Its official: 71% of the worlds population is plain stupid.

[alpine_saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15864806

[buctootim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15864806

 

Interesting that the UK is the only country surveyed where support for nuclear powert is greater now than in 2005. I dont think lack of support for nuclear equates with lack of intelligence though. Basically it is hugely expensive (much more so that stated when you take into account decommissioning costs including storing radioactive waste) and very inflexible in that it is hard to switch off once you've got it going. Its the least worst option as part of the overall package with renewables imo.

Edited 25 November, 2011 by buctootim

[alpine_saint]

Interesting that the UK is the only country surveyed where support for nuclear powert is greater now than in 2005. I dont think lack of support for nuclear equates with lack of intelligence though. Basically it is hugely expensive (much more so that stated when you take into account decommissioning costs including storing radioactive waste) and very inflexible in that it is hard to switch off once you've got it going. Its the least worst option as part of the overall package with renewables imo.

 

I think you've looked at my reaction from the wrong direction.

 

I dont think anyone who does not support the nuke option is stupid. Jeez, the consequences are ghastly if an accident happens.

 

I think anyone who thinks wind and sun can replace nuke and coal COMBINED is plain stupid.

 

The 71% figure represents the percentage of people who think this.

[buctootim]

I think anyone who thinks wind and sun can replace nuke and coal COMBINED is plain stupid.

 

The 71% figure represents the percentage of people who think this.

 

Maybe 'lacking sufficient infiormation' would be a kinder way to describe it

[Saintandy666]

We do need renewables though. Tidal is a pretty good idea for us, topped up by other renewables. Would create a lot of jobs and investment if we started at it now...

 

Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk

[pap]

I think you've looked at my reaction from the wrong direction.

 

I dont think anyone who does not support the nuke option is stupid. Jeez, the consequences are ghastly if an accident happens.

 

I think anyone who thinks wind and sun can replace nuke and coal COMBINED is plain stupid.

 

The 71% figure represents the percentage of people who think this.

 

Well, call me cynical - but I've often marvelled at the sheer amount of energy in this world. Aren't we forgetting the bloody huge supply of water? Isn't water comprised of two things that burn very well?

 

Putting my tin-foil hat on for a bit, I've always been amazed that oil is somehow the only game in town. We live on a planet with potential sources of energy EVERYWHERE.

 

Oil, gas and nuclear are presented to us as the only viable sources of energy, largely because there are vast sums of money to be made at every stage.

 

If there was some political will behind cheaper sources of energy, I'm sure we'd be surprised at the refinement our ingenuity affords. The problem is that no-one is putting any effort into it, because the status quo suits too many interests.

[latter day saint]

We do need renewables though. Tidal is a pretty good idea for us, topped up by other renewables. Would create a lot of jobs and investment if we started at it now...

 

Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk

agree with this. we have the advantage's of the sea surrounding us & higher winds then the rest of Europe so make the most of them.

only problem will be the NIMBY's moaning about it ruining there view etc.

[buctootim]

Well, call me cynical - but I've often marvelled at the sheer amount of energy in this world. Aren't we forgetting the bloody huge supply of water? Isn't water comprised of two things that burn very well?

 

Putting my tin-foil hat on for a bit, I've always been amazed that oil is somehow the only game in town. We live on a planet with potential sources of energy EVERYWHERE.

 

Oil, gas and nuclear are presented to us as the only viable sources of energy, largely because there are vast sums of money to be made at every stage.

 

If there was some political will behind cheaper sources of energy, I'm sure we'd be surprised at the refinement our ingenuity affords. The problem is that no-one is putting any effort into it, because the status quo suits too many interests.

 

Hydrogen is potentially the successor to oil as a transport fuel. Basically you can create hydrogen simply by splitting water by passing a current through it. Its not my area but I do know there are a lot of problems with it though - including high cost of hydrogen fuel cells, high cost of splitting water, emissions of methane from process and storage of the hydrogen on a vehicle - it needs to be super cold and compressed - unlike lpg.

