renewable energy. As a result, whichever new technology gets a head start will tend to be favoured by investors - hence the large number of onshore wind farms and the lack of investment in offshore wind, solar, tidal, wave etc.

Partly right, though it isn't really whichever gets in first, but really which is the cheapest to meet the obligation (and go no further as no incentives to better the RO targets).
 haze01 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:
As I said in the nuclear thread the other day, I accept that nuclear will probably have a role in meeting UK energy needs, but I don't accept that it needs to be our main source. For the short term at least it is better than burning fossil fuels but what I don't want to happen is a massive investment in nuclear at the expense of other cleaner/safer technologies and more sustainable lifestyle.

I think there is a very real danger with nuclear that it is an easy fix for a short term problem but will be seen as an end in itself and progress towards green technologies & sustainable living will grind to a halt with environmental issues once again marginalised.
 alanw 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH: Maybe not necessarily the first, but as any new technology becomes established the costs reduce as you spend less on R&D. Hence investors put their money into onshore wind which they can see is already working and making money and are much less likely to invest in unproven technologies like tidal and wave. I do agree that another problem with the ROCs is that once they are used up there is no incentive to go any further. Basically, they're a finite box that is getting filled up with onshore wind at the expense of other renewables.
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01: But no one is talking about a "main" source....we are not rushing headlong towards a French stlye situation (where 80% of power generation is nuclear and part of the reason why they don't have a Kyoto target to meet).

As far as I understand it the Govt is proposing that the nuclear "share" would remain constant ie 20-25% (depending on whose figures you quote). Though I am still not sure what is going to happen with the loss of some coal generation in 2015/16...
matnoo 05 Dec 2005
In reply to phatlad:

I think the key to eco friendly solutions is more to do with *conserving* energy and resources as opposed to creating more.

Use evergy saving lightbulbs, put a jumper on instead of the heating, recycle, use sympathetic detergents, share journeys to work, use the train, buy quality lasting goods instead of cheap throwaway tack.


Mat

 haze01 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:
Call me a sceptic, but I think it would be very easy for a large nuclear % to become established, no matter what currently publicised targets/aims are.

Excluding environmental costs/risks for a moment, it is basic economics that large scale is nearly always more cost effective than small scale - discounts for buying equipment, labour etc in bulk plus it costs the same to buy the technology/expertise/plans to build 1 plant as it does for 10 identical plants so you might as well build 10 and get your money's worth from the initial expenditure. Do you see what i'm getting at?
 haze01 05 Dec 2005
In reply to matnoo:
> Use evergy saving lightbulbs, put a jumper on instead of the heating, recycle, use sympathetic detergents, share journeys to work, use the train, buy quality lasting goods instead of cheap throwaway tack.

That is the very heart of the sustainability ideology. I wish more people would put it into practice.
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01: No I really don't. The nuclear % has remained fairly static for the last 20 years. The Govt. does not have the balls to change that significantly. There will be a finite number of sites available (assuming that they stick to building on existing plants). We were always going to build approx. 10 plants anyway as that is what we will need to replace existing capacity.

On projects of that sort of scale I doubt very much that there will be much economy of scale in building more - it isn't so much a case of how big the plants will be. The design work already exists (assuming that they use Westinghouse AP series) and the company is owned by the British Govt via BNFL (who own Westinghouse, though they will be flogging them off soon).
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to haze01:
> (In reply to matnoo)
> [...]
>
> That is the very heart of the sustainability ideology. I wish more people would put it into practice.

So do most right minded people, but:

a) people don't (some because they can't afford to in capital outlay terms eg quality lasting (and energy/resource efficient) is generally more expensive upfront)

b) even those that do how many actually see this through properly? (depressingly few I suspect)
KevinD 05 Dec 2005
In reply to matnoo:

> I think the key to eco friendly solutions is more to do with *conserving* energy and resources as opposed to creating more.
>
> Use evergy saving lightbulbs, put a jumper on instead of the heating, recycle, use sympathetic detergents, share journeys to work, use the train, buy quality lasting goods instead of cheap throwaway tack.

The prob is lightbulbs cost more in the short term as do "quality lasting" good.
Sharing journeys to work and using the train have the problem of fixing times to suit (eg the random hours i do to fix stuff dont suit), plus now the trains are more expensive.
Recycling is getting easier but still most people wont bother.

Thats why it needs to be pushed, even stuff like Ireland's charge for plastic bags.


 The Crow 05 Dec 2005
In reply to MJH:
> Indeed you can and the rest of the EU happily does this, but in the UK we don't like incinerators for some bizarre reason (they are one step away from nuclear in the media's eyes).

The EU takes the Dutch waste infrastructure as an ideal in many cases, with it's huge levels of recycling and incineration.

Of course the economics of landfill are moot in Holland...It's not just the media, the industry sees a place for landfill too given British geography...
 MJH 05 Dec 2005
In reply to The Crow: Hmmm, the Dutch case is not so good as they have to export a lot of their waste (particularly to Germany). Germany and even France are probably better examples, though I suspect the best will be the Flemish part of Belgium.

As for the UK, actually I disagree, given that we are a fairly small island in comparison to the population we can not really afford to use so much of it for landfill (though I conceded that historically it was cheap). Of course the problem with landfill is really the bio-degredation of waste to form methane (very powerful greenhouse gas), which was why the Landfill Directive was brought in by the EU.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...