# £18bn = 7%



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

So £18bn to generate 7% of our energy needs?

I wonder how much we could CUT our energy needs by spending that much on energy saving measures, with no need to pay billions more for decommissioning the thing later.

How many motorhomers now decide the answer to their energy needs is to tow a huge polluting generator around behind them so they can light their motorhome with incandescent lamps, save payload by dumping all the insulation in the walls, floor & roof & leave all the windows open day & night.

Why doesn't the Government apply the same principles to the country, as we apply to our motorhomes?


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I thought that it should have been made mandatory that all new buildings less than 6 floors after 2012 should have solar panels fitted. Then made it compulsory where possible for all other older houses and flats etc to have them by 2020. This surely would be better than all those wind farms, let alone this monstrosity.

cabby


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

agree about solar panels on all new buildings BUT as was pointed out to me, unless they have a South facing roof it is a waste of resources and if they are overshadowed by other buildings that doubles the waste of time.

To me, renewables should be being pushed much harder, not put on the back burner as they now have been. The NIMBY problems of wind should be overwritten by a Government decree - they do it for railways, airports and roads so turbines should have the same priority. Sadly as the logical place for many is in open country you are immediately up against land owners and similar groups representing their interests......

Those two measures alone would generate more than Hinckley C and would not require 130,000 years+ of looking after the waste when it's finished......

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

This will be the third* of this "new design" the one being built in Finland is 8 years overdue and massively over budget and the one in France is apparently 3 times over budget and nowhere near being finished. 


> EDF and Areva have been facing 'lengthy delays and steep cost overruns'[78] on EPRs being built at Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant in France and at Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland.


Would anyone buy a motorhome with a production record like that?

*Sorry make that fifth, there are 2 being built in China which (strangely) we hear little about the progress of.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Do any of the dams in this country generate electricity, or even a modern water wheel for fast flowing rivers etc.Small towns and villages could be better off sometimes being "off grid"

cabby


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Sadly, the concept of small water turbines generating small amounts of power have been rubbished as costing too much and being energy inefficient, but I am willing to bet they are more efficient than paying twice the market price for power as is being done with EDF.......

IMO if nuclear power is needed, it should be entirely a UK concern, using overseas e.g. EDF expertise on a consultation basis, but it should be paid for by the UK. If the UK cannot afford it, then the writing is on the wall - we cannot afford HS2, 3rd runway at Heathrow or any of the other major expenses.

Involving the Chinese is disgraceful IMO - they simply cannot be trusted ad are responsible for most of the fakes and copies imported to the UK - which fail safety standards every time they are tested (according to BBC reports)..... 

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Small scale generation is only rubbished by vested interests who do not want small scale generation they cannot control.

Unfortunately the vested interests have the money and clout to get listened to.

This is what they fear...............

https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/h...rning-centre/archimedean-screw-hydro-turbine/


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Biggest issue is the consistency of supply, as far as wind is concerned if it doesn't blow or blows too hard you have no generation, also because its mostly rural and on hillsides you need the infrastructure in place to get it to the grid. New wind sites have also been slowed because of infrastructure problems in rural areas.

Solar is also problematic, as we all know the sun doesn't shine often enough in the UK to generate anything like what's required.

Wave generation is likely to be the most consistent as far as large generation is concerned for the UK, some good work being done but it still lacks development to get it to the required level.


In my view the nuclear option is in response to a lack of vision going back years by all our governments and their lack of action in relation to an earlier move to new generation requirements, Smart Grid technology and energy storage options, whilst closing power stations. If the money had been invested earlier the panic now could have been avoided. 


As far as not trusting the Chinese, we need to get over it, as it no worse than relying on the current electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe, they could be quite easily disconnected. Even if the new station was UK built and run it would still be susceptible to being hacked, cyber war is the main danger to us all now, not Russian or Chinese tanks rolling down the road.


Terry


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Everyone I know who has Solar is very pleased with it* and I would far rather subsidise British homeowners to have panels on their roof, than massive French and Chinese Government corporations peddling untested and unproven technology.

