booooooooooooooooom
From the Mock Green Britain Day challenge. See all 141 entries (closed)
( , Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:31, archived)
From the Mock Green Britain Day challenge. See all 141 entries (closed)
( , Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:31, archived)
I feel morally obliged to mention that my brother in law works at Sizewell so i can't possibly pass any judgement on the pros and cons of nuclear power and the waste products produced thereof.
in total honesty
I am undecided on the pros and cons. It might eventually be inevitable. But I'd rather have nice white whirly windmills than mutated sea bass where possible.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:38,
archived)
Nuclear power : always-on, decent output, but produces icky waste
Wind power : only works when wind blows, infuriates NIMBY crowd, heavily subsidised. Sort of works.
Fossil fuels : produces that CO2 stuff that's mucking up the weather. But digging up British coal would be pretty sweet for the UK economy.
Solar power : In the UK? You're kidding, right?
Wave/Tidal power : underfunded, has potential.
Harnessing hot air from the Houses of Parliament : Only works when in session.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:41,
archived)
Fossil fuels : produces that CO2 stuff that's mucking up the weather. But digging up British coal would be pretty sweet for the UK economy.
Solar power : In the UK? You're kidding, right?
Wave/Tidal power : underfunded, has potential.
Harnessing hot air from the Houses of Parliament : Only works when in session.
Yup
Quite a long way (and billions of quid) away though. How easy is it to extract Deuterium/Tritium from water? Would it be cost-effective?
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:46,
archived)
Solar satellites are probably the future though.
Beaming power down as microwaves.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:46,
archived)
Not just the waste
preparing the fuel is also a sad part of nuclear power. Oh and the tiny issue with possible disasters.
It still has my vote for only viable option.
[/serious]
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:46,
archived)
It still has my vote for only viable option.
[/serious]
Sadly, yes, for now
Until something better gets developed it might be the lesser of all the evils. And they'd better hurry up before we have an energy crisis or something.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:49,
archived)
"only viable option"...
even if that were true, that doesn't necessarily make it acceptable. Perhaps it just implies that we need to come up with more options.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:50,
archived)
Oh
only option to me personally, in my view.
For all of these the main thing to realize is that they're built and run by whoever does it the cheapest.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:59,
archived)
For all of these the main thing to realize is that they're built and run by whoever does it the cheapest.
no one said you have to put your solar panels on british soil
there's enough sunny space in deserts like the sahara, only tranporting the harnessed power to northern europe will be a bit tricky, but not unsolveable (high voltage power lines, hydrogen, advanced batteries...)
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:52,
archived)
Aye -
It could be a huge boost to African development, too.
There could be a DC supergrid, connecting solar arrays in North Africa, wind and tide power off the British Isles, geothermal energy from iceland, nuclear from Russia, waterfall turbine thingies from Norway... All parts of the grid would contribute at different times, and all would have access to the lot.
I like this idea a lot.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:55,
archived)
There could be a DC supergrid, connecting solar arrays in North Africa, wind and tide power off the British Isles, geothermal energy from iceland, nuclear from Russia, waterfall turbine thingies from Norway... All parts of the grid would contribute at different times, and all would have access to the lot.
I like this idea a lot.
Iceland certainly needs the money
Giving the UK cheap power would be a nice gesture.
This is quite informative - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Renewable_electricity_superhighways
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:16,
archived)
This is quite informative - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Renewable_electricity_superhighways
Nuclear power: also heavily subsidised. (Too cheap to meter, they said... Pah!)
Solar power in the UK has potential, I reckon. You don't need much direct light, after all. Even in winter, there ought to be enough daylight to make a big difference, technology pending.
Wind power: beautiful. I'd much rather watch a field of turbines than a DRAX power station.
But... yeah.
I'd add to the list GM algae farms producing biofuels, and geothermal heat exchange.
EDIT: Ooooh, and vacuum energy. Sod the fact that it's merely hypothetical and I'm having trouble keeping sci-fi from reality. It's still infinite.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:52,
archived)
Wind power: beautiful. I'd much rather watch a field of turbines than a DRAX power station.
But... yeah.
I'd add to the list GM algae farms producing biofuels, and geothermal heat exchange.
EDIT: Ooooh, and vacuum energy. Sod the fact that it's merely hypothetical and I'm having trouble keeping sci-fi from reality. It's still infinite.
Geothermal is wonderful. But is nicking energy from the Earth itself really the way to go?
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:54,
archived)
There's a lot of energy there to be tapped.
The planet's core is in no danger of solidifying for as long as humanity's around.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:56,
archived)
Not while we're not POURING COLD WATER INTO THE EARTH'S HEART there isn't.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:59,
archived)
Fair point.
But there'd be fewer volcanic ash clouds, so, y'know, swings and roundabouts...
:)
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:02,
archived)
:)
Drop in the ocean (ho ho)
The amount of energy extracted is incredibly tiny compared to how much is down there.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:17,
archived)
We could certainly do some awesome stuff if we used all the earth's geothermal energy.
It mostly comes from decaying radioactive elements. I don't think the Earth is doing anything useful with it.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:05,
archived)
YES.
And anyone who denies this is a boring nay-sayer with a dessicated soul, or summink.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:03,
archived)
wind power would be much more sensible if the turbines were out at sea really
but it's pricey, so 20-30% efficiency for the on-land ones is apparently cool with the government, because they don't have to spend much money in order to look greener.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:10,
archived)
i know i'm late for this but you should all read this before making any statements about nuclear power
skeptoid.com/episodes/4092
it's a nice run down of the basic facts as opposed to stuff you learned from the simpsons
( ,
Sun 20 Jun 2010, 2:13,
archived)
it's a nice run down of the basic facts as opposed to stuff you learned from the simpsons
You'd think that would be lovely
but people who live near them hate them.
And the sea bass down suffolk is gorgeous
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:42,
archived)
And the sea bass down suffolk is gorgeous
but studies have shown
that people who hate windmills pick their noses and eat the result.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:46,
archived)
Firing waste into space is the future.
Point it at the sun and forget about it.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:43,
archived)
I've read testamonies of those unfortunate to get caught up in the Chernobyl disaster and acute radiation sickness is just one of the most sad and degrading ways to die. It's absolutely heartbreaking to read about.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:52,
archived)
Like crazy, huh?
I'm going to sit in the garden and eat beers with a mate in a bit anyway. I'm genuinely going to rant about this in the sun :3
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:49,
archived)
-.-
they totally should stop just digging a wee hole in some sand, putting it in a shoebox and burying it... they should find some sort of insulated storage system which does not affect the levels of radiation in ground water, or like, have screeds of regulations regarding permanent safe storage with planning in place for the next 10,000 years, or something.
( ,
Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:56,
archived)