Now I've got your attention... 😉
A few weeks ago now I attended a conference on energy - I stuck a post up about it here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/interested-in-energy-generationsupply-issues
Since then, I've managed to write up the three days of the conference in a series of blog posts, and in the interests of [s]generating some blog hits[/s] passing on some good info on fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables etc. I thought you lot might like [b]a)[/b] a read of my blog and [b]b)[/b] a look through the videos and presentations from the conference.
Blog: http://vitaminccs.wordpress.com/
Conference vids: http://globalenergysystemsconference.com/videos/
I know you all like a good debate on this kind of stuff, shame TJ can't join in 🙂
Okay, might give it a shot if I get some time.
I have to warn you, though, that I'm all about the hydrocarbons. 😉
shame TJ can't join in
why so he can be intractable and not answer valid questions or take opposing points of view on board? Lots of other forum users can do that for you
Suits me! I'm a Carbon Capture and Storage researcher, with an eye on shale gas. But would love to see renewable energy dominate eventually.
I'm a Carbon Capture and Storage researcher
Like. Although, aren't you just punting the problem down the road a century or two?
[quote=molgrips ] I'm a Carbon Capture and Storage researcher
Like. Although, aren't you just punting the problem down the road a century or two?
Only if it works, will take a read later, do you get paid for ad clickery in your blog?
Although, aren't you just punting the problem down the road a century or two?
You mean the re-release of CO2, or delaying investment in renewables? Emphatic no the first one, and would possibly agree on the second. I'd argue though that the world ain't going to stop burning fossil fuels for energy (much as we might want it to stop), so we should do our best to mitigate the emissions. IMO. Other views available, etc.
EDIT: I use adblocker so wasn't aware there were ads on my blog! So no, I don't!
Well written and informative. Thanks!
Interested by the nuclear energy costs/subsidies; £31-44/MWh to £95-100/MWh. Did they give comparable figures for wind? i.e how much do we consumers get charged per MWh by the energy companies to cover the "feed ins" (for want of a better term) paid to investors?
You mean the re-release of CO2, or delaying investment in renewables?
No, I mean by enabling the fossil fuel economy to continue, it'll get used up all the quicker, and won't be available for things other than simply burning it. And yes, delaying investment in renewables, but possibly more importantly encouraging the viewpoint that we can do whatever we like and technology will sort it out in the end anyway. It removes one big incentive to be responsible, doesn't it?
A cynic would argue that no-one's going to change their behaviour so you might as well mitigate it. But on the other hand, without AGW as a risk, even the little investment we do have in renewable could easily disappear.
One could argue that 'giving a shit about the environemnt in general' could be as important as anything else.
molgrips - Member...by enabling the fossil fuel economy to continue, it'll get used up all the quicker,
we won't run out of 'fossil fuels' - there's simply too much of the stuff.
we're already [s]looking for[/s] using alternative fuels, polymers, etc. and we're no-where near running out yet.
the alternatives will get better, oil/gas will get more expensive. eventually we'll stop using them altogether, not because we've run out, but because it's just too much faff.
as for AGW, it's increasingly obvious that we just don't care... enough to actually DO something about it.
has anyone ever not taken the £5 flight to holiday land, simply because they care about the ice-caps?
Fusion is the way to go, sod the high speed trains lets show the world how to make limitless energy, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/jul/02/hs2-fusion-power
The biggest risk to the environment is not fossil fuels - it is overpopulation - mass famine, war and desiese will kill far more people and be our ultimate demise rather than fossil fuel emissions. Fossil fuels will last for many generations yet, but will get more expensive, renewables don't produce electricity when its needed so you need some network of energy storage - i.e big batteries which ultimately means lots of precious metals dug out of the Earths crust which isn't great for the environment or the economics of renewables! Nulcear has to be a big part of the answer. Its about time we started to address the general publics largely ignorant view of nuclear power.
I hate the way we're so focussed on CO2 emissions as the only environmental issue to be concerned about - especially as the jury is still out on the impact. I think this is largely a red herring and while we focus so hard on this, we'll miss something that is more of a problem and will cause greater issues for us. A classic point is the massive increase in Diesel cars due to our obsession in reducing CO2 at all costs. Diesel cars are so much worse for the environment than petrol engines in every way except CO2 emissions, with Astma rates shooting up, air pollution and air quality dropping like a stone, smog returning to our cities, its a disaster of our modern times.
