http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
Fantastic read. True or not not sure, but a good read.
Fantastic read. True or not not sure, but a good read.
"Sustainable Energy — Without the hot air." No bullshit approach to carbon issue.
- Thread starter ch750536
- Start date
elevendayempire
Registered Loofah
Just. Build. Fucking. Nuclear. Power. Stations. It's not rocket science. And drive the bulldozers over the inevitable wrongheaded eco-protestors.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Sadly the will to radically change our lifestyles borders on zero, ignoring the 0.1% of the population who are active ecowarriors or whatever (stats invented for demonstration purposes).
So if you accept that those are the two options, only one of them is realistic.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'd be very interested to read some more detailed stuff from this guy. I'm very strongly supportive of the quantitative approach to this sort of stuff and I've long been cynical about the popular emphasis on low impact 'feelgood' measures like turning off appliances when you drive a car and eat industrially grown food.
I'm very interested in where he's getting his numbers on the availability of ores for nuclear generation though, because the figures I'm familiar with are far less promising than the article suggests.
I'm very interested in where he's getting his numbers on the availability of ores for nuclear generation though, because the figures I'm familiar with are far less promising than the article suggests.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Last time I looked it wasn't totally clear that breeders were viable (for anything other than nuclear weapons proliferation I mean) but I'd be interested in any evidence to the contrary.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
If I recall right the problem isn't the breeder reactors themselves, but rather making use of the plutonium that they produce for power generation (slow and useful rather than fast and unpleasant)
Edited to add: a quick check suggests that the issues are more economic than technical, breeders are really expensive and it's hard to avoid making lots of weapons material when you run one, and with natural uranium being relatively cheap and plentiful (at least by comparison with current demand), generally this approach is more trouble than it's worth.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I feel he simply dismissed the most sensible solution - generating solar power using concentrators and steam turbines in equatorial countries and feeding it into a European grid (with us for example feeding wind/wave power into the same grid). It's not just countries like Libya and Algeria that would be able to do it. As I recall Mediterranean countries like Spain are contenders, and if the plants were spread around they'd be a great source of income for the hosting countries.
I quite liked the statement that nuclear power is dangerous like wind turbines are dangerous, though. I think i must have missed the last wind turbine going into meltdown and spreading nuclear waste across all of Europe.
I quite liked the statement that nuclear power is dangerous like wind turbines are dangerous, though. I think i must have missed the last wind turbine going into meltdown and spreading nuclear waste across all of Europe.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Although I quite like windfarms I do think they are quite a significant intervention in the natural environment, particularly if built in large numbers. We don't yet know what the effects of going large scale might be on the environment - birds being the most obvious part of the ecosystem that might suffer - but think of the wildlife around them too, perhapscould be disrupted by the noise?
It seems strange to me that green groups go all gung ho about building lots of windfarms when they can hardly be said to have zero impact on the environment: http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/articles/wind_turbines_impact.html
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I've just run through his 'food' chapter, because it's an area I know well. He's making a brave attempt, but he's taking some wild leaps where I know solid quantitative peer-reviewed work exists (presumably because it's out of his field he doesn't know about the work in question).
I think what he's trying to do is good, but if people have better info than they're seeing in this draft text it'd be a good idea to tell the author about it (which is why he's put a draft text up online)
I think what he's trying to do is good, but if people have better info than they're seeing in this draft text it'd be a good idea to tell the author about it (which is why he's put a draft text up online)
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I have yet to read all of it, but this looked good: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/wind_myths.pdf
Re noise:
"Turbine design has improved substantially as the technology has advanced, with the noise from moving parts progressively reduced. It is perfectly possible to stand underneath a turbine and have a normal conversation without raised voices.28
A comprehensive study by Salford University assessed 133 operational wind farms. It concluded that there were four instances where noise appeared to be an issue but that complaints had subsided in three of these cases. The one remaining complaint, in a new installation, was being investigated.29
The author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects (2003) says: "I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines”."
Anyone know whether noise cancelling technology has progressed? You'd think that would be an answer, too.
If it's true that they don't make large amounts of noise I'd have no objection to living with one on the skyline. I love seeing wind turbines dotted around the place - much prettier than the pylons and wires that scar the countryside but don't get the same bad press (and which you'd think wind turbines would help do away with). To me they look like huge moving sculptures with something deeply 'honest' (for want of a better word) about just standing there and generating electricity from 'out of nothing'. The seem firmly planted on the good side of technology.
I'd also understood that new wind farms avoid, for example, raptor flight paths (early wind farms were badly sited, which did lead to bird deaths).
