Flatcapdriver

One issue facing Labour now is the future of energy generation in the UK -and that's as political as this thread will get, so for those muppets whose partisan views are so blinkered that they refuse to see any positive effects of the opposition party, go and find another thread.

Whichever way I look at it, there is no one single solution that combines minimal environmental damage, low cost and sustainability and is capable of providing the amount of electricity required.

Nuclear - at source, one of the cleanest methods of electricity production but the waste products are a nightmare to get rid of. Also, nuclear power stations are expensive to build.

Wind power - environmental eyesores which provide cheap electricity but incapable of providing enough power.

Coal - in short supply, not particularly clean and dependant on foreign imports on a large scale.

Gas - the UK is now a net importer of gas, which although one of the cleanest fuels is subject to fluctuating costs.

Oil - as with gas and I'm not aware of any large power stations in the UK that are oil fired and not the cleanest of fuels.

So, we're left with a compromise. Personally, I'd like to see a combination of nuclear, gas and turbine technology but these leave problems for all of us. How many of you would be happy to have a wind farm situated close to your house? Nuclear - where the hell do we put the spent fuel rods? Gas - we're relying on foreign imports which could be expensive and problematic if supplies were short.

So - get in touch with your inner-NIMBY and tell me what level of compromise you're willing to put up with. Would you go for a nuclear power station withing 10 miles of your house, or would you prefer to have a wind turbine in your garden. Alternatively, you could have a new railway line built near you to transport all that lovely coal to the new coal fired power station.

So, what would you put up with on your doorstep?

OllyK

Well the greens claim that NL will be building nuclear power stations this term. In reality I don't see they have a choice.

While the "green" options seem nice none of them return much power relative to the amount of space they require and the either cause shipping issues or visual polution. Solar panels "seem" nice, but the actual energy return over their life differential to what it costs to produce them is slight.

There are plenty of arguments about fossil fuel in terms of how many years of it there are left, I suspect there will still be fossil fuels when I am no longer around, however they are certainly finite and alternatives need to be considered before it becomes a problem not once.

I don't have a problem with nuclear power, I wouldn't want to be next door, but if I couldn't see it from my house then I wouldn't have too much of an issue.

Brendan Hughes

In the UK I wouldn't mind a wind turbine on the roof, especially if it winds my meter backwards at night!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/...475222,00.html

Out here I'm vaguely interested in a solar panel, but a) I just forked out for a top of the range gas combi boiler and storage tank, and b) I hear that you have to have a minimum storage tank of 300 litres - I've just got one of I think 120 and that's plenty big enough. It would mean totally re-jigging the heating system, and though I pay a fortune for gas in the winter, I just couldn't handle all the expense yet.

What about tidal? Aren't they up-and-coming? Bugger up what little fishing fleet the UK still has?

Iain Young

It's worth mentioning that the current crop of nuclear reactors in this country is very old (approaching decommissioning), and so this is a very real issue.

Personally, I think we should install more nuclear stations and wind farms. Nuclear power is a lot more efficient these days than it was when our current reactors were built (something like 10 times less waste than the old reactors I read the other day). Personally, I'd stick the waste in a rocket, and blast it into the sun (obviously lauched from some remote location in case something went wrong).

I actually think that wind farms can add to the interest of a landscape. They are never going to be able to produce the power we need however (just a part of it).

Energy conservation would be a good thing. Take street lights for example. Do we really need so many turned on all the time? Also, the majority installed are the standard "cheap" variety which lose half of their light straight up into the athmosphere. We could drastically reduce this countries power requirements by fitting energy saving bulbs, and lights which just directed the light downwards instead of all over the place. Might mean reducing the light pollution so I could actually use my telescope as well

Brendan Hughes

BTW, there are a number of wind turbines just outside Lisbon on the way to Mafra. I don't find them eyesores, I actually think they add a bit of interest, I feel they look sleek and efficient. However, there is a group of I think 4-6 - I understand the predictions of those up by the Lake District when you see an artist's impression of 30 along the pretty skyline, that would be a bit much.

Iain Young

Agreed that there are areas in which they would be a bit much. I see no problem with having off shore wind farms though...

Brendan Hughes

BTW, why generate more power? Why not try to use less? LEDs in every house instead of tungsten filaments. Commuters to travel by Prius. Aircon in offices to be solar powered . Stuff like that.

^Qwerty^

Glad you added the word "supply" to that one UKC are failing to supply contractual amounts to Drax, in the main because they have shut the Selby Coal field. They also commited to long term contracts, which meant that the price they were obliged to sell at was a price that was uneconomic. It's been said on this BBS before - were Selby coal field open today, it would be running at a profit.

