Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: boatmadman on July 24, 2008, 06:25:03 am
-
I work for a large British utilities company that provides domestic gas and electricity.
At a presentation yesterday, we were told that in the next 5 to 6 years the company expects to stop piping gas to domestic properties!!!!
Work out the implications and who they are for yourselves.
This is no scare story, it is a genuine prediction direct from the mouth of the head of power generation, it took all of us by surprise, and we work in the industry!
Ian
-
They are going to pipe it directly to the consumer FROM Parlament then? ::)
-
They are going to pipe it directly to the consumer FROM Parlament then? ::)
Cannot boil a kettle on hot air alone. ::)
I wonder if the change is becuase of a wholesale mover over to nuclear energy.
Boatmadman.
Does this mean that no NEW gas mains will be laid, as opposed to loss of service.
-
Does this mean your firm is giving up selling gas or gas will no longer be available by pipe in UK?????
-
Doesn't bother me - I use oil for heating!
Err........ DOH!!!
Rick
-
Are we allowed to drill for oil / gas in our own back gardens?
-
Are we allowed to drill for oil / gas in our own back gardens?
Yes - but you won't be allowed to use it (for undisclosed H&S reasons) - and you won't be able to sell it to the oil/gas company either............. HOW long have you been around, klutz??!! Anyway, why would you want another nodding donkey when there's already 640 of 'em at Westminster?
FLJ
-
We don't have gas in our kneck of the woods, how good is that ? :-\
-
you may own your house and land, but you can bet your bottom dollar you dont own the mineral rights! So, no, you cannot extract from under your garden!
Frankie, they didnt go to that detail, but my guess is that they may stop providing for domestic use and reserve it for industrial use.
Tiger, I guess the change will mainly be due to dwindling gas reserves and a change in business priorities to reduce exposure to a predominantly gas supply business putting more emphasis on power generation. They have gone from no generation capacity to owning 7 power stations in 6 years, with a possible further expansion program, including nuclear.
Ian
-
nice thing with Westminster, all the MPs spew out tons of bovine excrement every day, and as well all know bovine excrement gives off methane! FUEL! energy crisis sorted.
as regards Nuclear power, it is the way to go.
Edit - We're not approving of fake swearing any more.
-
You do own the mineral rights to your garden - I saw a program once, the guy found oil and it made him a multi millionaire. I think his name was Ted or Tom Clampitt from Beverley Hills. ;D
Gary :)
-
Think it was Jed
-
But Ellie May was certainly VERY cute to an adolescent male, yep, me!!!!
Bob
-
The mineral rights issue in the UK is different to that of Mr Clampit and family.
Unless you are from the Forest of Dean, everything under your house is owned by somebody else. Even the water. My brother in law wanted to sink a bore hole for his business, as he uses a lot of water. The water company would still charge hiim for the water he extracted, as it is the water company's water, although they would give him a discount.
Another guy planned to put a water wheel in his stream to generate electricity. The water company wanted money for that as well.
On the other matter. Politically the UK now has to play catch up with Europe on its reduction in carbon emissions (and other environmental metrics) or face heavy penalties. This may also be a major driver away from the use of fossil fuels.
-
And it'll be another ten years - probably a lot longer before any new nuclear stations come on line. (Even if they started building them tomorrow).
BNFL, who owned Westinghouse who had the rights package nuclear station designs sold the business to the Japanese (Toshiba I think?) around three years ago. You have to wonder... :-X :-X
Malc
-
Dear All,
Mineral Rights are what they say, viz., any minerals that lie under your land do indeed belong to someone else, unless that is the mineral rights belong to your property - deeds will quickly confirm this. Any coal or oil/gas belongs to the State (loads of bureaucracy), with any gold requiring a Crown License (7% of the recovered worth with the latter so not bad really).
There is nothing to stop you drilling a borehole to get water, or collecting underground water in any way (viz., land drains feeding into a tank), but, with an urban residential prop., the water utility people will want to charge since what you use will still be going down their drains. Large volume extraction will attract the water utility people if they are extracting in the same way in that area or nearby.
