Global warming 'past the point of no return' - Page 7

**Chris** · 29-11-2005, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.

Thus they generate much less pollution.

I'd love for that to work, but I know from a friend (who was a power station engineer) how hard it can be to 'switch on' a power station. You have to keep them ticking over rather than letting them stop entirely, unless you have plenty of notice of when you're going to need the extra capacity.

One of his favourite stories was how, in the wake of privatisation, a lot of the staff got early retirement as the company sought to reduce manning levels, but reduced the staff by so much they were missing certain expertise. He made a packet out of going back in to do shifts as a freelance, especially when, on one occasion, they did have to get a turbine back on line quickly and there was *nobody* on shift in the power station who knew how to do it!

Back to the point though ... if we still have to have masses of capacity in reserve, what benefit ultimately is there in wind power? I'm not saying there's no place for wind in the energy mix, I was just challenging etc's suggestion that we could divert money from nuclear programmes and take the country 100% wind-powered. Clearly, even if we're only maintaining 'traditional' power stations for back-up purposes, that's not possible.

etccarmageddon · 29-11-2005, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

What would we do on days when there is little or no wind?

I'm not suggesting we do spend all that dosh on wind power all I'm saying is the figure may look massive for a green source but when spread over 20-50 years setting it up, it is possible. the reality is, windpower would have to supply some of our energy but it would need to be backed up with wave power, solar power and the power of IDEAS and RESEARCH!

**Chris** · 29-11-2005, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

the power of IDEAS and RESEARCH!

Now that is a very good point.

29-11-2005, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I'm not suggesting we do spend all that dosh on wind power all I'm saying is the figure may look massive for a green source but when spread over 20-50 years setting it up, it is possible. the reality is, windpower would have to supply some of our energy but it would need to be backed up with wave power, solar power and the power of IDEAS and RESEARCH!

Thats all fine, but we STILL have to spend money on keeping the nuclear plants maintained and up to date UNTIL a realistic and viable alternative is found.
So in essence we are just throwing good money after bad.

Theres 3 wind turbines on the side of the A19 I pass every day, most days they are not doing a thing, despite a nice breeze. These turbines are monstrous in size and do blot the landscape.
For the amount of power they would generate I have to ask is three really enough? or did someone waste a stupid amount of cash?

etccarmageddon · 29-11-2005, 17:50

I'm not being sarcy but I think the turbines are beautiful when I see them blotting the landscape. I think it's because they are in my opinion a positive aspect of mankind's desire to extract energy from the planet.

themelon · 29-11-2005, 18:14

To be fair if you have ever seen a nuclear power station (or any non-renewable form of energy power station!!) You will have to agree they are not exactly pleasing on the eye, so the idea that they are an eyesore does not wash with me.

I would rather have a hillside full of wind turbines, or a gigantic hydro electric damn than a dirty great nuclear power plant, warm water in the sea around it, and tonnes of nuclear waste to bury somewhere.

Again another typical short sighted quick fix by the government! as usual they are not evaluating the route of the problems, they are looking to a quick cheap temporary fix and not really fully looking at things in detail.

29-11-2005, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by themelon

To be fair if you have ever seen a nuclear power station (or any non-renewable form of energy power station!!) You will have to agree they are not exactly pleasing on the eye, so the idea that they are an eyesore does not wash with me.

I would rather have a hillside full of wind turbines, or a gigantic hydro electric damn than a dirty great nuclear power plant, warm water in the sea around it, and tonnes of nuclear waste to bury somewhere.

Again another typical short sighted quick fix by the government! as usual they are not evaluating the route of the problems, they are looking to a quick cheap temporary fix and not really fully looking at things in detail.

The thing is though they wouldnt build a nuclear power station on a beaty spot or in a national park, but they seem to think that wind turbines should be exempt.

29-11-2005, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.

Thus they generate much less pollution.

I'm surprised there isn't more focus given to this, although some work is being done to improve the efficiency of coal fired power stations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4466040.stm

the 'alternative' biomass fuels, which are 'carbon neutral' don't seem, proportionately, to be getting a look in. Previous experiments with e.g. coppiced willow & straw, seem to have proved feasibility, but not attracted investment???

Graham · 29-11-2005, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.

Thus they generate much less pollution.

I'd love for that to work, but I know from a friend (who was a power station engineer) how hard it can be to 'switch on' a power station. You have to keep them ticking over rather than letting them stop entirely, unless you have plenty of notice of when you're going to need the extra capacity.

I should have *known* someone was going to pick up on that one...!

Yes, ok, you don't "switch it on" as such, but if you have it in "tick over" mode it's not going to be using anything like the amount of fuel (or generating as much pollution) as when it's going flat out.