*One person I know turns off his gas boiler in all but the coldest conditions and heats the house with electric now because he generates a surplus.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

I am constantly amazed that as we live on an island with some of the highest tidal ranges in the world, that more effort hasnt been put into harnessing that.

For a fraction of the £18Bn I would have thought wiith the high levels of engineering prowess we have in this country, we could crack this one.

Free electricity for as long as the moon stays up there in the black stuff!

Graham :smile2:


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Is there any technology on the cards to disguise solar panels as they don't half look a mess on the roof of houses especially if they are slapped on old houses in attractive villages.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

GMJ said:


> I am constantly amazed that as we live on an island with some of the highest tidal ranges in the world, that more effort hasnt been put into harnessing that.
> 
> For a fraction of the £18Bn I would have thought wiith the high levels of engineering prowess we have in this country, we could crack this one.
> 
> ...


It would certainly help but given that it would only generate when the tide is moving in or out, that only happens for about 10 hours a day. Again it needs to be part of agreed strategy to harness all options, as there is no silver bullet.

Some good info here.

http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/tidal.htm

Terry


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Fracking is one answer. Much better than wind that fails to generate electricity when it's often most needed such as periods of high pressure in the winter. A lot of people also forget the cost of having to subsidise standby fossil fuel forms of generation for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Apparently this coming winter it is necessary to have dozens of standby diesel generators dotted around the country to cover for when renewables aren't generating and traditional sources can't satisfy our needs. The environmental impact of firing up these diesels will be awful - far worse than gas.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Many years ago I was on a Committee (!) that was looking at the effects of a proposes tidal barrage in the River Severn - which has a massive tidal range......

The pluses were enormous as the energy was effectively free once the barrage had been built

The minuses were even more immense though - I cannot remember all of them but these are a few which were of particular relevance to me as a biologist;

1. short effective life span - the barrage would silt up within about 10 - 20 years according to the "experts".....

2. cessation of the world famous tidal bore - with the loss being heavily felt in the tourist industry......

3. destruction of the mud flats and inter-tidal habitats.....

4. the timing changes although to some extent the generation of power could be controlled....

Those are only the main ones that I can remember (20 years plus)....

so tidal schemes are not limitless and free, the cost of building barrages is high and their life-span short.

Dave


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

; *Cancel Hinkley, Because It Ain't Worth It*










This chart from Bloomberg Energy is devastating. For the same budget as Hinkley we could get 20 gigawatts more electricity from gas, or the same for a fraction of the cost. Even solar would produce more energy at that price. Though with green renewable sources the capacity has to be discounted to reflect how much of the time the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Even so, that renewables are anywhere near competitive in cost terms means this has to be looked at by Phil Hammond with his calculator. George Osborne looked at it in political terms - the Chinese and the French will no doubt create some geo-political problems if May cancels the deal.

tony


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Penquin said:


> Many years ago I was on a Committee (!) that was looking at the effects of a proposes tidal barrage in the River Severn - which has a massive tidal range......
> 
> The pluses were enormous as the energy was effectively free once the barrage had been built
> 
> ...


I'm not sure barrages are the answer for the reasons you give however suspended turbines might be. The tide moves through and then back again. Yes its only used for around half the day but the tides come in in different places at different times so that would be extended depending on which side of the country they were. I wouldnt suggest blocking a whole estuary but just using part of it. Keeping it off the sea floor would avoid the silting and having a floating mechanism would enable it to follow the water level.

The other side to this is harnessing the waves which are constant regardless of whether the tide is in or out.

I know these things are all being looked at however I dont think there is the impetus currently to give them the push they need. As I say...for a fraction of Hinckley some of these problems could be cracked I reckon.

Graham :smile2:


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The problem with harvesting wave power has been anchoring the apparatus - the sea makes a mockery of the best engineering efforts..... the power contained within a 1m high wave would be sufficient to power a city the size of Birmingham for one day - getting even a fraction out has proved VERY difficult and sadly the research has not been given a high priority yet untested, unproved nuclear stations are being championed.....

All sorts of methods have been tried with very limited success - there is a hub situated off Cornwall's North coast waitng for trials to be attached - but so far it has not been taxed by people or companies wanting to trial systems.....

