Green Power

[Dan Salter]

The thread about the new coal powered station going ahead in my neighbourhood reminded me of a documentary we watched at the end of last term at college/uni...Filmed a little while back before the whole "Global warming" thing exploded by Paul Theroux ( Louis brother )..all about climate change and global warming...Some very serious ecologists/scientists and conservation people were in it...and by the end of the brilliant doc the overall feeling was that the only way to save the planet and the greenest form of energy is to go back to Nuclear Power..which sounds rediculous at first after the many years of trying to get rid...but when you listened to the facts etc and the pros and cons....ok...so once in a blue moon a chenoble might happen ( unlikely now they have learnt and improved technology) but losing a few hundred thousand people over losing the entire planet actually starts to make sense...of the 32 people in our "Countryside Management and Landscape Management" class...the majority agreed that it made sense.....

Thought this would be a good debate starter and sorry if its been covered elsewhere?...

Dan

[ChrisJB]

I have to say, I have been converted to nuclear too. After those ugly useless windmills began ruining our uplands, I had to look at alternatives and was convinced by the nuclear argument.

Regards, Chris

[Dan Salter]

Yes me too Chris...it amazes me that im actually saying the words but it does seem like the greenest fuel source right now!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

Yes me too Chris...it amazes me that im actually saying the words but it does seem like the greenest fuel source right now!

Leaving aside the poisonous waste issue - what are we going to do when the uranium runs out ? - it is a finite resource and estimates vary as to how much is left - based on current consumption and forecast increase it should run out 30 years or so after the oil does

so you see nuclear isnt the "answer" - all it does is give us more time to answer the question , if you see what i mean.

[Dan Salter]

Yeah valid point eeyore....

I dont think Nuclear is the "answer" i just think right here right now its the greenest option until they can think of something better...

[The Black Rabbit]

Remember the "Nuclear Power. No thanks" Smiley badge in the 70's and '80s?
I always thought that was quite funny - having an anti-nuclear ("newkular" as dubbya pronounces it), logo of the biggest nuclear reactor there is!
Designed by a child I've now just read...
Doug

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

The thread about the new coal powered station going ahead in my neighbourhood reminded me of a documentary we watched at the end of last term at college/uni...Filmed a little while back before the whole "Global warming" thing exploded by Paul Theroux ( Louis brother )..all about climate change and global warming...Some very serious ecologists/scientists and conservation people were in it...and by the end of the brilliant doc the overall feeling was that the only way to save the planet and the greenest form of energy is to go back to Nuclear Power..which sounds rediculous at first after the many years of trying to get rid...but when you listened to the facts etc and the pros and cons....ok...so once in a blue moon a chenoble might happen ( unlikely now they have learnt and improved technology) but losing a few hundred thousand people over losing the entire planet actually starts to make sense...of the 32 people in our "Countryside Management and Landscape Management" class...the majority agreed that it made sense.....

Thought this would be a good debate starter and sorry if its been covered elsewhere?...

Dan

I agree with you to a point Dan.
But its a bit "nimbyish" this subject.
Oh sure, we can lose a few thousand people in the Ukraine with something like Chernobyl - we'll sacrifice them for the sake of the planet, but would we feel the same if it was people from Manchester, or Swansea, or Dundee for example.
I doubt it.

Doug

[Dan Salter]

Those were the words of the scientist on the doc...not mine...but i kind of agree with him...but i see your point...although i still feel in the grand scheme of things....risk over another chernobyle (or manchester....or Canterbury) is still a better gamble than losing an entire human race...

But i do see your side of the argument too....even if i dont know what the word "nimbyish" means? ha ha

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

Those were the words of the scientist on the doc...not mine...but i kind of agree with him...but i see your point...although i still feel in the grand scheme of things....risk over another chernobyle (or manchester....or Canterbury) is still a better gamble than losing an entire human race...

But i do see your side of the argument too....even if i dont know what the word "nimbyish" means? ha ha

Heh heh!
Just added "ish" to "nimby".
Maybe I'm turning into dubbya myself?!

Yep. Dan. I do know what you mean, but I'm always a little wary of groups of people (or professional individuals, mind) who insist we MUST go nuclear (as an example), but on the quiet, privately object to the next nuclear power station being built anywhere near them.
I'd find out more about the scientist who wrote the doc, and see if he has the conviction to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk also.
Maybe he has. Very impressive if so.

