Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Renewable Energy: Energy company offering FIT+2p

Bottom of Page

91 to 117 of 117

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    And the wind shall say "Here were decent godless people;
    Their only monument the asphalt road
    And a thousand lost golf balls."

    T.S. Eliot (1888 - 1965)
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Posted By: martintMany more people die mining coal in China, or at explosions on pipelines in Nigeria, than in the nuclear industry.
    It's not what happens now - you can prove what you like with that, prob true, but that says nothing about the incalculable gamble with disastrous effects of less than 100% perfect supervision of the waste's storage for next thousand yrs or so.
    • CommentAuthorpmagowan
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Storing waste is a lot better than pumping it into the atmosphere which is what the alternatives do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012 edited
     
    So lets do neither fcrissake - what are we - men, mice or lemmings?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    We're creatures that consume energy/food and *all* ways of getting those have some pluses and minuses, so we can't "do neither" in any reasonable scheme for the foreseeable future.

    We have to minimise damage/changes rather than believe that it is possible to have none, unless you're hoping to share Tony's waiver for the laws of thermodynamics.

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorpmagowan
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    We need large amounts of power so we must choose some method of producing it. If we want to do away with fossil fuels then we will need to convert to electric for most heating and transport as well. There is no realistic alternative to large power stations and the only one that meets the 'no FF' agenda is nuclear. You are advocating having our cake and eating it. I don't understand where the deficit is made up. If we invest heavily in nuclear technology we could achieve an electric world rather than a FF one. We would also get rapid development of the technology and get closer to fusion. What are you advocating as an alternative to this? If you have no realistic alternative are these views not just holding us back and increasing the time that we rely on FFs and thus increasing the global damage. The only other agenda I can think of is that if you hold back nuclear perhaps you can create a bigger crisis and thus encourage demand reduction but this is a very dangerous and risky venture as it might not be possible to recover from such a crisis (ecologically speaking)
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    If we knew for some reason that we'd have FFat present level for 15yrs more, then it wd taper rapidly to a fraction, and that no new nuclear programme was possible, what wd we do? Wd it be the end of civilisation? I don't think so. A lot of attention wd be focussed, a lot of urgent employment created worldwide (even if it meant printing more squillions but for that purpose instead of to improve banks' asset sheets) and a lot of profits made by big biz. For sure, the solution wd not involve continuing with energy demand and supply at anything like present levels. How so? I suggest a good read of GBF's back pages - it's all there - and I'd recommend certain present GBF members do the same before using its pages to propagate our choiceless helplessness to do anything other than biz-as-usual.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Tom, you know very well that it all gets VERY religious and ends up with each camp fighting its own corner. No reason to stop arguing your case; whatever gets you through the night.

    If you want to keep trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle, fine. Never known hypotheticals to do it yet though. :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Most of it is answered here:
    http://www.newscientist.com/special/deep-future

    So taking Tom's idea about FF running out and Nuclear not being available, then we would use yet another alternative, we have many. We would probably (our future selves) see much difference.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    But we're already touching on technologies that promise the re-use of the nuclear wastes that are supposed to be the Damocles Sword hanging over future generations.

    I predict a process that will render them useable in future nuclear technologies that will leave them inert.

    Prove me wrong.

    Hypotheticals. Who'd have 'em? :shades:
    • CommentAuthorpmagowan
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Very odd concept though. I am all for the technological solution and I think that we can strive to overcome almost any problem. Why though, would you take nuclear out of the picture. Its a little like tying your hand behind your back. It is the obvious next step and the only way to make it better is to invest in it. I really don't see what it is that gets people so hysterical about it. I am aware of the psychology behind it but we should be able to think beyond this. There is no reason to solve a hypothetical problem when we have a real life problem. What are your alternatives to nuclear?

    Timeline: Full investment in nuclear, gradual weaning off FF, development of fusion at experimental/productive levels within about 20 years, gradual weaning off fission. Meanwhile people move to electric cars, heating and lighting. Developing countries are offered help building fusion reactors allowing them to skip a few steps and avoid weapons risk nuclear production.

