Sacks of coal - no more?

[LadyArowana]

 

[Penners]

Was Penners a coal man?

If only I had been, I might not have suffered with my back the way I do. Coalmen only had to lift 1 cwt at a time.

 

[Penners]

In all seriousness why we,as a Nation, are infesting our Countryside and close shore Ocean with those dreadful wind power generators is a nonsense. They are quite ineffectual in benefiting us with the energy demanded by modern society and business. Why we cannot just get on and build more nuclear power plants right now and be done with it.

I'm not sure why you refer to wind turbines as "dreadful" - perhaps you object to them aesthetically? I think they're rather beautiful.

My objection to them is based on a different premise. I simply cannot understand why we are throwing enormous amounts of money at wind power, when it's a variable resource. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't. And it seems to do this entirely on a whim, with no reason or warning.

The same can be said for solar energy. The sun pays no heed whatsoever to our desire for it to shine and generate lots of lovely electricity. It just pleases itself.

If we want to invest in renewable energy sources, why haven't we thrown all of our resources into tidal power? The wind may calm to scarcely a breath, the sun may lurk behind thick clouds for days or weeks, but come what may the tide goes out and comes in as regularly as clockwork. It's so obliging that we can calculate its movements years ahead.

So why isn't our coastline surrounded with tidal power generators? I know it's relatively poorly developed technology, but that's only because it's been largely ignored.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Right. I don't often get on my high horse about anthropogenic global warming, but here it is:

When scientists want to test a theory, they conduct experiments in a laboratory. With the theory of human-influenced global warming, three experiments need to be carried out: one which allows rates of CO2 production to continue to spiral upwards; another which keeps them at present levels; and a third which reduces them drastically in a short space of time. Any of the three (depending on the theory that is correct) could have catastrophic results on various aspects of life on the planet, but for the third we do have the means to cushion, to some extent, the blow that would fall on our current comfortable consumerist existence. For the possible worst case results of the first and second, we have no such safety net.

For all three experiments to be tested fully, in such a way that there could be no doubt about their outcomes, we would need three separate laboratories, on a vast scale.

We only have one. And we all live on it.

 

[robgil]

Nuclear power is most likely much worse in the long run than burning fossil fuels, creating the power is the easy part, dealing with the waste is the bit we cannot do, we simply do not know how much damage this waste will cause in it's 100,000 year shelf life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2EtAoZDmoI

 

[robgil]

Why cant we all just use less energy?
A lot of people can work from home, but dont, usually because of the company car carrot on a string..
We have 240 odd volts at our plug sockets yet most electrical devices need transformers to step this down dramatically, that makes no sense to me,
And why buy disposable rubbish that we simply dont need? Not to mention the packaging it comes in.
Something has to give, our life styles or our planet.
If our planet gives out first it takes us all with it.

 

[Flyfisher]

Why cant we all just use less energy?

Because we're addicted to it and, like most addicts, can't see beyond our next fix. Use all the scientific mumbo-jumbo you like but people just don't care enough to want to trade in their luxurious lifestyles today for the vague promise of a better future for their grandchildren.

We have 240 odd volts at our plug sockets yet most electrical devices need transformers to step this down dramatically, that makes no sense to me,

It makes sense from an engineering point of view though. Try distributing 12 volts DC around the country and you'd need cables thicker than railway lines. Using less power certainly makes sense, but lowering the distribution voltage certainly doesn't.

And why buy disposable rubbish that we simply dont need? Not to mention the packaging it comes in.
Something has to give, our life styles or our planet.
If our planet gives out first it takes us all with it.

Given what it has been through during the past 4.5 billion years or so, I have a sneaking suspicion that the planet - and life in general - is going to be just fine. We may be heading for extinction, but it wouldn't be the first time that Gaia has witnessed such a thing and I'd bet it won't be the last . . . not that there'll be any way of knowing. :wink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

[Flyfisher]

Why we cannot just get on and build more nuclear power plants right now and be done with it.

We will when the lights start going out.

 

[Flyfisher]

With the theory of human-influenced global warming, three experiments need to be carried out: one which allows rates of CO2 production to continue to spiral upwards; another which keeps them at present levels; and a third which reduces them drastically in a short space of time . . . . For all three experiments to be tested fully, in such a way that there could be no doubt about their outcomes, we would need three separate laboratories, on a vast scale . . . We only have one. . .

