Nuclear power: is it the future?

Eoghan Barra

It now appears that we won't be running out of fossil fuels for a long time yet (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/). Rather than being a positive, that spells disaster for the earth's climate, as human society will just continue in a 'business as usual' way to pump carbon into the atmosphere over the coming years ('There is enough oil in the ground to deepfry the lot of us').

George Monbiot, like many other environmentalists (for e.g. James Lovelock, formulator of the Gaia theory), are now saying that the next generation of nuclear energy - Integral Fast Reactors (IFA) - should be a large part of the solution here. These use the waste left over from older-type reactors in the past to produce vast amounts of energy while actually reducing the radioactivity of the waste down to close to zero, on the face of it a win-win situation. (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/)

While many (myself included) would have been instinctively deeply opposed to nuclear, it is becoming clear that renewables are simply not going to be able to provide anything like the kind of quantities of energy that our society now demands and refuses to live without, which means that in the absence of serious alternatives, we are going to cook our planet to the point that it becomes uninhabitable for us and a great many of the species we share it with. Many are aware of the looming catastrophe of climate change, but fewer are as aware of the equally catastrophic collapse in biodiversity that is occurring worldwide right now, and which will be greatly exacerbated by climate change if it is not tackled in a very serious way straight away.

Perhaps we need to begin to open our minds to ideas that were once anathema - especially if reliable science suggests that there are no real drawbacks?

Eoghan Barra

Apologies for duplication with the other nuclear thread currently running (Brit nuclear reactor planned for Ireland?).

I first wrote the above as a reply to the debate on peak oil (Peak Oil at 2014?), but my reply was made into a new thread to avoid going off on tangents with that. I didn't realise there was already an ongoing thread on nuclear.

Eoghan Barra

[Quoted from Cap'n Midnight in Peak Oil by 2014?]:

"There is no question that there is plenty of oil in the ground. The first 1/3rd is easy after that the problem is the cost of extraction.

Peak oil means peak CHEAP oil.

The peak price for oil is about four times it's current price. Because that's the price point where it's cheaper to make it using renewables (hydrogen / oil from algae etc. ) than extract it from the ground.

Considering the massive amounts of energy used in recovering fossil fuel , up to 1/3rd of the original energy is lost during extraction and refining and transport it's likely that if the fossil fuel companies had to pay a market rate for the fuel they waste they'd use a lot more renewables.


Nuclear is interesting as peak uranium is also on the Horizon. The limiting factor here again it the amount of energy you need to recover it from increasingly poor ores, especially the granite ones because it's hard rock. Almost all of the energy comes from fossil fuel. Add to this the fossil fuel needed for decomissioning / waste repositories and it's fairly clear that significant expansion of nuclear will increase the demand for fossil fuel.

Nuclear power is not an alternative to fossil fuel over the full lifetime, it's just a way of getting more energy from fossil fuel now at the cost of having to provide more at end of life.

It's a battery, not an alternative power source.

Renewables on the other can extend fossil fuel. Gas has more or less replaced OIL in power stations world wide. So there is more oil for other uses."

[End quote]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The (apparent, I'm no expert) beauty of IFR technology is that you don't need to mine or process anything at all, you use up - rendering safe - waste that is presently radioactive and which nobody has any real idea what to do with. "There is already enough nuclear waste on earth to meet the world’s energy needs for several hundred years, with scarcely any carbon emissions." (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/)

I repeat that the idea of nuclear power is not one I would embrace without a fair amount of convincing - and I'm not convinced yet, but I do think that, given our present situation with regard to climate change and biodiversity loss, which scientists agree is heading towards the calamitous, every feasible option needs to be considered without prejudice.

Macha

The main problem I have with nuclear is the economics. It's just so bloody expensive. While the cost of renewables, smart grid technologies, transmission, storage etc are going down, nuclear is actually getting more expensive.

Also, to build out a system based on lots and lots of inflexible nuclear plus flexible renewables is a recipe for huge energy system costs.

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

The main problem I have with nuclear is the economics. It's just so bloody expensive. While the cost of renewables, smart grid technologies, transmission, storage etc are going down, nuclear is actually getting more expensive.

Also, to build out a system based on lots and lots of inflexible nuclear plus flexible renewables is a recipe for huge energy system costs.

Any solution to climate change and the consequent need to radically reduce fossil fuel consumption will clearly have to include renewables in the make up of energy sources. However, many are saying that these cannot realistically be expected to replace fossil fuels for quite a long time, so massive (and ever increasing) is our appetite for energy.

Another essential part of the equation will have to be to attempt to reduce that appetite. Unfortunately however, it's clear that there just isn't the political will to effect that (Kyoto etc.), probably because the majority of people have been led to believe that the be all and end all is continued economic growth, which necessarily requires continued growth in energy consumption.

The bottom line is that the majority of people don't care enough about such abstract (to them) notions as the millions of other species indigenous to this planet - those that still survive, that is. Particularly if it means having to take a hit in terms of the lifestyles to which we - in the west, but the rest of the world now wants the same - have become accustomed.

However, many people who are genuinely very, very, concerned about the consequences of present trends appear to be beginning to seriously doubt whether it's at all realistic - in the real world we live in - to continue to hope that renewables can resolve the situation alone, given the magnitude of the energy requirements we're talking about. If it's not, then those who blindly follow this path without considering viable alternatives will be as responsible as those who just didn't give enough of a monkey's about any of it.

It appears that IFR should be considered in a very separate way to all other (including current) generations of nuclear. In many ways it seems too good to be true, and perhaps it is, but we are in a situation that demands every possible solution be considered. Especially one that practically eliminates the serious hazard presented by the large amounts of radioactive waste that currently exist.

As regards the economics, I would repeat that much of our present difficulties are the result of a global culture that insists on subjugating everything to economics, which is a distilled form of madness. Nonetheless, it appears that IFR nuclear would probably be very cheap: "some estimates are as low as 2 [US] cents/kWh to produce". In addition, it seems that it "could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations". (http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/13/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power-q-and-a/)

I think it would be an understatement to say that we have a responsibility to investigate this further, given our present predicament.

Macha

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Any solution to climate change and the consequent need to radically reduce fossil fuel consumption will clearly have to include renewables in the make up of energy sources. However, many are saying that these cannot realistically be expected to replace fossil fuels for quite a long time, so massive (and ever increasing) is our appetite for energy.

They don't have to. There are a few things that can happen in the medium term. First thing is to phase out coal, lignite and peat power. And stop building new ones! But still, the growth in renewables is exponential and far oustripping any other sources in terms of capacity build out. Italy added 8GW of PV in 2011 alone. There are studies that indicate that renewables could provide almost half of the EU's energy by 2030.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Another essential part of the equation will have to be to attempt to reduce that appetite. Unfortunately however, it's clear that there just isn't the political will to effect that (Kyoto etc.), probably because the majority of people have been led to believe that the be all and end all is continued economic growth, which necessarily requires continued growth in energy consumption.

On increasing energy demand, there is huge scope for efficiency - a recent Fraunhofer ISI report showed 50% savings by 2030 throughout the EU are technically achievable.

I agree that political will is not great in this area but some of the resistance comes from countries where a huge amount of efficiency has already been achieved (ie Austria) and countries where they don't have the upfront capital (eg Poland, Romania etc). Much of what's needed here are the right financial mechanisms to unlock a lot of this potential.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

The bottom line is that the majority of people don't care enough about such abstract (to them) notions as the millions of other species indigenous to this planet - those that still survive, that is. Particularly if it means having to take a hit in terms of the lifestyles to which we - in the west, but the rest of the world now wants the same - have become accustomed.

I hear you. It doesn't help that we're very good at selling our completely unsustainable lifestyle to other parts of the planet.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

However, many people who are genuinely very, very, concerned about the consequences of present trends appear to be beginning to seriously doubt whether it's at all realistic - in the real world we live in - to continue to hope that renewables can resolve the situation alone, given the magnitude of the energy requirements we're talking about. If it's not, then those who blindly follow this path without considering viable alternatives will be as responsible as those who just didn't give enough of a monkey's about any of it.

I don't think it's fair to assume those who support renewables haven't considered the alternatives. I have and nuclear fails a number of tests. I'd like to know who, apart from a few people like Monbiot, are the ones who have suddenly decided renewables can't do it. This editorial from New Scientist sums up how I feel about.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

It appears that IFR should be considered in a very separate way to all other (including current) generations of nuclear. In many ways it seems too good to be true, and perhaps it is, but we are in a situation that demands every possible solution be considered. Especially one that practically eliminates the serious hazard presented by the large amounts of radioactive waste that currently exist.

I think one of the problems with IFR, and nuclear energy as a whole is that it's always just around the corner. You're talking about 4th generation nuclear when the nuclear industry is currently struggling to build a 3rd generation plant. If the IPCC is right that we need emissions to peak by 2020, new nuclear is not going to contribute to that in time. The plants they're discussing in the UK right now probably will come online in 2025 if they're lucky. So the IFR plants you're talking about would be lucky to see the commercial light of day in the first half of this century.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

As regards the economics, I would repeat that much of our present difficulties are the result of a global culture that insists on subjugating everything to economics, which is a distilled form of madness. Nonetheless, it appears that IFR nuclear would probably be very cheap: "some estimates are as low as 2 [US] cents/kWh to produce". In addition, it seems that it "could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations". (http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/13/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power-q-and-a/)

Honestly, the 'cost' of renewables is one of the main fronts of attack from the nuclear industry. I don't think it's one we can completely disregard, ie my point about trying to build out two incompatible systems.

I have read that nuclear was going to be 'too cheap to meter' in the 1960s. Today, UK energy customers are still paying for nuclear plants built in the 1970s. All major nuclear companies are state-backed and piled high with debt (see EDF's horrifying debt..) Nuclear plants still can't be built without direct government subsidies, let alone the indirect fuel processing, decommissioning and insurance-related subsidies. It's the only energy technology that has a negative learning curve, ie it gets more expensive as time passes, not the other way around. So I take hopes for the cheapness of nuclear in the future with a slab of salt.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I think it would be an understatement to say that we have a responsibility to investigate this further, given our present predicament.

Much as I understand the 'don't discount anything' logic, the reality is that new nuclear is not going to deliver in time to have any real impact on climate change. Moreover, the world's existing nuclear fleet is ageing - the average age is now over 28 years. And its share of global energy production is dropping annueally - in 2012 it was a more 4.5%.

