Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just heard a very interesting slot on R4 about sustainable energy.


Many of us in ED are rightly concerned about the environment, but perhaps like me, you are not really sure about what the most effective ways to help the planet are. For example, I have just heard that turning off our mobile phone chargers (as we are continually urged to do) saves 1% of the power used to run a 40W lightbulb all day: i.e., 1% of 1 kWh. Fair enough,, but to put that into perspective, that is the same amount of power used to run your average car for 1 second. Oh.:(


I recommend that you scamper off to www.withouthotair.com and download Professor David Mackay's book (it's free) and we can all get some urgently-needed perspective.


I thank you.

Find it on Listen again here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jvdhb


On a related note some SE22 residents can get hold of a free "show me how much electricity am I using" meter (worth about ?40) at the moment, see this thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,244688,244688#msg-244688

haha


nothing like a climate change debate to get things going on the forum


I liked the way the Ramblers objected to the placement of wind turbines in most areas becaseu it would spoil their view and their hobby. Thought, in their favor , they did intriduce the barely whispered idea that wind power, even if sexed up to make it seriously efficient, would never have much of an impact - akin to taking an aspirin to cope with your hair being on fire.


sorry

The trouble with windfarms is what everybody quite rightly says, there is no electricity without wind, you need to be able to store the energy from times of plenty?but there is a way of storing it. You use the variable energy from windfarms or solar panels etcetera to pump water up hill into a reservoir storing all that potential energy to be released controllably through hydroelectric generators to provide a consistent power source to be connected to the national grid.


Instead of the Dinorwig hydroelectric power station in Wales using spare electricity from the national gird to recharge its reservoir this could be done using a separate renewable energy gird. Piece of p?ss!

Skidmarks - your storage is sensible and already in use to store the power generated by conventional (gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric etc) generators which work best if kept at a steady state - so during the night and other low useage times the excess can be stored as you suggest. There is some loss of power during the process as the power recovery by hydroelectricty cannot be 100%.


However, to use the excess power from windfarms in a similar way doesn't make quite the same sense. Windfarm only generate power when the wind blows - so they are inherently inefficient already and can't provide enough power to make a substantial difference to the grid anyway. If the power they do generate is diverted to a storage facility and then recovered there is a secondary loss of power as above - making them yet more inefficient.


If you are seeking natural / renewable sources of power look at tidal and wave energy - predictable and incredibly powerful, plus the fact that nowhere in UK is more than 120 miles from the coast - much is far closer. Nuclear power also has much to recommend it.

Does the loss of energy and inefficiency matter? Now using a coal power stations energy just to pump water up hill over night is a waste considering coal is about 30% at most efficient. Using the variable output from a completely new renewable energy national grid just to top up reservoirs around the country would store lots of potential energy and be carbon free ? who cares about the losses.


The problem with renewable energy sources apart from wave and hydro-thermal is that the output is variable you need away of storing the energy. Considering we are about to go for carbon capture which makes coal plants even less efficient so the losses with what I suggest will be irrelevant considering there is no CO2 produced.

onsidering there is no CO2 produced.


Not CO2 free - remember the manufacturing of the turbines, associated machinery and the cables from the turbines to the point of transformation / storage - often excessive as the windy places are a long way from the places of use. EG: The planned Eastern Highlands windfarms with 200 miles of pylons marching across some of Scotland's most beautiful landscapes - including the Wallace Memorial.


Wind farms are inefficient AND they ruin the landscape. Nuclear and hydro (preferably tidal) are far better.

skidmarks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So building a tidal barrier out millions of tonnes

> concrete or mining, processing and transporting

> uranium from Australia has no carbon footprint?



I didn't suggest it was carbon free - just that is was a renewable source.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> skidmarks Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So building a tidal barrier out millions of

> tonnes

> > concrete or mining, processing and transporting

> > uranium from Australia has no carbon footprint?

