Thorium reactors are the way to go. They are a lot safer than uranium. I could have one in the back garden according to this http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php[/QUOTE]
Prime example of the flawed thinking so prevalent in todays world.
There's an energy crisis looming so simply generate more and more. Thorium reactors might be safe and so on and we could all end up with one in the back garden but then we'd only fill our homes full of yet more electronic crap and would still end up with another energy crisis looming. Thorium PLUS reduced consumption maybe.
We were promised cheap almost limitless energy with nuclear in thefirst place but that soon disappeared, not to mention there are reports that the nuclear fuel is becoming increasingly harder to get.
I have to say that I think this is an example of flawed thinking. I believe most of us will not 'fill our homes full of yet more electronic crap' as we have to pay for energy we use, unless we are made of money of course. I am not. Also, domestic energy consumption is mostly due to heating. Electronics consume a relatively small proportion.
Petrol from fresh air
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
More recently in people's minds are the events at Fukushima. Most of them don't realise that , here in the UK we don't have earthquakes that register 9.5 on the Richter scale, or suffer from tsunami's that would destroy Skegness .
Sorry JJ but you're wrong
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml
And how many power stations would have been affected if it happens again???
FFS Pred, that happened in 1607. Best of luck finding a nuclear reactor on planet earth back then.
Prime example of the flawed thinking so prevalent in todays world.
There's an energy crisis looming so simply generate more and more
We were promised cheap almost limitless energy with nuclear in thefirst place but that soon disappeared, not to mention there are reports that the nuclear fuel is becoming increasingly harder to get.
Then give everyone a quota. I actually wrote to the energy minister a couple of years ago proposing that and that the government set the tariff, anything above the limit is game for excessive charging. There's nothing in the Energy Acts that says the government can't do it (and yes I did read them both and the amendments) making it a priority for people to conserve energy. I also suggested safety nets for those in rent housing with bad insulation, putting the emphasis on it costing the energy companies, not the tax payers to get it sorted and that there could additional allowances for elderly people (no need for winter fuel allowance) and some concessions for listed building where it is not possible to upgrade.
I actually think that the quotas would be a good idea and woul;d be relatively simple to put in place. There would , unfortunately , be many that would complain that rationing was coming back and also harming economic growth.
Thorium reactors are the way to go. They are a lot safer than uranium. I could have one in the back garden according to this http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php[/QUOTE]
Prime example of the flawed thinking so prevalent in todays world.
There's an energy crisis looming so simply generate more and more
We were promised cheap almost limitless energy with nuclear in thefirst place but that soon disappeared, not to mention there are reports that the nuclear fuel is becoming increasingly harder to get.
I have to say that I think this is an example of flawed thinking. I believe most of us will not 'fill our homes full of yet more electronic crap' as we have to pay for energy we use, unless we are made of money of course. I am not. Also, domestic energy consumption is mostly due to heating. Electronics consume a relatively small proportion.
Ok so maybe electrical rather than electronic would have been a better term. Domestically nearly every home has tv's , computers, washing machines, vaccums and many more labour saving gadgets than there ever were 20 years or more ago. Digital technogoly is quite hungry for energy too, and ask any tradesman on here if they don't use power tools. You are right that price will be the deciding factor here but the promise from some of the technogoly is to provide enough energy to solve the crisis which in itsself should drive down the price in relative terms but to give a long lasting solution would involve having an artifically high price to keep consumption in check.
Sponsored Links
Thorium reactors are the way to go. They are a lot safer than uranium. I could have one in the back garden according to this http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php[/QUOTE]
Prime example of the flawed thinking so prevalent in todays world.
There's an energy crisis looming so simply generate more and more
We were promised cheap almost limitless energy with nuclear in thefirst place but that soon disappeared, not to mention there are reports that the nuclear fuel is becoming increasingly harder to get.
I have to say that I think this is an example of flawed thinking. I believe most of us will not 'fill our homes full of yet more electronic crap' as we have to pay for energy we use, unless we are made of money of course. I am not. Also, domestic energy consumption is mostly due to heating. Electronics consume a relatively small proportion.
