Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

DiggerUK said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

DiggerUK said:

Zion Lights, the former head of PR at Extinction Rebellion, has once again confirmed her support for carbon free energy from Nuclear Power.

"the people living in poverty in the Punjab. They want clean water, but they also want laptops. In short, they want what we here in the West have had for a long time — and it is rank hypocrisy for those of us who have benefited from the comfortable advances in technology in recent years to suggest they can’t have it.

For that, of course, you need energy. But while renewable energy can and should be part of the mix in supplying energy to the UK and the rest of the world, the reality is that there is only one reliable, low-carbon energy source that we can invest in now."

It is beyond dispute that the planets future energy needs can be based on increasing wind and solar, nuclear must be supported..._

I thought it was now generally accepted and understood that anything coming from The Mail is not to be trusted?

OK, go with the Daily Telegraph instead..._

Not much better. Also it's a rubbish example, the Punjab is one of the richest areas of Pakistan and India and both are agricultural areas. That means the majority of areas where power is economically suitable to distribute probably have it and those that don't they can't make a profit on.

Central thermal coal and nuclear power is even less competitive than distributed solar in those situations. Especially for laptop use.

But if it can compete with Solar and Wind, then sure, crack on nuclear. I don't object to the industry in concept, I just don't want to waste a fortune propping up white elephants.

Martyn1981

On a lighter note, I heard yesterday (Fully Charged I think) that the UK will be decommissioning the first nuclear power station site. So the land at Dounreay will soon be returned for other uses. Just note it in your diary for 2333.

I wonder how the meeting went when the cost of the power was being worked out:
A. So, how long will it generate?
B. About 39yrs.
A. Right, and then we sell the land, or start another business?
B. Yes ..... sorta.
A. Sorta?
B. Well, roughly 339 years later.
A. WWWWWWWWhat! We will have to incur land costs for 339yrs, for just 39yrs of profit?
B. Profit?

Martyn1981

Sorry for the nuclear nonsense, normal service will return shortly.
However, I thought it was funny that I just spotted this news item highlighted on another forum:

Hinkley Point B 'may close two years early', EDF Energy says

A nuclear power station may close two years earlier than planned due to ageing issues, an energy firm has said.

EDF Energy was due to begin decommissioning in Hinkley Point B in Somerset in 2023.

Inspections have found cracks in the reactor core's graphite bricks and the boilers inside the reactors were coming to the end of their life.

The company is reviewing the results and will make a decision at the end of the year.

Cardew

DiggerUK said:

OK, go with the Daily Telegraph instead..._

Or the BBC!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54103163

DiggerUK

I'm surprised the BBC have covered this story, I'm sure they would have given instant coverage to any performance of her former comrades activities. 

That raises the score to three of the legacy media who have reported. I contacted Mr. Attenborough's office for a comment and they promised to reply, I'll  get back here if he responds.

From the BBC article. "Much of the green movement was "steeped in an anti-nuclear mindset", she said, "when any rational, evidence-based approach shows that a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to driving down emissions at the scale and speed required".

She denied she was making a U-turn, instead saying it was a "logical next step" in looking for solutions rather than "shouting ever more loudly about the problem"

For myself, the only issue is the costs associated with solar, wind and nuclear. It is just not possible to get any plausible costings that make an economic argument in favour of one over the others. 

As this is a money saving site however, the argument can only be for the low cost fossil fuels to be fully utilised to keep electricity prices low. But those sources I have to accept  are not popular, even though I personally have no problem with the CO2 produced.

But the case still remains, we need reliable electricity supplies. With that criteria I rule out any place for solar and wind. The worlds needs now and going forward are for both increasing and regular supply..._

zeupater

DiggerUK said:

I'm surprised the BBC have covered this story, I'm sure they would have given instant coverage to any performance of her former comrades activities. 

That raises the score to three of the legacy media who have reported. I contacted Mr. Attenborough's office for a comment and they promised to reply, I'll  get back here if he responds.

From the BBC article. "Much of the green movement was "steeped in an anti-nuclear mindset", she said, "when any rational, evidence-based approach shows that a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to driving down emissions at the scale and speed required".

