350

[biffvernon]

Replacing oil and coal with nuclear over the next few decades is impossible (aka cloud cuckoo land). Leaving the coal in the ground is obviously possible though whether it will happen is another matter. Which brings us to Robin's "what is the answer then?" Maybe there isn't one and we're all doomed.

On the other hand we do know that the UK, and by implication other countries that have a less energy intensive economy, could make the transition to a carbon free energy future even without much if any nuclear. And it might not be that bad. Consider that many or the period properties we most cherish were built before the industrial revolution. And consider the carbon footprints of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Constable, Bach, Michelangelo ...... (insert favourite cultural icon).

 

[bower1]

And consider the carbon footprints of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Constable, Bach, Michelangelo ...... (insert favourite cultural icon).

But these people lived in much less populated times, so that the transport could be provided by horses and the heating by wood. Is that land available again now for horses and wood rather than food?

 

[robgil]

Well, I'm flattered - but thinking back on it, I'm not sure the only movement so far wouldn't just have been the cottage getting closer to the river :shock:
It's odd that the one you have gone for isn't listed while that one was, seeing how similar they appear to be (though one's in - superficially at least - far better condition).

i think that large chimney was acting like an anchor keeping it beached. she would be a fine vessel if she ever made it to the water though. the new place will be listed eventually once we have done the work we need to do. none of the original building will be changed apart from a new front door and perhaps wooden windows. that extension will need consideration though.
anyhow that's a whole different thread and perhaps a consultation?

on the original thread , sorry for not keeping up guys. yesterday i was driving over the dartford crossing. has anyone ever done this at rush hour?
its the most unenvironmentally friendly section of road i have ever been on. a 20 mile tail back driving at 15 miles per hour and all in the name of profit. literally thousands of cars and trucks sitting there with motors running and not going anywhere fast.
perhaps if we bring out some kind of a set of laws to prevent large company's etc from putting profit in front of saving our planet we might actually get somewhere.
it seems to me that there is more talk than action where these things are concerned.

 

[robgil]

Well, I'm flattered - but thinking back on it, I'm not sure the only movement so far wouldn't just have been the cottage getting closer to the river :shock:
It's odd that the one you have gone for isn't listed while that one was, seeing how similar they appear to be (though one's in - superficially at least - far better condition).

i think that large chimney was acting like an anchor keeping it beached. she would be a fine vessel if she ever made it to the water though. the new place will be listed eventually once we have done the work we need to do. none of the original building will be changed apart from a new front door and perhaps wooden windows. that extension will need consideration though.
anyhow that's a whole different thread and perhaps a consultation?

on the original thread , sorry for not keeping up guys. yesterday i was driving over the dartford crossing. has anyone ever done this at rush hour?
its the most unenvironmentally friendly section of road i have ever been on. a 20 mile tail back driving at 15 miles per hour and all in the name of profit. literally thousands of cars and trucks sitting there with motors running and not going anywhere fast waiting to pay 1.50 to get through the toll barrier.
perhaps if we bring out some kind of a set of laws to prevent large company's etc from putting profit in front of saving our planet we might actually get somewhere.
it seems to me that there is more talk than action where these things are concerned.

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, those are unrealistic arguments that do the green lobby no favours at all.

First, who said anything about replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy? Don't we just have to limit their use to 350ppm of atmospheric CO2?

Second, while it is obviously 'possible' - in the strictest sense of the word - to leave coal in the ground, it's also obvious that it isn't going to happen unless it suddenly becomes uneconomic. To even entertain the thought of 'whether it will happen' is surely cloud cuckoo land itself.

And finally, you surely cannot seriously be suggesting that the UK returns to the days of yore and low-energy squalor? As Bower1 rightly pointed out, those low-population days are gone now and we have 60+ million people to support, and that needs lots of energy. The good-life genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock.

Sorry, but we need a better plan of action than that.

 

[robgil]

we have 60+ million people to support, and that needs lots of energy. The good-life genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock.

Sorry, but we need a better plan of action than that.

a mass global culling of human beings?

(robs genocidal dictator emoticon) :shock:

although nature seems to be able to do this all by her self anyway.



please not i am not a genocidal dictator wannabee really.



but , i have read that swine flu is a test model for something more sinister brought on by the new world order , fema coffins and all.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm certainly not suggesting turning the clock back - you can't uninvent and unlearn stuff. We won't go back to days of yore (though I think Chaucer's inspirational journey to Canterbury was made on foot) but that does not mean low-energy squalor. A zero-carbon Britain is possible without squalor. Read the CAT report.

"Who said anything about replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy?" Me probably, but I don't believe it possible.
"Don't we just have to limit their use to 350ppm of atmospheric CO2?" If only it were that simple. We're already over 380ppmv Co2 and rising. This needs to be stopped, then reversed. Adding more CO2 doesn't actually help! So we have to stop burning and start sequestering.
"We need a better plan of action than that." Ok, try suggesting one. Otherwise we're doomed. The good-life genie might be out of the bottle but that doesn't mean it's going to survive.

 

[bower1]

though I think Chaucer's inspirational journey to Canterbury was made on foot.

Fair point

 

[biffvernon]

Here's the Institute of Mechanical Engineer's approach: http://www.nce.co.uk/Journals/3/Files/2009/8/27/GeoEngineering_Positition_Statement.pdf.

My gut feeling is to be cautious as geoengineering solutions as they tend to prop up an ultimately doomed system and the consequences of side effects have too many unkowns. But it's worth reading.

