Biopowered - vegetable oil and biodiesel forum
General => Chatter => Topic started by: neisel on January 29, 2015, 01:34:55 PM
-
Ages ago I'd signed up for http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclub & this morning I got an email saying the gas & electricity deal I had taken out only 5 months ago could be bettered.
I clicked through & found the deal I had taken in August 2014 could be beaten by 25% by the same company currently supplying me! There was one other company which was 6 quid pa cheaper, but I would face a £60 leaving charge
A five minute call to my current G & E supplier & I had the new rate.
Did the same for a non-computer using retired friend who has a much bigger house & utility bill & he switched tariff, staying with the same company but now with no leaving fee, & saved £587 pa! The deal he'd taken out was the best we could find available online in March 2014.
Defo worth a check.
-
As i would rather not borrow from the lives future generations such as i can have an even wider screen tv, im somewhat limited to suppliers.
(there are only a very small number of companies who will not use nuclear power to push the electrons to my house)
-
I can not think how they filter out the the offending electricity from the national grid.
-
Sorry if I offend was trying to be humerus not smart.
Richard.
-
I would happily buy 100% nuclear and certainly eldest would be happy for us to do so too. The French have it right in my book.
-
I agree with Tony. I have no problem with nuclear. I do have a problem with coal/oil/gas, which you could consider hypocritical given the industry I work in.
-
Coal, which currently accounts for about a third of our energy, isn't exactly nuclear isotope free either:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Uranium_and_thorium_release_from_coal_combustion.gif)
-
The way i see it is -
Nuclear is not 100% reliable. If you look at the time line, serious accidents have happened, and continue to happen.
Every time there is an issue, and a lot of the time when there isnt even an 'incident', long tinespan isotopes are release into the environment at large.
These dont 'go-away' ever. "Ever" is relative. I looked up this from a post on naviton i made 'during' the fukishima incident -
238 94Pu Half-life 87.7 years
239 94Pu Half-life 24,200 years
240 94Pu Half-life 6563 years
241 94Pu Half-life 14 years
242 94Pu Half-life 373,300 years
Do Plutonium isotopes increase incidence of cancers?
Do Plutonium isotopes diminish in a resonable time frame, when released into the environment?
Will the nuclear industry continue to have 'incidents' releasing long lived isotopes into the environment?
The answer to #1 is yes.
The answer to #2 is no.
The answer to #3 is 'inconclusive' (but im happy to take any wager anyone will offer me ; )
Event that last line - the fukishma "incident" - implies its finished. The site clean up will extend beyond some of our lives, and the fall-out will extend beyond the lives of our grand-children's grandchildren. "Ever" is not eternity, in the absolute. But, on the scale of things, it may as well be.
These things get about. There was that study on strontium isotopes in the milk teeth of infants - peaks corresponding the bikini atoll tests all over the globe. And then that satalite that burnt up - one of the american Transit units - every latitude.
All our electricity here comes from true renewables - solar, hydro, biomass CHP etc. I cant remember what the exact numbers were, but, when i signed up, it was cheaper then EDF.
Id rather buy power from UK renewables than French nuclear even if it wasnt cheaper...
-
dont you live in cornwall?
-
I dont believe any company can claim all the power they supply you comes from renewables. All the power goes through the same grid network. If a big hydro generator goes offline, the network will balance out with the other stations carrying the load.
Ultimately the electricity that I buy at my house from edf is exactly the same as my neighbours who might buy theirs from scottish hydro
-
You might well be right Julian. I agree nuclear isn't without risk.
The problem is we have an insatiable appetite for energy. To supply that energy, currently, there are only two technologies that can create it: Burn dinosaurs, Burn atoms.
I take the view that the risk associated with climate change far outweighs the risk of radiation damage.
-
I deleted my previous post, least it seem as if i was at war with Richard...
But the important bit was -
The electrons are pushed into my house from all over.
I only pay one company to push them.
They only buy from (use) non-nuclear sources.
-
You might well be right Julian. I agree nuclear isn't without risk.
The problem is we have an insatiable appetite for energy. To supply that energy, currently, there are only two technologies that can create it: Burn dinosaurs, Burn atoms.
I take the view that the risk associated with climate change far outweighs the risk of radiation damage.
Consumption will always drive supply. People "want".
Which was the thought behind my comment -
"i would rather not borrow from the lives future generations such as i can have an even wider screen tv"
The way i look at it is, if we produce a whole load of CO2 etc today, it will probably make a mess of things in the medium term. By "make a mess" i, of course, mean major environmental impact, things going seriously wrong, etc.etc.