. . . so we have to conduct the experiments serially and it seems that we're in the process of running the first option.

 

[Feltwell]

I'm not sure why you refer to wind turbines as "dreadful" - perhaps you object to them aesthetically? I think they're rather beautiful.

I agree - I can never understand why there is so much resistance on the grounds of asthetics to them being built. I like them, especially the offshore ones.

A lot of people can work from home, but dont, usually because of the company car carrot on a string.

I can't agree with you there Robgil! I'd love to work from home a lot more, but the reality is that despite all the advantages being well known most employers still want their staff in an office. I've worked in several roles where I could easily work 50-75% of the time from home, the most I've ever got away with is about a day a month. Company cars are not much of a carrot any more either, a "free car" they are definitely not.

 

[Pford75]

Why cant we all just use less energy?
A lot of people can work from home, but dont, usually because of the company car carrot on a string..
We have 240 odd volts at our plug sockets yet most electrical devices need transformers to step this down dramatically, that makes no sense to me,
And why buy disposable rubbish that we simply dont need? Not to mention the packaging it comes in.
Something has to give, our life styles or our planet.
If our planet gives out first it takes us all with it.

I doubt that there is anyone who still regards a company car as a 'carrot on a string' given the tax situation. The crazy situation with working from home is that i do it a lot, I essentially provide my company with free office space, heating, lighting, electricity and computer facilities.....yet none of this is tax deductible. It actually costs me more to work from home. Why can't a more enlightened govt provide some tax breaks for those who choose to work from home?

 

[Flyfisher]

I can't agree with you there Robgil! I'd love to work from home a lot more, but the reality is that despite all the advantages being well known most employers still want their staff in an office. I've worked in several roles where I could easily work 50-75% of the time from home, the most I've ever got away with is about a day a month.

Even when the job is suitable for home working, much seems to depend on the attitude of the employer. I may have been fortunate but I've worked from home a lot in my time. During the 80s, as an electronics design engineer - well before the online world we now know and love - my boss was sensible enough to realise that it made little difference if I was at home or at work as long as I met my project task deadlines. Since my commute was about 90 minutes each way it was quite a benefit for me to work at home and this made me very motivated to make sure I always met my task deadlines! It wasn't always possible to work from home back then, depending on the stage of the project, but I reckon I used to average a few days per month.

Having tasted the personal benefits of homeworking (cost and time-savings), took advantage of it whenever I could. In the early 90s I was working for DEC (computer buffs will remember it) and they were very progressive in this regards. When their Basingstoke office burned down they replaced it with a smaller facility based around 'hot-desking'. By this time I was regularly working one day a week at home.

By 2000, ISDN and then broadband allowed me to be pretty much based at home, though I was also out of the country a great deal. I only visited the office once per week, which later changed to one a month. I even had my T&Cs changed such that I was officially based at home, meaning that I could claim travelling expenses into the office (though the taxman had a slightly different point of view about that, but that's another story!).

Having said all that, I've known many people in similar jobs who have not been able to enjoy such flexible working, usually because of managers too scared that they would be exposed as making no contribution to the business except shouting at their staff! I supposed it helped that I was the European MD and my boss was in the USA, but even so, he was sensible enough to know that the number of hours sat behind a desk in an office isn't a particularly important metric when running a business. I must have saved months, if not years, of my working life by not having to commute every single day.

If only someone could figure out a way of dishing out air-miles for video conferencing, then a lot of international business travel could also be saved! :wink:

As for the costs of working from home, I agreed with Pford75 that the tax regime is not exactly helpful in this regard. I think it used to be possible to claim something but it was pretty minimal and was more trouble than it was worth. I think there was also a possible CGT implication when selling your house. Anyway, I didn't bother because I was more than happy to reduce my commuting costs - especially after the company car tax rules took most of the 'perk' away from fully-expensed cars.

I sometimes wonder if government is too worried about setting precedents around giving tax breaks for working from home - even though it would massively reduce energy consumption - because people unable to work from home might then see their commuting costs as a form of tax-on-jobs, which it is of course, except the money doesn't go to the treasury.

 

[biffvernon]

So why isn't our coastline surrounded with tidal power generators? I know it's relatively poorly developed technology, but that's only because it's been largely ignored.

