Sellafield

[Jdsk]

"People will need to change" is about as much of a solution as "let's get hydrogen atoms to fuse" unless it's accompanied by some detail of how that will be achieved.

Jonathan

[Biospace]

"People will need to change" is about as much of a solution as "let's get hydrogen atoms to fuse" unless it's accompanied by some detail of how that will be achieved.

I took Stradageek's inference to be that human energy consumption needs to fall significantly for our habitation of this planet to become sustainable, if it's his words you refer to. I might be wrong, of course.

[ANTONISH]

How do you think your ideas would go down with the "consumption addicts" using your local food bank?

My thinking about energy use?

I agree that we will need nuclear energy for the foreseeable future - at least until the problem of storing renewable energy is solved.

[the snail]

"People will need to change" is about as much of a solution as "let's get hydrogen atoms to fuse" unless it's accompanied by some detail of how that will be achieved.

I took Stradageek's inference to be that human energy consumption needs to fall significantly for our habitation of this planet to become sustainable, if it's his words you refer to. I might be wrong, of course.

There seems to be an assumption by some that change is impossible. As if increasing supply is not possible, despite production having been increased in the past. Similarly it's apparently impossible to reduce demand, despite demand having been reduced recently by energy efficiency. It's as much about having the will to change things as anything.

[geomannie]

How do you think your ideas would go down with the "consumption addicts" using your local food bank?

My thinking about energy use?

I agree that we will need nuclear energy for the foreseeable future - at least until the problem of storing renewable energy is solved.

I'm afraid that position doesn't consider the storage issue or nuclear waste and arguably the issue of of renewable energy storage is well on the way to being solved. It isn't quite there yet but the rate of technology progress in battery storage far exceeds the build time of a nuclear power plant, so what is the point of the latter?

For example, a recent news report from Scotland
"Each site [battery] will have the capacity to power around 800,000 homes in Scotland, for up to two hours, when required"
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business ... bles-boom/

(My note: Scotland only has 2.5 million home thus these 3 batteries alone can power them for nearly 2 hours)

Safer, much cheaper, much faster to build. What's not to like?

[Biospace]

I agree that we will need nuclear energy for the foreseeable future - at least until the problem of storing renewable energy is solved.

I'm afraid that position doesn't consider the storage issue or nuclear waste and arguably the issue of of renewable energy storage is well on the way to being solved. It isn't quite there yet but the rate of technology progress in battery storage far exceeds the build time of a nuclear power plant, so what is the point of the latter?
...
Safer, much cheaper, much faster to build. What's not to like?

Yes, safer, cheaper, much faster to come online - there's nothing not to like. The only potential snag is that it appears the thinking is if we build enough wind capacity and erect many more solar panels, we'll be fine once storage is built. I disagree.

The reason I highlight the importance of spreading demand load across as many and varied forms of RE as possible, including tidal, geothermal and other neglected resources, is that when renewable energy is buffered the EROI falls well below what modern economies require. Which means an economically efficient model such as we're building with mostly wind and solar, there would likely be serious energy shortages unless we're prepared to pay increasingly high prices to import large amounts of products, technologies and infrastructure.

As Stradageek picks up on above, there is going to have to be a significant change in lifestyle, probably larger than most can imagine if we're not going to require mini-nukes around each large city or a score of expensive HinkleyC-sized plants which would mean very expensive electricity and create more national security vulnerabilities.

Currently, the demand for energy is vastly beyond what should be necessary, whether it's in agribusiness and the food industry, healthcare or the production of consumer electronics. Decoupling economic output from energy consumption (to a much greater extent than Sweden and Denmark have achieved) is likely a good route out of the problems humans are presently creating.

[Jdsk]

...
I agree that we will need nuclear energy for the foreseeable future - at least until the problem of storing renewable energy is solved.

I used to think that we could get away with no new fission plants but unfortunately it no longer looks possible. We still don't have the insulation in either new or old buildings that would have made the difference, or even the future standards.

There's lots of technology available for storage but amazingly we're held up by planning issues getting in the way of connections. The Labour policy specifically identifies this.

From there on... the discussion needs numbers to make any progress, as it does in all of the other threads on the same subject.

Jonathan

[853]

I used to think that we could get away with no new fission plants but unfortunately it no longer looks possible. We still don't have the insulation in either new or old buildings that would have made the difference, or even the future standards.

The 2022 Building Regulations introduced insulation levels that mean a new-build mid-terrace house, or flat, is approaching Passivhaus standards, with the promise of even better standards being introduced in 2025.

https://www.planradar.com/gb/new-buildi ... %20devices)%20are%20introduced.