h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Pedro 7

You just made the made point again for me.

To everyone else,

This post has generated much interesting chemistry and physics - with the anticipated arguments! I am not concerned with the precise amount of whatever a 747 ( or equivalent ) produces, nor whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, on the ground or in the air.

Neither did I give the lecture so if the facts contained therein were dubious I apologise.

I really wanted to point out the colosal waste of fossil fuel in flying people half way round the world. Presumably, for most business cases, the trip could be saved by Video conferencing. Electronic technology is better used than tonnnes of irreplaceable hydrocarbons. Large numbers of us now 'jet-off'to the sun , covering increasing distances in doing so. Does it matter, Yes I think it does!. Long term we as a race just have to get to grips with our consumption of non renewable energy sources.

Medium to long term Nuclear power, then if we crack it, the old ZETA project. I am aware of all the concerns about waste containment and also the potential fo plutonium products being obtained and misused.

I can only think of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as examples of nuclear 'disasters'. I don't recall the French having any major difficulties with generating 70% of their electricity with nuclear stations, and I really do not believe that if we go down the nuclear road ourselves again, we could not set up a statisfactory level of production, storage and military security.

This isn't to say that I dismiss other energy forms, I have always [because I have sailed a lot] had a healthy respcct for wind and sea power, and I am particularly intrigued by wave energy and tidal systems. In fact there is an old water mill near my home which allowes the sea to fil an estuary then closes the gates and lets the tide run out through a resticted 'race' to harness its power.

My purely personal view is that many more people lose their lives mining for coal, and even in the oil industry than have ever lost their lives from peaceful nuclear power stations.

I simply wanted people to address a huge problem of 'where will we get or electricity ' in say the next 20 years? It won't be a problem for me , but I don't want to think of my grandchildren facing the old 3 day week effect in terms of rationed electricity supply. And I believe it is a possibility.

Conclusion :- Start building new nuclear stations NOW, generate as much power as we can from them, Run high speed electric traction trains, and more of them to provide efective transport. Minimise air travel , leave the oil industry to provide the chenmicals for drugs and plastics etc.

End of Novo's lecture ,blackcat>

The railways in the UK use red diesel which attracts far less duty than road fuel.

turvy

Hi Novo!

I follow your argument; however, to cut back on use of jet fuels/flights per day, you have to get people to *want* to fly less.

I agree also that use of technology would help to mitigate some of this; surprisingly, not that much video-conferencing going on out there, even though it would be cheaper for business to adopt that option.

On another front, you mentioned solar power, wind power, nuclear power and tidal power, in place of fossil fuels. Are there enough places where geothermal would be feasible? I remember reading somewhere that Iceland uses geothermal for a large percent of their energy generation. I think it may also be used a lot in New Zealand. It would seem to be a "clean" source.

I've been thinking about ways in which people can get "off the grid" so to speak, using ways to generate power for their own consumption. So far, solar is just about it. Effective wind towers would get the neighbors in *such* an uproar. ;=)

SC

<> SC

Put the price up by withdrawing the massive tax subsidy airlines get. Easy.

You could also raise taxes on flight of less than a certain distance,
say 500 miles (overland) and invest in high class rail links. It's not the lack of solutions, just the lack of will.

>>" What you are also missing, Dave, is that a jet engine scrubs a lot of its carbon waste products for use in the afterburner."

I thought only military engines used afterburners, which are in any case known for their fuel inefficiency?

In NZ, we are lucky enough to have a lot of hydro and geothermal generational capacity... Nuclear may not be a terribly good idea, especially on an island like Britain - and doubly so in a geothermally unstable place like NZ!

I have some questions for the people who think nuclear energy is a good option:

1. Where does the UK currently store it's nuclear waste?

2. Where does France currently store it's nuclear waste?

3. Where does the US currently store it's nuclear waste?

4. Are you willing to have nuclear waste stored in your locality?

5. Does the UK have the financial capacity to compensate other nation states if it has a nuclear accident that affects them (either from generation or waste storage)? Ditto France and the US.

btw nuclear energy is not a 'renewable' energy. Uranium is a finite resource. So some more questions:

Where does the UK, France, and the US get it's uranium from?

Good morning Kia,

I follow the thinking behind all of your questions. No doubt ( like a good lawyer ) you wouldn't have asked them if you did not already know the answers!

However, you are not posing answers to the problem we ALL face, which is going to be power generation. I, am not trying to diminish your concerns, but if we had dictated coal mining based on the number of pit accidents , injuries and deaths ( not including miners who died early because of lung deseases ) we would never have had coal fired generation.

That is my point, we have to look at all available options., and I for on simply do not believe that storage , contaim=nment etc is not a technical posibility. More people di every year as a result of leisure pursuits than di of radiation poisoning.

As another poster said "It is a qustion of the will to do it" [paraphrased ]. What would you prefer us to do?

Novo ,

Hi Turvy

Have you stolen my cat?

