The clean green energy thread - Lets talk about alternatives to nuclear power and how we can save th

[Pixel]

Turning off the power for 1 day a week does sound nice. Say it was a Sunday, kids would be forced to go outside and meet friends to have fun, families would actually take the time to talk to each other again, more people would read, etc.

However, the reality would be this:

Power consumption per week wouldn't drop that much, as millions of people ensure their laptops, handheld consoles, and other mobile devices are fully charged before each Sunday. People would burn more fossil fuels at home due to increased usage of generators. No power in shops would be a problem. More people would go for drives so they can stay warm and listen to the radio. Cold Sundays in winter would result in tens of thousands of deaths of the elderly and sick. Millions would be late for work every Monday as alarm clocks are reset along with the power. Kids will stay in and play on their fully charged Nintendo DS all day.

It would be too much trouble, and people simply wont give up the luxuries they've become so used to, even if it's just for one day.

 

[Evilsod]

You sure about that?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12355-flying-windmills-could-harness-the-jet-stream.html

That is the most meaningless statement i've ever heard. "If we tap into 1% of the wind energy at high altitude..." meaning what exactly? 1% of all wind everywhere? 1% over the UK? 1% over Robin Hood Airport? Theres a LOT of 'high altitude' that no matter how you look at it 1% is a completely meaningless number. Its 1 of those useless figures aimed at the general public to look good not actually describe anything.

Isn't there an issue that nuclear power also uses an un-renewable fuel source?

 

[PlacidCasual]

It is possible for the UK to support renewable only generation but practically every significant valley would have to be damned for pumped storage and all the major estuaries barraged and more windmills than you can shake a stick at. The maintenance and captial costs would be horrendous but it is technically possible. Also the downside is you have turned the very fabric of the country into a distributed powerstation.
Nuclear fission using Gen 4 designs such as molten salt reactors and fast breeders are a much more practical proposition but doesn't meet the OP's conditions.

 

[semi-pro waster]

People say that clean green energy currently cant supply the demand of the world we live in but what if people aren't thinking outside the box, like as an example scenerio what if we just had power for 6 days a week to each home in the UK, instead of 7 days, or what about the fact that most people work all day and arent even home, so why do we need the power to our homes if we arent even there.

What do you do on the 7th day? Or how do you cut off power to the homes of people who are at work and not anyone else? Do they have to let the power company know when they've got a day off?

You're right in that if people turned things off rather than putting them on standby we could save a fair amount of power but as far as I'm aware it's not a solution as much as simply a delaying tactic. It might be worth it on those grounds alone but we'd still need something else.

If Jonny69 sees this thread then he might have some useful input.

 

[Aod]

The waste you have to deal with

The amount of unusable waste created by nuclear power is actually not all that large. the popular mental image of barrel after barrel of green nuclear sludge issuing forth from a nuclear plant is completely incorrect.

Even traditional (ie, old) Nuclear plants don't generate more than a few tens of tonnes of nuclear waste per year, and modern hyper-efficient plants generate far less, and are also capable of re-enriching spent fuel so it can be re-used.

and there's always the chance that something can go wrong - no matter how small that chance is, if it goes wrong then it goes spectacularly wrong.

That's not really the case too - this is a perfect example of Chernobyl setting a bad example that's hurting the world.
The Chernobyl plant was an extremely antiquated soviet design which meant that action was required (ie, something had to move) in order to slow the reaction.

In modern reactors, the opposite is the case, action is required in order to START the reaction, and if there's a loss of power/etc, the moderator rods automatically (even where there's a 100% loss of power) reinsert into the reactor-core to shut down the reaction.

an excellent example of this - the Fukushima Nuclear reactors are now forty years old, and Reactor 1 was due to be decommissioned this very month.

Despite being almost directly on top of the epicentre of an 8.9 earthquake (an 8.9 earthquake releases roughly 1x10^17J, or 100,000,000,000,000,000 joules - put another way, more than 300,000,000 tonnes of TNT) none of the reactors went into meltdown, lost containment or otherwise did anything "nuclear".

