Dump Your Deezel

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
Mandrake
Posts: 8397
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 17:23
x 401

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Mandrake »

Michel wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 14:32
When people realise that Nuclear power is the only safe, clean option, the world will be a much cleaner place to live. No air pollution, very little waste ( a piece of waste the size of half a 330ml drinks can would be all one person would produce over a lifetime). It's the green fruitcakes and anti-nuclear lot who've stymied the technology over the years and helped create the mess we are in now.

If anyone wants to disagree, first tell me the number of deaths caused by carbon fuel related emisssions since June 1954 when the first nuclear power station went online, then compare it with the number caused by nuclear power station accidents over the same period of time.

That's before you get into the number of deaths in mining accidents, the environmental damage caused by mines, both underground and open cast. The diseases suffered by miners worldwide... etc etc. Need I go on?

We have a safe, reliable solution. We should be using it and not messing about with wind farms and things in the sea that all depend on outside factors to generate power.
I take it you didn't watch the recent very well done Chernobyl TV series that is a largely accurate portrayal of the real event.... ? (Good series BTW)

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, as they say. Due to the USSR being so tight lipped about any of their mistakes, most people don't realise just how close all of Europe came to utter catastrophe due to ground water contamination etc... The total lives lost due to Chernobyl was relatively low however that was only due to a lot of luck and the sacrifices made by a lot of people to entomb the reactor. It came very close to going completely sideways.

And if you think "that could never happen here" due to it being a poorly designed reactor and incompetence in its operation (which were certainly contributing factors in the disaster) then you're not taking into account natural disasters (Fukushima) or heaven forbid some kind of covert terrorist action.

Sorry but I want no part in your nuclear future, while it might be "reliable" and "safe" on a day to day basis the consequences of things going wrong in the slight chance that they do is far, far too severe in my opinion. Just not worth it.

And that's before you even factor in that Nuclear power is very expensive compared to the new renewables coming online in the last 5 years in particular. It doesn't even make financial sense to start designing and building a new nuclear reactor today if the energy that it produces is twice as expensive as competing green generation, and takes 15 years to come online and that's one of the reasons Hitachi has pulled out of some of their nuclear power plant contracts recently.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4070
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1265

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

Wonder how offshore windfarms would stand up to a tsunami ? Still, I s'pose that could never happen.......
Wonder how onshore windfarms would stand up to a once in a hundred years hurricane ? No chance of that ever happeneing though.......

What we actually need is a balanced energy generating plan, anything less would be incredibly foolish.

Richard_C
Donor 2016
Posts: 522
Joined: 15 Oct 2011, 17:31
x 91

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Richard_C »

Bonkersness: Ford Nucleon 1958 (don't worry, it never got built).

I don't think we should dismiss nuclear power altogether though. We need everything in the mix because there is no dominant "right answer" yet. I'm all for use less as well as generate more: lots of low tech stuff we can do which will make a difference if we all do it.

I wonder if Bristol really will ban all diesel, City Council has voted for it, or is it just a political move to make central government look bad by refusing permission.

Online
Hell Razor5543
Donor 2021
Posts: 11663
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1394

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

I can see a problem with Bristol's plan to ban diesels within a certain area; deliveries (and similar things). If I had to visit a client with a heavy item (such as, for example, a large laser printer) and I was told the nearest I could park was a mile away and then I had to walk it in, I would have discuss the situation with my manager (especially if the weather was poor). It could cause issues using public transport with a large and heavy item.

OK, I have a decent folding trolley, and I need more exercise, but a water damaged printer is no use to man nor beast.

Peter.N.
Donor 2020
Posts: 10684
Joined: 02 Apr 2005, 16:11
x 529

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Peter.N. »

Sounds a bit drastic. Our grandson was in Bristol children's hospital with cancer for most of last year, it would have been mighty inconvenient to visit as we did frequently if the ban had been in force.

I know something has to be done but a bit of moderation might be called for. If and when electric vehicles - excellent for city dwellers and second cars, become more popular it will automatically reduce the pollution in the city.