If we reduce the birth rate and manage the planets population all the environmental issues we're currenltly concerned about will fade away. Our view of having as many kids as we like and to hell with the consequences as a basic human right cannot continue. But that's never going to happen, so we're doomed. We may as well buy thirsty cars and party till the end of the world, and go out with a smile on our faces. Sorry to sound so pessamistic, but the root cause of all of this is not being discussed. It seems to be a huge taboo.
No, I mean by enabling the fossil fuel economy to continue, it'll get used up all the quicker, and won't be available for things other than simply burning it. And yes, delaying investment in renewables, but possibly more importantly encouraging the viewpoint that we can do whatever we like and technology will sort it out in the end anyway. It removes one big incentive to be responsible, doesn't it?
Thankfully, CCS isnt free, it has a cost, so if your building something to generate power you would (at least in long term) go renewables, CCS allows existing stuff to keep going without being quite as bad.
couldn't see anything on nuclear decommission. Maybe I misspelt it
The person I know who knows about this stuff suggests that this is the big nuclear problem. As yet we still haven't even sorted out what we will do with the waste we have. The costs look like being just too much to be justifiable
No, I mean by enabling the fossil fuel economy to continue, it'll get used up all the quicker, and won't be available for things other than simply burning it.
Unfortunately - unless all the scientists are wrong - burning all the known reserves will completely stuff the climate.
[quote=ampthill ]couldn't see anything on nuclear decommission. Maybe I misspelt it
The person I know who knows about this stuff suggests that this is the big nuclear problem. As yet we still haven't even sorted out what we will do with the waste we have. The costs look like being just too much to be justifiable
The waste we have is not proportional to the future waste, the majority of the waste is from the start of the industry and the hunt for weapons. Looking forward high burn fuel and no reprocessing would make long term prospects a lot different. Taking some reliance from coal & gas is a good thing, building windmills everywhere might help but might not get us across the line.
the alternatives will get better
Will they?
the root cause of all of this is not being discussed
It is, and has been for decades. See China's one child policy. Also, UK birth rate is below 2 now which I think is where we need to be, unless someone can improve my maths.
The waste we have is not proportional to the future waste, the majority of the waste is from the start of the industry and the hunt for weapons. Looking forward high burn fuel and no reprocessing would make long term prospects a lot different.
I'm in no way pro windmill anti nuclear. Infact until a conversation last summer I was pro nuclear. But mate assures me that waste storage and decommissioning are just not economic. Obviously once we have storage then extending its not that expensive. But decommissioning current designs is hugely expensive and my original point was that I couldn't see any mention of these costs in the blog
Did they give comparable figures for wind? i.e how much do we consumers get charged per MWh by the energy companies to cover the "feed ins" (for want of a better term) paid to investors?
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf ]This report from DECC[/url] gives levelised costs of electricity generation, and puts nuclear lower than most other tech. I can't comment on the economic calcs (discounting and so on), but I'm dubious about how little is assumed to represent decommissioning costs!
couldn't see anything on nuclear decommission. Maybe I misspelt it
There was nothing specifically about this at the conference, however Gen 4 reactors were talked about in [url= http://glocast.com/webcasts/global_energy_systems_conference_2013/2.6_Richard_Stainsby.html ]this presentation[/url]. Not the same, granted, but you might like it anyway. The problem of waste is not included in the economics or environmental impact of building nuclear - this is one of my bugbears and combined with the high cost of building and generating leccy, I don't see why we should be supporting it as a replacement for fossil fuels.
renewables don't produce electricity when its needed so you need some network of energy storage - i.e big batteries which ultimately means lots of precious metals dug out of the Earths crust which isn't great for the environment or the economics of renewables
Not so in terms of 'battery' storage - you can store compressed air and water, or produce methane, at times when electricity is cheap or surplus, and then use your stored energy at a later date. Intermittency can also be solved with large (contintental sized) grids - apparently not an insurmountable challenge, and I think things are moving this way anyway.
But mate assures me that waste storage and decommissioning are just not economic. Obviously once we have storage then extending its not that expensive. But decommissioning current designs is hugely expensive and my original point was that I couldn't see any mention of these costs in the blog
Very true, but in the end of it we have to build the long term storage, as we have to deal with the waste. I would like to see projected costs for new build decommissioning. Knowing what we know now we can plan a lot more of it at the design stage, it's still technology that did not exist 60 years ago. There are some good documentaries on the early builds and the current ones. They were mostly designed to work with not that much thought about the after. Current best ideas are to defuel and encase the reactor until the high energy short lived stuff has reduced significantly to get better access.
ampthill - Member...decommissioning current designs is hugely expensive...
true, but 'current' designs are 50 years old, we don't do it like that anymore.
renewables don't produce electricity when its needed
nor do they power furnaces for smelting iron, making concrete, glass etc. (although theoretically could be used for the electrolysis phase of turning ore into metal)
won't get carbon fibre either without oil.
