Wind turbines

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Hi Chis

Once our project is fully up and running we will be only too pleased to see anyone that is interested in using "green energy". You will have free, unbiased information from our tech team based on info collected from our site. You can have a look at the project on http://www.savingthedodo.com We shall be looking for non camera shy locals (any nationality) to get involved. We will also be looking for some eccentric chefs to demo their talents on TV using ingredients grown by us or found in the wild. They will be cooking with solar or renewable resources

Paul

http://www.savingthedodo.com

[chris pp]

Welcome to Living France, Paul, the friendly forum, well most of the time.

Chris

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

re nicktrollope supporting Atomic energy is fine but what do we do with the rubbish..

uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium.."Pu-239, the more common isotope of Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years"

Show me any container that has been around for that long. Show me any part of the earths crust that has been stable for that long. So great ... enjoy the energy ... give the future generations the problem. By the way they have already chucked thousands of tons of RA waste into the sea. They have found that those containers are already breaking down.

Paul

[Chezstevens]

Do they use the water at Nuclear Stations as trout farms. Bloody big b***ers if they did - and you could see them on the BBQ.

[Nick Trollope]

[quote user="saving the dodo"]re nicktrollope supporting Atomic energy is fine but what do we do with the rubbish.. uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium.."Pu-239, the more common isotope of Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years" Show me any container that has been around for that long. Show me any part of the earths crust that has been stable for that long. So great ... enjoy the energy ... give the future generations the problem. By the way they have already chucked thousands of tons of RA waste into the sea. They have found that those containers are already breaking down. Paul[/quote]

No doubt, but what are the alternatives - I have yet to see a "green"  solution that can provide a reliable source of power in the quantities we (as a planet) need. France uses about 75% nuclear power and has ambitions to produce 20% of its power from renewable resources within 30(?) years. So, when the oil/gas has run out, is France going to be 5% worse off? Or more nuclear?

Unless, of course we can cut our energy consumption by (say) 75% - taking into account, of course that vehicles will need a viable alternative power source within the next few years. Fat chance.

2/3rds of CO2 comes from aeroplanes. Are we going to reduce air miles? Fat chance.

Are we going to pay 5 times as much for our energy, because it is "green"? Fat chance. There would be entire continents on their financial uppers if that happened.

Green is good. Green is a neccessity. But at the present (and for our lifetimes) is is a liability as, at the moment, it is just a marketing tool for the likes of B&Q.

Oh, & "saving the dodo" is a particularly apt name - does it reflect your actual ambitions?

 

[andyh4]

.......and exactly how much energy is consumed to manufacture and erect one of these B&Q toys?

Probably about as much as it will generate

[Gluestick]

I must confess that I am somewhat ambivalent over nuclear energy.

Since the early days of the Magnox reactors and the original promises on ZETA (Nuclear Fusion project), most finished plants, have well under-performed their forecast design output: and have cost far more to operate than projected.

Additionally, yes there are problems with waste and have to agree that it is dificult to conceive how safe containers might demonstrate sufficient longevity when considering half-life. And yes, again, early containers (50 gallon oil drums, concrete filled to surround the waste) were dumped in the North Sea and circa 90% ruptured as they became affected by pressure).

However, what are the real viable options? Not a lot!

Will humanity desist from energy profligacy? Of course not; we may make token adjustments, like energy-efficient light bulbs, mainly on a cost basis. Will we however refrain from cheap flights abroad? Faster, more comfortable journeys on short haul business trips? Not really.

Any late move to the nuclear option by such as Blair & Co, is simply a knee jerk reaction to total government failure in setting a cohesive central energy policy 30 + years ago: i.e. do nothing as the problem escalates and when it's too late, make a decision.

Of course, we could if we really wished, change the future in a whole raft of ways. Junking that 4X4; recycling more waste keep on going.

On the carbon front, carbon exchanges are now well establised: polluting plants can now buy spare credits and simply carry on polluting. What incentive is there ti install CO2 scrubbers, at huge capital cost when they can simply buy their way out of trouble? And make greater profit? The mere fact that these exchanges are set, by the wheeler dealers, to become multi-billion dollar activities in the next few years, to me, demonstrates the futility of it all. Pollute or profit? Profit every time!

However with vested interests in play, here and lack of government lead, all the potential solutions will remain simply that: potential solutions which are unadopted. The current problem of water shortage in the South of England sums it all up for me. If more houses are being built; more cars, washing machines, dishwashers and garden hoses and swimming pools are being sold, then it aint rocket science to project increased water demand. However, despite massive losses through leakage and failure to invest etc, Thames Water has just been sold by its German owner to an Australian bank for £8 billion. nice pay day for the resigning directors. If billions can be made wheeling and dealing a utility, where's the incentive to become more environmentally friendly?

Thus I have to go along with Nick, here. There are no realistic viable options to nuclear. We can but hope that as nuclear physics advances, new processes will come into use to render waste less harmful.