The explosions that occurred were due to hydrogen-buildup from the emergency cooling efforts and even then the reactors didn't lose containment.

modern reactors are even better, even safer and even more efficient, especially considering that the UK isn't located on a geological fault-line.

 

[Monkeymatt]

Although I agree that lots of research needs to be put into renewable sources of energy to make them much more efficiently, we also need to look at how we can make everything in our houses waste less energy.

At no other time in history has the average human known so much and yet done so little. We know we need to change, but nobody wants to be the first to take the big steps to make the changes, and so future generations are all going to be ****** because of our arrogance.

 

[matthab]

Im in support of nuclear. Lots of reasons why but i accept we cant get what we want for nothing.

Coal/Gas all let out harmful fumes and its only a matter of time before stocks run out.

Wind/Solar are expensive time consuming and lets face it solar in this country doesnt work most of the time.

Nuclear, yes it produces waiste but the amount of power one station can kick out is huge. Reading this report http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ shows how good of an option it is.

Untill someone makes a good way to make power with no negatives, nuclear is a good way to start.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

I wish people would stop pretending that wind and solar are in anyway feasible - they produce utterly pathetic amounts of power and are unreliable, meaning they need a proper power station network as back up, which cannot be practically switched on and off. Not only that, they are hugely expensive and the only reason they can be built is due to thoughtless government subsidies, and utterly ruin landscapes - there is more to the enviroment than CO2.

Nuclear is fine, of course there is a high profile event in Japan right now, but it is still a very safe and efficient method of energy production. We need to build more plants ASAP, we are looming towards a state where we cannot supply enough power. Ironically, French nuclear power stations will pick up the slack.

 

[p4radox]

Although I agree that lots of research needs to be put into renewable sources of energy to make them much more efficiently, we also need to look at how we can make everything in our houses waste less energy.

At no other time in history has the average human known so much and yet done so little. We know we need to change, but nobody wants to be the first to take the big steps to make the changes, and so future generations are all going to be ****** because of our arrogance.

This. We need both investment into alternative energy sources, and a massive shift in the public's awareness of energy waste. People are either lazy or stupid when it comes to saving energy and that needs to change.

Also, whilst wind, solar and hydro will never provide 100% of the UK's power (like they do in places like Denmark) they're still worth investing in. Free, unlimited energy can only be a good thing.

 

[Glaucus]

Current solar panels are a disappointment, but wind power is still fairly good and wave/tidal and hydro electric systems are fairly decent as well.

Not true solar panels are actually very good both heat and electric and are only getting better.

Problem is as well as making energy differently we need to use it differently. We could save huge amounts and reduce are consumption.

Finland house design, A+ rated goods, local energy use sage, electric cars.

The billions government waste by throwing money at quantitative easing A lot should have been spent keeping people in jobs implementing such changes.

Renewables should be heavily invested in and researched, especially local production. But we should be massively investing in nuclear, with aim of build 4th generation in 20 years to use the spent fuel from current type 3 power plants.

We shoudl also build a couple fo new eco cities taht recycle all drain/rain water. True integrated public transport, new house deisgns and research and manufacturing partnerships to provide the jobs for teh city and get us ahead of teh rest of the world in both research and production.

Or we cover a fraction of the sahara in cps stations and it will generate 100+ of world energy.

 

[matthab]

Nuclear is fine, of course there is a high profile event in Japan right now, but it is still a very safe and efficient method of energy production. We need to build more plants ASAP, we are looming towards a state where we cannot supply enough power. Ironically, French nuclear power stations will pick up the slack.

Ive heard of a particular datacenter having power bought in from france as its cheaper and more reliable.

Why do people also think electric cars are the savour of the planet? Where is the power for them coming from, oh yeh our ropey power grid .

 

[dbmzk1]

Nuclear > *

 

[SB118]

The amount of unusable waste created by nuclear power is actually not all that large. the popular mental image of barrel after barrel of green nuclear sludge issuing forth from a nuclear plant is completely incorrect.

Even traditional (ie, old) Nuclear plants don't generate more than a few tens of tonnes of nuclear waste per year, and modern hyper-efficient plants generate far less, and are also capable of re-enriching spent fuel so it can be re-used.