It seems that wind turbines cost consumers (bill payers) £42/MWh through the ROC. That doesn't take grants etc into account though.
Very interesting indeed - thanks Kit!
The green movement has long been dominated by people who think that society would be better if we all grew our own food and wore grass shoes. The green movement hate nuclear, not because it isn't the answer but because it IS. For society to revert to their imagined pre-industrial utopia, there must be [b]no way[/b] to continue as a modern economy.
This is why ever increasing numbers of environmentally minded people are becoming pro-nuclear, because they are scientifically minded people with the habit of critical thinking who care about energy future rather than engineering an agrarian society.
Read The Geek Manifesto, it's all in there.
Molgrips - the worldwide population is exploding and due to smash through the 10 billion mark and is accelerating. I don't think we're getting to grips with it at all and population control is not on any countries political agenda as far as I know. It's a difficult problem technically and philosophically, and we need something better than China one baby solution which pushed abortions underground and has left the country with a crisis that will take decades to sort out. maybe we can't fix it.
The green movement hate nuclear, not because it isn't the answer but because it IS.
The answer to which question?
The answer to which question?
Low carbon, sustainable energy.
It's not [i]the[/i] answer in any case, but it is part of the answer, possibly more than I'd thought if Dr Stainsby's pitch up there is to be believed. (Which, I hasten to add, I have no reason not to).
The answer to which question?
&
It's not the answer in any case, but it is part of the answer
Exactly the main thing here is there is no single thing that will solve everything short of alien intervention or the vogons demolishing earth.
There are lots of parts that need to be brought together into a cohesive energy policy.
Usage reductions
Increased efficiency
Increased renewables
Increased stable base load
Reduced Carbon use
Better balancing of supply & demand
ad the rest
especially as the jury is still out on the impact.
The Jury is not out at all on what the impact is of increasing the content of a green house gas on the planet. It is disingenuous to suggest that it is...unless of course by jury you dont mean the collective body of world scientists who study and understand the issue and you mean right wing leaning journalist /politicians such as Lawson or other types.
If we reduce the birth rate and manage the planets population all the environmental issues we're currenltly concerned about will fade away
Those associated with population growth may go away bit the one about increasing energy consumption per person, decreasing amounts of fossil fuels and the increasing levels of C02 will not stop if we reduce birth rate
I am not saying population control or numbers will not be an issue but "curing" it will not cure us of all environmental issues
FWIW latest studies suggest the rate is flattening out and we will peak at circa 10 billion though of course there is debate on this.
As for nukes in the short run they are part of the solution though decommissioning and storage are serious issues with no solution as yet
The green movement has long been dominated by people who think that society would be better if we all grew our own food and wore grass shoes.
Straw man and just denigrating thos eyou opose whilst mirepresenting what they stand for
The green movement hate nuclear, not because it isn't the answer but because it IS.
WTF that is just gibberish not least because your next paragraph argues about the greens now getting on board with nukes
For society to revert to their imagined pre-industrial utopia, there must be no way to continue as a modern economy.
Straw man
This is why ever increasing numbers of environmentally minded people are becoming pro-nuclear,
Its an interesting debate without any unanimity within the green community and certainly pro nukes is gaining ground
because they are scientifically minded people with the habit of critical thinking who care about energy future rather than engineering an agrarian society.
Straw man and personal attack again
Any chance you could use crtical thinking rathe than gross misrepresentation of peoples positions whilst contradicting that point
Molgrips - the worldwide population is exploding and due to smash through the 10 billion mark and is accelerating
I've read more times than I can remember that forecasts have it levelling off eventually as birth rate in developing countries dips to 2 or below. So it won't keep going forever.
I don't think we're getting to grips with it at all and population control is not on any countries political agenda as far as I know.
EXCEPT CHINA.
Ok so their policy was poorly implemented, but they did think about it. I seem to remember seeing small families pushed by governments in Africa too come to mention it. I suspect Western developed countries' governemnts aren't pushing because it's political suicide and it also seems to be happening on its own, so there's no need.
While we're here - Environmental heresies, an educational quarter hour for ya.
