Tax relief on sustainability

[Penners]

Curry, chips, raw eggs, beans, chillies and a generous amount of alcohol has to be consumed at one meal sitting.

So where are you going to shove the damper rods?

 

[middi]

After a melt down on that scale the damper rods would have been vapourised Penners. ( shame really, could have been used to cheer oneself up by rodding the system).

 

[NT]

Your analogy of the concrete tile being more green that thatch doesnt hold imo. yes, you need to house the thatcher and school his children, but you also need to house the guy digging the cement, so housing etc becomes a common denominator. without actual numbers its not possible to argue in either case

Obviously concrete tile roofing has expenses just as thatch does. Since total tiling costs are much lower than thatching, and total labour input much less, clearly there is less housing etc to be paid for when using tiles.


NT

 

[NT]

NT I am glad you have so much faith in the Engineers.... I am one.

Sure the lorry full of radioactive waste had the opening at the bottom.... doesnt mean the Lorry would always remain upright though does it?

The inherant problem with Nuclear fission is that it is NOT "fail safe".

If ALL systems fail then it WILL go pop, as happened in Chernobyl, we may have one more layer of defence, but that doesnt ELIMINATE the risk, it simply skews the probabilities a touch more in our favour.

To stop the reaction something positive has to happen, the rods have to be pulled out, or the chamber has to be flooded with a supressant (I forget the exact proceedure) but the point is that things have to happen, systems have to work.

Nuclear Power HAS failed. It has failed to deliver CHEAP power. The majority of people ARE against it and since we are supposedly living in a democracy, this alone SHOULD be enough to cause the government to put serious efforts into promoting research into alternatives, which even NOW they arent doing.

The government commissioned TWO reports into the energy needs of the country and they BOTH said Nuclear was not the answer.... but the power of the nuclear lobby is such that a little thing like that isnt going to stop it.

Nuclear Fuel is at an all time high price, countless reports (such as those both I and Biff linked to) have pointed out that the quantities of fuel, that are sufficiently pure, are very low. And that the less pure fuel requires large fossil fuel inputs. Also a lot of this fuel would be coming from "sketchy" parts of the world..

Nuclear Power is NOT a viable solution for the whole world. Can you really see us encouraging Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Syria, etc etc to build nuclear power stations? They simply arent good things to put in "politically volatile" parts of the world as they afford either access to nuclear material for dirty bombs or simply are ideal terrorist targets.

Solar PV IS going to be a major energy supplier at some point. I believe that this will be fairly soon.

If you watch this video:-
http://www.parc.xerox.com/cms/get_article.php?id=543
(it's pretty long but skip to 39 minutes for the costings) you can see that we are looking at $1-50 a Watt (retail) by 2012 WITHOUT any government help (that works out at under 4p a kWh).... At this price and beyond, Nuclear IS an expensive white elephant, yet the new reactors wont even be on-line by then. What WILL be on-line is the numerous new polysilicon refineries in China and the rest of the world which will reduce the costs even further.

ALL this is using current silicon technology, yet this isnt even the frontrunner. non-silicon based nano solar solutions promise to blow this out of the water.

SO. As I said previously. Solar is not CURRENTLY a viable solution, but combined with wind, wave, geothermal, hydro, waste bio-mass (might as well use out rubbish as bury it); efficiency improvements; and storage innovations like hydrogen generation and nano-technology based super capacitors; THERE IS another way.

All these things are coming, we know we can do them, we just need the WILL.

During the second world war, we progressed technology enormously because there was the WILL to do it. We introduced Jet powered aeroplanes, electronic computers, and many other innovations. We constructed factories capable of mass-producing tens of thousands of tanks and aeroplanes a year (that werent even designed 2 years previously).

We constructed floating harbours for the invasion, and laid a fuel pipeline under the channel in 10 hours.... because we HAD to...

We need to be looking at global warming in these terms. We NEED cheaper solar panels, wave power and wind, so instead of fannying about saying it cant be done, we just need to get on with it.

Finally. It is notable that the costs of ALL the renewables continue to fall. Investors continue to move INTO this market, and it becomes more and more attractive. Meanwhile Fission gets more and more expensive and private investors cannot be attracted to even highly supported investment in it....
Under these circumstances, the SENSIBLE thing to do is move to meet the future and reap the benefits of getting in early on the technology. If we invest in it now, we can be net-exporters of IP instead of importing it later...

George.

Your post has so many mistakes I hardly know where to start. It would take too long.

> NT I am glad you have so much faith in the Engineers.... I am one.

maybe you're one that does not design safety critical systems such as military or medical eletronics, or anything to do with nuclear plants.

And lets get real, I have never claimed to have faith in engineers.

Maybe this would be better left to a forum with the relevant skill set.


NT

 

[Lime]

Should our Goverment be considering providing grants or tax relief to us people who use sustainable building materials during the process of maintaining our old homes. In my case I am having my roof re-thatched next year. Please discuss.

If all the money that has been poured into nuclear weapon and power generation had been spent on sustainable building then we would all be much better off both in comfort and pocket.

