[MikeM]

ceramic technology does exist to transport the energy, i heard recently, i believe iceland are planning to export their heat this way.
 
judging from that article ifr wont be used in this country. why? cos it uses the du we need for weapons.
 
we need a massive expansion in wave and hydro technology not another couple of nuclear reactors. even they are not going to produce the energy we need , 15 plants make 18% thats about 1% each!!!!!! even if 2 plants came onboard with the potential to produce 5% each we would need 20 new ones of them to provide our needs. its simply not a feasible option. nuclear is not the answer, it never has been. if it was, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now.

did not know about that ceramic technology, got a link to it?
My understanding is that the new reactors being planned are IFR ones. I don't buy your argument unless you can support it with evidence.
Wave tech is still experiemental, it is not yet the answer. Nuclear is the only feasible solution that currently exists and is deployable on a large scale in the real world, you have not provided one answer that disproves this.

[MikeM]

and dont forget, uranium IS a fossil fuel.
 
 
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html

irrelevent to the argument. It is not burnt and does not release CO2.

[deepinthewoods]

ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!

[MikeM]

'' The UK government continues to deny any links between uranium weapons and ill health and in December 2008, along with the US, France and Israel, sought to block a resolution calling for World Health Organisation (WHO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to update their positions on the weapons in light of new data on the threat that they represent.⁶ The resolution was supported by 141 states, including many of the UK’s EU allies such as Germany, Italy and Finland. Even NATO has accepted the need to reassess the use of depleted uranium and will abide by the decision of the WHO when it publishes a fresh assessment on the latest research next year.⁷

irrelevent to the argument.

[MikeM]

ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!

that's fair enough. My gut rection is to be anti nuclear as well (mind you, I'm also anti car, electricity and think we should all go back to horse and carts) but for me the evidence in favour of nuclear was so overwhelming as to be impossible to ignore.

[deepinthewoods]

here is the link to the icelandic project. i wonder if scottish independence has any relevance here.
 
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/energy/813
 
 
what a brilliant idea.
 
the alternatives do exist but as that article states if it doesnt provide a monopoly and profit they aint interested....
 
''Nick Hodge from Energy and Capital says America could be doing similar things with geothermal energy, but, he added, "but progress is slow because it's not an exploitable resource that can be monopolized". Yeah, that old problem.''

[MikeM]

that article says they are doing a feasability project into moving energy 700 miles. It says nothing about the technology, but it is interesting. How far can that technology move energy? The laws of physics tell us that energy is lost the further you move it. Africa is a lot further away than iceland. It is certainly a technology that needs investigating and investing in, but is it yet capable of moving energy from africa to the UK?

[deepinthewoods]

its geothermal not solar.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cheap-power-under-our-feet-7964245.html

[MikeM]

I understand that. The issue with "natural" energy isn't whether it's geo thermal or wind or wave or solar, it's that the energy cannot be easily moved from where it is generated to where it is needed. The technology exists to generate loads of energy in africa, but to my knowledge it does not exist to move it to where we need it.

[deepinthewoods]

that doesnt stack up, i thought we imported energy from nuclear power in france? about3% or something?
 
 
 

[MikeM]

I've already said, the technology does not exist tio move energy from africa to the UK. France is a lot closer. Basic laws of physics, the further you move energy they greater the scale of entrophy. How far would we need to move the energy from africa to here? Does the technology exist to do this? Can it be deployed in the real world right now? We know nuclear can and we know it will produce energy we can use.

[deepinthewoods]

ah now there is the rub. just cos we can does not mean we should.
 
the age old issue of human maturity and responsibility. or the lack of
 
 
we move electricity across whole countries, could you offer a link to explain this as a problem to me please?
 
im sure that with the investment required it could be solved. but it wont be because of the reasons ive described. nuclear is here and probably to stay because its worth more as weapons than energy.

[MikeM]

ofcourse we should, we want to keep the lights on.
and you want to me to prove that something can't be done? that's a logical fallacy. You put forwards solar from africa as a solution, you prove it works and can be done. That's the scientific method.
TBH, you're not actually making any points anymore, and it seems to me you're engaging in an exercise in point scoring. You've already conceded you don't have a solution, all we're doing now is going round in circles. If you can't bring anything new to this then I'm out.

[bloomer]

ok power transmission i can explain


standard over head power cables or equivalent, lose approximately 10% of the power put into them for every 100 miles of cable...


i.e. moving power from mid Scotland to London 50% is lost in transmission mainly as heat (there's that global warming thing again) so imagine how much you'd have to put into move it from Africa.


the reason power comes from France to southern England is because its closer than Scotland and easier to get power from.


secondly if you have been following the issues of getting a new set of heavy duty overhead cables run from Scotland to England you'll know for every NIMBY that doesn't like either nuclear power or wind turbines there are approximately 47* that will object to power lines.


Scotland produces more power than it needs particularly if the wind is blowing    but at the moment we can't get enough of it out of the country to offset the shortfall of power in the south of England!!!


The obvious point from all this is we lack capacity to generate in southern England but obviously that cant be fixed because that's where all the politicians and they're buddies live...








*not a proven number but sure feels like it...

[deepinthewoods]

i would agree that were going round in circles. i hope that my points have been made about the dangers of nuclear and i hope that some other readers will have been enlightened to what we do with the waste.
 
thanks for the debate all.
 
i am still interested as to your proof that you cant transport energy tho