Petrol Prices Rising

[CrashConnoisseur]

Nuclear is clean until you have to worry about waste and potential disasters. [impartial]

What about all the CO2 produced in the mining and milling of yellowcake?

The Rance style tidal power station across the River Severn will also screw up the surfing of the Boar tide... [Mr Rose]

That's a pig.

[jonewer]

What about all the CO2 produced in the mining and milling of yellowcake?

What about the CO2 produced in the mining of the iron and other materials used to make wind turbines/wave turbines/solar panels?

There are ways of dealing with nuclear waste. It just costs money.

Why not just stick it in a shed in sheffield?

[CrashConnoisseur]

What about the CO2 produced in the mining of the iron and other materials used to make wind turbines/wave turbines/solar panels? [jonewer]

Indeed. And what about all the CO2 produced in the mining of the materials used to make nuclear power stations?

[Smurf1976]

Renewables can help a bit. Hydro is good for meeting peak power demands, solar is good for water heating, wind makes sense for uses where intermittent supply is acceptable - for example pumping water over long distances where it can be stored at both ends.

It's conceivable that a country like Australia could use wind to run long distance freight trains rather than relying on an incredible number of trucks travelling between cities as is done at present. Just spread individual wind turbines along the train line and use the conventional electric train line (which would have to be installed since we're talking about replacing diesel rather than grid power) to connect them together. As long as there is electrical continuity along the entire train line, odds are that the wind will be blowing somewhere and the train will move. The train's speed might vary but it will get there. Not ideal but it should work in that the freight will get there more or less when expected.

Geothermal is another strong contender IMO. The use of hot dry rocks is presently subject to a lot of work (much of it privately funded) in Australia with several plans to set up real working plants, albeit rather small "pilot" plants. Drilling has only really just begun but already there seems to be enough hot rocks to run the entire country (Oz) for centuries. And of course there's conventional "wet" geothermal energy in places like New Zealand which is locally significant.

Geosequestration of carbon dioxide would give us the option of using the remaining coal without wrecking the climate. An old (working) coal-fired power station in Oz is being modified as a trial. If successful then the plant is expected to remain in full time commercial service for some decades to come. With depletion of oil and gas being the problem in the first place, there's no shortage of space to store the CO2 if this technology is a goer and applied to power stations elsewhere.

And finally the big one, thorium. A nuclear technology that, due to the very nature of thorium, can't blow up and doesn't produce bomb material. Whilst there is still some waste, it remains dangerous for a few hundered years rather than tens of thousands and so is far less of a risk in that regard. And there's far more thorium than uranium, most of it located in politically stable countries where supplies being cut off aren't much of an issue (Australia dominates world reserves to my understanding). As for the actual reactor, it needs to be constantly "pushed" otherwise the reaction stops dead. This doesn't need much power (relative to the output of the reactor) but means that shutting down is easy and safe in the event of an emergency. A bit like how a petrol engine needs electricity to the spark plugs otherwise it stops dead no matter how much fuel is available.

All that said, there's likely to be very serious pain between now and when alternative technologies come online IMO. That's likely to be at least a couple of decades of general trouble - economy, wars etc.

Edited July 16, 2006 by Smurf1976

[StainlessSteelCat]

One of the problems with nuclear power is proliferation. If we have to have it to maintain our way of life then our arguments against other states (Iran?) having it looks pretty hypocritical. The increase in transportation of uranium etc around the world is probably something we'd want to avoid too.

If nuclear is so attractive and economical then it should be possible to make a profit without tax payers subsidising it. Past history suggests it is pretty poor in this respect.

Edited July 16, 2006 by greencat

[jonewer]

What about the CO2 produced in the mining of the iron and other materials used to make wind turbines/wave turbines/solar panels? [jonewer]

Indeed. And what about all the CO2 produced in the mining of the materials used to make nuclear power stations?

Bit of a silly argument then isnt it?

The answer lies in the millions of acres of space available in the seas and oceans and deserts

All uninhabitited and not harnassed potential.

Two thirds of this planet is ocean - just sitting there not being used. All this space could be used to harnase energy.

I dont know what the next einstein will think up - but the answer is staring us in the face.