Submerged turbines have been considered but are often rejected not only due to anchorage problems but because they MIGHT harm protected animals such as cetaceans......

Sadly, even schemes to put wind turbines off the North Devon Coast have been rejected as they might "impair the visual amenity" and so upset tourists........ I wonder if the same tourists would prefer to have no power for their air conditioning, mobile phones, electric cars, fans, lights and so on......and there is not enough being generated......?

This Government sadly, has given in to the big power generators and does not want to encourage small generation even though lots of small is much more reliable than one large....

It is time energy conservation was made a very high priority, but there is no money in that for the Government.......

cynical aren't I..... (can't put correct smilies as they are all in different places now...) :nerd::crying: (note the tear on that is now on the other side of the face....):crying:

Dave


----------



## vicdicdoc (May 14, 2005)

I'm glad I don't live anywhere remotely near to this Chinese bodgeup - when it goes Tits up.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

vicdicdoc said:


> I'm glad I don't live anywhere remotely near to this Chinese bodgeup - when it goes Tits up.


Sorry, but you're deluded, Wrexham isn't remote enough to escape the fallout if the cauldron boils, unless they've moved Wrexham to the central Pacific. >

Terry


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Penquin said:


> The problem with harvesting wave power has been anchoring the apparatus - the sea makes a mockery of the best engineering efforts..... the power contained within a 1m high wave would be sufficient to power a city the size of Birmingham for one day - getting even a fraction out has proved VERY difficult and sadly the research has not been given a high priority yet untested, unproved nuclear stations are being championed.....
> 
> All sorts of methods have been tried with very limited success - there is a hub situated off Cornwall's North coast waitng for trials to be attached - but so far it has not been taxed by people or companies wanting to trial systems.....
> 
> ...


The easy way to solve the problem is to not need the power in the first place.

I'm in favour of giving everyone a carbon allowance and when it's used up - tough. 
That should cut down on imports of cheap chinese christmas lights, if it's a choice of walking to work in the New Year or cutting out the "festive" light display.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> I'm in favour of giving everyone a carbon allowance and when it's used up - tough.


I'm not saying it will never happen but the practicalities are immense. Presumably people living in the countryside miles from public transport will need a larger allowance? And then those who work anti-social hours when public transport isn't running will also need one? Will people be able to trade their allowance if they don't use it all? If so then you will have a two tier system with the well to do carrying on as before and the poor being a little bit less poor but possibly disadvantaged in other ways.

An easier way of achieving the same is to simply increase taxation on all forms of energy but again that impacts upon the poorest the most.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

peribro said:


> An easier way of achieving the same is to simply increase taxation on all forms of energy but again that impacts upon the poorest the most.


It doesn't, as all that does is make the same unlimited amount of energy more expensive - the allocation way limits the total amount of energy available.

And no, everybody would get the same allowance how/why they choose to use it up is down to them and their own personal choice. Perhaps people might then think hard before driving vast distances to and from work for instance. We might also see cars with more than one person in them.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Penquin said:


> The problem with harvesting wave power has been anchoring the apparatus - the sea makes a mockery of the best engineering efforts..... the power contained within a 1m high wave would be sufficient to power a city the size of Birmingham for one day - getting even a fraction out has proved VERY difficult and sadly the research has not been given a high priority yet untested, unproved nuclear stations are being championed.....
> 
> All sorts of methods have been tried with very limited success - there is a hub situated off Cornwall's North coast waitng for trials to be attached - but so far it has not been taxed by people or companies wanting to trial systems.....
> 
> ...


I was thinking of hanging them under the arches of bridges. Not all the arches as boats/ships may need passage, but maybe one or two. Then have them on sensors so that they rise/fall to the optiumum level with the tide.

I am no engineer as you can tell from this naive viewpoint so I do bow to your greater knowledge.

I think you summed it up though when you said "...and sadly the research has not been given a high priority..."

Graham :serious:

PS I also agree that the daily "search for the correct smiley" is starting to wear a little:







*VS...stop messing around and get on with some proper work *:wink2:


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Stanner said:


> The easy way to solve the problem is to not need the power in the first place.
> 
> I'm in favour of giving everyone a carbon allowance and when it's used up - tough.


