RSPB and renewable energy

[shelli]

I grew up on Teesside - you can't scare me!!

 

[Craig]

I agree with AMc, as there does seem to be some element of NIMBYism about the debate. I grew up in Riccall, near Selby, and from the roof of my friend's wind mill (no sails) we could see 3 coal powered power stations (Drax, Ferrybridge and Eggborough) as well as them opening up coal mines all around to feed them. I would have been happy if they had been wind mills.

 

[skier-hughes]

I liked looking out over Rugeley coal fired power station at our old house, particularly when it was lit up in the dark.
In Staffs we have up for planning approval a waste incinerator, it's quite close, not in viewing distance, and I'm for it.

 

[Edwardia]

Like many people in this bit of Kent we have EDFto supply electricty & gas. Recently the company sent us 4 free low energy bulbs. Have just signed up to freeze our electricity prices to Sept 2009 as it saved us loads last time and to their reduce your carbon footprint initiative. Locally power is a mix. There's nuclear at Dungeness, and wind farms in Romney Marsh and off the North Kent coast. There's also a cable under the sea which brings in electricity from France at peak times.

 

[biffvernon]

and issue of disposal has long been solved.

Well at least that made laugh.

But back to reality, here's some reading for those who care to find out more about the growing CO2 output of nuclear power:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i07/html/es702249v.html
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/uranium

 

[Flyfisher]

British Gas has sent us two boxes of low-energy light bulbs recently - pity they waited until we'd already swapped out our old filament bulbs.

As for freezing prices, isn't it funny how energy prices shot up when oil prices hit new highs of around $180/barrel but show no sign of coming down now that oil is down to around $80. Hmm.

As for electricity generation, it's all very well swapping papers on the minutiae of different technologies, but where's the plan for addressing the generally accepted shortfall that's looming as a result of capacity decommissioning during the next decade? Nuclear/coal might not be ideal but at least it provides a solution and is increasingly looking like the 'least worst' option.

Simply saying that we must reduce our consumption by some huge amount and build more windmills is about as helpful as saying we can solve road congestion by not using our cars and cycling more - it might be true in theory but is not a practical proposition.

 

[biffvernon]

To be a little pedantic, oil never got to $180. The peak for WTI on NYMEX was $147, and that was only briefly and not a great volume traded at that price.

Nuclear does not provide a solution for the generation gap over the coming decade. It will take at least ten years before a new nuke generates it's first watt.

'Saying that we must reduce our consumption by some huge amount' is not a theory but the reality. Whether one likes it or not does not alter that reality. Building wind turbines does something to mitigate the pain.

 

[AMc]

Simply saying that we must reduce our consumption by some huge amount and build more windmills is about as helpful as saying we can solve road congestion by not using our cars and cycling more - it might be true in theory but is not a practical proposition.

Interesting to note my partner works in insurance. Since petrol shot past the £1 a litre point there has been a substantial decrease in motor claims (comparing like for like with previous years in the same period). Which suggests fewer and/or slower journeys as the cost increased - not least beyond a psychological 'tipping point'.

As fuel oil has gone from 35p a litre when we bought this house (Nov 06) to over 55p a litre in the last delivery I have certainly kept a closer eye on the thermostat, turned off the heating when the house was empty overnight etc. And I've always considered myself pretty careful on that front. If your fuel bill is a substantial part of your cost of living then I imagine you've been even more circumspect.

The cold hard realities are going to bite and as the costs increase people will alter their behaviour. The challenge is to encourage people to reduce their demand to make them richer rather than people being forced to modify their behaviour because they can't afford not to.

 

[Penners]

here's some reading for those who care to find out more about the growing CO2 output of nuclear power:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i07/html/es702249v.html
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/uranium

Biff - I know as much about thermonuclear reaction as I do about lime plaster (ie: bu**er all). And the following question will undoubtedly highlight this ignorance.

But the question of peak uranium in your second link is an interesting one. I remember something called a "fast breeder reactor" that - to a layman like me - sounded as though it produced additional nuclear fuel (in some form) as a byproduct during its primary function of heating water to steam.

I know it sounds like perpetual motion, but is this the case? If so, why can't we build this type of reactor to reduce our reliance on freshly mined uranium?

 

[Flyfisher]

To be a little pedantic, oil never got to $180. The peak for WTI on NYMEX was $147, and that was only briefly and not a great volume traded at that price.

Fair point, seems the $180 figure was a prediction. But the current price is still a lot lower than it was (as reflected by recently reduced petrol prices) yet there's no hint, that I've seen, that electricity/gas prices are going to come down.

Nuclear does not provide a solution for the generation gap over the coming decade. It will take at least ten years before a new nuke generates it's first watt.

Quite probably, hence the proposals for coal-powered generation in the meantime.

'Saying that we must reduce our consumption by some huge amount' is not a theory but the reality. Whether one likes it or not does not alter that reality.

No, that's not the reality - is it? Such statements are clearly and demonstrably wrong when we are sitting on sufficient coal reserves that would keep us in electricity for a few hundred years. I appreciate there will be consequences of burning all that coal, some of which we might not like, but to say we must hugely reduce our energy consumption is simply not correct and, I think, harms the green argument.