By all means investigate but energy is a long-term game and we have responsibility to take decisions now that will decarbonise our energy system in as quick and effective a way as possible. I don't see nuclear as fulfilling either of those criteria.

Eoghan Barra

Hi Macha,

Thanks for your thoughtful and considered reply, much of which I agree with, some of which I partly agree with, and all of which I respect.

Unfortunately I haven't been well (put me back out very badly), so haven't had the mental energy (or desire) to give a proper response at the mo.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was the need for all of us - those who care enough - to be absolutely open minded (i.e. without bias based on long-held perceptions) about possible solutions to the very urgent need to replace fossil fuel-based sources of energy.

I believe any other approach will fail, with disastrous consequences.

Regards Eoghan

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

They don't have to. There are a few things that can happen in the medium term. First thing is to phase out coal, lignite and peat power. And stop building new ones! But still, the growth in renewables is exponential and far oustripping any other sources in terms of capacity build out. Italy added 8GW of PV in 2011 alone. There are studies that indicate that renewables could provide almost half of the EU's energy by 2030.

Agree with you 100% about the need to phase out coal, lignite and peat asap. Unfortunately it is exactly these energy sources that are being increased in Germany to replace nuclear energy post-Fukishima. Presently, the only energy sources which can provide large-scale baseload power are coal, hydroelectricity, and nuclear. Hydroelectric dams often cause massive environmental problems, and are only suitable in particular situations and this energy source is therefore very limited. Without nuclear, coal is the principle way of generating baseload electricity: that is the inescapable reality. I will be delighted if renewables do manage to produce almost half of Europe’s energy by 2030, and don’t doubt that it could happen if the political will is there (though that is a big if). But what about the other half? That will continue to be generated by fossil fuels unless things change.

Macha wrote: »

On increasing energy demand, there is huge scope for efficiency - a recent Fraunhofer ISI report showed 50% savings by 2030 throughout the EU are technically achievable.

I agree that political will is not great in this area but some of the resistance comes from countries where a huge amount of efficiency has already been achieved (ie Austria) and countries where they don't have the upfront capital (eg Poland, Romania etc). Much of what's needed here are the right financial mechanisms to unlock a lot of this potential.

Again I agree with you that, like renewables, increased efficiency has to be an important part of the solution. However, this (together with renewables) will not, imo, be enough to satisfy a massive and growing worldwide hunger for energy. Without nuclear, the balance will be made up of fossil fuels, and for generating electricity that essentially means coal.

Macha wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume those who support renewables haven't considered the alternatives. I have and nuclear fails a number of tests. I'd like to know who, apart from a few people like Monbiot, are the ones who have suddenly decided renewables can't do it. This editorial from New Scientist sums up how I feel about.

Fair point. I don’t want to try to appear all high and mighty about this. I am myself still exploring the whole subject, both in terms of my (possibly limited) knowledge of the science, and emotionally. Nuclear is something that I always had a deep aversion to until recently, so it does cause me some considerable discomfort to be arguing in its favour.

However, that aversion is overcome by very changed circumstances, i.e. the climate catastrophe currently befalling life on this planet, and which, looking around the world, is worsening by the day without an end in sight. Most of that damage is currently being caused by fossil fuels (though that is likely to change if positive feedbacks increase, in which case it's game over), especially coal, which you rightly identify as the worst culprit.

Aside from George Monbiot, James Lovelock and James Hansen, other prominent environmentalist who have abandoned their opposition to nuclear (or never were opposed in the first place) are the following: Tim Flannery (‘The Weather Makers’), Jared Diamond, James Howard Kunstler, Stewart Brand (‘Whole Earth Catalogue’), Paul Ehrlich (‘The Population Bomb’), Bill McKibben (350.org), Gwyneth Cravens, Patrick Moore (cofounder of Greenpeace), Hugh Montefiore (former trustee of UK Friends of the Earth, now deceased), Stephen Tindale (director of Greenpeace from 2001 to 2007), Al Gore (who usually avoids the subject in public, but who has also said he is 'not opposed to nuclear and expects it to grow’). There are probably many more that I am not aware of.

Friends of the Earth UK are currently revisiting their anti-nukes slance: http://www.marklynas.org/2012/06/friends-of-the-earth-considers-abandoning-anti-nuclear-stance/

I think many of those who are at the coalface (no pun intended) of understanding the damage climate collapse is causing to the environment, and the potential for exponentially increased further damage, are out front in facing up to the realities of what is necessary to end our disastrous use of fossil fuels.

Macha wrote: »

I think one of the problems with IFR, and nuclear energy as a whole is that it's always just around the corner. You're talking about 4th generation nuclear when the nuclear industry is currently struggling to build a 3rd generation plant. If the IPCC is right that we need emissions to peak by 2020, new nuclear is not going to contribute to that in time. The plants they're discussing in the UK right now probably will come online in 2025 if they're lucky. So the IFR plants you're talking about would be lucky to see the commercial light of day in the first half of this century.

Unfortunately IV generation r&d was axed in the US in the 90s for political reasons, but the science is pretty much sorted, afaik, and an experimental reactor is being built in France, I think. You are right though that it will take a good few years to get things up and running in terms of actual production. In the meantime that slack could be taken up by III gen. reactors, whose spent fuel could be used to power IV gen. when it comes online. Much of the delay in developing new generation nuclear stems from past opposition from the environmental movement, which once seemed justified; imo, in the face of looming climate collapse and improved nuclear technology, that is no longer the case.

Macha wrote: »

Honestly, the 'cost' of renewables is one of the main fronts of attack from the nuclear industry. I don't think it's one we can completely disregard, ie my point about trying to build out two incompatible systems.

I have read that nuclear was going to be 'too cheap to meter' in the 1960s. Today, UK energy customers are still paying for nuclear plants built in the 1970s. All major nuclear companies are state-backed and piled high with debt (see EDF's horrifying debt..) Nuclear plants still can't be built without direct government subsidies, let alone the indirect fuel processing, decommissioning and insurance-related subsidies. It's the only energy technology that has a negative learning curve, ie it gets more expensive as time passes, not the other way around. So I take hopes for the cheapness of nuclear in the future with a slab of salt.

Attacks on renewables, nuclear, or any other carbon-free energy sources on economic grounds are mostly based on comparisons with the price of coal, which may be very cheap in economic terms, but not in terms of the cost of climate collapse, which cannot be measured.

Macha wrote: »

Much as I understand the 'don't discount anything' logic, the reality is that new nuclear is not going to deliver in time to have any real impact on climate change. Moreover, the world's existing nuclear fleet is ageing - the average age is now over 28 years. And its share of global energy production is dropping annueally - in 2012 it was a more 4.5%.

By all means investigate but energy is a long-term game and we have responsibility to take decisions now that will decarbonise our energy system in as quick and effective a way as possible. I don't see nuclear as fulfilling either of those criteria.

I have to agree to disagree with you Macha: I think decarbonising our energy will require immediately deploying every available carbon-free source of energy, including nukes and, above all, increased energy efficiency. And even with all that, it’s probably touch-and-go whether we will avoid runaway climate change or not.

Macha

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Agree with you 100% about the need to phase out coal, lignite and peat asap. Unfortunately it is exactly these energy sources that are being increased in Germany to replace nuclear energy post-Fukishima. Presently, the only energy sources which can provide large-scale baseload power are coal, hydroelectricity, and nuclear. Hydroelectric dams often cause massive environmental problems, and are only suitable in particular situations and this energy source is therefore very limited. Without nuclear, coal is the principle way of generating baseload electricity: that is the inescapable reality. I will be delighted if renewables do manage to produce almost half of Europe’s energy by 2030, and don’t doubt that it could happen if the political will is there (though that is a big if). But what about the other half? That will continue to be generated by fossil fuels unless things change.

It isn't true that fossil fuels are being increased in Germany to replace phased out nuclear. For a start, gas use isn't going up in Germany, it's going down. Coal is going up in Germany, and all across Europe, because it's cheaper to burn than gas right now and the carbon price provided by the ETS is insufficient to keep it out of the system like it should. Moreover, Germany is a net exporter of electricity so the coal is not being burned to cover nuclear but is exported at a profit to neighbouring countries.

You're stuck on the idea that we need baseload. What we need is a flexible system and nukes and coal are the most inflexible energy technologies we have today. You're assumptions also about coal being the only baseload alernative to nukes is false: with a proper carbon price in place, gas should replace coal in most countries. In fact, in Ireland, we use far more gas than coal to generate electricity.

As for 2030, yes the other half would be gas. Given some decent energy saving, that would mean the energy system would provide around a 60% carbon saving, well within Europe's expected decarbonisation strategy as part of the developed world.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Again I agree with you that, like renewables, increased efficiency has to be an important part of the solution. However, this (together with renewables) will not, imo, be enough to satisfy a massive and growing worldwide hunger for energy. Without nuclear, the balance will be made up of fossil fuels, and for generating electricity that essentially means coal.

I don't think you understand: I'm not talking about improved energy intensity, I'm talking about reduced energy consumption. And again, you make the false assumption that the only alternative to nuclear is coal. THIS is the entirely false myth that nukes advocates fall back on every.single.time.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Fair point. I don’t want to try to appear all high and mighty about this. I am myself still exploring the whole subject, both in terms of my (possibly limited) knowledge of the science, and emotionally. Nuclear is something that I always had a deep aversion to until recently, so it does cause me some considerable discomfort to be arguing in its favour.

However, that aversion is overcome by very changed circumstances, i.e. the climate catastrophe currently befalling life on this planet, and which, looking around the world, is worsening by the day without an end in sight. Most of that damage is currently being caused by fossil fuels (though that is likely to change if positive feedbacks increase, in which case it's game over), especially coal, which you rightly identify as the worst culprit.

Aside from George Monbiot, James Lovelock and James Hansen, other prominent environmentalist who have abandoned their opposition to nuclear (or never were opposed in the first place) are the following: Tim Flannery (‘The Weather Makers’), Jared Diamond, James Howard Kunstler, Stewart Brand (‘Whole Earth Catalogue’), Paul Ehrlich (‘The Population Bomb’), Bill McKibben (350.org), Gwyneth Cravens, Patrick Moore (cofounder of Greenpeace), Hugh Montefiore (former trustee of UK Friends of the Earth, now deceased), Stephen Tindale (director of Greenpeace from 2001 to 2007), Al Gore (who usually avoids the subject in public, but who has also said he is 'not opposed to nuclear and expects it to grow’). There are probably many more that I am not aware of.

