That was an interesting article Jon. I agree with a lot of what he says but then I look at that graph about half-way through which shows fossil fuel use and economic growth and I just don't see a successful energy transistion taking place to renewables that preserves this trajectory of expansion without end. Especially, when you consider that 80% of the growth in GDP has ocurred in just the 60 years since the war... incredible really when you think about it.

I think fossil energy was a one off and we have use it to dig an almightly hole for ourselves. Do we keep digging (i.e. burn through all the coal, heavy oil, methane hydrates etc) or do we start trying to climb out (i.e. implement alternative energies, cut population back, start making do with less)?

Hi Chris

I also agree with a lot of his comment. Wolf is one of the better commentators on the FT. Other than keep digging or trying to climb out, the easy way out to allow growth is Nuclear and cross our fingers, for future generations, that fusion will come together: Once we are fully on the path to Nuclear, alternatives development will be exceptionally difficult as, by then, the planning system will revolve around Nuclear planning ('densification' of housing, restriction of travel and large scale farming methods.. if agricultural supply becomes difficult as a result of the reduction in carbon supply).

The vast majority of people would probably choose Nuclear if presented with the alternatives currently available. The difficulty perhaps is that there are no viable well thought out alternatives being offered that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would accept. It is also perhaps unfortunate that all the planning guidance currently available to write the new Sustainability Frameworks was drawn up before the Climate Bill and its associated documents.

In my opinion, we therefore only have the Nuclear option left: Nimbyism will almost certainly defeat any well intentioned motives of local councils minded to allow innovation away from the Nuclear model. (though we should still try perhaps)

Oh dear, another who hasn't read Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy yet.
Free download from http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html

Sorry jon, I meant no offence. Maybe you're agreeing that it's far from true that there are no viable well thought out alternatives being offered? But that the the man on the Clapham omnibus wouldn't accept them? If so it's only because of poor understanding, unfamiliarity/unwillingness to adapt, false assumptions, and perhaps most of all, lack of govt leadership. If all these alternatives meant a return to peasant life, on a righteous back-to-real-values basis, then I'd be the first to stay on the omnibus, but that's not the case. "taking almost the entire building stock, existing and newbuild, off-grid, for heat vent and cooling" certainly doesn't mean that - quite the reverse! I think people would go for it, if they understood.

A bit to much of the liquid left overs but:

http://www.livingvillages.com/

If I had to live in a new town I'd like to live somewhere like this...

You may not think it but the man on the Clapham Omnibus may be. Unless non-theoretical real alternatives are made readily available that people can see with their own eyes, the word 'sacrifice' will be seen to be the suitable choice. The 'off-grid' solution may be attractive to you Tom but your word will not carry much weight with the average city-dweller: It has to be seen to be believed. It has to be easily accessible.

I have seen only two off-grid solutions. One worked well (Hockerton), the other was a complete waste of time and effort that would convince only the gullible. To do this I had to: 1: travel over a hundred miles each way in each case and 2: pay for the privilege. Not many people would do this.

jon, I haven't been there but from what I hear Hockerton requires quite a 'sacrifice' lifestyle to make it work as hoped - and they say it's musty! I agree it's up to 'us' to provide the living examples, and I see nothing but exponentially-increasing interest in just that.

Posted By: Chris WardleI'm not convinced that we can go through a successful energy transistion .... without sacrificing our currently material living standards

The 'sacrifice' idea is one that appeals to many, and now that old religious forms have lost much credibility, here's a new quasi-religion that seems to demand sackcloth and ashes, for our hitherto sinful ways.

Posted By: Chris Wardleas the energy return on the energy invested (EROEI) in a society goes into decline, that society starts to unravel

Yes, up to now - and there's a push-pull going on, between old thinking that could indeed lead to same old outcomes (the American empire looks ripe for collapse); and unprecedented new thinking, an explosion of new consciousness, ever-widening technical understanding (epitomised by this forum). The world's presently in that ultra-sensitive window of a few years, when change happens at ever-increasing rate and the tiniest flap of a butterfly's wing can set off a new weather system (that's good chaos theory) and the outcome will be inherently unpredictable. All we can do is create a continuity - some at least of us to live 'as if' the best possible outcome is already here. And for god's sake can't we leave behind the guilty old expectations of doom, punishment and suffering, which it's so easy to make come true. "Be realistic - plan for a miracle!"

if you want to 'sell' green architecture to the wider public at large, which is a must if it is to make a significant difference, then aesthetics is important.

i am from the school of thought that form follows function, and that nature answers many structural questions very elegantly.
further examples are aero and aqua dynamic forms - very elegant, and derived from nature.

a green building need not be a cuboid bunker, and does not need to be to function well.