[norwaysaint]

It's all hydro here, no nuclear at all, but our landscape makes us a special case. Keep buying our oil though and stop listening to Pap, it contributes greatly to my standard of living. One reason why we don't mind the rainy autumns too much here is that it means a cheaper heating bill in the winter.

 

I've noticed over the last couple of years that Denmark seems to be packed with wind farms both on and offshore, I'd be interested to know how what percentage of their power it's supplying these days.

 

Just checked, 20% which isn't bad for a smallish country that's not especially windy.

[alpine_saint]

Hydrogen is potentially the successor to oil as a transport fuel. Basically you can create hydrogen simply by splitting water by passing a current through it. Its not my area but I do know there are a lot of problems with it though - including high cost of hydrogen fuel cells, high cost of splitting water, emissions of methane from process and storage of the hydrogen on a vehicle - it needs to be super cold and compressed - unlike lpg.

 

Imo, hydrogen is a complete non-starter. Conservation of energy is a basic fundamental of physics - in order to get the huge energy release you get from burning hydrogen in oxygen (producing the waste product so desirable to the green community - water) you first have to put a MASSIVE amount of energy into water in order to split it into its two consitutents.

[dellboypete]

It's all hydro here, no nuclear at all, but our landscape makes us a special case. Keep buying our oil though and stop listening to Pap, it contributes greatly to my standard of living. One reason why we don't mind the rainy autumns too much here is that it means a cheaper heating bill in the winter.

 

I've noticed over the last couple of years that Denmark seems to be packed with wind farms both on and offshore, I'd be interested to know how what percentage of their power it's supplying these days.

 

Just checked, 20% which isn't bad for a smallish country that's not especially windy.

 

I spent a couple of years working in northern Norway a few years ago and I seem to remember that even Norway has run out of suitable sites for more cost efficient hydroelectric plant

[buctootim]

Imo, hydrogen is a complete non-starter. Conservation of energy is a basic fundamental of physics - in order to get the huge energy release you get from burning hydrogen in oxygen (producing the waste product so desirable to the green community - water) you first have to put a MASSIVE amount of energy into water in order to split it into its two consitutents.

 

At the moment electric and hydrogen are the only post oil transport games in town - and both have their own problems. BMW are betting quite gig on making hydrogen work.

[alpine_saint]

At the moment electric and hydrogen are the only post oil transport games in town - and both have their own problems. BMW are betting quite gig on making hydrogen work.

 

Yes, at car level, BMW are getting on well. But imo they are proceeding on the assumption of ready availability; focusing on the engine operation and local car storage. the logistics of a switch to hyrdogen are a nightmare.

 

I personally think electric is a more likely roadmap.

[Window Cleaner]

 

I personally think electric is a more likely roadmap.

 

And then the demand for electricity to recharge all of those nice little runners on a quasi-daily basis (I've ordered one though ) will rocket far beyond the capacities of wind and photovoltaique production.

[Scummer]

The Isle of Wight has embarked on a scheme to become self-sufficient by 2020:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15717989

[Window Cleaner]

The Isle of Wight has embarked on a scheme to become self-sufficient by 2020:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15717989

 

They'd best dust off the donkeys at Carisbrooke Castle then,they'll need all the help they can get.

[alpine_saint]

And then the demand for electricity to recharge all of those nice little runners on a quasi-daily basis (I've ordered one though ) will rocket far beyond the capacities of wind and photovoltaique production.

 

Right, so my initial post stands.

[Window Cleaner]

Right, so my initial post stands.

 

Of course it does.Why we should all go falling over ourselves to follow those loony lefties in krautland beggars belief.

Sarkozy has just been "illuminating" the French on the cost and practicality of following the loony left.

[Saintandy666]

agree with this. we have the advantage's of the sea surrounding us & higher winds then the rest of Europe so make the most of them.

only problem will be the NIMBY's moaning about it ruining there view etc.