Friends of the Earth UK are currently revisiting their anti-nukes slance: http://www.marklynas.org/2012/06/friends-of-the-earth-considers-abandoning-anti-nuclear-stance/

I think many of those who are at the coalface (no pun intended) of understanding the damage climate collapse is causing to the environment, and the potential for exponentially increased further damage, are out front in facing up to the realities of what is necessary to end our disastrous use of fossil fuels.

Mark Lynas is a pro-nukes shill and I wouldn't believe anything that's written by him on the issue. Friends of the Earth UK are completely anti-nuclear. If you know anything about FOE UK, you'd know that nukes are anathema to what they stand for. A number of FOE offices across Europe have just launched a Community Power programme to get communities investing in renewable energy. I'd like to see them try to build a nukes plant around that sort of business plan..

The other people you've mentioned are small group of high-profile individuals who support nuclear but none of them work for an environmental organisation. I ask you to find one environmental organisation that is actively pro-nukes. You won't find it. And I wouldn't call these individuals "at the coal-face" of anything. They are all academics.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Unfortunately IV generation r&d was axed in the US in the 90s for political reasons, but the science is pretty much sorted, afaik, and an experimental reactor is being built in France, I think. You are right though that it will take a good few years to get things up and running in terms of actual production. In the meantime that slack could be taken up by III gen. reactors, whose spent fuel could be used to power IV gen. when it comes online. Much of the delay in developing new generation nuclear stems from past opposition from the environmental movement, which once seemed justified; imo, in the face of looming climate collapse and improved nuclear technology, that is no longer the case.

Sorry but that is entirely false. Opposition by the environmental movement has not been the root cause of most of the delays. I'd like to see some sort of proof to back up that preposterous claim.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Attacks on renewables, nuclear, or any other carbon-free energy sources on economic grounds are mostly based on comparisons with the price of coal, which may be very cheap in economic terms, but not in terms of the cost of climate collapse, which cannot be measured.

Carbon impacts can be priced in. Analyses do it all the time. The fact remains that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy generation every invented by man and it's only ever gotten more expensive.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I have to agree to disagree with you Macha: I think decarbonising our energy will require immediately deploying every available carbon-free source of energy, including nukes and, above all, increased energy efficiency. And even with all that, it’s probably touch-and-go whether we will avoid runaway climate change or not.

You miss my point: nuclear will not have any short term impact on the world's climate emissions. Period. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report came out again in July. Today, nuclear generates less than 4.5% of the world's energy and the global nuclear fleet just keeps getting older. The average age is now at 28 years. We would need to build around 1,500 nukes plants worldwide to make any kind of dent in global climate emissions. Not only will that cost an astronomical amount of money, current units have been under construction for 10 years, 9 units have been under construction for more than 20 years (!). That's not good enough.

Since agreement in 2007 that Europe should cut its emissions by 20% on 1990 levels, Europe has built zero nuclear plants. Yet we are way ahead of ourselves, having already achieved an 18% cut by 2012. What did the European Environmental Agency say were the key tools that cut emissions? Renewable energy and energy efficiency. We would be fools to ignore that.

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

It isn't true that fossil fuels are being increased in Germany to replace phased out nuclear. For a start, gas use isn't going up in Germany, it's going down. Coal is going up in Germany, and all across Europe, because it's cheaper to burn than gas right now and the carbon price provided by the ETS is insufficient to keep it out of the system like it should. Moreover, Germany is a net exporter of electricity so the coal is not being burned to cover nuclear but is exported at a profit to neighbouring countries.

You're stuck on the idea that we need baseload. What we need is a flexible system and nukes and coal are the most inflexible energy technologies we have today. You're assumptions also about coal being the only baseload alernative to nukes is false: with a proper carbon price in place, gas should replace coal in most countries. In fact, in Ireland, we use far more gas than coal to generate electricity.

As for 2030, yes the other half would be gas. Given some decent energy saving, that would mean the energy system would provide around a 60% carbon saving, well within Europe's expected decarbonisation strategy as part of the developed world.

If nuclear is being phased out in Germany, which it is, then the energy previously provided by nukes has to come from somewhere else. As you say, coal use is going up in Germany; it is logical that the deficit (whether for export or not) due to the loss of nuclear will mostly be filled by coal.

You talk about gas as though it were not a fossil fuel: it is. While admittedly cleaner than coal, it contributes as all fossil fuels do to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. When it escapes without being burnt, and a certain amount of that is inevitable, it has 25-30 times the impact of CO2. You are, as far as I can see, agreeing with me that the shortfall in power (which you - probably very optimistically - put at over 50% in 2030) left by renewables, will be met by fossil fuels. And that is just the EU, what about India etc... ? This is probably the crux of our disagreement Macha: I absolutely agree with you about the need to expand renewables at all costs, but I think to continue to rely on fossil fuels for the rest is madness.

When you say that I am stuck on the idea of baseload, can you explain what you propose as the alternative? Solar and wind energy cannot presently be stored, so they are only available when the sun shines or the wind blows. Therefore, while important, they cannot be relied upon 'to keep the lights on'.

Macha wrote: »

I don't think you understand: I'm not talking about improved energy intensity, I'm talking about reduced energy consumption. And again, you make the false assumption that the only alternative to nuclear is coal. THIS is the entirely false myth that nukes advocates fall back on every.single.time.

Do you seriously think that global society will accept reduced energy consumption right now? We live with an economic system based on continual growth, which in turn requires continual growth in energy consumption. You and me will agree that it would be better if that were to change, but for the moment that is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, much of the population in the developing world has no access to electricity at all. Those people are far from content with that situation, and their countries will do what they see fit to provide it to them. That boils down to increased, not decreased, energy demand.

Macha wrote: »

Mark Lynas is a pro-nukes shill and I wouldn't believe anything that's written by him on the issue. Friends of the Earth UK are completely anti-nuclear. If you know anything about FOE UK, you'd know that nukes are anathema to what they stand for. A number of FOE offices across Europe have just launched a Community Power programme to get communities investing in renewable energy. I'd like to see them try to build a nukes plant around that sort of business plan..

The other people you've mentioned are small group of high-profile individuals who support nuclear but none of them work for an environmental organisation. I ask you to find one environmental organisation that is actively pro-nukes. You won't find it. And I wouldn't call these individuals "at the coal-face" of anything. They are all academics.

I'm having to guess what a shill is, but I think you're mistaken to demonise someone you disagree with. Whatever his defects, it is unfair to dismiss his opinions as somehow not genuine unless there is evidence to that effect.

I would say there are conflicting opinions on the subject within FoE UK, but they are nonetheless, looking again at the issue, unless Lynas has invented the story entirely. Childs is careful to state that this regards only FoE UK, not FoE in other countries.

More importantly, if you choose, you can dismiss people like James Lovelock, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Jared Diamond, Paul Ehrlich, etc., but as far as I am concerned, these are (some of) the exact people we should be listening to. Where would we be, for example, without Lovelock's electron capture detector that led to Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring', his detection of environmental PCBs, his discovery of atmospheric chloroflourocarbons and their role in ozone depletion, his Gaia hypothesis, which has revolutionised our whole understanding of how this planet works?

Macha wrote: »

Sorry but that is entirely false. Opposition by the environmental movement has not been the root cause of most of the delays. I'd like to see some sort of proof to back up that preposterous claim.

It is anything but a preposterous claim. A strong anti-nuclear stance has been part of environmental activism for decades: do you think that has had no effect? Why do you think nuclear was abandoned in Germany post-Fukishima? James Hansen believes that the reason that the plug was pulled on R&D into IV generation nukes in the US was to appease support for the Democratic Party from the anti-nukes sector. Otherwise it was an entirely unjustified decision which made no sense. (Storms of my Grandchildren, p. 200).

Macha wrote: »

Carbon impacts can be priced in. Analyses do it all the time. The fact remains that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy generation every invented by man and it's only ever gotten more expensive.

Can you (or the analysts) price in climate collapse? I doubt it.

Macha wrote: »

You miss my point: nuclear will not have any short term impact on the world's climate emissions. Period. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report came out again in July. Today, nuclear generates less than 4.5% of the world's energy and the global nuclear fleet just keeps getting older. The average age is now at 28 years. We would need to build around 1,500 nukes plants worldwide to make any kind of dent in global climate emissions. Not only will that cost an astronomical amount of money, current units have been under construction for 10 years, 9 units have been under construction for more than 20 years (!). That's not good enough.

Since agreement in 2007 that Europe should cut its emissions by 20% on 1990 levels, Europe has built zero nuclear plants. Yet we are way ahead of ourselves, having already achieved an 18% cut by 2012. What did the European Environmental Agency say were the key tools that cut emissions? Renewable energy and energy efficiency. We would be fools to ignore that.

I think 1,500 nuclear plants would make more than a 'dent in global climate emissions', considering how much fossil fuels would need to be burnt in their place. Any carbon-free energy sources including wind farms, hydroelectric dams etc cost an 'astronomical amount of money', but that cannot be compared to the cost of losing a stable climate. I wonder does the global recession have anything to do with the reduced emissions in Europe? Probably.

As I see it, the most important difference between our viewpoints Macha is your belief that fossil fuels should continue to provide most of our energy demand into the relatively distant future, despite the dire situation we are faced with in the form of climate collapse. If I have understood you wrongly on that point, please correct me. I'd also like to hear your alternative to baseload power.

Macha

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

If nuclear is being phased out in Germany, which it is, then the energy previously provided by nukes has to come from somewhere else. As you say, coal use is going up in Germany; it is logical that the deficit (whether for export or not) due to the loss of nuclear will mostly be filled by coal.

No, it isn't logical. It's being filled with renewables. You really seem to have a black spot when it comes to them...

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

You talk about gas as though it were not a fossil fuel: it is. While admittedly cleaner than coal, it contributes as all fossil fuels do to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. When it escapes without being burnt, and a certain amount of that is inevitable, it has 25-30 times the impact of CO2. You are, as far as I can see, agreeing with me that the shortfall in power (which you - probably very optimistically - put at over 50% in 2030) left by renewables, will be met by fossil fuels. And that is just the EU, what about India etc... ? This is probably the crux of our disagreement Macha: I absolutely agree with you about the need to expand renewables at all costs, but I think to continue to rely on fossil fuels for the rest is madness.

Even taking into account methane leakage, natural gas has a much lower carbon impact than coal, plus it doesn't contribute particulate matter (yes a non-climate environmental concern).