Taking water (even if it's only a short or slight diversion), for driving a water wheel, pelton wheel, or any form of water turbine does require an extraction license.
Regards, Bernard
-
Keep an eye out for developments in heat pump technology. A very economical way of converting electricity into warm air, but the hardware is way too expensive at the moment.
-
If gas supplies were to be stopped to domestic premises then millions of gas fired heating systems would need to be converted to electricity, not to mention gas cookers. Over a five year time span that is simply not going to happen.
-
Here in the wonderfull land of Oz our new PM has said no to Nuclear Power and ran a scare campaign leading up to last years general election. Which seams a bit ridiculous as Australia has vast reserves of Uranium. The government are in the stages of setting an Emissions Trading Scheme which will see almost every thing go up in price mainly because everything has to travel by road and such long distances that the trucking firms will pass on the extra cost to the supermarkets retailers etc and eventually the consumer. The big thing is that almost all of our power comes from coal and without giving us an alternative we will be shafted with this "Carbon Tax". Thats all well and good for a nice feel good society however unless the same restrictions are implemented to those that emit the most carbons in the world what type of level playing field do we have. Australian Industries will relocate to those countries like China that don't have such carbon restrictions which equals loss of jobs. I really cant see the governments hurry to be first in with a carbon trading system (by 2010) until we see what the rest of the big emitters are going to do, it is economic suicide. >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Had my say, now back in my box.
Regards David
-
and now, british Energy, who run the UK nuclear power stations has been brought by a french consortium, part of which is EDF, so the nuclear route IS promising.
Blair you may have started something good (for once!) ,
RBMK or Magnox, hmmm :D
-
Hi David
If your PM's said no to Nuclear power, what would be the alternative? (I'm not asking you directly, hypothetical if you know what I mean :))
Fossil fuel will run out, but when? 50, 100, 1000 years?
regards
Gary :)
-
Hi David
If your PM's said no to Nuclear power, what would be the alternative? (I'm not asking you directly, hypothetical if you know what I mean :))
Fossil fuel will run out, but when? 50, 100, 1000 years?
Gary
Yes I question that as well. His great scheme is either "Clean Coal Technology" which to me is an oxymoron or the good old renewable energy con such as wind farms, solar and geothermal. He has a spin machine that goes into overdrive and makes the general population believe anything. These renewable energy sources are OK for a complementary source of power but to rely on them as your major source of power generation is a bit of a stretch.
Regards David
Added: We have a vast coal reserve in Australia and believe it or not the state of Victoria has just commissioned new coal power stations that will be fired by Brown Coal. Now I thought that was one of the major contributers of carbon.
-
gary, in Australia, they'd probably go for solar farms in the outback.
as for UK, here are our options:
fossil fuel conventional power stations
Tidal Hydro
Valley Dam Hydro
Wind
Solar
AGT
Nuclear.
here's how they stack up:
Fossil fuel: massive carbon footprint over 20 to 30 year lifespan, sulphur emmissions
Tidal Hydro: dams across the Wash and Morcame bay, may affect tourism to those areas, could affect tidal activity on the coast, BUT its livable
Valley dam Gydro: Take a river in a valley and block it, flood a few villages, displace wildlife, some endangered, hardly a vote winner as the constituants from the villages that are going to be flooded wont vote for you, clean but political suicide.
Wind: only works best out to sea, and on high peaks such as snowdonia, and sorry but the turbines are ugly and noisy, yes they're clean but they take up a lot of area to generate a small amount of power, and no wind = no power, also spinning blades have a nast habit of knocking birds out of the sky. if winds go to high blades shut down as well to protect turbine.
Solar: when did it get sunny enough to generate megawatts in the uk?
AGT, well we dont live anywhere near an active volcano so deep, (REALLY DEEP) boreholes are needed down to where the rocks are heated. this could actually work.