The reality is that we have difficult choices to make and the associated consequences to endure.

 

[Flyfisher]

I remember something called a "fast breeder reactor" that - to a layman like me - sounded as though it produced additional nuclear fuel (in some form) as a byproduct during its primary function of heating water to steam.

Yes, such reactors can produce plutonium, which is not found naturally (on Earth anyway). Indeed, I believe there are about 10 'new' elements that have been produced in nuclear reactors.

 

[Penners]

But is plutonium a reactor fuel? Or is it simply a weapons-grade material?

 

[Flyfisher]

Don't see why not - Uranium can be used for both (there endeth my knowledge of nuclear physics without recourse to Google).

 

[Edwardia]

As fuel oil has gone from 35p a litre when we bought this house (Nov 06) to over 55p a litre in the last delivery I have certainly kept a closer eye on the thermostat, turned off the heating when the house was empty overnight etc. And I've always considered myself pretty careful on that front. If your fuel bill is a substantial part of your cost of living then I imagine you've been even more circumspect.

The cold hard realities are going to bite and as the costs increase people will alter their behaviour. The challenge is to encourage people to reduce their demand to make them richer rather than people being forced to modify their behaviour because they can't afford not to.

When I was a kid, I remember visiting relatives who turned off every light bar the ones in the room they were in. I grew up in houses with central heating, but when I was very young my grandmother lived in a cold three storey Victorian house without it.

These days, people seem to keep most of the lights on and the central heating turned up so they can walk around in tshirts. It's too hot in the house to wear a cardigan or jumper.

My husband, has been on the receiving end of one too many energy-saving memos by email I think, because although we have a low carbon footprint, he wanders around turning down TRVs and turning off lights. Then he goes away somewhere for up to 6 weeks and I'm sitting with the dog in the barely warm house with one light on feeling cold and miserable ..so I turn on all the lights to make me feel warmer

 

[Penners]

I didn't live in a centrally heated house until I got married (yes - that's how old I am). And even then, the "central heating" in our first marital home consisted of the solid fuel boiler in the kitchen, plus three radiators.

As a boy I can remember getting dressed in bed, to keep warm, with the frost making beautiful patterns on the inside of my bedroom window.

 

[biffvernon]

'Saying that we must reduce our consumption by some huge amount' is not a theory but the reality. Whether one likes it or not does not alter that reality.

No, that's not the reality - is it? Such statements are clearly and demonstrably wrong when we are sitting on sufficient coal reserves that would keep us in electricity for a few hundred years. I appreciate there will be consequences of burning all that coal, some of which we might not like, but to say we must hugely reduce our energy consumption is simply not correct and, I think, harms the green argument.

The reality is that we have difficult choices to make and the associated consequences to endure.

There is far less coal in the ground than in the minds of some wishful thinkers. Peak Coal follows hard on the heels of Peak Oil and Peak Gas, (and Peak Uranium), but, more importantly, if we burn much more coal CO2 levels will rise way beyond what might 'safe'. You can wave bye-bye to humankind's brief appearance on the planet. And my house sinks beneath the waves before the species goes extinct. Now lets stop all this denial stuff.

 

[Penners]

And my house sinks beneath the waves before the species goes extinct.

There was a programme on the radio a few weeks ago, on which someone was sounding the alarm about rising sea levels due to the melting ice at the north pole.

That sounds like dodgy physics to me. After all, it's sea ice.

 

[Flyfisher]

Single issue politics are so much easier than dealing with the real world.

Peak oil/gas/coal simply means we can no longer produce as much as we used to, it's not very helpful in determining how long the remaining stocks will last.
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188 states that Coal reserves are available in almost every country worldwide, with recoverable reserves in around 70 countries. At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 41 and 63 years at current production levels respectively. That's proven reserves, never mind all the as yet undiscovered reserves. So, we're not going to experience a huge energy gap in the next ten years are we?

As for climate change, I don't deny the risks of increased CO2 at all, I've only pointed out the futility of expecting the government to implement a significant (enforced) reduction in energy simply because the green lobby says it should. I've just heard the news about the Stansted expansion go-ahead - all the reasons in defence of this decision were to do with economics, jobs, commerce etc and the increased CO2 issues were not considered to be a major concern at all, certainly not in comparision to the perceived advantages.

I'm not defending the Stansted decision but if that's the prevailing mindset among decision-makers then it's wise to take that into account when constructing an argument for massive reductions in energy consumption - it's just not a realistic proposition and running around in a panic about sea levels rising by the end of the century is not going to help change their minds. Human nature might be perverse at times but it's an important part of the problem.

 

[Flyfisher]

There was a programme on the radio a few weeks ago, on which someone was sounding the alarm about rising sea levels due to the melting ice at the north pole.

That sounds like dodgy physics to me. After all, it's sea ice.

I suspect that much of the 'north pole' in that context probably included all that ice covering Alaska, Greenland, Siberia - but you're essentially correct; when was the last time your glass of G&T overflowed because the ice melted (I know, it doesn't get a chance!).

 

[Penners]

it doesn't get a chance!

10/10