 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
the_fatadder, the trouble is that we always think of large scale projects, big dams huge tidal barrages etc, instead perhaps we should look at more projects but on a smaller scale, e.g a small turbine house powered by a small river should be able to generate sufficient power for 20 to 30 thousand people or a small town, with minimal disruption to the river a tidal pool in a small cive should be able to do something similar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I think we should build nuclear stations to supply our need for the next 50 years or so. At the same time we should invest heavily in new energy technologies especially fusion in theory its possible and in experiments the indicators are we can do it we just need to work out how maybe this venture will have the answer in maybe 15 to 20 years. ITER
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Russell, I agree. I'd spend heavily on renewable research as well as fusion. We need a diversity of supply for energy security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
We are having trouble meeting our CO2 emission targets and are manifestly having trouble meeting our energy needs . If you think wind power the answer, ofgen has commented on it's cost because of the intermittent nature of the supply. In fact, "intermittent" was a highly charitable expression during the recent, prolonged period of high pressure over the UK. Moreover, this unreliable form of energy supply, requires about 300 sq miles of the earth's surface to match the output of a conventional power station, according to this article.
Meantime, following a closish vote in its parliament (107-92) Finland decided in 2002 to build a new nuclear power plant due completion 2009. So they really have been making "tough decisions" instead of just taking about them - and their energy supply for the foreseeable future looks reasonably secure. And Finland does not have a reputation for being environmentally reckless. I am concerned that the UK government has let the nation's energy supply be too low a priority too long.
I would have thought that, at the very least, it's use should be encouraged from existing power stations tat meet European standards. Strangely, the SCGB does not. If you look at the club's green resort guide and look at Les Deux Alpes you will see that it is not ranked as a "green power user". Which suggests that anyone n France should ignore the mostly carbon-emission free electricity already produced for the national grid - and instead user further of the earth's resources to produce further power supplies on the grounds that they are green (if otherwise redundant).
Intriguingly, Val Thorens is rated as a green power user, so we can feel smug at the EOSB. Anybody know what this power supply is?
For SCGB members, there has been a similar thread running here.
PS I would have thought this was Apres Zone stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| PS I would have thought this was Apres Zone stuff. |
Probably the more appropriate forum.
Incidentally I found the view on nuclear power presented here by Canadian Dr Patrick Moore (not the astronomer  ) who helped found Greenpeace , well argued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| saxabar wrote: |
| Mamcoz wrote: |
| I believe that a gamble should be taken on fusion, and that Fusion researchers should effectively be given a blank cheque. |
What do you mean by gamble, and why should Fusion researchers be given a free cheque of our money?
Apologies to all for tone of voice. |
No need to apologise. I'll explain. I say gamble, because no one has yet managed a fusion reaction that has created more energy than was needed to start the reaction in the first place. I'm sure with time and investment, this problem can be overcome. I believe that the research should be given absolute funding, because fusion is completely non-polluting, creates a huge amount of energy (far more than nuclear power stations) and has an unlimited fule supply (can't remember exactly, but I think it is hydrogen). Also, it would go along way ensuring that our beloved snow still existed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classic green scare tactics nuclear power is terrible because of Chernobyl. These are the same people that photograph the cooling towers at coal fired power stations and say look at the smoke isnt it polluting.
The reactor in Chernobyl was considered unsafe by western standards, it was designed as unsafe to facilitate the production of plutonium. Even though the design doesnt meet western standards it still would not have happened unless during an experiment its safety features were disabled.
This is the single main cause of the accident. The safety features would have safely shut down the reactor if they hadn't been disabled.
In order to prevent the reactor from shutting itself off from xenon poisoning, the operators pulled the control rods almost all the way out. This caused an enormous increase in the nuclear reaction to many times the reactor's normal power level. This caused a steam explosion that blew the top off the reactor, probably stopping the nuclear reaction. Then the carbon caught fire and burned for about nine days. This scattered the reactor contents and large amounts of radioactivity. 32 people died in the accident and in efforts to put out the fire. 38 more people died of acute radiation sickness in the following months. There were measurable health effects in Ukraine and Belarus.
To put this disaster into perspective in Bhopal nearly 3,000 people died on the night of the leak in 1984. There have been at least 15,000 related deaths since with 100,000 people suffering illness as a direct result of the chemical leak.
