Future of energy?

[neilson99]

Saturday night debate...big energy company questioning the future of our energy...any thoughts?

[????]

As I don't believe either we in the west or the developing world will ever EVER fundamntally change our behaviour and covering the whole of the Isle of Wight in windfarms will cost a fortune and maybe mean people in Hampshire can boil a kettle twice a day...then the answer is Nuclear but I know the pavlovian response thet elicits among the people* of places like SE22, N1, Hampstead, etc etc

*still not using the "L" word

[Huguenot]

Luddite?

[silverfox]

Lucozade?

[katie1997]

Low carbon??

I think its good that a large energy company is pondering the future of our energy and where we get it from. I know companies are in business to make a profit (otherwise why bother) but they need to listen to government, researchers, the public.....others in their industry and come up with innovative ideas and technologies. Cannot happen on its own.

[Magpie]

I think we definately need to start weening off fossil fuel generated energy.

For me there are two clear arguments.

1) Climate change/global warming - if you believe in it then there is a clear imperative

2) Energy security - the UK currently relies on lots of gas from some unreliable sources, plus oil, also from unreliable sources. Coal, which we still have plenty of, is dirty/unpleasant even if you don't believe in 1.

So solution is Nuclear in the long term, supported by Hydro/tidal, gas generated by decomposing waster, energy efficiency, ground pumps etc

In my mind wind is a complete white elephants - its just not reliable. Of all the renewable sources I think we are mad not to invest more in tidal and wave power - the country is an Island, with thousands of miles of coastline, battered by the Atlantic on one side, and the North Sea on the other. Far more predictable and reliable until the moon gives out.

Plus this could kill 2 birds with one stone re the decline of manufacturing - make sure investment flows into British built stuff and British science rather than it all going to French and German companies.

[KidKruger]

The mindset seems always to be maintaining today's pace/activity and therefore requiring to perpetuate the energy levels needed to support it.

One of the few people I have ever heard suggest that we all reduce consumption (and therefore change our pace/activity quite considerably) is Ken Livingston.

If we couldn't all fly everywhere we would find other means, if we couldn't all drive everywhere we would do the same, if we could not power a fridge or central heating any more we would work around it, just like they did all through history until a hundred years ago.

Nuclear will happen simply because collectively we are too into comfort to change our habits.

[benjaminty]

The future is definitely a mixed bag and a major part is nuclear. From what I understand the UK is already way behind in the development and creation of the new powerstations; the companies due to build these are experiencing problem after problem on other sites outside of the UK, therefore pusing out lead times considerably.

If you look at order books for the uranium enrichment firms out there, some are having to up their capacity by building new facilities to cater for this global demand (not just UK).

I admit I know v little about windfarms. Have the huge Spanish wind farms been a success to any degree? Tidal/wave technology looks to be a no brainer but why is this not being pushed? Why are are we so slow to act on this? Or am I just not aware of how many wave farms we have?

[HAL9000]

benjaminty Wrote:

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

> ... Tidal/wave technology looks to be a no

> brainer but why is this not being pushed? Why are

> are we so slow to act on this? Or am I just not

> aware of how many wave farms we have?

Small and medium-scale generator designs cannot withstand stormy seas - they break down long before they break even.

[Robyn0312]

nuclear in the mean time and better funding for feasibility studies of unusual technologies. I saw a really great generator system developed in Norway that uses osmosis between salt and fresh water sytems to generate electricity. There are no waste products, you just need to be careful about salination/desalinisation of local water sources/output, although if done in a brackish environment would have negliable affect. The thing holding it back was funding for larger scale testing.

[5imon]

If you haven't already, I really recommend reading "Sustainable energy without the hot air" by David Mckay.

The author tries to address each proposed source of renewable energy and explain what the theoretical (ie given infinite cash, 100% efficiency in transmission, no political impediments etc) limit to each of the proposed solutions is, based on fairly simple calculations that anyone with a gcse in physics can wrap their head round.