[url=
The biggest risk to the environment is not fossil fuels - it is overpopulation - mass famine
We already are reducing our birthrates. IIASA's middle ground estimate has us back down to about 7-8 billion in 2100, peaking in 2070. Their worst prediction has human population crashing so greatly we're extinct within a few centuries. More than half the worlds population are already reproducing below the replacement rate.
Population isn't the problem, consumption is. People who think otherwise are often malthusian racists that would rather keep their cushy lifestyles at the expense of basic needs of the worlds developing nations.
Ok so their policy was poorly implemented, but they did think about it. I seem to remember seeing small families pushed by governments in Africa too come to mention it. I suspect Western developed countries' governemnts aren't pushing because it's political suicide and it also seems to be happening on its own, so there's no need.
The only things that are needed for declining birth rates are:
* Female education and emancipation
* Good healthcare and a government that supports the old (so families don't feel the need to have dozens of children to guarantee their future)
You don't need governments enforcing things like the one child rule.
Molgrips - the worldwide population is exploding and due to smash through the 10 billion mark and is accelerating. I don't think we're getting to grips with it at all and population control is not on any countries political agenda as far as I know. It's a difficult problem technically and philosophically, and we need something better than China one baby solution which pushed abortions underground and has left the country with a crisis that will take decades to sort out. maybe we can't fix it.
All signs point to you being wrong.
All signs point to you being wrong.
I'm not writing these reports, just reading them and recounting what I read.
Plus one report isn't 'all signs' is it? Or is it?
By reports do you mean media reports or actual statistical projections?
Off the top of my head most of the reports I've seen have world population peaking at about 8-9 billion somewhere between 2050 and 2080. Followed by considerable decline towards 2200.
Also Molgrips, why did you respond? I didn't quote you! 
Low carbon, sustainable energy.It's not the answer in any case, but it is part of the answer, possibly more than I'd thought if Dr Stainsby's pitch up there is to be believed
I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think that it's as big a part of the answer as many think. Unless we can find better ways of storing energy, nuclear's usefulness outside of baseload is limited, especially so as we become more interconnected. For example, France is heavily reliant on hydro and imports and exports from other countries to balance supply and demand. What happens if those other countries go for nuclear in a big way?
The other big factor is we simply aren't going to be able to bring enough new plant on line in time. I'm leaving aside questions over raw material supply and managing waste.
Turning to population for a moment, I seem to remember it's been calculated that one Western child consumes as many resources as six African children. So it's a bit more complicated than raw numbers.
ransos - Member...For example, France is heavily reliant on hydro...
to help smooth out demand on it's many, many, nuclear power stations.
they get over 70% of their leccy from Nuclear power.
I think fusion is the only solution that will allow us to continue our energy binge. If that fails then I guess long term we will have to get a bit more frugal so that renewables are viable.
to help smooth out demand on it's many, many, nuclear power stations.
Precisely. And seeing as we don't have the Alps, what do we do?
I think fusion is the only solution that will allow us to continue our energy binge
we dont yet have a commercially viable system that produces more than it consumes - We dont even have a large scale onethat can produce more than it uses.
Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050
It is not part of the solution as yet and it would be foolhardy to assume we will crack it and all will be fine
Junkyard - lazarus
It is not part of the solution as yet and it would be foolhardy to assume we will crack it and all will be fine
I agree but the technology to make it possible is only starting to come available now. If ITER is successful then things may progress more quickly than in the past. By 2050 we could have a commercial reactor.
Solar power seems distinct from other renewables in having an appreciable scientific upside. Advances in other areas are / will be engineering driven as the scientific principles are mainly understood and have been for 1000s of years in some cases. There's a lot of scope for scientific invention and creativity with photovoltaics that is maybe not there in other areas. In a 100 years time a windmill is still going to be a windmill, maybe with the blades a bit more curved. A futuristic PV cell is beyond our ken.fr0sty125 - MemberI think fusion is the only solution that will allow us to continue our energy binge. If that fails then I guess long term we will have to get a bit more frugal so that renewables are viable.
Still need the sun to be shining like.
we dont yet have a commercially viable system that produces more than it consumes -
Which is why we need to invest in research to produce one. It is estimated that developement will cost the same as HS2.
I'd rather have limitless clean energy than a poxy train set...........
Which is why we need to invest in research to produce one.
Is it simply a case of "throw money at it and it will work"?
By 2050 we could have a commercial reactor.
And we may not we cannot just hope this will solve our problems though it is not hard to see why limitless free clean power appeals.
Which is why we need to invest in research to produce one.