 

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Firstly may I propose that we open an environmental forum where we can discuss all of the pros and cons. Secondly. both andy4 and nicktrollope have valid arguments but that doesn't mean that we should continue opening atomic power stations. To expand a little on andy4's argument.

Land speed record expert Richard Noble has suggested that the obsession with fuel economy in motor vehicles is misdirected. He believes that more emissions are produced in the manufacture of cars than ever come out of the exhaust pipe. The result may be that we should look after our cars and keep them running for longer rather than replace them every couple of years to gain greater fuel efficiency. Chis pp will, quite rightly, argue that bio fuels will have the tendency to create mono cultures, equally bad for the wildlife and environment. There is no panacea. There are huge risks involved with atomic power both financial and physical. There are debates going on elsewhere about the amount of extraterrestrial matter hitting this planet every day, should some of this hit a power station then Bingo. The chance are remote but as they say “s**t happens”. We are due for a fair sized chunk to come our way at any time now, were this to break up on entry then the chances of an atomic station being hit increase. The matter itself would cause devastation but not on the scale of scoring a bulls eye on an atomic power plant. So why increase the risk. Do we really need this extra centrally generated power? Have a look in your own home are there any appliances that absolutely require 240v, your lights, no – computer, no – television, no – Power tools, no. WASHING MACHINE I hear you all cry. I have built one that works on 12 v so what is left. If the money that is earmarked for building new atomic stations was directed at developing and subsidising fuel cells running on water. (we do have them) then we have a safe viable solution. If we go back to the concept of small communities living together for the mutual benefit of both power, waste and food then we are almost there. Unfortunately today’s economic climate encourages an “every man for himself” attitude, wouldn’t it be nice if we had “every man for the planet” or “every man for each other” or is that just a dream. Before any one jumps in with communist or new age hippy, I am neither, I am someone doing something to try and find a solution. By the way nicktrollope, saving the Dodo is a comparison with the way that animal went under human pressure and the way that this planet will go under the same. So what about an environmental forum????

Inventas vitam iuvat excoluisse per artes

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

I agree with gluestick --- except for the last 2 lines

[bejay]

It is disappointing to find that I agree with almost everything people are saying. It probably shows a lsck of moral fibre or something.

But it seems to me that there is a bit of a bottom line to this. Although I do not think much of the 'off grid ' principle and I am sure Gluestick is correct in his view about carbon trading, in the end carbon combustion is part of natural cycle which has evolved with the planet.. Yes, we have probably disrupted it but it can and will adjust to a new equilibrium in time. Depending on ones mood  there are either positive signs or negative signs to be found.

Nuclear energy is different. In producing waste plutonium we are making something that does not exist naturally on this planet and it is nasty forever. Unless someone can come up with nuclear method of 'neutralising' it (and all sorts of other radioactive isotopes) then we shouldn't be messing with it. It just isn't fair.

 

bj

 

[Harley]

Something like this perhaps?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

[:)]

[Gluestick]

Absolutely: and of course, fusion probably offers the best method of rendering nuclear fission waste virtually harmless, as well as offering the potential to create a whole range of new materials and change the structures of existing materials, so the benefits to mankind are potentially immense, and not just power generation.

Interesting that this is France leading the project and not Blair/Brown's staggering successful Britain.[6]

 

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Thanks for that link Harley http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

France will get to host the project to build a 10bn-euro .... 10 BILLION!!! Lets see what it ends up costing.

*****************

To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

********************

The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense.

But the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive.

***********

That last sentence is interesting

******************

I still think small is better ... put the 10 BILLION into fuel cells (we know they work safetly) rather than trying to create a sun on earth that may or maynot work. Governments have a habit if throwing a lot of money at glitzy projects that end up either not working or not fulfilling design expectations i.e. Nuclear.

The last comments about carbon from bejay

""But it seems to me that there is a bit of a bottom line to this. Although I do not think much of the 'off grid ' principle and I am sure Gluestick is correct in his view about carbon trading, in the end carbon combustion is part of natural cycle which has evolved with the planet.. Yes, we have probably disrupted it but it can and will adjust to a new equilibrium in time.""

That is the problem Bejay, a normal cycle of burning wood and plant matter is fine as long as you keep the forests. We are UNLOCKING carbon that has been safely stored as fossil material for millions of years. At the same time we are destroying forests ... The figures do not add up,

[Gluestick]

Paul:

Again, I must reinforce the message that this project isn't just about cheaper, safer energy, anymore than core nuclear research has been about building better bombs! The fact that it was highjacked by such as Adolf Hitler's mob and Pres. F D Roosevelt, has given it a bad and warped press, ever since.

The media, of course, always seize on the energy dynamic, probably 'cos they don't want to bother to understand the other possibilities.

Being able to manufacture at molecule level, then atom level and then finally sub-atomic level is the next progession of nanotechnology.

The spin-offs to such research are always igonored and forgotten by Greenpeace, F o t E, et al.