But, that's medium term stuff. We will either get through it, or we wont. But its still not the sort of figures that youre looking at with atomic half lives.
As you and i well know, "half life" is, in itself, a mis-interpreted term. I would imagine that if you polled 100 people, the answers "the time taken for a radioactive isotope to become harmless" would repeat again and again.
I got towed off the M25 the other week. The tow truck driver had only been in the job a short while, as his previous job had folded. He was in offshore wind farm installation.
I asked him why it had folded. Because the governement wanted EDF to build hinkley point. So they manipulated the wholesale prices (as i understand) to entice EDF in, by guaranteeing them for the next 25yrs.
The next bit, i was told, but have not verified - the money had to come from somwhere, so the wholsale rate for wind gen was cut.
If the above is true, then the government manipulated the figures to support nuclear over renewables. Because in the short term, that seemed like their best option. Which it might have been. In the short term.
Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. Can you imagine how much more appealing low energy living would become if the power was realistically priced (as in taking into account the negative externalities)?
Nuclear has always been subsidised. Be it in the obvious Windscape for the arms race way, or by the children of tomorrow. There is no perfect option, but you have to do what you feel is right. And, in light of that, i would rather not use the health of humanity to power my wide-screen tv.
ps.
I was thinking only today, about bunding, and how the environment agency would probably dislike a load of peoples set-ups here. And the fact that, is it B12 (the most polluted place in western europe) is leaking... Noone even knows what's in those pools.
-
julian, how far from newquay are you?
-
julian, how far from newquay are you?
'bout 2hrs. Why's that?
-
Are you thinking of me (also Julian)? I am about 30 miles
-
well if either of you i worried about radiation i wouldnt be living near there :-X
-
I don't disagree with your view Julian, but perhaps the solution.
The way I see it, climate change will make a mess of the whole planet, which is a certainty. A nuclear disaster, which isn't a certainty - and is a very low risk, would only make a mess of a small bit of it. Yes, you could potentially feel the effects planet wide, but the only dangerous bit would be contained in a very small area.
Nuclear isn't a long-term solution, but it's the only solution we've got for this moment in time. Long-term, nuclear can be replaced with renewables and hopefully new, less risky technologies (come on fusion!)
Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1162/ (http://xkcd.com/1162/)
-
well if either of you i worried about radiation i wouldnt be living near there :-X
If I was worried about radiation, I wouldn't have worked in a Cornish Tin mine. The whole place was a controlled area, much like a nuclear power station.
-
which is why they did what they did in cornwall.
less chance of being detected against background.
mind, that explains the locals :o
search NAWF.
naval aviation weapons faciity
-
Coal and gas derived electricery is 100% reliable...in adding green house gases to the atmosphere. I couldn't give a monkeys chuff where mine comes from as long as when I turn on a switch the device works.
It's all very easy to sit on the very high horse that Julianf sits on. If he thinks that by paying his bill to someone who "claims" not to use nuclear energy in their supply then he's a fool.
Me..I just want the cheapest bill possible for the energy I use. A one man protest isn't a protest at all!
-
Page 14 (and on) of this study "reality or rhetoric? green tariffs for domestic consumers" details how green tariffs actually translate to reality for each supplier:
http://www.vision21.org.uk/userfiles/green-tariffs.pdf
I think it's very commendable to consider where your energy comes from, and how its production can affect others now and in the future. However, paying a premium for green energy (and indeed, following an environmentally friendly lifestyle overall) is often luxury only the well off can enjoy.
As for the carbon footprint of creating wind turbines and solar panels, well, that's another story.
-
Coal and gas derived electricery is 100% reliable...in adding green house gases to the atmosphere. I couldn't give a monkeys chuff where mine comes from as long as when I turn on a switch the device works.
It's all very easy to sit on the very high horse that Julianf sits on. If he thinks that by paying his bill to someone who "claims" not to use nuclear energy in their supply then he's a fool.
Me..I just want the cheapest bill possible for the energy I use. A one man protest isn't a protest at all!
In a capitalist world, this is exactly the view of 99% of the population. Not just in energy, but everything. There are of course different ways of adding up the cost beyond the obvious dent in your bank balance.
Burning dinosaurs to create energy is currently is very cheap in comparison to other forms. But, what we rarely consider as individuals is the overall cost to the species. How do you quantify the cost of climate change? That's a pretty difficult question to answer.
One way in which we're forced to consider the overall view is via action at governmental level. Hence the heavy investment in renewable technologies (and also other visible efforts - carbon trading, higher car tax for more pollution vehicles etc). Sadly, these are not sufficient for supplying the UKs energy needs - we need something more concrete. Hence the recent investment in nuclear.