Peter

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4070
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1265

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

Will the Tesco Express' and Sainsbury's Locals (et al) have difficulty getting their deliveries in ? Will they have to transfer the bulk groceries from their artics to 'eco-friendly' vehicles somewhere out of town so they can travel the last mile or so without breaking the law ? I have a feeling either the Bristol 'ban' will fall by the wayside or be tested in court.

Online
Hell Razor5543
Donor 2021
Posts: 11663
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1394

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

I would not be surprised if the supermarkets (especially the more ethical ones) will use this opportunity to trial electric delivery vans to see how realistic they are as an urban delivery option. They will have to continue using ICE vans for the rural areas, where the mileages are likely to be far greater. However, replenishing the supermarkets will have to be seriously considered (such as the possibility of ICE lorries coming into the area late at night).

Gibbo2286
Donor 2020
Posts: 5188
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:04
x 1105

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Gibbo2286 »

I think that what's currently seen a waste product will in due course become a valuable recyclable asset.

User avatar
NewcastleFalcon
Posts: 16152
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 11:40
x 1639

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by NewcastleFalcon »

Its been a few pages now since the "details of the ban" proposed for Bristol were posted.
NewcastleFalcon wrote:
06 Nov 2019, 21:01
So from here Bristol clean air diesel ban plan approved these are the main points.
In the central ban zone, privately owned diesel cars will be banned between 07:00 and 15:00.
Vehicles, with the exception of taxis and emergency services, will incur fines if they stray into the area.
A wider Clean Air Zone (CAZ) extends further away from the city centre.
Diesel powered lorries, vans, buses and taxis which pay to enter the wider clean air zone will also be allowed in the central zone.
Taxis and vans will pay a daily charge of £9 and buses and HGVs £100.
Private diesel cars will not be charged to enter the wider clean air zone.
The scheme has been approved by the Council, set for implementation in 2021, and is currently subject to government approval, and upgrades to the city’s ANPR network, road marking and signage necessary to its successful operation.

REgards Neil

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4070
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1265

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

Fair enough, it won't impact the delivery lorries (much), but the council could be creating a bit of a problem for itself if the ban comes into force and there is no obvious increase in air quality. What then ? IIRC, the last time the air quality improved noticeably in London was when there was a bus strike and there were a lot less buses on the road - though bus emissions have moved on a fair bit since then.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4070
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1265

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

As an aside, and going back to energy generation - the Rampion offshore windfarm located down here off the coast in Sussex has been offline since late October due to "a fault in an electrical distribution system". As far as I know, it's still offline at the moment. Ramion is capable of generating 400MW and allegedly power for 350,000 homes. It had been running for about 18 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-50334488
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampion_Wind_Farm

User avatar
Michel
Donor 2020
Posts: 1829
Joined: 29 May 2017, 13:50
x 392

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Michel »

Mandrake wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 16:30

Sorry but I want no part in your nuclear future, while it might be "reliable" and "safe" on a day to day basis the consequences of things going wrong in the slight chance that they do is far, far too severe in my opinion. Just not worth it.
... and that, folks, is exactly the kind of scaremongering nonsense which has prevented nuclear power from being far wider spread.

WHO estimate 4.5 million people worldwide die *every year* from causes directly relatable to air pollution. Please , do share with us how many people nuclear power accidents have killed? Directly or indirectly. Even if you take the most pessimistic estimate, since 1956, it's still less than 1/6th of that 4.5 million number. Coal mining accidents killed more people between 1956 and 1960 than Nuclear power accidents have ever done. Hell, one mining disaster in China killed more people in one go. Records show that over 6000 miners have died over the years in Wales alone. All for digging out that nasty polluting stuff eh?

Fukushima killed nobody. Not staff, not local people. Don't attribute natural disasters with nuclear accidents please. Stupid place to have built it, but no one will make that mistake again.

Yes. I did watch Chernobyl. Not sure what your point is.. yeah, it was terrible. Again, no one will make that mistake twice.

I'm well aware of all the dangers having lived with them for years. My father was a planning engineer at Dungeness B, then at Sellafield later on..

I take it you'll be scrapping your polluting Xantia forthwith and using only renewables in your EV from now on?