While fusion power is still in early stages of development, substantial sums have been and continue to be invested in research. In the EU almost €10 billion was spent on fusion research up to the end of the 1990s, and the new ITER reactor alone is budgeted at €10 billion.It is estimated that up to the point of possible implementation of electricity generation by nuclear fusion, R&D will need further promotion totalling around €60-80 billion over a period of 50 years or so (of which €20-30 billion within the EU) based on a report from 2002.[48] Nuclear fusion research receives €750 million (excluding ITER funding), compared with €810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[49] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.
Not a fan of all my eggs in one basket and I am not convinced money alone will crack it. We cannot be certain it will work unlike the others which we do know work
Still need the sun to be shining like.
Well not necessarily. If it's efficient enough it'll still work on dull days. Ok so it won't work at night, but the hours of darkness are entirely predictable so storage can be planned.
Ah I love these threads, but not enough googling of tenuous links yet.
I'm greatly in favour of renewable energy but accept O&G companies will exploit every possible reserve, without doubt, until it is all gone.
Tidal stream devices seem the most 'safe' of the renewable sources to me, a truly dependable and predictable energy source as long as the universe keeps going like it is, probably why the big boys like Kawasaki are moving into it now with significant investments.
I ought to know better than to get involved but hey. I for one am against new nuclear. It is not devoid of CO2 emissions and therein lies one of the most common misconceptions. The available ores are diminishing in quality and take a fair bit of energy to get out of the ground. The emissions cost of building, waste management and decommissioning have to be taken into account. Here is a useful link for the interested, and the home page gives a detailed analysis of the whole industry, albeit from a certain point of view
http://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html
Regarding the cost - remember BNFL's marketing BS from the 60's? "Energy too cheap to meter!" Yeah right. Nuclear is possibly the most heavily subsidised industry on the planet, and that is unlikely to change. I'd rather we subsidise something that won't give us such a 50,000 year headache.
Just my point of view of course!
I'm greatly in favour of renewable energy but accept O&G companies will exploit every possible reserve, without doubt, until it is all gone.
Same here, and even with 100% renewable electrical power and 100% electrically propelled transport (cars, trains, ships, but also planes banned forever cos there's not enough avgas), there is still one massive need for fossil fuels. At least until such time as they can make solar micro-/mini-furnaces.
Precisely. And seeing as we don't have the Alps, what do we do?
Not build as many nukes as France? Turning this into a TJ-esque all or nothing argument won't help you win.
I for one am against new nuclear.
Why?
It is not devoid of CO2 emissions and therein lies one of the most common misconceptions.
Noone ever said it was, unless you used to mistakenly believe this. Hence [b]low[/b] carbon, as opposed to zero-carbon
The available ores are diminishing in quality and take a fair bit of energy to get out of the ground.
You should really look at some of those presentations Kit posted
The emissions cost of building, waste management and decommissioning have to be taken into account.
They are, and because of the energy density of the fuel itself, nuclear power comes out very favourably
Regarding the cost - remember BNFL's marketing BS from the 60's? "Energy too cheap to meter!" Yeah right. Nuclear is possibly the most heavily subsidised industry on the planet, and that is unlikely to change.
Again, have a look at some of those presentations, that, and realise that those claims did indeed come from the 60's. Noone is claiming that now - what may well change is level of subsidy. All non-fossil energy production is subsidised.
I'd rather we subsidise something that won't give us such a 50,000 year headache.
Again, look at the state-of-the-art, and recognise that with proper re-processing and fast reactors, this ceases to be the case
Belief is fine, but try to back it up with facts. I see no reason not to trust the leading scientists in the field who presented at the conference Kit went to. I say this simply as a scientist myself - I don't lie or twist the truth when I present on my topic, and I very much doubt any other respected scientist would.
wobbliscott - Memberpopulation control is not on any countries political agenda as far as I know.
Well. It kind of is. Birth rates tend to drop as prosperity rises and health improves (reducing child mortality and increasing lifespans). Look at us- we don't need a 2 child law, we're already hovering around the replacement rate. Population's rising because longevity's improving but that should sort itself out over time (it's a rubber-banding effect, until people stop dying anyway).
The trouble with nuclear... I'm comfortable with a nuclear future, but the maths gives me trouble. Our existing reactors are mostly old and creaky... We've got 3 new ones in planning (and no guarantee they'll all be built) and they're not going to be in place before the oldest reactors are retired, and even once they're up and running they don't produce as much power. So we have shrinking nuclear generation currently, not growing.
