[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Adrian Midgley wrote: > > Hinckley Point doesn't generate carbon dioxide... I see they aren't closing it in 2011 -- hmm. Since closing the reactor at the reprocessing plant, we are burning fossil fuels to make fuel rods for nuclear reactors, although I'm sure the nuclear lobby would argue it generates more electricity than is used in production, so it is less damaging (for CO2 anyway) than just burning fossil fuels on their own. But with high upfront build costs, and mining (and fuel transport) requirements, Nuclear fission is a long way from carbon neutral (at the moment). Still it is better than mining and shipping coal here from the other side of the world as far as CO2 is concerned. >> Wind farms will hack it, although I guess if it were big enough, and >> sold electricity to the grid when it had surplus.... > > They need a pumped storage system to give continuity so a decent > mountain - I suspect Dartmoor of not being high/steep enough or easy > enough to dig vast caverns into. I didn't think pump storage was terribly efficient, I thought the main benefit is it can start quick to meet peaks in demand?! Most of the big man made lakes on Dartmoor seem to have our drinking water in, and you probably shouldn't use those, then again...... > The Severn thing is a good idea, I'd prefer the lagoons rather than the > world's biggest barrier straight across. Hmm, me I'd have pushed to develop fusion faster, rather than political bickering over where to put the research plants, and whether to spend money on it etc etc. There are some novel ideas displayed at the Plymouth Aquarium recently on extracting energy from the sea (tides/waves etc), some I hadn't heard of before. Some looked plain daft, others looked quite plausible. Why do the kids get all the best explanations of these things? Finally got around this weekend to sticking compact fluorescent bulbs in the few places the "long" compact fluorescent bulbs don't fit in the house. Some folks still haven't got the message that these bulbs pay for themselves within a very reasonable time scale (especially at the 98pence per bulb B&Q charge), so it is daft not to use them where they work/fit. However that is only a small dent in my carbon footprint. I suspect heating, fridges, freezers, and my computing habit make up most of the carbon emission from the house. Ideas welcome, but I want economic ideas first, i.e. things that pay for themselves in a reasonable time scale. Some decisions are non-obvious - for example gas heating is slightly better than electric, which seems very counter intuitive to me, given that some electricity is nuclear or renewable, but gas heating is that much more efficient. I think perhaps lobbying the supermarkets not to stock the old style incandescent light bulbs is the way forward on lighting. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html