Nuclear waste is a NIMBY issue. No one wants a radioactive dump on their territory, and no one currently alive can guarantee that the stuff will stay safe for hundreds of thousands of years, so it’s become NIMBY in the dimension of time: dump it on the poor suckers of the future and let them deal with it, surely they will figure it out. We can hope they do, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s immoral.
We need to expand the understanding of what a battery is: Germany has used temporary excess generating capacity to pump water to higher lakes and then generate hydroelectric power with it later for over 100 years, and using momentary excess capacity to produce hydrogen is also a form of battery. I think there are solutions which are respectful to both our environmental needs and to future generations, but these two considerations are still too often and too easily violated for the short-term benefit of our current generation (sic).
We can hope that that becomes possible, but what about the nuclear waste we are producing right now, and have already produced for the last 60 years. Is it right to plan to increase it, knowing what we do now about the consequences? Japan has only taken 10 years to decide to dump the radioactive water from the Fukushima meltdown into the ocean, not because it’s not contaminated, but because according to Japan’s minister of environment, there is no other realistic solution. Neighboring countries are livid.
I’ve seen this sleight of hand before, when the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the coast of California was discovered to have been built on an active earthquake fault, and that Pacific Gas and Electric had suppressed this information. The architects “discovered” that the plant had accidentally been built much stronger than designed. After nearly 30 years of protests it finally went on line. In recent times in the context of Fukushima the state commissioned a study whose result showed that Diablo Canyon is at risk of catastrophic failure, and will be shut down and dismantled over the next 30 years, at taxpayers’ expense, since PG&E has gone bankrupt. The nuclear waste it has generated during its lifetime is stored on site, since nobody knew what to do with it. Was this the “economical, clean energy” we were promised?
Unfortunately, these improved regulations, as important as they are, won’t have a major effect for decades unless they are made retroactive to existing buildings. Do we have this time? Spain is starting, retrofitting is now obligatory for public buildings, but you can imagine the screams about who will pay for private retrofitting. The city of Barcelona is an outlier with its public subsidies for retrofitting, and its legal requirements for buildings to pass technical inspections to ensure it’s done.
The technology for efficient tidal farms is not yet right without massive environmental damage by huge barrages. But it is getting there!
Undersea turbines were trialled up here but failed ( due to poor quality steel and corrosion and lack of real commitment). It requires investment and effort but is achievable if politicians were serious.
www.newcivilengineer.com
Yes. I think so too. I think I read somewhere that helix type turbines are more efficient in water than the traditional propeller type turbines and they can even float on the water surface in arrays, and rather than being built from the sea bed can be tethered to the sea bed. They can be aligned either horizontally or vertically, and can spin faster than the water flow. I cannot find a cite for that so maybe I dreamt it all up!
But what about those fishes that swim up the Severn and Wye to provide sport for our landed gentry?
www.power-technology.com
That Rance article is a good read. It does highlight the kinds of local ecology issues that have to be faced though. Don't forget that the UK's RSPB has more than a million members - it's one of the world's largest conservation organisations.But what about those fishes that swim up the Severn and Wye to provide sport for our landed gentry?
When the Second Severn Crossing was being built, there was concern about the effects of tracked crane movement on the mudflats disturbing the habitat of some rare bird. In the event it was found that the mud disturbed by the crane tracks was an ideal feeding area for them.
I've never understood why the Severn tidal range has not been exploited, the French showed the way with La Rance near St. Malo.
La Rance: learning from the world’s oldest tidal project - Power Technology
Tidal energy has faced huge challenges, but an overlooked benefit is the lifespans of the technology, as typified by the La Rance power station in France
The VW California Club is the worlds largest resource for all owners and enthusiasts of VW California campervans.