This leaves Nuclear as the last option. whether we build RBMK reactors or Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors, they can be put inside a mountain, so they dont spoil the local scenery, and besides, they keep their stuff inside, with little in the way of pollutants, even the RBMK has a good safety record, with the only accident being caused by miss handling of the reactor at chernobyl, not a through a flaw in the reactor design, technicians allowed the reactor to boil dry causing it to overheat. CO2 emmissions are very low during the running of the plant, only major problem is the nuclear waste after, and that can be reprocessed. once its gone too far to be reprocessed, it still retains thermal energy in the waste fuel rods, so surely that can be used as well?
-
Geo thermal is a viable option if you live near a geological hot spot, (ideal in new zealand and iceland)
-
Some thoughts to throw into the melting pot.
On the subject of lignite (brown coal). Very cheap but very high in sulphur which leads to acid rain.
Orimulsion is another 'dirty' fuel. Basically an oily sludge from a bog that has been emulsified with water to mitigate some of the sulpur oxides production. They wanted to burn this in the UK in the early 90s (at Pembroke Dock and other places). I think the use was not permited.
On the subject of clean coal technology.
The main technology was FGD (flue gas de-sulphurisation). This removes sulphur from the smoke stack, but does not remove carbon emmisions. The process requires large abounts of limestone wich needs to come from quarries. So tracts of land are lost to holes in the ground (but on the upside we have somewhere for landfil), and the additional heavy lorry traffic ths will generate between the quary and the power station.
The byproduct of FGD is gypsum, but the output would be far greater than the building industry could ever consume, so we now have an added waste problem.
On the subject of Carbon Trading.
This is already a huge money industry. And it also has secondary environmental benefits.
How one effective form of carbon trading is working - A manufacturing country has carbon emmission targets, the total carbon emmited can be offset by planting trees (for example) that will soak/lock up carbon. Some countries will trade the abilily to grow trees. So for example Australia pays other countries to grow the trees for them. This is especially good if the country has a need for re-forestation, desertification, or erosion; but does not have the money for a forrestry programme.
On the subject of wind farms.
Personally I thing the turbines are graceful, beautiful and soothing to watch. Much nicer than the pylons that we don't notice day to day. Also much quieter than a section of Motorway.
-
On a "Good" day" (windy), how many average wind turbines does it take to replace
one of these modern gas fired power stations?
-
Sorry Ghost, i have to dissagree with your reasoning.
A nuclear power station takes millions to set up
A wind turbine farm probably costs a minute amount to set up compared to a Nuclear Power Station.
A Nuclear power Station costs millions to run.
A Turbine costs very little to run, except maintainence.
A nuclear power station takes millions to decommission.
A turbine only needs to be replaced.
A nuclear power station is a blott on the landscape.
A wind turbine is a thing of beauty and a marvel of technology.
A nuclear site produces waste that you cant throw in to the air, rivers, dump, or get rid of.
A wind farm produces no waste.
If there is a serious accident at a nuclear power station, it could kill millions
If there is a serious accident at a wind farm, maybe a blade might fall off.
No C02 emmisions from a wind farm by the way.
I know which i would prefer in my back yard.
-
a) A nuclear power station is a blott (sic) on the landscape.
b) A wind turbine is a thing of beauty and a marvel of technology.
c) No C02 emmisions (sic) from a wind farm by the way.
a) Not if you put them underground...
b) You can't be serious?
c) Nor is there from nuclear power stations...
I have to say that as an engineer who used to work in the nuclear industry, I'd rather do ANYTHING than go the nuclear route - 80K tons of waste at Sellafield and nowhere to dispose of it militates against compounding the problem by creating more. Unfortunately though, unless we do go that route, we're all going to be sitting around camp fires in the not too distant future, trying to keep warm and cook our food - what price global warming then?
You can see how the future here in Europe would look if you appreciate what has already happened in much of sub-Saharan Africa. There is no gas, coal etc. leastwise none that the average Joe can get his hands on. The women collect brush wood for fires to cook with. Settlements are denuded of anything combustible for miles around, causing them to walk further and further for fuel every day. Coming soon to your neighbourhood?
