2000 AD Online Forum

I'm bewildered that people appear to be falling for New Labour's New Argument about New Nuclear.

Oh yes, if you thought you could complain about the still-present dangers of nuclear power, the past disasters, the unknown health effects, the subsidiary carbon emissions, the exhorbitant costs and the small matter of all that nuclear waste then you'll find yourself berated by New People for having an Old Brain and using Old Arguments.

Didn't you know that logic has a shelf-life?  I bet you're one of those Appeasers of Terror, as well, aren't you?

This post sponsored by New Labour:  Washing Lies Whiter Than The Next Leading Brand.

Oh, for goodness' sake.

As long as they build them all in, y'know, Scotland or Wales or whatever, what's the problem?  It's not like any Real People are going to suffer.

...at least not until we skyclad savages come bundling down across the border to beat the snot out of a few of you English pansies. With a haggis.

;-)

I know I'm going to regret this, but I remember watching something on TV last year (so it must be true) where some scientist bod or other who had formerly been against nuclear power (and I think was even a Greenpeace activist) has since arrived at the conclusion that although it's unsafe, there will be many accidents and people will even die- it's better than the alternatives on offer in the long run.

I think it might have been that program about 'global dimming', but I could be wrong.

I think his argument was that the only way we can get enough power at the moment is by burning fossil fuels (and no matter what we're told, windmills and wave farms just don't and can't supply enough power) - and that this is killing us faster than nuclear power will.

It's the lesser evil.  Apparently.

I wish I could remember more- it was certainly very interesting.  I particularly liked the fact that he didn't try to sell it as a safe option- just the only option that didn't involve adding to climate change that could actually supply us with the power that we need.

JEB, I totally respect that argument.

It's the bullshit the government is trotting out that I object to.  (Stuff like 'it's totally clean', when it's not, because there are subsidiary carbon-emissions from prepping the fuel and switching the things on and so on.  Oh, and the corker about Chernobyl being the only nuclear disaster ever and not being all that bad really:  conveniantly forgetting about 3-mile Island, Windscale and the fact that Chernobyl still isn't a very safe place.)

I saw this picture in an exhibition of photographs from that 'Earth from above' book - it was chilling then and still is.  There's a town in the north of Norway that gets all it's power from tidal power.  It helps that only about eight people live there, though.  Ahh, the Norwegians - bless 'em!

The issue with the revival of Nuclear Power is that at this moment in time there is no other way of generating the power we need without resorting to either Nuclear or Fossil Fuels.

Even with large amounts of invesment the technologies involved with Wind/Solar/Wave power are not mature enough to fulfill our needs quickly enough.  Nuclear however is, and is a lot cleaner/safer/etc than it was 30/40 years ago.

However the cost of Nuclear, not to mention the problem of disposal of waste ("I don't want a Wind Turbine in my back yard, but I'll have a waste disposal center", Yeah Right!) still make it to me an untenable solution.

Bollocks - all this talk of untenable alternatives stems purely from the need to continue wastful energy output for a consumer-led first world. In other words, putting our vast and mostly unecessary consumption of electricity to run kettles, televisions and playstations ahead of stuff we actually need.
If push comes to shove, we can exist on much smaller levels of energy than we do at the minute, but try telling that to your burger-chomping, sky tv watching electorate.  Much easier to bulldoze through legislation while sweeping sensible arguements aside.  Worked for Iraq.

There are a few points I'm not clear on in this debate.

-Nuclear is cleaner/safer etc than it was n years ago.

Is it?  And to what degree?  For example, it may be that it produces 90% of the waste that it did.  That's not much of a reduction.  I don't know the actual figures.  We may have the technology to make it safer, but if a private company is looking after things, then their main concern will be profit, not safety.  Look at the rail companies.  They cut back on safety, people die and they get rewarded for this by the government, who then subsidises them with more money.  No company manager is ever brought to book.  Why should a private nuclear power company behave differently?  And the cost of a disaster could be the abandonment of a city for a very long time indeed, as opposed to a quickly repaired rail terminal.

- Technologies such as wind/solar/wave aren't ready to cope.

Again, aren't they?  What would be involved in getting them ready?  I don't know the facts here, either.  I just wonder if nuclear (tried and tested) is more favourable for the business community, who then hire scientists to back up their desires with some facts.  Like the govnt. did before invading Iraq (which has worked out well).