I didn't say we need to rely on fossil fuels for the rest in the long term. But medium-term, ie til 2030, fossil fuels are here to stay and I don't think it is technologically possible to phase them out any faster than getting them down to 50% in 2030, in Europe at least. If you'd like to show me some study that shows we can do it faster, I'd really, really like to see it.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

When you say that I am stuck on the idea of baseload, can you explain what you propose as the alternative? Solar and wind energy cannot presently be stored, so they are only available when the sun shines or the wind blows. Therefore, while important, they cannot be relied upon 'to keep the lights on'.

Sorry this is a whole other thread but baseload is the old way of doing things. Today, it's about flexibility, interconnection, smarter distribution grids, dynamic energy pricing, balancing markets, a good geographic spread of renewables, intra-day trading, aggregation of renewables, etc etc etc. Storage is one unimportant element that is becoming less important.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Do you seriously think that global society will accept reduced energy consumption right now? We live with an economic system based on continual growth, which in turn requires continual growth in energy consumption. You and me will agree that it would be better if that were to change, but for the moment that is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, much of the population in the developing world has no access to electricity at all. Those people are far from content with that situation, and their countries will do what they see fit to provide it to them. That boils down to increased, not decreased, energy demand.

Europe has decreased its overall energy consumption since 1990 by about 10% yet GDP has increased about 48%. If we're to tackle the energy challenge, blindly assuming that we can't disconnect energy consumption from economic growth is not a good place to start. Yes, there will be in increase in demand for electricity, even in Europe where the trend of electrification continues in other sectors. I'll give you an example, however, of how much of the electrification of the developing world is happening: through solar power:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5059

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I'm having to guess what a shill is, but I think you're mistaken to demonise someone you disagree with. Whatever his defects, it is unfair to dismiss his opinions as somehow not genuine unless there is evidence to that effect.

I'm sorry but the guy is paid by the nuclear industry. I don't consider him an unbiased source of information on the sector.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I would say there are conflicting opinions on the subject within FoE UK, but they are nonetheless, looking again at the issue, unless Lynas has invented the story entirely. Childs is careful to state that this regards only FoE UK, not FoE in other countries.

I know the people in FOE quite well, actually, and there is no shadow of support for nuclear. Lynas has invented the story. Here's what FOE UK has to say on the issue:

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/nuclear_index.html

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

More importantly, if you choose, you can dismiss people like James Lovelock, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Jared Diamond, Paul Ehrlich, etc., but as far as I am concerned, these are (some of) the exact people we should be listening to. Where would we be, for example, without Lovelock's electron capture detector that led to Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring', his detection of environmental PCBs, his discovery of atmospheric chloroflourocarbons and their role in ozone depletion, his Gaia hypothesis, which has revolutionised our whole understanding of how this planet works?

Again a small handful of people and the only one of which I can see who is actively involved with an environmental organisation, Bill McKibben rejects nuclear on economic grounds.

Lovelock was right on the PCBs. That doesn't mean he's right on everything else.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

It is anything but a preposterous claim. A strong anti-nuclear stance has been part of environmental activism for decades: do you think that has had no effect? Why do you think nuclear was abandoned in Germany post-Fukishima? James Hansen believes that the reason that the plug was pulled on R&D into IV generation nukes in the US was to appease support for the Democratic Party from the anti-nukes sector. Otherwise it was an entirely unjustified decision which made no sense. (Storms of my Grandchildren, p. 200).

Oh my god, you are so mistaken! The German decision to phase out nuclear was taken in 2000 under Chanceller Schroder. Look it up.

And you still haven't actually given any evidence of how much of a project or projects delay is due to objections and how much to other reasons.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Can you (or the analysts) price in climate collapse? I doubt it.

Stern did quite a good report on it back in 2007. He's launching a new report quite soon, or so I hear. Look up 'economic cost climate change' and see what you find.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I think 1,500 nuclear plants would make more than a 'dent in global climate emissions', considering how much fossil fuels would need to be burnt in their place. Any carbon-free energy sources including wind farms, hydroelectric dams etc cost an 'astronomical amount of money', but that cannot be compared to the cost of losing a stable climate. I wonder does the global recession have anything to do with the reduced emissions in Europe? Probably.

Please stop just making assumptions that suit your point of view. Go look up the EEA report I mentioned. No? OK, I'll quote from the head of the EEA:

“The EEA’s latest analysis confirms that renewable energy and energy efficiency are having a significant effect on bringing down emissions,” said Hans Bruyninckx, the EEA’s executive director. “We must keep building on this success.”

By the way, you can keep talking about how calamitous climate change will be: it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is a zillion times more expensive than renewables or efficiency.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

As I see it, the most important difference between our viewpoints Macha is your belief that fossil fuels should continue to provide most of our energy demand into the relatively distant future, despite the dire situation we are faced with in the form of climate collapse. If I have understood you wrongly on that point, please correct me. I'd also like to hear your alternative to baseload power.

What a total misrepresentation of my position. I have no idea how you propose that your solution, ie building nuclear plants that take decades to build, is going to have a faster impact on phasing out fossil fuels than my proposal, which is to focus on the fastest and cheapest solutions, ie efficiency and renewables but don't accuse me of being pro-fossil fuels based on your flawed understanding of what's technically possible to achieve in 20 years in an energy system. Good God we could start building thousands of nuclear power plants right now and it would be at least 10 years before they replace one tonne of coal.

Capt'n Midnight

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

When you say that I am stuck on the idea of baseload, can you explain what you propose as the alternative? Solar and wind energy cannot presently be stored, so they are only available when the sun shines or the wind blows. Therefore, while important, they cannot be relied upon 'to keep the lights on'.

Over large regions renewables average out to some extent. I've posted before on US studies that show that by having some excess renewables you only need to rely on gas peaking for a few % of the time. The gas plants already exist. Norwegian Hydro already exists. The UK installed nearly 1GW of solar last year.

Do you seriously think that global society will accept reduced energy consumption right now?

yes.
transport fuel efficiency has gone up.
hybrid cars will get more common

Does any one have stats on all island fuel imports ?
(the price difference at the border skews looking at either side)

compare the costs for heating more energy efficient homes , lower fuel usage doesn't mean less comfort.

lighting will switch from incandescents to LED over the next few years , another area with reduced energy usage.

people are moving from desktops to laptops to tablets

TV's are more energy efficient but bigger - so no change there

I'd argue that there is an underlying trend towards lower energy use as a reaction to the price. The trick is to use it smarter.

I think 1,500 nuclear plants would make more than a 'dent in global climate emissions',

That's 3 times as many as already exist. very roughly that's building a new plant once a week for the next 30 years and then you've to start again.


lets pretend you can get enough uranium to for the initial charge (at one point 7% of electricity in the US was used for isotope separation) , and a supply to refuel them for 35 years. ( you can't ) you have the small problem of where the energy to produce the concrete will come from. A wind turbine is energy neutral in as little as six months. It's unlikely that you could get a nuclear power plant running in ten years even if there was no competition for resources. And many years more before it repays the Carbon and energy used for it's construction.

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

No, it isn't logical. It's being filled with renewables. You really seem to have a black spot when it comes to them...

Quote from James Hansen's 'Storms of my Grandchildren', p. 181 (he is talking about his discussions with Sigmar Gabriel, German minister for the environment in 2007, in which Hansen was attempting to encourage a move away from coal):

"Then, in the final minutes of our meeting, the underlying story emerged with clarity: Coal use was essential, Minister Gabriel said, because Germany was going to phase out nuclear power. Period. It was a political decision, and it was not negotiable."

And George Monbiot:

"In June, Angela Merkel announced that she would bridge the generation gap caused by shutting down nuclear plants by doubling the volume of coal-fired power stations Germany will build over the next ten years."

Clearer than that...

As I have repeated now on several occasions, I believe renewables are essential if a solution is to be found: there is no black spot there on my part; you should reflect on your own black spots (more on this at the end of this post).

Macha wrote: »

Even taking into account methane leakage, natural gas has a much lower carbon impact than coal, plus it doesn't contribute particulate matter (yes a non-climate environmental concern).

I didn't say we need to rely on fossil fuels for the rest in the long term. But medium-term, ie til 2030, fossil fuels are here to stay and I don't think it is technologically possible to phase them out any faster than getting them down to 50% in 2030, in Europe at least. If you'd like to show me some study that shows we can do it faster, I'd really, really like to see it.

I'll address this at the end of this post, as I think it is central to our differences.

Macha wrote: »

Sorry this is a whole other thread but baseload is the old way of doing things. Today, it's about flexibility, interconnection, smarter distribution grids, dynamic energy pricing, balancing markets, a good geographic spread of renewables, intra-day trading, aggregation of renewables, etc etc etc. Storage is one unimportant element that is becoming less important.

Sorry, but that is not an answer, it is an offhand dismissal. If you don't want to answer the question here then don't, but you won't convince me or anyone else with that approach.

Macha wrote: »

Europe has decreased its overall energy consumption since 1990 by about 10% yet GDP has increased about 48%. If we're to tackle the energy challenge, blindly assuming that we can't disconnect energy consumption from economic growth is not a good place to start. Yes, there will be in increase in demand for electricity, even in Europe where the trend of electrification continues in other sectors. I'll give you an example, however, of how much of the electrification of the developing world is happening: through solar power:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5059

I must admit that I wasn't aware that Europe had made such progress on this front, and therefore stand corrected on that. I hope we can both learn from this discussion. However, it does not change the fact that global energy demand is rising steeply and is expected to continue to do so well into the future (see graph):

http://oneinabillionblog.com/summary-2/collapse/expensive-energy/

Solar providing power to 100,000 in India is a very good thing, and once again I repeat that I am all for that and other similar approaches. However, your example covers about 1 part in 10,000 of the Indian population and, as far as I can gather, only covers lighting needs, i.e. a tiny fraction of domestic requirements for that country. And that is without taking into account the needs of industry etc.

Macha wrote: »

I'm sorry but the guy is paid by the nuclear industry. I don't consider him an unbiased source of information on the sector.

If that's true, then you are right to doubt what he says. But you provide no evidence for it.

Macha wrote: »

I know the people in FOE quite well, actually, and there is no shadow of support for nuclear. Lynas has invented the story.

Ok, so Lynas has invented the story. So show me where FoE UK angrily refute it, as they logically would if he had concocted it all out of thin air?

A

Macha wrote: »

gain a small handful of people and the only one of which I can see who is actively involved with an environmental organisation, Bill McKibben rejects nuclear on economic grounds.