Look at:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/mi...s/c4thorne.pdf

or look at the figures on page 14 of this:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/mi...fullreport.pdf

if you want to see how we have "put beyond use" (Thorne was filled in recently) our current coal reserves. But hey ho, we digress, water under the bridge, move along now, nothing to see here. No future for coal.

I fully expect an annoucement of a "Nuclear Building Programme" any time soon. It's the only way the UK can meet it's commitments to CO2 reduction AND generate a sustainable electricity supply. The only dubious alternative I can see is putting tital barriers across the likes of the Thames, Humber and Seven Estuaries, but it's untried technology, and shipping movements would have to be taken into consideration.

Wind generation is okay, but WTF happens when it's cold and NOT windy?

Nuclear it is then.

Iain Young

What's being cold got to do with wind generation?

I believe that is the only viable option, combined with rigourously implemented energy saving schemes..

TonyG

Wholeheartedly agree with Iain here on energy conservation and light pollution (another astronomer) - and add to that, get rid of so-called 'security' lighting on private houses. Who needs a 500W bulb to illuminate their garden? And you certainly don't need four of them on permanently
There is already an offshore wind farm off Great Yarmouth.

Flatcapdriver

It's a good point but one that requires a certain amount of 'sacrifice' from everybody in that people need to be educated to use less energy. How about using alternative fuels such as LPG for cars and switching off TVs/sound systems when you go on holiday or lowering the thermostat a couple of degrees in winter.

Office A/C could really benefit from utilizing heat pumps but at the moment they are more expensive than a conventional system and we could have a better car sharing scheme if you could persuade everyone to give up the power of their own car.

As Ian says, our current crop (Dungeness springs to mind) of nuclear stations need replacing and whilst I wouldn't have a problem with Dungeness being replaced as it stands, I would have major issues with a new one being built in my area simply because we're getting too much new concrete anyway. As for wind turbines I wouldn't object to a few along the lane but I don't know why they have to have so many clustered together - can they be strung out more?

^Qwerty^

Fully agree that more should be done to not use energy in the first place. Would be a bloody good place to start. All new homes should have solar panels, for example, to heat water. When you build 500,000 new homes, that would make a big difference.

Nimbus

What about Geo-thermal? Proably not to easy in the UK where the temp gradient is shallow compared to somewhere like Iceland, but once it's build it should be pretty reliable.

Then there's OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion). Same sort of princible to Geothermal but using the differences in temp between different layers of water.

I admit, neither of these would really be usable in or arround the UK. You could position large wind farms out to sea though...

Shark Man

I for one would be quite happy to sever my connection to the national grid and line my entire roof with solar panels.

Companies out there exist which do this, and these do generate enough kW/hrs to make an average home self sufficient.

I have previously looked into it and the problem is there is absolutely no help to push you towards this green technology:

Current offereings of eelctro-solar intstallation are hugely expensive, and the grants available are far to little to offset that cost. Second: the power companies. The installation still requires you to be connected to the national grid and sell excess electricity back to the supplier.
GREAT - so I can make money on this! Well not quite - hang on here...corporational greedynesss has snuck in, they have to make a profit from your green-ness. So, they sell you ALL your electricity needs via the grid through a metre like normal. But you sell them back what you generate without a metre at a fixed rate during predetermined operational hours?!!? How fair is that? Not very...and odds on they'll underestimate your power generation levels too! So your still at the mercy of the Electricity retailers - their hopeless call centres and bill ****-ups. And when your street has a power cut...you still get a powercut - due to safety reasons the system will shut down to prevent possible electrocution of anyone working on power lines :

No thankyou, if i generate my own solar power..I'll much prefer the excess generated power to be used to heat 2 large hot water tanks, some storage heaters and charge 20-30 lead acid batteries to use via an inverter overnight. Although lead acid isn't that enviro-friendly is it?...you just can't win!!


Moving on alittle from this. Look at new house (or any) building regulations on thermal insualtion requirements. the thermal effieciency of a new house to ratain heat is consitently in demand by the top dogs to be made better and better. BUT, and it's a big BUT, what about in the summer??? Pretty soon you will be seeing air conditioning being installed into new housing to cool it in the summer. A/c in the UK is a booming business, its getting fairly cheap to buy for teh consumer too (although the UK is still the most expensive source for a/c equipemnt in the whole world ). So all that saved power gone into building insulation is wasted through the need to use a/c in the summer (which is far more inefficient when in cooling mode). So again, you can't win!