I did some back-of-envelopes numbers a while back and it seems like we need about 50 new reactors of this type, if nuclear is to be a fossil fuel replacement, and we need them yesterday. But it takes a long time (10 years~) to get a new one running, even assuming we had the capacity to build 50 simultaneously, which I doubt. So £140bn by the government's very optimistic figures (which no generating company agrees with), with no consideration of running costs, end of life, staffing (there are not that many qualified staff) grid connection, fuelling, etc etc.
Turn it around a little, more realistic to think we'll build a bunch at a time. What's the lifespan of a new reactor? 40 years apparently for the Wylfa design so we need to initiate a new reactor every 10 months or so in order to get them all built before the first of the new ones shuts down, then continue on that basis indefinitely (barring design improvements of course). And then we also start decommissioning at the same rate- looking at existing cases, 5 years is considered a fast turnaround for decom.
All these numbers are shonky, but I went with favourable estimates, the real case is probably worse. So if nuclear's the answer, it's a bit of an iffy one. Not as iffy as trusting in the fusion deus ex machina though.
Some good points Northwind, highlighting the biggest problem.
There is no plan. The UK will run out of energy because people keep arguing about what is the best thing to do.
That doesn't mean we should't do anything, for every generator that is lost the capacity needs to be mapped on in planning/building. Information like that might help convince the public that they might not like all the answers (there is more than one) but will need to get on board with some of them PDQ or it's going to be getting dark & cold.
The prospect of every home having a dirty great diesel generator outside will only skip the problem on a little and shove up the price of fuel.
I struggle with long sentences, although I've had a fast scan through. I've seen no mention of the THOR Project, appropriately enough in Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
UK's assessment of Thorium currently
Summary
NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently
have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential
application for plutonium management in the medium to long
term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is
likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years
ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically
immature and currently not of interest to the utilities,
representing significant financial investment and risk without
notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium
fuel cycle have been over-stated.
Nevertheless, the thorium fuel cycle does offer exciting
prospects for R&D needs, with investment and development
required across the entire fuel cycle including fuel properties,
performance and fabrication, reactor safety and performance
and reprocessing technology. In the event that future reactors
are chosen as the way forward for thorium utilisation (such
as a HTR, fast reactor or ADS), then additional investment
will also be required to design, license and construct that
new technology. Any investor needs to be cognisant of
the immaturity and therefore risk associated with such an
undertaking as well as the level of investment needed at each
and every process/stage in this entirely new fuel cycle.
Biggest issue is it's not ready as a technology. We need to do something now.
Just as an aside, China's one child policy is now pretty much unenforced. You'll still see female infants' bodies in the gutters of rural China but this is purely down to the cultural desire for a son, ingrained through decades of said policy. Dan Brown's [i]Inferno[/i] is badly written but makes a fair point imho...
any thoughts on [url= http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2284194/crewe-hot-rocks-could-supply-centuries-of-renewable-power ]this[/url]?
Having not long returned from a trip to Iceland I'm staggered that nothing similar has been tried here (I accept it's a lot easier in Iceland due to their geology).
Belief is fine, but try to back it up with facts. I see no reason not to trust the leading scientists in the field who presented at the conference Kit went to. I say this simply as a scientist myself - I don't lie or twist the truth when I present on my topic, and I very much doubt any other respected scientist would.
I think I did try to back it up with facts, or perhaps you just didn't like those facts? Cherry pick away, we are perhaps all guilty of that, myself included.
I half-trust the scientists, mostly. I too am one of those oh-so-trustworthy beasties. But would they also be the same scientists that are scratching their heads to explain why steam is still coming out of Fukushima, and radioactive waste is still spilling into the sea? The same ones that undertake fairly dodgy practices in the current UK nuclear industry?
Hardly a year goes by in the UK without some new and terrible revelation about Sellafield. In 2004 the EC took our government to court over Sellafield's refusal to let its inspectors into one of its dumps (i think Blair and Bush started on Iraq over something similar). In 2003 EC inspectors discovered a pond containing over a tonne of plutonium that had been sitting there unacknowledged and unchecked for thirty years. No wonder Sellafield didn't fancy letting them take a peek the following year. In 2005 investigators found that a pipe at the complex had been leaking, undetected , for over eight months, spilling nitric acid and 20 tonnes of uranium and a few kilos of plutonium. A mere bagatelle! Why stop with Sellafield? In 1997 Dounreay's operators admitted they had been dumping waste for years into an open hole they had dug above the crumbling coastal cliffs. The shaft had exploded 20 years prior to this, scattering plutonium over the beaches, but the operators decided that was best kept quiet. When found out they promised "no more cover ups", but the following year they were forced to admit they had dug a second hole into which it was still dumping unsealed waste. Trustworthy?