I might not be terribly happy that we're building nuclear plants, but if you consider the overall picture, it's the only option we've got.
-
Since we've strayed OT into the bigger picture here I wonder if someone can explain something that has never really made any sense to me.
We here politicians & economists talking about growth all the time & how it is a good, even a necessary thing.
Why?
-
The world is on a track that it isn't going to leave, until the track falls apart.
Global warming and oil running out was yesterdays news, twenty five years ago.
Nothing has been done about it. Environmental issue are probably more severe now.
There is plenty of talk, and no action.
I couldn't give two hoots either way. I see so much government lead environmental damage in the farming community, I'm pretty well immune to it in the wider world.
Farmers being paid extortionate sums of taxpayers money to continue with highly destructive practises, and that's never going to change.
A child can see it, but so long as the money keeps going in the right direction, it'll keep happening.
Might as well command the wind to stop blowing.
The flow of money is a lot more important than the pesky environment, or people.
-
i am on the fence regarding nuclear. good arguments on both sides. i make all my own power anyway.solar with bio fueled generator as winter back up. i live even further into cornwall than jules. the radon issue is not a problem for me as i would rather live here and avoid the traffic pollution. it is really noticeable when i go up country, usually oxford or cambridge in the summer.
as regards the satellite i think,but not certain, the plutonium used for the power cells in satellites is a short half life type. not the same isotope as produced in nuclear reactors. in the context of CO2 production,one decent volcano eruption will produce a lot more than we can produce in a 100 years. does CO2 add to global warming probably. who does most research into alternative energy? the people most likely to lose big time. the oil companies.
-
as regards the satellite i think,but not certain, the plutonium used for the power cells in satellites is a short half life type. not the same isotope as produced in nuclear reactors.
Its an example of how traveled the particles are, rather than the danger of the power souce*. You would need to check the details, but, as i remember it, there was a satellite that came down, with a traceable isotope on board. Ie there wasnt this isotope about in "the wild" in any discernible quantity.
And after the re-entry burn up, the isotope was found all over the globe, to the extent that theres pretty much nowhere it wasnt found.
The strontium in milk teeth study was, basically, the same. That the south pacific tests isotopes were built into the bone formation of children evreywhere. You, I, your neighbor, and the person on the other side of the globe - we all all exposed, no matter where the release site is.
*again, from memory, but i think there were only about 2 satellites, ever, that had full reactors on board. And i think one of them came down over Canada. The soviets seemed obsessed with it. Did you know they even had a nuclear powered (as in decay, rather than fission) lighthouse?
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/29/sheep-farmers-chernobyl-meat-restricted
-
Farmers complaining about their suffering from an environmental catastrophe.
Oh, the ironie........
-
i know two farmers that had their whole flocks destroyed, and were paid a fifth of the price the sheep were worth.
one killed himself after watching four generations of his familys work wiped out from 1700 miles away.
-
Suicide rates are alarmingly high in the farming community, at the best of times.
I forget the actual statistics, but it's a good bit higher than what is considered normal.
I was born and bred in a farming community, and I live here now.
We missed the fallout from Chernobyl, by quite a few miles.
The foot and mouth was another episode that wiped out generation old flocks and herds. That struck around here, and I remember that very well.
-
Since we've strayed OT into the bigger picture here I wonder if someone can explain something that has never really made any sense to me.
We here politicians & economists talking about growth all the time & how it is a good, even a necessary thing.
Why?
I don't have an adequate grasp to really explain it well. This post does a good job though: https://wellsharp.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/escaping-the-growth-imperative/ (https://wellsharp.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/escaping-the-growth-imperative/)
-
im with eon (apparently don't charge for having payment meters) just sent me a cheque for a 10 squids, thank you eon.
-
*again, from memory, but i think there were only about 2 satellites, ever, that had full reactors on board. And i think one of them came down over Canada. The soviets seemed obsessed with it. Did you know they even had a nuclear powered (as in decay, rather than fission) lighthouse?
Quite a few, including good old Voyager, were powered this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Nuclear_power_systems_in_space
I believe Russia has many more than just one lighthouse powered this way - apparently old thermoelectric generators aren't unknown to turn up at scrapyards so must be fairly prevalent.
However, all said and done, the dose we receive from potassium-40 in things like bananas exceeds our current dosing as a result of Chernobyl and atmospheric nuclear testing combined (by a factor of 40).
Another XKCD on the subject:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
-
Voyager was a powered by Plutonium-238 decay, which, as you say, is common. Likewise, as Bob commented, its (Pl238) half life is only 87.7 years.