Ok so maybe electrical rather than electronic would have been a better term. Domestically nearly every home has tv's , computers, washing machines, vaccums and many more labour saving gadgets than there ever were 20 years or more ago. Digital technogoly is quite hungry for energy too, and ask any tradesman on here if they don't use power tools. You are right that price will be the deciding factor here but the promise from some of the technogoly is to provide enough energy to solve the crisis which in itsself should drive down the price in relative terms but to give a long lasting solution would involve having an artifically high price to keep consumption in check.
I'm not an electrician, so if any on here think I've got things wrong please say so.
Speaking very generally, one could group domestic energy consumption into three categories - moving from the most 'energy-greedy' to the least:
1. Things that involve heating in one form or another (fires, ovens, washing machines, electric showers, etc).
2. Things that involve motors (vacuum cleaners, fridges, large power tools, etc).
3. Others such as lighting, TVs, DVD players, radios, battery chargers, etc.
I would suggest that most items under categories 1. and 2. might be considered essentials, whilst many (except lighting) could be thought of as being desirable, but non-essential.
So if people are being criticised for filling their homes with non-essential items, at least they are contributing very little to our energy consumption. What I'm trying to say is that in order to reduce energy consumption in the home by any meaningful level, we would have to forego heating, washing machines and the like. Most people would find that rather difficult to accept.
C
calorific
In which case maybe we need to develop ways of re-using the heat that has been created. For example, hot water from a washing machine could have it's heat extracted somehow to contribute towards something else. There's gotta be a way instead of literally flushing all that hot water down a drain.
Not so...What people need to do is to change how they do things, which may seem a 'pain' at first, but then becomes second nature after a while...
For example, how many people regularly open all relevant facing curtains when sunny, and close when not? - that way you can substantially increase the temperature inside...
Stop using the high temp settings on W/M's and D/W's and use less often...
The list of savings could be a long one, but suffice to say we are down to approx £550 p.a. energy bills for a 4 bed property without really accepting anything 'difficult'..
The only difficult thing is getting the energy companies to offer a decent tariff that allows a £50 DD when switching!...
E
EddieM
As will no doubt have been gone into before, the burning of methane CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O produces energy, therefore going in reverse uses energy and lots of it, which every way you cut it. A totally ridiculous idea.
E
EddieM
its only portable at point of use, its not portable at point of creation, its a silly idea, the only even slightly plausible way is to use bacteria or algae to produce hydrocarbons using sunlight.
In which case maybe we need to develop ways of re-using the heat that has been created. For example, hot water from a washing machine could have it's heat extracted somehow to contribute towards something else. There's gotta be a way instead of literally flushing all that hot water down a drain.
I'm going to extend the drain hoses from my washing machine and dishwasher to the bath!
'Sprout power'. If we all pull together...
More recently in people's minds are the events at Fukushima. Most of them don't realise that , here in the UK we don't have earthquakes that register 9.5 on the Richter scale, or suffer from tsunami's that would destroy Skegness .
Sorry JJ but you're wrong
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml
And how many power stations would have been affected if it happens again???
FFS Pred, that happened in 1607. Best of luck finding a nuclear reactor on planet earth back then.
They said it was caused by a mud slide off the east side of Ireland, when will it happen again??
possibly when the La Palma collapse happens - in the south and west anyway...
One big problem with all these renewable energies is they are prone to producing electricity at the wrong time and they cannot be easily switched on and off when required. That means the electricity they produce cannot be sold for much. The ability to store that electricity would make it far more valuable.
Funnily enough the same problem applies to nuclear.
So if they could turn that low value electricity into high value petrol then it might make economic sense even if the conversion was uneconomical - in theory at least Somebody needs to put together a spreadsheet !
Funnily enough the same problem applies to nuclear.
So if they could turn that low value electricity into high value petrol then it might make economic sense even if the conversion was uneconomical - in theory at least Somebody needs to put together a spreadsheet !
Sponsored Links