Wind and Wave do have an impact on the environment, we need a balanced energy solution involving nuclear and other renewable energy but most of all we should all not waste it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
fusion reaction that has created more energy than was needed to start the reaction in the first place. I'm sure with time and investment, this problem can be overcome. I
|
Is not another problem controlling the energy produced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
| and has an unlimited fule supply (can't remember exactly, but I think it is hydrogen) |
Fuels for fusion.
Deuterium is abundant as it can be extracted from all forms of water. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion power stations, Deuterium supplies would last for millions of years.
Tritium does not occur naturally and will be manufactured from Lithium within the machine.
Lithium, the lightest metal, is plentiful in the earth's crust. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion, known reserves would last for at least 1000 years.
Once the reaction is established, even though it occurs between Deuterium and Tritium, the consumables are Deuterium and Lithium.
Quantities
For example, 10 grams of Deuterium which can be extracted from 500 litres of water and 15g of Tritium produced from 30g of Lithium would produce enough fuel for the lifetime electricity needs of an average person in an industrialised country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cmyers_uk wrote: |
| Classic green scare tactics |
Who are 'Greens' trying to scare?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
cmyers_uk and co, Assuming you may want/have children (and grandchildren?) and have an investment in the future please tell me your problem with the 'precautionary principle', i.e. let's work out the risk events before they blow up in front of us?
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 29-11-05 23:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| saxabar wrote: |
| cmyers_uk wrote: |
| Classic green scare tactics |
Who are 'Greens' trying to scare? |
Everybody, including themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, Unfortunately you are right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
A question for those of you who know (or give the impression that thye know) about these things..
On p1 (near the bottom), the_fatadder points out that using tidal power slows the water flow, causing problems like silting. Do wind turbines slow the wind in similar fashion (basis physics suggest they must)? What effect would that windspeed reduction have on the area downwind of a large wind farm?? Will that area be becalmed - and what would be the effect on the wider weather patterns???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Red Leon, energy will be absorbed by the wind, though I wouldn't think to an extent which would make much difference to the weather pattern. One thing: turbines do have to be in areas well clear of trees - or from which trees have been cleared.
From this article :
| Quote: |
The construction of a large facility is also far from ecologically neutral if the location has no previous development. It requires roads, foundations, clearing of trees, and construction of power lines. The clearing of trees is necessary since obstructions within a distance ten times the height of the turbine reduce yield dramatically. A distance of twenty times is preferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Red Leon,  yup imagine if the sun had had a bad few weeks warming the tropics and the global wind farm industry used up all the available wind left.. sailing enthusiasts would be in uproar.. and barometer manufacturers would go out of business as the global air pressure settled at a bland 1010...
i read thismorning that in the uk all the electricity produced by nuclear power so far in the country would fill the albert hall 5 times..
now thats some pretty toxic waste, but the albert hall is no wembly stadium, and that is a lot of years of a lot of electricity..
how much co2 and other rubbish has been produced by coal and gas fired stations..
iyou are basically condensing the rubbish produced.. do you want to say bury that amount of really bad stuff.. or spread it around the globe in a much less toxic fashion... ?
also on bio mass.. you still have to burn it, it still produces waste product.. ok you can say its renewable because you grow it so its 'carbon neatral' but arnt you still effectivly turning sunlight into smoke..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
..................i read thismorning that in the uk all the electricity produced by nuclear power so far in the country would fill the albert hall 5 times..
now thats some pretty toxic waste, but the albert hall is no wembly stadium, and that is a lot of years of a lot of electricity.. |
And our most recent nuclear power station was built in the 80s. Modern nuclear power stations produce "produce a much reduced volume of radioactive waste", according to Sir David Wallace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Interesting stuff from the president of the Royal Society http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4482174.stm
cmyers_uk, you're right about putting nuclear disasters into perspective. A few thousand deaths from Nuclear in 50-odd years does not even begin to compare with the many millions dying from starvation in Africa due to climate change. Add in the argument about reducing our energy dependency on oil from religious fanatics in the Middle East, and we've got to make some radical changes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Plake, i like the bit at the end about americans wanting to teach 'creationism' in science.. surely this should be taught in whatever their equivalent of R.E. is.. isnt sciences job to completly do away with the god type stuff..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
| Plake, i like the bit at the end about americans wanting to teach 'creationism' in science.. surely this should be taught in whatever their equivalent of R.E. is.. ? |
AFAIK there is no equivalent of R.E in American publicly funded schools because the teaching of religion in any state organised activity is forbidden.