That's not really the case too - this is a perfect example of Chernobyl setting a bad example that's hurting the world.
The Chernobyl plant was an extremely antiquated soviet design which meant that action was required (ie, something had to move) in order to slow the reaction.

In modern reactors, the opposite is the case, action is required in order to START the reaction, and if there's a loss of power/etc, the moderator rods automatically (even where there's a 100% loss of power) reinsert into the reactor-core to shut down the reaction.

an excellent example of this - the Fukushima Nuclear reactors are now forty years old, and Reactor 1 was due to be decommissioned this very month.

Despite being almost directly on top of the epicentre of an 8.9 earthquake (an 8.9 earthquake releases roughly 1x10^17J, or 100,000,000,000,000,000 joules - put another way, more than 300,000,000 tonnes of TNT) none of the reactors went into meltdown, lost containment or otherwise did anything "nuclear".

The explosions that occurred were due to hydrogen-buildup from the emergency cooling efforts and even then the reactors didn't lose containment.

modern reactors are even better, even safer and even more efficient, especially considering that the UK isn't located on a geological fault-line.

yay for common sense.

Nuclear is fine, of course there is a high profile event in Japan right now, but it is still a very safe and efficient method of energy production. We need to build more plants ASAP, we are looming towards a state where we cannot supply enough power. Ironically, French nuclear power stations will pick up the slack.

If anything the Japanese situation is showing how safe nuclear power is, they've had mother nature set off a 300 kilo-tonne bomb in the nearby vicinity and they didn't lose containment.

 

[d_brennen]

Not true solar panels are actually very good both heat and electric and are only getting better.

Problem is as well as making energy differently we need to use it differently. We could save huge amounts and reduce are consumption.

Finland house design, A+ rated goods, local energy use sage, electric cars.

The billions government waste by throwing money at banks to prop them up, A lot should have been spent keeping people in jobs implementing such changes.

Renewables should be heavily invested in and researched, especially local production. But we should be massively investing in nuclear, with aim of build 4th generation in 20 years to use the spent fuel from current type 3 power plants.

We shoudl also build a couple fo new eco cities taht recycle all drain/rain water. True integrated public transport, new house deisgns and research and manufacturing partnerships to provide the jobs for teh city and get us ahead of teh rest of the world in both research and production.

Or we cover a fraction of the sahara in cps stations and it will generate 100+ of world energy.

^^AcitHell2 for Prime Minister, no sarcasm. The "new world" of energy production is wide open, it will take a nation will balls to grab it. I fear that the UK will just sit and wait for someone to come up with cold fusion or some such, instead of leading the way.

 

[PermaBanned]

The Chernobyl plant was an extremely antiquated soviet design which meant that action was required (ie, something had to move) in order to slow the reaction.

Soviet design? I thought it was essentially a British design for producing weapons grade plutonium, not electricity.

 

[SiriusB]

Soviet design? I thought it was essentially a British design for producing weapons grade plutonium, not electricity.

Wiki says no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK

 

[Tefal]

EDIT: Also the power cuts would prob save lives because of lazy people sat in front of the TV when they could be doing something physical like exercising, since they say that the number 1 killer is heart disease due to obesity! All the information on the news saying the western world is turning into nations of fat people.

meh people who exercise represent a massive health care cost.

they break limbs, damage joints and cartridge and don't pay any major tax penalties like smokers or drinkers to pay it off.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

Ive heard of a particular datacenter having power bought in from france as its cheaper and more reliable.

Why do people also think electric cars are the savour of the planet? Where is the power for them coming from, oh yeh our ropey power grid .

Apologies for quoting wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Cross-Channel

According to that, we currently get about 5% of our electricity from France (no doubt at an exorbitant rate - we deserve to be ripped off) and it's only going to get worse

 

[Tefal]

Not true solar panels are actually very good both heat and electric and are only getting better.

.

the electric ones still don't generate more energy than it takes to make them though outside of absolutely optimum conditions.

 

[Aod]

If anything the Japanese situation is showing how safe nuclear power is, they've had mother nature set off a 300 kilo-tonne bomb in the nearby vicinity and they didn't lose containment.

Thanks!

that's 300 mega-tonnes by the way, hehehe.