My only sensible comment here is that we shouldnt put all our eggs in one basket.  It seems to me totally outrageous that we are almost completely reliant on fossil fuels, given that they are a finite amount.  

Surely the most sensible method would be to reduce the amount that uses fossil fuels whilst increasing other forms of energy (nuclear, wind, tidal, water, geothermic).  Putting all our reliance on once form would only convince me that the power that be couldnt manage a piss up in the proverbial brewery!

Of course the argument that we should reduce our own energy output at the sametime is merely common sense.  Ive personally reduced my own household bills by about 100GBP a year, by switching off all unused electrical items until they are needed (no standby allowed), of course a little goverment push in that direction would be good too!!!
 

Slips    

I've read/seen recently somewhere is that noone really knows how much we can get from wind/tidal etc. The extreme greens say (by cutting back) we can get all we need, others less that 20% (even if we put up all the wind farms we can)

But we need more nuclear powerstations to build more bombs anyway...

The companies making nuclear power have more money and influence that those making renewable power. Who is the goverment gonna bow to?

Seems easy to me...

At first, you don't have the technology to make power from efficient renewable sources, so you use fossil fuel and nuclear instead - to get you to a state when renewable technology is advanced enough to take over. Then you build wind farms and solar panels, and shut down all the old coal and nuclear power stations.

That's how it works in Sim City anyway.

M@

Was going to mention the cutbacks in usage but had to bugger off to a meeting... but its probably the most valid point.  There are technologies out there such as CHP that can help on a community scale.

From what I've read, the modern Nuke stations don't necessarily create less waste than they used to, its more that we know more about the waste produced and how to look after it "safely".

The way I see it, the problem with Wind is nimbyism and the lack of investment - however many of the renewables are seasonal.  mBanners post is v. valid

In terms of renewables, I think I read that if each house in England had just one solar panel on the roof then we'd cut the amount of power we needed to generate by 50%. Aapparently, modern solar panels can work all day in all weather conditions - but remain ludicrously expensive!

Nuclear power is the cheapest to run, the capital cost is highest though. It is the cleanest of the non renewable power sourse (releases no Carbon dioxide of Sulpher dioxide). It's far more efficent than it used to be.

Renewable sources are far more exspensive are very innefficinet. They no longer recyle uranium from nulear plants as it now so efficient that they is little gained by doing so.

Also i don't know where you got your information but nuclear plants are normally only started up once, as it takes 10 hours to start from cold, so they run constantly.

solar panels are only 17% efficent, so it remains the most expensive, but the latest developments will mean that in about 15 years time they should be 90% efficent. And be affordable in 25+

Which sadley is a long way off.

Those figures are based on current production costs of the technology though, Max.  More panels being sold means the cost of production becomes reduced - the lack of investment in solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-electric power sources means that they remain more expensive and outside the price range of most people wanting a cheap way of reducing their energy usage from fossil sources.
Plus, there's the benefit of having nuclear power - you get a sizeable chuink of contributions to your party from the nuclear lobby.  It's not like Labour are spending their own money, just the taxpayer's - but it does create dividends for themselves and the party.

>I think I read that if each house in England had just one solar panel on the roof then we'd cut the amount of power we needed to generate by 50%

Where did you read that?! It might be half the water heating costs or something. (Or if you had a VERY energy efficient house... like treble heat resistant glass in all windows etc)

"where I get my information from"

Well, you know - my brain - with all it's faults and tics.  Aye, of course, they only start up once.  I heard on the news someone going on about the CO2 released in some associated process that is required for the plant to run at all.  Unfortunately, that's all I remember, so I just spouted something similar in order to back up my opinion.

Not sure about this business of solar panels being too expensive.  They probably are too expensive for you or I to purchase, but then so's a nuclear power station.  And a broken solar panel isn't going to irradiate the neighbourhood.

What we really need is one of those giant sun-powered lasers that can destroy cities, like wot baddies in Bond movies use.  We could use that to heat up the gulf stream, boil potatoes, warm up my car in the morning...

