Proposed Severn Barrage

[kyser_soze]

Aye, and they're pretty much leccy generation independent. If I was Dave 'Call me Dave' Cameron I'd be focussing on energy security as a big scare issue, that could call on a wide variety of old Tory warts...buying gas off the russkies, self-sufficiency while still protecting the green&pleasant land, something big being built (return to the UKs engineering prestige, Victorian vision and energy)

I would like to see what the estimated tons per kw/h estimate, taken over the predicted initial lifespan of the barrage and the lagoons, would be, since ultimately that's how you work out how green any given source is...

 

[Giles]

I find it staggering that anyone could make a statement like this about nuclear power.
I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that you don't know why people have a problem with nuclear power.

Well, it won't be too long before coal and gas become too expensive to use in quantity for power generation, and/or are deemed too polluting of the atmosphere.

We *may* be able to slightly reduce demand (or stop it going up much further) but most people in the UK *will not accept* the drop in lifestyle standards that would come from a REAL reduction in electricity usage.

Windmills and solar panels can help but we still need electricity when its cloudy and not windy.

Which leaves nuclear. Nuc stations don't pollute much compared with burning oil, gas or coal and provide power all the time. France makes three quarters of their power from nuclear. They have over 50 nuclear power stations. We have managed not to need as many due to coal and gas, but not for much longer, I suspect.

There is also the "energy security" issue: What happens if we depend on gas or oil from abroad, and it is suddenly unavailable due to conflicts etc?

Giles..

 

[kyser_soze]

We *may* be able to slightly reduce demand (or stop it going up much further) but most people in the UK *will not accept* the drop in lifestyle standards that would come from a REAL reduction in electricity usage.

If everyone in the UK bought their housing up to a decent level of insultaion, adopted all of the currently recommended energy saving guidelines suggested by the government, demand would drop by between 15 and 25% according to the Energy trust, so it's more than 'slightly'reducing demand...and that's before you get into stuff like condensing boilers, local mixed-generation and other micro-generation projects...

Can the UK fuel itself without nukes...well no one really knows, and whomever actually delivers an answer would be slated by the side they come down against...

TBH my problem is not with nuke stations per se, it's the govt trying to do it on the cheap, and the fact that no-one as yet knows what to do with the waste long term...

 

[llantwit]

Do you work for the nuclear industry Giles?

As you know, Uranium doesn't grow on trees. It lives underground, and takes lots of energy to extract. In the future it's likely that the extraction process (itself quite environmentally destructive) will take more energy than it creates.

More important than this is that supply is finite. The more we mine as nuclear power use increases, the quicker it'll all run out.

And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, there's the 'what to do with the waste' problem. Which is monumental. Absolutely fucking huge. And, like KS says, there's no satisfactory answer.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=627

 

[Giles]

Do you work for the nuclear industry Giles?

As you know, Uranium doesn't grow on trees. It lives underground, and takes lots of energy to extract. In the future it's likely that the extraction process (itself quite environmentally destructive) will take more energy than it creates.

More important than this is that supply is finite. The more we mine as nuclear power use increases, the quicker it'll all run out.

And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, there's the 'what to do with the waste' problem. Which is monumental. Absolutely fucking huge. And, like KS says, there's no satisfactory answer.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=627

I have never worked for any part of the nuclear industry.

Breeder reactors are very very efficient. We should build some new ones of these. They make their own fuel.

The waste problem is not insurmountable, and the physical volumes of high and medium level waste are not that big. Find somewhere quiet and not prone to earthquakes, and build a huge stone or concrete structure (maybe like a modern pyramid) and put it inside, with suitable signs around to tell people to keep out.

The French make 74% of their power from nuclear energy and have been doing so for decades. They fully intend to carry on doing so.

Quoting "The Ecologist" at me does not change my POV, really. They *hate* nuclear power on principle, so their writings on the subject are hardly likely to be objective.

People are not going to regress en masse to a simple-life, low-tech, low energy lifestyle if that means giving up their creature comforts, unless they absolutely have to, are they? The ratchet won't turn backwards.

Giles..

 

[kyser_soze]

People are not going to regress en masse to a simple-life, low-tech, low energy lifestyle if that means giving up their creature comforts, unless they absolutely have to, are they? The ratchet won't turn backwards.

I see you ignored what I said about energy efficiency then? There are some bodies who suggest that with widespread changes to the way we consume energy we could keep consumption at today's levels for the next 20-30 years - and a 'low energy' lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean going back to rubbing sticks together for fire, what it means is people being more frugal and most importantly, aware of what they're using (houses with water meters use up to 30% less than homes that don't have one; same goes for people on metered gas/electricity too...start metering consumption again I say...

 

[Giles]

I see you ignored what I said about energy efficiency then? There are some bodies who suggest that with widespread changes to the way we consume energy we could keep consumption at today's levels for the next 20-30 years - and a 'low energy' lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean going back to rubbing sticks together for fire, what it means is people being more frugal and most importantly, aware of what they're using (houses with water meters use up to 30% less than homes that don't have one; same goes for people on metered gas/electricity too...start metering consumption again I say...