For example, nuclear medicine has saved countless lives, and I am not referring here to radiation treatments.

One of the spin-offs from CERN, for example, enabled this medium we are using to communicate: viz, Tim Berners-Lee's invention of Hyperlinks and HTML (Hyper Text Mark-Up Language).

Of course, cheap, safer, less environmentally intrusive energy is one object: yet not the only objective.

 

[Harley]

I only wanted to know if B&Q wind turbines could be connected to a standard French electricity supply....................[:P]

Nanotechnology - Wow! -  Beam me up Scotty![:-))]

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Sorry Harley we got a bit carried away ... in my opinion ... yes you can connect one to your domestic electricity ... is it worth connecting it to the EDF grid to reduce your bills...no I dont think so. If there are a few of you living in close proximity then club together and get a bigger one, nice building project for the winter. Chris pp will tell you if you are in danger of slicing up the passing winged wildlife

Paul

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Hi Gluestick.

I think if the great intelligence had meant us to ski we would have feet 2 meters long. Likewise if there were meant to be a Sun on this planet we would have one. Building something many times hotter held within a magnetic field aaaaaaaaaagh. Wot if someone forgot to put a shilling in the electric meter.

Paul

[bejay]

Paul

It is all a question of timescale I know but we are not really unlocking anything we are simply reversing a process that occured a long time ago and has been going on since oxygen gas was released. I certainly accept that we are probably doing it too much and too fast but that is what species do. At some point in the future conditions will change and some sort of balance will be achieved. This of course does not necessarily imply a satisfactory future for man but on the other hand we have been actively affecting the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere for a relatively short time so it might be possible to reverse the process.  I imagine it will take generations not just a change of government.though.The point I was trying to make was that in manufacturing plutonium we are doing something fundamentally different and we are creating risks for future generations of all species that I dont think biological systems can handle.

Gluestick

The idea that nuclear fusion can be used to 'deal with' the products of nuclear fission is new to me . Are you able to point me towards any sources of information on this because if it is achievable it really does alter the argument for nuclear energy.

bj

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

I was about to ask gluestick the same question

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

hi BJ

When a lot of this carbon was locked away there was no Human life on this planet ... it is not a question of doing it too fast but more a question not having the natural environment to reprocess the stuff back into Oxygen so the Co2 levels continue to rise.. Unless of course our seas turn back to an algae sludge .. then it can be processed .. of course as the radioactive containers in the sea break down, releasing their contents, perhaps they will then be a hostile environment for the algae so then what do we do?? . You are very right about Plutonium and it will take a long time to change the view of people and government and we might - possibly - if - maybe -sometime in the future be able to do something about it but I am not willing to take that risk. I am going to do my little part now.

[Gluestick]

bj

Paul:

I will try and nail down a surfable resource for this.

The original concept was presented to me by some retired (just) nuclear physicists, who had all worked at Aldermaston, Harwell and finally AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment) an important part of which used to be near where I live. Is it any wonder I want to relocate? [blink] We were discussing this thorny subject, a few years ago, over a beer or two, as you do.

The core concept, I believe, is that any atom can be sub-divided into its component parts and reassembled. Thus it follows that a radiotoxic substance could be reassembled into a benign substance or even restructured, in the same way that Uranium is when U 235 is made from enriched Uranium. Plutonium, which is artifical (i.e. not ocurring in nature) is also made by nuclear bombardment.

In the same way that chemical engineering creates artificial substances (e.g. long chain polymers), nuclear physicists hope to be able to change the state of almost anything.

I hope I have remembered this correctly![8-)]

http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/nuclear/mg19225741.100-halflife-heresy-accelerating-radioactive-decay.html

Look under "Transmutation" scroll down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

If I can source more references, I will.

 

[Gluestick]

Transmutation:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Spent+Nuclear+Fuel+Transmutation&meta=

 

[Harley]

That is exactly what we hope to do - our little bit.  I was hoping we could combine a wind turbine with solar panels.  Obviously we want to acheive this as cheaply as possible but do not want to buy cheap quality.  I hope we are able to get this worked out a.s.a.p and the more info we can get together the better.[:D]

[Paul Saving the Dodo]

Harley, That is great .... I will put some info together for you ... do you have a swimming pool as this can be used as a heat sink to help warm the house in the winter?? ... and do you mean solar water heating panels or solar electric panels or the 2. Are you the DIY type or do you want to buy off the shelf

Paul

[bejay]

Paul

We aren't in disageement about anything very much but of course its about rate,  a given environmental sytem  will cope with a certain rate of supply of CO2, exceed that and it won't. If you are saying that our current environment by definition cannot cope with carbon from a previous geological era then we are all doomed and always were from the time man first burned a lump of  coal. I really don't believe that that is what you are saying.  Roll on the algae sludge, I expect someone will be able to market it.

Gluestick

Thanks for that.information I shall read through it, Sounds like its more than a couple of weeks away though.

bj