• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Nuclear Or Renewable Energy Future: Is There A Conspiracy?

T

techybloke666

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
2,628
It seems to me that the current policy to push thro dependancy in the future on Nuclear, is either miss guided stupidity or a conspiracy of some sort.

Why when the budget to build these new nuclear power stations is so huge ( and the dosh goes to the french) are we not pursuing green alternatives.

Surely a combination of alternatives would make more sense for the future ?

Is someone or some people influencing our government to go down this hazzardous path ?

for purely proffit at our health and monetary expense.
 
I feel that creating nuclear waste, weapons and their potential exploitation by terrorists utterly unconscionable in today’s ‘enlightened’ society. I feel that going down the nuclear path for electricity generation an insult to the intelligence of our species and a lazy short-term solution that encourages profligate energy consumption with massive inefficiencies with little regard to the toxic legacy of the nuclear industry. Why entrust such responsibilities upon companies that need to make money selling electricity and governments that want to get re-elected when neither will be in existence 100 years from now?

I feel that now is a fantastic time to work towards completely accountable, responsible, efficient, decentralised and zero legacy energy generation and that the billions upon billions of dollars that will be spent on nuclear power stations and waste facilities be put to better use. Why not?

We have time, just through efficiency measures we can keep our electricity usage at perfectly satisfactory levels for a generation, gradually ween ourselves off nuclear and spend the next 50 years being really really smart with renewable and green technology and infrastructure with the long view.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/ ... ad=2341422

More elloquent than I can muster

I agree with this person.
 
Surely the question should be "which is the most efficient" rather than which we would prefer? I'd prefer it if we could power our society with the laughter of children but it doesn't mean that it's going to be possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ted

What makes you think Nuclear power is going to be efficient ?
and by that I suppose you are saying cheap ?
 
I haven't said that I do think it'll be more efficient although the fact that we already generate a large amount of power this way would suggest that it's capable of providing at least some of our energy needs. At present the alternatives - fossil fuels and renewable energy - are either incapable of doing that or are so fraught with political problems that they're not viable options.
 
At present the alternatives - fossil fuels and renewable energy - are either incapable of doing that or are so fraught with political problems that they're not viable options.
Click to expand...

Think you can tell me why renewable energy is fraught with problems ?

or why you think it is impossible to power the UK purely with renewable sources ?

Politics is not an excuse really.
 
techybloke666 said:
At present the alternatives - fossil fuels and renewable energy - are either incapable of doing that or are so fraught with political problems that they're not viable options.
Click to expand...

Think you can tell me why renewable energy is fraught with problems ?

or why you think it is impossible to power the UK purely with renewable sources ?

Politics is not an excuse really.
Click to expand...

Well obviously it is otherwise we wouldn't have been fighting all the OIL wars over the last half-decade or so. ;) In any case I'm not arguing so much that there are political problems with renewable energy (as I've just pointed out that applies more to fossil fuels).

I wouldn't profess to possessing the scientific knowledge as to why renewable wouldn't work (or for that matter why nuclear or anything else would or wouldn't work) but then I suspect many of the objections are not based on the science either and there's nothing in the comments from the contributor you included which amount to anything more than rhetoric or empty theorising (not neccessarily the best place to start reasoning from).
 
I take it from that comment that if it was proven that renewable energy would meet our requirements you would be in favour of it ?

or am I missing your point
 
techybloke666 said:
I take it from that comment that if it was proven that renewable energy would meet our requirements you would be in favour of it ?

or am I missing your point
Click to expand...

No, you're not missing the point at all. If there was overwhelming evidence that it was more efficient then of course it would be preferable. Unfortunately that evidence doesn't seem to exist.
 
Theres Heavily and theres HEAVILY.

and not just offshore either.

TED can you explain the efficient thing please.

How can device that completely pays for itslef in ten years be a poor investment ?

and why replace fossil fuels that are running out in lets say for arguement sake 100 years with Uranium which will run out in lets say 100 years.

why waste billions in the short term when eventually it will have to sorted properly sometime in the near future ?

Why not invest 300 billion over the next 25 years in renewables
or even better why not spend the entire projected budget for nuclear on renewables and have done.

seems to me there is a bit of conspiracy in here by the big power producers and the governments.
 
Labour's claim that nuclear energy is a zero-carbon option is ridiculous

Despite the fact that the SNP decided as an election pledge that a non- nuclear future for Scotland was in the best interests of the environment and the public, Labour in Westminster claims this is just a political stunt.

