What do you burn in your stove?

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

Our current energy supplier (Bulb) claims that 100% of the electricity they supply to me is from renewable sources. Given that no change was made to the infra structure that comes to our house I'm still at a loss as to how they can make that claim??

 

https://bulb.co.uk/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9NbdBRCwARIsAPLsnFZqo1o1t6Bk1sseaB3vs-XT7QY3FOdr-2LBtXDhdoexLEDic0-CGNAaAvWgEALw_wcB

 

It seem the right thing to do to switch to them though when we were looking for a new supplier. They also only have one straightforward easy to understand tariff (Variable not fixed).

 

You can compare suppliers 'green' credentials here.

 

http://electricityinfo.org/fuel-mix-of-uk-domestic-electricity-suppliers/

But don’t use Nuclear, so I by default I wouldn’t use them.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

But don’t use Nuclear, so I by default I wouldn’t use them.

Out of interest why??

 

Surely less reliance on nuclear is a 'good' thing? OK not avoidable at the moment but if it could be??

[doratheexplorer]

On 02/10/2018 at 19:18, Loddon said:

It doesn't but it will soon!

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734636/domestic-burning-consultation-document.pdf

 

I couldn't see anything about boats on there.  What page?

On 02/10/2018 at 20:11, Loddon said:

Surely non smokeless coal is the dirty stuff

Stoveglow isnt the same as house coal though.  It's a manufactured briquette just with a bit more smoke.

[Robbo]

17 minutes ago, MJG said:

Out of interest why??

 

Surely less reliance on nuclear is a 'good' thing? OK not avoidable at the moment but if it could be??

Because renewables can’t provide a 24/7x365 solution on mass and theirs no good storage that works to cover the shortages or is really green so the only way to get away from oil and gas is Nuclear.

 

Getting off Nuclear is a bad because it’s replaced with gas.   If you look at the countries with the lowest carbon grid you’ll see they either able to have decent hydro due to their location or hydro/Nuclear combo.

 

if you look at the anti Nuclear ads, you’ll find oil companies are behind them.  Funny that. 

 

I think that that if anyone uses these renewable only companies should have a smart meter, and be cut off if the renewables aren’t producing enough.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Robbo

[Mike Todd]

I suspect it means that they buy as much electricity from renewable generators as try sell. I'm not sure what happens if the demand from their signed up customers exceeds what they can buy. Presumably the grid just tops up from other sources. In the end, most of this is a paper exercise designed to stimulate (simulate?) competition.

[doratheexplorer]

On 02/10/2018 at 23:11, bizzard said:

Masses of overlapping Seesaws covering the whole country, errected at every possible angle could enable us to drive about in totally unpowered vehicles. heavier vehicles would out balance lighter ones, tip em up and send them on their way to wait at the next Seesaw for a heavier vehicle to counter balance them again and so on, and on, and on, two way traffic system.   Really heavy jugernaughts might have to wait some time for one heavier than them to counterbalance them though and of course the unlucky heaviest vehicle in the country would hardly ever move at all.  This theory is for travelling uphill and on the level, coasting downhill is of course is no problem unless your brakes are faulty, The system would almost be perpetual motion and totally clean. Watch Redbull Soapbox races.

This is inspired.  Presumably the heaviest vehicle would have to wait for 2 other vehicles, both more than half their weight, to arrive at the same time? 

 

The other benefit of this is there would be an incentive towards lighter and lighter vehicles.  This is good because lighter vehicles need fewer parts and their manafacturing therefore has a lower carbon footprint.  The end of all this lightening would be floating cars, with everyone going around in mini-dirigibles.

[nb Innisfree]

12 minutes ago, MJG said:

Out of interest why??

 

Surely less reliance on nuclear is a 'good' thing? OK not avoidable at the moment but if it could be??

South Australia's 'Tesla big battery' seems to be doing its thing in preventing power cuts due to lightning strikes, no load shedding was necessary at all, a slap in the face for their Prime Minister who said it wouldn't work. Could these batteries could fill the gaps left by wind & solar? 

[doratheexplorer]

4 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Because renewables can’t provide a 24/7x365 solution on mass and theirs no good storage that works to cover the shortages or is really green so the only way to get away from oil and gas is Nuclear.