Quote:

Back to the point though ... if we still have to have masses of capacity in reserve, what benefit ultimately is there in wind power?

Because it won't be generating pollution and CO2 most of the time.

Quote:

I was just challenging etc's suggestion that we could divert money from nuclear programmes and take the country 100% wind-powered. Clearly, even if we're only maintaining 'traditional' power stations for back-up purposes, that's not possible.

Err, I don't think anyone's suggested 100% wind power, the post somewhere above was talking about 20%, but that's still a lot and a big help for reducing emissions.

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by themelon

To be fair if you have ever seen a nuclear power station (or any non-renewable form of energy power station!!) You will have to agree they are not exactly pleasing on the eye, so the idea that they are an eyesore does not wash with me.

Hear hear!

Quote:

I would rather have a hillside full of wind turbines, or a gigantic hydro electric damn than a dirty great nuclear power plant, warm water in the sea around it, and tonnes of nuclear waste to bury somewhere.

Although I'm not necessarily enamoured of hydro-electric, flooding big areas to supply power isn't the best of solutions, these are very good points.

themelon · 30-11-2005, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

The thing is though they wouldnt build a nuclear power station on a beaty spot or in a national park, but they seem to think that wind turbines should be exempt.

Sometimes the build them in places that would otherwise be a lot nicer, often round the coasts. I remember once being on holiday on the East Coast in a place near Sizewell, the water in the sea there is alarmingly warm, yet apparently only due to cooling. I can only assume that this heat mus affect things living in the sea!

It may get to the stage that they have to put nuclear waste in secluded national parks, as there is no mass population there like most of the UK where you would struggle to bury it, putting it in the see is equally dubious. I would still rather the turbines to be honest.

Obviously I would rather them be placed in a manner that did not destroy our countryside.

I feel self sufficiency should also be considered (perhaps with government grants for old build), why are new build houses not installed with Solar panels on the roof, or mini turbines, ok the power generated would be small but if everyone has it, it reduces requirement from the grid. What about hot water, overseas hot water tanks are placed on roofs in metal containers, heat from the sun makes the water very hot in the summer and a solar panel is used for heating during the night and poorer weather.

The government needs a long term solution not a quick fix, its ok building new nuclear reactors but what are we going to do with the waste.

**Chris** · 30-11-2005, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by themelon

The government needs a long term solution not a quick fix, its ok building new nuclear reactors but what are we going to do with the waste.

Bury it a kilometre down in a part of the country with nice, stable geology so it doesn't leak out again.

I was surprised to hear on the radio last night that the total quantity of nuclear waste we have generated so far could fill the Albert Hall five times. That is not a lot when you consider the number of years we've been at it and the amount of electricity that has been generated from it.

Apparently a 'geological disposal' site would require up to 50 years to complete and move the waste into, but at least then it would be there to receive the next generation of waste also.

etccarmageddon · 30-11-2005, 13:22

it's not the size that matters - it's the potency of this waste that counts - i.e. if it gets into the eco system what damage it is capable of? I dont pretend to have any knowledge on this subject but have plenty of questions! how thick would the concrete need to be that would have to encase this waste? how probable would it be that the encasing would fail and how likely would it be the waste enters the eco system? what damage is it capable of? 5 times the albert hall sounds scary to me.

why would a disposal site take 50 years to complete and move the waste into? what is the total cost of this disposal project?

give me the wind farms and wave farms and solar panels anyday over this ****. we should be looking at replacing and/or suplementing central heating systems with government sponsored solar panels and neighboorhood mini wind turbines. businesses - factories and the like should be 'forced' via financial incentives to install wind turbines.

basa · 30-11-2005, 14:17

IMO those gigantic windmill affairs are a blot on the landscape

I say go nuclear, the only downside I see is the waste. Couldn't we blast it off into the sun and increase its time a little ?

etccarmageddon · 30-11-2005, 14:26

too risky to blast it off into space in case it crashes (e.g. shuttle crash) and also the cost of blasting it off to another world probably burns too much energy! also if we send it to another world, the aliens who live there might blast it back at us or sue us for compo. most likely the compo option.

basa · 30-11-2005, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

too risky to blast it off into space in case it crashes (e.g. shuttle crash) and also the cost of blasting it off to another world probably burns too much energy! also if we send it to another world, the aliens who live there might blast it back at us or sue us for compo. most likely the compo option.

I did consider the safety / crash aspect, but considered, as they are usually cast in glass, this a quite minor risk. I was thinking a cheap basic ICBM launcher straight at *our* sun (so no compo there I suppose). Dunno about the energy usage but I believe the used nuclear rods are quite small so reckon maybe a years worth on one launch. Just an idea.