In 2002, the pro-nuclear lobby launched a scathing attack on the then Scottish Executive's proposals to increase the use of renewable energy, knowing the only hope for nuclear power was to kill off research and development into renewable energy. Has Labour in Scotland forgotten this?

Knowing that nuclear is uneconomic and unsafe and requires non- renewable fuel has no future in any case, New Labour, aided by a desperate pro-nuclear lobby, has resorted to a "no carbon emissions" argument for nuclear power. This is about as convincing as its "weapons of mass destruction" argument for the Iraq war. The emissions may be no-carbon, but taking into account building, maintaining, protecting and decommissioning the stations, extracting, transporting, protecting and enriching the uranium, then processing, transporting and protecting the spent fuel and constructing, maintaining and protecting the storage vaults forever, nuclear power is about as carbon-neutral as 1950s coal-fired power stations.

There are various fundamental aspects of energy use we need to address, namely reducing our energy needs, concentrating on renewable sources and encouraging smaller, decentralised, community-owned or household generation, which would release us from the financial grip of large, privately owned utility companies.

Not only is the pro-nuclear argument flawed, but any reliance on it as a solution lessens the impetus to develop clean, renewable, safe and decentralised solutions. We have the best tidal and offshore wind resources in Europe and we should all be grateful that the Scottish Government – supported by the Greens and Lib Dems, public opinion and every environmental group in the country – is determined to go down the non-nuclear route. New Labour will hopefully wake up and realise we need nuclear power about as much as we needed super-casinos.
Click to expand...

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Labour ... 3692046.jp
 
techybloke666 said:
Theres Heavily and theres HEAVILY.

and not just offshore either.

TED can you explain the efficient thing please.

How can device that completely pays for itslef in ten years be a poor investment ?

and why replace fossil fuels that are running out in lets say for arguement sake 100 years with Uranium which will run out in lets say 100 years.

why waste billions in the short term when eventually it will have to sorted properly sometime in the near future ?

Why not invest 300 billion over the next 25 years in renewables
or even better why not spend the entire projected budget for nuclear on renewables and have done.

seems to me there is a bit of conspiracy in here by the big power producers and the governments.
Click to expand...

No, as I've pointed out I'm not - like most people - scientifically gifted enough to explain why renewable energy at present is not capable of delivering our energy requirements. However, there is no claim that it is capable of providing it only that it might be - with far greater investment. It would be foolish to spend a great deal of money on something that may not be adequate when there is a more reliable option, though not an ideal one, already available. Would you buy a car (with a similar initial outlay) that might run on a fraction of the fuel costs if you weren't sure that it was actually capable of getting you from A to B?

With regard to why fossil fuels might be replaced by nuclear - it produces less pollution particularly greenhouse gases, iirc.
 
A few minutes in Provence..

River use banned after French uranium leak
Angelique Chrisafis in Paris The Guardian, Thursday July 10, 2008

Residents in the Vaucluse, a popular southern French tourist destination, were banned yesterday from drinking well-water or swimming or fishing in two rivers after a uranium leak from one of France's nuclear power plants.

Nuclear officials yesterday revised down the amount of untreated liquid uranium that spilled from the Tricastin nuclear power centre in Bollene, saying it was limited to 75kg and ranked grade one on the one-to-seven scale of nuclear accidents. But the spillage of waste material containing uranium in the picturesque area of Provence, 30 miles from Avignon, which is currently hosting an arts festival, embarrassed the government.

Nicolas Sarkozy has prioritised exporting nuclear expertise worldwide, including to Britain. Nuclear power comprises 87% of France's electricity production, but yesterday anti-nuclear groups renewed their criticisms of the nuclear power policy.

The leak occurred when a tank was being cleaned between Monday night and Tuesday morning but was not detected until yesterday. Around 30 cubic metres of liquid containing uranium, which was not enriched, leaked out of a tank. Of this, 18 cubic metres poured on to the ground and into the nearby Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers, which flow into the Rhone. The plant has been operational since 1975.

Vaucluse authorities banned drinking well-water, fishing and eating fish from the rivers as well as swimming and water sports and irrigating crops with potentially contaminated water. One swimmer among 100 bathers asked to immediately vacate a local lake said it was as if there had been sharks in it.

Officials from the Socatri safety agency, a subsidiary of nuclear giant Areva, said groundwater, wells and rivers had shown no effects yesterday. The nuclear safety authority said radioactive levels detected in rivers and lakes in the region were decreasing.

