100 Watts

[Energize]

Well you could just read a book. It would be a lot cheaper.

 

[sanaxe1]

We talking about nuclear bulbs again?

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

No need to worry then because it doesn't damage the environment.

lol, what a load of ********!

I take it your not aware of the HUGE amount of energy required to enrich uranium that these so called 'clean' nuclear power stations use !
Not to mention the serious problem what to do with the stuff when it's spent!

Nuclear power clean! Yeah about as clean as a tramps ass!!

What about it?

Dangerous high level nuclear waste can be transmuted to isotopes with shorter half lives in the range of decades and many types of nuclear waste such as depleted uranium can be used in breeder reactors. Any remaining high level waste can be stored underground where it isn't a threat, it's even feasible to deliver it to the Earths mantle.

The vast majority of nuclear waste however is harmless low level waste.

Again, what a load of ********!
I take it your not aware of the massive amount of illegally dumped nuclear and toxic waste that now sits at the bottom of the earths oceans!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4312553.stm

 

[Energize]

lol, what a load of *******!

I take it your not aware of the HUGE amount of energy required to enrich uranium that these so called 'clean' nuclear power stations use !
Not to mention the serious problem what to do with the stuff when it's spent!

Breeder reactors do not need enriched uranium they can use depleted uranium. The gov figures take the refining costs into account when calculating total CO2.

Again, what a load of ********!
I take it your not aware of the massive amount of illegally dumped nuclear and toxic waste that now sits at the bottom of the earths oceans!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4312553.stm

The amount of illegally dumped waste is irrelevant, it's like saying knives are evil because they can be used in crime.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Breeder reactors do not need enriched uranium they can use depleted uranium. The gov figures take the refining costs into account when calculating total CO2.





The amount of illegally dumped waste is irrelevant, it's like saying knives are evil because they can be used in crime.

Breeder reactors still have the horrific occupational and environmental health risks associated with uranium mining and milling. Plus depleted uranium is just a byproduct of uranium enrichment so you STILL have the massive amounts of energy consumption firmly attached to it!!
Nuclear is also expensive and not economically sound imo, ($0.9-$0.10/kWh delivered) compared to wind @ $0.06-$0.07/kWh delivered.
Nuclear MW's are heavily subsidized.

 

[Street]

Yes, but who leaves a 100W bulb on all the time?

I've got a lizard with 75w spot bulb on for 12 hours a day.. That must be costing me a fair bit!

 

[Energize]

Breeder reactors still have the horrific occupational and environmental health risks associated with uranium mining and milling. Plus depleted uranium is just a byproduct of uranium enrichment so you STILL have the massive amounts of energy consumption firmly attached to it!!

Breeder reactors only require an initial charge of plutonium or enriched uranium, after that they can use raw uranium or thorium. Like I said though, even with the energy used in enrichment, nuclear still produces less CO2 than any other source.

Nuclear is also expensive and not economically sound imo, ($0.9-$0.10/kWh delivered) compared to wind @ $0.06-$0.07/kWh delivered.
Nuclear MW's are heavily subsidized.

Slightly more expensive than wind != economically sound. Nuclear is capable of producing huge amounts of electricity 24/7 and the price of uranium has little effect on the cost of electricity produced by it.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Because that is not a reason to change behavior, why should we in Europe have to comply to all these rubbish rules while they build lots of new coal plants in China ? It is pointless since these types of rules only work if they are applied worldwide...

I see no point in the EU trying to be the ''best kid'' in class, especially since this goes at the cost of freedom and wealth.

It is not just eco things that annoy me I dislike authority in general and think freedom and wealth is more important.
But environmentalism and authoritarianism together simply winds me up much more than any other thing. I'm a conservative ( economic, environmental) liberal ( general).

Eco is only good if people can freely choose between it and the old ways, without any other disadvantage to continuing to use the old ways... So any eco subsidies do my head in, and eco rules wind me up even more.


Yes. Certainly won't be downclocking my cpu to save some power, it stays overclocked as it is.
While I can live with energy saving bulbs, in fact the 20+ watt energy saver ones are generally better for me than the old 100W ones ( especially the life of a normal bulb was an issue for me), I disagree with the way this has been forced on to people. EU should go back to making trading easy, improving infrastructure and cooperation in general. Not environmental issues or energy consumption. Or making more and more rules playing big brother over the people.

and what are you going to do when the fuel runs out that powers all these 100w lightbulbs? the EU is doing it so that europe can bring down its electricity usage overall, in a quick simple method.

if your that bothered about it, you can still buy these bulbs, why dont you stock up?