    Alternatives: We keep building windmills while the rest of the world burns coal. Some 'green' people insulate their houses and ride bicycles. The masses continue to use electricity in large quantities. The govenment builds 'clean' coal power stations to supply the demand in cheap electric. National health deteriorate, increasing cancers from airborne pollutants, large scale ecological damage, global warming. The developing countries ask the question, 'why should we cut emmissions when you don't make the effort?'
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: pmagowanThe developing countries ask the question, 'why should we cut emmissions when you don't make the effort?'

    Would they not also ask the question 'What happened to cheap fossil fuel energy?'
    Or why should they invest in old technology with fundamental limits and be reliant on imported energy.
    Developing countries have a good head start on the developed world here. Solar is already cheaper than diesel in rural India.

    Is there a resource that the World has run out of?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Posted By: Joiner
    Prove me wrong.
    I'd be a great deal happier if 'they' would prove you right before charging ahead. Presumably the same rosy argument applies to Carbon Capture which will make coal burning OK for ever more?
    • CommentAuthorpmagowan
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Solutions, not problems!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    The article is a romp thro the exciting techie world of advanced coal burning, with two tiny inconclusive mentions of CCS - say 0.5% emphasis. Please tell me that the promised prospects of safe re-use of nuclear waste are a bit more convincing than that? If so then those wastes are going to be stored in a readily retrievable way? If so, then is it a safe bet that for the next 1000yrs no criminal, and no warlord-led govt, will have the bright idea of retrieving same for other less noble purposes?
    • CommentAuthorpmagowan
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Your warlord would probably find it easier buying a few smoke alarms for his less-than-noble needs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    :bigsmile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Eh? don't geddit
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    I haven't check this for accuracy but..

    http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/03/05/study-eliminating-coal-fired-power-is-worth-0-2-degrees-in-100-years/

    Highlights..

    Shocking Implications

    One shocking implication from the paper was the projection that hydropower would be worse than coal for the next 60 years. The study’s authors cited methane emissions as organic matter buried under water as the reason for this apparent anomaly. But that’s not the really shocking thing about the study for me.

    The most shocking conclusion was the magnitude of the numbers we are talking about. Even if you could in theory shut down all of the coal-fired power plants in the world and replace them with wind, solar, and hydropower — in 50 years the projected temperature is only one-twentieth of a degree C cooler than the base case of continuing to use coal. In 100 years, if I had a magic wand and could today replace all global coal-fired power plants with firm, renewable power — the temperature is only projected to be about 0.2 degrees cooler than under the coal base case. And the way this is being spun is that the 0.09 degree reduction from switching to natural gas is equivalent to an effect of “zero”, but the 0.2 degree reduction in hypothetically replacing everything with wind and solar power 100 years from now is significant. About the natural gas case, Romm literally said the 0.09 degree lower temperature in switching to natural gas means that “natural gas is a bridge fuel to nowhere”, but the the 0.2 degree lower temperature in switching to renewables is “the world’s only plausible hope to avert catastrophic temperature rise.”

    Conclusion: Study is a Major Downer for Activists Battling Climate Change

    To be honest, if I was devoting my life to fighting against the threat of climate change, this would be one of the most depressing papers I have ever read. If we could convince everyone in the world to shut down their coal-fired power plants — which we can’t — and replace them with renewable power — which isn’t available in quantities sufficient to replace coal-fired power — then by the end of my life there would still be no statistically significant temperature change to even be able to tell if my life’s work was successful.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Nothing new there :sad:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    We're doomed! :crazy:

    We're all DOOMED! :crazy::jumping::crazy::jumping:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    :smoking: Don't panic! :peace:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Doomed, I think I am just going to buy a new pair of shorts :surfing:
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Worth watching:

    'From here to eternity: Global warming in geologic time' - a 50 minute presentation and 30 minute Q&A on the long term future implications of climate change given by Prof. David Archer in Canada in 2006.

    http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=0cc14e61-1ed3-45bf-b691-29811ac2ec53&shouldResize=False#
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    Tomorrow morning over the Shredded Wheat, methinks.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
     
    MP3 + PDF version if that suites better:

    http://h2opodcast.com/climate.html

91 to 117 of 117

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press