The prefecture of Vaucluse said the leaked uranium should only be found in very small quantities and the risk was low but the ban on drinking, fishing and swimming would continue.

Germany's Social Democrat environment minister, Michael Müller, whose party is opposed to nuclear energy, said yesterday that the incident should not be taken lightly. "It's no trifle when active uranium penetrates the soil," he told Agence France Presse.

The French environmental group, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, said that the radioactivity released into the environment was at least 100 times higher than the fixed limit for that site for the entire year.

Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner, Aslihan Tumer, said: "Given the restrictions on the consumption and use of water in the area, it is clear that the leak poses a risk to the local population and to the environment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... .pollution
 
I think the problem with a lot of other renewable options is that one lot of knicker-wetting eco types, engage in a battle with another lot of knicker-wetting eco types over it.
I remember seeing an episode of Country File about the proposed barrage in the Severn estuary, which was nixed because of some bird lovers.
Details here: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm
Then of course there is the "...wind turbines spoil the view and/or dice seagulls..." brigade.
If there is a conspiracy, it's between the green types to keep their lobbying money rolling in...
 
I'm probably one of the few people who think that these modern windfarms are quite attractive, perched on a hillside or out at sea. The more I read, though, the less I believe they can ever supply more than a tiny fraction of the UK's needs.

The Government has recently committed to building thousands of the things in the North Sea, and yet Britain doesn't even currently have access to one of the (only a handful worldwide) specialised ships needed to sink them into the sea-bed. If we really wanted to meet our latest laughable "renewables" commitment, we should have been putting these things up by the thousand years ago, not talking about it now.

Even if we do build enough in time, they still can't reliably supply power. They don't generate electricity when it's not windy, and if it's too windy, they have to be shut down for safety reasons. The rated power generation figures for these things are, in any case, generally over-stated by a factor of 2 or 3 to make the argument for them more convincing (and the estimates of cost are kept correspondingly low, too). There's a very feel likelihood that several conventional power stations would need to be built, and left on permanent standby, for the times when the windfarms can't meet demand.

It would be more cost-effective to build windfarms on land than at sea, of course, but no-one can agree on where to put them. Too close to homes, and residents complain about the low-level hum and the general loss of amenity, to use an estate agent's phrase. Too far from homes, and environmental groups complain about them spoiling the look of the landscape. As I say, I like the look of the things, but I'm in a minority, I know.

Yes, I'd love, like Ted, for all our power to be supplied by the wind, or by children's laughter, but I can't see that one is going to solve our looming problems any better than the other. The more I read beyond the "facts" about wind power that we are being fed, the more I fear that we will be woefully ill-prepared for what will hit us in 10-20 years' time, when many of today's coal-fired (and yes, nuclear, too) power stations have come to the end of their working lives.

Some sort of tidal power is probably the solution that would please the greatest number of people, but the technology does simply not yet exist to provide this on the massive scale that will be required. Frankly, I'm starting to worry about who we'll be having to buy power from in the 2020s. Yes, France have taken the controversial plunge to build more nuclear stations, but while we're still tilting at windmills, the French will at least have a reliable electricity supply.
 
i agree that the problem is people complaining about windfarms spoiling the view and the noise. you can watch any local news broadcast where a wind farm is proposed near a residential area, and you will see the people out in force to stop it.

however, wind farms are just one small part of the renewable energy problem.

at current levels of output, it would be extremely difficult to use wind farms alone to power much of anything. the fact that they have to be turned off when it's is too windy is a major factor, as more wind should equal more power.

gordon brown annouced late last year plans for all new houses to have solar panels and other energy saving devices and designs, and there is off course the use of water power which i believe is in use somewhere, which works in a similar way to wind power, the current in the water being the same as the wind.

the problem is that these measures are only currently put in place to get the green vote, but no developement is being heavily funded byt he government to make a combination of these renewable energies a viable future option.

i don't believe there is any conspiracy at work here, just lobbyist who have the ability to get their issue across. in htis case, the nuclear lobby has far more influence than the environmental lobby, but they are kept fairly controlled by implementations such as brown's energy efficent housing.
 
I was reading an article in todays Times about how there are going to be 8 new nuclear power stations built soon to replace worn out ones. I do not really have a prob with nuclear power, but I do think renewable energy needs much more investigation, and we all love using electricity ;)
Anyhoo; what caught my eye was reference to a 'new commission' that is going to handle 'major infrastructure' project planning issues to take these away from local councils.
I find that a bit alarming. The gov't can come along and decide to build something hideous or dangerous or whatever, and the local community cannot do anything? even via historic democratic practices. Watch this one.

