100 Watts

Big.Wayne · 12 Sep 2010 at 12:45

snowdog said:
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.

Arithmetic, Population, and Energy
"The greatest shortcoming of the human Race is our "inability" to understand the Exponential Function" - Albert Bartlett

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:12

Big.Wayne said:
Can I ask what your background is on the subject of Nuclear power generation is please?

The same as yours, personal research, aside from A level physics.

Indeed, I notice that you seem to focus on certain points but not really take in the whole picture,

The same way you do?

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?

As I stated before nuclear power is not renewable. I do indeed think that with the technologies we have now such as breeder reactors and transmutation that nuclear waste can be managed without having a huge impact on the earth.

[*]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 . . .
[/LIST]
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!

Solar panels are very inefficient and electricity is very expensive from PV cells. The UK is not a geographical position to make solar a large contributor to electricity production with current technology.

Wind has a place in the UK but has a variable power output and requires large numbers of turbines to be built over large areas to match the output of a single nuclear power station so it clearly can't provide anywhere near enough power alone.

Tidal and wave certainly have the potential to become major contributors to UK power generation, tidal sources in the England alone are estimated to be able to produce 5.6GW, but building plants along all the potential sources will take a long time. Costs are also high for wave power and like all forms of hydroelectric they can cause issues for marine life, which we already have enough of a problem with here.

Geothermal power plants are only estimated to be able to produce between 1-5GW of power over the course of the next 20 years, this could be provided by a couple of nuclear plants, so again it's nowhere near enough alone.

At the end of the day there may be huge amounts of potential sources of energy around the world, but that doesn't mean they are economically feasible in the UK, a country which has a relatively small landmass and little sunlight. Based on the estimated power outputs of these technologies over the next couple of decades I really can't see them being enough without nuclear which is a well proven technology.

Captain_Slick · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:17

Surely it makes much more sense to consolidate EU wide power generation to provide power for all members, rather than for each state to provide all of it's own power through different means?

For example - solar panels wouldn't make sense here in the UK, but across sites in Southern Europe I bet they would generate a significant amount of electricity to feed into the European grid. Or how about putting them on the roof tops of a significant amount of the houses from southern France to the Mediterranean?

I guess the main thing standing in the way of that is national pride and lack of co-ordination. I think that energy production is one area where a full and proper EU superstate starts to make a lot of sense.

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:25

Captain_Slick said:
Surely it makes much more sense to consolidate EU wide power generation to provide power for all members, rather than for each state to provide all of it's own power through different means?

If we want to be even more dependant on other countries for our power generation resulting in further increased electricity costs, sure.

Captain_Slick · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:26

Energize said:
If we want to be even more dependant on other countries for our power generation resulting in further increased electricity costs, sure.

We wouldn't be though. They would take up part of our demand with solar panels and we would take up part of their demand with wind, hydro and tidal generation.

Co-ordination and control of investments from the EU across all members would keep costs the same regardless of where your electricity came from.

EDIT: Seems this sort of thing is already underway: http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5309

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:33

Captain_Slick said:
We wouldn't be though. They would take up part of our demand with solar panels and we would take up part of their demand with wind, hydro and tidal generation.

Co-ordination from the EU across all members would keep costs the same regardless of where your electricity came from.

We already have a huge electricity import deficit, I don't want to see that rise further by importing more electricity, being independent is a much better solution for the future.

Captain_Slick · 12 Sep 2010 at 15:39

But the future will inevitably involve further integration into the EU, so in a way we wouldn't be importing electricity at all. It would be akin to a power plant in one county providing electricity for those surrounding it.

Free movement of people, goods, resources and utilities in a sense.

Big.Wayne · 12 Sep 2010 at 18:57

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

Hey Energize!

. . . the above statement is "Based on what evidence?" please?

I'm having a real problem here determining if what you are saying is Truth or Falshood . . . you seem to talk the talk but I can't tell if you are wise like a professor or have eaten your fill of the nuclear industries propaganda and have deluded yourself into thinking cheap nuclear power is ethical and sound!

Energize said:
If we want to be even more dependant on other countries for our power generation resulting in further increased electricity costs, sure.

Energize said:
We already have a huge electricity import deficit, I don't want to see that rise further by importing more electricity, being independent is a much better solution for the future.

Is this the main reason you are so keen to advocate we all use Nuclear energy and ignore all the possible long term health & enviromental aspects?

dependant on other countries
increased electricity costs
huge electricity import deficit
importing more electricity

You seem to be totally focussing on the ££££ :confused:

Energize said:
Wow 14p is more than twice as much as we pay, go nuclear!

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 19:17

Since you appear to be ignoring everything I have written here Wayne I don't see much point in continuing to respond to you. I will suggest reading a respectable science book though, rather than reading the greenpeace website.

Big.Wayne · 12 Sep 2010 at 19:20

Hey Energize

Energize said:
Since you appear to be ignoring everything I have written here Wayne I don't see much point in continuing to respond to you

I'm asking you if you believe everything you are saying is true?