Malc
-
Camp fires in the future if we dont get sorted ,i am sure the goverment will put a tax on that O0
daz
-
Great discussion here, some more comments:
heat pumps - yes, a very efficient way to heat the house, you get 3 to 4 kw of heat for every 1kw of power required to run the system - cost? £6k to £14k at the moment, lifespan 20yrs plus, maintenance cost? almost zero. Expensive yes, but even at current prices if you are prepared not to move you can see a profit in about 10 yrs. And, prices WILL go much higher for gas.
gas boilers - a colleagues brother in law is a plumber and he is now fitting more electric boilers than gas boilers.
Carbon trading - its here in the uk and has been for a few years and bigfell is right, it has pushed costs up.
British Energy bought by EDF - as of yesterday the deal was iminent. Centrica Energy are in negotiations with EDF. If the EDF buy goes through, Centrica hope to buy 25% of of the ex BE stock from EDF thus giving a good entry into the technology. Centrica currently operate/own gas and wind power.
Wind farms - the great con (in my opinion). The biggest wind mill currently is about 5mw. A typical gas generating unit is in the region of 230 - 250mw...50 or so turbines per small power station! Bigger power stations are merely made up of multiple gas turbines and a larger stean turbine. UK's biggest power stations are 2000mw plus, thats a lot of windmills.
For a wind farm of say, 100 units, with a max output of 500mw (assuming the biggest units are built), for system security there has to be 350mw of alternative and available ( gas or coal, not nuclear as it takes too long to power up and shut down) back up generation capacity. This is for when the wind is either too strong, too weak or just not there.
Windmills elegant? Do you really want to see the whole of the west seaboard of the uk covered in offshore windmills? I dont! This is the reality if our government want to meet stated objectives on windpower!
Load factor for wind farms is typically around 40%, this means that the turbine is only at full load 40% of the time. The turbines cannot operate in all wind speeds, but they are getting better and acheiving a wider operating window.
Dont even think a b&q style home wind turbine is a good idea for most people. They need clear straight laminar wind flow to work properly (thats why they are putting them offshore) - not available in towns and cities. The payback time? far longer than the life expectany of the windmill.
Like it or not, nuclear will have to play a big part in meeting our future energy needs.
Our Govt. should really be investing heavily in micro generation, its not viable for the vast majority of houses.
Some interesting further reading here: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/grid/rein.htm
Ian
-
Those that are serious about getting rid of carbon emitions and saving the planet would have to consider going the Nuclear route. There is no other viable alternative to create the same amount of power that exists with coal and other fossil fuel based power stations. Having said that I am a Global Warming, climate change or whatever trendy name it is called this week sceptic. Don't get me wrong I don't like pollution and believe that we should clean up our act for the planets health. However I just cant see that all the modeling by science groups have not taken into there modeling that the earth has cooled since 1998 and thus there apocalyptic calculations and predictions are flawed. If the weather bureau cant give me a guaranteed accurate forecast for next Friday how can scientists tell us what is going to happen in 100 or even 50 years time. I know that my view goes against the grain of most others but the figures just don't add up and this climate change thing is becoming to much of a money earner to some to be completely unbiased.
Regards David
-
David,
Completely agree with you.
Ian
-
For those who might have been swayed by the C4 documentary on global warming. This has been heavily criticised. Amoung other things for quoting from out of date data. The show aimed to show an alternative arguement. But the body of scientific evidence is that there is global warming. Not necessarily on the Al Gore scale.
Anther good reason to move away from gas as a source of energy it to break the hold of foriegn companies who would/do exploit short term increases in demand. Remember the price hikes when it got cold in a recent prolonged cold snap. It also reduces our dependance on the energy and economic polices of foriegn powers like Russia, countries that will naturally act in thier own interests and not that of UK citizens.
-
Page 1, Line 1 of the book of Electricity Supply : NEVER allow your system to be dependant on fuel supplies from overseas.
The UK made a big mistake when they changed over a lot of stations from coal to gas. You are burning a resource that cannot be replaced. Our leaders (sic) blindly follow all the rules laid down by others while they all carry on regardless. The "green" people with their wind power? They may as well nip out to the shops and bulk buy some PP9 batteries, anyone in any doubt can do the sums - all the tree huggers claims do not stack up.
