Energy suppliers... choice between coal/gas/wind/solar/etc?

[crinkleshoes]

Hey,

Was just setting up new electricity account in France and noticed this on the comparison website... when choosing the supplier, you get to choose what percentage of your electricity is provided by renewable sources.

When last setting up an account in the UK about 4 years ago, I don't remember being able to do this... is is an option over there now? I like it...

 

[crinkleshoes]

you can choose "green" tariffs etc from various providers but they are inevitably more expensive.

Fair enough, nice then that this offer is barely noticeably higher than the base rates.

I haven't seen it. But you can get lists of how much renewable energy each supplier uses and how much they reinvest in renewable and some offer green tariffs.
Which looking closer is what that is.

OK... but what about like this where the energy supplier guarantees that your contribution goes 100% towards renewable supplies?

 

[crinkleshoes]

Nice

 

[crinkleshoes]

Nuclear should be included as a green option surely it doesn't contribute to carbon emissions.

Nuclear is not green.

Carbon is irrelevant, nuclear waste is not something we want laying around. Let alone the devastation they cause when things go wrong...

Solar towers / wind / tidal / geothermic / solar look to be the best we have so far.

Would be nice to improve solar... photosynthesis seems to do a good job of it

 

[crinkleshoes]

Okay, fair warning, here come facts.

Nuclear would solve pretty much all energy problems on this planet for generations to come if people didn't have irrational fears about it. The amount of energy you can extract from a lump of nuclear fuel is several orders of magnitude greater than what you can extract from an equivalent quantity of coal or oil, and it doesn't produce greenhouse gases. The devastation that happens when it goes wrong? Exactly how many people do you think have died because of nuclear power generation? Including Chernobyl, the number is 56. And as a pessimistic estimate, 9000 are thought to have had foreshortened lifespans due to radiation exposure from that single event. Fukushima, nobody died because of the power plant; plenty died because of the tsunami, but none due to the damage to the power plant.

Now compare that to good old reliable coal. How many people do you think have died due to coal power generation? The number is 13,200. Per year. In the USA alone. And that's just counting deaths from inhalation of the pollution. It doesn't even take into account things like mining accidents.

So you have a one-off death toll of 9000 in the entire history of nuclear energy, compared against an annual death toll of 13,200 in a single country caused by coal. Do you still think nuclear power is dangerous?

Yeah nuclear waste is nasty stuff, but it can be managed.

Not completely sure why you referenced me for that reply, perhaps it was simply that I mentioned nuclear at all.

I was not comparing and will not compare nuclear to coal, that is redundant.

I wasn't referring to directly related human deaths, either.

What about the many square kilometers of farmland that is unusable for centuries?

This is only a handful of "mistakes"... expanding the nuclear base expands the risk of that happening more within the time frame of other issues not having been resolved, increasing this.

Have you noticed the reports of the damage Fukushima did to the water population surrounding it?

Your view seems very short sighted and quite limited in its perspective of the wider repercussions.




How many deaths have been caused by solar panel creation?

Perhaps you could get the odd silly sod who fell of his roof, or maybe the odd one fell on someone when it broke or was mounted improperly? I'm unsure of the specifics of the production process, however there may be some there.

What about solar tower builds? We have plenty of space for these across the globe and power transmission capabilities are acceptable for it.

It makes so much more sense to invest in these builds than it does in increasing the nuclear footprint.

Of course I'm not saying all nuclear reactors should be immediately decommissioned... I wouldn't mind it but I know it won't happen as that would be too expensive for those who "own" them. Let them finish their lifecycle and don't renew them... simples.

Invest that money in smarter technology that doesn't create such waste and doesn't have the fallout capability.

Your very Anti Nuclear...

I am too... you state that almost as an accusation for no perceivable purpose? Almost like preferring non-nuclear alternatives is a bad thing...

 

[crinkleshoes]

It's interesting, sure... only thing is... people generally fail to consider the cost (environmental) of the batteries to produce.

It's estimated the entire life of your average V8 muscle car puts lets problematic materials into the atmosphere than simply the productions of the batteries for a Prius...