One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You might be interested in this thread, ts http://earthjustice.org/features/cam...-united-states

I dipped into this and I can't say I'm impressed. This is supposed to be about the ills of fracking. So:

Sweetwater, OK

Updated Jun 29
In January 2012, a Nomac Drilling Rig drilled into a shallow gas pocket, causing an explosion and fire that burnt the gas well to the ground. Witnesses nearly a mile away heard a loud “boom” from their homes and one resident claimed that it sounded “like a jet engine was right outside our home.” Nomac Drilling is a subsidiary owned by Chesapeake Energy, one of the most active drillers in the nation.

Tell me what this has to do with fracking?

[ahinton]

...rock solid info...[on] fracking

I like that; in fact, it's quite a gas!...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Good idea. You mean like Oldbury (Bristol/Gloucester), Hartlepool (Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, Hartlepool)? And as soon as they erect a windmill on Hampstead Heath I'll be convinced the whole world loves them and they make no noise.

I rest my case.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

He said enigmatically.

[french frank]

He said enigmatically.

I suspect his 'case' was that neither of those you mentioned are in (or near) London, which is what he had specified.

Again, with cautious reservations (stop scrolling when there's an info box).

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Silly me! I thought he was making a sensible point about nuclear build near domestic dwellings. I suppose my examples were both away from London, in towns where mere peasants live, and that discounts them as examples of nuclear build near 'domestic' dwellings. You have to admire his rigour!

[Resurrection Man]

[french frank]

Silly me! I thought he was making a sensible point about nuclear build near domestic dwellings. I suppose my examples were both away from London, in towns where mere peasants live, and that discounts them as examples of nuclear build near 'domestic' dwellings. You have to admire his rigour!

Not near London, the seat of government where the politicians who make the decisions hang out? Your comment about windmills and Hampstead Heath, London, appeared to reflect that too. (We do have large wind turbines planned, at Avonmouth, Bristol, so I'm told. This site also has indicative noise levels and it's stated as a good project for 'generating green energy in an industrialised setting').

[Serial_Apologist]

There was a small demonstrations against fracking outsuide Parliament the day before yesterday. Fracked Off could be a good topical header for a campaign.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I'm even more confused now. Are you, and Alpen, now seeking examples of nuclear build (a) amongst the people that really matter (i.e. the residents of London) and (b) where the decision makers hang out (again, London)? In which case, I can't (what a surprise). So what does that prove - the St James Park PWR is not on?

As for the Avonmouth windmills, they'll be 500 m from the nearest home. At 350 m the noise level is predicted to be 35-45 dBA. Enjoy!

Many of you here no doubt have your own ideas about energy supply, and accompanying views on climate change, the nuclear risks, etc. and feel able to dream-up alternatives to surpass the capabailities of the past. If you can take time out to be involved in these activities, it might be interesting to set your views against a background of where we are now in terms of keeping the lights on, and to that end there's a very interesting, and sobering, lecture from Ofgem here:

http://vimeo.com/53144064

Yes: it's an hour long. Worth every minute! At the other end of that hour you may well be gagging for every MWh of coal generation you can get!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The London reference came to mind because I recalled some demonstrators dug up a bagful of sand from Sellafield beach (which BNF claimed was safe) and deposited the bag in Whitehall. The area that subsequently cleared while the emergency services went in in white lined suits to remove the "dangerous hazzard".

[ahinton]

Many of you here no doubt have your own ideas about energy supply, and accompanying views on climate change, the nuclear risks, etc. and feel able to dream-up alternatives to surpass the capabailities of the past.

Personally, I'm more interested in those that were available in the past and still are (now in improved form) rather than something completely new that will likely require a considerably greater up-front expenditure on research and development - especially those resources that do not involve the burning of fossil fuels to which fracking will obviously lead. The present government is being very short-sighted in reducing subsidy of individuals' installations of solar thermal, solar PV and better insulation; these aren't the answer to everything, of course, but if continued subsidy encourages greater take-up, the cost of the materials will plummet and further subsidy will become less necessary or entirely unnecessary and it will at the same time reduce both pressure on the grid and the dependence upon (and being at the mercy of) the big six electricity suppliers. As to the climate change arguments in favour of these things, I remain to be convinced that it will make any material difference over time but, even if it doesn't, it will still have reduced environmental pollution, which can surely only be a good thing.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The London reference came to mind because I recalled some demonstrators dug up a bagful of sand from Sellafield beach (which BNF claimed was safe) and deposited the bag in Whitehall. The area that subsequently cleared while the emergency services went in in white lined suits to remove the "dangerous hazzard".