Your point has been made by some American scientists, who would welcome the transfer of "creationism" out of the science classes and into a comparative R.E class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| saxabar wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| saxabar wrote: |
| Broadly, all scientists are agreed that industrialisation has caused recent effects |
that's not my understanding of what "all scientists" are saying... it seems more along the lines of man-made CO2 and Methane emissions contribute to global warming and even then there are a lot of scientists in the US who don't even go that far. |
What's the difference between recent man [sic] -made and industrialisation/late modernity?
I'm not even going to go into sponsored US research!!! |
According to those same scientists the earth is going through a warming period so it is not clear what effect CO2 and Methane emissions have had, is it 99% or 1% contribution? I'd be interested if someone can find a link giving at leat a ball park figure. Global warming and man made global warming are 2 different things. If the figure is say 50% man made then the Kyoto treaty will have little effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, the Kyoto treaty will have little effect anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
laundryman, Kyoto is a good start but without the major player on board, you are right, not much is going to happen. American businesses have a points score (let the market dictate things) by which companies can buy and sell Green point in line with legislation. I think this is a good idea if the scales actually worked in favour of the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saxabar, Besides the USA, other major players effectively not on board are China and India, who though they signed up to Kyoto, are not listed in Annex 1 to the agreement, and therefore have no constraints on their carbon emissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
| Who are 'Greens' trying to scare? |
People who read this forum for starters, look at the number of threads about losing all the snow because of climate change. i.e Here are people who like snow, be warned you may lose it because of climate change. Humm really wheres your proof, oh look at this link. Well it must be true then.
Now look at some of the research about the effects of climate change you hear that the polar ice cap is melting and sea levels will raise, this in turn weakens the gulf stream we in the UK get a colder climate with more snow and cold weather more skiing, ah but that doesnt support my views, ah well lets discount it.
Now look at this thread can snows future be assured by Nuclear power, of course not, so we stop all our CO2 production from power stations what about cars, flying to your skiing holiday, the co2 produced bringing the cheap always in season food to the supermarkets. This is before you mention China and India growth and increased usage of burning fossil fuels which means any savings we make will have no impact in overall CO2 production because as we slowdown they increase.
Saxabar, I do have kids but have no issues with nulcear power. I understand if I want energy todo anything there will be a downside nothing is free of problems. As a country we need a diverse balanced energy supply which should include hydro , nuclear , wind and possibly tidal although I am not convinced about the environmental impacts of that. As individuals we should look at how we waste energy and as a government we should make our energy expensive so people cant afford to waste it.
God Ive even bored myself writing this 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| cmyers_uk wrote: |
Now look at this thread can snows future be assured by Nuclear power, of course not, so we stop all our CO2 production from power stations what about cars, flying to your skiing holiday, the co2 produced bringing the cheap always in season food to the supermarkets. |
Road transport and aviation are certainly major contributors to the total global CO2 released. However, in theory nuclear generated electricity could also be used to power battery electric vehicles, or to generate hydrogen for fuel cell powered vehicles, and hydrogen burning gas turbines for aircraft propulsion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair , good point
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| cmyers_uk wrote: |
God Ive even bored myself writing this |
Me too, I have a philosophical axe to grind, that all. There's more appropriate forums for doing that. Here I'd rather talk about sexy slidey snow stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
saxabar, wrote:
| Quote: |
As most will have picked up, I am no scientist. I do find it uncanny however that in our tiny time span of industrialisation such dramatic changes are happening to our day-to-day ecology. When our senior sHs discuss snow changes in their own sliding period I find it odd that human agency has nothing to do with this. All I argue is that we adhere to the precautionary principle and don't mess up the future for those who will hopefully follow
|
Excuse me, but that is simply wrong. Science is based on experiments and unbiased observations. Your observations are, unfortunatedly, biased (it's only human). What you are saying is akin to observing that "god exists since i prayed for my mother and she got better". You are observing two events occuring at the same time and you decided that they are related. They could be, but we really have no real proof that hey are or that the connection is significant.
What i personnaly find disturbing is that people who can't tell me the weather for next week (too many variables) see themselves fit to state with complete conviction what caused the climate change and where it's going. I find that very bad science (from a methodological standpoint). I think a bit of modesty is in order, and alot more basic research. Yes we should really invest money and resources to find out were this planet is heading, as right now we have heated debates with almost no facts (the kind politicians like best)
p.s.
you made a derisive comment about "american funded research". That is a gross over generalisation. The US is the biggest funder of research, the main producer of quality research, the most respected and most important science journals are American journals. Right now, the EU is fighting a brain drain to US universities. Yes there is also bad research being done in the US but it's proportion is no larger than in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
On a similar theme.