 

Sigh, I agree!, who gives a **** about ruining the view of the countryside in a few places. Most of the countryside views are human created anyway... not as if they are natural.

[dune]

Geothermal power is the future. Drill down deep enough and it's very hot and it won't run out.

Edited 25 November, 2011 by dune

[buctootim]

Geothermal power is the future. Drill down deep enough and it's very hot and it won't run out.

 

Good luck running your car on that.

[Saintandy666]

Good luck running your car on that.

 

Electric... if they can find a way of quickly topping up a car via electricity(which they will).

[latter day saint]

Good luck running your car on that.

use it to produce electricity to run your electric car.

why don't they dump a load of wind farms in the Highlands? hardly anyone lives there & if its as windy as the Shetland Isles were when i was there,we will produce plenty of power.

[Saint_Jonny]

use it to produce electricity to run your electric car.

why don't they dump a load of wind farms in the Highlands? hardly anyone lives there & if its as windy as the Shetland Isles were when i was there,we will produce plenty of power.

 

But you'll **** off the ramblers and sheep farmers, AND WE CAN'T BE HAVING THAT NOW CAN WE!?!?!?

[buctootim]

use it to produce electricity to run your electric car.

why don't they dump a load of wind farms in the Highlands? hardly anyone lives there & if its as windy as the Shetland Isles were when i was there,we will produce plenty of power.

 

In think most of the planned wind capacity will be offshore of the West of Scotland

[Saintandy666]

But you'll **** off the ramblers and sheep farmers, AND WE CAN'T BE HAVING THAT NOW CAN WE!?!?!?

 

I know you are being sarcastic... but I need to make a point. If 9 billion of us want to live on our planet sustainably without destroying ourselves, we have to accept that some of the countryside is gonna have to be given over to natural resource.

[buctootim]

I know you are being sarcastic... but I need to make a point. If 9 billion of us want to live on our planet sustainably without destroying ourselves, we have to accept that some of the countryside is gonna have to be given over to natural resource.

 

I know its unintentional, but thats hilarious - if we want to save the planet we need to industrialise the countryside. I dont oppose onshore windfarms, but the place where you get the most wind and the most reliable wind is offshore, which is where most of it will be situated sensibly enough. This is just one site http://www.forewind.co.uk/

[Saintandy666]

I know its unintentional, but thats hilarious - if we want to save the planet we need to industrialise the countryside. I dont oppose onshore windfarms, but the place where you get the most wind and the most reliable wind is offshore, which is where most of it will be situated sensibly enough. This is just one site http://www.forewind.co.uk/

 

It's not industrialise in the bad sense... it's more, land is gonna have to be given up for renewable plants... i.e wind, solar and tidal etc which will be 'eye sores'. I'm not talking nasty polluting coal factories.

[LGTL]

Electric... if they can find a way of quickly topping up a car via electricity(which they will).

 

And you don't think the massive oil companies won't jump on it in an instant?

[Saintandy666]

And you don't think the massive oil companies won't jump on it in an instant?

 

Oh, they will... such is the free market and it will continue to be unless and until there is state intervention we are basically ****ed. Because of capitalism, only when oil is no longer more profitable than renewable and so on will the proper investment come. Unfortunately, it'll be too late by then.

 

That's the problem with capitalism... it's great until a decision like this comes up.

[Pugwash]

The thing is that there are good and diverse technical solutions already in the pipeline (no pun intended).

 

Electric cars? Ask MIT and an unnamed British university about high capacity, high discharge rate batteries that can fully recharge in a few minutes. Coming your way in 5-10 years?

 

Wind Power? 8 MegaWatt offshore turbines will be coming through in the next few years, with more stable and consistent output.

 

Photovoltaics? New junction technologies are increasing efficiencies year-on-year and organics look promising and cheap.

 

Biofuels? Some very clever stuff happening with bacteria-generated diesel.

