Low Carbon Energy

[Kingy_0]

Hello all, just thought I'd pop online and see what some of your opinions and ideas were on Low Carbon Energy alternatives (Wind, Solar, Marine, Fusion, Nuclear) instead of our current and continued consumption of fossil fuels.

I know it's been bandied about on the news for a while and I was just wondering what everyone's stance on it would be. Regarding it's feasibilty or cost effectiveness, and whether or not we should continue to go down the route of Carbon energy.

I'm merely asking this as I know that the Conservative party have placed a vested interest in this topic of debate so I presume so must have all the other parties, I suppose not only is the topic a vote winner but also an issue that if resolved will allow us as a nation to have access to unlimited energy.
Who knows...?

[Midas]

My own view is that too much time and money are being spent on unfeasible renewable alternative fuels like wind and wave power. Certainly some of them, such as the latest generations of solar PV and thermal devices, are showing promise, but with the best will in the world I can't see that any will produce commercially viable amounts of energy. For that we need to look to nuclear, hydroelectric - although pretty much all the good sites have already been used - deep geothermal and perhaps the underground in-situ combustion of coal deposits.

Whilst I can see that wind turbines and solar PV generators, and perhaps the latest generation of fuel cells, might be viable on a small scale, i.e., for individual houses or even small housing or light industrial developments to take them off the grid, our future power demands are going to be far beyond anything they can produce. To spend millions or billions of pounds on research into them is IMO just pouring more money down the drain. Of course if research into nuclear fusion was accelerated with an injection of even a fraction of the cash this government has fruitlessly wasted trying to resolve the current economic problems, many of our energy issues, and potential CO2 issues, could be resolved within a relatively short period of time.

However I have doubts on the long term viability or advisability of centralised power generation, particularly in a world with an uncertain future. Huge power plants and all their associated distribution networks supplying whole cities could potentially make us vulnerable to terrorist demands (as well as to technical or other failures). Cut off just one power station supplying a major city and what chaos would result and for how long? Far better, again purely in my opinion, to concentrate power generation on a much smaller and more local scale, with all generating sources being networked together in a decentralised, and thus far less vulnerable (to anything) grid.

[LA]

Firstly, I wish to make this perfectly clear, that we have not scientifically researched climate change. We are listening to politicians like Al Gore; who ignore most of the facts.

So my view is before we commit to anything, we must first research it in a balanced environment. However, this is purely for information sake.

The fact of the matter is, we must get off fossil fuels regardless of climate change or not. I completely agree with Midas here, that wind, solar etc are useless in a national scale.

Wind Turbines only work 30% of the time - anyone can notice that 30% is not very efficient. Additionally, with ALL renewable sources, you MUST keep the traditional fossil fuel power stations as backup in case the renewable sources don't produce enough. This makes the cost of energy production drastically increase, and almost wipes out any environmental benefit from using the renewables.

My personal view is that we must get off fossil fuels - I believe we should drastically increase our dependence on Nuclear and Waste Incineration.

Though this is not a national power source, I would also offer incentives for manufacturing companies to install co-generation technology.

Co-generation is when industries take advantage of their production and design their plant to produce some electricity as an output. For example, steel mills burn coal to melt the iron ore, if they include boiler tubes into the furnace when designing the process they can produce some superheated steam to power a small turbine on site.

Some more examples are a sewage treatment plant that captures the methane for combustion to heat steam (often called biogas generation), or a dock or harbour that incorporates some tidal turbines into the design of their walls.

Sugar mills that use begasse as a fuel to produce power have been in operation for years now. Even skyscrapers that feature solar cells instead of reflective glass on their building walls is an example of co-generation.

Transport is another important area. Cars run on petrol and diesel which we know are from fossil reserves, which means we need an alternative power source for cars.

Electric cars are not the answer. They are inefficient, useless and generally rubbish. I am not going into detail about this, but they are useless.