On the subject of renewables as part of buildings, the company I work for commonly specifies sustainable options on the designs we make, however the PVs, Wind Turbines, etc are almost always the first casualty of "Value Engineering".

i think one plate is about 10 grand, you'd need about 3. they can only work half the time and are only 17% efficient, the only place it's econmical to use them is near the equator. And the government does sudsadise them, not sure how much, 15% i think

But only an idiot (or Tony Blair) would put all his eggs into the nuclear basket, regardless of how innefficient the alternatives are.  

In the time it takes us to build Nuclear power stations, we could have made any of the alternatives more viable (I think the figure bandied around is 10 years) with a dual approach.

Slips

it's 30 years if the group that oversaw all the research are to be believed

the only place it's econmical to use them is near the equator

Really?

Forgot the link ...

The link

Dammit! That's the wrong link. Still, it does nicely link to a renewable energy that's not yet been mentioned - thermal power from the ground!!

Just before I left Harrogate I reported on a whole village in North Yorkshire that's been provided with virtually-free heating thanks to this technology!

different type of panal, that's for heating not electricity

Regardless, there's an MP who's just finished his eco-house in London - the solar panels on that produce so much that he sells electricity back to the National Grid. It was in the Independent a few weeks ago, damned if I can find it on the net ...

Found it:

Is this the greenest house in Britain?
It's self-electricity-generating, water-recycling, volcanic-rock-faced, low-flush toileted - and belongs to an MP

Most MPs are happy to sound off about the problems of climate change. But few are willing to alter their lifestyles to actually tackle it.

One Labour minister, however, has taken the warnings about carbon emissions literally, selling his conventional constituency home to build one of the greenest houses in Britain.

Alan Simpson has raised ?200,000 to convert a derelict lace mill into a state-of-the-art energy-saving residence which produces its own electricity and stores and recycles "grey water" from baths, showers and gutters. The eco-house has its own generator, a miniature wind turbine, and a roof studded with solar panels.

The outside walls are rendered with recycled volcanic rock and insulated with crushed wood; the internal walls are made of recycled cardboard.

Because it is so energy efficient, the house produces 50 per cent more energy than it uses. When he moves in next month, the MP for Nottingham South will not have to pay monthly electricity bills, but will receive cash back. "The house is so efficient it feeds into the national grid," he said.

"Everyone is going to have to reduce their carbon footprint on the planet. I am hoping that my house will be part of a new approach to living.

"The real challenge would be to take what is happening in my home and make other affordable houses like it - and then the development of sustainable energy systems for whole cities."

The small industrial building, in Nottingham's historic Lace Market, was derelict when the MP for Nottingham South spotted it. Its only inhabitants for the past 40 years had been hundreds of pigeons. After months of adaptation, the Victorian mill has been transformed.

Its in-built ventilation is based on a Babylonian cooling system developed 4,000 years ago. And in a nod to the wattle and daub insulation methods of bygone days, the walls are lined with straw. Low-flush lavatories were imported from Italy, while hi-tech windows let ultra-violet light in but not out.

A "grey water" recycling unit ensures that no water is wasted, but cleans, stores and reuses it. Clothes will be washed in an energy-efficient washing machine with the contents of baths, gutters and showers. Even the washing-up water will be recycled while the potato peelings will be composted. The self-generating power shower requires no electricity at all.

The stair treads are recycled from old wood, the floor matting is composed of recycled materials, and glass panels on each floor mean that artificial light is needed only after dark. A wind turbine onthe side of the house will generate power while the solar-panelled roof constantly absorbs energy from the sun.

This week the finishing touches will be put to the tubular cardboard walls. But many of the lace mill's original features, including the Victorian brickwork and wood floors, have been retained during the conversion.

The Nottingham architect Julian Marsh, who designed the eco-residence in consultation with Mr Simpson, said the aim was to integrate "green technology and modern design".

"We have tried to reuse timber, we have reused all the brickwork and slates and we have worked with the shape of the existing building to create a clean, modern interior," he said.

Marie Woolf, Political Editor, The Indpendent, 16 October 2005

And I also found this ...

Solar Power is an even more obvious alternative to fossil fuels, and the technology dates back to 1839.

Power conversion efficiencies are now as high as 30 percent, and the costs of solar cells ... has fallen a hundred-fold. A typical small system now costs as little as $6 per watt of production capacity, whereas on large-scale projects, costs as lows as $3 are possible ...

