Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pipnasty

COP21 - Paris France Sustainable Innovation Forum 2015

Recommended Posts

 

That's only one "artic" though, Greenland melting is in addition to that

I had to educate myself on this just now.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas.

So, its quite considerably smaller Kite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to educate myself on this just now.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas.

So, its quite considerably smaller Kite.

 

I think the difference is the plausibility of the entire greenland ice sheet melting from below and thus slipping into the sea (and I guess then sailing south and melting). Basically, the greenland sheet is vulnerable to cataclysmic change whereas the Amundsen is incrementally changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this antibiotic apocalypse scenario kicks in then there may be a much lower population to release carbon in future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015

 

They were dsicussing this on Radio 4's Today programme earlier in the week, one of the advisors on there said that apparently the rise in resistance is so bad now that in some parts of the Western world, there is about a one in twelve chance of someone dying if they contract Gonorrhea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was talking about this at the weekend. Apparently, the UK alone would need to build something like 2500 Sizewell B sized nuclear power stations for it cover 25 % of it's total energy use. And they would need to be built in the next 25-30 years.

 

Currently 16 reactors produce about 20% of the UK energy requirements, so god knows where that statistic has come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was talking about this at the weekend. Apparently, the UK alone would need to build something like 2500 Sizewell B sized nuclear power stations for it cover 25 % of it's total energy use. And they would need to be built in the next 25-30 years. Solar is where the biggest breakthroughs are being made - but the UK government has all but scrapped any commitment to solar power.

 

And, yes, our politicians have a lot to answer for.

 

That doesn't sound quite right mate. Nuclear plants have far more capacity than that.

 

Given the fact that the UK is seismically very stable, and not very prone to huge weather events, it is a great candidate for nuclear power. Don't forget also that the technology used in disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was devised in the 50's and 60's. Things are far safer now.

 

A huge plus for the UK would be to build a barrage across the Severn from Llantwit Major to Minehead. I've read that could produce 25% of the power needs for the UK from the four energy events every day. All clean. I know there is an environmental cost to that, but sometimes really tough choices have to be made for the greater good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't sound quite right mate. Nuclear plants have far more capacity than that.

 

Given the fact that the UK is seismically very stable, and not very prone to huge weather events, it is a great candidate for nuclear power. Don't forget also that the technology used in disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was devised in the 50's and 60's. Things are far safer now.

 

A huge plus for the UK would be to build a barrage across the Severn from Llantwit Major to Minehead. I've read that could produce 25% of the power needs for the UK from the four energy events every day. All clean. I know there is an environmental cost to that, but sometimes really tough choices have to be made for the greater good.

 

It may well be true that things are safer now - maybe that's what they thought in Japan as well - but whenever this is debated, I rarely see anything convincing on what's going to be done with the waste. If you get tw*ts like Cameron, banging on that it's irresponsible not to reduce the deficit because we'll be burdening future generations with our financial debts, what are we doing loading them up with increasing amounts of nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for the next 250,000 years?

I'm with you on the Severn barrage, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Currently 16 reactors produce about 20% of the UK energy requirements, so god knows where that statistic has come from.

 

Sure it's total energy and not total electricity? Huge difference between the two.

 

Edit - in fact nuclear is estimated to produce up to 20% of total electricity - not total energy.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/17/nuclearindustry.energy

Edited by Pipnasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My figures were from memory, so not 2500 :)

 

But, 16 reactors currently generating a very small percentage of UK's total energy (currently 18% of total electricity) with around half of them to close by 2023. Still a very considerable amount of nuclear power plants to build in a very small amount of time. £24 billion to build Hinkley Point C with it expected to produce 7% of UK's total electricity. And electricity only amounts to a relatively small amount of our total energy use. 14 more Hinkley's just to cover our current electricity use with a lot more to cover out total energy use. Then you have got to factor in the rise in co2's used in building them, which would be considerable. And as SteveT says, you've got the issue of what future generations do with the waste. Nuclear doesn't add up as an option especially when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no - he feels that the time for nuclear has gone. He says building nuclear plants is expensive and impractical. He is also pro-fracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Lovelock has this all covered

...

1 if we carry on as we are, the environment, Gaia, will correct things on its own

Is there some actual evidence that this might be true?

 

(black flowers growing in 1985 afghanistan, aside)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It may well be true that things are safer now - maybe that's what they thought in Japan as well - but whenever this is debated, I rarely see anything convincing on what's going to be done with the waste. If you get tw*ts like Cameron, banging on that it's irresponsible not to reduce the deficit because we'll be burdening future generations with our financial debts, what are we doing loading them up with increasing amounts of nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for the next 250,000 years?

I'm with you on the Severn barrage, though...

 

Japan wasn't safe at all. It is one of the most seismically active places on earth, and they had those located on the coast where as we saw, a tsunami could cause a catastrophe.

 

With the correct redundancies, the risk of a nuclear accident in the UK is extremely low. Waste is an issue for sure, but the newer technologies produce very little of it because it is able to use nearly all of it. I have to believe that there are places in the world where it can be disposed of safely. They've been doing it in the America west for decades and globally there are more places for it I'm sure.

 

As Pip points out though, it takes ages to build these nuclear power plants properly. A revived nuclear program needs to be a very long term proposition with no shortcuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people now realise that nuclear energy is far too expensive, environmentally and economically. The way forward unfortunately will be ignored in the UK and the states, as it just doesn't give enough to the huge corporations. Most recent surveys show that a combination of smaller energy sources is much better for everyone. It's cheaper, safer, and easier to maintain.

In Germany, they have started to plan for life without Nuclear power, we should do the same. By using wind power, both of shore and on land, solar, tidal, biomass and effective planning, we really don't need huge nuclear plants anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is falling much faster but the International Energy Agency expects them both to play a part in an energy revolution which is likely to see solar as the dominant source of electricity globally by 2050.

Everywhere solar prices are tumbling. Thierry Lepercq, CEO of the Paris-based Solaire Direct, said (controversially) that large-scale ground-mounted solar could already be built without subsidy even in a country like in the UK.

"Solar is a true revolution - that's the way we define it," he said. "The $50 mark (per megawatt hour) is now being crossed and prices are going down.

"The long-term decision-making that is prevalent in the energy world is being disrupted; so you are certainly going to see some coal projects coming to fruition in the next couple of years based on previous decisions but what is certain today is that in all the boards of directors of energy companies, those things are being fundamentally reassessed." "

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34883224

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Waste is an issue for sure, but the newer technologies produce very little of it because it is able to use nearly all of it. I have to believe that there are places in the world where it can be disposed of safely.

 

The UK still has no idea what to do with 60 years worth of nuclear waste. Its still sat in Sellafield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The UK still has no idea what to do with 60 years worth of nuclear waste. Its still sat in Sellafield.

There is a business there and I think it is deep in the American west. Or Mongolia.

 

But as I said before, new technology generates very little waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult technology to pull off NYR. It's not using uranium, it's thorium, mixed with 10% plutonium. It's much cleaner and safer but we don't appear ready for it, apart from one reactor in Norway.

Meanwhile the technology for solar power exists and the price for generating and storing is dropping like a stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult technology to pull off NYR. It's not using uranium, it's thorium, mixed with 10% plutonium. It's much cleaner and safer but we don't appear ready for it, apart from one reactor in Norway.

Meanwhile the technology for solar power exists and the price for generating and storing is dropping like a stone.

I was involved in the solar business in 2007-2010 and I've lost track of things a bit since then. What is the reason for that? China producing them cheaper and cheaper? I recall that there was some bioengineered technology that was in its infancy too. Is the storing to do with that Elon Musk initiative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...