The Health Protection Agency monitors Sellafield beach continuously, reports anually. In 2008/9 they concluded

“the Health Protection Agency (HPA) still considers that no special precautionary actions are necessary at this time regarding access to or use of these beaches. However, HPA will continue to work with relevant authorities to keep the situation under investigation.”

http://sellafieldsites.com/wp-conten...-27-07-091.pdf
I suspect the brouhaha you report was to protect against any contaminants the demonstrators might have added to spice-up the protest.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The present government is being very short-sighted in reducing subsidy of individuals' installations of solar thermal, solar PV and better insulation; these aren't the answer to everything, of course, but if continued subsidy encourages greater take-up, the cost of the materials will plummet and further subsidy will become less necessary or entirely unnecessary

I don't think the subsidies on insulation are changing. And it was quite clear that PV installations were priced at rip-off levels until the subsidy came down and PV prices tumbled to track the subsidy, rather than the other way round. But do we want massive amounts of PV, robbing Peter to pay Paul (why do they put them on churches?)? How do we then cope with finding replacement generation when the sun sets? PV has no grid inertia and we're an island grid, so how do you stabilise frequency? And what has the wind subsidy done to enhance windmill design and reduce windmill costs, or has it all just disappeared into the pockets of the farmers? RM quoted the Thanet windfarm as an example of modern windmills. Well, they're offshore and they've all got gearboxes which usually fail after 8-10 years of operation - how's that for development!

(and being at the mercy of) the big six electricity suppliers.

Not so fast on that, all of the big six are in really big financial trouble.

As to the climate change arguments in favour of these things, I remain to be convinced that it will make any material difference over time but, even if it doesn't, it will still have reduced environmental pollution, which can surely only be a good thing.

We already have reduced emissions. Since the end of the last war, electricity generation has risen sixfold in the USA and Europe, but all emissions (bar CO2) of pollutants such as SO2, NOX, particulates, etc. are below 1945 levels.

[ahinton]

I don't think the subsidies on insulation are changing.

But they need to - upwards! - and they could eventually be funded in part by reductions in benefit payments, especially the winter fuel allowance.

And it was quite clear that PV installations were priced at rip-off levels until the subsidy came down and PV prices tumbled to track the subsidy, rather than the other way round.

Do you have evidence to prove that? Prices charged for PV installations have indeed come down somewhat in recent times but they're far less in UK than in France, for example, so we were "being ripped off" in Britain far less than elsewhere for this kind of thing.

But do we want massive amounts of PV, robbing Peter to pay Paul (why do they put them on churches?)?

What do you mean by that? - in other words, whom do you see as "Peter" and "Paul" in this particular context?

How do we then cope with finding replacement generation when the sun sets?

You mean "at night" (since PV required daylight, not necessarily direct sunlight, in order to function (although, of course, it functions far better in sunlight); the answer is "storage", which is possible but upon which far more eseearch needs to be - and indeed is being - done.

PV has no grid inertia and we're an island grid, so how do you stabilise frequency?

I'm referring to small individual installations, not to potential grid replacement ones. Furthermore, in France, for example, the usual deal revolves around buying the electricity that one uses from EDF and then EDF buying that which you make with your PV installation at a much higher rate than is charged by EDF for what the seller uses.

And what has the wind subsidy done to enhance windmill design and reduce windmill costs, or has it all just disappeared into the pockets of the farmers? RM quoted the Thanet windfarm as an example of modern windmills. Well, they're offshore and they've all got gearboxes which usually fail after 8-10 years of operation - how's that for development!Not so fast on that, all of the big six are in really big financial trouble. We already have reduced emissions. Since the end of the last war, electricity generation has risen sixfold in the USA and Europe, but all emissions (bar CO2) of pollutants such as SO2, NOX, particulates, etc. are below 1945 levels.

Fair comment, but there's still a way to go - and, in any case, I'm no fan of wind farms!