>

>

> I didn't suggest it was carbon free - just that is

> was a renewable source.


I think tidal is a great option but you do need a variety of renewable energy sources.


Nuclear I am not so sure on, we do not have our own supply of uranium so can?t be confident of security as per the situation with Russian gas and of course it is not renewable.

everyone always mentions the energy and therefore CO2 produced in manufacturing wind turbines etc so when you are figuring the efficiency of coal, nuclear, has etc you should also be including the energy needed to mine it and build the machines to mine it, plus the energy to transport it etc.


There is also energy lost from large centralised power stations sending electricity over long distances. Smaller more localised renewable electricity generation would help with that.


Comparisons that fail to look at the whole process of each method of energy generation are faulty.


Also after Chernobyl, why the hell would anyone consider more nuclear?

Chernobyl was a crap design managed by crap engineers in a crap system. Modern designs are very very much better.


I spent much of 15 years (almost) within less than 100 foot of a nuclear reactor. To date - no problems. IN fact the incidence of cancfers for nuclear submariners tends to be lower than the national average (we spent a lot of time out of natural sunshine and not close to other radiological sources such as Radon.


Nuclear isn't scary when you get to know it.


BTW - I was on duty when satellite intelligence of the Chernobyl reactor problem was detected - for a brief (very brief) moment there was a worry that it might be the presage of something far more scary - like WWIII

Ah nuclear energy - the CDO's of the energy world


Come on quids - people who raise concerns about the "challenges" around nuclear energy and the storage for generations to come have a point - and dismissing it as leftie bobbins is both a cheap shot and doesn't inform the debate in any way


If I have learned anything in life it's that anyone who is adamant that "there is nothing to worry about" is to be treated with a degree of suspicion directly connected to the size of the issue they are talking about. See also every economist over the last 10 years

er, my point is that the anti-debate is just that - "CDOs" etc being a pretty good example of it Sean. iE where the text book Guardian response starts so often prejudice dressed up as 'being right' without debate and to challenge it is the devlish work of fascists...come on, I thought you were a champion of the madness of "BadScience". I know bugger all about this but I'm sure as hell willing to listen to a rational debate about it (as far as I can see it does offer us a potential way out of the forthcoming energy holocaust) without my lefty mates, who know as little as me, taking a ooooh it's the work of the devil starting pointand defaulting to "Chernobyl" as if that's the end of the argument. Flatearthiness of the worst kind...

Hmmm - it would help your argument if you didn't follow shouting down people as thinking they are "right" by saying "I know bugger all about it. That makes it sound like chip on shoulder stuff rather than a proper debate


Maybe some of the people you deride do know more about it and your fear of an energy holocaust prejudices your judgment? I'm not saying I do.. but it's possible some people know more than us right?


I don't think either you or I trust any government or subcontracted company to not f***-up anything from medical records to ID cards. So despite any progress made in the years from chernobyl onwards, human fallacy means the likelihood of a fuck up increases with any proliferation of not just reactors but (more likely) the ongoing storage of the waste. And I don't think we are in any way equipped to deal with the fallout - people are rushing to reap the benefits and are "light" in our assesment of the risks

..and the approaching environmental holocaust? 'Cos believe me making it harder to drive in London and switching all our lights off for an hour once a year won't stop that....there's no easy answers which phillisophicaly leads me to look at Nuclear as a potential solution. I'm not a scientist,i'll let them do that, but i'm suspicious of people whose Knowledge is probably as poor as mine resorting to Student Common room default position on these important issues.


edited cos it was almost unreadable

OK - to put the question more clearly to anti nuclear team:


What are your concerns?


1. Likelihood of a reactor turning into a bomb?


2. Likelihood of a major disaster creating major nuclear fallout?


3. Likelihood of it becoming a terrorist target - with effect of 1 or 2 above?


4. Long term "pollution" of storing nuclear waste?


5. Something else entirely?


Once the questions are posed rationally then brational answers can be providedd.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...