"Environmentalists need to understand that times and circumstances change, and they need to rethink priorities. It's not enough for greens to say that nuclear power is risky and comes with consequences; everything comes with consequences." - Bill McKibben writing in the environmental publication OnEarth. He agrees with the IPCC that nuclear "should provide 18% of the planet's electricity, up from 16% at the moment."

Macha wrote: »

Lovelock was right on the PCBs. That doesn't mean he's right on everything else.

The implication here is that Lovelock has been wrong on everything other than PCBs. Well, there is no other human being alive that has been so consistently decades ahead of the rest of crowd in understanding what's going on now and what's coming down the line. That of course doesn't mean everything he or anyone else says should be accepted uncritically, but it does mean we should listen carefully to his opinions and take them very seriously.

Macha wrote: »

Oh my god, you are so mistaken! The German decision to phase out nuclear was taken in 2000 under Chanceller Schroder. Look it up.

Look it up yourself:

"...when Merkel was re-elected chancellor with the support of the FDP following the 2009 Bundestag elections, her government passed a law extending the operating lives of the country's 17 nuclear power plants by 8–14 years each.[36] Then, in March 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, the Merkel government reversed course. It immediately shut down about 40% of its nuclear generating capacity (8 of 17 plants) and announced plans to shut all other nuclear plants within a decade."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany)

Macha wrote: »

Stern did quite a good report on it back in 2007. He's launching a new report quite soon, or so I hear. Look up 'economic cost climate change' and see what you find.

I'm not talking about climate change, i.e. more frequent storms and rising sea-levels, but runaway climate change, or climate collapse. Neither Stern nor anyone else can 'cost in' climate collapse: if that happens - and we are well on the way, large parts of the planet will become uninhabitable. How on Earth can anyone 'cost that in'?

Macha wrote: »

By the way, you can keep talking about how calamitous climate change will be: it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is a zillion times more expensive than renewables or efficiency.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of how grave the climate situation is, and that probably goes a long way towards accounting for our different perspectives on this. 'How calamitous climate change will be' is not just a minor detail that I eccentrically choose to repeat over and over, it is the basis from which we should all be looking at the future, particularly our future energy sources.

Macha wrote: »

What a total misrepresentation of my position. I have no idea how you propose that your solution, ie building nuclear plants that take decades to build, is going to have a faster impact on phasing out fossil fuels than my proposal, which is to focus on the fastest and cheapest solutions, ie efficiency and renewables but don't accuse me of being pro-fossil fuels based on your flawed understanding of what's technically possible to achieve in 20 years in an energy system. Good God we could start building thousands of nuclear power plants right now and it would be at least 10 years before they replace one tonne of coal.

With respect Macha, it is not a misrepresentation of your position, but an honest assessment. And instead of refuting it point by point you attack me on nuclear.

You say "There are studies that indicate that renewables could provide almost half of the EU's energy by 2030." That is one opinion of what could be possible. It regards Europe, which is well ahead of the rest of the world in terms of renewables. But, most importantly, even this probably very optimistic view accepts that the rest of our energy supplies (over half) will have to continue to come from fossil fuels in 2030, i.e. 17 years from now, which means continuing a very substantial use of fossil fuels well beyond that. And I repeat, that is a best possible scenario in the most advanced area (in terms of renewables) on the planet. It does not take into account the rest of the world or the fact that renewables may fall well short of those levels in Europe by 2030.

You are proposing that we continue to view fossil fuels, whether it's gas or any of the others, as an acceptable mainstay of energy generation well into the future, rather than something which needs to be abandoned at all costs. So when I say that "the most important difference between our viewpoints Macha is your belief that fossil fuels should continue to provide most of our energy demand into the relatively distant future, despite the dire situation we are faced with in the form of climate collapse", it is not a misrepresentation at all, it is identifying the kernel of our difference of opinion on this issue. To go back to your talk of black spots, I think you have a black spot in facing up to the fact that you prefer fossil fuels to nuclear, despite the fact that fossil fuels are causing climate breakdown.

I do agree with you you that renewables probably have the potential to supply all energy needs at some time in the future, with fossil fuels consequently made redundant. Where we differ is in our assessment of how urgently that needs to be accomplished. Your talk of 'costing in' climate collapse is demonstration of that.

Fundamentally, we differ in your view that one of the most important sources of carbon-free energy available to us, i.e. nuclear, should be ignored. It is obvious that deploying all carbon-free sources of energy - including nukes - would allow us to decarbonise quicker than renewables alone.

Macha

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Quote from James Hansen's 'Storms of my Grandchildren', p. 181 (he is talking about his discussions with Sigmar Gabriel, German minister for the environment in 2007, in which Hansen was attempting to encourage a move away from coal):

"Then, in the final minutes of our meeting, the underlying story emerged with clarity: Coal use was essential, Minister Gabriel said, because Germany was going to phase out nuclear power. Period. It was a political decision, and it was not negotiable."

And George Monbiot:

"In June, Angela Merkel announced that she would bridge the generation gap caused by shutting down nuclear plants by doubling the volume of coal-fired power stations Germany will build over the next ten years."

Clearer than that...

As I have repeated now on several occasions, I believe renewables are essential if a solution is to be found: there is no black spot there on my part; you should reflect on your own black spots (more on this at the end of this post).

OK let's break out the nerdy energy statistics :pac: : in 2011, the year that Germany took 8 nuclear reactors offline, German carbon emissions dropped 2.9%. In 2012, emissions went up 1.6% but that was due to a switch from natural gas back to coal. Coal and lignite generation went up 15 TWh and gas went down by 13 TWh. That, as I said before, is because burning coal was (and still is) cheaper than burning gas due to cheap coal imports from the US and a weak ETS price. Nukes went down 9 TWh and renewables more than compensated by increasing by 13 TWh. Interestingly, German actually exported 17 TWh of electricity in 2012.

As for the construction of coal plants, this graph (in German) is very informative. It shows that 8 new coal plants are under construction in Germany. However, if you look at the status of these projects, you can see that the latest these project were approved was 2009. In addition, the green section shows coal plant projects that have been abandoned (6 have been abandoned since Fukushima).

TL;DR: since Fukushima, Germany has started building zero new coal plants and has abandoned 6 coal plant projects.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Sorry, but that is not an answer, it is an offhand dismissal. If you don't want to answer the question here then don't, but you won't convince me or anyone else with that approach.

You want me to explain in detail the entire workings of an energy system based on flexibility? That is the topic of a thesis, not a boards post. You can read into it, with, for example, studies like this one: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,3779,en.html

The measures I listed are the main elements that make up the system, including the generation, the infrastructure and the market rules. I really don't know how I can explain it in a way that doesn't turn into a book.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I must admit that I wasn't aware that Europe had made such progress on this front, and therefore stand corrected on that. I hope we can both learn from this discussion. However, it does not change the fact that global energy demand is rising steeply and is expected to continue to do so well into the future (see graph):

http://oneinabillionblog.com/summary-2/collapse/expensive-energy/

Solar providing power to 100,000 in India is a very good thing, and once again I repeat that I am all for that and other similar approaches. However, your example covers about 1 part in 10,000 of the Indian population and, as far as I can gather, only covers lighting needs, i.e. a tiny fraction of domestic requirements for that country. And that is without taking into account the needs of industry etc.

I'm not familiar with the study that graph is based on but I assume it is a baseline, or reference scenario, ie, what would happen if we don't implement policies. Feel free to correct me.

In my experience, developing countries are a mix of latent energy demand and shocking energy inefficiency. If you look at the poorest country in Europe, Bulgaria, it actually has some of the highest energy efficiency potential in Europe. Buildings, for example, have almost no insulation. In fact, globally, the IEA's WEO shows that if we're to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, 49% of the emission reductions are going to come from savings. The WEO also goes into specific measures for every country, including developing countries.

As for my example, you're right, it is an example. But a distributed solar system is the fastest and cleanest way to electrify rural populations in developing countries. Solar PV can be used for other electrical appliances than lighting and solar thermal can provide heating for water and spaces.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Ok, so Lynas has invented the story. So show me where FoE UK angrily refute it, as they logically would if he had concocted it all out of thin air?

From what I know of the episode, they wrote a blog about it, refuting Lynas's headline. What happened was FOE UK had commissioned a study about nuclear and Childs was discussing the report with Lynas in advance of its publication. The study has since been published and according to Childs himself, reconfirms FOE UK's anti-nuclear stance.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

"Environmentalists need to understand that times and circumstances change, and they need to rethink priorities. It's not enough for greens to say that nuclear power is risky and comes with consequences; everything comes with consequences." - Bill McKibben writing in the environmental publication OnEarth. He agrees with the IPCC that nuclear "should provide 18% of the planet's electricity, up from 16% at the moment."

The continuation of that quote is: "The trouble, however, is that Cravens does a less credible job of asking another, even more important, question: whether nuclear reactors represent the wisest possible alternative to fossil fuels.". It's a book review from 2007. Also his statement on the IPCC projection is just that: a confirmation of a projection of the IPCC, not any sort of opinion for or against.

This is what he has said more recently (Dec 2012):

McKibben: Yeah, nuclear power, I mean—it’s just too expensive. It really isn’t going to happen. I wrote a big piece in National Geographic about energy in China, and even the Chinese, they’re spending more than anybody [on nuclear] and they’re saying it’ll be three percent of their electricity supply. It’s not viable. The really cool thing—here is a book to go look at. It just came out as a ninety-nine cent Kindle Single. It’s by a guy named Osha Davidson, it’s called Clean Break, and it’s about what’s going on in Germany, which is un-****ing-believable. Munich’s north of Montreal, and there were days this month when they got half their energy from solar panels. It has nothing to do with technology or location—it’s all political will, and they have it.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

The implication here is that Lovelock has been wrong on everything other than PCBs. Well, there is no other human being alive that has been so consistently decades ahead of the rest of crowd in understanding what's going on now and what's coming down the line. That of course doesn't mean everything he or anyone else says should be accepted uncritically, but it does mean we should listen carefully to his opinions and take them very seriously.

Woah, I did not say that Lovelock has been wrong on everything else! I'm just saying using the argument to authority about the energy system when the guy you're quoting is a chemist is problematic. I've had medical doctors try to argue with me about climate change: they forget they have a scientific qualification but they're not climatologists (nor am I for that matter, ahem...).