How do the Brits expect to get to the slopes when the Oil runs out ? As far as I know Planes only run on a product of Crude Oil ?
I have not heard of them converting Boeing 737,s or Airbuses to run on biomass, wind, nuclear, electric .
OK you will be able tio use your solar,electric car to get to France but it will back to the rowing boat for ski trips in North America 
Any thoughts, maybe a seperate topic ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| saxabar wrote: |
| All I argue is that we adhere to the precautionary principle and don't mess up the future for those who will hopefully follow. |
I've always been sceptical of the so-called "precautionary principle" so I decided to follow the Wikipedia link. The definition is given as:
| Quote: |
| [The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is] the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action. |
Nobody here follows the "precautionary principle". Every time we snap on a pair of skis we take on board the risk that some out of control nutter will clatter into us at 50+ mph and turn our lights out for good (amongst other parallel risks). For each of us, that's major and irreversible.
Nothing is without risk, and the only sensible approach to analysing any activity is to assess the risks AND the benefits, and compare them to the risks and benefits of alternative courses of action, including doing nothing. To look at only one side of the equation, and not to make comparisons, is muddle-headed. It is interesting that a quick google indicates that this phrase is used almost exclusively by eco-campaigners.
I think the use of the word "principle" in this context is an abuse of the English language. It should be reserved for scientific facts with a solid foundation (e.g. Archimedes' principle) or clear moral statements with which few would disagree, e.g. "no taxation without representation".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Im slowly reading through the thread (cant go all in one go because im working!). So far the point that strikes me is the human fear of nuclear and the cancers/chronic diseases it may produce in the case of a disaster.....
Yet.... there is a group of people who are prone to carcinogens etc at much higher doses than they would achieve from nuclear (short of a minor haulocaust..... I believe you call them smokers.
To edit now I have made it right through....
It is worth mentioning that, in my experience (yes that is subjective, but as a scientist I see good amounts of scientists and non scientists), the fear of nuclear fuel is typically reserved for those who do not understand it and who gain there information from popular press. Yes amongst my colleages there are reservations, but no one is under the illusion that nuclear fuel is a killer like the press can sometimes make out!
As for fusion versus fission.... I believe JET (fusion) has demonstrated a net power gain. ITER will improve upon that. The difficulty is that in all honesty fusion costs too much at the moment since it is still highly research based. The additional problem is that running a fusion reactor at this point needs scientists, not just engineers. We simply wouldnt have the expertise to have dozens of fusion reactors running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
as global warming cant be proved and may actually end up with global cooling then trashing global economies based on cheap energy is never likely to happen.. another issue though is pollution.. there is only a finite amount of water on this planet for example.. so only a finite amount of gunk can be chucked into it before it starts getting a bit grubby.. the atmosphere is only so big.. and im sure can only cope with so much crap in it before it starts going a bit brown and yukky....
thats why i favour the nuclear option.. it keeps all the dirt from energy production in one tidy little spot .. leaving the rest of the planet free to get hotter and colder on its own but with a lot less crud in it.. all we have to do is find somewhere remote and deep enough to hide say one albert halls worth of million year mega poison every 5 years.. im sure we can manage that.. i mean mankind has managed to explode a good few nuclear bombs in testing.. and who knows in a few hundred years mankind may even find the stuff useful for something ..
i suggest burying it under southend uniteds football ground.. there is enough poo-poo on the pitch at the moment no one will notice some more under it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Contrary to popular terminology, global warming is easy to prove. What can't be proved is whether man is causing it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooh! A REAL thread for a change! 
For reference, NZ's electricity is nearly 100% "environmentally" generated (save for a solitary coal-fired furnace). The rest is generated through a massive system of hydrodams up & down the country, or by sucking off geothermal energy. Woohoo! Pat on back. Isn't that great!
No. Not at all.
NZ's systems of electricity generation have resulted in massive environmental damage.
Hydro requires the construction of dams and artificial lakes in the middle of rivers and/or alterations of natural waterflows, with the resultant extinction of natural habitats and animals. Similarly the enormous geothermal "resevoirs" aren't massive anymore, having been sucked off to drive turbines, with resultant extinction of natural habitats and animals.
Something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the population of N.Z. is about the same as essex and kent.. if that.. in a country similar in size to the u.k
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
...with much better hydro and geothermal possibilities than the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
