Talking Energy Getting the balance right

Comments and Video responses

Steven said:

As the government miss directs there funding as to new energy the unbelievable irony of it is the incomprehensible amount of money nuclear energy will cost and they have money for that!, If just a fraction of this was given to other research and proof of concepts then maybe we all can say with hand on our hearts that we all tried our best.

In a land called Utopia there is an office where anybody can walk in and to share or discuss to prove new energy, where this person is afforded a guarantee of protected rights and full confidentiality automatically upon entry. This office has a an order that it must proceed to do all the red tape and produce this product and for this they keep a percentage of the rights which allow for it offset its funding.

It seems like that big energy companies and governments hold the keys to this office in Utopia but none knows where this office is.

The truth of the matter is it is unrealistic to expect someone to invent an idea that is sound and then expect that person to posses marketing skill and funding.

It looks like to governments are asking for several things at once and is not realistic these are:
1 A person to realise a new novel innovative process to make electricity
2 for this person to know how to get this product off the ground
3 to have the funding to protect the product
4 be able present this idea an market it
5 to finalize an agreement to get the product made and in the market place.

It appears these all have to be found in one person this is asking too much. I say one person can be good at finding that Newtonian moment. but may be poor at paper work. This oppertunity so far has failed to be relised, because of the existing frame work that is in place. these doors need to be built and its not like they don't know how or don't have the funds to do so.

The only persons who may have there pride hurt is a person who says "what does he know I'm a certified expert and who is he! a son of a mechanic with a fascination for electricity at amolecular level "! Lets all put our ego's behind us, lets upon the doors for all eccentric geniuses or fools to speak and be empowered in this global quest for finding the answers.

2 months ago

Mouldymeat said:

If old nuclear submarines are safe enough to park on the river Tamar, is it not feasible to remove the armaments and propshaft and fit an alternator on the end and feed power into the grid until the reactors are fully exhausted?

2 months ago

Liftman said:

THE SILVER BULLET - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
LFTRs were developed as a result of a programme to develop a nuclear powered aircraft in the USA half a century ago. The project was dropped as the US at the time decided for strategic reasons to develop weapons grade material from their nuclear programme. LFTR uses a chemically stable fluoride salt for a medium in which the nuclear reaction takes place. This fuel forms eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste. Very importantly, it operates at low pressure and high temperatures enabling more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity(50% in LFTR vs 35%in LWR). LFTR is 100-300 times more fuel efficient than an LWR. Thorium is an abundant fuel found in nearly every country in the world. For an in depth look at LFTRs please look up the Google Tech Talks on You Tube given by Kirk Sorensen, Joe Bonometti, and David Leblanc. The big question is why isn't this being developed? The cynic would say that politicians are reluctant to get on the wong side of Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal or there is a reluctance in the nuclear world to accept that a power plant that would fit on the back of a truck is viable. Whatever. The fact is that the world needs a Manhattan 2 project, where engineers physicists and researchers can revive this 'forgotten' research. The original Manhattan project was a project born in wartime. The world is in even greater danger now and the need for a Manhattan 2 is even greater.

2 months ago

Nige said:

I believe that we drive the technologies based on demand so if we believe that renewable energy is the only way forward then the those methods will be supported by industries. Further down the road I believe we will create our own energies through diverse nano power stations in each home capturing ground heat, using sun, wind and even water off the roof. The resource currently known as electricity has yet to be given a high enough level of respect for much of this to be accomplished but I would say the ability to do more with less is natural human evolution and the compromise and balance will be met when found neccessary. I only hope the greed of modern business today is not hiding the truth of tommorrows needs for our childrens sakes.

3 months ago

Don Broadley said said:

A pole of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers revealed that about 75% of members supported the reintroduction of Nulclear Power. France has depended on it for over 80% of its electricityfor more than decade. Economy of scale building a total of 42 stations over little more than that time is the way ahead for the UK also. Wind power was introduced over a hundred years ago to drain the fens but they soon realised that it was just too unreliable and they introduced steam engine, later diesel pumps, do we never learn

3 months ago

Paraffin Pete said:

The technology is already in existance. We cannot possibly get rid of the private car but we can further develop the Hydrogen fuel cell so that Petrol engines will be come obsolete. As for the security of supply for electricity, the sooner everone gets used to the fact that NUCLEAR POWER is the solution the better. All this renewable stuff is fine but at best it is a drop in the ocean as far as overall consumption is concerned so unless you want to return to living in caves then 'we have learned to split the atom, lets use the technology at our disposal'

3 months ago

Ralph said:

Wind power is a transparent 'con' with no place in the real world. Obviously, its generating capability must be matched by an alternative source (for when there is either too little or too much wind) and I wonder how many years it takes to pay back the carbon generated in the construction of wind factories.
Short term (say 25 years) we will have to rely on fossil fuels, but eventually the solution has to be nuclear generation, perhaps supported by tidal/hydro.

3 months ago

Nigel Hales said:

We need to use less energy, stop using fossil fuels and replace with renewables.
Home loft and wall insulation, double glazing, draft excluders, etc.
Wind, wave current, tidal and solar renewable sources
Lets get rid of the car to start with, its a luxury we can no longer afford.

3 months ago

PollyShaw said:

I totally agree with the previous comment. We could be driving home the behavioural change message about reducing energy use and waste, and rewarding those households that lower their emissions with subsidised domestic-scale renewables, as well as implementing more large scale off-shore wind and hydro-electric to secure our energy supply.

3 months ago

dazzling-darren said:

The UK Energy Security Policy is a Joke. We are giving billions to other countries that could be spent in the UK to really make a step change in our energy production, storage and use. We need large scale government investment to enable a stable supply of energy to meet the needs of our homeland. Sustainability (renewables) and low carbon should be at the forefront of this effort. Reducing our reliability on other states to supply our energy should however be the primary driver. Energy efficiency comes hand in had with production, energy savings = less energy demand.

3 months ago

Mookie30 said:

Very little is being spoken about the one reliable source of renewable and cost effective energy, hydro elwctric plants, very little more reliable than water running from high to low or tidal movement!

3 months ago

Stevef said:

There needs to be a radical rethink of the sources of energy.

3 months ago

Sign in to comment

Sign in to comment

Username

Password

Don't have a profile?

Register to create one and join the debate

Register now