[Closed] Carbon capture project cancelled

Choron - you are still dodging the questions tho

Fuel supply - thats the best estimate from pro nuclear sources - other estimates have accesable supplies at 30 years or less. I don't know how you are going to power reactors for a 1000 years. remember you are advocating a massive expansion of nuclear power.

We have spent a thousand times as much on R&D for nukes as we have on other sources of energy without getting the cheap reliable pollution free energy we were promised - this is money we can no longer afford to waste on a tech that cannot solve the issues. we have to get this up and running in 10 - 20 years. thorium will not be on line in that time nor will all the other fancy tech such as FBR you talk about. uranium mining is extremely toxic BTW

I ask again

Where will you get the fuel from? - known sources will be used up in a few decades. What will you do with the waste? How will you get the control? are you going to share nuclear tech with the world? How will you counter the terrorist threat? How will you prevent radioactive contamination of the environment?

I ask the

Care to remind us what your gas and electricty bills were last year TJ. I have no gas bill and produced 158% of our electricty consumption. Everyone can do something but it involves doing more DIY than posting on forums. This is one environmental issue where what individuals do has more potential impact than what governments can do. Do something.

Do something. Or, just spend your every waking hour arguing on the interwebz

Updated that for you.

Edukator - I do. I live a relatively low carbon lifestyle and have done a lot towards energy conservation in my home. I cannot do any generation on it. I cannot increase its thermal efficiency greatly. Its a listed building in a conservation area.

I use far less energy that thenaverage.

How often do you fly? drive? buy new consumer durables?

To be fair to TJ there's a limit to how much photovoltaic you can install in a flat in Leith. Although I suppose he could put another jersey on.

Edukator - I do. I live a relatively low carbon lifestyle and have done a lot towards energy conservation in my home. I cannot do any generation on it. I cannot increase its thermal efficiency greatly. Its a listed building in a conservation area.

I use far less energy that thenaverage.

How often do you fly? drive? buy new consumer durables?

Low-carbon lifestyle, How low? That's why I asked for the gas and electricy numbers, TJ? You can insulate the walls on the inside and secondary triple glaze. I suggest making up internal wooden shutters for the winter if you can't fit shutters on the outside, better in every respect than curtains. You can invest in renewables even if you don't have a property suitable for mounting solar panels.

Where there's a will there's a way. Once you done all that you can contribute to these threads with a clear conscience.

You can insulate the walls on the inside and secondary triple glaze. I suggest making up internal wooden shutters for the winter if you can't fit shutters on the outside, better in every respect than curtains. You can invest in renewables even if you don't have a property suitable for mounting solar panels.

There is a lot more to a low carbon lifestyle than domestic energy usuage.

I cannot do any of the things you suggest - Its a listed building in a conservation area. All windows are double glazed, there is as much insulation as I can fit. its still not great however. Its the price of living in a 130 yr old attic. Its a damn sight better than when I moved in

I don't run a car, I don't buy new consumer goods, I don't fly often,

I live a much lower carbon lifestyle than the average UK resident

But he does thrash motorbikes at every opportunity rather than ride them economically and I do believe ocassionally travel abroad, by some means or other.

Carbon capture and re-injection has been in use for years in the Norwegian oil fields (and a few other areas - but mostly Norway, as they are one of the more forward looking nations with regards to adopting new ideas). The problem with longanet was the cost of plumbing the power station into a network of pipe lines to supply the offshore oil industry of the UK sector of the North sea, though not all oil fields could use CO2 injection as a means of pressure support / enhanced oil recovery. However in the fields that could use this version of reservoir pressure support the eventual amounts of oil recovered can be increased dramatically, therefore increasing the overall recovery for a significant portion of the north sea, so extending the life of many fields in the north sea and ultimately the amount of oil recovered. Many fields at present only recover 25% of their known reserves, some of the new ideas for EOR are increasing recovery up above 50% and some of these include CO2 pressure support.

It is short sighted to drop the CCS project at Longanet - or at least in the way it seems to have been reported, as it would have been a way of proving a number of different methods of underground CCS - not only in the oil fields.

As for nuclear, the current crop of plants are, as has been mentioned based on technology that was ultimately devised with producing weppons grade uranium and plutonim. As a way forward have a look at the reactors used in nuclear submarines they are much more efficient and easier to handle. Then there are fast breeder reactors, a technology which the UK was a world leader in. Something thrown away by the last tory government.

One of the biggest problems we have is that every scientific or political debate ends up as 'well you're worse than me/no I'm not'.

Which is not the point.

Science and politics please, not one-upmanship.

I don't buy new consumer goods

Hmmm.

often should have been on the end of that. 😳

I could list it all but the only new consumer good I have bought in a many years is one computer. I buy most stuff secondhand.