Actually the truth is quite simple. The sea is a very hostile environment and the engineering required for tidal turbines is much more difficult than for wind turbines. Wind has been developed first because it is much cheaper. The variability of wind is not a big issue until a much greater proportion of total capacity is wind generation than at present. There are occasions when our current fleet of wind turbines produce too much power but this is more a problem of insufficient grid capacity and is gradually being addressed. Of course the larger the grid the less significant wind variability becomes as it is always windy somewhere. As we move to HVDC grids that have negligible line loss, transporting power becomes even easier. Energy storage will also become more important.

A mix of renewable power sources with both small scale distributed generation and improved grid connectivity will be our best hope for a secure energy future, with efficient use and reduction of demand being at the centre of the strategy.

 

[Feltwell]

Even when the job is suitable for home working, much seems to depend on the attitude of the employer.

Absolutely - it's the biggest barrier by far, the technical barriers have long since been overcome. With an ordinary domestic broadband connection I never had any real problems with the access to or speed of connections to company systems.

I think the IT world is quite a long way ahead of most other sectors when it comes to acceptance of remote working.

 

[biffvernon]

Which is what makes HS2 a 20th century solution to a 20th century problem.

 

[Penners]

The sea is a very hostile environment and the engineering required for tidal turbines is much more difficult than for wind turbines.

I find that difficult to believe. The underwater environment is much more stable than the atmospheric environment. Storms have little of no effect once you a few metres down. So the engineering challenges are known and predictable. If we'd thrown as much money at tidal power equipment as we have at wind, we could have solved the engineering problems relatively quickly.

 

[Feltwell]

Timely.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16676818

 

[biffvernon]

The sea is a very hostile environment and the engineering required for tidal turbines is much more difficult than for wind turbines.

I find that difficult to believe. The underwater environment is much more stable than the atmospheric environment. Storms have little of no effect once you a few metres down. So the engineering challenges are known and predictable. If we'd thrown as much money at tidal power equipment as we have at wind, we could have solved the engineering problems relatively quickly.

It may be difficult to believe, but consider the alternative. Big engineering corporations that have invested much of their futures in wind power are stupid.

That said, here's the interesting development from my electricity supplier that Feltwell spotted: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity/and-the-sea/searaser

One little observation from my neighbouring windfarm of twenty turbines: All twenty are always working at weekends but during the working week I quite often notice a small van parked at the bottom of one of the towers and its rotors stationary for an hour or two. I presume that there is a regular maintenance schedule for all those moving parts. There's a door in the tower and a stair up to where the works are so I guess access is as easy as any other workplace. Now how would you do that at depth in the Pentland Firth?

 

[Bayliss]

The sea is a very hostile environment and the engineering required for tidal turbines is much more difficult than for wind turbines.

I find that difficult to believe. The underwater environment is much more stable than the atmospheric environment. Storms have little of no effect once you a few metres down. So the engineering challenges are known and predictable. If we'd thrown as much money at tidal power equipment as we have at wind, we could have solved the engineering problems relatively quickly.

It may be difficult to believe, but consider the alternative. Big engineering corporations that have invested much of their futures in wind power are stupid.

That said, here's the interesting development from my electricity supplier that Feltwell spotted: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity/and-the-sea/searaser

One little observation from my neighbouring windfarm of twenty turbines: All twenty are always working at weekends but during the working week I quite often notice a small van parked at the bottom of one of the towers and its rotors stationary for an hour or two. I presume that there is a regular maintenance schedule for all those moving parts. There's a door in the tower and a stair up to where the works are so I guess access is as easy as any other workplace. Now how would you do that at depth in the Pentland Firth?

I had began to wonder when the issue of maintenance was going to be raised, the cost of maintaining these things together with the logistics must be quite an annual bill. No matter us bill payers pick up the tab, that may sound cynical but for the piffling energy produced by these things I question the viability longer term. As for the SEARASOR - 200 units will produce enough power for 230,000 homes- its a joke surely. Cost of manufacture,installation and maintenance and all they can manage is such a small amount of power! I know its in the infancy, but really with 23 million premises in the U.K. its hardly going to satisfy the requirements of home life never mind industry usage. I remain very sceptical.

 

[Penners]

There's a door in the tower and a stair up to where the works are so I guess access is as easy as any other workplace. Now how would you do that at depth in the Pentland Firth?

Turn the tower upside down, with its base sticking out of the water, and you'll get the idea.