Greenpeace: Arctic 30

[joe-90]

Anyway, leaving all that aside for a moment, how would you control consumption? Would I, as a domestic consumer, be required to use less electricity? Please remember that electricity costs me a lot of money, which is in itself a disincentive for me to waste it.

What, specifically, should non-domestic users stop doing?

Ideally yes you should use less, there's an argument that energy is still far too cheap anyway , although using price as a disincentive is a crude way of doing it. Read the page about TEQ's , it's a way of controlling consumption.
For non domestic users then there is a lot that can be done to reduce waste and as I said using things like wind for direct mechanical drive. Go back a hundred and fifty odd years and our entire economy was largely wind , water and horse powered and the country prospered.
AsI've already said, it's essential to control consumption to ever have a chance of being in control of the situation irrespective of how power is generated in the first place.
Personally I think a few blackouts would be a good thing for this country might wake a few people up.

With respect, this is not an adequate answer. I'll ask the question again: specifically which items should I stop using? I have the usual things in my home, so perhaps you could tell me which are not necessary.

The Internet. (pretty please).

 

[ladylola]

With respect, this is not an adequate answer. I'll ask the question again: specifically which items should I stop using? I have the usual things in my home, so perhaps you could tell me which are not necessary.

Consumption can be reduced in a number of ways many of them small and incremental, for example
turning the thermostat down and wear another layer, fit the windows with heavy curtains and pelmets, sweep up rather than vacuum every time, eat cous cous it can be cooked in a few minutes and use human power rather than electric kitchen gadgets, use energy saving bulbs or better still go to bed earlier, turn things off rather than leaving them on standby , smaller telly, get a wood burner and skip dive to collect the close to one million tons of wood dumped annually, walk or cycle, and so on and so on.
To be fair the government hasn't helped or could be accused of being two faced by forcing digital on us. It uses more power than analogue.
I do agree that bringing in TEQ's would cause a few problems but we had rationing before during the war and it worked.
It will probably have to be brought in by the back door so to speak as any party who say they are going to bring in rationing probably won't get elected. For example when Ed Milliband talked about freezing prices he should have said he would freeze prices for say the first 500 units (figure out of the air ) and allow higher than inflation rises above that. Should have kept the power companies happy and got the population used to the idea of limits to power usage .

 

[Norcon]

If every roof had photovoltaic panels instead of slates then no need for nuclear and probably a very small demand for coal.

£25k fits you a top 20kw german system then free electric for the rest of your life.
Grant aided and yearly payments for the next 20 years here in the province + payments for the excess you export to the grid. One of our customers has that set up.

My electric bill is about 50 quid a quarter so I'm not that bothered tbh.

Subsidising nuclear has to cost more than subsidising solar.
And solar has no waste by product that's deadly for the next trillion years!

There's a thing sitting in chernoble to this day that if you just walked past it by mistake you'd only have a few days to live!

 

[JBR]

With respect, this is not an adequate answer. I'll ask the question again: specifically which items should I stop using? I have the usual things in my home, so perhaps you could tell me which are not necessary.

Consumption can be reduced in a number of ways many of them small and incremental, for example
(1)turning the thermostat down and wear another layer, (2)fit the windows with heavy curtains and pelmets, (3)sweep up rather than vacuum every time, (4)eat cous cous it can be cooked in a few minutes and (5)use human power rather than electric kitchen gadgets, (6)use energy saving bulbs or better still go to bed earlier, (7)turn things off rather than leaving them on standby , (8)smaller telly, (9)get a wood burner and (10)skip dive to collect the close to one million tons of wood dumped annually, (11)walk or cycle, and so on and so on.

(1) We do that;
(2) we have double glazing, will that do?
(3) tried that, but it leaves a lot of dirt;
(4) I don't like cous cous, will grass do?
(5) I don't know how to use kitchen gadgets; I can make beans on toast;
(6) we do that, and we go to bed earlier when we 'feel like an early night'
(7) guilty;
(8 ) guilty;
(9) we've got one;
(10) you must be joking - it'll cause a chimney fire (use kiln dried);
(11) I wouldn't dare cycle on our roads - we have an exercise bike, will that do?

 

[JBR]

If every roof had photovoltaic panels instead of slates then no need for nuclear and probably a very small demand for coal.

£25k fits you a top 20kw german system then free electric for the rest of your life.

Wow! That's a good idea.

Luckily, we have a spare £25,000 lying about that we were wondering how to spend.

 

[jockscott]

£25k fits you a top 20kw german system then free electric for the rest of your life.
Grant aided and yearly payments for the next 20 years here in the province + payments for the excess you export to the grid. One of our customers has that set up.

Ahh, that'll be the Feed In Tariffs, which we're all paying for. Doesn't cost the generation companies a bloody cent. FIT's shouldn't have ever been brought into the equation. People who have these solar panels on their houses should just be content with the lower electricity bills.

