- Location
- East Yorkshire
There is a danger we get too hung-up on “efficiency”, whereas the important issue is one of benign sustainability.
I’m not overly convinced by the fuel cell, which appears as the weak link in your schematic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a danger we get too hung-up on “efficiency”, whereas the important issue is one of benign sustainability.
Yes we have. Time.Ok, but what I’m trying to say is we’ve no fix for radiation contamination. If we had a Chernobyl size accident in the UK, and the wind blew radioactive material inland, then a large part of the country could be rendered uninhabitable. Hydrogen, by comparison is a pussycat.
Surely though “sustainability” requires a measure of efficiency too?There is a danger we get too hung-up on “efficiency”, whereas the important issue is one of benign sustainability.
I’m not overly convinced by the fuel cell, which appears as the weak link in your schematic.
Yes we have. Time.
That is why it is a good idea to site stations in relatively remote areas, design them well, and run them exceptionally well. On the whole, Western European and American reactors have a remarkably good record.
It only takes one accident to make large areas uninhabitable, I'm a supporter of nuke power but it does have its dangers, why we don't rely more on river and tidal power is beyond me, of it might be there isn't enough money to be made by big corporationsWhere is this remarkably good record. Think you need to have a hard look at the French Nuclear reactors held together with sticky plasters with forced outages on a daily basis. Its only the fact that the fleet is ultimately owned by the french government that its not in the press every day but even the government cannot hide the problems there having with there new builds. ie poor quality, over budget, long delays.
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?
It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.
It only takes one accident to make large areas uninhabitable, I'm a supporter of nuke power but it does have its dangers, why we don't rely more on river and tidal power is beyond me, of it might be there isn't enough money to be made by big corporations
Surely though “sustainability” requires a measure of efficiency too?
Is it even possible to be inefficiently sustainable?
By the way confused about your last comment re fuel cells? What are you not convinced about - their worth as an energy conversion device or their depiction in the diagram? Please clarify.
And just think, by electrolysing sea water we’d be combating rising sea levels, and all that water generated by burning the hydrogen could be used to irrigate the deserts. It’s a win win
The post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.Why would you do that when you could just export the fresh water prior to it going back into the sea.
The post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
It doesn’t matter how complex/advanced petrol or Diesel engines get, they are still burning fossil fuels, and are far more complex than electric cars. So They have far more moving parts and produce point of use pollution.
Throw in the top three cars world wide for safety standards, are not ICE cars either and are made by one of the youngest car companies, That are mass producing cars.
I can see why the big companies are scared of the new competition, electric will win out not because they are green but because they are just better technology.
10 years will see a big shift in the publics opinion as they see and try these new electric cars and forth and fifth generations cars hit the roads.
With some of the early problems, all new tech have, get ironed out.
It helps when people people are honest what types of mileage they do on a daily basis. And realise the newer electric cars are starting to get 400 mile ranges on a single charge and are designed to do a million miles.
Gone will be the days people will think cars with 200k mileage on them are worn out.
Is there enough flow to power something?Shame I thought I had a new outlet for all my water going down my streams rather than giving it all away for free to United Utilities.
Is there enough flow to power something?
I’m jealous.Certainly is.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind living in Chernobyl.Yes we have. Time.
That is why it is a good idea to site stations in relatively remote areas, design them well, and run them exceptionally well. On the whole, Western European and American reactors have a remarkably good record.
Engines don't have to burn fossil fuel, Can't they can burn renewable fuel at the cost of being less efficient?