 

Nuclear? Ah yes, the big one. It remains one of the safest, most efficient ways of generating power, despite the Media scaremongering. Is car safety, efficiency and environmental impact based on the specifications of a 1950's Ford Pop? Engineering has moved on in the last sixty years. Even so, there's no denying that problems remain with waste and decommissioning from light water reactors operating on the U-235 cycle. Of course there is a much safer, inherently stable cycle that produces minimal waste, based on a far more efficient and abundant fissile fuel...but you can't make H-bombs from the by-products, so the US stopped the research funding about 40 years ago.

 

Of course, a fossil-fuel-free future will require a mix of these solutions. The real problem is that, in the West, there isn't the political will or awareness to invest the capital to develop many of these and other emerging technologies into real-world solutions. China and India, however, are starting to take the lead and will no doubt be selling the technologies back to us - under licence - in the next few decades.

[SNSUN]

I'm all for clean energy - while I don't know enough to poo poo it properly, Nuclear concerns me. Looking at the devastation Chernobyl caused, and seeing that there are areas of it that are still no go areas even today, is depressing. Imagine if a similar incident to that or Fukushima happened in the UK. No thanks.

 

Coal may be running out, but hopefully we still have a few more years left of it yet - plenty of time to find a suitable replacement. Maybe one day, everybody will be responsible for producing their own energy for their home - through whatever means - akin to the solar panels some people have had installed. (And sell their excess energy back to the National Grid.)

 

Wind farms are ugly, but you can't deny we won't always have wind - but I agree with the earlier poster - we do have a shed load of water on this planet. There must be something in that.

[Pugwash]

I'm all for clean energy - while I don't know enough to poo poo it properly, Nuclear concerns me. Looking at the devastation Chernobyl caused, and seeing that there are areas of it that are still no go areas even today, is depressing. Imagine if a similar incident to that or Fukushima happened in the UK. No thanks.

 

Coal may be running out, but hopefully we still have a few more years left of it yet - plenty of time to find a suitable replacement. Maybe one day, everybody will be responsible for producing their own energy for their home - through whatever means - akin to the solar panels some people have had installed. (And sell their excess energy back to the National Grid.)

 

Wind farms are ugly, but you can't deny we won't always have wind - but I agree with the earlier poster - we do have a shed load of water on this planet. There must be something in that.

 

All good points and I don't disagree with your sentiments. However, no-go areas of devastation aren't unique to nuclear disasters. Google Centralia, Pennsylvania - something the Yanks don't like to talk about.

[SNSUN]

All good points and I don't disagree with your sentiments. However, no-go areas of devastation aren't unique to nuclear disasters. Google Centralia, Pennsylvania - something the Yanks don't like to talk about.

 

I actually Googled "Google Centralia". It's plain idiocy like this which makes people thankful I don't have an important job. (Interesting stuff though. Perhaps the real idiots are the ones still living in such a dangerous place.)

[AussieDog]

People need to think outside of the square. All of the "free" energy sources such as solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, tidal will get utilised and will eventually replace fossil fuels and nuclear. It just may not be in our lifetime.

 

http://www.hypersolar.com/technology.php are now making renewable natural gas using a combination of solar water and carbon dioxide - and to the point where it is becoming affordable through using nanotechnologies.

 

With regards to wind farms - you don't need to think on such large scales to avoid scarring the landscape. If you generate localised power for specific events you will reduce the need to use standard energy. EG there is a huge amount of wasted wind power circulating around the motorway systems by all the traffic flowing past. The landscape is already scarred, so when the production technology is cheap enough, install systems that harness that wind power and actually build them at regular intervals of the motorways and use that power to do simple things like power motorway lighting. Every little step reduces the need for fossil fuels. Every house could make more use of it's wasted heat to generate energy (just feel the wasted heat that comes out the back of your fridge, for example) to assist in generating the power required to heat and light (and in our case cool) your home.

Don't see just one source as the provider of all energy and eventually we can scrap the need for nuclear fuels.