Theres wave power, or we could make banks and banks of solar panels in the ocean, or wind turbines in the ocean or desert.

There is so much area free, and unused space, its stupid not to use it.

Maybe someone will think of a way of just sticking two cables in the sea, and by using electro salt potential harnassing, E.S.P.H (i made that up) the sea becomes one big solar panel, producing electricity - forgoing making the millions of solar panels

We re just not pushed into that situation of radical thinking yet, becuase crude oil is still relatively cheap.

Its worth remebering how much our climate and environment depends on the oceans. 1/3rd of all photosynthesis occurs in the oceans. Blocking out all the light with solar panels? Maybe not so good.

Maybe the answer does lie in the ocean in the form of aquaculture to make biofuels?

If nuclear is so attractive and economical then it should be possible to make a profit without tax payers subsidising it. Past history suggests it is pretty poor in this respect.

With rising costs of oil, nuclear might become profitable. There is also the question of where we get our fuel from. Nuclear fuels are sourced from a number of countries across the globe.

We are in danger of becoming reliant on the goodwill of Russia for our energy needs. As if being reliant on the Middle East wasnt bad enough.....

So whats the answer? I'd say research into alternative nuclear fuels. Fusion reactors and all that malarky. Stuff that you cant make weapons out of like what Smurf said. If we put as much money into research into alternative nuclear fuels as we do on sport and games, perhaps we would already be there by now?

See here for Laser Fusion:

http://other.nrl.navy.mil/LaserFusionEnergy/index.html

Why arent we putting money into this?

Edited July 16, 2006 by jonewer

[FirstTimeBonkers]

The problem with biofuels is where to plant them? And what effect does all this agriculture have on the environment? Agriculture isnt neccesarily environmental friendly an chopping down the amazon or plantin gover what left of the worlds wilderness areas is hardly good for the environment either. Even if we did this, it is doubtfull if we could make even a fraction of our current demand.

The other big problem is that modern intensive agriculture (by far the preferred way of producing biofuels because of its intense productivity) is totally dependant on manufactured fertilisers, the primary feedstock for which is..... natural gas.

If your aim is to power a vehicle then you might as well burn the fossil fuel in the vehicle in the first place rather than go to all the energy-intensive trouble of making it into a fertilser and spraying it on a field to make biofuel.

The other side of the same coin is that if these fertilsers become more difficult to produce and food more scarce, the last thing you are going to want to do with your yummies is burn them in your car.

[Guest Alright Jack]

I'm continually amazed that people are still living in total denial - looking for any hair brained magic bullet. This is not a classical type engineering 'problem' that has a 'solution' (didn't someone once say that only a fool believes every problem has a solution?)

The answer is not to attempt to continue the current way of life but to accept the situation for what it is and begin the process of scaling down everything we do. Nuclear power is possibly a real option to conserve the remaining gas and oil (i.e stop using them to make electric and use the fission stations instead) But will the investment prove to be a net energy sink? Whatever the case, it makes little difference to the outcome, it just means we may be able to keep the lights on the water hot - a serious bonus if you ask me.

The longer we dream of a silver bullet the worse it is going to be. We have at most a year now I reckon of 'business as usual' after which it's going to get very ugly.

[AgeingBabyBoomer]

Tend to agree Alright Jack.

Most alternatives are being presented as a quick fix so we can all carry on

consuming.

Problem with biofuels is that only about 10% of the Earth's land mass is arable, and

burning the food simply isn't an option.

Hydrogen is a nice idea, but it takes a lot of energy to make the stuff,

nobodt seems to know where that will come from.

In the 70's the average car did about 20 mpg.

Now they do about 40 mpg.

We could easily get 100 mpg - if we wanted to.

If china suddenly decides they have a god given right to consume as much

oil as the average American, then demand will exceed supply overnight.

We're doomed.

ABB

[SarahBell]

you for got to start your html with <sarcasm> you just ended it with </sarcasm>

There are ways of dealing with nuclear waste. It just costs money. I would hope we would spend the money but unfortunately i know we won't. The point is no matter what fuel we go for the are positives and negatives, it's a lose lose situation. Nuclear is clean until you have to worry about waste and potential disasters. If the money is spent though it is the most viable early resolution.