Let's face it, clean coal technology is out there (Japan), we are sitting on enough of the stuff to keep us going for years. Nuclear power, for all it's drawbacks, is available and infinitely better than sitting in the dark / cold (just think back to the state we had years ago when the lights went out on a regular basis).
Forty years down the line and guess what? The days are fast approaching when we start heading back to the dark ages. Given the time it takes to implement new systems in the industry, someone had better extract their digits and get organised. That is on the premise that Whitehall employ someone with some practical knowledge of the problems, rather than the waffle being spun into the air by our government leaders.
Personally I'd be tempted to stick two fingers up at the E.U. and their carbon ideas. The big players in the game certainly appear to be doing just that (China, India, USA, Russia et al). But of course lads, we're British, must play by the rules, what? So we attempt to save the world while others create more havoc. Great satisfaction to be gained by us as we freeze our bits off, the knowledge that we acted correctly!
All the other technologies mentioned (wind, wave, tidal, hydro etc.) are useful for back up, but for base load stations it has to be thermal generation from coal or nuclear fuel.
Regards,
(former Electricity Supply Industry employee)
-
Couldn't agree more Sweeper, we will ‘do our bit’ for the planet, paying a fortune in the process, whilst those countries that don't will flood us with cheap imports, destroy whats left of our industry and buy anything that's left after the oil men have spent up. Roll on somebody getting into Whitehall who hasn't been gelded. I drive coal trains for a living & about 98% is imported, when the oil & gas runs out are these countries going to continue to sell us thier coal? I doubt it.
Nige
-
Dear Sweeper,
Unfortunately I agree with what you say re wind power. If it weren't for the massive subsidies there would only be a fraction of the wretched things planted. As to the carbon foot print of these things, the whole manufacturing process, installation, and environmental impact is more significant than people realise.
Barrages and all forms of hydro elec. (apart from pumped storage - which personally I consider a poor form of generation), are extremely cost effective and 'passive'. Ok, so there is some disturbance while they are being built, and habitats are altered but are balanced by new ones. The country must have electricity, and rather than choosing just one form of generation there must be a selection. Coal is not really one of the best options, but there must be one or two stations: gas - well forget about that one!; nuclear, well we all don't want it but it is the only large scale bulk supply option; wind power is a sop; so this leaves hydro as the only reliable alternative bulk supply source.
We only need to look back to the 1920's and 30's, where, in many rural areas there were a huge number of private elec. suppliers using water (low head turbines, and high pressure pelton wheel systems), and supplying the needs of the immediate area. Some of these were substantial, and it is still possible to see the remains of quite a few of these systems. The trouble is, many of these still important power supplies are forbidden to be installed by the exact same environmental groups who are jumping up and down against nuclear! These people must come back to basic logic, and accept the fact that every possible source of electricity must be found and utilised. There are so many rivers and streams that could be used that the number is unknown at this stage. Where one dam can be built across a river, invariably another can be built either up stream or down stream, thus utilising the resource in a highly efficient way - why generate off it once when it can be done two or three times. The Victorians's had this down to a fine are re water power: some mines had three or four water wheels operating in tandem... why is it in this high tech. day and age that such simple and cost effective principals are so difficult for some to get a grasp of!!! - if it's not complicated they seemingly don't want to know about it!
Something is going to happen in the world of Solar power in the near future, and this is going to be rather interesting. The days where every house has a solar instillation to complement the normal power supply is not that far off.
Anyway, just some notes.
Regards, Bernard
-
Dont hold your breath on solar pv panels - my son works in that field and the only way it can be cost effective is with a government subsidy, and we all know where that money comes from.
Germany pretty well leads Europe in solar pv, and that only works because every electricity user pays a little extra per unit to subsidise it.
-
Solar: when did it get sunny enough to generate megawatts in the uk?
A fallacy - it doesn't need to be full-on sunny for solar power to work.
More to the point, even at our hardy latitudes, a square metre of ground receives 900-1200 KWh annually. That's 100-140 watts. If the population of the UK (60 million) want to run completely on solar power alone at today's standard of living (3.5kW per head) and panel efficiency is a reasonable (and cheap) 15%, we'd only need to cover up Cornwall and Devon to do it... :D
(Better solution - stick the cells in orbit.)