[Pugwash]

I actually Googled "Google Centralia". It's plain idiocy like this which makes people thankful I don't have an important job. (Interesting stuff though. Perhaps the real idiots are the ones still living in such a dangerous place.)

Compelling isn't it? I just had to do the same - to see what would come up. Bit like pressing the Big Red Button that says "Don't Press"...

[alpine_saint]

The thing is that there are good and diverse technical solutions already in the pipeline (no pun intended).

 

Electric cars? Ask MIT and an unnamed British university about high capacity, high discharge rate batteries that can fully recharge in a few minutes. Coming your way in 5-10 years?

 

Wind Power? 8 MegaWatt offshore turbines will be coming through in the next few years, with more stable and consistent output.

 

Photovoltaics? New junction technologies are increasing efficiencies year-on-year and organics look promising and cheap.

 

Biofuels? Some very clever stuff happening with bacteria-generated diesel.

 

Nuclear? Ah yes, the big one. It remains one of the safest, most efficient ways of generating power, despite the Media scaremongering. Is car safety, efficiency and environmental impact based on the specifications of a 1950's Ford Pop? Engineering has moved on in the last sixty years. Even so, there's no denying that problems remain with waste and decommissioning from light water reactors operating on the U-235 cycle. Of course there is a much safer, inherently stable cycle that produces minimal waste, based on a far more efficient and abundant fissile fuel...but you can't make H-bombs from the by-products, so the US stopped the research funding about 40 years ago.

 

Of course, a fossil-fuel-free future will require a mix of these solutions. The real problem is that, in the West, there isn't the political will or awareness to invest the capital to develop many of these and other emerging technologies into real-world solutions. China and India, however, are starting to take the lead and will no doubt be selling the technologies back to us - under licence - in the next few decades.

 

You mean Thorium ? I noticed a few weeks ago India released a statement that they are planning to build a full size Thorium reactor.

 

There was an interesting article on the Beeb about 2months ago. Apparently the direction the world has gone in relating to nuclear generation is great for producing weapons-grade plutonium and uranium, and the concept is to just scale up the PWRs first put into US subs by Hyman Rickover. Apparently it is NOT the most effective and safe way to implement electrical generation by nuclear power. There are many, many alternatives that are safer and more efficient, Thorium reactos just bein one example.

[buctootim]

You mean Thorium ? I noticed a few weeks ago India released a statement that they are planning to build a full size Thorium reactor.

 

There was an interesting article on the Beeb about 2months ago. Apparently the direction the world has gone in relating to nuclear generation is great for producing weapons-grade plutonium and uranium, and the concept is to just scale up the PWRs first put into US subs by Hyman Rickover. Apparently it is NOT the most effective and safe way to implement electrical generation by nuclear power. There are many, many alternatives that are safer and more efficient, Thorium reactos just bein one example.

 

Agree totally. There are many technical options for generating electricity, its just a question of getting them price competitive. One of the benenfits of Thorium is that has a much shorter half life. You only have to store the waste for a 100 years or so, as opposed to thousands. Uranium has got so expensive recently, up 20 fold in a few years, that new fuels like thorium become viable. As mentioned earlier, transport fuels, especially aviation, remain a real problem.

Edited 25 November, 2011 by buctootim

[Sheaf Saint]

I'm all for clean energy - while I don't know enough to poo poo it properly, Nuclear concerns me. Looking at the devastation Chernobyl caused, and seeing that there are areas of it that are still no go areas even today, is depressing. Imagine if a similar incident to that or Fukushima happened in the UK. No thanks.

 

You are certainly not alone in having these concerns about nuclear technology, but it is such a shame that there is so much opposition to it based on bad information.

 

For starters, the safeguards in place in modern nuclear plants, such as in France, mean that what happened at Chernobyl could never happen again. What's even more sad about Chernobyl is that it could have been contained if it had been managed properly, but rather than immediately call for assistance, the people in charge allowed it to go past tipping point because they didn't want to bother their superiors and were afraid they would take the blame for it.

