PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Megawatts or Negawatts
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Megawatts or Negawatts Reply with quote

Here's a pretty picture:



Not sure where the numbers come from, $41bn for the powerplant seems like a lot. The savings come out at around 15kwh/day per house from an investment of $12.5k.

However - in a world where we are short on capital (debt crisis), and yet have an abundance of labour (high unemployment) it seems like a good idea to focus on labour intensive energy efficiency.

Which, of course, our leaders are doing through the Green Deal:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/green_deal/green_deal.aspx
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a stupid point. Do we really want to tie our labour force down just producing energy? Taken to its logical limit, we could cease all fossil fuel use and thus employ millions turning treadmills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
What a stupid point.

Urm, we have an abundance of labour as evidenced by rising unemployment and a shortage of energy as evidenced by declining indigenous production and the infrastructure decommissioning schedules - also evidenced by the plan to build more energy generation infrastructure.

If we can create jobs (by a national efficiency programme) and reduce our energy demand, we've addressed both the unemployment and the energy birds with one stone.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This phenomena has already been observed in Denmark. It's lowered the GDP.

I can't see that employing people to install loft insulation is seen as a benefit to society.

But hey, even better, let's ban fossil fuel use from agriculture, that'll get people into employment!

A sensible suggestion: build the Severn Barrage.


Last edited by An Inspector Calls on Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is of course that a private company wants to pay to build a reactor, who's going to pay to "efficientise" some houses?

The jobs are my biggest issue

1.6mn houses, 220,000 jobs.
Thats 1 job for every 7 houses.

How long is going to take to renovate these houses exactly?

Thats $90,000 per job, so $12,500 per home.

Hmmm, I think they put that together in a cow field.....

I'd be more for energy efficiency measures if its supporters didnt feel the need to lie so extensivly.
Makes me nervous that they are hiding something.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
I can't see that employing people to install loft insulation is seen as a benefit to society.


Really, seems like a no brainer to me.

We have a growing energy deficit, installing loft insulation provides employment, more than funded by the reduced gas import bill. This is corner stone of the Green Deal, the costs are less than the value of the energy savings - before even considering any future price hikes and scarcity issues.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AIC
Properly insulated houses use less gas, and the saving more than pays for the insulation, allowing GDP to grow.

Denmarks wind turbines produce less electricity, increasing the cost of electricity, and shrinking GDP.

Two very different situations.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a shitty job involving no skills whatsoever. I doubt our unemployed would touch it - it'll probably be done by Poles. And when it's all done, back they go on the dole, no skills acrual whatsoever. It's got to be done, but please don't even try to make a virtue of it.

DIY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
AIC
Properly insulated houses use less gas, and the saving more than pays for the insulation, allowing GDP to grow.

Denmarks wind turbines produce less electricity, increasing the cost of electricity, and shrinking GDP.

Two very different situations.


http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20908

Quote:
With regard to green jobs, CEPOS found "that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately DKK1.8 billion ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind-sector workforce was employed elsewhere."



Yes, I twig about insulation and gas use. Actually, my gas consumption's zero so I don't need to insulate!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would do some more, but the 2 a sealed roll stuff isnt in B&Q anymore.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This isn't about wind (that's a similar supply side approach to nuclear). This is about addressing the demand side instead of the supply side. The argument being that it costs less and generates more employment addressing demand than supply.

You could put and wind farm instead of a nuclear plant in the original graphic and I expect a similar argument would hold.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
This isn't about wind (that's a similar supply side approach to nuclear). This is about addressing the demand side instead of the supply side. The argument being that it costs less and generates more employment addressing demand than supply.

You could put and wind farm instead of a nuclear plant in the original graphic and I expect a similar argument would hold.

Oh I think that's being conveniently selective - I suppose the inclusion of the nuclear station was just fortuitous! And a comparison of prices either side of the demand and supply side is surely spurious (especially the way it says nothing about scope of supply and demand) - my heat pump's cheaper than a nuclear power station?

The point I that I'm making, and the reference, is that we really want to minimise the number of people involved in a nation's energy delivery. Similarly, there's no merit in employing millions in agriculture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
I would do some more, but the 2 a sealed roll stuff isnt in B&Q anymore.


The point about any strategy to insulate homes and businesses is that it is not an alternate strategy to wind, nuclear, or whatever.

Insulating against thermal losses is a strategy that should be followed whatever energy policy we adopt.

It is not an either/or.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
It is not an either/or.


Of course it is - to a degree. A kwh taken off demand (through efficiency, maintaining utility) is equivalent to a kwh added to supply.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CLV
But it doesnt matter wether the kwh is nuclear, coal, solar, wind ect.

The piece linked is specificaly targeting nuclear energy, with what appear to be flagrant lies.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group