Andy
-
a) A nuclear power station is a blott (sic) on the landscape.
b) A wind turbine is a thing of beauty and a marvel of technology.
a) Not if you put them underground...
b) You can't be serious?
a) That add's a couple of billion to the cost... that goes on your electricity bill.
b) Compared to an above ground Nuclear plant... yes, i AM serious.
Britain with Nuclear.
"Yes, its the country that glows with the big mushroom cloud over it"...
-
EDF today increased gas prices to the public by 22 percent, electricity by 17 percent - more increases to follow....
Time to start collecting firewood?
Malc
-
With regard to nuclear power, are we not trading one finite resource for another, coal for uranium?
How much uranium is there and how long will it last - probably enough to see us out, but what about future generations?
Are there sufficient spaces to store the waste safely, especially with a growing population?
I agree with Toesupwa with regard that I quite like the sight of wind turbines, but also think that these or indeed nuclear power are the only answer.
They were going to build a wind farm in the Brean / Weston area a few years back, does anyone know if it happened?
regards
Gary :)
-
Dear All,
Re Solar power. There is some new tech. on the way, and it will be sooner rather than later. The cost will be considerably less than the eqpt. currently available, and bring the process and eqpt. within reach of the mass market.
Regards, Bernard
-
Unenriched Uranium is plentiful - the South Africans and the Australians dig it out of the ground as a by-product of the (mostly) gold mining process. It's a black, damp powder once the ore has been through the ball mills and the flotation cells. You can pick it up, sqeeze it into black 'snowballs.' It's quite harmless in that state.
Sellafield Limited has THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) which does exactly that, er well, sometimes. ;D.
My best guess is that the UK has sufficient strategic supplies of Uranuim / Plutonium and all of the other fissiles to run as many nuclear stations (and make as many warheads - Tritium) as we could usefully use for a very long time. Certainly until they can figure out how to make the wind blow continuously {-) {-)
Malc
-
and time for british energy to build a couple more reactors. and given the way that technology has progressed, surly there is the technology now to get more energy out of 1kg of reprocessed fuel assemblies than could be extracted from 1kg of refined uranium in 1960?
I think so.
-
ok, presuming we dont go the nuclear route, green lobby factor.
local constituants of coastal towns say NO to turbines off shore, so what about tidal turbine pods?
-
There is no such thing as 'free' energy. It ALL has a cost, over and above the capital expenditure required to harness it.
There has been precious little thought given to what happens to good old mother nature when you start using power extracted from the wind, tides etc? In these early days of our moves towards those technologies, it probably won't make much difference in the short term. But...
As we go further down the line though, say in a couple of hundred years from now, it's anybody's guess what will happen, but my bet would be that if you extract sufficient energy from nature, it's going to suffer?
Just contemplate a world where the winds no longer blow, where storms are a thing of the past, surrounded by stagnant seas that no longer support the myriads of life that they do now. Be very clear on this, humanity is very capable of changing nature and so far, we've never changed it for the better.
Global warming is a fact - the winters now are a heck of a lot milder than they were when I was young. In the 1600's the winters must have been truly horrific.
In the south of England, archaeologists regularly dig up the bones of rhinos and other subtropical species. This indicates that our northern European climate was once a lot warmer still than it is now. Oddly enough, they never find those bones alongside the remains of prehistoric 4X4's? The world climate changes over time, it's perfectly natural for it to do so. My Mitsubishi Shogun cannot be responsible for it all, as our harebrained government would have us believe.
Like Bernard, I believe that our carbon emissions have diddly-squat (or at worst very little) to do with global warming. I do think that we should all be as economical with our precious resources as we can. Let's not blight our beautiful country with forests of three bladed monster wind turbines, and let's have some pragmatic debate about how to handle this energy crisis - for that is what it truly is.
As much as we've all contributed to it's destruction, we still live in a very beautiful world. We really should look after it better than we do.
My best guess? We're still coming out of the last ice age.
