Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by presebjenada)
    statistics suggest that U235 found in mines is due to run out in 80 years approx. of course they will find new sources but that gives us about 100 years - not something to be relied upon. and contrary to popular belief, reprocessing the fuel sticks takes so much energy and expensive equipment, that it is not economically viable, since as i said earlier, the nuclear industry has been very heavily subsidised over the last 2 decades. did anyone see the 'if the lights go out' programme last night? bit worrying!
    But even if teh mines run out we will still have enough fuel for a long time. Nuclear powerplants consume only small amounts of uranium due to teh enourmous energy content. It can be compared to pumping up all the fossil Oil from teh ground today, and tehn stockpile it. Even though it is possible to deplete the mines within 80 years, this does not mean we have spent all teh fuel. In addition, uraium can be extracted from virtually any soil as the earths crust contains such vast amounts of it. As you say this is not economically feasable today, but as technology improves it may become more economic. Nevertheless nuclear fission is not likely to stay around due to teh problem of storing the radioactive waste.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    But even if teh mines run out we will still have enough fuel for a long time. Nuclear powerplants consume only small amounts of uranium due to teh enourmous energy content. It can be compared to pumping up all the fossil Oil from teh ground today, and tehn stockpile it. Even though it is possible to deplete the mines within 80 years, this does not mean we have spent all teh fuel. In addition, uraium can be extracted from virtually any soil as the earths crust contains such vast amounts of it. As you say this is not economically feasable today, but as technology improves it may become more economic. Nevertheless nuclear fission is not likely to stay around due to teh problem of storing the radioactive waste.
    youre right.. but id like to think that rather than focussing on developing technologies that ravage the earth's resources, we look to renewable energy sources to provide for us. We are probably the most selfish life form on the planet, and eventually whether we like it or not, we will probably have depleted every resource available to us. Why do we keep on taking when all the signs point to an eventual disaster? Because we're selfish, choose either not to believe or to 'forget' the dangers of global warming and everything related to burning fossil fuels, and ultimately we're lazy. It does seem a bit like - sod the next generation and their children. Why change things when our generation will be provided for? It worries me, and im sure others find the statistics depressing.. i feel like i cant make a difference at all, but i want to. I'm not some mad greenpeace person.. ive just been a bit freaked out by stuff we're doing for geography A2 - Anyone else feel the same?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Not really. Havn't you noticed that the major oil companies want to fuel the speculation that oil will run out? This is so that oil can be sold at a higher price than is normally possible. This has been going on for at least 30 or so years.

    Also notice the LA smog? Well in teh 1970-1980s there was the somg, and it was blamed on petrol fumes etc from cars. BUT, now with catalytic converters etc, the fumes released form today's cars are like 1/20th of the amount released by the cars in 1970's. Anf the car figures havn't increased that much as well.

    Reason: The fumes form a study conducted, are actually from the hundreds of "flame grilled" burger bars all over LA.

    All this hype, is good for the envirment sure, but you must not believe what other people say.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The English Channel should be dammed. The hydroelectric power harnessed from that would be really rather immense.

    But seriously now, the potential geothermic energy from the Earth’s core is surely that way forward, and until that point whereby it’s more easily tapped the intermediary solution should surely be nuclear.

    However, for domestic power, perhaps a more individualistic approach should be considered.

    Building regulations stipulating a proportion of new houses having to be built with photovoltaic roof tiles ought to be introduced. The technology is 90% cheaper than it was say, 30 years ago.

    Photovoltaic roof tiles can generate more electricity than is necessary for most homes, with the surplus being sold to electricity companies. Also, they’re more effective than traditional solar panels, as they don’t rely on direct sunlight, but just light in general, and hence are suitable in traditionally dreary climates (e.g. Britain).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by presebjenada)
    youre right.. but id like to think that rather than focussing on developing technologies that ravage the earth's resources, we look to renewable energy sources to provide for us. We are probably the most selfish life form on the planet, and eventually whether we like it or not, we will probably have depleted every resource available to us. Why do we keep on taking when all the signs point to an eventual disaster? Because we're selfish, choose either not to believe or to 'forget' the dangers of global warming and everything related to burning fossil fuels, and ultimately we're lazy. It does seem a bit like - sod the next generation and their children. Why change things when our generation will be provided for? It worries me, and im sure others find the statistics depressing.. i feel like i cant make a difference at all, but i want to. I'm not some mad greenpeace person.. ive just been a bit freaked out by stuff we're doing for geography A2 - Anyone else feel the same?
    It is not all that simple. If you studdied economics you would run in to something known as an opportunity cost. It basicly means that any choice comes at a price, the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is what you lose when making a decision. as an example, if you were to power the entire globe with reneweable resources, this woyuld require far more resources than what we currently use since the renewable resources are so inneficient. When counting resources you must take into consideration the contrsuction and maintainance of the facilities. As an example, solar power seems to be environmentally friendly. But if you start adding the chemicals used in the production of solars cells, as well as the increased number of homes which would switch to oil fuled central heating due to increased electricity prices the equation suddenly looks a lot worse. Also, people tend to forget that the resources created by the heavy industry is the fundamental basis for todays society. Without the oil and electricity, teh health care would not be even close to what it is today. Smoke alarms use radioactive isotopes in oprder to save lives in teh case of a fire. Also, teh so called renewable resources are not neccessairily that environmentally friendly. Water powerplant, for instance, destroy large areas surounding them. When deciding what pollution of the environment to accept and not, you must evaluate the future. If you switch all the electricity production to green powerplants, you may ruin a countries economy and the result may be that the domestic industry switches to less environmentally friendly means of production. Its a complicated formula and many variables are to be taken into consideration.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    The English Channel should be dammed. The hydroelectric power harnessed from that would be really rather immense.