Don't want anything else large that can explode here in Hemel Hempstead :shock:
 
You can have as many Nuclear power stations as you like and build them anywhere. Right on the coast, if you want to.

So much nicer than those nasty windmills, less of an eyesore and not a safety hazard for birds.

It won't be our generation that pays the price.
 
If anyone truly believes that renewable alternative power generation works they can always cut themselves off the grid and attempt to run their home on a wind turbine and heat pump.

After all, this stuff is available off the shelf, hardly being kept from us by "big business" is it.

Does anyone have knowledge of, or a link to a 100% environmentally powered home?
 
AMPHIARAUS said:
If anyone truly believes that renewable alternative power generation works they can always cut themselves off the grid and attempt to run their home on a wind turbine and heat pump.

After all, this stuff is available off the shelf, hardly being kept from us by "big business" is it.

Does anyone have knowledge of, or a link to a 100% environmentally powered home?
Click to expand...

I believe the few that do exist use water power rather than wind or solar.
Sorry, can't quote examples...
 
Mythopoeika said:
AMPHIARAUS said:
If anyone truly believes that renewable alternative power generation works they can always cut themselves off the grid and attempt to run their home on a wind turbine and heat pump.

After all, this stuff is available off the shelf, hardly being kept from us by "big business" is it.

Does anyone have knowledge of, or a link to a 100% environmentally powered home?
Click to expand...

I believe the few that do exist use water power rather than wind or solar.
Sorry, can't quote examples...
Click to expand...
Certainly a lot easier than running everything off the nuclear reactor in the garage and cheaper.
 
tonyblair11 said:
Ed Begley, Jr. is a decent example.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Begley,_Jr. :D
Click to expand...

That wiki says he still pays $300 a year in electricity bills. So it seems even a well paid actor cannot throw enough money at the problem to be 100% off grid.

I can believe a water wheel would be perfect for the job, but if a whole terraces of homes tried to pull power from a stream then the stream's flow would become too slow.
 
AMPHIARAUS said:
tonyblair11 said:
Ed Begley, Jr. is a decent example.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Begley,_Jr. :D
Click to expand...

That wiki says he still pays $300 a year in electricity bills. So it seems even a well paid actor cannot throw enough money at the problem to be 100% off grid.

I can believe a water wheel would be perfect for the job, but if a whole terraces of homes tried to pull power from a stream then the stream's flow would become too slow.
Click to expand...
Here's one house, in Milwaukee.
http://pondpine.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-eliminates-utility-bills.html

Friday, January 19, 2007

Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home

Michael Strizki heats and cools his house year-round and runs a full range of appliances including such power-guzzlers as a hot tub and a wide-screen TV without paying a penny in utility bills.

His conventional-looking family home in the pinewoods of western New Jersey is the first in the United States to show that a combination of solar and hydrogen power can generate all the electricity needed for a home.

The Hopewell Project, named for a nearby town, comes at a time of increasing concern over U.S. energy security and worries over the effects of burning fossil fuels on the climate.

People understand that climate change is a big concern but they don't know what they can do about it. There's a psychological dividend in doing the right thing.

Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell.

In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 % more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter -- when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand -- to make electricity in the fuel cell. Strizki also uses the hydrogen to power his fuel-cell driven car, which, like the domestic power plant, is pollution-free.

Solar power currently contributes only 0.1 % of U.S. energy needs but the number of photovoltaic installations grew by 20 % in 2006, and the cost of making solar panels is dropping by about 7 % annually, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

As costs decline and the search accelerates for clean alternatives to expensive and dirty fossil fuels, some analysts predict solar is poised for a significant expansion in the next five to 10 years.

posted by PondPine.com at 2:53 PM
Click to expand...
There are projects about, but the political will has to be there, as it has been, in Germany.

http://www.german-renewable-energy.com/Renewables/Navigation/Englisch/root.html

The German Government pays private householders and domestic users a high tariff, for putting excess renewable energy back into the grid. But, their domestic fossil fuel industries are still putting pressure on them to reduce the way the German Government subsidises renewable energy projects.

http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/energytrends/germany/6/

If Governments, like the UK, poured a fraction of the sort of money into alternative energy sources that they do into nuclear power, the World would be running on Green.

Mind you there'd be a lot less nuclear weapons. Them being considered a valuable by-product, although rarely in public.

