A great many cars seem to drive with four headlights (2 heads and 2 spots)as soon as its dusk these days...surely this renders street lighting redundant.
I only mention this as it is a practice that infuriates me as these people don't realise that using spotlights when inappropriate can retrict the visibility of other oncoming roadusers
tidal power
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
Re. the lighting. A lot of people still cannot grasp the wattage idea.Take a 60 watt tungsten bulb, its equeivalent in the energy savers is 11 watts. Some people might leave it on for hours on end, not a lot of energy, others would make a great issue of turning it off when not in the room. Maybe they are using an electric heater, about the smallest one generally used would be 1 kilowatt. So that is using nearly 100 times as much energy as the bulb, yet some people would still turn the light on and off, not realising too that virtually all the energy consumed by the light ends up as heat.
-
madasafish
- KG Regular
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 pm
- Location: Stoke On trent
Street lighting is NOT a problem after about 11pm.
Why?
Well you cannot just switch of power generation. Generators have to keep running. Nuclear and coal fired plants do not stop generation when peopl go to bed. That's why Economy 7 tariffs exist: to encourage use in off peak periods.
So what does anyone suggest is going to fill the gap in generating capacity in 2016 and has to strat building now.. to prevent lights out.
Any suggestions that are not commercially viable and proven NOW are unacceptable as we don't want £ billions spent on some scheme which will not work 24/7.
That rules out wind power and tidal power for a start.
Why?
Well you cannot just switch of power generation. Generators have to keep running. Nuclear and coal fired plants do not stop generation when peopl go to bed. That's why Economy 7 tariffs exist: to encourage use in off peak periods.
So what does anyone suggest is going to fill the gap in generating capacity in 2016 and has to strat building now.. to prevent lights out.
Any suggestions that are not commercially viable and proven NOW are unacceptable as we don't want £ billions spent on some scheme which will not work 24/7.
That rules out wind power and tidal power for a start.
-
oldherbaceous
- KG Regular
- Posts: 14432
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: Beautiful Bedfordshire
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 709 times
Well we still haven't got any streetlights, and i love it. 
I must admit when some of my freinds come a visiting they find it very off putting, and a touch scary.
But i would light an extra candle if they asked.
I must admit when some of my freinds come a visiting they find it very off putting, and a touch scary.
But i would light an extra candle if they asked.
Kind Regards, Old Herbaceous.
There's no fool like an old fool.
There's no fool like an old fool.
A lot of top-up electricity comes from gas-powered generators which surely don't have to be kept going with no load. Do you know of the two hydro-electric storage generators in Wales. terrific capacity to be used at peaks,only a matter of seconds to bring them into use, at night the water is pumped back to the upper reservoir using the surplus nuclear etc. energy. Have a look at the appropriate web coverage of Llanberis, very impressive.
www.electricmountain.co.uk
Allan
www.electricmountain.co.uk
Allan
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 111 times
Regarding Chernobyl
If we (the UK) were to decommission and not build any further Nuclear Stations, it would not prevent another Chernobyl since other countries are going to build nuclear stations anyway. Nuclear technology has advanced since Chernobyl, we need to be in there with our technologists influencing and developing modern Nuclear Plants.
May I suggest that if we had decided to stop developing any advances in technology be it mining, steam engines, motor transport, medicine, space exploration etc. etc. on the account of past accidents we would still be in the Stone Age. The important thing is to learn to develop safe systems – not discount a technology because years ago some did not impose safe systems of working.
I do take the point about the waste, but this problem is surmountable and technical research will find a solution. Historically technology always has - when ‘needs must’.
I also agree about the terrorist threat but again I would rather our country was in control of our power supply and counter terrorist measures than to rely on supplies from abroad. If a supplying country’s supply was hit by terrorist do you think that country would still guarantee our supply?
Again I am not against alternatives, I accept there are radio active risks associated with nuclear power, but like wise there also are with X-rays, but we pragmatically accept and manage these risks because of the benefits.
I do feel that many have been conditioned against nuclear power. Allow me to give an example. I live near 2 nuclear power stations and over decades periodically scare stories are reported as headlines in the local papers from anti-nuclear pressure groups
These allegations usually inform us of alarming ‘cancer risks’ etc, many written by a Dr Busby. They get full headline scare story treatment and understandably are followed by worried letters to the papers.
However ALL allegations are subsequently investigated by independent specialists together with the local NHS. The investigations are thorough and so take time. At every time the outcome has been that there were no problems due to nuclear power however this gets reported as a short paragraph on the inside pages.