What authority or source did you get your info from and is it real or not?

Energize said:
I will suggest reading a respectable science book though, rather than reading the greenpeace website.

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 19:51

Big.Wayne said:
I'm asking you if you believe everything you are saying is true?

Most of what you are doing is putting words in my mouth.

Big.Wayne said:
What authority or source did you get your info from and is it real or not?

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf

Shows nuclear plants have the lowest carbon footprint of any power station.

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

American journal of physics article, estimating uranium reserves as billions of years, never mind thorium

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0216/r2/br0216r2.pdf

Explains how radioactive waste is dealt with and explains what low level waste is.

Big.Wayne · 12 Sep 2010 at 20:01

See the thing is . . . being an Epistemologist . . I have to ask questions . . . I'm keen to know more about this subject but at every turn I have to ask myself if what I am reading is either "Truth" or "Falsehood" . . .

I certainly am not intending to cause offence . . .

Living in an "economic" society I have become aware that this whole Supply & Demand thing revolves around "scarcity" . . .

Those industries that control Coal, Oil, Nuclear etc are all based on "scarcity" . . . i.e there is a finite source and they control it . . . if ever it was possible that all our energy needs could be met for free (£0.00) all of those industries would almost cease to exist!

I'm certain we will run of of fossil fuel soon and the replacement being lined up appears to be Nuclear energy . . . again another commodity based around "scarecity" . . . there is just something about nuclear power stations that gives me the "willies" and as much as I would like to have cheaper electric bills I'm sure that in the long term it makes sense to give my little bit of money ££ to the companies that produce 100% renewable power . . .

Now with all this talk of "scarcity" what is the flip-side of the coin . . . .The opposite of scarcity is "abundance" . . .

If anything I have been reading is actually based on truth or fact then it appears that there is multiple abundant sources of power/energy available to us . . . one source from outer-space (Solar) and the rest from Planet Earth (Wind/Wave/Tide/Geothermal) . . .

The problem seems to be that a massive amount of money needs to be invested in developing the technology and implementing the infrastructure to harvest what is in fact "Free Energy" . . . of course the companies that currently control all our energy will not get the ball rolling because if they succeeded they would in fact be out of business! . . . I mean how can you make a profit from something that is "limitless" and "abundant"

So in the meantime it would seem that its up to us (earthlings) to make things happen . . . now I'm not suggesting people set-up there own wind farm or dig a personal geothermal system but instead look into switching away from the companies that are using Nuclear energy and fossile fuels and instead switch to a company that generates energy using some form of Renewable-Energy!

As far as I know from the limited information I've been through the only disadvantage is the kWh cost £££

The quicker the infrastructure is set-up the quicker we will have access to free power . . . and if we have free power we can all bin our energy saving light bulbs and get the good old incandescent light bulbs fitted again!

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 20:07

Big.Wayne said:
I mean how can you make a profit from something that is "limitless" and "abundant"

By charging 14p per KWh?

Big.Wayne said:
As far as I know from the limited information I've been through the only disadvantage is the kWh cost £££

And the environmental damage caused by hydro electric power...

craptakular · 12 Sep 2010 at 21:22

I have never understood the point of energy saving bulbs. My energy comes from Sizewell Nuclear Power Station. Therefore, it has zero influence on climate change.

Energize · 12 Sep 2010 at 21:35

Oxy said:
I have never understood the point of energy saving bulbs.

Other than costing 82% less in electricity?

craptakular · 12 Sep 2010 at 21:46

Energize said:
Other than costing 82% less in electricity?

I don't pay the bills hehe...

Seriously though I do have energy bulbs and never have had an issue.

It is just annoying that they are badged as "saving the earth" when in reality, for a lot of the country we are on Nuclear anyway.

We have bigger fish to fry than worrying about nuclear at the moment, like climate change, expensive fossil prices, running low on cheap oil and gas, Russia holding us to random with gas supplies etc etc.

I say more nuclear for next 50-100 years, plough into renewable's and shrink gas/coal power stations.

Next 50-100 years renewables should be more efficient, and maybe hydrogen/the other nuclear power thingy will be along to save the day!

SDK^ · 3 Oct 2010 at 19:06

Oxy said:
I have never understood the point of energy saving bulbs. My energy comes from Sizewell Nuclear Power Station.

How do you know this ?

Destination · 3 Oct 2010 at 20:00

What is the usual minimum peak and average Wattage requirements for the whole of the UK?

I see folks publishing figures for different forms of energy and what thye might provide us, but what are the UK averages min and peaks?

TheVoice · 3 Oct 2010 at 21:22

Captain_Slick said:
No.

http://www.megamanuk.com/megaman-products/lamps/?series_name=dimmerable-series

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm

Indeed, or as a cheaper alternative you can get those bulbs that are more like normal ones, have no warm-up time and can be used with dimmers, but still use less energy. Got one in my lounge.

jim5000 · 3 Oct 2010 at 21:37

snowdog said:
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.

Good luck trying to get your freedom and wealth when the world is knackered...