Scenario;

ITC unit in a hospital....

*Consultant;* _"I am sorry Mrs Stanner but your husband has now used up his allocated carbon quota since the hospital is heated and he came in an ambulance, we therefore have to turn off his life support system following his heart valve surgery, he was doing very well but did not have the carbon reserves needed to complete his recovery"_ :crying::crying:

*Mrs S.* _"It's OK, it's what he would have wanted, he always said we had to live within our carbon footprint, but will I be able to have him cremated as that needs yet more energy?"_:surprise:

*Consultant;* _"No, sorry, the Government has decreed that he has used his energy quota so he will have to be recycled as dog food"_.....:wink2:

OK, imaginative (I hope), but any such system would be impossible to allocate or control and some people would exploit differences between e.g different countries or even counties......:frown2:

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Good point BUT...

It could only be applied to an individual's _discretionary_ use of energy, otherwise you would have streetlights going out when certain cars drove along a road and then coming on again for others. *

It could also be that self generated energy was exempt from the total or it could even gain the generator credits.

All exercise bikes & machines in Gyms could, instead of simply generating heat through the resistance brake, be converted to generate electricity - if the exerciser(s) do(es)n't pedal, row or run fast enough MTV goes off on the tv in front of them and the lights in the Gym go out.

PS cars are now fitted with very good lights so why are main (not residential) roads still lit - I'd make an exception for junctions though.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Roads are lit for the safety of residents and pedestrians - people are wary of lunatics driving without lights as can be seen often.

Quite why MOST street lights are not turned off from say 0030 until 0600 and traffic lights for the same I have never really followed and IMO shops should NOT be allowed to light their windows and their exteriors (as do churches). I suspect that Government Offices have the lights on 24/7 but wonder how much time work is actually being done in them......

The other problem with even discretionary carbon allocations would be the immense bureaucracy needed for such a thing, and what about visitors or Barry going away for months on end? Would they have a temporary allocation and would Barry's use simply be reduced as he is elsewhere?

Sadly this is not solely a UK problem but worldwide and if we cannot even get any agreement between 28 countries how on earth can we ever expect to get 196 to all agree to the same system? The USA would opt out immediately due to the pressure of the energy industry, third world would opt out because _"it is not fair that you have used it all up, we want our share"_

So, I very much doubt that would ever get off the ground (getting off the ground is very energy inefficient anyway).

Dave


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Stanner said:


> Good point BUT...
> 
> It could only be applied to an individual's _discretionary_ use of energy, otherwise you would have streetlights going out when certain cars drove along a road and then coming on again for others. *
> 
> ...


Sorry Stanner but I think you will find that according to the post #24 you are now dead...so could you kindly stop posting?

Graham :grin2:


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

barryd said:


> Is there any technology on the cards to disguise solar panels as they don't half look a mess on the roof of houses especially if they are slapped on old houses in attractive villages.


 I read, a while back, that you can get pv tiles to use as roof tiles. Why are we not investing in bringing those within reach of builders so that all roofs are tiles with them?

I totally agree with those that say we should be harnessing the tides. The trouble is that we have no visionaries any more. It is all about quick fixes to win the next election.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Penquin said:


> a
> Those two measures alone would generate more than Hinckley C and would not require 130,000 years+ of looking after the waste when it's finished......
> 
> Dave


I strongly doubt it'll matter Dave, whatever is left of the human race by then will be quite toxic in it's own way, or we'll have either flown off to another planet to devour, or some disaster will have befallen us leaving the planet to the cockroaches.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

GMJ said:


> Sorry Stanner but I think you will find that according to the post #24 you are now dead...so could you kindly stop posting?
> 
> Graham :grin2:


No sorry, energy use in places such as hospitals is non-discretionary carbon consumption (unless it is a private hospital) as with all other public services and even places such as pubs, theatres and cinemas (I would exclude opera and ballet from that as they are rubbish) energy consumption resulting from viewing either would be "double word score".