If we are going to spend the money on nuclear clean up we should really spend it on renewables instead.

Nuclear is just not the answer.

[jonewer]

This is my favourite "infinite energy" extreme sci-fi candidate:

Zero point energy

expect that laser fusion isnt pseudoscientific, perpetual motion mumbo jumbo.

http://www.fusion-eur.org/fusion_cd/inertial.htm

AlrightJack- yes. lets just pack it all in then shall we?

SarahBell - and what wonderful hitherto undiscovered renewable energy source is going to fulfil our existing energy requirements, yet alone our future requirements?

Edited July 16, 2006 by jonewer

[Guest Alright Jack]

If we are going to spend the money on nuclear clean up we should really spend it on renewables instead.

Nuclear is just not the answer.

Sarah Bell.

Nuclear waste is very horrible. No doubt about it.

But!

Did you know that if all the nuclear power station waste to date were boxed safely and packed it would barely fill a school gymnasium. The energy released per unit mass of fissionable uranium as compared to oil is of the order 2 million to one. And I don't have to remind you how incredibly powerful oil is. Barring a minor incident at three mile island, Chernobyl, tragic as it was, was the only major incident since the first ever nuclear fission station was built in 1957. Chernobyl was a deliberately cheapo crap station designed for the dual purpose of enriching weapons grade product in addition to producing electricity. It had no reactor shell and the design was such that over heating of the core created an even faster reaction. Modern stations work in the opposite fashion. There still exist about twenty other stations identical to Chernobyl that are still in operation today.

It seems pretty clear to me that using nuclear power is really the only thing that will be of use to ameliorate the coming oil crash. And I think the French know how to do it. As I said though, it will not be a 'solution'. It will just help somewhat.

My facts come from "The Long Emergency", J.H.Kunstler.

[jonewer]

Just to make something clear about wind power-

The UK currentley uses around 350 Billion Kwh of electricity (source CIA world fact book).

Allowing for the sake of the argument that the average wind turbine produces 2kwh and is functions at maximum output for 12 hours per day we would need a grand total of...

Wait for...........

FIFTEEN BILLION WIND TURBINES TO POWER BRITIAN!!!

Edited July 16, 2006 by jonewer

[jonewer]

If you noticed I used the word "fiction" (shortened to "fi" admittedly).

was just pointing out hat laser fusion is 'fi'

[MarkG]

I think that fusion and later large, thin solar panels assembled in space, microwaving power back to Earth, are where things are headed over the next century.

Ditto. But in the meantime we need a reliable source of power to get us there... and nuclear fission is the only option I can see.

As for nuclear waste, it's easy to deal with provided you're allowed to be rational about the risks and not subject to knee-jerk emotional nonsense. Stick it in a geologically-stable desert surrounded by automated defences to keep the whackos out and forget about it.

[SarahBell]

Just to make something clear about wind power-

The UK currentley uses around 350 Billion Kwh of electricity (source CIA world fact book).

Allowing for the sake of the argument that the average wind turbine produces 2kwh and is functions at maximum output for 12 hours per day we would need a grand total of...

Wait for...........

FIFTEEN BILLION WIND TURBINES TO POWER BRITIAN!!!

Barrow (30 x 30MW), just opened.

[Impartial]

If we are going to spend the money on nuclear clean up we should really spend it on renewables instead.

Nuclear is just not the answer.

Sarah, as much as i wish this was the solution unfortunately it is not. Renewables are simply non efficent and not cost effective. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and the energy gained through renewables is watered down through friction etc so what we get out is not what was put in. It would be a major project with major peices of machinery blighting the countryside and waters of the world, both unsightly and very expensive.

I can not think of any efficent renewable energy source that would meet the energy requirements of the world in a cost effective way and nature did this on purpose just like the way she put other planets and solar systems light years away from us never to be reached. It is just another complexity of life i'm afraid we do not and may not ever have an answer to. Our demise will come first.

[Harry Sacks]

I don't think it is fair to dismiss wind and wave energy because they cannot accommodate the current energy paradigm.