The disadvantage ... is that a means must be found to store electrical power for use ... at night or on cloudy days. The typical solution is a bank of batteries, which require maintenance and add substantially to the system's cost. A complete system ... may represent an investment of more than ?20,000 for even an energy-conserving home.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) and thermal-electric technologies present us once again with the problem we noted concerning nuclear power and wind: electricity cannot easily be made to power our current transportation and agriculture infrastructure.

I'm totally for modern, safe efficient nuclear power stations that are purely for the purpose of generating power - previously we've never really had a nuclear power program that wasn't geared towards creating material for nuclear weapons. Unfortunately I think theres also been noises made about updating our "nuclear deterrant", so you can see where this new enthusiasm for nuclear power is coming from...

Interesting.  All I need now is about 200 grand and I can set about refurbishing my house to the same spec...

I know I'm going to regret this, but I remember watching something on TV last year (so it must be true) where some scientist bod or other who had formerly been against nuclear power (and I think was even a Greenpeace activist) has since arrived at the conclusion that although it's unsafe, there will be many accidents and people will even die- it's better than the alternatives on offer in the long run.

James Lovelock?

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

An interetsing peice on the AGR Reactor at Torness...

Link: "Nothing like this will be built again"

damn, ive come over ranty...

why can't i have a windmill in my back yard ?  and if its not windy enough, hell i'll switch off some lights.  i'll tell you why, it would cost something like 100K to get one past the planners, the whineing neighbours would whine that its spoiling their view of the trees they cut down..

what i'm saying is, the technology could be there for any number of alternatives, but big business & government keep it all well squashed with their own agendas.

Theres people north o me on scoraig peninsular, generate their own power from windmills, got away with it cos the planners couldnt be arsed walking 12 miles to harrass them.

check out the centre for alternative technology in wales for loads of cheap low tech ways of producing power.

if saving energy or generating more, in a sustainable way was on the agenda of those in power, it could be done. But its not & they won't.

i personally think all those pratts who complain about wind turbines spoiling their views of man-made rural desolation are in the governments thrall, as part of this slow creeping plot of make nukes friendly again, theyve been working up to it for a while now.

Grrrrr.

and blaming the consumer for waste? who generates the plastic packaging our food comes in? who generates the paranoia about food hygene? who generates the flithy farming methods that make food poisioning so dangerous ? It aint the consumer...

you could say the consumer demands masses of scoff, but i reckon most consumers want something healthier & more affordable. The food retail industry , is like other industrys led from the top down.

In Denmark and Germany that sort of thing is actively encouraged by the goverment, with subsidies etc. 20% of Denmarks energy consumption is met by wind power now...

I suspect that as soon as a fat subsidy is involved a lot of these farmers and countryside alliance types will start leaping at the idea of having their own little windfarm. You ever see a subsidy scheme a farmer didn't like?

Nuclear Power is going to be needed to generate the kind of power that will be needed to depricate fossil fuels, but getting serious about wind and energy efficiency is a big part of the puzzle too.

That's the fella!

Amazingly, I even seem to have quoted him correctly from memory as well...

yeah, that's very economical, once you've spent the 200 grand, which is what means it's not

The cost of ID Cards or the cost of subsidising renewable energy?

M@

And industry consumes far more power than domestic...

I seem to remember 10 years for a solar panel to pay for itself in savings? You are better spending the money on decent lagging.

>You ever see a subsidy scheme a farmer didn't like?

That reminds me of the 'this year I'm growing money!' on Spitting Image.

Course, we'll never get to Mars without some form of nuclear combustion engine...

:: I seem to remember 10 years for a solar panel to pay
:: for itself in savings?

I also remember when recordable CDs cost about ?10 EACH. Now, they cost pennies, because more people are using them. The cost of solar panels would plummet if they were more regularly used.

I personally reckon the UK should be doing a two-pronged attack on the energy issue. It's clear that oil is running low and that it should be conserved as much as possible, and that alternative sources of energy should be used instead. The government should be heavily pushing hybrid cars (via tax breaks and subsidies).

