welshbairn Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: I remember when you used to post sensible things. And I've got a shit memory. Over 60% of our electricity still comes from pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Without a steady reliable supply from nuclear there is no way that renewables can make up that gap. Edited July 29, 2016 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 29 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Over 60% of our electricity still comes from pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Without a steady reliable supply from nuclear there is no way that renewables can make up that gap. Nonsense. Germany are transitioning quite nicely thank you. They are using skill, technology and an openness that is quite foreign to Westminster. There is simply no need for nuclear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 3 minutes ago, sophia said: Nonsense. Germany are transitioning quite nicely thank you. They are using skill, technology and an openness that is quite foreign to Westminster. There is simply no need for nuclear. Germany also gets around 60% of its electricity from pumping carbon. If you could explain how there is any practical way of replacing that with renewables I'd be more than delighted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 48 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Over 60% of our electricity still comes from pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Without a steady reliable supply from nuclear there is no way that renewables can make up that gap. This first sentence is correct and worrying. The second is nonsense. There are many alternate forms of energy that could offer more. The amount spent on research and development in tidal, wind and other renewables is a fraction of that spent on nuclear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Granny Danger said: This first sentence is correct and worrying. The second is nonsense. There are many alternate forms of energy that could offer more. The amount spent on research and development in tidal, wind and other renewables is a fraction of that spent on nuclear. We should do as much with renewables as physically possible but the only practical way of substantially reducing the carbon we pump into the atmosphere in the medium term has to include nuclear. Coal has shortened far more lives than uranium per kilo watt, and has the potential of shortening many more if human caused global warming is happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 A mix of both is needed right now. More community owned renewables would be better. One of the most important things is to insulate more housing in Scotland to reduce demand on gas. I went to visit the Vauban in Frieburg and it's amazing that they manage to build affordable, passive energy housing with onsite renewables. We are fucking miles off the Germans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban,_Freiburg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 47 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Germany also gets around 60% of its electricity from pumping carbon. If you could explain how there is any practical way of replacing that with renewables I'd be more than delighted. You'd be less than lazy if you would do your own research. It will reveal that Germany is keeping the lights on whilst phasing out coal and lignite and ridding themselves of nuclear. As ever, the truth of it is more nuanced than they would have you believe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 minute ago, sophia said: You'd be less than lazy if you would do your own research. It will reveal that Germany is keeping the lights on whilst phasing out coal and lignite and ridding themselves of nuclear. As ever, the truth of it is more nuanced than they would have you believe. Thanks for doing the research. How long will that take? I would put the the potential harms of global warming as far greater than the dangers of nuclear power, which have been minute compared to carbon, even without the environmental effects. How long will it take for Germany to phase out coal, lignite, gas and bio fuels by renewables alone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 10 hours ago, thisal said: I might be a bit naive here. But, why isn't there combined Hydro and wind farm.... There already is to a limited extent, but there needs to be a lot more to make the renewables thing work without needing to have natural gas fired power plants as the backup. There are plans for more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-17061075 but the big problem is that this sort of thing runs into a lot of opposition from people who see it as destroying the Highland landscape etc etc http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-scottish-councillors-back-controversial-1409320#ojSOGk3JYu8uCmWV.97 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 40 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Thanks for doing the research. How long will that take? I would put the the potential harms of global warming as far greater than the dangers of nuclear power, which have been minute compared to carbon, even without the environmental effects. How long will it take for Germany to phase out coal, lignite, gas and bio fuels by renewables alone? Haven't a clue! But I do know that they don't need no nuclear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 37 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said: There already is to a limited extent, but there needs to be a lot more to make the renewables thing work without needing to have natural gas fired power plants as the backup. There are plans for more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-17061075 but the big problem is that this sort of thing runs into a lot of opposition from people who see it as destroying the Highland landscape etc etc http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-scottish-councillors-back-controversial-1409320#ojSOGk3JYu8uCmWV.97 It's all to do with the bryophytes. It's imperative to preserve the bryophytes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDcups Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Why don't we use tidal power? We've got plenty coastline and plenty waves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 The Pentland Firth is the mother lode on that globally. Tidal power is cyclical, so unless you have something like pump-storage hydro you can't match it to peak demand. The problem is that even on renewables you can get all kinds of beardie wierdies kicking up a fuss because some rare flower might go extinct or something like that and even building a set of pylons through the Highlands gets all kinds of landscape fetishists very upset. NIMBYism isn't just an issue with nuclear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 People do realize that it can take millions of years for radioactive waste to reduce to non harmful levels? What are they going to do. Keep digging deep holes in the ground and hope none of it is ever accidentally released? It's devastating. Far more so than the fear of energy shortage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 People do realize that it can take millions of years for radioactive waste to reduce to non harmful levels? What are they going to do. Keep digging deep holes in the ground and hope none of it is ever accidentally released? It's devastating. Far more so than the fear of energy shortage. Just like the natural occurring Uranium just under the surface of planet earth? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Just like the natural occurring Uranium just under the surface of planet earth? Uranium ore in its natural form is only slightly radioactive. It's not until is processed that it becomes dangerous. In fact a handful of uranium ore is about as radioactive as a bunch of bananas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 The UK should tackle several issues at once with this. If you are unemployed, over weight or an immigrant, you should spend your free time on a bike which is attached to a dynamo which then feeds into the grid. If you don't produce enough electricity, you lose your benefits/NHS access/residency. The unemployed will feel they have a sense of purpose, the fatties will get thin, and the immigrants will contribute to bringing everyones leccy bills down, meaning you have more for a beer at the weekend. Everyones a winner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 1, 2016 Author Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Ross. said: The UK should tackle several issues at once with this. If you are unemployed, over weight or an immigrant, you should spend your free time on a bike which is attached to a dynamo which then feeds into the grid. If you don't produce enough electricity, you lose your benefits/NHS access/residency. The unemployed will feel they have a sense of purpose, the fatties will get thin, and the immigrants will contribute to bringing everyones leccy bills down, meaning you have more for a beer at the weekend. Everyones a winner. Tea party member section for this p!sh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 30 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: Tea party member section for this p!sh. How long would I need to cycle in order to power the kettle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 1, 2016 Author Share Posted August 1, 2016 24 minutes ago, Ross. said: How long would I need to cycle in order to power the kettle? I want to see that water vaporize! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.