The case for nuclear is clear!

thor

Backbiter wrote: »

The Germans have taken the decision to phase out nuclear power totally and invest massively in alternative, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar, biofuels etc). I'd like our government to do the same.

This will happen eventually through neccessity. When oil runs out in a few years time all governments will use whatever means possible to generate electricity and by then it will be profitable for the like of BP, Shell etc to go down this route. There will still be the problem of not having enough capacity through renewables but it should be better and I have no qualms about seeing the whole countryside or the coasts being covered by wind turbines and tidal energy generators. If I knew how I would be investing in it right now or even working in that industry. We will need this to develop at least until nuclear fusion has been perfected(if it ever is) and then it will be free energy for all:beer:

moonrakerz

Backbiter wrote: »

The Germans have taken the decision to phase out nuclear power totally and invest massively in alternative, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar, biofuels etc). I'd like our government to do the same.

The decision to phase out nuclear was made some years back and was made on purely political grounds. Germany has invested massively in wind turbines over the past few years and they too have just started to realise that this is a totally impractical way to generate electricity.
Funny you should mention biofuels - I seem to recollect these haven't had exactly a sparkling review of late - costing more to produce than they save (in green terms !).

greenbee

Nuclear - fuel is in short supply, and the maths is starting to stack up to show that the mining of uranium now uses more energy that will be recovered from it. Also the building and decomissioning of the power-stations is energy intensive

Opencast coal - even if it doesn't cost as much as deep coal to mine, the impact on the landscape and environment for the people who live there is pretty unpleasant. And coal isn't exactly a clean way of generating electricity (have you seen what nPower wanted to do to Radley Lakes? The power-station fly ash has to go somewhere before you even consider the CO2 impact).

Biofuels - there needs to be a sensible approach to this. Used chip fat, for example, is a great bio-fuel. Cutting down rainforests to grown oil palms isn't a good way to go.

Wind/solar/tidal - they won't be able to provide baseload capacity, but can certainly contribute, particularly as the generating capacity increases. And the more modern gas powerstations (which are able to respond quickly to changes in supply and demand) will work very well in partnership with them - so we'll use more gas when there's less renewable and vice versa.

The energy industry is highly complex, and we need to understand the value (cash costs and environmental costs) of energy and use it repsonsibly. Efficency measures are important as they will ensure that we don't waste what we do have.

Backbiter

moonrakerz wrote: »

Germany has invested massively in wind turbines over the past few years and they too have just started to realise that this is a totally impractical way to generate electricity.

You're wrong there. They've just announced more mega windfarms in the North Sea. 800 sq.kms in the North Sea and 130 sq kms in the Baltic, to produce 25-30 000 mega watts.
Link (if you can read German):
[FONT=&quot]http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2008/07/08/903844.html

Of course there are Germans who think they should take the nuclear option, like our Government wants, as they are obviously concerned about CO2 and their increasing dependency on imported oil and gas. But that doesn't mean they don't see renewable energy as a the best solution long-term (along with reduced consumption, better energy-conservation etc).

We've been talking for years about building a barrage across the Severn which has the second highest tide in the world. This would generate stacks of cheap, clean electricity. What are we waiting for?
[/FONT]

greenbee

There's work going on at the moment around the creation of the Severn barrage - the whole issue around peak oil/gas means its finally :rolleyes: being taken seriously.

But it isn't without it's problems. If we just put in turbines, because it is tidal, we'd have loads of power at certain times of the day, and none at others, so they've got to look into creating dams (creating habitat issues) in order to provide some kind of baseload generation. I think it's probably quite a complex engineering problem as well, but I don't understand engineering

Jonesya

greenbee wrote: »

And coal isn't exactly a clean way of generating electricity (have you seen what nPower wanted to do to Radley Lakes? The power-station fly ash has to go somewhere before you even consider the CO2 impact).

Weren't Radley Lakes formerly gravel pits so the current site isn't natural, it's the product of aggregate mining. Filling it with ash and replacing the top soil would restore the site to its original state.

mr_magoo_5

Sorry guys but present knowledge of green technologies is not going to solve our problems.
We need to use our present knowledge to its ecological and financial limits if we want to keep the lights on at a price we can afford.
If we had not changed our environment we would still be living in caves, I’m all for new fuel supplies but they have to be realistic because as a taxpayer, I’ll more than likely be footing the bill, which brings us to where we are now.

cepheus

The energy sector has got even greater problems than cost and security since they have to meet environmental targets as well. Ultimately all this will boil down to cost but the economics of all the required technologies is uncertain.

a) Renewables: Difficult to get planning permission for turbines on land. Offshore wind turbines are expensive and have a short life due to salt corrosion. The more turbines we build the more expensive they are due to the disparity between supply and demand and the need for back up. Barrages, more NIMBY problems especially with wildlife. Severn could deliver around 5% of electricity not energy.

b) Fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration. Coal is more secure than gas but there is more carbon to be captured from coal emissions and the stations are less efficient, no-one knows the true cost.

c) In theory nuclear should be getting cheaper as we gain experience, but decommissioning is a nightmare as well as expensive. Another NIMBY problem. Uranium supply is mainly from Canada, Australia and Namibia so relatively secure.

d) Conservation Generally good idea, particularly insulation.

mech_2

We need greater awareness and availability of microCHP. Maybe even government grant funded to anything up to 90% of the cost to encourage take-up.

Not only can it knock a huge chunk off a home's need for grid electricity effectively for free (even ignoring the possibility of selling surplus back onto the grid), but also it helps smooth out the biggest peak in electricity demand - when people get home from work on winter evenings coinciding with when their heating demand kicks in. The reserve capacity previously needed to service that peak can then be freed up to back up wind turbines if needed. Microgeneration also makes it easier to meet renewables targets because if fossil fuelled electricity consumption goes down, existing renewables then make up a larger proportion of the remaining supply. Plus there's a side-benefit that homes with old, inefficient boilers can be prioritised for installations/grants, so gas consumption for heating falls as well.

Nuclear takes an age to get up and running from when it is first given the go-ahead. They're talking about starting construction of the first new reactor 5 years from now with construction taking at least 3 years. Maybe several will be up and running by 2020. The same timescales are probably true of the Severn barrage.

A mass rollout of microCHP installation can start relatively quickly as there's no NIMBY or other planning issues, and the benefits start as soon as units are installed in homes.

http://www.microgen-engine.com/index.htm
http://www.microchap.info/

cepheus

Problem with MicroCHP is that since the fossil fuel is not centrally combusted it is not feasible to capture the carbon. Outside winter months there really should be no need for space heating anyway in a well insulated home or office and all this heat will go to waste anyway. Meanwhile the electricity will be produced less efficiently in a microplant all year. As a rule heat pumps powered from the mains are more efficient than MicroCHP and have the potential to offer zero carbon emissions. MicroCHP may have a role however if Biogas is used as the fuel.