So, could you please point out an example of a private householder, running their household power needs, from their own private nuclear reactor?
 
Michael Strizki heats and cools his... 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see this working in the UK, but most houses here don't have a separate, nearby 1000-square-foot roof which can be filled with photovoltaic cells - this article doesn't say what's on his own roof, mind you. Maybe more cells, I don't know.

Presumably, Mr Strizki also has a plentiful supply of cheap (or even free) water to convert to hydrogen, cheaper than the UK, at least, where it's all that Severn Trent et al can do not to piss the water away through the cracks in their pipes.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
So, could you please point out an example of a private householder, running their household power needs, from their own private nuclear reactor?
Click to expand...


drno(1)_326.349206349206%5B1%5D.jpg
 
Came across this quite by chance. It seems that for most of us the prospect of fitting out our homes with solar is still an unreasonable prospect:

Couple have a bright idea to cut their bills

A couple are hoping to weather the rising costs of fuel bills and make their home a more attractive purchase for the future by installing solar panels on its roof.

George and Jill Hayne have won permission from Wokingham Borough Council to place three solar panels on their home in Bredon Road to heat their water supply.

Although the panels will not provide electricity or domestic heating, they will provide a huge saving on the couples hot water bill.

Solar Direct UK, which is the company installing the panels later this month, says the panels can provide 70 per cent of a homeowners hot water needs and save up to 30 per cent on annual energy bills.

This could be money well saved as energy bills are rising, and some reports say they will increase by as much as 40 per cent this winter.

Mr Hayne, 72, a retired council highways inspector, said: I was listening to the TV one night and it said houses in a couple of years are going to be built with solar [panel] systems, so I thought we might as well go ahead.

We are hoping when we come to sell the house it will go easier and with the price rises on fuel, we may make a saving as well.

The panels will cost 6,000, however Mr Hayne and his wife, who is 70 and used to work as a science technician at St Crispins School in London Road, Wokingham, have been granted a 400 discount in lieu of a Government grant, which is awarded to households for installing sustainable facilities such as solar panels, because Solar Direct UK has not signed up to the grant scheme.

The installation of the panels will also involve a new water tank being fitted, which will be large enough to cater for a family.

Mr Hayne said: The solar runs all right even without sun, but if you get a cold spell then we might have to put on the immersion heater, so we will have that as a back-up.

We decided to go ahead with it before the latest [energy] price rise, whether we make the [saving] back on the house by doing this [I do not know].

The main thing is our children will have no problem selling the house on after we are gone.

The solar panels will only provide hot water, because the solar panel collection area needed to provide heating for a house would take up a far larger space than available on an average British home and would not be cost effective, according to Solar Direct UK.

Having the panels can increase the value of a home, especially now Home Information Packs (HIPs) highlight energy efficiency.

Last week, it was announced household energy bills could rise by 20 per cent to pay for the cost of meeting the European Unions 2020 emissions target.

A report called Costing the Earth stated this, coupled with the soaring cost of oil also contributing to rising energy bills, could push a lot of households in to fuel poverty. Wind power is currently the most popular form of renewable energy used in Britain.


http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/20 ... heir_bills
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell.
Click to expand...

Ok fine, in order to have a viable alternative power supply you now scale that up by the 22 million households in the UK and the jobs sorted.

But what about the real estate required and polution caused by producing 2.2 billion square feet of solar panels, millions fuel cells and say millions of pressure vessels, pumps etc.

Then realise you forgot about business and everything has to be scaled up even further.

You don't need a conspiricy to explain why power stations, especially nuclear ones look attractive.

And its about time that trading standards clamped down on the claims that solar panels provide hot water. They just warm the water so that it takes less electricity or gas to bring the water to a usable temperature (and why would you want to heat your home from solar power, after all when the suns warm enough to warm the water sufficiently the house would already be warm?)
 
AMPHIARAUS said:
...

You don't need a conspiricy to explain why power stations, especially nuclear ones look attractive.

...
Click to expand...
Only to 'Not In My Back Yard' types who rely on the toxic monstrosities being built, somewhere else, far from their bijou little country residences and second homes. Although, as the Chernobyl disaster proved, it is really quite difficult to get far enough away, when the shit hits the fan.

Again, since you insist on comparing individual home spun renewable energy, efforts, with multi-billion pound, nuclear power stations, please illustrate the advantages of nuclear power, by directing us to information about someone running their household from their own private nuclear reactor. Apart from Dr No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top