Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
It’s but one example Donald.

As to your quite question, the answer is they haven’t been persuaded by any means that plastic litter on beaches is a lesser priority. Most people on earth can cope with more than one problem to solve at the same time, and adapt their behaviours to lessen them.

If you’ve ever done a beach clean up you’ll know that the majority of the waste wasn’t dropped on it by the hypocrites using it.

A good way to avoid littering is to not consume it in the first place.
You're still not understanding the thread topic.

How have people been bamboozled into believing they need to do more about CO2 than stuff they can do something about? Yes, OK, you have expressed that in a fine way, people accommodate more than one problem at a time. But they also have to prioritise dealing with those problems and I am making my point known that I think it has been utterly distracted by the ridiculous use of language saying that CO2 is a 'harmful pollutant'.

The other damaging claim made is that there is some 'critical threshold' past which we will suffer some heat death. This totally undermines the reality of past times where CO2 rises and falls naturally to and from very high levels.

What else has lead mankind to taking its eye of more significant, immediate pollution challenges that will have a long lasting effect?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
You're still not understanding the thread topic.

How have people been bamboozled into believing they need to do more about CO2 than stuff they can do something about? Yes, OK, you have expressed that in a fine way, people accommodate more than one problem at a time. But they also have to prioritise dealing with those priorities and I am making my point known that I think it has been utterly distracted by the ridiculous use of language saying that CO2 is a 'harmful pollutant'.
Great, you’ve made your point.

But, you don’t know that people have been bamboozled into prioritising CO2 reduction over littering. Where’s the evidence for that?

My daughter is nearly 6 and already understands the links between consumption, waste and pollution.

This is not a new thing.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
What do you think of modular nuclear reactors?
Me? I think there are a lot of inventive and viable solutions to safe nuclear power that should have been, and should be being, explored.

The problem is 'perception' of what nuclear power is and its risks.

If renewables could take on 120% of domestic need without any fall back CO2 producing options, then I would not want to criticise that ambition at all. I just don't see how that is possible, and I don't see anyone suggesting it is. So I think the question comes down to what our base load is, that is to say what our fall-back guaranteed form of energy is? At the moment it is a mix and that's fine, but it is CO2 producing. What is the non-CO2 generating base load?

If modular nuclear reactors represent a solution to bridging the gap between renewables and a viable base load, that'd sound good to me. It may be that our route forward is to place renewables where they work best and have distributed generation elsewhere, modular energy sources could fit in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
From what I gather you can slot the modular reactors in to replace the boilers in an existing power station and use all the existing connections and even turbines unless they're worn out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,608 Posts
Me? I think there are a lot of inventive and viable solutions to safe nuclear power that should have been, and should be being, explored.
Indeed, as an engineer I've always been very positive about nuclear. However, given the record of nuclear power (watching the recent series Chernobyl is a salutary lesson) and the public perception, it doesn't look to have anywhere to go.

Then factor in the price and the huge subsidy and the cost of power of 9p per unit. Renewables are falling in cost and nuclear is still rising.

What could we have achieved with renewables if we had thrown £20bn at it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
Date was in error. Total is about 5 to 10% of renewable energy.
Still a fairly unconscionable waste of valuable energy, to my mind. But a much more believable figure.
Thanks for finding it.
 

·
Chartered Engineer
Joined
·
1,841 Posts
For me, nuclear power is just too expensive to be a viable option - the costs of every power station are higher than originally estimated and the clean up costs fall on the taxpayer, not the polluter. In terms of littering, nuclear power as it currently exists is pretty damn terrible. Renewables have issues - intermittency of generation being the biggest - but these are solvable with a joined up policy and at far lower cost both to the taxpayer and the environment IMHO.