Drunken Bungle Whore

How about this for an idea: (from New Scientist)

"ON THE dusty red dirt of an old sheep station, a 6-hour drive from Melbourne, plans are afoot to build the world's tallest tower. Forget quibbles about whether an antenna or flagpole should count in the final measurement. If this concrete structure makes it off the drawing board it will smash every record in the book. It will stand a staggering 1 kilometre tall, and its base will sit at the centre of a shimmering field of glass and plastic 7 kilometres across.
If the tower's dimensions are awe-inspiring, its aim is breathtaking. The planned structure will be Australia's biggest solar power plant by far. Air heated by the sun will rise up the tower, where 32 turbines will generate about 650 gigawatt-hours of electricity a year, enough to meet the demands of 70,000 Australians. EnviroMission, the company behind the project, hopes to start building work next year and to be supplying electricity by 2008."

A lot of it comes down to personal responsibilities - turn of unwanted lights, don't leave the telly on standby, insulate properly, walk instead of drive for short journeys, recycle and reuse as much as possible - if we all take some responsibility we could start to see some changes.

One day all the fossil fuels WILL run out - maybe not in our lifetime, but they are a finite resource - we need to conserve our use now and start embracing 'alternate' technologies rather than think the ideas belong to wierdy greenies.

David Lock

I think there should be a real push to develop cheaper solar panels. Not just for UK but also as a fantastic power source for 3rd world. e.g. powering water well supplies in Africa for drinking and irrigation.

Insist that they are installed on new homes in UK to provide say 15% - 25% of power requirment.

Has wave energy been mentioned? Probably not feasible at current developmental stage but perhaps less environmentally intrusive than wind turbines. DL

InvisibleMan

you wierd greenie


Peter Topcat Bananaman Owen i saw in Wokingham did alright with 569 votes with his "born to be bananas" t-shirt singing ""The Loony Hat of Friendship"

Brendan Hughes

David - posts 3 and 8

David Lock

Just offering my support

and I was up late.........

pslewis

Trouble is, the people of today need to pay for the energy supply requirements of the future .................... and, by what I know of ScoobyNet - NO-ONE wants to pay for it!!

So, unless we can get a sea change from the Tory grab-grab-grab attitude we are in ****!

Personally I would double the tax on energy (you use less you pay less!) ... but I can just see the crying and blubbing and moaning on here

The something for nothing society we live in now!

Pete

Flatcapdriver

Why don't you just **** off and pedal your brand of political clap trap in some of the other threads where small minded tossers like you can absorb yourselves in your own personal wankfest about whichever party it is that you support.

I clearly stated in the first post that I didn't want this turned into yet another political rant and until you turned up posts from individuals who have stated their political persuason elsewhere, have managed to stick to the topic without turning it into a political debate.

**** off.

OllyK

Control Panel > Ignore List

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

legislate that all new builds must have solar panels installed as standard, to a level approaching energy self sufficiancy.
better utilisation of the methane produced by previous landfill.
buy more fresh produce so that packaging requirements diminish
legislate that all new electrical appliances are enegry rated A or higher
all new cars to have switchable LPG option

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

No no no no, NO. Do you know how heavy these dual fuel alternatives are? Just think of how it will slow your Scoobie, or a Lotus or a Caterham

Not needed atm. A switch to fuel cells by the masses in the next 10-20 years will solve the car problem with plenty of time to spare

Brendan Hughes

Cars are easy. At present, they are double the weight of cars 20 years ago due to all the crash protection, airbags, steel cages etc so they use up loads of fuel.

Remove ALL safety equipment. All cars to be fitted with barbed spike pointing out of steering wheel. Fuel tanks to be fitted with spark plug that ignites when you go more than 10mph over the limit.

After an initial learning period, that should cut road traffic accidents and emissions pretty quickly

Flatcapdriver

Have you done your sums? I can see that you'd reduce the amount of cars and drivers on the road after they'd instantaneously combusted or been killed in crashes but this could be counter balance by a sudden leap in emission levels as a result of said vehicles combusting. Given that there are of numpties who like seeing flames come out of the back of their exhausts (using spark plugs) I'm not sure that the learning curve would be as quick as you think.

^Qwerty^

Methane is even worse for the atmosphere than CO2 IIRC?

We need a massive culture change from the "throw away" society we are today.