But like you say, the state-of-the-art will solve all those issues. Just remind me how long they will take to construct and bring on line? Will that solve the problems of climate change in time? Assuming you believe in such inconvenient science of course?
Most of all it's the politicians I don't trust. I thought this presentation [url= http://glocast.com/webcasts/global_energy_systems_conference_2013/2.3_Stephen_Thomas.html ]Prof Steven Thomas[/url] that Kit linked to was most telling. £500bn over 40 years? Amazing. 🙄
Not build as many nukes as France? Turning this into a TJ-esque all or nothing argument won't help you win.
Eh? Perhaps you should re-read my posts, rather than selectively quoting for the purpose of generating an argument.
We can't have as much nuclear as France because their strategies for balancing supply and demand are not available to us. So what do we do instead?
Small aside - nuclear power plants can be designed to spool up and down rapidly - see nuclear subs. It has to be designed in but could be one of the criteria for some new plants. One approach is to bypass the turbines to reduce electricity production. That requires no change to the operation of the glowing part.
Coal plants also don't tend to spool up very quickly.
Small aside - nuclear power plants can be designed to spool up and down rapidly - see nuclear subs. It has to be designed in but could be one of the criteria for some new plants. One approach is to bypass the turbines to reduce electricity production. That requires no change to the operation of the glowing part.Coal plants also don't tend to spool up very quickly.
Well, they could, but given the high start-up and low marginal cost of operation, I suggest economics will dictate them being run as baseload.
But would they also be the same scientists that are scratching their heads to explain why steam is still coming out of Fukushima, and radioactive waste is still spilling into the sea?
Probably not, actually
The same ones that undertake fairly dodgy practices in the current UK nuclear industry?
I would suspect that engineers, rather than scientists are to blame here.
But like you say, the state-of-the-art will solve all those issues
I didn't, actually
Just remind me how long they will take to construct and bring on line?
Quite a while, I'd suspect. Perhaps a bit longer than a new fleet of coal powered stations with CCS, but not much. And that's if CCS can be proven to work on such a large scale (and, with the same caveats of making sure the C stays C and Sed as others apply to nuclear waste). I don't doubt the technology is promising, but just as there are yet to be any new generation nuclear plants operating in the UK, I'm not aware of any GW-sized coal plants with CCS either. So, if CCS doesn't work, and gas starts to run out because the Russians get upset, where does that leave us? Coal, only without the CCS bit. Wonderful.
Will that solve the problems of climate change in time?
No, it won't, single handedly. Massively cutting our (and I mean in the global sense of the word) use of energy might. But as that's not going to happen, making a start by producing the energy we do by emitting as few GHGs as possible would be helpful. Having arguments that conclude in 20 years time that there is no one-size-fits-all answer after all is not helpful.
Assuming you believe in such inconvenient science of course?
Why the pointless dig? I don't [u]believe[/u] in it anyway. However, from the large amount of literature I have read on the topic, I agree with the vast majority of scientists who state that the anthropogenic production of GHGs is inextricably linked to the increasingly rapid changes to climate and weather patterns. Belief is for the religious.
£500bn over 40 years? Amazing.
The century of cheap energy is over. Not sure what's so amazing about that, unless you have shares in the Canadian tar sands industry.
We can't have as much nuclear as France because their strategies for balancing supply and demand are not available to us. So what do we do instead?
Build fewer nuclear plants than the French whilst also investing heavily in other forms of energy production - notably tidal and wave. That, and trying to get a few more roofs covered in solar panels.
[Northwind - Member]
[What's the lifespan of a new reactor? 40 years apparently for the Wylfa design so we need to initiate a new reactor every 10 months or so in order to get them all built before the first of the new ones shuts down]
nope absolute rubbish........same old dumb arguments...... 60yr +..... no one would build a 50yr old design just like you wouldn't base your choice for your next car on data for a morris oxford......
most of the arguments for the renewable technologies conveniently ignore that they have hi embodied carbon/ energy yet V short lives in infrastructure terms + you have to duplicate the capacity and distribution systems for when the wind doesn't blow, sun doesn't shine, between tides......
I'm v positive about the use of these technologies however lots of the arguements for them are full of holes.....
T1000 - Membernope absolute rubbish........same old dumb arguments...... 60yr +.....
Not what the company supplying them says, maybe you'd better tell them they're wrong.