What do you mean "start metering consumption again"??? When did people ever NOT have meters for electricity and gas?

We could (and probably will) insulate houses better, but it won't be enough.

If prices go up a lot then (some) people will be forced to be a lot more frugal, others still won't care.

Giles..

 

[kyser_soze]

Then you charge people on rate of consumption as well - effectively if someone is really extravagant in their energy use you don't let them have off peak discounts, based on their useage patterns, any energy saving stuff they've had done etc - that way you get to soak the worst users.

And I mean returning to PAYG for everyone - actually having to spend on a weekly/monthy basis makes you a lot more aware of what you use then simply being told '200 units for £100' on a monthly/quarterly bill.

 

[big eejit]

which would make Weston-Super-Mare an interesting place to live for a while.

Now that's a much more impressive feat than building a barrage across the Severn!

 

[kyser_soze]

35,000 workers...now, how many of them would require *ahem* services?

 

[spacemonkey]

Now that's a much more impressive feat than building a barrage across the Severn!

*boom tish*

This thread has veered away from Tidal Power/Severn Barrage....

 

[Giles]

Then you charge people on rate of consumption as well - effectively if someone is really extravagant in their energy use you don't let them have off peak discounts, based on their useage patterns, any energy saving stuff they've had done etc - that way you get to soak the worst users.

And I mean returning to PAYG for everyone - actually having to spend on a weekly/monthy basis makes you a lot more aware of what you use then simply being told '200 units for £100' on a monthly/quarterly bill.

That is silly and unfair.

Things have a price: a loaf of bread, a KWh of electricity, a litre of petrol.

How on earth will you administer some system based on "rate of consumption"?

Someone's "rate of consumption" is going to be higher if there are more people in their house or flat, or if they are home more of the time, and need more heating (like pensioners), etc etc. More consumption does not necessarily mean they are being profligate.

To do this fairly you would need another load of intrusive bureaucracy to work out each household's "entitlement" so you could charge them more for using above this amount. People don't want more bureaucracy, or more officials nosing around their lives telling them what to do.

And busy people do not need and would not choose to use token or prepayment meters, when they can just pay a quarterly bill by direct debit. Why would anyone choose this?

It wouldn't be popular.

Giles..

 

[deeplight]

Tidal lagoons in the severn are a must build if we are really serious about building a sustainable future.

If the friends of the earth are satisfied with the environmental impact then it surely at least warrents a deeper look, though admitedly they too have their own agenda.

Sustainability will not be achieved in time for us all without big commitments like this being made right now.

 

[llantwit]

If the friends of the earth are satisfied with the environmental impact then it surely at least warrents a deeper look, though admitedly they too have their own agenda.

Everyone's got their own agenda - but FOE are fairly upfront about theirs, and it's a difficult one to argue against, imo.
Unless you know about some unspoken FOE motivation?

 

[lapwing]

Things have a price: a loaf of bread, a KWh of electricity, a litre of petrol.
How on earth will you administer some system based on "rate of consumption"?

Personal carbon quotas maybe?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/individual/pca/index.htm

 

[lewislewis]

Huge projects like this are always quite attractive due to the scale, but this dam would cause unwarranted environmental destruction, and would remove the huge potential for tidal lagoon power along the Channel.
They are also talking about putting a road or rail link along it. It would cause massive disruption to the local areas like the Vale of Glamorgan and whatever is on the English side. I'm not 'nimbying' out I just think tidal lagoons are a more viable alternative.
Everyone I know thinks that this is a government cop out- a huge project that makes the government look like it's doing something about climate change. The real steps that must be taken like insulating homes, changing car engines, tidal lagoons, are far less exciting than a massive tidal barrage across the River Severn.

 

[kyser_soze]

Tidal lagoon, even FoE estimate, would use about 80% more materials than just the barrage...it's also unproven technology (admittedly so's a barrage on this scale, but at least the basic idea is proven to work), so it's a much, much bigger risk.

I agree tho - the government should be organising and subsidising a nationwide building campaign to install condensing boilers, double glazing, cavity and roof insulation etc...

 

[llantwit]

Tidal lagoon, even FoE estimate, would use about 80% more materials than just the barrage...it's also unproven technology (admittedly so's a barrage on this scale, but at least the basic idea is proven to work), so it's a much, much bigger risk.

Gota ref for that? Genuinely curious. I was assuming that the lagoons would take less materials - the barrage will take loads of stone and sand.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's in the link I put up on the first page I think...

 

[llantwit]

Will check again, ta. Didn't read it all that closely.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's on the chart at the bottom of the FoE document...

Wall length for the lagoons is 95 miles against 9.8, 200mn tons of aggregate against 13mn...according to FoE numbers the lagoons would be about 20% more efficient and 60% cheaper per kw/h...it's far more efficient on capacity factor...what's interesting is that they don't include a whole life carbon cost for either project...I suspect that over the 120 years they'd probably even out - that 200mn tons, plus associated transport&construction...I don't think it's as clear cut as simply saying 'Lagoons would look prettier'