How many of you boil up too much water for a cuppa? I know I do, but I'm trying not to.
How many of you leave your TV on standby? I'm not guilty of that one (very often)
How many of you use those energy saving light bulbs? (60% of mine are now)
How many people use "solar" cells to produce their hot water? (I don't) Heating up water with a boiler is the most inefficient thing it does.
How many offices and buildings do you drive past on a night that are lit up like a Christmas tree?
This list could go on and on.


Building the inevitable nukes will not solve the problem, it just allows us to go on wasting energy. Whilst we continue in the mindset we have, items such as solar panels etc will continue to be non-cost effective for the average house owner, and thus the spiral continues, because 99% of the population don't give a toss about energy conservation, and never will.

It's a brave government that takes that one on !!

logiclee

Yes it is.

I work in the industry and my boss and a work collegue recently met with the Minister for energy. So my thoughts then.

Energy is a far bigger threat to the UK than terrorism but it's not an instant threat it's a slow cancer. The Government realise this but as the lights will probably stay on through their next term so I'm unsure how far they are prepared to go.

We are eventually going to end up like Canada with sky high energy prices and blackouts if nothing is done.

The tory policies of the 1980's started the rot, they artificially rigged the generation market in favour of gas which made investment of clean coal technolgy non existant and resulted in the closure of nearly all UK coalmines loosing the country thousands of millions of tons of reserves. It also resulted in the UK's natural gas reserves being wasted on electricity generation and being used up fifteen years sooner.

So what now then?

If every wind farm and renewable source proposal that is currently being looked at is given the planning and finance for the next ten years it still will not be enough to keep up with demand never mind displace any existing capacity.

So short term we will have an increase in investment into clean coal technology as well as the current DTi grants which give 30% towards any investment to obtain future coal reserves. This still leaves around 70% of coal coming from expensive foreign imports.

The French cable connection will continue to be a one way import of electricity into the UK.

More and more gas will be imported into the UK from expensive unstable foriegn countries.

There is the issue of security of supply and the only way is for the government to invest in clean coal burn and future coal reserves and to start a nuclear program.

What is certain the bills are going to go up and up.

Cheers
Lee

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What has happened to tidal energy? We live on an island with quite a few estuaries, many of which have MAHOOSIVE tidal changes during a 13 hour cycle.

I'm sure I read somewhere as a younger man that once up and running, a tidal barrier would:

a) produce absolutely loads of cheap electricity, (free, once it's built!)

b) help to stop flooding, and

c) give the option of better communications by putting a road on top of it to link one side of an estuary to the other.

Let's see, we have the Thames, the Humber, the Tyne, the Forth, the Tay, the Tees, the Clyde, the Mersey, the Dee, the Severn, ..........need I go on?

Probably cheaper to set up, (taking into account the costs of building AND decommissioning nuclear stations, and getting rid of the waste), and with some environmental benifits!

Alcazar

logiclee

Too expensive.

If you consider the amount of tidal energy around the uk it is indeed massive. But when you start looking at something like the Thames or Severn etc then its a massive engineering project to use the tidal rivers to drive turbines and the energy produced from one river is very poor. The little floaty generators could perhaps span a river and power a couple of houses but that's about it.
To use water to generate electricity you really need a large head of water like you would find in a dam. The high water pressure and relatively low flow can be used to turn massive turbines and generate a large amount of electricity.
Trouble again is the initial cost, the enviromental issue of damming rivers and the fact that the UK doesn't have many suitable sites.


Earlier someone mentioned methane.
A lot has happened with this over the last few years, methane is far worse than CO2 for the atmosphere. If you can catch the methane, and use it to drive a combustion engine then you convert the methane to less harmfull CO2 and can generate free electricity. On top of this the government offer a cash insentive, so if you have a site which gives of methane you can convert it into free electricity and cash.

Here's a pic of two methane generators we installed recently. Each container has a V20 Turbo internal combustion engine driving a 1.8MW alternator.



J 620 GS Technical Specifications
Number of cylinders / arrangement:
20 / V 60°
Combustion:
Lean burn principle
Bore:
7.5 in (190 mm)
Stroke:
8.7 in (220 mm)
Speed:
1,500 rpm
Gen-Set dimensions (ft):
26.2 (length) by 8.2 (width) by 9.2 (height)
Gen-Set dimensions (mm):
8,000 (length) by 2,500 (width) by 2,800 (height)
Weight:
59,525 lb (27,000 kg)




Each engine can output over 4000bhp but at 27 tonnes the power to weight ratio isn't that good and the handling would be pants.

Cheers
Lee