 

[Dazzy_G]

I'd be blinded if we had 100w bulbs in the bathroom, its wall to wall white tiles!

We've got some of them ones that go in the ceiling, don't think they are LED ones though

 

[Influx]

Hi ron3003,

that's what it costs for 100% renewable energy (wind farm) . . . I think your talking about nuclear or fossile fuel generated power right?

You are connected directly into a wind farm?

 

[Jonny69]

No need to worry then because it doesn't damage the environment. Nuclear produces the least CO2 of any power station overall.

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Valten//footprint.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
I dispute those figures despite their sources. I think they don't tell the whole story, so I wouldn't rely on them.

It doesn't take a genius to be able to work out that burning grass is an inefficient way of generating energy, but there is a massive environmental impact putting a nuclear plant in place, enriching uranium and then processing it afterwards. This is why nuclear is not the long term answer to our energy demands. Plus you have the end of life issues with the spent fuel.

I'm not anti nuclear and I understand its position in a transition to a low carbon economy, but it's not a long term solution.

PV and wind, on the other hand, are a solution as is hydro where it is possible. Once in place they are effectively free to run. Apart from maintenance they do not need to be fed fuel.

 

[Energize]

I dispute those figures despite their sources. I think they don't tell the whole story, so I wouldn't rely on them.

Based on what evidence? A hunch?

PV and wind, on the other hand, are a solution as is hydro where it is possible. Once in place they are effectively free to run. Apart from maintenance they do not need to be fed fuel.

Only problem is their power generation is unreliable and they don't produce enough power combined. A nuclear power plant using naturally occurring U-238 can produce gigawatt's of power 24/7.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Based on what evidence? A hunch?

The true cost of electricity delivered by nuclear is a controversial subject and there is no clear definitive answer. Pro-nuclear groups claim it is lower than renewable sources and much lower than fossil fuel. Anti-nuclear groups claim the opposite.

The first page of Google results seems to suggest it's cheaper than fossil fuels but not as cheap as renewable sources.

Considering the environmental, health and economic impact of nuclear waste (regardless of how great or how little it actually is - there's no denying that it does exist), renewable energy sources are the obvious answer... both in terms of cost and also reliability. Hundreds of thousands of reliable wind turbines/solar panels/hydro generators is much more appealing from a security and dependability point of view in the world that we live in (terrorism, rising transportation costs, rising employment costs, supply monopolies in the form of Russia et al).

There's also quite a lot of discussion into how inefficient nuclear power plants actually are. I've seen figures such as 33% thrown around quite often. That's a lot of lost energy considering how much power one nuclear power plant creates.

 

[Jonny69]

Based on what evidence? A hunch?

No, I'm doing an engineering doctorate in the subject.

Only problem is their power generation is unreliable and they don't produce enough power combined. A nuclear power plant using naturally occurring U-238 can produce gigawatt's of power 24/7.

But it's not flexible, it can't ramp up and down fast enough to keep up with demand. This is why you have fast reacting coal and gas plants on standby while renewables supply the bulk of the power and nuclear can be phased out. This is not academic claptrap, this is UK energy policy.

 

[Energize]

No, I'm doing an engineering doctorate in the subject.

No citations then?

But it's not flexible, it can't ramp up and down fast enough to keep up with demand. This is why you have fast reacting coal and gas plants on standby while renewables supply the bulk of the power and nuclear can be phased out. This is not academic claptrap, this is UK energy policy.

Nuclear isn't designed to be flexible it's designed for base load, something which renewables can't effectively do, having varying power output.

 

[Arc]

There's also quite a lot of discussion into how inefficient nuclear power plants actually are. I've seen figures such as 33% thrown around quite often. That's a lot of lost energy considering how much power one nuclear power plant creates.

Most large thermal plants (at least in this country) are no more efficient than 40% efficient. Unless your into combined heat and power (CHP) you will never see high efficiency figures, not much you can do about that, its due to the laws of thermodynamics .