In regards to cars, we need inventive companies like Ford to conduct research. In the 1950s ford designed a Ford Nucleon Concept car.
The Car would be powered by a small nuclear reactor.

Now, I am sure we all understand the huge problem with using a nuclear reactor in a car, but this is the sort of research we need.

Can we make hydrogen safe, can we produce a new form of fuel.

[JAMC]

In regards to cars, we need inventive companies like Ford...

What? Ford, inventive? Up until a few years ago they still made sports cars with leaf springs, like a horse + cart!

to conduct research. In the 1950s ford designed a Ford Nucleon Concept car. The Car would be powered by a small nuclear reactor. Now, I am sure we all understand the huge problem with using a nuclear reactor in a car, but this is the sort of research we need.

I'm glad you spotted the huge problem of a small prang potentially causing death by radiation poisoning, and pileups causing critical mass. But this isn't the kind of research we need - because it was clear from the moment someone thought of it that it could never be used in a practical way.

Can we make hydrogen safe, can we produce a new form of fuel.

The hydrogen (currently) has to be refined somehow, which expends a vast quantity of energy.

The cleverest thing I've seen in the last few years that might mitigate the fossil fuel shortage problem is the tech that produces hydrocarbons from intensely focused sunlight.

[LA]

What? Ford, inventive? Up until a few years ago they still made sports cars with leaf springs, like a horse + cart!

In terms of all the concepts they have, they are very inventive.

I'm glad you spotted the huge problem of a small prang potentially causing death by radiation poisoning, and pileups causing critical mass. But this isn't the kind of research we need - because it was clear from the moment someone thought of it that it could never be used in a practical way.

We don't want research into other fuels? I am quite sure we do.
We need research into different fuels for cars, different technologies for cars to operate.

Though the Nucleon is not practical, the idea behind it is good.
Take a known and reliable energy source, and apply it.

[taylormotm]

Bring back the horse and cart.

haha, you may laugh, but it's the only way (other than the invention of a carbon free energy source) that we'll save the planet from the deadly carbon emissions.

[Streetwalker]

Bring back the horse and cart.

haha, you may laugh, but it's the only way (other than the invention of a carbon free energy source) that we'll save the planet from the deadly carbon emissions.

Since when were carbon emmissions classified as deadly? "if you say it often enough people will believe you" is no substitute for fact.


Altrnatives to fossil fuels are proving ineficient at best.Our reliance on gas and oil from other countries is unsustainable

Nuclear gets my vote

[LA]

We have many technologies that we should invest and research into:

Geothermal
Waste Incineration
Nuclear Waste Incineration
Nuclear
Hydroelectricity
Anaerobic Digestion
Microgeneration
Solar
Tidal
Wave
[Fusion]
Ethanol Production
Biomass heating
Biomass power
Biodiesel power
Concentrating solar thermal power

The list just goes on

[k.reams]

Hello all, just thought I'd pop online and see what some of your opinions and ideas were on Low Carbon Energy alternatives (Wind, Solar, Marine, Fusion, Nuclear) instead of our current and continued consumption of fossil fuels.

I know it's been bandied about on the news for a while and I was just wondering what everyone's stance on it would be. Regarding it's feasibilty or cost effectiveness, and whether or not we should continue to go down the route of Carbon energy.

I'm merely asking this as I know that the Conservative party have placed a vested interest in this topic of debate so I presume so must have all the other parties, I suppose not only is the topic a vote winner but also an issue that if resolved will allow us as a nation to have access to unlimited energy.
Who knows...?

Somehow after years of indulging in largely unnecessary friperies we now expect the third world to pass up their chance of doing the same,get real and move quicker down the road to cheap clean cars because that will be the sugar on the bitter pill we have to take in so many other areas.

[Kiwi 1691]

It really isn't that hard to produce electricity from renewable energy. NZ produces about 73% of it's electricity from renewable sources. Personally I believe it should be 100%, but in time I am sure it will.