Great looking Tom

But with all that glass it's not off-grid or low energy consumption is it? It's also a lot of structural stainless steel (very bad environmentally even when annualised). So.. it looks like a rather expensive, not CO2 emission friendly, niche house to me.

Edit: So we don't actually have any better examples than Hockerton? Simon mentioned to me that his local planning officer told him that if Hockerton were put in for planning today, it would not be allowed.

I know from my own experience that it is exceptionally difficult to get anything new or different through planning. It's also usually exceptionally expensive and so 'off-grid' is only a game for the rich philanthropist.

Anything else even approaching off grid depends heavily on the local authority. For example, over here in Essex, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get any sort of permission for anything other than tall boxes or recreations of past ages. Over in Hertfordshire you have a better chance but still very difficult. Some authorities in Suffolk have a relaxed stance. But overall, if you wanted to go off-grid or even semi-off-grid, the system is stacked against you.

Just an opinion. This is why I think that the Nuclear train is almost inevitable.

Posted By: jonwith all that glass it's not off-grid or low energy consumption is it? It's also a lot of structural stainless steel (very bad environmentally even when annualised). So.. it looks like a rather expensive, not CO2 emission friendly, niche house to me.

True - it was some time ago, and an imperfect but important pointer to the future. However, "all that glass", played the AGS way (see http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=963 ), far from ruling out off-grid or low energy consumption, is actually the key (or one of the alternative keys) to achieving just that.

Posted By: jonwe don't actually have any better examples than Hockerton?

I'm sure we do, well in the NW Rockies, anyway, as in the above link. Beyond that, I hope to be providing easy-living built examples - three projects I'm working on now, using AGS principles, development by Tas thermal simulation - one an uprate of a 1984 bungalow, one an uprate of a traditional 3-storey farmhouse, one a semi-buried newbuild.

Posted By: jonexceptionally difficult to get anything new or different through planning

I've found most things possible - just don't alert them (don't risk inviting a safe 'no' on the record), hit them hard with a convincing scheme, documentation, mobilisation of eco-friendly councillors and local bodies, determination - that works, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted By: jondifficult, if not impossible, to get any sort of permission for anything other than tall boxes or recreations of past ages

That's what you get if you don't make a very special case out of it.

Posted By: jonif you wanted to go off-grid or even semi-off-grid, the system is stacked against you

What else would you expect, as a pioneer? In your case jon, knowing something of your ambitious and groundbreaking plans, I agree you're in difficulty, trying to get big official support for an unbuilt concept.

Posted By: jonI think that the Nuclear train is almost inevitable

It's not over yet, by a long way!

Hi Paul

Are you sure that there's only 30-50 years supply? This certainly seems out of kilter with the information produced by the UK government as part of their Energy White Papers (I've read all the papers and associated backup literature). Are they wrong and if so, what is the source that proves them wrong?

Tom

The fact that you have to mobilise councillors at all surely proves the case? I've looked at the timings necessary to implement nuclear and the possible timings that could be made to convert the planning system. In my opinion it will be easier for Government to implement Nuclear than to change the planning system. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and then whoever is right buys the other a beer in a decade's time?

Posted By: jonThe fact that you have to mobilise councillors at all surely proves the case?

It's called democracy - they're there to represent us. That's one thing that Americans would have no confusion about. The scandal is that recent rules of conduct have made it very difficult for Councillors to listen to legitimate lobbying, or to seek to inform themselves - on Planning matters anyway.

Posted By: jonAre you sure that there's only 30-50 years supply? This certainly seems out of kilter with the information produced by the UK government as part of their Energy White Papers (I've read all the papers and associated backup literature). Are they wrong and if so, what is the source that proves them wrong?

From http://www.bnes.com/myths.html (hardly an anti-nuclear source)

The current rate of use is about 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, according to the World Nuclear Association. Allowing for some reprocessing, this means that currently known resources are enough to last for about 45 years, even when used in conventional reactors (i.e. with no breeding).

See also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321092710.htm "Lack Of Fuel May Limit US Nuclear Power Expansion"

Also don't forget that vast amounts of fossil fuel is required to mine the uranium ore (and process it) in the first place.

Of course, if the price goes up, so will the reserves too - just like with oil.

Paul in Montreal.

Jon

RE:
"A recent example was the assertion that nuclear energy does not help in the battle against global warming as it generates more carbon di-oxide during mining and fuel fabrication that it saves during power generation"

I've often felt that the nuclear =CO2 neutral; is not the full story an further supporting data on this one...?

RE: 'appearance doesn't matter'
...'course it does.
( but... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, take wind turbines for eg...)

does anyone have a url/reference for a factual summary of the energy costs associated with each of the renewable producers?

I am trying to obtain a reasonable perspective on them, but seem only to find cosy write ups by their fans, or crude demolitions by their opponents

BTW whatever happened to Salter's Ducks?