 

[gsport george]

Your post has so many mistakes I hardly know where to start. It would take too long.

> NT I am glad you have so much faith in the Engineers.... I am one.

if you are, you're one that does not design military or medical eletronics, nor anything to do with nuclear plants.

And lets get real, I have never claimed to have faith in engineers. There are sensible points and theres this kind of stuff.

Maybe this would be better left to a forum with the relevant skill set.


NT

What a great response.

So many mistakes you donmt knoiw where to begin. How about at the beginning?

Do you really believe that a Nuclear Power Plant is "Fail Safe"? Because that is celarly bunkum.

Do you believe that if that lorry had overturned then the radiation would not then have been a risk? Because a court of law thought otherwise.

Do you believe that the independent reports into Britains energy future DID favour further investment in nuclear?

Do you dispute the figures for the cost of solar power in the future? Or my estimation extrapolated from that based on a measly 6 hours average of daylight per day and 10% return over a 20 year life cycle?

Me and Biff are quoting sources and figures and you are (metaphorically) putting your hands over your ears and going; "ner ner ner you are wrong"....

Part of my engineering degree DID concern nuclear power plants by the way. I also grew up within 4 miles of two reactors and not far from Sellafield. Accidental leaks were a continuous news item in the local press. The Irish sea is massively more radioactive than it was 40 years ago because the pollution didnt disperse as predicted. We have no right to poison the world in this way even if (as you claim and I dispute) it is "safe"...

George

 

[Nemesis]

I also grew up within 4 miles of two reactors and not far from Sellafield. Accidental leaks were a continuous news item in the local press. The Irish sea is massively more radioactive than it was 40 years ago because the pollution didnt disperse as predicted. We have no right to poison the world in this way even if (as you claim and I dispute) it is "safe"...

I can confirm that - we aren't so far from Sellafield either, and the Irish are very concerned about it all.

 

[Lime]

I also grew up within 4 miles of two reactors and not far from Sellafield. Accidental leaks were a continuous news item in the local press. The Irish sea is massively more radioactive than it was 40 years ago because the pollution didnt disperse as predicted. We have no right to poison the world in this way even if (as you claim and I dispute) it is "safe"...

I can confirm that - we aren't so far from Sellafield either, and the Irish are very concerned about it all.

And what about chernobyl?
It is still in every field and back garden in the UK.
It covered most of Europe too and is still there.
The melted reactor and fuel is still stuck in the ground to be radioactive for eternity contaminating the water table continuously and anything that goes near it.

This reference gives an idea of what we are all faced with (updated 2002)
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

 

[oldfella]

Try to drag you away from the nuke debate now, my neighbour has applied for P.P. to install a 10m domestic power generating windmill into his garden. I have also seen domestic turbines in one of the DIY sheds.

Any good or waste of money??

 

[Lime]

Try to drag you away from the nuke debate now, my neighbour has applied for P.P. to install a 10m domestic power generating windmill into his garden. I have also seen domestic turbines in one of the DIY sheds.

Any good or waste of money??

If there was enough wind around my house I'd have one.
They are about £1500 from B&Q installed and promise about 1000 watts of power.

 

[NT]

> Part of my engineering degree DID concern nuclear power plants by the way.

but did not teach you how to design safety critical systems.

An engineering degree in electronics does not even begin to teach someone how to design safety critical electronics, and I dont even know what subject your degree was in.


> you are (metaphorically) putting your hands over your ears and going; "ner ner ner you are wrong"....

About as accurate as the rest of your writing on this subject.


NT

 

[NT]

And what about chernobyl?
It is still in every field and back garden in the UK.
It covered most of Europe too and is still there.
The melted reactor and fuel is still stuck in the ground to be radioactive for eternity contaminating the water table continuously and anything that goes near it.

You might want to compare the total radiation leaked by coal plants, you may get a surprise. Chernobyl has killed a fraction the number of people that coal has. And fwiw no sane country would build a design as risky as chernobyl today.


NT

 

[NT]

Try to drag you away from the nuke debate now, my neighbour has applied for P.P. to install a 10m domestic power generating windmill into his garden. I have also seen domestic turbines in one of the DIY sheds.

Any good or waste of money??

Unfortunately these turbines wont repay anywhere near what they claim to in realistic use. The payback claims made arent even close to realistic.

The problem is wind speed. To be cost effective, turbines need high wind speed. And by high I mean high enough that very few people would want to live there. Where 99% of us live the wind speed is much lower, and power out is proportional to wind speed cubed, so for almost everyone's garden these mills are a total loss.


NT

 

[gsport george]

> Part of my engineering degree DID concern nuclear power plants by the way.

but did not teach you how to design safety critical systems.

An engineering degree in electronics does not even begin to teach someone how to design safety critical electronics, and I dont even know what subject your degree was in.

Do you even understand what the term "fail safe" actually means?

If ALL systems fail, then a "fail safe" system will naturally settle to a "safe" state.... This can NEVER be true of a Nuclear Fission reaction.