User avatar
Michel
Donor 2020
Posts: 1829
Joined: 29 May 2017, 13:50
x 392

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Michel »

Hell Razor5543 wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 19:14
I would not be surprised if the supermarkets (especially the more ethical ones) will use this opportunity to trial electric delivery vans to see how realistic they are as an urban delivery option. They will have to continue using ICE vans for the rural areas, where the mileages are likely to be far greater. However, replenishing the supermarkets will have to be seriously considered (such as the possibility of ICE lorries coming into the area late at night).
There's no such thing as an ethical supermarket or any sort of business. They're all hypocrites.

We've just ordered a new van for work, mostly for going airside. We had to get a diesel one. Shared vehicle, people forgetting to charge it? Just what you need out on a railway with A380s charging about ...

User avatar
Mandrake
Posts: 8397
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 17:23
x 401

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Mandrake »

bobins wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 17:41
Wonder how offshore windfarms would stand up to a tsunami ? Still, I s'pose that could never happen.......
Wonder how onshore windfarms would stand up to a once in a hundred years hurricane ? No chance of that ever happeneing though.......
Offshore wind turbines are anchored solidly to the ocean floor in the same manner as offshore oil drilling rigs. Do we hear of many oil rigs blowing over in a tsunami ? In danerously high winds the turbine blade pitch is feathered to minimise wind capture and the turbine itself is deliberately stalled. In this condition it can survive extremely high winds many times their maximum operational wind speed.

One thing I do know for sure is that a wind farm damaged by a tsunami or hurricane is not going to relase nuclear contamination into the environment or lead to any deaths.
Michel wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 20:14
... and that, folks, is exactly the kind of scaremongering nonsense which has prevented nuclear power from being far wider spread.
Scaremongering nonsence would be if I was making claims something could happen that can't. Instead I was drawing your attention to a disaster that has already happened, not some imaginary theoretical. A disaster that without a lot of human sacrifice and a LOT of luck would have had consequences 100x worse, and not just in the country of origin. They literally saved the situation for the whole of Europe by the skin of their teeth, and 30 years later Ukraine is still having to maintain and improve the original crumbling sarcophagus to continue to keep Europe safe from the radioactive fallout that is still in the reactor building.
WHO estimate 4.5 million people worldwide die *every year* from causes directly relatable to air pollution. Please , do share with us how many people nuclear power accidents have killed? Directly or indirectly. Even if you take the most pessimistic estimate, since 1956, it's still less than 1/6th of that 4.5 million number. Coal mining accidents killed more people between 1956 and 1960 than Nuclear power accidents have ever done. Hell, one mining disaster in China killed more people in one go. Records show that over 6000 miners have died over the years in Wales alone. All for digging out that nasty polluting stuff eh?
What purpose does this line of argument serve ? How many people have been killed by nuclear pollution and accidents ? Quite a few. How much land has been rendered unlivable for decades or centuries due to accidents ? Quite a lot.

How many people have been killed by a malfunctioning wind turbine or solar panel ? Zero ?

I don't understand your line of reasoning which seems to be that because fossil fuel pollution kills a lot more people than nuclear we should jump into bed with nuclear. Why are only two choices on the table ?

Maybe I have a different world view from you growing up in a country that has had an anti-nuclear policy for over 30 years now...
Fukushima killed nobody. Not staff, not local people. Don't attribute natural disasters with nuclear accidents please. Stupid place to have built it, but no one will make that mistake again.
If a natural disaster triggers a nuclear accident then its still a nuclear accident. duh. It doesn't matter whether someone was asleep at the controls or a tsunami came in.

As for it being a bad place to build a nuclear reactor, the entire island of Japan is a natural disaster waiting to happen, both tsunami's and earthquakes. If they'd built it inland it would have just been hit by an earthquake instead. Japan just isn't a safe place to build a nuclear reactor.
Yes. I did watch Chernobyl. Not sure what your point is.. yeah, it was terrible. Again, no one will make that mistake twice.
:rofl2:

Wow, the hubris to say that nobody will ever make mistakes again (design, manufacturing or operational) that result in a nuclear reactor mishap is unbelievable. If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

How many planes have continued to crash after previous crashes were fully investigated, the cause was found and changes were put into place to prevent them happening again. And yet planes continue to malfunction and crash. Why is the nuclear reactor industry immune to mistakes, oversights, laziness, mismanagement, bad planning and operational procedures, cost cutting, falsifying of testing etc etc...