Electricity is still used very wastefully, incandescent bulbs and water heating for instance. Domestic lighting and appliances account for 30% of the 350TWh someone quoted above. 136TWh of energy delivered to the domestic sector is used for water heating. There really is no need to used conventional energy for this purpose during the summer, yesterday my home made solar water heater reached 88C! would probably have boiled. 57% of delivered energy is used for space heating. Huge savings could be made through better building design, or insulation alone. I can't understand where all this animosity toward wind farms has come from, it shows breath taking ignorance IMO.

Edited July 16, 2006 by dom

[SarahBell]

this purpose during the summer, yesterday my home made solar water heater reached 88C! would probably have boiled. 57% of delivered energy is used for

Fab stuff - Did you use some of the plans online?

[Harry Sacks]

Fab stuff - Did you use some of the plans online?

No. I went to my local trade waste landfill, bought two large double glazed sliding doors and two six foot long radiators, sprayed them black, put them in a well insulated frame and stuck the glazing on top. Water is them circulated though the panels and into a normal indirect copper hot water cylinder.

[Smurf1976]

Just to make something clear about wind power-

The UK currentley uses around 350 Billion Kwh of electricity (source CIA world fact book).

Allowing for the sake of the argument that the average wind turbine produces 2kwh and is functions at maximum output for 12 hours per day we would need a grand total of...

Wait for...........

FIFTEEN BILLION WIND TURBINES TO POWER BRITIAN!!!

Absolute nonsense.

Why would you put in a 2 kilowatt wind turbine when a 3 MEGAwatt unit (3000 kilowatt) is standard technology.

Assuing 33% capacity factor (typical) you would need about 40,000 wind turbines to produce your 350 billion KWh. Not that running 100% on wind is practical, but to suggest that it would take 15 billion turbines is absolute nonsense.

And of course I must point out that conventional fossil fuel power generation once used generating units smaller than today's wind turbines. In due course they were scaled up to very large sizes. Whilst we're unlikely to see 1200 MW wind turbines, some degree of scaling up seems likely. In any event, 40,000 turbines isn't exactly a huge number relative to the number of other things that have been built - houses, transmission line towers etc.

I could make an equally valid point that we'd need a ridiculous number of petrol pumps to use petrol as a fuel for all cars and that this makes petrol unviable as a fuel. Hasn't stopped us using it though. Likewise rail wagons carting coal and miles of gas pipe are all big numbers.

[Warwick-Watcher]

Absolute nonsense.

Why would you put in a 2 kilowatt wind turbine when a 3 MEGAwatt unit (3000 kilowatt) is standard technology.

Assuing 33% capacity factor (typical) you would need about 40,000 wind turbines to produce your 350 billion KWh. Not that running 100% on wind is practical, but to suggest that it would take 15 billion turbines is absolute nonsense.

And of course I must point out that conventional fossil fuel power generation once used generating units smaller than today's wind turbines. In due course they were scaled up to very large sizes. Whilst we're unlikely to see 1200 MW wind turbines, some degree of scaling up seems likely. In any event, 40,000 turbines isn't exactly a huge number relative to the number of other things that have been built - houses, transmission line towers etc.

I could make an equally valid point that we'd need a ridiculous number of petrol pumps to use petrol as a fuel for all cars and that this makes petrol unviable as a fuel. Hasn't stopped us using it though. Likewise rail wagons carting coal and miles of gas pipe are all big numbers.

The limiting factor in wind turbines today will be blade diameter. At a certain rotating speed with blades over a certain diameter the tips will go supersonic - not sure how many people want to live near supersonic wind noise all the time !

[SarahBell]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1834435,00.html

Stockpile Britain has produced radioactive waste since the 40s. The total includes nearly 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste, which can remain harmful for up to a million years.

Wasn't someone on here saying there's only a teaspoon of waste?

[Bonkers]

Is the more worring thing is... we need a bunker for all this waste,ok fair play. The question is, where is it being stored now?

[evictee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1834435,00.html

Stockpile Britain has produced radioactive waste since the 40s. The total includes nearly 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste, which can remain harmful for up to a million years.

Is that it? A 13 meter high cube? You could bury that in my garden.