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Look it up yourself:

"...when Merkel was re-elected chancellor with the support of the FDP following the 2009 Bundestag elections, her government passed a law extending the operating lives of the country's 17 nuclear power plants by 8–14 years each.[36] Then, in March 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, the Merkel government reversed course. It immediately shut down about 40% of its nuclear generating capacity (8 of 17 plants) and announced plans to shut all other nuclear plants within a decade."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany)

OK, the truth is a little more complicated. The original legal decision in Germany to phase out nuclear was taken in 2000 by Chancellor Schroder: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper

Merkel opposed the decision and then reversed it after popular outcry in Germany post-Fukushima.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

I'm not talking about climate change, i.e. more frequent storms and rising sea-levels, but runaway climate change, or climate collapse. Neither Stern nor anyone else can 'cost in' climate collapse: if that happens - and we are well on the way, large parts of the planet will become uninhabitable. How on Earth can anyone 'cost that in'?

They look at the impacts of climate change, some of which are more severe than others. Which of the IPCC scenarios are you basing 'climate collapse'? a 4 degree rise in temperature?

You still can't get away from the cost of nuclear, and that really is the main problem with it: it just won't get built.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

With respect Macha, it is not a misrepresentation of your position, but an honest assessment. And instead of refuting it point by point you attack me on nuclear.

I (unsurprisingly disagree. Firstly, you don't distinguish between fossil fuels and your sentence implies that I am pro-coal. I am not pro-coal but gas is a lot cleaner and is much more preferable to coal for our energy system in the short-to-medium term. That is why campaigners push for a carbon price globally: it's main short-term impact is to create a switch from coal to gas in the energy system.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

You say "There are studies that indicate that renewables could provide almost half of the EU's energy by 2030." That is one opinion of what could be possible. It regards Europe, which is well ahead of the rest of the world in terms of renewables. But, most importantly, even this probably very optimistic view accepts that the rest of our energy supplies (over half) will have to continue to come from fossil fuels in 2030, i.e. 17 years from now, which means continuing a very substantial use of fossil fuels well beyond that. And I repeat, that is a best possible scenario in the most advanced area (in terms of renewables) on the planet. It does not take into account the rest of the world or the fact that renewables may fall well short of those levels in Europe by 2030.

Actually it isn't a best possible scenario - it's based on existing technologies and doesn't take into account future technological changes, which could dramatically speed up the deployment of renewable technologies. After 2030, gas has to be phased out to keep reducing carbon emissions.

The thing about the rest of the world is that they haven't actually built a lot of the dirty energy system that we have. Much of the fight about clean energy in Europe (and the US, etc) is really a fight between those who have made investments in old, dirty technologies that are the 'losers' and those who have/want to invest in a new system based on clean energy.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

You are proposing that we continue to view fossil fuels, whether it's gas or any of the others, as an acceptable mainstay of energy generation well into the future, rather than something which needs to be abandoned at all costs. So when I say that "the most important difference between our viewpoints Macha is your belief that fossil fuels should continue to provide most of our energy demand into the relatively distant future, despite the dire situation we are faced with in the form of climate collapse", it is not a misrepresentation at all, it is identifying the kernel of our difference of opinion on this issue. To go back to your talk of black spots, I think you have a black spot in facing up to the fact that you prefer fossil fuels to nuclear, despite the fact that fossil fuels are causing climate breakdown.

I do agree with you you that renewables probably have the potential to supply all energy needs at some time in the future, with fossil fuels consequently made redundant. Where we differ is in our assessment of how urgently that needs to be accomplished. Your talk of 'costing in' climate collapse is demonstration of that.

I don't prefer fossil fuels to nukes, I don't like either of them. And again, I make the distinction between gas and coal. In order to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, gas can continue to play a role until 2030.

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Fundamentally, we differ in your view that one of the most important sources of carbon-free energy available to us, i.e. nuclear, should be ignored. It is obvious that deploying all carbon-free sources of energy - including nukes - would allow us to decarbonise quicker than renewables alone.

See, you keep talking about urgency and acting as 'quickly as possible' but the fact that nuclear is not a quick fix for anything. The Hinkley plant announced today will come online in 2023 in a best case scenario, i.e. with zero delays. Even if we just give them a very, very generous 2 year delay, that's still only 5 years before 2030.

So you criticise my position by saying that I support fossil fuels providing the majority of our energy until 2030 but I have no idea how your proposal of building lots of nuclear would achieve any sort of sizeable replacement of fossil fuels by 2030.

Fair play if anyone is still reading...

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

Fair play if anyone is still reading...

I wholeheartedly agree (with the above), and don't feel there is much to be gained by continuing. I've said what I think, you've said what you think.

And as I said back in July, I genuinely respect your opinions Macha. Personally I think it's a difficult area with no simple answers, but a lot at stake. I do not think nuclear is a silver bullet, but rather one of a number of means by which to have a hope of averting 'calamitous' climate breakdown.

While differing on how to get there (and perhaps the urgency), at heart we are both concerned with achieving the same result: removing our disastrous dependance on fossil fuels with all of the damage that is doing to the climate and the biosphere.

Eoghan Barra

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

...other prominent environmentalist who have abandoned their opposition to nuclear (or never were opposed in the first place) are the following: ...Patrick Moore (cofounder of Greenpeace)

Without wishing to raise this argument again, on further reading it turns out that Patrick Moore is paid by the nuclear industry, and therefore cannot be taken seriously on this subject (or many others, for that matter, it would seem):

Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

georgesstreet

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Without wishing to raise this argument again, on further reading it turns out that Patrick Moore is paid by the nuclear industry, and therefore cannot be taken seriously on this subject (or many others, for that matter, it would seem):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

Perhaps your mistake is to take anyone "seriously" which seems to suggest we must believe them, or not. . Surely it is the evidence which ought to be taken seriously, and not individuals. All of of have a loyalty somewhere.

Eoghan Barra

georgesstreet wrote: »

Perhaps your mistake is to take anyone "seriously" which seems to suggest we must believe them, or not. . Surely it is the evidence which ought to be taken seriously, and not individuals. All of of have a loyalty somewhere.

Fair enough, but I had been asked to provide examples of environmentalists who are in favour of nuclear energy, and I was responding to that:

I'd like to know who, apart from a few people like Monbiot, are the ones who have suddenly decided renewables can't do it.

Macha

Well, I have to say thanks for checking it out and coming back on the point.

MayoSalmon

Is it the future?? Well it's already here.

We import 91% of our energy from the UK which the majority comes from Nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Is it the future?? Well it's already here.

We import 91% of our energy from the UK which the majority comes from Nuclear.

qft

wow very scare

much number

such wrong

Capt'n Midnight

It's not that nuclear isn't reliable it's that when it let's you down it does it let's you down big time.
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=123837

A "safety-related action" automatically shut down one of South Korea's 23 nuclear reactors on Thursday, the country's nuclear operator said, bringing the tally of those closed to six and hiking the chances of power blackouts this winter.

Only one of the six is down for planned maintenance.


I keep saying the nuclear industry is very slow to learn from it's mistakes, and here's yet another plant forced off line because of repeat problems.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/seaweed-torness-nuclear-reactor-east-lothian

This is the second time this year that reactors at Torness in East Lothian have been forced to close because of excessive seaweed. In 2011 it was closed by a swarm of jellyfish.
...
EDF Energy was criticised by the government's nuclear safety inspectors over a seaweed blockage that closed down a Torness reactor in 2010. Inspectors identified "a number of areas where further enhancement may be possible" in the safety arrangements for dealing with seaweed.

georgesstreet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not that nuclear isn't reliable it's that when it let's you down it does it let's you down big time.
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=123837Only one of the six is down for planned maintenance.


I keep saying the nuclear industry is very slow to learn from it's mistakes, and here's yet another plant forced off line because of repeat problems.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/seaweed-torness-nuclear-reactor-east-lothian

The examples you give seem to show that the various safety systems work.

Sure, what frightens many people is the very power of nuclear, which is the very element used to create electricity.

The demand for electricity is pretty inelastic, and it simply isn't possible to meet the current and growing demand for electricity with wind turbines and solar cells, and the base demand has to come from somewhere

Capt'n Midnight

georgesstreet wrote: »

The examples you give seem to show that the various safety systems work.

No, most of those Korean reactors are off line because the safety systems were bypassed by using fake parts.

Sure, what frightens many people is the very power of nuclear, which is the very element used to create electricity.

actually it's possible to nuclear cleanly, just isn't economic and corners are cut and it ends in tears more often than they'd like to admit. Jellyfish are still a problem.

If you put enough fissionable material in one place it will get hot to boil water that you can use in turbines to generate electricity. The devil is in the detail, but essentially that's all nuclear is.

The demand for electricity is pretty inelastic, and it simply isn't possible to meet the current and growing demand for electricity with wind turbines and solar cells, and the base demand has to come from somewhere

If by inelastic you mean that it can vary by a factor of three over the year or even by a factor of two over eight hours or 50% in an hour.

Yes it's a matter of matching supply with demand, The French have sorta load following reactors, they are more inefficient because it's a design trade off that allows them to change output by maybe 50% over 6 hours. In reality we have an oversupply of spinning backup here with other units ready to kick in as needed in timescales of 15 seconds - one minute. Nuclear can only do baseload. There is also the aspect of demand shedding / future smart meters.

Our summer base load is about half that of winter, nuclear means you need spinning reserve of at least the size of the biggest reactor, and these days that means about 1.6GW which is about our summer night valley.

Any guff about renewables needing fossil backup means you don't understand that nuclear needs the same fossil backup. The difference is that nuclear has to run 24/7 so there isn't as much opportunity to save fossil fuel.

georgesstreet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any guff about renewables needing fossil backup means you don't understand that nuclear needs the same fossil backup. The difference is that nuclear has to run 24/7 so there isn't as much opportunity to save fossil fuel.

That seems counter intuitive. Why would turning off nuclear power save fossil fuels? It seems logical to suppose that if you are producing power from nuclear sources, then you need less other sources, inclusing less fossil fuel generating stations.

Nuclear doesn't need fossil fuel backup, it need backup. All sources need backup.

Capt'n Midnight

georgesstreet wrote: »

That seems counter intuitive. Why would turning off nuclear power save fossil fuels? It seems logical to suppose that if you are producing power from nuclear sources, then you need less other sources, inclusing less fossil fuel generating stations.

Nuclear provides base load, one of the reasons is the capital cost. It's so expensive that you have to keep it running most of the time to break even.

Because it's just base load you need to have the fossil fuel generators providing the balance at peak times and all through the winter.

With renewables you can take opportunity of available power. And because the capital cost for wind is so much lower than nuclear you can oversupply it so you are still getting meaningful amounts of power at lower wind speeds.