And when we're talking environmental effects I think we need a bit of perspective by comparing them to the effects of oil and gas fired power stations. I'm still convinced the main objectors to wind farms are retired majors who object to continually being told that they have to reduce their energy consumption and want some form of revenge.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I quite like windfarms aesthetically, but I seem to remember green campaigners have objected to roads based on the effect of traffic noise on wildlife. While newer turbines are quieter, they can't be noise free because the blades themselves make a noise - so what effect will that have on wildlife? I don't know, and can't seem to find out by googling.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Fair do's, but I think the total noise made by the wind turbines would be miniscule compared with the total noise made by traffic in the UK. If we banned car and lorry traffic (which I'm all for, really) then it would perhaps be worth banning wind turbines, too
elbows
Well-Known Member
The problem is so large that we'll lively end up having to take advantage of every possible option. Which means:
nuclear
large-scale renewables
local microgeneration
greater efficiency
reduction of use
Especially as both oil and natural gas supplies are in for some rocky times, we will need new ways to heat our homes, and power cars, which will lead to even greater demand for electricity.
nuclear
large-scale renewables
local microgeneration
greater efficiency
reduction of use
Especially as both oil and natural gas supplies are in for some rocky times, we will need new ways to heat our homes, and power cars, which will lead to even greater demand for electricity.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Some interesting assumptions here.
That 12% of land used for biofuels, if I'm not mistaken, is a significant proportion of the total available land for agriculture in the UK. He's got another big chunk of potential farmland growing fuelwood too. He seems to be assuming that this is marginal land, but I don't see him taking into account the additional energy costs of using marginal land and he's generally a bit sketchy on energy inputs to agriculture in his food chapter. That's a lot of land which isn't growing food (which we already import lots of) and potentially some agricultural energy inputs that he hasn't accounted for.
I may be doing him an injustice here, so I'll reserve further comment until I've had a chance to read through the whole thing properly. I'm off on a work trip in a minute so normal service will be resumed in a few days.
source p205
That 12% of land used for biofuels, if I'm not mistaken, is a significant proportion of the total available land for agriculture in the UK. He's got another big chunk of potential farmland growing fuelwood too. He seems to be assuming that this is marginal land, but I don't see him taking into account the additional energy costs of using marginal land and he's generally a bit sketchy on energy inputs to agriculture in his food chapter. That's a lot of land which isn't growing food (which we already import lots of) and potentially some agricultural energy inputs that he hasn't accounted for.
I may be doing him an injustice here, so I'll reserve further comment until I've had a chance to read through the whole thing properly. I'm off on a work trip in a minute so normal service will be resumed in a few days.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I agree, but spot the one option out of five there that (a) is a prime target for terrorist attack - if we're as serious about reducing vulnerability to terrorist attack as our recent reductions in civil liberties would suggest and (b) creates volumes of poisonous radioactive waste that we can't dispose of.
They also take years to come on line. If the money that had gone into the nuclear industry had instead gone to renewables we simply wouldn't have a problem now. And we're off on making the same mistake again.
If we treated it like a war. We could have got a lot further with off shaw hydroelectricity plants. But no. Let's have an economy based on selling insurance endemnaties, capacinnos and advertising space.
The only industries that really matter will concern food, energy shelter and medicine.
The only industries that really matter will concern food, energy shelter and medicine.
I didn't know if his perspective was correct or not but it does throw some light on certain things.
Like the US wanting to bomb the fuck out of Syria and Iran for example (both allegedly building bomb type stuff, perhaps they were building a competitive product to Oil & gas).
Like the US wanting to bomb the fuck out of Syria and Iran for example (both allegedly building bomb type stuff, perhaps they were building a competitive product to Oil & gas).
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Huh? What you on about?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
He likes hypothecated taxes, and is the first person to reallypoint out that you can't supply the UK with renewables only without wrecking the country with generation infrastructure.
Is he standing for election somewhere?
Is he standing for election somewhere?
You mean other than I didn't know if his perspective was correct or not but it does throw some light on certain things.
Like the US wanting to bomb the fuck out of Syria and Iran for example (both allegedly building bomb type stuff, perhaps they were building a competitive product to Oil & gas)?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Are you attempting to say:
The US might have invaded Iraq, and now be interested in Iran and Syria's nuclear programmes because they represent a threat to US oil interests?
If so not only was it unreadable in the first place, but also how exactly would this serve the interests of the Iranians who are one of the largest oil producers in the world?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Because what the actually are is one of the biggest energy producers. The US, along with others also produce a lot of energy but also have a backup system if things go tits up (nuke energy).
However, what could (would) happen to the Oil industry if one of the leading producers was not dependent on it themselves?
Similar threads
