[Stubbs]

that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.

Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.

Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting.  There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!

[underground]

I'm only just catching up on a read of this and I'm woefully uninformed so can't express an opinion other than 'sounds bad but we need energy' TBH.

However, there's been a thread over on ukcaving for a while, and again, not read it, but the gist seems to be an exploration license on or near the Mendips, which is a national park (and again, no idea where the NP boundary is or where the license extends).

http://www.frackfreesomerset.org/

and the thread on ukcaving http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=15228.0

[Stubbs]

UG there's a map in the BBC article at the top which shows where licenses for exploration have been granted

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64735000/gif/_64735576_shale_deposits_v3_464.gif

There's a lot of stuff on the BGS website too, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/#ad-image-0

[i.munro]

Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting.  There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
Hardly a reputable link but the energy is certainly there in bucketloads & the technology is hardly challenging. In concept it's just a bunch of steam engines. Requires international co-operaton to build the infra-structure though.

[slackline]

that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.

Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.

Its all explained on the ecotricity  website that was originally linked to by outlawed.

[Stubbs]

Slackers I had a look at the website and could find anything solid there, you of all people know the value of a direct link, otherwise one could just offer google.com as a link to anything.

Requires international co-operaton to build the infra-structure though.

Cool, we'll probably have nuclear fusion first then!

[i.munro]

Cool, we'll probably have nuclear fusion first then!

Looks like it. Having said that it's only true for Europe. The US & China have their own deserts they could use.

[tomtom]

Carbon tax/carbon market - the way forward....

I sat next to a "Carbon broker" on Singapore > London a couple of years ago and he very well explained how a carbon market was starting to work.. for example, he was working with a bus company in India - that was replacing its fleet. This would cost c.$40m to do with regular diesel buses. Hydrids would cost $50m - but he could find someone wanting to offset their carbon emissions to pay the bus company $12 for the saved CO2 by moving from the diesels to the hydbrids - making it $2m cheaper for the bus company etc..

Along similar lines - my car as CO2 of 107g/km. If we price carbon at c.£10 tonne - then I could be 'paid' £500 a year for the carbon 'saving' over a regular car with say 160g/km (for my mileage etc..). This then starts to make peoples choices to a lower carbon product/usage whatever far more attractive.. If you place a value on carbon - then it shifts the economics significantly..

I'm sure there are many holes in my arguments - but bear with the concept - and until we (as consumers - as a world) are made to pay for carbon emissions they are not going to change... We can campaign and shout about it as much as we like, but sadly things will only change when the economics say so... $$$$ kerching.

[outlawed]

that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.

Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.

Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting.  There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!

first point. Ecotricity website explains plainly how they work.

Can't give a link for second point. Was an interview on radio 5 a while ago. When interviewer asked could UK meet all its energy needs from RE, the answer was technically yes. Which i took to mean, its the political will that is lacking.

Grey dull windless days negated by huge tidal potential round entire coast.

I was just pointing out there is a RE supplier that are cheap, committed to the cause and easily available for everyone. I agree with ecotricity,  the more people sign up, the more political pressure it puts on govt to invest in RE.

Also feeds into fracking debate. Gas from food waste and algae.

If we all dump the big 6 suppliers, just maybe we can tell the govt to frack off.

[i.munro]

Can't give a link for second point.

This is worth a read. Some points have been negated by new technology. For instance it makes the point that
south facing roofs would be better used for solar water heating than PV whereas the two can now be combined) &  I'm in no position to check the numbers but basically it's technically possible to get our current levels of energy from  RE within the UK borders.

However it would involve losing (or at least modifying) a lot of agricultural land which is another crisis on the way.
Ergo the plan to put the solar plants in places where some extra shade would actually help agriculture.

[Stubbs]

I was just pointing out there is a RE supplier that are cheap, committed to the cause and easily available for everyone. I agree with ecotricity,  the more people sign up, the more political pressure it puts on govt to invest in RE.

The Co-op get my money for electricity and gas, their website is less green and has less cartoons of smiling faces on but they seem to offer an similar service for electricity, but not the green gas thing, which is the most interesting part http://www.cooperativeenergy.coop/good-with-energy/our-energy-source/

Also reminded me of article about Norway importing waste to burn for energy http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/norway-waste-energy  maybe we could do this too if we could find somewhere to build incinerators (the desolate north)?

[tomtom]

The tricky think with the UK domestic energy demands is that in winter we predominantly use gas for heating..

This is not something that can be readily replaced by electricity - well technically its easy but not many people will want to fork out the £££ to get rid of their boilers/radiators and replace them with alternatives..

Tidal can provide 24/7 regular power by using stations / facilities at different locations around the coast - but from what I've read only a percentage of our energy needs can be realistically met by this... (ie the potential is there but many of the sites are too costly to exploit)

[slackline]

maybe we could do this too if we could find somewhere to build incinerators (the desolate north)?

Already one near Sheffield City Centre (its about 10 minutes walk from my house).

They need to be clean as otherwise health risks for various different things increase for those in the vicinity.