Doug.

[Dan Salter]

erm...doesnt really help as i dont know what the hell "Nimby" means either or who the hell "dubbya" is?.....lol i must be too old.

Id like to see the doc again...i cant remember the bloomin title other than it was Paul Theroux...and the scientist guy was some huge head of something which made his statement even more amazing...im sure someone on here will enlighten us. I do remember the guy got fired shortly after...lol..

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

erm...doesnt really help as i dont know what the hell "Nimby" means either or who the hell "dubbya" is?.....lol i must be too old.

Id like to see the doc again...i cant remember the bloomin title other than it was Paul Theroux...and the scientist guy was some huge head of something which made his statement even more amazing...im sure someone on here will enlighten us. I do remember the guy got fired shortly after...lol..

NIMBY.
Not In My Back Yard.

DUBBYA
George Dubbya (W) Bush.

Too old?!
Pah.

Doug

[Dan Salter]

I clearly must be

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

Oh sure, we can lose a few thousand people in the Ukraine with something like Chernobyl - we'll sacrifice them for the sake of the planet, but would we feel the same if it was people from Manchester, or Swansea, or Dundee for example.
I doubt it.

Doug

Of course soviet reactor design and safety sucked quite badly (though i understand that russian safety is much improved now- closing the stable door after the horse has gone comes to mind)

british reactor safety is admittedly not perfect but much better than soviet ever was. I know a guy who works at a UK reactor and he only glows in the dark ever so slightly

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

Yeah valid point eeyore....

I dont think Nuclear is the "answer" i just think right here right now its the greenest option until they can think of something better...

No, solar power is the answer and the cost/difficulty of making receptors is decreasing all the time. If they could be sited in the Sahara or Kalahari we could have been there years ago - but that's a security issue.

... but not as big a security issue as nuclear fission, I think.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, solar power is the answer and the cost/difficulty of making receptors is decreasing all the time. If they could be sited in the Sahara or Kalahari we could have been there years ago - but that's a security issue.

... but not as big a security issue as nuclear fission, I think.

bearing that in mind what do folk think about the idea of solar gatherers on geosynchrous satelites beaming energy down as high intensity rays (or by a very long cable ) - something mooted in sci fi a long while ago (ben bova called them rectena farms in "colony") but now being seriously looked at by nasa.

[pressld2]

I'm a big fan of solar power and would love to put some panels on my roof. The only thing stopping me is cost.

They're un-obtrusive unlike wind, tidal or hydroelectric, have no nasty waste (unless there's something in the manufacturing process that I'm not aware of) and while solar energy is not an infinite resource it should be good for a few billion years yet.

If I were Prime Minister I would have changed building legislation to require all new buildings, residential or commercial, to be fitted with enough solar panels to at least meet that building's electricity requirements and hopefully to put some surplus into the grid too. This would not only help towards meeting CO2 reduction targets but would also stimulate research and growth of manufacturing facilities making the panels both cheaper and more efficient.

I read somewhere that there is more than enough roof space in the UK to meet ALL our energy requirements, even using current photo-voltaic technology, and still leave us with some surplus electricity to sell to the French.

Dave P.

[Dark_One]

skipping back quickly to the nuclear power discussion, this excellent article from "The Oil Drum" shows that even if nuclear power were the best solution, the decisions have been made too late to maintain current nuclear power output :
The Oil Drum: Europe | Nuclear Britain

I think the space solution sounds fantastic - i.e. fantasy unless there is a serious interest in space. However I fear we've wasted most of the "free" energy from oil and gas on wars etc. rather than bootstrapping ourselves into space.

As for the solar panels on rooftops, I think something like 10% of the current UK energy requirement can be met from reasonable solar PV installations on suitable rooftops. I'll try and dig out my OU notes where I did the calculations - it was an essay question lol.
This is of course with current PV technology. There is research going on to improve efficiency and the manufacturing costs - a few research projects listed here :
Advanced PV Research Accelerator | Carbon Trust

I think I may have posted similar elsewhere, but the best thing we can do is reduce our consumption, invest in tidal power, wave power and wind power as well as micro-generation (home solar PV and hot water, geothermal etc.)

[Ukwildlifeo]

The best option for the enar future is Nuclear power, which is much safer than it is portrayed. Cherynobyl only happened because some idiots decided to turn off the fail safes and stick some dodgy uranium in the reactor to see what happened. Hmm i need to read and remind myself of the specifics of that but you get the idea...