    But seriously now, the potential geothermic energy from the Earth’s core is surely that way forward, and until that point whereby it’s more easily tapped the intermediary solution should surely be nuclear.

    However, for domestic power, perhaps a more individualistic approach should be considered.

    Building regulations stipulating a proportion of new houses having to be built with photovoltaic roof tiles ought to be introduced. The technology is 90% cheaper than it was say, 30 years ago.

    Photovoltaic roof tiles can generate more electricity than is necessary for most homes, with the surplus being sold to electricity companies. Also, they’re more effective than traditional solar panels, as they don’t rely on direct sunlight, but just light in general, and hence are suitable in traditionally dreary climates (e.g. Britain).
    I think its a matter of cost efficiency. If you use lots of money on these panels, you may be able to use less on the house insulation meaning you consume more elctricity to heat your house. This is just a simple example, but in the long run the economy is what limits what we can do and not. It is theoretically possible to power all of britain with renewable resources, whether it is a sensible thing to do is something else. The impact on the economy may be so great that other areas may suffer greatly.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think its a matter of cost efficiency. If you use lots of money on these panels, you may be able to use less on the house insulation meaning you consume more elctricity to heat your house. This is just a simple example, but in the long run the economy is what limits what we can do and not. It is theoretically possible to power all of britain with renewable resources, whether it is a sensible thing to do is something else. The impact on the economy may be so great that other areas may suffer greatly.
    I appreciate your point, however to install photovoltaic panels on the average home costs roughly £2000. Not a great added expense, when you consider the average cost of a new home.

    I think the take-up of renewable energy implementations is largely ignored because people regard it as highly inaccessible and costly. Fact of the matter is, the control unit for a photovoltaic installation is little more than a small black box (no bigger than a water metre), which can be placed in your garage, or a cupboard.

    Maintenance is infrequent, the systems are reliable. If there were to be a breakdown, it’d be no different from arranging for a roofer to replace a few slate tiles.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    I appreciate your point, however to install photovoltaic panels on the average home costs roughly £2000. Not a great added expense, when you consider the average cost of a new home.

    I think the take-up of renewable energy implementations is largely ignored because people regard it as highly inaccessible and costly. Fact of the matter is, the control unit for a photovoltaic installation is little more than a small black box (no bigger than a water metre), which can be placed in your garage, or a cupboard.

    Maintenance is infrequent, the systems are reliable. If there were to be a breakdown, it’d be no different from arranging for a roofer to replace a few slate tiles.
    Hmm , interesting. You may also add to the fact that you get part of the money back when you sell the house. Do you know anything about the lifespan / potential of these cells?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Hmm , interesting. You may also add to the fact that you get part of the money back when you sell the house. Do you know anything about the lifespan / potential of these cells?
    In excess of 25 years, if treated properly.

    Just found an interesting article about this specific technology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/354646.stm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    In excess of 25 years, if treated properly.
    Does treated properly imply any special form of maintainance, or does it basicly mean you are not throwing footballs on them or smth?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Does treated properly imply any special form of maintainance, or does it basicly mean you are not throwing footballs on them or smth?
    Sorry, just realised, 'treatment' means preservative or finish in the building word.

    What I mean is, maintained properly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    Sorry, just realised, 'treatment' means preservative or finish in the building word.

    What I mean is, maintained properly.
    And exactly what sort of maintainance do they require?

    If you have to get up there with a spunge every second day it may be a problem...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think more research should be done into solar power; the sun is a pretty damn big energy source, shirley there must be a way to make the most of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what about building huge solar farms in LECDs with lots of sunlight and spare desert (yeah I know its an oversimplification). grants from the un could be usd to set up the farms, and the countries could sell the power on to other countries. could provide jobs and a steady income for the country.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    And exactly what sort of maintainance do they require?

    If you have to get up there with a spunge every second day it may be a problem...
    Nothing excessive. The point I'm trying to make is the photovoltaic roof tiles can last in excess of 25 years if they are kept in good condition.

    If it sounds like I'm saying they're more susceptible to degradation than other roofing materials, then that's not my intention. It's simply a case of once rot sets in, it tends to spread (as is the case with say, slate roofing).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    what about building huge solar farms in LECDs with lots of sunlight and spare desert (yeah I know its an oversimplification). grants from the un could be usd to set up the farms, and the countries could sell the power on to other countries. could provide jobs and a steady income for the country.
    The UK is distinctly lacking in spare deserts.

    Any energy created in your proposed farms them would belong to the government of, or companies within the source country, and a premium would have to be paid relative to energy created within the UK in order to use it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimp)
    I think more research should be done into solar power; the sun is a pretty damn big energy source, shirley there must be a way to make the most of it.
    Or, more research should be done into replicating the reaction within the Sun that creates that massive amount of energy, nuclear fusion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    The UK is distinctly lacking in spare deserts.

    Any energy created in your proposed farms them would belong to the government of, or companies within the source country, and a premium would have to be paid relative to energy created within the UK in order to use it.
    I never said england did have any spare deserts, just saying it could be helpful to developing countries who need a sustainable resource.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    has anyone read that article in New Scientist recently, the one about getting energy from sewage?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    has anyone read that article in New Scientist recently, the one about getting energy from sewage?
    Are you talking about biomass technologies?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.