 

Getting off Nuclear is a bad because it’s replaced with gas.   If you look at the countries with the lowest carbon grid you’ll see they either able to have decent hydro due to their location or hydro/Nuclear combo.

 

if you look at the anti Nuclear ads, you’ll find oil companies are behind them.  Funny that. 

 

I think that that if anyone uses these renewable only companies should have a smart meter, and be cut off if the renewables aren’t producing enough.

This isn''t actually true.  The current way things are going is that when there is a surplus of power from renewables, it is used to push things up hills.  Then when the sun goes down, those things are rolled back down the hills, driving turbines and making power.  In other words, we use the lumpy surface of our planet as a giant battery.

[Mike Todd]

Just now, Robbo said:

Because renewables can’t provide a 24/7x365 solution on mass and theirs no good storage that works to cover the shortages or is really green so the only way to get away from oil and gas is Nuclear.

 

Getting off Nuclear is a bad because you it’s replaced with gas.   If you look at the countries with the lowest carbon grid you’ll see they either able to have decent hydro due to their location or hydro/Nuclear combo.

But any half decent national strategy is about stimulating new technologies which, by the nature of things, start off being more expensive in the short term. That has happened with both solar and wind, both of which will gave known that when the early subsidies ran out their contract period, had to target a competitive price. Perhaps the next aim has to be to promote  more investment in storage technologies. I just wonder whether conventional batteries are the best option or something else that can convert transient energy into stored forms. In the end, taking entropy into account, nothing is absolutely renewable, only a matter of relatively. Although one day the sun will run out I guess it will just about see me out!

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Because renewables can’t provide a 24/7x365 solution on mass and theirs no good storage that works to cover the shortages or is really green so the only way to get away from oil and gas is Nuclear.

 

Getting off Nuclear is a bad because it’s replaced with gas.   If you look at the countries with the lowest carbon grid you’ll see they either able to have decent hydro due to their location or hydro/Nuclear combo.

 

if you look at the anti Nuclear ads, you’ll find oil companies are behind them.  Funny that. 

 

I think that that if anyone uses these renewable only companies should have a smart meter, and be cut off if the renewables aren’t producing enough.

You wont want my promo code for joining bulb then I take it? ?

 

As a general point though I agree, Nuclear is preferable to gas/coal.

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, nb Innisfree said:

South Australia's 'Tesla big battery' seems to be doing its thing in preventing power cuts due to lightning strikes, no load shedding was necessary at all, a slap in the face for their Prime Minister who said it wouldn't work. Could these batteries could fill the gaps left by wind & solar? 

You’ll need around 7 weeks worth of storage, Tesla’s battery lasts about 3 hours and is designed to keep the grid stable until other plants (gas) can respond.

 

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This isn''t actually true.  The current way things are going is that when there is a surplus of power from renewables, it is used to push things up hills.  Then when the sun goes down, those things are rolled back down the hills, driving turbines and making power.  In other words, we use the lumpy surface of our planet as a giant battery.

We already do that with hydro storage.    We just don’t have the space to do it on mass.

[nb Innisfree]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

You’ll need around 7 weeks worth of storage, Tesla’s battery lasts about 3 hours and is designed to keep the grid stable until other plants (gas) can respond.

 

But that is only the first battery bank, multiply that by a hundred and it might close the gap

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, MJG said:

You wont want my promo code for joining bulb then I take it? ?

 

As a general point though I agree, Nuclear is preferable to gas/coal.

Nuclear is also preferable to solar as well.  Solar okay off grid but it’s not particularly environmentally friendly to produce the panels or depose of them. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Robbo

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Nuclear is also preferable to solar as well.  Solar okay off grid but it’s not particularly environmentally friendly to produce the panels or depose of them. 

Since when has disposing of nuclear waste become environmentally friendly?

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, nb Innisfree said:

But that is only the first battery bank, multiply that by a hundred and it might close the gap

Yes that will work, it will make us bankrupt and you’ll need a war or two to get all the resources to make the things.   You can’t use battery technology for storage on mass.

Just now, MJG said:

Since when has disposing of nuclear waste become environmentally friendly?

You mean storing waste?  Well if we could store the waste from solar, coal or gas we wouldn’t have this problem.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Robbo said:

You mean storing waste?  Well if we could store the waste from solar, coal or gas we wouldn’t have this problem.