In terms of home/office energy, every new building in the UK should be required by law to have solar panelling on the roof, without exception. Wind farms should be constructed en masse, and as long as the construction is done carefully (following the land, or placed out at sea), they can actually look OK. However, there will be a short-term shortfall, and nuclear is the best solution for that (unless we want to be in massive, massive recession when the North Sea oil is no longer economical to extract).

Nuclear isn't particularly safe, and it's hardly the friendliest source of energy, but it is a necessity right now until the country has time to move to cleaner types?however, the government should be doing all it can to push cleaner forms at the same time.

yeah, that's very economical, once you've spent the 200 grand, which is what means it's not

You've missed my point - ?200k is for the WHOLE house he built, with all its other environmentally-friendly tech. However, the point I was making was about his solar panels - which still produce enough electricity (even without the other stuff) to sell energy back to the grid. They are economical in this country, and as the others have pointed out, the more we produce the cheaper they get.

No, he converted a derelict lace mill- that means you still have to buy the property first- and even a derelict lace mill will set you back quite a bit.

A public toilet on Narborough Road went for ?80,000 not long after I bought my first house for ?87,500.  A public toilet!

And you're still saying ?200,000 as though that's in everyone's budget!

One of the major issues with any conversion/build like the one linked is the efficency of the insulation/building itself.  The majority of buildings that manage to sell electricity back to the grid have amazingly good insulation and the lowest energy heating/lighting/etc that money can buy.

That way the demands on the PVs etc can be greatly reduced.  Again it's the whole picture thinking that is needed on this topic.

There are loads of different ways we can all be more energy-efficient.

TOOWOOMBA - Bowel cancer victim George Bryant said yesterday he has created an alternative fuel source for his moped.

"It screams," Mr Bryant told The Australian Times.

Mr Bryant said he first thought of the idea when he was in rehabilitation and was in a ward full of people recovering from the same surgery.

"The smell was quite horrific and rancid. I was concerned that if someone struck a match we would all go up," Mr Bryant said.

The rehabilitation period in hospital lasted four weeks and Mr Bryant noticed the different smells that emanated from the changes in diets.

"I also noticed that some foods went faster through the system and made the bags swell more than others. Red meat was the one that came to mind first," he said.

Mr Bryant said he also was plagued by the problem of getting back to work after the surgery and was considering buying a motorcycle because he would not have the energy to use his bicycle.

"Lucky I am a motor fitter," he said. "During the breaks at work I tried many different fuel sources but none worked. Then one of the guys I worked with suggested my bag was on the nose. Then I remembered the ward smell."

Mr Bryant said he only needed to adjust the needle and seat on his fuel system to a smaller jet and retarded the timing and the motor ran after only four attempts.

" I used a small weed-eater motor and started to trial the bike on weekends," he said. "One time I ran low on gas and had to rush into a fast food shop for some kabana to get the juices flowing again."

Since that occasion Mr Bryant said he carried a container of small goods with him in case the bag started to run low.

"I keep a good selection of beef jerky, salami, and kabana on hand when I am in heavy traffic," he said.

Link: Australian Times

No, he converted a derelict lace mill- that means you still have to buy the property first- and even a derelict lace mill will set you back quite a bit.
And you're still saying ?200,000 as though that's in everyone's budget!

Eh? Now I have to admit I'm confused - Max said solar panels aren't economical and are only good for heating, not for producing electricity. I posted the article about the MP because it shows that solar panels ARE able to produce more than adequate amounts of electricity to run a house and sell on to the grid. I never suggested that it was economical for ordinary people to do what he's done - but you don't have to buy and convert a property to have solar panels. It certainly doesn't cost ?200,000 to install solar panels - very much considerably less in fact.

And since when was I suggesting ?200,000 was within peoples' budgets?!

Apologies- I was skim reading and taking note of the wrong point.  However, what's done is done and, needless to say, you remain an idiot...

;)

Yeah, but it's capital costs which make it uneconomic, as said in my original post.

It's an interesting perversion of solar power that just about everyone assumes that in order to use it you must go out, buy it and fit it.

That's not the case with coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind or tidal energy, so why does it have to be the case with solar?

The government should look at creating solar farms (possibly on the same sites as wind-farms), use solar-tech in their council buildings and provide subsidies for private companies building new housing schemes to incorporate solar-tech in their constructions.

