The only way is shale gas - ditch nuclear

SallyKing

Great video about shale gas on youtube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jis-K8wmwhs&feature=player_embedded

Great report about the stealth methods used to subsidise nuclear:

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/nuclear_subsidies1.pdf

"Several of these subsidies are so large that withdrawal of just one of them would make nuclear power entirely uncompetitive. For example, full insurance against nuclear disasters would increase the price of nuclear electricity by a range of values—€ 0.14 per kWh up to € 2.36 per kWh—depending on assumptions made."


We really need to put a stop to the NIMBYs who are holding back development of this precious resource.

Ken68

Great find Sally. There will always be objectors until they are paid off with a new village hall
or a revised train route.
Looks like we are made. No more PV subsidies no more reliance on foreign gas. Now just watch it being wasted as were our North Sea assets.

larkim

Or we could take the principle that obtaining more carbon based fuels is inherently wrong and we should be doing everything possible to make clean(er) fuels such as nuclear more safe, affordable and practical.

We all have our opinions...

Matt

SallyKing

larkim wrote: »

Or we could take the principle that obtaining more carbon based fuels is inherently wrong and we should be doing everything possible to make clean(er) fuels such as nuclear more safe, affordable and practical.

We all have our opinions...

Matt

Yes, and for sure the shale gas is also a limited resource that will also run out one day. But I think its the leser of two evils, I see nuclear as being expensive and from a risk management point of view the probability of an accident is low, but the impact extremely high.

Gas power stations are cheap and fast to build and can adjust their output faster than nuclear so they make a better compliment to an increasing portfolio of renewable power.

Gas also has the advantage of being suitable for use in transport.

In an ideal world our energy production would be sustainable/renewable. But its going to take some time (and money) to get there. We need something now to fill the gap.

Ultimately, we will one day be forced to rely entirely on renewables and/or nuclear once the fossil fuels become too expensive to extract, or we are priced out of the global energy market. If we start making the transition now, it will make it easier for the future when we are forced to make the change.

SallyKing

Ken68 wrote: »

Great find Sally. There will always be objectors until they are paid off with a new village hall
or a revised train route.
Looks like we are made. No more PV subsidies no more reliance on foreign gas. Now just watch it being wasted as were our North Sea assets.

People will always resist change, its human nature. People will also always put their own selfish interests first, these days its mainly the value of their home that are concerned about. If NIMBYs were allowed to have their way we would still be living in caves.

The world is changing at an accelerating pace, people (mainly the older generations) need to start welcoming change and see the benefits for future generations.

SallyKing

larkim wrote: »

We all have our opinions...

Matt

Yes, and thank you for sharing them, that's what makes a good discussion.

Ken68

By all means new technology, but in addition individuals need to stop wasting heat.
Pick out a proven waster, put him it court. A show trial aka Stalin.

SallyKing

Ken68 wrote: »

By all means new technology, but in addition individuals need to stop wasting heat.
Pick out a proven waster, put him it court. A show trial aka Stalin.

I would argue that those who waste heat are already punished with higher bills. When there are so many grants and cheap insulation deals available there is no excuse now for not having a minimum standard of energy efficiency.

I wonder how much the (warmfront?) grants cost us? I understand the cost of those on low incomes getting £thousands of free brand new boilers was loaded onto our bills.

Ken68

I don't really understand why we are not utilising the 200 years COAL we have.

SallyKing

Ken68 wrote: »

I don't really understand why we are not utilising the 200 years COAL we have.

Currently becuase its cheaper to buy it from Poland. Our best and easy to mine coal has long gone. We still have plenty left, but its all about how much it costs to dig it out.

Good article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/05/fossilfuels.mining

And of course other problems with coal are that it doesn't burn cleanly, especially the lower grade stuff. Also spews out mercury and lots of other nasties.

Ben84

SallyKing wrote: »

Gas power stations are cheap and fast to build and can adjust their output faster than nuclear so they make a better compliment to an increasing portfolio of renewable power.

We don't have to waste the energy from nuclear power stations which cannot be adjusted so fast, it can be used to charge pumped storage which can be turned on later at points of high demand to recover the energy, or to heat water in a thermal store which is used for industry or heating buildings. Because the excess energy is easily delivered as electricity through the grid it can be used anywhere on the grid to store or use energy, which is remarkably versatile really. In times of low electricity use the power plant could send a signal to heat stores in apartment buildings, hospitals and factories to switch on.

In the not so distant future factories are going to be almost totally robotic anyway, so it doesn't matter when they run, just as long as they get the most hours of cheap electricity. Robots certainly don't mind working all night to use the spare capacity on the grid.

SallyKing wrote: »

Gas also has the advantage of being suitable for use in transport.

Anything that can be converted in to electricity is very suitable for land based transport with current technology. Electric trains and trams are already being used without any encouragement in many countries and cities. The London underground is entirely run on electricity. To a lesser extent battery powered transport is possible too, which is improving steadily and will help a lot in the future.

So, new gas sources are interesting, but I don't think nuclear is out just yet as a good source of low pollution electricity in the future. I think people prefer gas delivered to their houses and businesses as gas, because then they can use their own equipment to turn it in to affordable heat. Why waste it by turning it in to electricity when it has so many uses in houses and businesses. We can make electricity out of fuels that don't work so well at the point of use, like nuclear, geothermal and solid fuels.