But it's not flexible, it can't ramp up and down fast enough to keep up with demand. This is why you have fast reacting coal and gas plants on standby while renewables supply the bulk of the power and nuclear can be phased out. This is not academic claptrap, this is UK energy policy.

Nuclear can load cycle without any problems, how do you think France (80% nuclear) copes with demand peaks? In the UK we don't require it as we run our nuclear stations as base load generation and use coal/gas for the morning/evening demand. Just because its UK energy policy doesn't make it right, we utilise what we have to make the system as efficient as possible.

You'll find hydro (including pumped storage) are the real fast reacting stations.

 

[Big.Wayne]

You are connected directly into a wind farm?

Hehe no!

All the electricity I pull from the "grid" is replaced by energy generated by a wind-farm . . . the whole process is totally transparent to me apart from I pay more per kWh . . . I was previously with a company called EDF who apparently are a french company using Nuclear power (I was tempted not to switch but I've had a few fit french girlfriends ) . . .

There are quite a few companies doing 100% renewable energy now . . . the one I'm with is called Good Energy . . . you really have to check the small print of some of them as the Eco thing is catching on and they have various fancy names to make the buyer think its 100% renewable but actually its still a lot fossil fuel etc . . .

I've had to make a few adjustments in my power usage (energy saving bulbs, no F&H etc) to offset the increase cost of the kWh but I think for the long term it makes sense!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey Energize,

Can I ask what your background is on the subject of Nuclear power generation is please?

it doesn't damage the environment. Nuclear produces the least CO2 of any power station overall

Indeed, I notice that you seem to focus on certain points but not really take in the whole picture, It seems like someone watching a horror movie but cupping their hands over their face during the really scary parts kinda!

The CO2 thing sounds reasonable . . . I'm still concerned by the hazardous radioactive waste!

The amount of illegally dumped waste is irrelevant, it's like saying knives are evil because they can be used in crime.

There is something wrong with this statement . . . but I can't quite figure it out yet!

Slightly more expensive than wind != economically sound

Your doing it again (cupping of hands/scary part) your "spinning" nuclear power by making it a good move economically . . . .

a nuclear power plant using naturally occurring U-238 can produce gigawatt's of power 24/7.

Lots of lots of power! . . . . but what is the catch?

Energize,

You seem very intent on "spinning" nuclear power as the way forward, you even suggested I used Nuclear-generated power myself although didn't manage to placate my fears . . . as I stated before this is a new subject to me and my knowledge is very limited but I wondered do you think yourself that Nuclear power is 100% renewable with little or no impact on the Earth or future consequence . . this is a genuine question?

Nuclear Power is Safe Guv! . . . Honest!

Having answered that can I switch you away from Nuclear power and ask you what you think or "know" about the potential of the following energy sources please? . . Take any "stats" with a pinch of salt please as the technology is still not quite there to "harvest" this energy!

• Solar: One hour of light at high noon contains over 1 ZJ which is more energy than what the entire world consumes in a year?
• Wind: No stats yet . . .
• Tidal: 34% of UK's power could come from the tides
• Wave: Global potential of 80,000 terrawatt hour per year (50% of the entire planets energy usage)
• Geothermal: 13,000 ZJ of power in the earth . . . 2,000 ZJ being easiliy tappable with improved tech . . .

Apparently the total energy consumption of every country on the planet is about 0.5 ZJ per year . . . and rising . . do you think any of the above 100% renewable methods are more promising than Nuclear . . . and if so which one!

 

[snowdog]

and what are you going to do when the fuel runs out that powers all these 100w lightbulbs? the EU is doing it so that europe can bring down its electricity usage overall, in a quick simple method.

if your that bothered about it, you can still buy these bulbs, why dont you stock up?

Nuclear energy runs out?
We have enough coal in the NL beneath the ground to power the country for at least 30 years, we have huge natural gas reserves ( over 50% of the proven reserves in the whole EU) and a natural gas exporter.
I see your point but until wind and other green power becomes more economically feasible compared to other ways of producing elec, I don't see the point to embrace it that quickly like for example the Green party wants to.

 

[Captain_Slick]

I see your point but until wind and other green power becomes more economically feasible compared to other ways of producing elec, I don't see the point to embrace it that quickly like for example the Green party wants to.

It makes sense to embrace it now because you're going to have to embrace it eventually anyway. It isn't economically feasible to leave it until the last train load of coal.