[SA Chris]

True (to me) it makes sense to use gas where gas is the most suitable option - cooking, hot water and heating (when undertaken in the most efficient way; (an efficient boiler, a well insulated house, and the thermostat turn down to as low as necessary) but it doesn't make sense (to me anyway) to burn it to produce electricity. For all our other needs; lighting, appliances etc etc surely RE produced electricity is best environmental option.

[Stubbs]

When I was cycle touring in the Hebrides (regardez moi)  I met a guy who worked for a company that invested in renewables, he said there were a lot of promising prototypes for tidal technologies but no-one had really cracked it yet.

TomTom you're right about gas, that's why this green gas idea is so interesting, need to do some reading on a website with less cartoons...

Slackers is that the Veolia incinerator?  do you ever get odours from it, or is the stack high enough to disperse any potential smells?  There seems to be the tech in place now to scrub the outputs to stop local pollution.

[slackline]

Slackers is that the Veolia incinerator?  do you ever get odours from it, or is the stack high enough to disperse any potential smells?  There seems to be the tech in place now to scrub the outputs to stop local pollution.

1) Yes

2) Not that I notice

3) No idea

[Johnny Brown]

he said there were a lot of promising prototypes for tidal technologies but no-one had really cracked it yet.

Well except for barrages which are well proven technology. A Severn barrage could generate a significant percentage of Uk needs, but at an environmental cost in terms of habitat loss; an estuary with the second biggest tidal range in the world is remarkable for many reasons. Its a shame Dr Peter Robins of LPT fame doesn't come on here for anything other than flogging houses, as he knows all about this stuff.

[tomtom]

People at work have several contracts with tidal RE companies for their R&D... I've seen a few designs and sadly so far none have really proved their worth to my knowledge.. two real types of tidal power
1. Barrage type - retain water and release etc..
2. Tidal flow devices - things that you moor on the bed and they have impellers (or such devices) that turn as the tide ebbs and flows..

#1 works but as JB pointed out tends to have loads of environmental concerns etc...
#2 Works, but lots of issues to get around. such as bloody harsh environment, sometimes a need to move up and down with the tide to keep in the fastest flowing area, need to work over a range of velocities (during the tidal cycle), need to work in both directions (tide in, tide out etc..). Like wind energy there is also an economy of scale (larger leads to greater efficiency) but of course you only have so much depth of tidal flow...

Still its an interesting field and its encouraging to see a range of what start as 'shed' projects getting R&D funding up to prototype testing. Some nice examples of british inventors trying things out (and sadly so far not getting the magic combo..)...

[outlawed]

I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead. Compare their minimal habitat loss to Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima, Windscale Irish Sea pollution etc.

Because of Hinckley Point and Oldbury nuclear power stations academic papers advise against eating resident fish such as flounder, because of toxic levels of mercury and cadmium in Bristol channel.

A wind/tidal power malfunction is a minor accident, a nuclear malfunction is a major environmental catastrophe.

RSPB partner with ecotricity. For every bird lost to wind turbines 5 are lost to nuclear

RE No toxic waste, and you can't make nuclear bombs from it.

[tomtom]

I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead.

I think you're right. The Severn should take one for the team (please do not ever quote me on that in a professional capacity!) but it'll never happen....

[outlawed]

I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead.

I think you're right. The Severn should take one for the team (please do not ever quote me on that in a professional capacity!) but it'll never happen....

you're right, it wont happen. Bristol was surveyed, people voted massively for tidal and wind power. Ignored. Getting expansion of Hinckley Point courtesy of EDF and huge taxpayer subsidy. It's all lies. One reason they wont drop Nuclear is because of weapons. The US tell UK they have to keep producing and UK bows down

[SA Chris]

Why are barrages necessary for tidal power? I don't get why it's not possible to build just a few underwater turbines with foundations on a few piles in the sea bed without the need to totally enclose a body of water. Surely any moving water will generate more power than moving air?

[i.munro]

http://www.seageneration.co.uk

[Johnny Brown]

I don't get why it's not possible to build just a few underwater turbines with foundations on a few piles in the sea bed without the need to totally enclose a body of water. Surely any moving water will generate more power than moving air?

I have had similar thoughts for years but it seems the technology is not there yet. I have reservations about big barrages due to habitat loss.

Personally I am strongly in favour of nuclear to fill the gap between weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and getting tidal/ solar/ fusion/ etc up to the required scale.

I am not convinced that the local environmental 'catastrophes' we have seen, even Chernobyl & Fukushima, have had a worse effect on local biodiversity than, say, the average farm. A modern generation of nuclear power stations would carry less risk and produce less waste than the crumbling 60s relics that are typically held up to scare us. Nuclear is like flying - on paper it's the safest, but for some reason folk still find it terrifying. Being advised to not eat the fish is not the same as them growing a second head.

[SA Chris]

Yeah, that type of thing. Away from any good surf spots obviously! (NIMBY me).

(This was ref to the seageneration thing)