I guess you are a EDF shareholder?? ?

 

(I get your point though.)

[nb Innisfree]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Nuclear is also preferable to solar as well.  Solar okay off grid but it’s not particularly environmentally friendly to produce the panels or depose of them. 

Nuclear is great until the core is exposed, then it's a total nightmare, can it resist a meteorite impact for instance? Or a missile strike? 

 

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

Yes that will work, it will make us bankrupt and you’ll need a war or two to get all the resources to make the things.   You can’t use battery technology for storage on mass.

Tesla are producing batteries at an increasing rate from their mega factory with another one being built. Plus side is they are sourced from old EV batteries so they've been recycled. Who would have foreseen mass SP and wind farms several years ago? 

 

Never say never. 

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Nuclear is great until the core is exposed, then it's a total nightmare, can it resist a meteorite impact for instance? Or a missile strike? 

 

Tesla are producing batteries at an increasing rate from their mega factory with another one being built. Plus side is they are sourced from old EV batteries so they've been recycled. Who would have foreseen mass SP and wind farms several years ago? 

 

Never say never. 

I’ll say never due to the resourcing issue and cost.   Nuclear fuel works because you don’t need a lot of it so mining is reduced, and is wildly available and cheap.   If the storage issue is resolved it won’t be a mined product that has to be done on mass that only has a 15 year lifespan.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Robbo

[Robbo]

9 minutes ago, MJG said:

I guess you are a EDF shareholder?? ?

 

(I get your point though.)

Looking at that link with the suppliers, I would choose EDF as a supplier.   As I live aboard and off grid my electricity comes from diesel and one day solar.

[Robbo]

12 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Nuclear is great until the core is exposed, then it's a total nightmare, can it resist a meteorite impact for instance? Or a missile strike? 

It would take quite a large missile to breach a reactors core,  if the enemy has that type of technology they probably already have Nuclear missiles anyhow.   Meteorite varies in size so yes and no, if it’s a no we probably have more things to worry about anyhow.

 

[Jess--]

56 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Nuclear is great until the core is exposed, then it's a total nightmare, can it resist a meteorite impact for instance? Or a missile strike? 

 

newer designs of reactor will withstand a lot more than you would expect, and in general are designed so that if they do run away they dont burn through into a pool of water that explosively turns to steam and blows the lid off the reactor and building (chernobyl style).

 

there was talk a few years ago of using molten salt (not table salt) within reactors, I forget the exact details but the theory was that it needed outside control to keep the reaction going, any failure would result in everything becoming one solid mass without any leakage of radioactive material so you lose a reactor but don't spread radiation all over the place.

 

the problem with current generation nuclear plants is that they are run too cool, if they are run hotter they burn far more of their own waste leaving a lot less to have to deal with, oddly one of the biggest waste products of the early reactors was exactly right for making nuclear weapons from. 

[bizzard]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

This is inspired.  Presumably the heaviest vehicle would have to wait for 2 other vehicles, both more than half their weight, to arrive at the same time? 

 

The other benefit of this is there would be an incentive towards lighter and lighter vehicles.  This is good because lighter vehicles need fewer parts and their manafacturing therefore has a lower carbon footprint.  The end of all this lightening would be floating cars, with everyone going around in mini-dirigibles.

Initial trials could be conducted on the Moon where there's far less gravity.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

Looking at that link with the suppliers, I would choose EDF as a supplier.   As I live aboard and off grid my electricity comes from diesel and one day solar.

I know it's often cloudy in this country but we usually get some sunshine for more than one day.

[doratheexplorer]

 

Humans in some form have been around for about 2-3 million years. 

 

Our current version Homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000 years. 

 

Mains electricity has been common in homes for about 100 years. 

 

We seem to like it so much that we're willing to destroy ourselves to have it.

 

The reality is that renewables can produce all the power we need but certain provisos need to be met:

 

1.  We stop wasting mains electricity on stupid things.

2.  We look at ways of gradually reducing the overall human population.

[Robbo]

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I know it's often cloudy in this country but we usually get some sunshine for more than one day.

I hardly use electric in the summer as I’m refitting the boat and cruising usually provides my electrical needs so I’ve not installed any yet.  They are on my shopping list.