My degree was in Mechanical Engineering.

You wont even answer simple yes or no questions now. I really see no point in you replying if you arent going to attempt to support your position or even state which specific points you dispute....

 

[gsport george]

Unfortunately the Windsave turbines seem a fairly poor investment right now. You cant expect to get anything like 1000W continuous from them even under ideal conditions. You would probably be doing well to average 200w.

At 1000kWh per year (the average of what they claim) that's about equivilent to 15p/kWh before depreciation. With a 15 year lifecycle that's maybe another 7p per kWh... So 22p/kWh...
Figures are probably a bit off but not by THAT much...

 

[Lime]

And what about chernobyl?
It is still in every field and back garden in the UK.
It covered most of Europe too and is still there.
The melted reactor and fuel is still stuck in the ground to be radioactive for eternity contaminating the water table continuously and anything that goes near it.

You might want to compare the total radiation leaked by coal plants, you may get a surprise. Chernobyl has killed a fraction the number of people that coal has. And fwiw no sane country would build a design as risky as chernobyl today.


NT

Total radiation leaked is not comparable to the chernobyl week of discharge (source term) because the chernobyl event was a very concentrated escape as opposed to isolated natural radioactive material being released when burning fossil fuel.
For example the Chenobyl event resulted in nearly 9000 farm holdings in the UK being restricted with over 4,000,000 sheep contaminated to unacceptable levels.
Burning coal has never caused that to happen nor ever will.
More than 370 holdings are still restricted today 20 years later.
See:-
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/Chernobyluk06.pdf

While I'm aware that there is radioactivity all around us, to suggest this somehow mitigates the escapes, mistakes and deliberate releases of radioactive material by the nuclear industry is not a valid position.
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-figure3.pdf
Perhaps it may convince some people who know next to nothing about the various forms of radiation and think all radioactivity is "bad" but there is a big difference between the isolated release of tiny particles and the concentrated explosive release of tonnes of highly radioactive material.

 

[NT]

Do you even understand what the term "fail safe" actually means?

If you cant figure that one out then we really have no discussion mileage.

If ALL systems fail, then a "fail safe" system will naturally settle to a "safe" state.... This can NEVER be true of a Nuclear Fission reaction.

again, there are ways to make what is not inherently fail safe fail safe. There are such things as processes that can not fail, even though few in number they do exist. Your course is unlikely to have covered this.

I really see no point in you replying if you arent going to attempt to support your position or even state which specific points you dispute....

Good. Re your long post, almost all of them.


NT

 

[NT]

And what about chernobyl?
It is still in every field and back garden in the UK.
It covered most of Europe too and is still there.
The melted reactor and fuel is still stuck in the ground to be radioactive for eternity contaminating the water table continuously and anything that goes near it.

You might want to compare the total radiation leaked by coal plants, you may get a surprise. Chernobyl has killed a fraction the number of people that coal has. And fwiw no sane country would build a design as risky as chernobyl today.


NT

Total radiation leaked is not comparable to the chernobyl week of discharge (source term) because the chernobyl event was a very concentrated escape as opposed to isolated natural radioactive material being released when burning fossil fuel.
For example the Chenobyl event resulted in nearly 9000 farm holdings in the UK being restricted with over 4,000,000 sheep contaminated to unacceptable levels.
Burning coal has never caused that to happen nor ever will.
More than 370 holdings are still restricted today 20 years later.
See:-
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/Chernobyluk06.pdf

While I'm aware that there is radioactivity all around us, to suggest this somehow mitigates the escapes, mistakes and deliberate releases of radioactive material by the nuclear industry is not a valid position.
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-figure3.pdf
Perhaps it may convince some people who know next to nothing about the various forms of radiation and think all radioactivity is "bad" but there is a big difference between the isolated release of tiny particles and the concentrated explosive release of tonnes of highly radioactive material.

Youre talking more about politics here than anything else. Even around Chernobyl itself there has not been a significant rate of disease caused by _post_ incident exposure. The levels of disease caused by coal pollution is well established, and very much higher.


NT

 

[Lime]

Youre talking more about politics here than anything else.

Isn't the entire nuclear industry a political animal?
Electricity "too cheap to meter" while secretly building hydrogen bombs?

If at the time of Calder Hall being opened we had all been told that electricity was a mere byproduct of the nuclear industry and building bigger and better bombs was the real object I doubt nuclear power would have happened at all.

 

[NT]

Here's a reality check on those wind turbines.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2450133,00.html

"Donnachadh McCarthy, who finally installed one on the roof of his south London terraced home in October 2005. His experience has not, however, been what he hoped for. “In the two months since I had my wind turbine refitted, it’s produced 1.3 kilowatt hours."

1.3 kWh is a payback of around 13p, and thats from 2 months use. So a ballpark of 78p payback per annum on your 4 figure 'investment.'

200w average would have amounted to 0.2 x 24 x 365 = 1750 kWh = £ 175 per annum payback. If only.


NT