Power stations burning bio mass

[Compo]

We own a piece of land that has a mill leat. It runs from a weir on the river and used to travel a mile or so down the valley to feed a mill that employed two hundred people in the 1800's. Free energy? The leat had to be desilted, by hand, several times a year. That's one mile long, ten yards wide and five feet deep. Imagine the cost in wages today. You can't get out what you haven't put in, nothing comes free.

[mdt]

Also think less nuclear is better! Like been said if was to start building nuclear in this economic climate am sure corners will be cut, which today might be fine but in time to come it could have troubling consequences.

 

sent from my office in the field via s3

[openspaceman]

None of the so called renewable energy sources can be applied to any purposeful degree without massive environmental costs, particularly in a country so overcrowded as ours. Catweazel is right - the emphasis has to be on using less.

 

Good to see some agreement here

 

 

Nuclear is too frightening to even think about. There will be an accident because people will cut corners. And just where are you going to put the waste?

 

I was against deployment of more nuclear fission generators in 1972, my wife's' car still bears the sticker but its a bit scratched now, because of fears of proliferation of armaments but mostly because events had proved we had got ahead of our ability to manage the technology in the rush, just like with jet planes of the previous decade.

 

Now I am more sanguine as we now know our growth of pollution and consumption is materially affecting the environment and climate in a way not predicted then, we thought we could depend on UK's 300 years of coal underground. It's a matter of balancing the dangers of a now better understood technology with carry on regardless expecting the atmosphere to cope with the waste from fossil fuels.

[agg221]

Nuclear fusion is our only hope.

Fingers crossed.

 

Fusion is a potentially interesting option, but it's a long way off. JET was built in the 1970s, using 1960s technology, and is still the most advanced fusion experiment in Europe. It's very impressive (I've been round it - including some bits I probably shouldn't have been taken to) but it can only run up for a few seconds. The follow-on project, ITER, is underway (we've just made some specialist bits of it) but even if it is completed on time it will be tested in 2020.

 

The reality of course is that the whole energy issue is a mixture of inseparable factors, such as the balance between whole-life cost of large plant vs. distributed generation, availability of the materials needed for advanced generation, storage and supply solutions and the palatability of change in lifestyle to the consumer in a relatively free society.

 

The EU factor is interesting, and again more complex than is often taken into account in the superficial 'we don't want to be part of Europe' view. Britain is in reality small, with limited natural resources. It makes sense to make the most of what we've got but beyond this, if you accept that current technology doesn't provide suitable solutions, the leverage obtained by accessing European expertise and collaborative investment is more likely to address the issues than Britain working alone. If we're not part of developing the technology, we will become a consumer and access fees will be dictated to us.

 

Alec

[agg221]

All new houses built are suppose to be "zero carbon" by 2016.

 

Code for Sustainable Homes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So if all old houese are gradually knocked down & replaced or upgraded to lvl 6 might help abit

 

I don't think it will happen though

 

One of the big issues at the moment is how to effectively retro-fit the UK's existing housing stock, particularly the enormous number of Victorian houses which are expected to be retained for at least another century. The main issues are cost of materials (which can be tolerated in some cases) and the fact that insulation takes up space if applied internally. With lower cost materials you're talking about 6" or so, so making each room smaller all round by about a foot. Not very popular!

 

Alec

[Compo]

Even if nuclear power was safe and there was a solution to the problem of the waste storage it would only delay the inevitable. A culture so dependent on massive and increasing energy use is not sustainable. There is nothing for nothing and the future depends on action now. That won't happen so some of us do what we do. Plants trees and try to keep the water clean.

[Daniël Bos]

I heard (so it may not be true, but it was from a source I respect highly) that nuclear is and never has been economically viable.

Apparently no nuclear plant ever built in Europe would have ever been built had it not been for massive amounts of government subsidies. In a free market, nuclear is and never was an option.

[Compo]

Wouldn't surprise me. We need to calculate viability in terms of energy in against energy return. Demand needs to fall but which politician is going to advocate population reduction or a lowering of living standards? Don't forget that with development across the World we have only scratched the surface of energy used and pollution produced.

Sustainability would depend on the use of currnet account carbon rather than raiding the piggy bank of historical storage.

[Compo]

Beginning to depress myself now although it's good to see that there are people out there who understand the question even if none of us has the answer. Think I'll go and play with my trees for a while. . . .

[felixthelogchopper]

We own a piece of land that has a mill leat. It runs from a weir on the river and used to travel a mile or so down the valley to feed a mill that employed two hundred people in the 1800's. Free energy? The leat had to be desilted, by hand, several times a year. That's one mile long, ten yards wide and five feet deep. Imagine the cost in wages today. You can't get out what you haven't put in, nothing comes free.

 

Taken nationally, it would probably be close to the bill for unemployment benefits. If you are spending the money anyway, you might as well get something back for it.