Malc
-
In the south of England, archaeologists regularly dig up the bones of rhinos and other subtropical species. This indicates that our northern European climate was once a lot warmer still than it is now.
True Malc, but the South of England wasn't necessarily where it is now situated on the globe and may have been nearer the equator. Plate tectonics.
Colin
-
one answer does lie in a little place known as Dinorwic, near LLanberis, where a pump-storage scheme has been put inside a mountain. so ideally if we want to improve our energy means by RENEWABLE sources, a tidal barage across morecame bay, using the inflow and outflow of the sea would possibly solve some of our energy needs, and it could also be used to build a bridge to ease the congested M6 to barrow - in - furness roadway.
put a similar barage in the river severn, and on the thames, along with the Wash and we could generate some serious power.
plate tectonics also bring in another issue, why not develop advanced geo thermal technology, and send water down to heated rocks, and use the returning steam to produce power. if someone digs deep enough down, hot rocks will be found
-
I think that the only way to stop the greenies from forcing us all to live by the glow of fire flies is that every house or street be responsibly for at least 25% of its energy needs. This would stop the large producers of the so called Climatechangegreenhousecarbonfootprintemissionsbadstuff. It is no use only a few houses being good and having there own source of power unless we all go down that path. Not only would it placate the green lobby but it would reduce the overall cost. But as I said the climate change thing is to much of a money spinner to be considered an unbiased science. Take away all the grants and all the research backhanders and then you will have a true indication of what is happining. Scientist can't operate without these grants and research funds and always skew their results to whoever asks the questions. I mean if someone pays you to find that the earth is warming by man made emissions your not going to come up with a no answer. Otherwise who is going to pay you if there is nothing to find a scientific souloution to.
Regards David
-
one saving: better insulation of homes, that way in winter it stayes warmer with less effort, and in summer, it stayes cooler. after all what keeps the heat in and cold out also works in reverse, keeping cold in and hot out, more careful use of air conditioning in both homes and cars.
-
True Malc, but the South of England wasn't necessarily where it is now situated on the globe and may have been nearer the equator. Plate tectonics.
I knew model boater's would have the answer!
If we all simultaneously hitched our tugs to the beach a little east of Land's End and started pulling south west, we could be off the coast of north Africa by next Wednesday!
{-) {-) {-)
(Not as daft as some of the ideas you read about)?
Malc
-
Ghost,
Dinorwig, you omitted a vital point, how does the water get to the higher reservoir? It is pumped there by the water turbines running as pumps, powered by electricity.
Dinorwig is a short run peak lopping station, this means that in times of short duration high demand, it is run to boost the power supply to the grid.
Ian
-
Dear All,
How's this for a scenario...
Using the 1920's & 30's as two decades of major privately generated utility electricity supply (hydro only). If all the hydro installations extant during those two decades in GB were reinstalled, this could equate to a 10% national usage contribution to the Grid. If, however, one looks at old water mills (wherever they might exist in a reinstatable position), this could equate to an additional 5% +. These are min. figures.
I am personally aware of many unused installations in this County alone. The first was a 150hp low head turbine unit (viz., used a large flow in through a 21" pipe from a leat (the latter from a small weir). The principal uses the falling weight of water after the turbine to create suction, which, after a fall of 17 feet is significant. This powered apx. 150 homes in the 1920's and 30's (24/7) - multiply this x 3 for three in tandem which could easily be done. The second was a pelton type of apx. 100hp that supplied apx. 50 homes during the same two decades (this source could easily be x 3 facilities). There are four locations around here where peltons were used to supply very significant supplies of elec. for lead mines (could be x 2 in tandem easily). There are apx. 200 miles of leats (in total), in this area that supplied water for mine water wheels (probably 100 + wheels in number ranging in size from 24 feet to 50 feet - so available hp. is very significant). The source supply of water is the same now as it was then. There is a disused woollen mill facility not far away that has/had four 25 foot wheels in tandem supplied by a good river - prob. about 45 to 50hp each: there are some ten similar wool and corn mill situations in this County alone - without looking very hard!