 

As for Fukushima, well I can see people's concerns because it is so fresh in the memory, but you have to realise that it is a 40-year old plant that doesn't have the same safeguards as newer ones, and it was built on the most tsunami-susceptible coastline on the planet. Not exactly good forward-planning that. Of course, we wouldn't have such problems in the UK because we are nowhere near any fault lines and only experience extremely minor tremors at most.

 

Yes nuclear is expensive, and there is still a lot of debate about how to manage the leftover waste, but in recent years there has been a lot of research done into the possible use of thorium as fuel instead of uranium...

 

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

 

After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

 

This could be some way off being usable yet, likewise the ITER project which is researching nuclear fusion as an energy source, but both have excellent potential to become long-term clean, safe methods of energy production. For now though, I'm in agreement with James Lovelock (the climate scientist behind the Gaia theory) who not so long ago insisted publicly that nuclear fission is the best short-term solution to achieve the necessary reductions in carbon emissions.

[Sheaf Saint]

Dammit. I took so long typing that last post that Alpine beat me to it regarding thorium.

[Pugwash]

Okay guys, so by now you've probably figured out my current avatar. If you want to know more, google LFTR. Unfortunately this is not the process that India is using in its prototype, but at least it's a start.

[Pugwash]

...oh, and my location.

[Saintandy666]

Yes, Thorium! My sciency friend who is into this stuff was telling me about this the other week!!! Sounds exciting.

[Katalinic]

Yes, at car level, BMW are getting on well. But imo they are proceeding on the assumption of ready availability; focusing on the engine operation and local car storage. the logistics of a switch to hyrdogen are a nightmare.

 

I personally think electric is a more likely roadmap.

 

Indeed. BMW are heavily involved in the development of electric vehicles now as opposed to hydrogen and are also working on a number of joint initiatives with other manufacturers.

[buctootim]

Indeed. BMW are heavily involved in the development of electric vehicles now as opposed to hydrogen and are also working on a number of joint initiatives with other manufacturers.

 

Just seen this article. Good read about electric and hydrogen vehicles in wake of UK's first hydrogen filling station opening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14979817

[Sheaf Saint]

Clearly there are people on here with a much greater understanding of nuclear power generation than I, so I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution?intcmp=122

[Lighthouse]

I think a more short term solution to electric cars is having quick change batteries, which can be universally fitted into all models. Basically at petrol garages, they will just have a large stash of charged up batteries, which can be charged on site in X amount of time. A driver comes in and for say £15, he swaps his flat battery for a fully charged one (the best of which can do around 300 miles at the moment). I see no reason why you can't change a battery in pretty much the same time it takes to fill up a petrol tank.

 

I personally think the best solution is electric cars, not alternative fuels. We have to produce loads of electricity anyway, it make more sense to generate cleaner electricity and power cars with that, rather than pumping billions into hydrogen fuel cells etc. The other good thing about electric cars is zero emissions, making urban areas a much healthier place.

 

I'm all in favour of nuclear power too. Incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl are isolated arose from pretty negligent opperation IMO. If we built modern nuclear reactors, they wouldn't be built to 1950's specification, opperated by opressed Soviet engineers on Tsunami prone fault lines.

[Window Cleaner]

I personally think the best solution is electric cars, not alternative fuels. We have to produce loads of electricity anyway, it make more sense to generate cleaner electricity and power cars with that, rather than pumping billions into hydrogen fuel cells etc. The other good thing about electric cars is zero emissions, making urban areas a much healthier place.

 

 

They started the new Auto'Lib service in Paris yesterday, you know where you just pick up an electric car at a stand,drive it to where you want to go and leave it at another stand,need to register first and pay though. Anyway on the very first day a pedestrian was run over by one of these new electric cars because he didn't hear it coming.In the event of mass use of electric cars we'll need to change pedestrian awareness I think.