Nuclear is an expensive, unneeded distraction. We need energy conservation, we need energy efficiency, we need renewable and we need clean fossil fuels.

We need reduced consumption of energy, we need renewables, we need to stop using fossil fuels. Why do you think a finite resource is the future? Your approach is just short sighted. We need to de-carbonise the energy in the UK - and the end of natural gas and eliminating petrol from transport means a massive increase in mains electricity - which means we need better power stations that don't produce carbon. Nuclear, of a newer generation, is a good answer. Even George Monbiot agrees.

TJ - stop it!

Nuclear has as its fuel a finite resouce with decades of production left - or are you again betting on untried and untested tech or tech that has already failed?
Nuclear is not a part of the answer. its an expensive unnecessary distraction

None of the pro nuclear folk have answered the awkward questions yet

If we spend the money on other things than nukes we will get better results.

Thing about carbon capture and nuclear is that even if they're not viable long-term, they could be the shorter-term solution that we need so that we can actually work out what to do, rather than charging into things half-assed as we are just now. Let's say 50 years, so that we can properly test all the renewables before building things, unlike the current approach of putting up wind farms and suchlike even as new generations make them outmoded.

I'm not pro-nuclear by any means but I think it still makes a strong case for an interim supply.

Japanese scientists have harvested uranium from sea water at a cost which would still be economic, as fuel cost is a relatively small input into the total cost of nuclear, but not based on current cost and abundance of uranium.

Likewise thorium work has been undertaken, the main economic factor restricting its use is the cost of creating fuel in view of the current cost and abundance of uranium.

There is a difference between an untried technology and an uneconomic one based on the supply and demand of rival fuels/sources. Both of these fall within the latter.

To put the £1billion of money still available for carbon capture, that is more than the total government subsidy that is currently committed to the Renewable Heat Incentive. They are hardly being stingy.

Mefty - so has a commercial power generating reactor been built using the thorium cycle?

Was the uranium from seawater on a commercial scale?

If the answer is no then its an experimatal technology - and therefore cannot be a part of the solution to the looming energy crisis. we need new generation within 20 years on a massive scale at the latest - and it takes more than ten years to build a rector

its an experimatal technology - and therefore cannot be a part of the solution

like the cancelled project you started with?

Do you seriously think that burning coal for the next 20 years is the answer?

Cost comparisons

At the end of the day, we can't have 100% renewable without invasive hydropower or tidal projects which are very expensive and very ecologically damaging. Wind is great and relatively cheap but isn't the answer as it can't make base load energy for obvious reasons. I have nothing against wind - I'm in planning for a 330kW to 500kW turbine but know the technology's limits on a national scale.

mafiafish - lets see some stats then that are independent and verifiable - cos everything I can find just about has nuclear more expensive - and if the true costs of nuclear are include like the true cost of decommissioning very much more expensive.

Tidal - looks good so far for base load - some plant going in this year - I do wonder how much of it will still be there next summer. tidal need not be damaging. Scotland should be 50% renewables in ten years and 100% renewables in 20 years.- and nuke free

Tootall -

Renewables, energy efficency and clean burn fossil fuels. Spend the money you want to spend on nukes on energy efficiency you save more CO2 than the nukes would save. You need to look across the whole country over the whole lifetime of the plants.

AGR is the only nuclear tech that could be put in place in time. all the talkvof thorium and so on is pie in the sky at the moment

CCS is not essential to make energy - just to reduce ~CO2 output.

Scotland is a poor example TJ, lots of wind makes good for wind power, and the position of islands related to the north and irish seas makes for good tidal power.

While its good for Scotland to take advantage of this, the rest of the world aren't so fortunate.

This is why India and China are both relying on Thorium based MSR technology for their next generation of reactors. The first of these should be coming online in the next 10 years or so.

Also, I believe [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 ]this[/url] was the first commercial scale Thorium reactor. Small, but far bigger than any tidal generation plant currently working.

Come on, TJ, quantify (lets see some stats on your lifestyle even if they aren't independant or verifiable). I've flown once every 12 years including once in my life for a holiday. How often is "I don't fly often" in your case. And those gas and electricty figures, are they that embarrassing?

You are making exactly the same decisions as the power company spending time, money and effort on things that greenhouse the planet and almost no money or effort on cutting your carbon footprint. Why not invest £10k in a renewables investment fund if you can't generate youself, I have even though I do generate myself. As for "better than average", if you're 10 times better than average then you are part of a renewable future, quantify.

It's not the governments's fault, it's our fault, mine included.

edukator - I don't know the numbers. However I do know that I live a lower carbon lifestyle than many. I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you over it however.