A surprising number of farms generated via peltons in the mountains, and many other lower lying farms had water wheels varying from 15 feet to 20feet dia.. Unknown hp. total of course, but a couple of thousand possibly anyway.
So, using this as a private supply situation guide for one county alone (and not considering any other potential sites - of which there are many), the hp. (horse power), potential could be said to be in the region of a min. of 20,000.. Additionally there is a Grid hydro station in the county, which, if the politicians were brave enough, could be significantly expanded, so add about 100 MW (existing supply), increase x 2, and then double again for three other potential sites, and we are talking about a lot of electricity. This from one County alone. Moving to Radnorshire (Elan Valley dams - Birmingham water supply), there is potential to construct two additional dams of significant size just to start with in that locality alone - the feeder streams for all the dams could supply a min. 300hp of drive.
The potential exists to generate huge quans. of hydro electricity in GB, it just needs some determined and decisive action from Govt. to stop the nonsense currently prohibiting an extremely climate friendly power source from being utilised. Alright, we get dry spells, so therefor increase hydro installations in areas historically less affected. The Severn Barrage should be built asap. (as others), if they don't it will be regretted - the more delay the more the cost. Don't forget there are also current flow turbines that can use tidal flow without barrages, indeed, such facilities can be placed wherever there is significant tidal flow.
The use of water power is not just possible, it is an inevitable necessity.
Regards, Bernard
p.s. In Scotland after WW2, there was a dam building programme in Scotland to employ recently returned servicemen. It is interesting that quite a few of these dams are not used for anything - I have seen one of them.
-
Don't forget there are also current flow turbines that can use tidal flow without barrages, indeed, such facilities can be placed wherever there is significant tidal flow...
like wind turbines but with boat propellers in kort nozzles, situated just below the surface of water ? tidal turbine pods
-
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong"
A quote that I found recently. Seemed appropriate.
-
I think you can get paid for oil under your House
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL24342120080724
Proteus
-
I think that only applies to arabs? {-) {-) {-)
Malc
-
I have read all these posts and the one that stood
out the most to me, and I have forgotten who posted
it was::::::::::the gurus who keep saying we have to
stop global warming cannot tell us with any accuracy
what will happen in two days let alone 50, 100 or
200 years time, It will matter not what we say or
argue about it, as the politicians will screw it up
regardless................
Roy
-
one saving: better insulation of homes, that way in winter it stayes warmer with less effort, and in summer, it stayes cooler. after all what keeps the heat in and cold out also works in reverse, keeping cold in and hot out, more careful use of air conditioning in both homes and cars.
I may be being a little simplistic here, but it is an honest question. If we do a full insulation on the house, fit double gazing and all the rest of it where do we get our fresh air from? Whether the hot air is going out or the colder air is coming in there has to be some sort of "hole" that surely negates a lot of the so-called benefits. Or do we just suffocate. Sitting here right now with double glazing all around I have to have a window wide open to let a bit of "cool" in. I really am confused about the "saving"...
-
one saving: better insulation of homes, that way in winter it stayes warmer with less effort, and in summer, it stayes cooler. after all what keeps the heat in and cold out also works in reverse, keeping cold in and hot out, more careful use of air conditioning in both homes and cars.
If we do a full insulation on the house, fit double gazing and all the rest of it where do we get our fresh air from?
Modern buildings are not supposed to let fresh air in... We insulate the heck out of a building, pressure test it to make sure there are no air leaks.. and then wonder where the mold comes from in bathrooms and kitchens.
Lack of air movement and draughts that used to be 'built' in to older buildings. ???
Yes, we can build energy efficient buildings, 1ft thick walls, tripple glazing, 1ft of insulation in the roof... but the builders dont want to spend the money at the construction stage to save money in the long run. :'(
Toes (Ex Architect)
-
Answers simple lads .......stick a bloody greqat pipe in the front doors of the houses of parliament ! there's enough hot air coming out of there to keep the southern end of britain going for decades O0 O0 {-)
regards.bob.
-
But if the members of parliament suddenly found that they were going to be useful . . . ::)
They would either have to find another gravy train or actually start being useful. Heck of choice for them.