She denied she was making a U-turn, instead saying it was a "logical next step" in looking for solutions rather than "shouting ever more loudly about the problem"

For myself, the only issue is the costs associated with solar, wind and nuclear. It is just not possible to get any plausible costings that make an economic argument in favour of one over the others. 

As this is a money saving site however, the argument can only be for the low cost fossil fuels to be fully utilised to keep electricity prices low. But those sources I have to accept  are not popular, even though I personally have no problem with the CO2 produced.

But the case still remains, we need reliable electricity supplies. With that criteria I rule out any place for solar and wind. The worlds needs now and going forward are for both increasing and regular supply..._

Hi

I don't follow the logic involved in the negativity posed in that post ....

If we're seeing leading edge global renewable supply contracts now being awarded at prices well below the marginal fuel costs of operating fossil fuel generation (eg <2p/kWh solar) & the lead time to commissioning supply is remarkably low, then the economic argument alone suggests that building both (say) solar & fossil fuel generation capacity with a view to primary renewable generation with secondary FF to fill the gaps & provide supply security effectively becomes a 'no-brainer' for anyone with little or no environmental/CO2 concerns ... ????? ....

If it's not environmental, timing or economics that are in play and the generation/supply is cheaper for the consumer (money savers!!!), what's left for the long-term naysayers & social-doommongers to moan about other than to repeat outdated gripes that they picked up on a decade-or-so ago ... unfortunately time seems to move on & in so doing peels back multiple layers of misinformed previous argument that even previously highly verbose newspaper columnists seem to have gone very quiet on recently ... just think of all of those piles of recently formed salt .... 

HTH - Z ....

DiggerUK

Hi zeupater,  That went right over my head..._😩

edit....please don't clarify, any news over two weeks old is too much for me. Warmest seasonal greetings all the same..._

silverwhistle

None of the rest of us are surprised you didn't understand.

You said  'For myself, the only issue is the costs associated with solar, wind and nuclear. It is just not possible to get any plausible costings that make an economic argument in favour of one over the others.'

That is patently wrong, but Z is too polite to correct you directly.

DiggerUK

silverwhistle said:

You said  'For myself, the only issue is the costs associated with solar, wind and nuclear. It is just not possible to get any plausible costings that make an economic argument in favour of one over the others.'

That is patently wrong, but Z is too polite to correct you directly.

Your correct, I don't regard it as "the only issue". I should have made it clearer by referring to the costings as one of the main issues to be addressed.
Your courtesy is recognised, thankyou..._

Martyn1981

silverwhistle said:

None of the rest of us are surprised you didn't understand.

You said  'For myself, the only issue is the costs associated with solar, wind and nuclear. It is just not possible to get any plausible costings that make an economic argument in favour of one over the others.'

That is patently wrong, but Z is too polite to correct you directly.

Apologies if I bore you with some re-capping, but I thought some context on the cost and timing of these techs might be useful.
I think everyone with any common sense realised in 2012 that nuclear was dead economically. We saw two major milestones, the release of the HPC CfD contract details, and the rapidly falling cost of wind and solar as economies of production kicked in, and also economies of scale for wind.
At that point it was clear to anyone who was truly interested, that RE would not only become vastly cheaper than nuclear, but it would do it well within the timescale it would take to even build a single new nuclear powerstation in the UK.
Now ~8yrs later, we see the obvious, with the delivery of RE costs not as low, but in fact even lower, than predicted in 2012, and the costs of HPC (in subsidy terms) rising ever higher, but already vastly higher than RE, and still around 8yrs before it will generate anything ........ other than enormous quantities of CO2(e) from the FF generation that it has not displaced today, but RE would have, had the investment gone that way instead.

Is there any real debate or issue surrounding the LCOE for RE and nuclear today, or projected over the next decade ..... of course not, that debate is long settled. In fact if we look to the 'Kings of capitalism' across the pond, we see nuclear new builds and life extensions being cancelled simply because they will not be competitive with falling RE generation costs.

We knew the position nearly a decade ago, the position remains the same today, and will remain the same in another decade. The only real question is how long some folk will continue to try to convince themselves (not us) that they are right by spreading their stuff and nonsense on a green and ethical thread/board? I suspect that those that remain nuclear advocates (over RE) and/or AGW deniers today, are probably incapable of ever learning from, nor listening to science/economics ...... as sad as that may be.