 

[wobs]

If every roof had photovoltaic panels instead of slates then no need for nuclear and probably a very small demand for coal.

No
It would make no difference in the amount of nuclear power stations (or coal), as they provide different types of supply.

 

[Norcon]

If every roof had photovoltaic panels instead of slates then no need for nuclear and probably a very small demand for coal.

No
It would make no difference in the amount of nuclear power stations (or coal), as they provide different types of supply.

You have about 500 sq mile of roofing in England and 150 square miles of photovoltaics (PVs) to equal the output of a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant.
You're right we're doomed.

 

[wobs]

With respect, this is not an adequate answer. I'll ask the question again: specifically which items should I stop using? I have the usual things in my home, so perhaps you could tell me which are not necessary.

Consumption can be reduced in a number of ways many of them small and incremental, for example
turning the thermostat down and wear another layer, fit the windows with heavy curtains and pelmets, sweep up rather than vacuum every time, eat cous cous it can be cooked in a few minutes and use human power rather than electric kitchen gadgets, use energy saving bulbs or better still go to bed earlier, turn things off rather than leaving them on standby , smaller telly, get a wood burner and skip dive to collect the close to one million tons of wood dumped annually, walk or cycle, and so on and so on.
To be fair the government hasn't helped or could be accused of being two faced by forcing digital on us. It uses more power than analogue.
I do agree that bringing in TEQ's would cause a few problems but we had rationing before during the war and it worked.
It will probably have to be brought in by the back door so to speak as any party who say they are going to bring in rationing probably won't get elected. For example when Ed Milliband talked about freezing prices he should have said he would freeze prices for say the first 500 units (figure out of the air ) and allow higher than inflation rises above that. Should have kept the power companies happy and got the population used to the idea of limits to power usage .

These will increase carbon emissions, not decrease them. Cutting energy consumption causes an increase in consumption elsewhere, owing to Jevons Paradox. Only with some kind of energy limit (eg. TEQs as you said) can energy efficiency hope to make a difference.

PS. Rationing caused untold misary and crime. That level of hardship is what we must avoid.

 

[wobs]

If every roof had photovoltaic panels instead of slates then no need for nuclear and probably a very small demand for coal.

No
It would make no difference in the amount of nuclear power stations (or coal), as they provide different types of supply.

You have about 500 sq mile of roofing in England and 150 square miles of photovoltaics (PVs) to equal the output of a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant.
You're right we're doomed.

It makes no difference. Wind and solar only work when its windy/sunny. At night, and when its still, they produce nothing, and so they are no good for baseload supply. The best you can hope for is 20% of a national grid to be powered by wind/solar. And that's on a windy sunny day.

The UK has no viable energy storage that is adequate to compensate for this inadequacy, and nuclear power in the best option for a baseload supply ATM. The French have shown that even their old reactors are up to the job. Newer designs (GenIII+, and GenIV) are most certainly up to it.

They are also the safest energy source we have. Yes you read that right.

 

[nickso]

There's a thing sitting in chernoble to this day that if you just walked past it by mistake you'd only have a few days to live!

Off topic a bit but genuinely out of interest....what thing? Been there and saw nothing that would kill you in a few days by walking by it.....make you ill but not kill. Several hundred people work there everyday in a block right next to the reactor that blew.

 

[JBR]

There's a thing sitting in chernoble to this day that if you just walked past it by mistake you'd only have a few days to live!

Off topic a bit but genuinely out of interest....what thing? Been there and saw nothing that would kill you in a few days by walking by it.....make you ill but not kill. Several hundred people work there everyday in a block right next to the reactor that blew.

Yes, an example of over-reaction and panicking.
Chernobyl was the worst nuclear power station accident we have had and it hardly caused the end of the world, did it? And let's not forget that Chernobyl happened because of inadequate safety measures and controls in the Russian nuclear power system. Things are much safer in the West.

In fact, compare the number of people who have died working in the nuclear power industry with the number of people who have died working in coal mining.

Nuclear power is not only safe, but is the only practical option. The naysayers and greenies will have to live with it.

 

[JBR]

There's a thing sitting in chernoble to this day that if you just walked past it by mistake you'd only have a few days to live!

That would be the Devil, then?

 

[EFLImpudence]

God is everything and everything is god therefore there can be no devil - unless ...

 

[AronSearle]

Wind and solar only work when its windy/sunny.

If the majority of houses were still not insulated to 1950s levels, and their owners of a similar mindset, then solar could at least heat homes.

Storage heaters wired in to solar panels could probably provide nearly all or more of your required heat and hot water.

Washing machines and such could just be set to timers to come on when the wind blows, people would like to huff and puff about what a hassle it would be, but it wouldn’t really.

But yea, you still need some proper baseload.