The long and short of it is: the will have to be sea changes in the way we live if we want to exist on 100% renewables. The petrol-powered combustion engine should be effectively deprecated; transcontinental and cheap flights are incredibly damaging in carbon-terms; electricity comsumption at home should be closely monitored and reduced.

Since reading it I've been urging both the wind/solar/carbon credit zealouts and the climate change doubters to take a look

(small print - i am in no way affitiliated with the author, publishers or distributors)

[tomchance]

David Mckay's book is excellent, and he's a very genial man to boot. Beyond Oil by Paul Mobbs is also worth reading.

The obvious general approach is: reduce what we need, use it efficiently, and get it from sustainable sources.

Aside from debating the place of nuclear fission/fusion (given that, with current technology and supplies of uranium, it is only a feasible stop-gap solution for a few countries), I think most greenies agree that it's a great big mix of efficiencies in the way we generate and use energy (e.g. refurbishing buildings), changes in the way we do things to be less energy intensive (e.g. less oil-derived fertiliser and pesticide use), a switch to low/zero-carbon sources of all kinds, and in various areas a reduction in the amount we do those things (flying, especially). All with the proviso that new technology might come along and change things!

I think the major problem we've had in the UK is the political paralysis brought on by NIMBYs, muddled policy (it's great that Mckay is now the chief scientist at the dept. for energy and climate change), and politicians who lack the courage of their convictions.

[SteveT]

A great pity that previous governments of all persuasions have not bothered to invest north sea oil revenues in to future technologies.

The wave energy (bobbing ducks) was quoted to cost ten times the real costs so we would by the American nuclear system just as we are all over again.

Why is it sooo corrupt in this land?

[Jeremy]

I heard the same thing about the Salters ducks. I read it was a mis-calculation which lead to the extra zero being added to the estimate, but make of that what you will...

[SteveT]

James May quoted that figure on one of his programmes.

[5imon]

i find the political angle to the renewables/climate change debate interesting.

if you believe that we are at - or rapidly approaching - the point of no return in terms of emissions, the only solution to avoid catastrophic change is pretty much unilateral government direction.

in order to grab the necessary land for wind or solar, in order to remove the combustion engine from our roads quickly enough, and in order to divert enough of the public coffers to a massive nuclear program, democracy would have to take a back seat for a while.

imagine that in extremis: some sort of orwellian dystopian regime, yet all for the greater good of the planet...when i think about it i can feel the moral processing gears in my head grinding to a halt...

[SteveT]

It doesn't matter much what we do as we are only 60 million.

When China embarked on a policy of opening a new coal fired power station per week, that is frightening.

When America's industry churns out more pollution than anyone else's in the civilized world, that is worrying.

When India starts rolling out cars for under a thousand pounds which they have anticipated, that is terrifying.

[katie1997]

SteveT Wrote:

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

> When India starts rolling out cars for under a

> thousand pounds which they have anticipated, that

> is terrifying.

They already have - the Tata Nano was launched a few years ago in the Indian market.

[katie1997]

I agree with others about two major issues: security of supply and a need for investment in alternatives/renewables. Also, we would need to get over a lot of planning obstacles for e.g. onshore wind.

There isn't a shortage of oil (ok its a big..if) if you count the relatively untouched non-conventional sources but there will need to be research funding and industry investment for emerging technologies to solve the problem of cheap production, using less energy and water.

And I am sure I will be corrected on this but haven't the US recently cracked 'safe' nuclear fusion ahead of European scientists? I think there will be a strong push for nuclear (not saying I agree with this approach).

A step change in the way we think on energy as a whole - e.g. why do we burn fuel to run cars? The days of the combustion engine could be numbered in future with improvements on fuel cells, better battery range, early adopters to new technologies.

[SteveT]

Perhaps one day the country where you live will be considered an energy 'larder' and the population will be given a lifetime of 'energy units' which will discourage/prevent couples from producing large families.

As the Chinese say 'why breed offspring which cannot be reared'.