There are many more factors than domestic energy consumption. Do you drive a car?

Choron - so an experimental rector that ran for a few years only and was pretty much a hugely expensive failure. Right - thats what we are supposed to base our energy future on?

Scotland should be 50% renewables in ten years and 100% renewables in 20 years.- and nuke free

Nice dream - your selective belief of politicians is a beautiful thing to behold. It won't be.

Renewables, energy efficency and clean burn fossil fuels. Spend the money you want to spend on nukes on energy efficiency you save more CO2 than the nukes would save. You need to look across the whole country over the whole lifetime of the plants.

You need to look across the energy used by a country, where it comes from now and where it will come from in the future. The electrification of energy is coming. If we were to get the UK carbon generated down to where it should be, we'd need to triple the electricity production - and your mix can't do that. Your assertations that nuclear is bad (because they haven't proved it works) is confusing when you stand by 'clean burn' fossil fuels (which hasn't been proven to work at ny useful level). We need to move away from fossil fuels now - they are finite and damaging. Tidal - nothing commercial despite years of research. You pick and choose which technologies you support on how they make you feel, not on their technical readiness or capabilities.

I have nothing against wind - I'm in planning for a 330kW to 500kW turbine but know the technology's limits on a national scale.

Tall - we do not need to triple electricity production - we need to reduce energy consumption

Tidal is proven - and is low tech. Plant is being installed now

You pick and choose which technologies you support on how they make you feel, not on their technical readiness or capabilities.

No - not at all - I support proven technologies that can be a part of the solution. Nuclear is proven not to be.

Its the first bit that pro nuclear people will not accept. We need to reduce energy consumption. Its all a part of the myth that the pro nukes disseminate.

I ask again:

Where will you get the fuel from? - known sources will be used up in a few decades.
What will you do with the waste?
How will you get the control?
are you going to share nuclear tech with the world?
How will you counter the terrorist threat? How will you prevent radioactive contamination of the environment?

You don't give a flying **** about the visual pollution then? Top stuff.

At least it's an honest type of pollution, instead of hiding our dirty little secrets away at remote power stations.

And here's the point, all energy production is going to create some form of pollution or other or have some knock on effect.
Wind turbines are both ugly and noisy.
😀

Where will you get the fuel from? - known sources will be used up in a few decades.

I'd like asource for that. Granted sources of Uranium might get used up but then again, that's not the only way fission can be achieved is it.

What will you do with the waste?

Long term underground storage.

How will you get the control?

Not sure what you mean by this, control of what.

are you going to share nuclear tech with the world?

I'd say yes, along similar lines that we currently do.

How will you counter the terrorist threat?

What threat do you mean? If you mean the proliferation of fissile material for bomb making then Thorium would be a good bet as it can't be used to make a bomb. If you mean something else then please be more specific about it.

How will you prevent radioactive contamination of the environment?

The same way that we currently do and depsite all the hysteria we are actually pretty good at it, even with things like medical waste.

There you go, there's some answers for you. Oh if you could lay off the False Dichotomys like

Its the first bit that pro nuclear people will not accept. We need to reduce energy consumption.

that would be great.

Wind turbines are both ugly and noisy.

I disagree on the first part, and the noisy part applies to all types of power generation.

Its the first bit that pro nuclear people will not accept. We need to reduce energy consumption.

The electrification of energy is coming. If we were to get the UK carbon generated down to where it should be, we'd need to triple the electricity production - and your mix can't do that.

I don't know what you mean by this... But one thing which no one in this country talks about, is combined heat and power (CHP). Personally, I believe CHP plants are the way forward, whether they are coal, gas, biomass, or waste. Take the 60-80% waste heat and use it in industry or to heat homes. The days of massive, centralised power production should be numbered in this country, but it needs a cultural shift (NIMBY-ism) to achieve it.

We need to move away from fossil fuels now - they are finite and damaging

While there is still 200+ years of hydrocarbons to burn, we will not move away from them. Thermal plants are essential for maintaining stable electricity grids as their response times to peak load are not matched by anything else of similar capacity. Pumped storage is the only faster response, but is limited in capacity (in this country anyway...).

gonefishin - Member

"Where will you get the fuel from? - known sources will be used up in a few decades."

I'd like asource for that. Granted sources of Uranium might get used up but then again, that's not the only way fission can be achieved is it.

Generally accepted - look to links above - we have 100 yrs left max at current consumption rates - if we have a massive expansion it would be viable to get more as the price rises but still it would be decades of usable uranium left. To go nuclear as the main source of energy would require 100x as many reactors as we have.

As for other methods of fission only failed experiments so far.

"What will you do with the waste?"

Long term underground storage.