My plan would have the advantage of encouraging more use of cinemas, pubs and theatres because any energy use there would not be deducted from individual carbon allocations. It would also encourage walking to and from the pub which would have the added advantages of reducing drink driving and encouraging exercise to burn off the extra calories from the booze intake.

It would also discourage irresponsible parenting, such as leaving your children behind at the pub - as if they were left behind, the family would also lose that child's carbon allowance.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Stanner said:


> such as leaving your children behind at the pub - as if they were left behind, the family would also lose that child's carbon allowance.


but if you made the assumption that the Security Personnel were bringing the child, would YOU still be held responsible or would the carbon allowance be stripped from the poor, underpaid, overworked and underappreciated Police Officer, trying to pay his central London Mortgage on a pay scale that has been curtailed by the actions of the person you were protecting?

Yet another example of the labour force being exploited to benefit the Ruling, Eton educated, leaders of the State.

Anyway, I am glad to hear that you have recovered so well in the suite that you were occupying for the duration of your stay - 1ns, the cost of those facilities will be deducted from your State Pension due to the recent Government decree on those exploiting the Benefits system by having the temerity to be unwell....

Have a Good Day, 'cos a bad one will cost you more.....:grin2:>:laugh:

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Penquin said:


> but if you made the assumption that the Security Personnel were bringing the child, would YOU still be held responsible or would the carbon allowance be stripped from the poor, underpaid, overworked and underappreciated Police Officer, trying to pay his central London Mortgage on a pay scale that has been curtailed by the actions of the person you were protecting?
> 
> Yet another example of the labour force being exploited to benefit the Ruling, Eton educated, leaders of the State.
> 
> ...


But that would rely on the said offspring being chipped and tagged as now required for all dogs.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Stanner said:


> No sorry, energy use in places such as hospitals is non-discretionary carbon consumption (unless it is a private hospital) as with all other public services and even places such as pubs, theatres and cinemas (I would exclude opera and ballet from that as they are rubbish) energy consumption resulting from viewing either would be "double word score".
> 
> My plan would have the advantage of encouraging more use of cinemas, pubs and theatres because any energy use there would not be deducted from individual carbon allocations. It would also encourage walking to and from the pub which would have the added advantages of reducing drink driving and encouraging exercise to burn off the extra calories from the booze intake.
> 
> It would also discourage irresponsible parenting, such as leaving your children behind at the pub - as if they were left behind, the family would also lose that child's carbon allowance.







Graham :smile2:

PS Wecome back (from the dead)..nice post btw :grin2:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Who is Gordon?


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Stanner said:


> Who is Gordon?


I couldnt find a "Stanner's alive" so knicked the classic Brian Blessed line fromn Flash Gordon instead:wink2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

GMJ said:


> I couldnt find a "Stanner's alive" so knicked the classic Brian Blessed line fromn Flash Gordon instead:wink2:
> 
> Graham :smile2:


Ohh just thought you might be Graham Fellows aka "Jilted John"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Fellows

Introduced here by Maggie's best mate


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Ooooeeeerrr it dunt wurk.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Yes it does, click on the view in Youtube link.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Stanner said:


> Yes it does, click on the view in Youtube link.


Oh no it doesn't !

Well not for me :frown2:

Terry


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

dghr272 said:


> Oh no it doesn't !
> 
> Well not for me :frown2:
> 
> Terry


Nor me...

...I can remember it from TOTP's though at the time!

Wierd stuff!

Graham (not the chap who sang it btw) :grin2:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Just worked perfectly again, clicked on the arrow, then on the play in youtube link and this URL plays.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

and again that works OK.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

ah yes...gotcha

Put off by the nice reminder of Saville though :frown2:

Graham :serious:


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Soz, just a black screen, maybe needs flash player, not on my iPad.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

dghr272 said:


> Soz, just a black screen, maybe needs flash player, not on my iPad.


I have no idea 1 if youtube uses flash or 2 if ipads have flash, but surely you must be able to view youtube on an ipad or there would have been a revolution by now.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Well yeah I can view YouTube stuff, all I'm saying is yours won't open, sorry to disappoint but no revolution starting here. I'll survive without viewing thank you.


----------