Fission reactors, however, were mainly a soviet thing, but there were more of them than i remembered. Ive just looked up the number to be 31, inc the one that came down over Canada previously mentioned (Kosmos-954)
I think there is an abandoned Russian core in decaying orbit currently, but i cant find the details of that one right now.
Ill need to comment on the second half of your post later, as, obviously, its not as simple as the information above.
-
is now the time to tell you about the russian nuclear miniaturisation program?
and the 63 suitcase nukes that are still classed as "missing"?
-
is now the time to tell you about the russian nuclear miniaturisation program?
and the 63 suitcase nukes that are still classed as "missing"?
They're not in Liverpool are they Ged...Scouse mafia and all that ;)
-
i bloody hope not. they were unstable at the best of times.
they need regular servicing to keep them going.
or they just decay.
and no one quite knows what happens next......
and with the dissolution of the old ussr there are quite a few trained people with no jobs....
its not beyond the realms of doubt that well over half are still serviceable. and almost certain that most of them are in the wrong hands
sleep tight....
-
Deaths due to radiation (in the UK): Zero.
Deaths due to radiation Fukushima: Zero (maybe 1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties)
Deaths due to Chernobyl: 41 direct, but could be up to 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)
Deaths due to air pollution (in the UK): 28,000/year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26973783 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26973783)
Admittedly, I've taken a very superficial view at the stats, but the theme is pretty clear.
-
Deaths due to radiation (in the UK): Zero.
I'm not very concerned about it myself, but I wonder how the authorities judge deaths due to radiation.
The local Landlady died of Leukaemia. She was told that the only thing that caused that particular type of Leukaemia was Nuclear fallout, and it took twenty or more years to develop.
She was in Manchester in 1986. Died about six years ago.
She was never knowingly exposed to any other kind of radioactivity.
-
The figures you give are fearfully reminiscent of the tobacco giants : (
Deaths due to Chernobyl: 41 direct, but could be up to 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) assesment of Chernobyl death toll - 62 persons
with the footnote "'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident"
Greenpeace assessment - 93,000 with the footnote "in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004"
62 vs between 93,000 and 200,000
Both of the above, you may argue, have agendas.
A WHO paper, written at around the same time as the Greenpeace report gives a number of 4000.
In reality, no one will ever be able to prove a figure. Again, like the tobacco industry.
-
Deaths due to radiation (in the UK): Zero.
i know that is incorrect.
-
My father is currently surviving two, unrelated, cancers.
Noone will ever know why he rolled the wrong number on the dice. Twice.
He, however, has wondered if it was the time he spent sitting on top of crates in RAF cargo planes, back when the south pacific testing was going on.
There will never be any proof either way.
Everyone that you know has experience of cancer. Radiation increases cancers. Except, of course, when that radiation is part of an UNSCEAR document.
A banana is 40x more dangerous than Chernobyl and all the atmospheric tests put together. (i know that's not exactly what you said! ; )
Lake Karachay is an open air lake in the former USSR. A 1990 study found that standing on its shoreline would give a does of about 600 Roentgen in an hour. That's just over 5.5 Sieverts. The xkcd file lists 4 sieverts as a 'usually fatal dose'
Karachay was confined (slightly) until the lake started to dry due to a drought, and the silt started moving. But, even though its probably the most polluted place on the planet, it wont come under the 40x statement. At least not until its contents find themselves in your grandchildrens milkshakes. But someone might, i guess, get to cleaning it up before then?
B30 (i got the number wrong before) also wont contribute to the figures yet. And may never do so - except whatever leaked into the ground water this morning. Neither will B29 (the second most dangerous place in western europe)
Maybe it can all be buried in a hole and will never become part of the mentioned figures. Realistically, it wont all be though, in the same way Karachay wont. Or Fukishima, TMI, etc. etc.
Most, most of the time is the best anyone can hope for. Not all, all of the time.
The nuclear age was 73 in December, and this year will see the 70th anniversary of the trinity experiment. 73 years of creating stuff that, unless you are one of the few that believe UNSCEAR, is actually pretty grim. Too grim even to clear up when you leave it lying about.
Again, im not telling you what to do - its not like that would get anyone anywhere!
-
"Would you like to deactivate notification on this topic?
Yes - No"
Yes.
My thread has been hi-jacked.
-
"Would you like to deactivate notification on this topic?
Yes - No"
Yes.
My thread has been hi-jacked.
no it hasnt....
its mutated.
told you to be afraid of the nukes..... ;)