Novo

Die, in very large numbers, I'm afraid. This discussion is only necessary because there are far too many humans for the planet to support in comfort. If we don't do it ourselves the ecosystem will soon do it for us, as it all falls around our ears.

To answer the question properly: I would prefer that we take immediate steps to drastically reduce our need for energy and to reduce the burden we place upon the system that nurtures and supports us.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Re nuclear power; with the enormous investment in building and then decommisioning them, would they really be the answer? The energy to build 10million tonne (or whatever) power station then take it down again must be pretty huge. If the station has a working life of 30 years would this be a worthwhile investment (in CO2 terms) anyway?

Hi PC, I agree that we must reduce energy consumption, and fast. Just can't see it happening though, not until the environment is collapsing round our ears. Not a nice thought.

Hi P C

Very much agree with your second para, but I can't see it happening either.

The growing Far Eastern economies will eat up what we save, though I agree that we could make a start with legislation to insulate all new buildings and compel architects to include solar panels to provide a % of the buildding's consumption. All private housing should be heavily subsidised to instal cavity wall insulation , as well as loft insulation.

All electrical appliances should have their 'stanby' facilities removed. Think of all the TV's ,PC's etc left 'off' but consuming power!
There is much that we can do, but it will only come about by legislation which forces us to change our thinking and makes us work laterally.

Gloomy thoughts I know

Novo

Hey novo

Actually I don't know the answers to any of those questions which is partly why I asked them.

I also wanted to elicit the information that I *suspect* which is that nuclear waste is not stored in the UK, France, or the US, or when it is, it is stored on someone elses land (eg Indian land in the US).

So, if you genuiinely believe that nuclear energy is a viable and valid option I ask you again: are you willing to have it's waste stored where you live? I'm not, and I'm willing to change my lifestyle in order for New Zealand to remain nuclear free.


>> I, am not trying to diminish your concerns, but if we had dictated coal mining based on the number of pit accidents , injuries and deaths ( not including miners who died early because of lung deseases ) we would never have had coal fired generation.
<<

Well, I think that if we had taken into account the wellbeing of coalminers, yes we would have had far less coal fired generation which probably would have been a good thing - we probably wouldn't be in the environmental crisis we are in.

I don't believe that the industrial revolution has been an inherently good thing, and the selfish bastards that profited from it are of the same ilk that are profiting off the global energy crisis. The nuclear energy industry is driven by capitalists who really don't give a sh*t about respecting life. Not that all the individuals involved are like that, but they are still pretty blind to what is going on.

It gobsmacks me that people can claim that nuclear energy is 'clean'. How many people live in Chernobyl now? How many people have been affected in the general area? Or is it a case of those poor Russians didn't know how to do it properly and safely but we Brits do?

I do understand what you are saying about needing an immediate solution. However I don't think that comparing carbon energy to nuclear energy is a valid stance (substituting one dirty fuel for another is not a good idea). Neither is acceptable, and we have such little leeway to get it right now.

I was interested in the earlier debate about airplanes. The science is interesting although I still don't know who to believe. However as was pointed out it still takes a huge amount of energy to get a plane in the air. Then you have to take all the flow on effects on the environment (both direct like pollution, and indirect like the cost to the planet of things like tourism, consumer goods, stress from airports etc).

You have to look at the bigger picture. Reductionist thinking ('the problem with airplanes is or is not their contribution to global warming" and then analysing pieces of information scientifically like the ratio of kero that gets burnt or whatever) is useful in gathering information, but it's pretty useless at understanding complex systems like the planet as a whole. It's also not good at helping us to understand culmulative and multiple impacts.

I'm absolutely with Patternchaser - the only way out of the problem is for the West in particular to stop consuming so much.

to Pedro for pointing out another facet of the nuclear is good myth.

So, my questions still stand. I'll go do the research on the French (they have an incredibly bad history regarding nuclear weapons so it will be interesting to see what they have been doing with energy). Anyone want to answer the others?

>>" What you are also missing, Dave, is that a jet engine scrubs a lot of its carbon waste products for use in the afterburner."<<

>I thought only military engines used afterburners, which are in any case known for their fuel inefficiency?<

Presumably in an afterburner the amount of oxygen available in the exhaust is not as ideal as it would normally be, given that the engine is designed to work without it. Yes they are very inefficient and therefore only used by the military (and Concorde IIRC) and even then only when absolutely necessary. Perhaps by carbon emissions you are referring to unburnt fuel and CO from the first stage, which may be given a second chance to burn in an afterburner thereby converting them to more benign CO2.

But no carbon is scrubbed from the exhaust, where would they store it, and how would they remove it once the plane landed? Of course in reality it all ends up in the atmosphere. If the engine is very efficient it all ends up in CO2.

>>So, my questions still stand. I'll go do the research on the French (they have an incredibly bad history regarding nuclear weapons so it will be interesting to see what they have been doing with energy). Anyone want to answer the others?<<

What do you mean by this? As far as I know their record with nuclear weapons is far better than that of, for instance, the US or Russia. Yes they did test them somewhere mid 90s, but many countries do that. And as far as I know they now have signed the treaty banning above ground testing etc.

