Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

S01 - SOI from The Department of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change watch

Announcements
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    r.e. Canon Amendment - Fair enough

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    2020/21 is too late in all honesty, if we're to meet our emissions targets we need to be investing in new renewables right now. These have the potential to be beyond amazing, not quite the output of a barrage but much cheaper and much less cost to local eco systems.
    It's an awful lot of money to throw at potential. JD brings up an excellent example with Nuclear Fusion. By all means, fund research for new energy tech. But committing funds to use unproven technology for our national energy policy? I can't agree with this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Fusion has the potential to be more than amazing, are you going to invest in that because one of the big researchers claimed either earlier this year or last year they'd made it viable? There are some things that if they work in the lab they work, this is not one of them.
    Except it's been fully developed by oxford university and kepler industries.

    Can you also remind me of the carbon emissions per unit energy for nuclear please?

    There is also no real reason to potentially compromise energy supply over a piece of paper

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Most emissions are caused indirectly, as a result of construction, so while initially it may be a lot, in the long run it'll be better.

    We're looking at about 20gCO2eq/kWh.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Financier)
    r.e. Canon Amendment - Fair enough



    It's an awful lot of money to throw are potential. JD brings up an excellent example with Nuclear Fusion. We shouldn't be throwing cash at stuff that hasn't reached the initial installation phase yet.
    Nuclear fusion hadn't been tested in a lab, and the theories weren't even confirmed. Ultimately, we can't be waiting until 2020, we've got to take the bull by the horn and say, yes this is what we're doing, it's been fully developed, and it'll save us money.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Nuclear fusion hadn't been tested in a lab, and the theories weren't even confirmed. Ultimately, we can't be waiting until 2020, we've got to take the bull by the horn and say, yes this is what we're doing, it's been fully developed, and it'll save us money.
    They're both experimental technology. That doesn't mean either is fit to be a part of our energy policy yet. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on how developed this is. I don't see why "It's Oxford" is enough of a reason for it to be deemed developed, simply as until it actually exists as an operating installation it'll only be theoretical.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Except it's been fully developed by oxford university and kepler industries.



    Most emissions are caused indirectly, as a result of construction, so while initially it may be a lot, in the long run it'll be better.

    We're looking at about 20gCO2eq/kWh.
    Something being fully developed does not mean anything when it's developed on a scale orders of magnitude off the actual application. Just how many things work in the lab then not in the real world and we hear nothing of it? And then for those that do how long does it taketo reach practical usability? How long have we had electric cars, about half a century I think, how many people have them? Very few.

    And are you saying that these have no emissions in construction?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Financier)
    They're both experimental technology. That doesn't mean either is fit to be a part of our energy policy yet. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on how developed this is. I don't see why "It's Oxford" is enough of a reason for it to be deemed developed, simply as until it actually exists as an operating installation it'll only be theoretical.
    However, there's no reason that it won't work. There's been more than enough research into it. And on a small scale it's been proven to be massively efficient. The comparisons to nuclear fusion and flying cars are massively unwarranted.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Something being fully developed does not mean anything when it's developed on a scale orders of magnitude off the actual application. Just how many things work in the lab then not in the real world and we hear nothing of it? And then for those that do how long does it taketo reach practical usability? How long have we had electric cars, about half a century I think, how many people have them? Very few.
    Again, I must say that I have scoured the interwebs and there's nothing to suggest that these won't work to a large scale. They have managed to accurately estimate the power output of a 14km fence already, waiting 5 years for a 1km fence is not necessary and is rather much a waste of time.

    There are other factors as to why electric vehicles aren't popular, and they're not to do with anything that's relevant to this particular debate.
    And are you saying that these have no emissions in construction?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not at all. I have mentioned that the majority of emissions will be during construction, but it's diificult to measure exactly how much, though it's certain that it will be substantial. But if the emissions initially being high will mean that in the long run they'll be minimal then it's worth it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not the worst proposal however I note that there's nothing here to help the consumer and no funding plan.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Again, I must say that I have scoured the interwebs and there's nothing to suggest that these won't work to a large scale. They have managed to accurately estimate the power output of a 14km fence already, waiting 5 years for a 1km fence is not necessary and is rather much a waste of time.

    There are other factors as to why electric vehicles aren't popular, and they're not to do with anything that's relevant to this particular debate.