As for coal with modern technology the CO2 output and efficency are actual quite green and we still have plenty of coal. So lets not count that out.

Oh and cross our finger fusion power is possible and ready to go when the uranium runs out!

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I'm a big fan of solar power and would love to put some panels on my roof. The only thing stopping me is cost.

Dave P.

Solar power in Scotland. I would be lucky to get enough sun to boil a kettle on most days.

I see that the Government are intending to build nuclear power stations.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by ron1863

Solar power in Scotland. I would be lucky to get enough sun to boil a kettle on most days.

You'd be surprised Ron. Solar panels are obviously more efficient in direct sunlight but all they really need is daylight. They still generate significant quantities of power even on cloudy days and the technology is still improving. And while Scotland gets less daylight in Winter than we do down here in Kent, you also get more daylight in Summer to compensate. I have been surprised at how much light there is in the sky in Edinburgh at midnight in July - not quite enough to read a book by but I bet it would be up in Thurso!

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Dark_One

As for the solar panels on rooftops, I think something like 10% of the current UK energy requirement can be met from reasonable solar PV installations on suitable rooftops. I'll try and dig out my OU notes where I did the calculations - it was an essay question lol.

But doesn't that depend on your definition of "reasonable" and "suitable"? These calculations are normally based on the panel generating enough electricity to cover the cost of installation within 5 years (that being the maximum timescale that businesses - and politicians - are prepared to think about). But if you base the calculations around each panel generating more energy over it's 20 year lifetime than took to produce, transport and install it in the first place you get a very different answer. Even north facing rooves and those shadowed by taller building can then be considered reasonable and suitable.

If we start proper mass production the cost will plummet and then more and more roof space will become suitable even on the traditional cost/benefit analysis.

I'd be very interested to see your calculations if you can find them. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me remember where I read that we have enough roof space to meet all our energy requirements so I can't check how it was calculated or what assumptions were used.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

one problem with solar though is that the minerals used in Photovoltaic cell production are also limited and if used sufficiently widely to surplant the other engergy generation mediums they will run out even more quickly than uranium

we're doomed i tell you, dooooooomed

[Dark_One]

Originally Posted by pressld2

But doesn't that depend on your definition of "reasonable" and "suitable"? These calculations are normally based on the panel generating enough electricity to cover the cost of installation within 5 years (that being the maximum timescale that businesses - and politicians - are prepared to think about). But if you base the calculations around each panel generating more energy over it's 20 year lifetime than took to produce, transport and install it in the first place you get a very different answer. Even north facing rooves and those shadowed by taller building can then be considered reasonable and suitable.

If we start proper mass production the cost will plummet and then more and more roof space will become suitable even on the traditional cost/benefit analysis.

I'd be very interested to see your calculations if you can find them. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me remember where I read that we have enough roof space to meet all our energy requirements so I can't check how it was calculated or what assumptions were used.

Dave P.

I checked back through my TMAs and this question is not there - so it must have been a tuturial question we worked through.

The key assumptions that I remember were that only 50% of UK domestic rooftops were "suitable" i.e. south facing with a good angle of elevation, and that each "suitable" rooftop would have a 2.5m square solar array installed.
30% efficiency of the cells and "average" sunlight figures for the UK.

The answer was then calculated as a percentage based on the current energy usage in the UK. (I'd have to dig out my textbooks at the weekend to redo the calculation as I don't have some key "facts" to hand)

So - lots of assumptions. Some are explicit and some implicit. I presume the south facing rooftops and 2.5 m square array size are the "practical" cost based assumptions as you say. Complete rooftop coverage would, as you say, paint a diferent picture, but not a practical one based on current costs (energy, raw materials and cash) to produce the existing Solar PV technology.
A breakthrough in some of the research areas could well make the idea possible.

Back to previous topic in this thread - nuclear - fusion or fission, both are "dirty", causing radioactive cleanup and maintenance problems (fission is worse of course)
One other potential source of nuclear energy, and a way of cleaning up some of the mess is ATW - accelerator-driven transmutation of waste.
Disposition of Nuclear Wastes Using Subcritical Accelerator-Driven Systems
I'm sure similar engineering problems will need to be overcome with this idea as with fusion, and there will be similar contamination and cleanup problems - but overall it could reduce the waste problem.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Dark_One