Redundant post
The emissions cost of building, waste management and decommissioning have to be taken into account.
I went to an energy seminar at the chartered institute of building services engineers. It wasn't a pro or anti renewable, just a clear headed engineering look. One speaker was an expert in embedded carbon. He told us that turbines often aren't even carbon neutral. Manufacturers (apparently) aren't keen to include the operational energy used from the full manufacture (design, trialling, mining, smelting, fabrication, transport). I've not looked into it, just what I was told by someone making a very handsome living by appraising carbon costs.
I wonder if we might all be better off coming up with a decent energy transport sytem, instead of generation?
Something like say, a hydrogen pipeline that doens't leak, or a way of synthesising hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon. If we had that, Iceland, Morocco etc could become the new Saudi and Kuwait, generating masses of carbon free energy and piping it around the world.
Northwind - Member
#
T1000 - Member
nope absolute rubbish........same old dumb arguments...... 60yr +.....
Not what the company supplying them says, maybe you'd better tell them they're wrong.
nope not from the 3 manufacturers I've dealt with......
or you could try using google...for a second ....
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Advanced-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
He told us that turbines often aren't even carbon neutral.
More comically tragic was the story I was told about the offshore turbines in essex.
The turbines have to be regularly maintained by chaps on boats.
The total energy produced by the wind farm, did not even cover the fuel (or energy equivalent thereof) required to get the maintenance boats out to the turbines and back.
However the company running the place were still making a small mint from the government feed-in subsidies.
(all a bit pub fact-y, I know)
Incidentally, molgrips, hydrogen has to be generated and as that process isn't 100% efficient, we're better off using the energy in its original format (like oil for instance).
Incidentally, molgrips, hydrogen has to be generated and as that process isn't 100% efficient
The reason I mentioned Iceland or Morocco is that places like those have the potential to generate almost limitless power rather easily. If this could be shipped around the world easily, like oil is today, then we could all benefit from it.
Ok so perhaps not Morocco, it might be hard to get enough water to the hot wasteland bits. Somewhere like Western Australia would be good.
More comically tragic was the story I was told about the offshore turbines in essex.The turbines have to be regularly maintained by chaps on boats.
The total energy produced by the wind farm, did not even cover the fuel (or energy equivalent thereof) required to get the maintenance boats out to the turbines and back.
Absolute cobblers. My favourite 'story I've been told' is apparently from a wind turbine technician who blew the industry's secret 😉 that the turbines actually use electricity from the grid to make them turn faster to improve public perception.
I went to an energy seminar at the chartered institute of building services engineers. It wasn't a pro or anti renewable, just a clear headed engineering look. One speaker was an expert in embedded carbon. He told us that turbines often aren't even carbon neutral. Manufacturers (apparently) aren't keen to include the operational energy used from the full manufacture (design, trialling, mining, smelting, fabrication, transport). I've not looked into it, just what I was told by someone making a very handsome living by appraising carbon costs.
If you can find a credible peer reviewed source for this claim, post it here!
And also compare it with the energy used to build and maintain a coal or gas power station... And mine the coal or drill the gas.. or ship it over from China or Russia or wherever....
I'm not pro or anti. The point is that the power stations produce the amount of energy required to produce them several hundred times over. Some contest that turbines don't. I don't know, and I'm not pretending that I do.
Embodied Carbon / Energy is only part of the story... its far more important to consider the Whole Life Carbon...
It needs to be considered over an extended period... not just the period which suits a particular lobby....
T1000 - Membernope not from the 3 manufacturers I've dealt with......
or you could try using google...for a second ....
Oh dear, the combination of random rudeness and millions of full stops is an endearing one, especially when I do as you suggest and the very first google hit, from wnn, supports the 40 year lifespan...
But for the sake of argument, let's ignore that and assume a 60 year lifespan. This tweaks the numbers to needing to build a new plant and decommission a new plant every 14 months or thereabouts, which is still a huge, continuing building program. And even then, that's just to achieve sustainability once we have adequate production, it's not very useful to just produce on that scale for now.
Yes, we can hope for better designs in the future but the reactors we can start planning today will be the designs we have today, so there'll be no massive change in the assumptions for productivity and lifespan- the bulk of our plants would be present-day designs for the long term.
Yep, he went into whole life carbon as well. Ill try and dig out the presentation.
If the focus changed from increasing production to reducing demand the energy issue would be solved in a few years.
No, it wouldn't. You still have to generate energy somehow. And no matter how well we insulate our homes, a lot of industry still needs a lot of power.