As for the chernobile comment someone made earlier. This was actualy a case of they did a few things that wouldn't happen in britain or france. They decided to override a few safety procedures and see what would happen. I don't have details, but it was definatly a case of human error, that could be (and is) easily avoided in modern plants.

Personaly I still think, despite the waste, that Nuclear will be the main energy source in the near future simply because oil is predicted to run out in 30 years (give or take a decade). With rising oil prices, and therefore rising electricity prices, nuclear will become more and more tempting. And no matter how noble most people are at the moment, when their electricity bill is about to double they will quickly change their minds. We have had 2 oilcriseses in our recent past that have shown what will happen when we run out and don't have any alternatives (except coal maybe, but that is CO2 wise probably the worst solution). It is already visible in the Netherlands where energy prices are rising and the general public is starting to complain louder and louder to the gov. to take action.

As for nuclear waste: I believe that science will offer a solution in the near future, especialy when we become more dependant on it. There are already microorganisms that feed of nuclear waste. Solutions will appear if they are looked for.
Btw, I don't think the nuclear waste is stored in 3d world countries, usually it is send to be processed in plants (I think there is one in germany) after which some is reused and some is "burried"

Of course if someone would simply make nuclear fusion (the same process that makes the sun work)work then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Lots of cheap energy with few waste products.

Rod

Hi Kea,

I will try to take your post in bite sizes.!

First I believe that waste is stored here in the UK, or at least ours is.

I do not know what other developed nations do with theirs , after it has been re-procssed. I am happy to have it stored near me. I used to live within 5 miles of a reactor, and I am certainly now within stiking range of Sellafield. I do accept that the problem of 'waste' ned further work nd have said so all along.

Whilst you may not think that the Industrial revolutio was a good idea, you ouldn't be 'posting' now if it had not happened! .You would probably still be walking round in cheap woollen clothes, living in freezing cold homes in winter,etc etc. You personally may have been happy in a pre industrial age, but once the wheel was invented, we got transport and the rest followed. It isn't possible to uninvent something.

We have had two major incidents with nuclear power stations. Three Mil Island and Chernobyl. Both were the result of human decision erors, nd in the case of Chernobyl I think compounded by poor technology. I don't believe that this means Nuclear power is 'dirty' just that it needs more sophisticated control ( see my first post).

I'll go long with any argument that resolvs the problem. Merely suggesting we all use less energy is only half the answer. What will you tell China, Africa and South America for example.

So my premise still stands too.

Given the relentless demand- which we might be able to reduce but not eliminate - how do posters suggest we provide the worlds energy requirements ?

Novo

kea,

I live by both an active nuclear power station and a nuclear reprocessing plant so feel justified in advocating that nuclear is the best mid term option for reducing greenhose gasses. Long term I am interested in, and involved, with tidal power.

Having the luxury of hydro generation is limited by geography and that is your problem in New Zealand. You, I think, currently generate 58% of your electricity from hydro and 24% from gas. But you are running out of suitable geography and if China keeps growing at it's current rate gas prices are going to rocket.

Mind you if you read the attached link to the New Scientist article the hydro option may not be as enviromentally friendly as has been advocated. It claims that creating and running hydro plants can produce 3.5 times more greenhouse gas than oil powered generation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

Also without the greedy capitalists and entrepreneurs, who were responsible for the industrial revolution, we would all be dying from smallpox, polio, TB and starvation; the peasants would still owe droit de signeur to the local baron, our gene pool would be restricted because the bicycle wouldn't have been invented and we certainly wouldn't be chatting antipodeanly on the internet.

>>What do you mean by this? As far as I know their record with nuclear weapons is far better than that of, for instance, the US or Russia. Yes they did test them somewhere mid 90s, but many countries do that. And as far as I know they now have signed the treaty banning above ground testing etc.
<< Rod

That 'somewhere' was in the Pacific, where the French used their island colonies to test both above ground and below. In some cases this invovled removing the people who belonged to that land. People also became ill and had to fight bloody long and hard to get recognition of what was happening.

To you this may be just some little insignificant problem on the other side of the world, but then I would suggest that you consider how you will feel when you are made to surrender the sovereignty of where you live.

The French have behaved appallingly over nuclear testing in the Pacific (including using it's secret service to blow up a ship in NZ and killing a man on board). Have a read if you are interested:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mar90danielsson

I don't think anyone is saying that nuclear is a perfect option, it just happens to be the best of a bad lot. And it is not necessarily as bad as people make out. Some studies have indicated that the number of deaths and diseases caused indirectly by an equivalent coal power station, working normally, outweigh those from Chernobyl.

As an aside, please see my completely unbiased entry on the subject at A2922103. The incident was a result of both dodgy design and human error as Novo said. You could compare Chernobyl with Three Mile Island, where the operators went balls-out to try to break the thing but failed and there was no loss of containment. The chances of a Chernobyl-style disaster in the west (and in fact in the former USSR theese days) are much, much lower.