Hide it in the ground and pretend it doesn't exist? need a better answer than that please

"How will you get the control?"

Not sure what you mean by this, control of what.

Nukes cannot be turned on and off as energy consumption alters

"are you going to share nuclear tech with the world?"

I'd say yes, along similar lines that we currently do.

so Iraq? Korea? Zimbabwe? Syria? Lebanon? we are going to give them nuclear reactors? or is energy only going to be for the countries we consider deserve it. At the moment we do not share

How will you counter the terrorist threat?

What threat do you mean? If you mean the proliferation of fissile material for bomb making then Thorium would be a good bet as it can't be used to make a bomb. If you mean something else then please be more specific about it.

"How will you prevent radioactive contamination of the environment? "

The same way that we currently do and despite all the hysteria we are actually pretty good at it, even with things like medical waste.

Tens of thousands of cancers from contamination right now. Maybe hundreds of thousands

Chernobyl, Dounray. Sellafelid, three mile island, Fukoshuima. The north sea is a radioactive mess now. My we really have done a good job haven't we

There you go, there's some answers for you.

Really? Easily demolished - just saying you will do something does not mean you can.

Hide it in the ground and pretend it doesn't exist? need a better answer than that please

No, that's not what I said. Ongoing monitoring would be still have to be done along with realistic views on risk.

so Iraq? Korea? Zimbabwe? Syria? Lebanon? we are going to give them nuclear reactors? or is energy only going to be for the countries we consider deserve it. At the moment we do not share

We do share techonolgies at the moment. We don't share it freely, there are restrictions (we don't share bomb making tech) but we do share civilian tech.

Nukes cannot be turned on and off as energy consumption alters

No large power station, no matter what the energy source is can be turned on an off easily. That's why we have spinning reserve and why a misture of technolgies is a good idea.

Chernobyl, Dounray. Sellafelid, three mile island, Fukoshuima

Well we've previously established that there is a huge degree of uncertainlty with the Chernobyl figures (and the operators there were idiots). Of the rest, I don't know howmay peoplle have been affected by these but the current death toll at Fukoshuima is one or two and those were the result of an explosion of hydrogen, not radiation.

Thanks by the way for stopping with the false dichotomys but swapping your choice of logical fallacy from that to confirmation bias isn't helpful. When looking at the perfomance of an industry and technology you have to consider all instances where it is used, not just cherry pick the ones that suit your proposal. If that was done with other forms of energy we wouldn't be producing any oil and gas from the North Sea as far more people have been killed there than in all the UKs nuclear power stations.

So still no answers then 🙄

If we are not going to share nuclear techs with the world then it cannot be the global solution.

You really need to come up with better than platitudes

No, that's not what I said. Ongoing monitoring would be still have to be done along with realistic views on risk.

Lets have a real answer please. what are you going to do with the waste?

You talk about false dichotomies - nuclear or the lights go out is one such thing.

It can never be the solution

Brute force engineering is [i]sooo [/i]20th Century

TJ the whole rolling eyes thing looks a bit silly when you don't answer questions asked of you, such as what your energy bills are. You can't have it both ways mate.
Now I'm with you and would say such a question isn't other people's business, but you've got to be a bit more aware how daft your "show me the evidence and answer my questions" rhetoric sounds when your not prepared to do it yourself, and fail to acknowledge when people do answer. You also need to realise that an answer you don't agree with is still an answer.

TJ the whole rolling eyes thing looks a bit silly when you don't answer questions asked of you, such as what your energy bills are. You can't have it both ways mate.
Now I'm with you and would say such a question isn't other people's business, but you've got to be a bit more aware how daft your "show me the evidence and answer my questions" rhetoric sounds when your not prepared to do it yourself, and fail to acknowledge when people do answer. You also need to realise that an answer you don't agree with is still an answer, and that no one person has all the answers - including you.

I do not know what my energy bills are - and I don't really see the relevance.

I keep asking the same questions and they are avoided or answered with platitudes.

Until there are answers to these questions then its clear that nuclear cannot be solution to the energy crisis

Lets have a real answer please. The Question - what are you going to do with the waste?

His Answer

Long term underground storage and Ongoing monitoring would be still have to be done along with realistic views on risk.

Seems quite a straightforward answer to me, unless you were looking for an in depth 300 page proposal.......

Until there are answers to these questions then its clear that nuclear cannot be solution to the energy crisis

I do not know what my energy bills are - and I don't really see the relevance.

Not very self aware that really

What TJ does know is that for an attic flat which if properly insulated would be heated by the people living below his energy bills are embarrassing and would demonstrate just how hypocritical he is on this thread - moaning about others not doing anything to cut their carbon emissions when his own home is greenhousing the planet.