Nuclear is a one trick pony, and it's not even a good trick.

Hydro or wind or PV means that some years you can get extra power you weren't counting on. Portugal got 70% of it's power from renewables in the first three months of the year. Nuclear means you never get this wind fall.


or look at how renewables undermine the wholesale price, with nuclear the fossil fuel producers could command top dollar at peak time, renewables have more or less wiped out pumped storage in parts of Germany because it's only economic if you use it most days.

Nuclear doesn't need fossil fuel backup, it need backup. All sources need backup.

The rules are that you need backup equal to the biggest single generating unit on the grid. Hinkley C would mean 1.6GW of backup. That's 1.1GW more than all the hydro and pumped storage we have so in practice nuclear needs to be backed up by a lot more fossil fuel than any other power source.

Nuclear means you need dispatchable to make up the difference between supply and demand.

If you invest in dispatchable stuff like fossil fuel or pumped storage or whatever then this means you have the backup needed to handle the difference supply and demand for renewables too. And they have a much lower capital cost than nuclear.



Just a reminder again that wind is predictable several days out so you can plan around it, and it's extremely unlikely that you will have an unpredictable
loss of all the wind power across a country. If a nuclear reactor has a scram or is shutdown for any reason and it isn't restarted quickly it'll be down for three days. Reactors have been offline for months or years for safety problems with no warning.

georgesstreet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

. And because the capital cost for wind is so much lower than nuclear you can oversupply it so you are still getting meaningful amounts of power at lower wind speeds.

I suspect that the cost to build, transport, erect and connect to the grid the number of windmills which would produce (not could but would produce) the same amount of electricity as one Nuclear power station, could possibly be more expensive.

Then of course, you have the issue of reliability and dependability.

We really have to stop thinking because (a) is bad then (b) must be better. Energy production is complex and no one source of energy production is without issues.

Capt'n Midnight

georgesstreet wrote: »

I suspect that the cost to build, transport, erect and connect to the grid the number of windmills which would produce (not could but would produce) the same amount of electricity as one Nuclear power station, could possibly be more expensive.

€16Bn up front for 3.2GW of nuclear - that €5/watt [Edit it's now £16Bn]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-16/invis-energy-raises-160-million-euros-for-wind-farm-in-ireland.html €160/87MW
call it €2/watt

€16Bn would get you 8GW of wind.

say wind has a capacity factor of 30% so you'd average 2.4GW

3.2GW of Nuclear with a capacity factor of 75% would average 2.4GW

So wind with a capacity factor of 90% (in a good year) would average 2.88GW which sounds better doesn't it ?

Actually you need to consider the lead time too. Hinckley C won't be ready until 2023 so it will have a capacity factor of exactly zero until then.

To make the numbers easier lets pretend wind can be installed in a year and Hinkley will be delayed a year.
So in 11 years time wind will have generated 24GW years and Nuclear 0
In 21 years time will have generated 48GW years and Nuclear 28.8WG

At that stage you could either retire the wind farm , in which case assuming a 90% uptime ( as if ) Nuclear will have matched the wind farm power after 16 years 8 months of operation. sometime around 2039.

Or more sensibly you could invest about €2Bn (12.5%) in refurbishing the wind farm and get another 20 years out of it. In which case in 41 years time you'd have got 96GWyears out of wind and 86.4GW out of nuclear. ( Hinkley will cost UK consumers £83Bn over it's life so I think €2Bn on

If you want to play with the numbers you'd also have to factor in that wind power is getting cheaper overtime, that Solar PV is still dropping in price - yes the capacity factor is poor and it's better in summer when we have 18 hours of daylight than in winter, and factor in that nuclear hasn't ever gotten cheaper.

Then of course, you have the issue of reliability and dependability.

5 reactors off line heading into winter in Korea. Torness in Scotland has been offline several times recently because of seaweed and Jellyfish.

We really have to stop thinking because (a) is bad then (b) must be better. Energy production is complex and no one source of energy production is without issues.

We have to ask several questions of nuclear.

Q. how much does it cost to run ?
A. twice the existing wholesale price, and don't forget that wholesale price includes peaking plants which nuclear can't even begin to complete with

People were still talking about $0.03c/KWh until the UK government went public on EDF's 10p per unit ask (now 9.25p index linked for 35 years after 9 years construction )

Q. How much will it cost to build ?
A. Ah crap, it's £16Bn not €16Bn - was originally £10Bn or £12Bn depending on how far back you go. And that's in an era of low inflation.

Q. what are the clean up costs ?
A. unknown , but expect them to increase as regulations tighten

Q. what are the fuel costs ?
A. OK for now but you'll have to feed the beast for 25-30 years to break even , longer if you include the hidden costs. Soviet missiles have been used up so there is less supply on the global market. The UK might have a divided from ex-military material so might not be as bad as peak uranium would suggest. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-uk-governments-radical-plan-to-burn-up-uks-mountain-of-plutonium-8967535.html

A radical plan to dispose of Britain's huge store of civil plutonium - the biggest in the world - by "burning" it in a new type of fast reactor is now officially one of three "credible options" being considered by the Government, The Independent understands.

NB this would require more investment in reactors - it won't fuel Hinkley directly but may have a knock on effect.

Q. what are the break even assumptions for nuclear ?
A. fossil fuel costs doubling in the next 10 years and staying high for 40 years AND renewables not getting much cheaper AND no cheap energy storage system coming on line

At present using renewables to produce hydrogen / fuel has a cost ~four times that of fossil fuel - this is the hard limit of fuel costs. But renewables are getting cheaper and synthetic fuel has economies of scale.

georgesstreet

So power is expensive and complicated. I think most of us already knew that.

That power is expensive and complicated does not mean it should not be planned for in the short, medium and long terms to ensure continuity of supply, and take into account planned increases is usage and other factors.

Even if someone does not like it, Nuclear power is here now and is likely to be in the mix for many years to come.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

So power is expensive and complicated.

The broad economics are not that complicated. You suggested that, watt for watt, wind is more expensive than nuclear. Capt'n Midnight has demonstrated that this is unlikely to be the case. It's pretty straightforward arithmetic.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

I suspected it rather that suggested it...

Either way, it was demonstrated that you were likely incorrect, but rather than consider Capt'n Midnight's post, you dismissed it with a childish remark.

georgesstreet wrote: »

...coupled with the fact the we need a mix of power sources, and keeping in mind that wind is less reliable and predictable that nuclear or fossil fuels.

It's going to take one hell of an argument to convince me that power output from a wind turbine is less reliable and predictable than that from a nuclear plant.

Greensleeves

Big announcements in the UK today. A second new nuclear plant has been given the go-ahead and the Telegraph is reporting that ministers have suggested that as many as a dozen nuclear reactors will be built in the coming years as fossil fuels are phased out and public hostility to renewables such as wind turbines mounts.

They are cutting the subsidies to onshore wind and solar but increasing them for offshore wind so the overall budget for renewable stays the same.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/10492999/Second-new-nuclear-plant-given-go-ahead-for-as-Government-sells-off-Eurostar-stake.html

georgesstreet

I see that the UK Government have published plans to build a new nuclear power Plant in Wales, so it seems as if Nuclear is still very much part of the mix for the present and future.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/uk-government-confirms-deal-finance-6367690

Apologiess to Greensleeves who pipped me to the post and our posts seem to have crossed.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Q. what are the break even assumptions for nuclear ?
A. fossil fuel costs doubling in the next 10 years and staying high for 40 years AND renewables not getting much cheaper AND no cheap energy storage system coming on line

Fossil fuels doubling in price in 10 years? Seems reasonable for fossil fuels that may become scarce (gas) or subject to carbon tax.

I still remember diesel costing <99c a litre ... in 2009!

As to "cheap energy storage" never happening, that too seems reasonable. Because despite the ... commentary ... we've heard from certain quarters about underground steam caverns and nitric acid, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of energy storage beyond hydroelectricity, which is limited for obvious reasons.

You also admit that storage is going to be very limited with this:

There is also the aspect of demand shedding / future smart meters.

Which again is a quantum leap backwards, build lots of solar panels, so people have to make sure the sun is splitting the stones before turning on the heaters or immersion, or check the wind speed before turning on the TV.

Even if we assumed that any of the above were good/practical ideas, that does not account for the fact that opposition to nuclear predates any of this by many decades, e.g. last generation's protests at Carnsore Point.

At present using renewables to produce hydrogen / fuel has a cost ~four times that of fossil fuel - this is the hard limit of fuel costs. But renewables are getting cheaper and synthetic fuel has economies of scale.

Whao, so by your own admission the cost of electricity that's gone through a round of storage and hydrolysis will be four times the cost of fossil fuel, but you condemn nuclear operators for expecting twice the price of fossil fuel?

Don't get me wrong, synthetic fuel sounds great, and if it were ever to become real cheap, i.e. usable in much the same way as gas or petrol, I'd be all for focusing on that, but I don't see it happening, and I'd rather that coal/gas plants were replaced by clean power forms that can be used as a drop-in replacement. Nuclear, let's recall, can be used in preference to coal etc as they've shown in France, where their power supply is ~90% non-fossil. And they've had that for some time. It is, IMO the ideal we should be striving for if we really are on the precipice of global climate catastrophe.

Grudaire

SeanW wrote: »

Which again is a quantum leap backwards, build lots of solar panels, so people have to make sure the sun is splitting the stones before turning on the heaters or immersion, or check the wind speed before turning on the TV.

In fairness Sean that is not exactly what demand shedding and smart meters could mean.

It cheapens the rest of your argument when you go off on a tangent of nonsense facts.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Fossil fuels doubling in price in 10 years? Seems reasonable for fossil fuels that may become scarce (gas) or subject to carbon tax.

Who would have bet on gas getting so cheap ?

US gas is a third of it's peak price.


Going from peat / lignite / coal to gas will save most of your carbon at a stroke.

I still remember diesel costing <99c a litre ... in 2009![/uote]OMG what will we do if the price of oil goes up ?
Oh that's right Poolbeg was changed from Oil to Gas back in '84

As to "cheap energy storage" never happening, that too seems reasonable. Because despite the ... commentary ... we've heard from certain quarters about underground steam caverns and nitric acid, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of energy storage beyond hydroelectricity, which is limited for obvious reasons.

Pumped storage is dead in Germany. Killed by renewables because they undercut the peak price most of the time. The way forward is to over supply renewable and find uses for the surplus energy on a use it or loose it basis.