[JAMC]

It really isn't that hard to produce electricity from renewable energy. NZ produces about 73% of it's electricity from renewable sources. Personally I believe it should be 100%, but in time I am sure it will.

That's great if you have the geology to make it work, which places like NZ and Iceland have in abundance.

The UK is in a different situation, we have mountainous regions in Wales and Scotland, but they're not sufficient to provide the kind of hydro or geothermal power the country would consume.

The quantity of coal in the UK was a factor in the industrial revolution kicking off here, but now that we've burned most of it we're dependent largely on imported oil and gas.

The only solution that really makes sense (i.e. stands a chance of meeting the demand without resulting in smog) given the temperate climate is nuclear - hence why there's a new generation of pressurized reactors planned for approx 2020.

[Streetwalker]

- hence why there's a new generation of pressurized reactors planned for approx 2020.

Problem is the government have been kicking thier heels for too long and the lights are going out in 2015

So what are we going to do for five years?

[Kiwi 1691]

That's great if you have the geology to make it work, which places like NZ and Iceland have in abundance.

The UK is in a different situation, we have mountainous regions in Wales and Scotland, but they're not sufficient to provide the kind of hydro or geothermal power the country would consume.

The quantity of coal in the UK was a factor in the industrial revolution kicking off here, but now that we've burned most of it we're dependent largely on imported oil and gas.

The only solution that really makes sense (i.e. stands a chance of meeting the demand without resulting in smog) given the temperate climate is nuclear - hence why there's a new generation of pressurized reactors planned for approx 2020.

All you need for hydro is some-sort of moving water eg a river. If you have rivers you can have hydro.

We have hundreds of Billions of dollars of coal buried under the earth. Yet most people are against using it, even though it is cheap power.

[JAMC]

Problem is the government have been kicking thier heels for too long and the lights are going out in 2015

So what are we going to do for five years?

I suspect a combination of;

• extending the lifespan of our existing, yet rather clapped-out coal and gas stations - many of which are already running on borrowed time.
• a big increase in reliance on foreign gas.
• re-opening welsh collieries (who would have suggested that 15 years ago?).
• stern measures to reduce domestic demand for electricity - probably in the form of steep price rises.

Not a pretty picture, but the lights won't simply go out.

[JAMC]

All you need for hydro is some-sort of moving water eg a river. If you have rivers you can have hydro.

You don't just need 'a river'. To generate the kind of power needed to replace a conventional fossil-burning power station, the source of moving water needs to be dammed - therefore you loose an entire river basin underwater, which is not an option in the UK where land commands a very high premium.

We have hundreds of Billions of dollars of coal buried under the earth. Yet most people are against using it, even though it is cheap power.

As above, the welsh coal will play a role in bridging the energy gap.

[LA]

The UK cannot rely on wind farms - They are hideous and take up too much room
We cannot rely on geothermal - I am sure JAMC has already pointed out why
We cannot rely on Solar - obvious reasons

All the UK can rely on is Waste Incineration, Nuclear and Clean Coal.

[DC]

IMO for many countries Nuclear is the way to go. It provides a relatively clean, safe, baseload power supply. In Australia we rely too much on coal, although we have a lot of it, IMO we should be adjusting to Nuclear, as we also have huge deposits of uranium.

[LA]

We need to put more research funding into alternative energies.
Fusion, Fision, Waste Incineration, Hydrogen, Helium etc

[DC]

We need to put more research funding into alternative energies.
Fusion, Fision, Waste Incineration, Hydrogen, Helium etc

Agreed, but many of these technologies are a long way off, if we're to believe greeny hysteria, then we need alternative energy sources now, even if they are temporary.

[LA]

Agreed, but many of these technologies are a long way off, if we're to believe greeny hysteria, then we need alternative energy sources now, even if they are temporary.

Indeed.

We need to clean up fossil fuel plants and use Nuclear until we can establish efficient alternative energy