It shouldn't be up to individuals to go to Solar Panel World (just as you wouldn't install a mini-nuclear reactor in your garden shed, unless you were The Mekon).

The exhorbitant costs you mention are for private buyers, not the government.  That would be the same government that spends a considerable amount of money on nuclear bombs and other things that provide fuck all in return.

well actually, in 100 years mini nuclear reactors that turn house hold waste into electricity. It should be in about 50 when they have the tech to put anything into a reactor. And the waste won't be harmful either!!

He he, is that like the Back To The Future car, (once it returned at the end of the first film)?

Yessir!  Only another ten years to wait before I can go out and buy me a flying skateboard, nuclear powered car and shoes that lace themselves- hurrah!

Self-lacing jogging shoes, care of Abelard Snazz, The Two-Storey Brain!

I was thinking more along the lines of the Nikes that Marty McFly wore in Back to the Future 2.  Keep up, man!

well 50 years is a long way off, let alone 100. And unlike those mad ideas research into being able to use non radioactive products in a nuclear reactor is already underway, and once that is complete researching miniaturising it can begin.

Max

Pfff- in fifty years, I'll be dead and you'll be known as 'old man Max' and spend your time telling stories of the 'beforetime' to nosey kids in some post fossil fuel, flooded hellhole world that resembles the stone age.  Only set in a sauna.

Or something.

;)

psh no, i'll be called 'the most beloved Max Kon, Immortal ruler of all humanity'

And the world will be a happy place :)

Maybe by that time Max will be nuclear powered, and small nations will tremble in fear on curry night.

*TANGENT ALERT!*

Talking of nuclear energy and superhero powers, check out the strip by Jeremy Dennis, titled "Home and Garden Heroes", click on the thumbnail image of Firestorm the Nuclear Man halfway down the page to read it full size. (It was the Firestorm sketch that appealed to me in the first place).

Link: Nuclear powered help with the chores? "No thanks",

theres a lot called ecology.com  who give out morgages for sustainable type projects, renovation over new-builds... did you know you pay VAT on a restoration/renovation but not a new-build ? which is why its cheaper to knock down old houses.. stupid.
this lot are all for local materials etc too.

the whole system is fucking ridiculous when it comes to housing, me n bloke i worked with this cleaning new-build house 4 times bigger than mine, stunning , grand design type, 250K's worth or so?  we sat comparing times we & our children had been homeless, outside toilets, & both had been laughed at by the banks, i could only get a morgage of 10K & he was refused 17K, both of us work like stink.

what makes me RAGE, is that i have the technical / phsyical skill , to actually build a fucking house, or at least a cabin, and yes it would be a green bloody building. But Ohhh No , thanks to feudalism, & the increasing beurocratioc fashism of this country, we are simply not allowed. Its a conveyor belt of humanity, the poor get herded this way , the rich that, & the thin illusion of free will is cast around with the liberal use of words like democracy.

i liked on tv ( born in USSR ) recently a quote something like iirc " democracy is just anarchy & fighting over things "   ... i could be totally wrong.

Oh yeah , MOD ?
money ?
some MOD weapons exersise lads have been staying at my hotel ( not mine, just one of the FOUR jobs i'm currently doing ).. beyond the expense & logistics of moving these torpedos around the country, & the fact that 5 days out of 6 they say on arses due to bad weather, & the overtime they get paid, but they also were on ?100 per night expenses each, everynight theyre away, after evening meal...

tax payers money ?  government ? ARGHHHH GaKKK !

There are cheaper ways to go green than the ?200,000 hoose.

That nice Mr Gordon Proven at Proven Energy will sell you a 2.5kW (do a 3 bed room house) grid connected wind turbine for about ?11000. So you can sell the excess back to the grid. He'll sell you a battery backed one for about ?15K for those days the wind don't blow. Thats about the price of a family car.

They work in any wind conditions and they're pretty wee. I think there a some stuck on the Sainsburys in Greenwich.

Admittedly not much use  if you live in a flat, but anybody with a modest garden could have one.

It can be done, it just needs a bit of different thinking.

Mr Proven himself proposes an energy internet where there are no big power stations just thousands of little ones - basicaly one in every back garden. An interesting bloke to listen to.