You also admit that storage is going to be very limited with this:
Which again is a quantum leap backwards, build lots of solar panels, so people have to make sure the sun is splitting the stones before turning on the heaters or immersion, or check the wind speed before turning on the TV.

you still don't the concept of mixing renewables with existing fossil fuel generation and using which ever you need at the time ?

Nuclear is easy. You just run it as base load and rely on fossil to hand all the variation in demand. Renewables is the same except you have to look at the weather forecast.

Even if we assumed that any of the above were good/practical ideas, that does not account for the fact that opposition to nuclear predates any of this by many decades, e.g. last generation's protests at Carnsore Point.

The idea behind Carnsore point was so ESB Interntional could gain experience in Nukes so they could sell that experience abroad.

Whao, so by your own admission the cost of electricity that's gone through a round of storage and hydrolysis will be four times the cost of fossil fuel, but you condemn nuclear operators for expecting twice the price of fossil fuel?

You continently ignore the evidence that nuclear gets more expensive over time while renewables get cheaper. You also ignore that nuclear has hasn't really delivered any new technology breakthroughs in a very very long time - the Natural Reactors at Oklo show that the physics hasn't changed in billions of years, It's still far too expensive in money and energy to deliver neutrons on demand , so the process still relies on managing the natural decay - it's an engineering challenge.
With PV the costs are falling as lab proven technology is commercialised. Even if nothing new is invented in PV there's still years of improvements in the pipeline.

Don't get me wrong, synthetic fuel sounds great, and if it were ever to become real cheap, i.e. usable in much the same way as gas or petrol, I'd be all for focusing on that, but I don't see it happening, and I'd rather that coal/gas plants were replaced by clean power forms that can be used as a drop-in replacement. Nuclear, let's recall, can be used in preference to coal etc as they've shown in France, where their power supply is ~90% non-fossil. And they've had that for some time. It is, IMO the ideal we should be striving for if we really are on the precipice of global climate catastrophe.

Nuclear isn't a drop in replacement for the simple reason you have to wait 10 years for it, and then you have to keep it for 40 years.

Nuclear doesn't replace fossil fuel.
First you have to keep the fossil fuel going for another decade while you build nuclear.
Then it's cost means it soaks up investment in renewables for another 30 years.
And it's a dead end technology because in 40 or 50 years you have to decide to invest in nuclear again or go with the renewables that could have replaced fossil fuel long before you got your nuclear built.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Nuclear, let's recall, can be used in preference to coal etc as they've shown in France, where their power supply is ~90% non-fossil. And they've had that for some time.

Yes, they have had it for some time and in that time, the cost of building a new nuclear power station has soared.

georgesstreet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And it's a dead end technology because in 40 or 50 years you have to decide to invest in nuclear again or go with the renewables that could have replaced fossil fuel long before you got your nuclear built.

The definiton of dead end technology is that" in 40 or 50 years you have to decide..." ?

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

The definiton of dead end technology is that" in 40 or 50 years you have to decide..." ?

Well, something that's only going to last a few decades is hardly sustainable, is it? It's just kicking the can down the road and leaving it for our kids to deal with. It makes very little sense to go to the monumental effort involved in shifting away from the oil economy if we have to do it all over again in 50 years.

georgesstreet

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, something that's only going to last a few decades is hardly sustainable, is it? It's just kicking the can down the road and leaving it for our kids to deal with. It makes very little sense to go to the monumental effort involved in shifting away from the oil economy if we have to do it all over again in 50 years.

Technology develops all the time and we have no idea what technological advances may be made in 50 years time in the future. In the meantime we have to make do with what we have which is why nuclear power is part of the mix.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

Technology develops all the time and we have no idea what technological advances may be made in 50 years time in the future.

So in other words, let's just stick our heads in the sand and hope somebody cracks cold fusion?

georgesstreet

djpbarry wrote: »

So in other words, let's just stick our heads in the sand and hope somebody cracks cold fusion?

As we have no idea what technological advances will or may be made, we have no idea if or when cold fusion may or may not be cracked. My understanding is this is a discussion forum, and I am happy to discuss, but am not really keen on responding to posts which don't discuss, but just response with sarcastic and rhetorical questions.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

As we have no idea what technological advances will or may be made, we have no idea if or when cold fusion may or may not be cracked. My understanding is this is a discussion forum, and I am happy to discuss, but am not really keen on responding to posts which don't discuss...

But I am discussing? You think the world should go nuclear, at monumental cost, and hope against hope that as-yet-unknown technological advances will render it sustainable beyond a few decades? That doesn't seem smart.

Capt'n Midnight

georgesstreet wrote: »

The definiton of dead end technology is that" in 40 or 50 years you have to decide..." ?

There's 70 years of uranium left at present usage.

If nuclear power doubles then that's 35 years, one generation and then game over.

Dead end.

Nuclear won't lead to new technology. Because it will soak up the funds that would otherwise be used to develop the alternatives. The UK are spending more on building Hinkley than the whole world is spending on the ITER fussion reactor.

Dead end.

Anyone like to guess when Generation IV reactors will come on line ??

And what will they offer ?

Renewables are delivering lower costs all the time.


You see there aren't cheaper sources of uranium coming on line. Breeders are more expensive, reprocessing isn't cheap and no one's achieved a breeding ratio remotely close to the propaganda being offered. Uranium from seawater requires lots of fossil fuel to make the plastic mats. It's easy to detect uranium, you can do it from an aerial radiation survey , it's a bitch to extract from granite or other low grade ores, it's even questionable at what point you get less energy out than it takes to get it.


http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/12/05/british-announce-strike-price-for-renewables-renewable-heat/

Incredibly, Britain will be paying two to four times more for wind energy at windy sites on land than the Germans and the French. Britain will be paying five to six times more for wind sites offshore.

That’s not all. The strike prices for wind energy in Britain will adjust with inflation. Germany has no inflation adjustment. France adjusts only a portion of the wind tariff with inflation.

One reason for the price differential may different contract terms. Contracts in Britain are for 15 years, in Germany for 20 years. However, this doesn’t explain all the difference in price as contracts in France are only 15 years as well.

Critics of the CfD program have suggested that the high prices for wind were determined politically so that they would appear higher than the strike price for nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight

georgesstreet wrote: »

As we have no idea what technological advances will or may be made, we have no idea if or when cold fusion may or may not be cracked. My understanding is this is a discussion forum, and I am happy to discuss, but am not really keen on responding to posts which don't discuss, but just response with sarcastic and rhetorical questions.

cold fusion is unlikely, my guess is that if it were it would have been observed. We have observed natural fission reactors.


Solar works and you could put a lot of spinning mirrors in orbit if you had a couple of billion to play with. It sounds crazy but when you realise how much nuclear costs it isn't that crazy.

georgesstreet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's 70 years of uranium left at present usage.

If nuclear power doubles then that's 35 years, one generation and then game over.

Dead end.

Nuclear won't lead to new technology. Because it will soak up the funds that would otherwise be used to develop the alternatives. The UK are spending more on building Hinkley than the whole world is spending on the ITER fussion reactor.

Dead end.

Anyone like to guess when Generation IV reactors will come on line ??

And what will they offer ?

Renewables are delivering lower costs all the time.

This is just a guess, but I imagine that technological advances may be made in all sorts of areas in the next 50 years. If not even one advance is made in that time in the field of nuclear, power, (which seems unlikely) then perhaps the advances made in other areas will solve problems.

Why limit your scope to only advances in nuclear technology? The certainty is that many advances will be made in many fields of power production, and we may not even now know what new forms of power production might be discovered.

For the moment nuclear is part of the mix, and what is sure is that mix is likely to look quite different 50 years hence.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

This is just a guess, but I imagine that technological advances may be made in all sorts of areas in the next 50 years.

So do we go nuclear or not?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

So do we go nuclear or not?

Do we go with technology that we know will still be usable in hundreds of years or do we put everything into nuclear and hope that somebody solves all it's associated problems within our lifetimes?

Probably worth pointing out at this point that there have been no major breakthroughs in nuclear power in the last 50 years, so I'm not expecting anything earth-shattering in the next 50.

georgesstreet

djpbarry wrote: »

So do we go nuclear or not?

I really have little understanding what it means to "go nuclear" or who are the "we" to who you refer.

Certainly, the UK appears to be planning new nuclear power reactors and many countries rely on nuclear reactors as part of their energy mix. But you know that already so maybe you mean something different.

djpbarry wrote: »

Do we go with technology that we know will still be usable in hundreds of years or do we put everything into nuclear and hope that somebody solves all it's associated problems within our lifetimes?

Probably worth pointing out at this point that there have been no major breakthroughs in nuclear power in the last 50 years, so I'm not expecting anything earth-shattering in the next 50.

Again, I have no idea who the "we" is you refer to. Why you want to suggest "we" put everything into one technology, implying there is nothing left to put into other technologies, seems a false dichotomy. As far as I am aware no one in the world has ever suggested such a stupid idea. It's quite possible, and what is currently happening, is that all technologies are part of the mix, and that's likely to remain the case.

I don't imagine 50 years ago you would have been expecting anything so earth shattering as, for example, the internet, to have been invented. It may well be that other inventions will make nuclear obsolete, or make it better.

Inventions and progress are not, fortunately, limited by our individual subjective expectations.

djpbarry

georgesstreet wrote: »

I really have little understanding what it means to "go nuclear" or who are the "we" to who you refer.

Sure you do, but you’d rather just avoid the question again. By “we” I mean humanity. By “go nuclear”, I mean “scale up the building of new nuclear power stations”.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Certainly, the UK appears to be planning new nuclear power reactors and many countries rely on nuclear reactors as part of their energy mix.

So?

georgesstreet wrote: »

Again, I have no idea who the "we" is you refer to. Why you want to suggest "we" put everything into one technology, implying there is nothing left to put into other technologies, seems a false dichotomy.

Is it? Bear in mind that the costs of nuclear are astronomical and they only ever seem to go up. Building new nuclear power stations is a huge financial commitment.

georgesstreet wrote: »

As far as I am aware no one in the world has ever suggested such a stupid idea.

Nobody has ever suggested that fossil fuel generation be replaced with nuclear, so far as is possible? Really?

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't imagine 50 years ago you would have been expecting anything so earth shattering as, for example, the internet, to have been invented.

No, I don’t imagine I would. But then I don’t imagine I would have been investing huge sums of money in ventures dependent on the invention of the internet for their long-term success.

georgesstreet

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure you do, but you’d rather just avoid the question again.

It's an unusual tactic to accuse your interlocutor of lying.