Lots of people remember the headlines ‘Freddie Star ate my hamster’ it was not true but who can remember reading the denial.
The local scare stories always sound more authentic coming from a Doctor.
Incidentally Dr Busby has a doctorate, but not in medicine, this never gets reported.
When Tony Blair got to power still preaching the anti-nuclear message I was talking to a professor from Bath university who was on a government advisory panel he said to me ‘ watch and wait for him to pick a time to promote nuclear power because there is no other way’ now he has.
.
The question is has he waited too long?
I’ll switch the after burners off.
Barney
If we (the UK) were to decommission and not build any further Nuclear Stations, it would not prevent another Chernobyl since other countries are going to build nuclear stations anyway. Nuclear technology has advanced since Chernobyl, we need to be in there with our technologists influencing and developing modern Nuclear Plants.
May I suggest that if we had decided to stop developing any advances in technology be it mining, steam engines, motor transport, medicine, space exploration etc. etc. on the account of past accidents we would still be in the Stone Age. The important thing is to learn to develop safe systems – not discount a technology because years ago some did not impose safe systems of working.
I do take the point about the waste, but this problem is surmountable and technical research will find a solution. Historically technology always has - when ‘needs must’.
I also agree about the terrorist threat but again I would rather our country was in control of our power supply and counter terrorist measures than to rely on supplies from abroad. If a supplying country’s supply was hit by terrorist do you think that country would still guarantee our supply?
Again I am not against alternatives, I accept there are radio active risks associated with nuclear power, but like wise there also are with X-rays, but we pragmatically accept and manage these risks because of the benefits.
I do feel that many have been conditioned against nuclear power. Allow me to give an example. I live near 2 nuclear power stations and over decades periodically scare stories are reported as headlines in the local papers from anti-nuclear pressure groups
These allegations usually inform us of alarming ‘cancer risks’ etc, many written by a Dr Busby. They get full headline scare story treatment and understandably are followed by worried letters to the papers.
However ALL allegations are subsequently investigated by independent specialists together with the local NHS. The investigations are thorough and so take time. At every time the outcome has been that there were no problems due to nuclear power however this gets reported as a short paragraph on the inside pages.
Lots of people remember the headlines ‘Freddie Star ate my hamster’ it was not true but who can remember reading the denial.
The local scare stories always sound more authentic coming from a Doctor.
Incidentally Dr Busby has a doctorate, but not in medicine, this never gets reported.
When Tony Blair got to power still preaching the anti-nuclear message I was talking to a professor from Bath university who was on a government advisory panel he said to me ‘ watch and wait for him to pick a time to promote nuclear power because there is no other way’ now he has.
.
The question is has he waited too long?
I’ll switch the after burners off.
Barney
To compare "Chernobyl" style nuclear plants and indeed most of the ones in Britain with the new generation plants is like comparing a Vauxhall Vectra with a model T ford. The new ones produce a tenth of the waste are far more safe and efficient.
Most of our existing plants are of 1950's-60's design vintage and so are old in design and age, I personally would welcome them being closed and a series of new generation plants opened. We need our own secure energy supplies and not have to rely on Russia and the Middle east for our heating and lighting.
Most of our existing plants are of 1950's-60's design vintage and so are old in design and age, I personally would welcome them being closed and a series of new generation plants opened. We need our own secure energy supplies and not have to rely on Russia and the Middle east for our heating and lighting.
I cannot see how technology can alter the problem of the radioactive elements in the waste having a fixed half-life that sets the time necessary for the waste to decay.
Maybe fusion techniques will eventually come, so far it is taking an awful long time.
My information is that counting all expenses nuclear will always be on the expensive side. I must agree that the safety element is much overplayed, but it is not the only problem.
Maybe fusion techniques will eventually come, so far it is taking an awful long time.
My information is that counting all expenses nuclear will always be on the expensive side. I must agree that the safety element is much overplayed, but it is not the only problem.
I agree wholeheartedly with Barney and Piglet and
my thoughts are that it has got to be Nuclear and the sooner the better.
Piglets analogy is a great one. My first car was a 1934 Morris 10/4 with the middle pedal as the accelerator and cable brakes. I then moved to a 1936 Morris 10/4 and the accelerator was changed to the right hand pedal and it had hydraulic brakes.
In just those two years the model had improved considerably and the only thing is that Nuclear Power Stations cannot be updated so readily. Modifications made but nothing that meaningful we have to wait until they are at the end of their lives before the next generation come on stream and what the anti-lobby would have you believe is that the industry has not learned anything since the first ones were built and any mistakes learned are to be perpetuated in the new designs.