    Not at all. I have mentioned that the majority of emissions will be during construction, but it's diificult to measure exactly how much, though it's certain that it will be substantial. But if the emissions initially being high will mean that in the long run they'll be minimal then it's worth it.
    It's totally relevant, very few technologies are very good when new, they take decades to develop. What scaling assumptions have you made and on what basis? A lot of things are said to do things they don't, or do things that aren't expected. Remind me how long it took fission to become a reactor, for instance, how long it took for mag lev to become the bullet train, for the solar cell to hit 50pc efficiency? Remind me how good the first planes were, the first jets, the first computers.

    And your emissions argument is exactly the same for tried and tested technologies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's totally relevant, very few technologies are very good when new, they take decades to develop. What scaling assumptions have you made and on what basis? A lot of things are said to do things they don't, or do things that aren't expected. Remind me how long it took fission to become a reactor, for instance, how long it took for mag lev to become the bullet train, for the solar cell to hit 50pc efficiency? Remind me how good the first planes were, the first jets, the first computers.
    This is an adaptation of an already existing technology. So it's not comparable to fission, or the bullet train, or the solar cell. It's a turbine with a different shape, and a turbine that's been proven to work.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    This is an adaptation of an already existing technology. So it's not comparable to fission, or the bullet train, or the solar cell. It's a turbine with a different shape, and a turbine that's been proven to work.
    So you mean after all the technologies listed were developed they didn't exist and when actually used decades later it was completely new?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you mean after all the technologies listed were developed they didn't exist and when actually used decades later it was completely new?
    I mean a comparison between a slightly new design and an entirely new concept isn't a fair one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    While I commend the fact that the honourable member has provided costings and detail, it seems like an awfully reckless idea to invest so heavily in new ways of producing energy. I'd like to see it done more gradually. I approve of tidal and nuclear energy over inefficient and prohibitively expensive wind and solar energy, but this is a bit gung-ho for my liking.

    It would also be nice to have some estimate of the impact on energy prices for consumers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    While I commend the fact that the honourable member has provided costings and detail, it seems like an awfully reckless idea to invest so heavily in new ways of producing energy. I'd like to see it done more gradually. I approve of tidal and nuclear energy over inefficient and prohibitively expensive wind and solar energy, but this is a bit gung-ho for my liking.
    Thank you, it's fairly clear that quite a bit of time was spent on this, so it's nice to be commended in such a fashion. Tidal energy is rather expensive, and offshore tidal turbines aren't all that efficient. It was because of this I looked into the Severn Barrage proposal, though that would have been at massive detriment to the ecosystem, after delving into tidal fences though, the THAW Turbines really caught my eye, and I know that it may seem a bit out there but it really isn't. The Turbines are much like any other though they can sit slightly lower and allow fish to pass through them, an adequate amount of research has been done and it seems reasonable to press onwards.

    It would also be nice to have some estimate of the impact on energy prices for consumers.
    This will be very difficult to do as they won't be operational for another 9-10 years, and even then it would be 99% guesswork and uneducated predictions
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A fantastic SOI, into which a hell of a lot of work has clearly gone, with a great set of proposals that will really give Britain a leg up in making genuine progress in combatting climate change. Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    A fantastic SOI, into which a hell of a lot of work has clearly gone, with a great set of proposals that will really give Britain a leg up in making genuine progress in combatting climate change. Aye.
    I thank my Right Honourable friend for his support
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Thank you, it's fairly clear that quite a bit of time was spent on this, so it's nice to be commended in such a fashion.
    I'd like to add that although I don't agree with the tidal fences, your SoI is,on the whole, very well researched (and I like the preference of nuclear energy over wind). If the rest of the government's output matches this in quality it'll be a refreshing change from the last government. (though to be fair, anything will be better than that "budget" )
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Financier)
    I'd like to add that although I don't agree with the tidal fences, your SoI is,on the whole, very well researched (and I like the preference of nuclear energy). If the rest of the government's output matches this in quality it'll be a refreshing change from the last government. (though to be fair, anything will be better than that budget )
    It's funny because I actually started this before even being offered the position of energy sec. There's a whole lot more planning being put into things, which is why it's taking a little longer, but it does mean that there's more quality, which is very important to me. It does help that there's some consensus between the coalition partners though, something that lacked in the LUG.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Aye, but change the name of the power plant near Derry.Derry power plant or Coleraine power plant.There ain't no Ulster in the UK.
    Calm down Gerry Adams, the plant is technically located in the historical county of Ulster, is it not?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Calm down Gerry Adams, the plant is technically located in the historical county of Ulster, is it not?
    Not technically, it is located in Ulster.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 17, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.