observer Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Seems the cost of "clean" energy to each of us, is estimated at £200 per year. That's on top of regular increases over the past ten years. So as we struggle with those bills in these times of austerity; just think that your doing your bit to clean up the planet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Bit more info please Obs as despite a quick google I don't know what you are talking about but then you like to do that don't you ? At the beginning of the year it was reported that greener cleaner energy would cost families an additional £400 a year by the year 2020 (not good)..... but where's this £200 come from and how soon will it affect us and why ? Ta x 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Clean energy? That's just a con to squeeze more money from customers. How can their be clean and (presumably) dirty energy when it's coming from the same source? Do they send it through a vat of soapy water to wash it then call it clean energy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Clean energy Cleo is solar, wind ect, dirty energy is coal ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Is nuclear clean or dirty ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 It can be both or either, but I think all energy production has to be a little bit dirty. Let's accept that and go with what's the least dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Clean energy Cleo is solar, wind ect, dirty energy is coal ect You learn something new each day, thank you for educating me Lt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 So if the bills are getting you down; you can always visit some scenic spot in the country and watch the wind turbines turning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 If the bills are getting you down, turn all the lights off! Incidently, we just received our bill. Just over 64el (6.70gbp) for a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Nuclear is classed as clean, but they don't take into account burying the spent fuel rods for a couple of thousand years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Wind energy is classed as clean but they don't take into account the ecological costs of building the windmills, maintaining them and, ultimately, dismantling them at the end of their 25 year life. :wink: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Wind energy is classed as clean but they don't take into account the ecological costs of building the windmills, maintaining them and, ultimately, dismantling them at the end of their 25 year life. :wink: And presumably replacing them. (inflation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Nuclear power stations only have a 25 year life cycle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 ... and we've got a 1,ooo years of coal under our feet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 But it's not clean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 wash it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Nuclear power stations only have a 25 year life cycle But the point is that "Greenies" say nuclear power is dirty because of the decomissioning costs while ignoring the decomissioning costs of wind, tide and solar sources of energy, not to mention the huge subsidies required to make these "clean" sources viable. :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 It s dirty because of what's in it, not what's on it, and you would not be popular with anyone if you washed a fuel rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Perhaps we could ask the Japs or Russians about "nuclear energy"? There are a few "clean" options, without sowing our countryside with wind turbines - EG hydro, wave and tidal, precisely the kind of major infrastructure projects required to stimulate our economy; which have the added advantages of flood prevention and water storage. Meanwhile, we've got loads of coal, which can be treated with carbon capture technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I am all for nuclear energy Asp, but try and compare the costs of decommissioning a nuclear power station and the costs of storing the fuel rods for a couple of thousand years with the costs of taking down a wind farm. Nuclear power is still the only option as it is the only option that delivers enough energy. Coal is to expensive, their is two much cost up front. You have to dig it out the ground first. And a modern nuclear power station can deliver more power than a coal fired power station. Another option would be to give everyone their own wind mill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 .... or a training bike fixed to a generator - warms you up and fights obesity all at the same time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 But the point is that "Greenies" say nuclear power is dirty because of the decomissioning costs while ignoring the decomissioning costs of wind, tide and solar sources of energy, not to mention the huge subsidies required to make these "clean" sources viable. :grin: No they don't, the "Greenies" say it's dirty because of the mining of raw materials, storage of waste and high risk nature of its production. Costs are a different issue altogether, which you are completely ignoring: do you have any idea of how much public money has been spent on research, development, maintenance and production of nuclear energy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris1066 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Perhaps we could ask the Japs or Russians about "nuclear energy"? There are a few "clean" options, without sowing our countryside with wind turbines - EG hydro, wave and tidal, precisely the kind of major infrastructure projects required to stimulate our economy; which have the added advantages of flood prevention and water storage. Meanwhile, we've got loads of coal, which can be treated with carbon capture technology. Thorium looks to be an option for use as fuel in nuclear reactors in the future. Thorium is more abundant than uranium and produces more than 250 times more energy per unit weight than uranium in the present reactors. Unlike a uranium reactor a thorium power station would produce no plutonium. Consequently the waste produced from burning thorium in a reactor would not be such a risk if it fell in to the wrong hands and the spent fuel rods are dramatically less radio active than conventional nuclear waste. The reaction requires an externally applied beam of protons to kick start the reaction. But before I confuse us any further I suggest forumeers look up an article in the Independent. “Are thorium reactors the answer “ Apparently China and India consider the thorium option their long term energy solution. Perhaps the UK government should be developing this technology instead of covering the landscape with useless windmills or spending £32 billion on on an equally useless rail way line that gets you to London ½ an hour quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Agree Boris; the nuclear route needs to be taken to the next (safer) level prior to heavy investment. I thought "fusion" was the ultimate goal, but I'll defer to your suggestion. What is annoying; is, while the IMF are suggesting we stimulate our economy with some major capital schemes; we're sowing our countyside with these wind farms rather than investing in flood defence and tidal power with a Severn barrier or two: building more dams and reservoirs to store water and produce hydro-electricity etc etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Why invest in flood defence! With sea levels rising we would be like King Knut. We do not have the technology for large scale tidel power, and it would take massive investment to get it up to speed, and you would have to look into the effects it would have on the general environment. The seven barrier was dropped as being very risky and for having a high risk to the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.