Carbon capture project cancelled

I like this bit “Scotland’s NHS is safe from Tory privatisation plans, our students have been protected from tuition fees for their higher education, and we are maintaining the 1,000 extra police officers on our streets while they are being cut south of the border.”

mafiafish – Member

When cost per kWh per pound is considered, nuclear power is cheaper than any fossil fuel (including decommissioning costs) (this is in every country save the USA, China and North Korea without carbon taxes/trading and extraction incentives/tax breaks come into effect).

Id like to see some real figures on that as its the most expensive energy in every analysis I have seen. Its subsidised heavily in the UK to make it competitive without the costs of decommissioning being added.

Choron =- and as usual you avoid the awkward questions, you assume new tech will come along that somehow magically will mean all the issues of nuclear will be solved.

To me nuclear is the waste of resources and R&D effort that should be going in to energy conservation and clean power.

I ask you again

Where will you get eh 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?

Chernobyl death toll – a million from your link.

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

All nuclear? Or just the kinds we’ve tried so far?

Actually.. why don’t the govt just ask TJ what to do on everything? He apparently knows.

Molgrips – what do you mean – are you wanting our future energy security to depend on some untried tech?

Its very noticeable that different countries are following going nuke free – when they look at the numbers and realise what an expensive dead end it is.

so tell me molgrips – what new nuclear tech do you want to base out future on? we have ten years to get this sorted.

Chernobyl death toll – a million from your link.

Tut Tut, you’re cherry picking estimates there. The range of deaths in that Wiki link is 31 to 1,000,000

Stop being disingenuous.

Its very noticeable that different countries are following going nuke free – when they look at the numbers and realise what an expensive dead end it is.

I suspect that that is more to do with a quest of political survival more than the economics argument.

That’s two logical fallacies there.

gonfishin – just cherry picking in reply to the cherry picking 🙂

As for it being political expediency – you mean governments doing what the people want?

you see the vast majority of the population have seen right thru the nuclear con. we have been lied to many times over and there is still no answers to the awkward questions.

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’d like the person wha asserted nuclear was cheaper even after decommisioning costs to back that up.

are you wanting our future energy security to depend on some untried tech?

Seems you are prepared to consider placing some of it on untried CCS

uponthedowns – not energy security no – but as a part of reducing greenhous gas emmisions You can still generate the power even is CCS does not work –

TJ, apologies if I appear to be dodging the question, I’m merely trying to make a point. The R&D money needs to be spent on something to improve our low-carbon generation capacity, fission scales up in a way that other things simply don’t.

As I said, I don’t have the answers to your specific questions about implementation, that is a question for large teams of nuclear engineers to puzzle over. Uranium is relatively abundant in the earths crust, and Thorium even more so. The cost of fuel is actually very low for fission power, which is one of its most attractive features.

Energy conservation and green power are all well and good, but you still need to get the power from somewhere. Are you aware of the amount of rare earth metals that are required for large-scale PV/wind generation? The price of rare earths alone might kill these technologies, when compared to nuclear.

My point is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong about getting a thousand or so years of energy from fission, while fossil fuels (clean or not) will run out much sooner.

I’m not sure about the problems that you cite with the abundance of Uranium, the world nuclear organisation says there are 5.5m tonnes of accessible reserves @$130/kg while global usage is about 60k tonnes using exclusively once-through reactors. This might only give us a hundred years or so, but as price goes up or efficiency goes up (ie FBR) this time will get much longer. I think I’ve seen a figure somewhere that FBRs will give us ~1000 years of energy at current global consumption levels using terrestrial Uranium, while using fuel from the sea extends this by a factor of 50?

Thorium is in my opinion a much more likely candidate, as it seems to produce far shorter lived waste. Also this is far more abundant, and produces no weaponisable isotopes, so yes this technology should definitely be shared globally.

New tech doesn’t come magically from nothing, it comes slowly from the hard work and long hours of many thousands of scientists and engineers. This work needs to be done and we have little time to waste.

I’m surprised you’re advocating for ‘clean’ fossil fuels though, when these fuels are inherently less clean (vast amounts of mining waste etc) and less sustainable in that at current rates of consumption, cost per unit energy is exploding. I very much agree with conservation efficiency and (limited) renewables though.

Interestingly, I hadn’t seen the reference to the 1 million casualties study of Chernobyl. I did read the book though: not peer reviewed and some fairly serious methodological flaws in my opinion (e.g. assuming that any increase in mortality over the entire former USSR was due to radiation when incomes and access to healthcare were collapsing). Most studies that I’m aware of come out in the region of 10-100k casualties, broadly similar to the Banqiao dam disaster.

Cost comparisons

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?
Pure class. 😆

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.

In all fairness he’s limited in what he can do in a conservation area, he could, however, if he is so concerned move. But like you Edukator he’s made a lifestyle choice regarding how and where he lives.

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

Factor in carbon taxes/fuel price fluctuations and boom, nuclear is cheaper or at least the same for a whole lot less co2 (and sulphur compounds, nitrates, political issues etc).

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 this 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.

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

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.