Why should I put my well being and avoiding being irradiated in the hands of greedy for profit corporations ?
I'm well aware of all the dangers having lived with them for years. My father was a planning engineer at Dungeness B, then at Sellafield later on..
I was about to say you must either drink the coolaid or work in the nuclear industry. I wasn't too far off I suppose, and your bias is clear. I don't have any connection to nuclear, wind, solar or any other generation, nor do any family or friends. I just like wind and solar on their merits and dislike nuclear due to the severity of the risks, however unlikely they are to happen.
I take it you'll be scrapping your polluting Xantia forthwith and using only renewables in your EV from now on?
I've already said on several occasions that the Xantia is probably my last ICE car, and it already does less than 10% of my yearly mileage.

And yes for the last 3 years (since before I bought the Ion) I've been on an energy tarrif that is 100% renewable electricity, and this is used for over 90% of the charging I do on the Ion. (The remaining 10% being public rapid chargers whose generation source is unknown to me)

How's your move to renewable energy and lower pollution going ?

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4070
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1265

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

Mandrake wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 21:04
bobins wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 17:41
Wonder how offshore windfarms would stand up to a tsunami ? Still, I s'pose that could never happen.......
Wonder how onshore windfarms would stand up to a once in a hundred years hurricane ? No chance of that ever happeneing though.......
Offshore wind turbines are anchored solidly to the ocean floor in the same manner as offshore oil drilling rigs. Do we hear of many oil rigs blowing over in a tsunami ? In danerously high winds the turbine blade pitch is feathered to minimise wind capture and the turbine itself is deliberately stalled. In this condition it can survive extremely high winds many times their maximum operational wind speed.

"All wind turbines are designed for a maximum wind speed, called the survival speed, above which they will be damaged. The survival speed of commercial wind turbines is in the range of 40 m/s (144 km/h, 89 MPH) to 72 m/s (259 km/h, 161 MPH). The most common survival speed is 60 m/s (216 km/h, 134 MPH). Some have been designed to survive 80 metres per second (290 km/h; 180 mph)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design

My original point was actually relating to the fact that all energy generating methods have their drawbacks and no one method is the best, nor should we rely on any one method.



How many oil rigs blow over ? More than you realize....?

"The Alexander L Kielland was a semi-submersible platform accommodating the workers of the bridge-linked Edda oil rig in the Ekofisk field, approximately 235 miles east of Dundee, Scotland, in the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The Phillips Petroleum-operated platform capsized in March 1980, killing 123 people.
Only 89 out of 212 workers survived the accident and most died by drowning as the platform turned upside-down in deep waters. The platform capsized after the failure of one of the bracings attached to one leg of the five-legged platform structure after strong winds created waves of up to 12m-high on the day of the accident.

The Seacrest Drillship disaster in the South China Sea, 430km south of Bangkok, Thailand, killed 91 crew members on 3 November 1989. The 4,400t drillship was anchored for drilling at the Platong gas field owned and operated by Unocal. The drillship was capsized by the Typhoon Gay, which produced 40ft-high waves on the day of the accident.

The Ocean Ranger oil drilling rig disaster, which occurred in the North Atlantic Sea off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, on 15 February 1982, is one of the deadliest offshore oil rig accidents in history. The offshore oil drilling capsized and sank, killing 84 crew members on-board.
The rig was capsized due to a very strong storm, which produced 190km/h winds and waves up to 65ft (20m) high.

The Glomar Java Sea Drillship disaster took place on 25 October 1983 in the South China Sea. It caused the deaths of 81 people when the drillship capsized and sank at depth of 317ft, approximately 63 nautical miles south-west of Hainan Island, China, 80 nautical miles east of Vietnam.
Operations ceased prior to the arrival of tropical storm Lex as it approached from the east of the drilling site. Global Marine’s office in Houston, Texas, reported that the drillship was experiencing 75k (138.9km/h) winds over the bow, but the contact was abruptly lost."

https://www.offshore-technology.com/fea ... s-4149812/

I could go on....... :)