To keep quoting Chernobyl is as futile as the person who got annoyed with me when one of the great Organic/Conventional debates was in full swing and she was so anti chemical she kept replying to my postings by quoting "Thalidomide is a chemical and I don't want my children born deformed" as her case for being Organic she posted the same thing about 8 times. In the end I suggested she stopped eating! Rude I know but she didn't mention Thalidomide again. I now make a suggestion that Chernobyl is best left out of this debate.
JB.
my thoughts are that it has got to be Nuclear and the sooner the better.
Piglets analogy is a great one. My first car was a 1934 Morris 10/4 with the middle pedal as the accelerator and cable brakes. I then moved to a 1936 Morris 10/4 and the accelerator was changed to the right hand pedal and it had hydraulic brakes.
In just those two years the model had improved considerably and the only thing is that Nuclear Power Stations cannot be updated so readily. Modifications made but nothing that meaningful we have to wait until they are at the end of their lives before the next generation come on stream and what the anti-lobby would have you believe is that the industry has not learned anything since the first ones were built and any mistakes learned are to be perpetuated in the new designs.
To keep quoting Chernobyl is as futile as the person who got annoyed with me when one of the great Organic/Conventional debates was in full swing and she was so anti chemical she kept replying to my postings by quoting "Thalidomide is a chemical and I don't want my children born deformed" as her case for being Organic she posted the same thing about 8 times. In the end I suggested she stopped eating! Rude I know but she didn't mention Thalidomide again. I now make a suggestion that Chernobyl is best left out of this debate.
JB.
Re.Johnboy's posting
On the last point. We live in a digital age. So often issues are presented to us digitally. I get really narked by all these questions where you are given a stark choice between A abd B. So often it depends on many other factors, generally neither is acceptable. The topic you mention is well worn, usually as Organic OR chemical which is a total distortion of the situation. I say "It all depends" or neither. We don't want to make a stark one-off choice.
I am not convinced that nuclear power has to be used, nor at this stage that we can manage without it.
Allan
On the last point. We live in a digital age. So often issues are presented to us digitally. I get really narked by all these questions where you are given a stark choice between A abd B. So often it depends on many other factors, generally neither is acceptable. The topic you mention is well worn, usually as Organic OR chemical which is a total distortion of the situation. I say "It all depends" or neither. We don't want to make a stark one-off choice.
I am not convinced that nuclear power has to be used, nor at this stage that we can manage without it.
Allan
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 111 times
The problem in doing nothing is there is yet no proven alternative and when the power supply becomes critical (as Tony Blair has realised) and all the ‘alternatives’ have not proved practical you can’t then suddenly ‘’just rustle up a couple of Nuclear Power stations’’.
They take years to plan and build and government has shamefully wasted years by hoping for an alternative. Piglett and Johnboy are quite correct that modern nuclear plants use a different modern technology to harness the ‘atom’. It is also shameful that it is likely to be nuclear stations of French or other country’s design since we wrongly turned our back on the development of the technology. We cannot afford the luxury in doing nothing whilst consoling ourselves with futile gestures like putting whirligigs on top of our houses.
All the best
Barney
They take years to plan and build and government has shamefully wasted years by hoping for an alternative. Piglett and Johnboy are quite correct that modern nuclear plants use a different modern technology to harness the ‘atom’. It is also shameful that it is likely to be nuclear stations of French or other country’s design since we wrongly turned our back on the development of the technology. We cannot afford the luxury in doing nothing whilst consoling ourselves with futile gestures like putting whirligigs on top of our houses.
All the best
Barney
Its interesting that you quote the French Barney. They are a bit more in the real world and produce 80% of their electricity via Nuclear power and are beholden to nobody. We generate nearly 70% of our electricity via natural gas and are at the mercy of the Russians in the main but also the French and Germans who will only let us have gas when their needs are met.
The new plants can easily be built next to existing stations just like at Sizewell et al.
Rather than waiting for the gas to run out I have just ripped out our gas fire ready to install a multifuel fire, we will then have two fires that will burn coal or wood. We burn wood generally as its carbon neutral and the ash is good for my fruit bushes and garlic.
The new plants can easily be built next to existing stations just like at Sizewell et al.
Rather than waiting for the gas to run out I have just ripped out our gas fire ready to install a multifuel fire, we will then have two fires that will burn coal or wood. We burn wood generally as its carbon neutral and the ash is good for my fruit bushes and garlic.