I fully agree that our consumptive society needs to control its general waste - the release of plastics into the environment in particular is disastrous and unnecessary - but to me that includes airbone pollution. While CO2 for example is a naturally occurring gas and one need to regulate respiration , we have been increasing the concentration of it while at the same time reducing the ability of the biosphere to process it. There has to be a limit beyond which we tip the balance and the (peer reviewed) scientific evidence suggests we are close to that point. O2 is also a naturally occurring gas but our main activity is to convert it into CO2 in ever larger quantities - while the atmosphere is pretty large, this activity also must have a limit and this is also vital to human respiration.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
For me, nuclear power is just too expensive to be a viable option - the costs of every power station are higher than originally estimated and the clean up costs fall on the taxpayer, not the polluter. In terms of littering, nuclear power as it currently exists is pretty damn terrible. Renewables have issues - intermittency of generation being the biggest - but these are solvable with a joined up policy and at far lower cost both to the taxpayer and the environment IMHO.
Unusually for you, you seem to have completely missed the point and have developed a myopic view of the future.

What you've just done there is what someone in the 1990s would have said about electric cars; lead acid batteries are too expensive and bulky, so we can write off EVs.

I'm missing your usually insightful comments here about our future nuclear options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
For me, nuclear power is just too expensive to be a viable option - the costs of every power station are higher than originally estimated and the clean up costs fall on the taxpayer, not the polluter. In terms of littering, nuclear power as it currently exists is pretty damn terrible. Renewables have issues - intermittency of generation being the biggest - but these are solvable with a joined up policy and at far lower cost both to the taxpayer and the environment IMHO.
I never understand this mentality. On one hand people are saying we must do everything possible to avert climate disaster, but a new Sizewell would add £6 per year to your bill. Extortionate. How could we!?

What joined up policy resolves the intermittent generation by renewables? Cost of battery storage?
 

·
Chartered Engineer
Joined
·
1,841 Posts
Unusually for you, you seem to have completely missed the point and have developed a myopic view of the future.

What you've just done there is what someone in the 1990s would have said about electric cars; lead acid batteries are too expensive and bulky, so we can write off EVs.

I'm missing your usually insightful comments here about our future nuclear options.
I've yet to see any evidence that the more environmentally acceptable nuclear options are either viable or live up to their promise, and given the fact that the existing examples have proved way more expensive than predicted, forgive me for being skeptical. I'm not a nuclear engineer and have no direct experience in the industry so I could indeed be completely wrong on this I will admit but everything I've seen recently suggests there are better, cheaper and safer options available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Where? Geographically we're just not blessed with the locations in the UK.
Certainly not many but there are some. There's one being built in Wales right now which uses two disused quarries on the same mountain as reservoirs. One high up and one at the bottom which makes it much better economically. Also the last hydro built in Scotland about 10 years ago is on a perfect pumped storage site. It is a straight hydro because that gets green brownie points but pumped storage ( which generates nothing nett) does not. Or didn't then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Certainly not many but there are some. There's one being built in Wales right now which uses two disused quarries on the same mountain as reservoirs. One high up and one at the bottom which makes it much better economically. Also the last hydro built in Scotland about 10 years ago is on a perfect pumped storage site. It is a straight hydro because that gets green brownie points but pumped storage ( which generates nothing nett) does not. Or didn't then.
Firstly, Glyn Rhonwy is still going through planning and environmental impacts (complicated by the sites history as a MOD store).

Secondly, at 700MWh, it doesn't even scratch the surface of the required grid storage. It's a fraction the size of Dinorwig.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Firstly, Glyn Rhonwy is still going through planning and environmental impacts (complicated by the sites history as a MOD store).

Secondly, at 700MWh, it doesn't even scratch the surface of the required grid storage. It's a fraction the size of Dinorwig.
I'm thinking that we need lots of partial solutions, not just one huge answer to everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
I cannot imagine the same people who litter beaches, lay-bys etc chat about CO2 and how they are reducing their emissions with their colleagues/peers/family and friends.

People who litter care about nothing but their own convenience. In this case having to carry their waste even a few metres. There is going to be almost zero overlap between those people and people who care about “the environment” and think about things such as CO2 emissions. In my opinion of course.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
"Officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) took more than 4,500 domestic business flights in the last financial year, according to its annual report. The number of flights taken the year before was fewer than 2,700. "

Whatever...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Does anyone have any thoughts on molten salt reactors, thorium or non-thorium?

The word "Nuclear" ,rightly or wrongly according to your leanings, gets a bad rap because of the way the world has implemented it using pressure water reactors, but these molten salt reactors look like a significant improvement in every way, and the principles were proven back in the sixties.
 
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Top