 

[wobs]

I don't think population growth and nuclear power are taboo subjects.

I agree

Nuclear is clearly less carbon intensive than burning fossil fuels but it's not such a clear winning strategy. It's not zero carbon by a long way.

Its on a par with (many reports have said better than).... wind and solar in terms of carbon cost.

Uranium mining and processing depends on oil, as does building the power stations - think of all that concrete and steel.

Think of all that concrete and steel to build a wind turbine, and the oil to make and transport, which will not replace a single power station.

The supply of uranium is very limited, a number of studies arguing that this will limit nuclear power to about where it is now for a very long time.

Nonsense. Uranium has not seen any exploration for decades owing to a lack of growth in demand, and so given that we are currently mining high yeild reserves, by any standard, we are in no danger of running out of uranium. Just because a mine is set to run out in X number of years does not mean we are in any danger of running out overall.

Not only that, but refining is becoming more efficient, and as demand grows, the places that we get uranium from will grow, such as coal ash, sea water, even more used fuel, not just more mines (which provide other minerals anyway)

About 1% of the global energy use is nuclear, derived from 60000 tonnes per year of which 20000 are being supplied from the stock of old nuclear bombs.

So very little fuel for lots of energy.

That runs out in a few years and there are serious doubts about how easy it will be to fuel the stations being built at the moment.

see above. But also, modern designs of reactor are far more efficient than the old plants that are being decommissioned, and so will use less uranium per unit of energy that it supplies.

It takes about 10 years to build a power station

Try 4-5 years of construction, and if multiple reactors of the same design are applied for at once (which has been proposed in the UK) this will decrease total build time.

and, importantly, the rate of build is constrained by available expertise,

With universities teaching it, and formal links with France being set up in recent years, this is hardly going to be a long term problem. But a lack of expertise certainly is a problem for wind turbine production expansion.

production capacity

If you mean production of reactors, well that can equally be applied to renewables, as similar issues are seen with solar and wind (see also expertise).

and, these days, capital.

Given that we need nuclear in the UK, it has to be found, and private enterprise has already made bids to build new plants.

What with the current fleet of power stations getting old, it is going to be difficult to keep nuclear power output at the current rate, let alone create an expansion.

And this is down to the UK Government sitting on its hands on the issue, as the politics of fear has got in the way for years. Continued expansion of nucleat capacity in teh UK, is not only desirable, but vital to our energy stability. We need a far greater chunk of the National Grid to be powered by nuclear than we do now if we don't want fossil fuel dependance for our electricty.

Talk of replacing oil and coal with nuclear leads us firmly into cloud cuckoo land.

Replacing coal with nuclear is the most sensible low carbon decision the UK government can make, as there is no viable alternative to the type of supply coal and nuclear bring to the table for the UK.

Replacing oil with nuclear.... who's saying we are? Electricity is rarely produced using oil.

 

[biffvernon]

Well I could go through that point by point but I've windows to make

Meanwhile for those with time on their hands, the website that t'lad edits is running a series on this subject. Part one is at
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631
and Part two at
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677
Part 3 will be published in a few days.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, I speed-read the articles and then waded throught the part 2 comments for about an hour. Frankly, the whole thing has made me even more depressed about the whole issue. There might be scientific consensus about anthropomorphic climate change but there seems to be little consensus about the solution. Put simply, it seems that no one has the faintest idea how to solve the problem, with every suggestion shot down in flames, on all sides of the debate. I'm rapidly concluding that there is no practical solution that will be acceptable to the population and that we're just going to argue ourselves to oblivion. Which seems rather a waste of time really when we might just as well enjoy what time we have left.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Put simply, it seems that no one has the faintest idea how to solve the problem, with every suggestion shot down in flames, on all sides of the debate. I'm rapidly concluding that there is no practical solution that will be acceptable to the population and that we're just going to argue ourselves to oblivion. Which seems rather a waste of time really when we might just as well enjoy what time we have left.

And so we return to my oft-repeated point. Isn't it futile - even if a zero-carbon Britain is possible without squalour - what's the point if the rest of the world doesn't follow suit? Better to stockpile guns (and sandbags!), burn the coal and turn the oil into nice* plastic stuff, whilst we still can?

I'm still banking on a technological solution to either the problem, or its consequences.

*delete as appropriate.

 

[biffvernon]

It would be dreadful if the rest of the world followed our suit. The UK is one of the highest energy per capita consuming nations in the world. And we can't even provide a market for a small wind turbine factory!

But we each have to start from where we are.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Interestingly Biff, I'm in France at the moment where wind power seems much more evident. However, even on windy days the majority of the turbines are still. Not sure why.

 

[Penners]

consider the carbon footprints of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Constable, Bach, Michelangelo ...... (insert favourite cultural icon).

But their carbon footprints were an accident of history. They simply had no opportunity to generate the carbon footprint of today's cultural icon.

All of those famous folk undoubtedly lived as well as their incomes allowed. Had they been born today, I reckon Shakespeare would have driven an SUV and Bach would have had a private jet.

Today we have to make a selfless decision not to enjoy the carbon-producing benefits of technology. And that, I'm afraid, is why I see the prospect of carbon neutrality - or anything approaching it - as an unachievable target.

We're just too selfish to succeed.

 

[biffvernon]

Interestingly Biff, I'm in France at the moment where wind power seems much more evident. However, even on windy days the majority of the turbines are still. Not sure why.

It's August. The French are on holiday.

 

[biffvernon]

consider the carbon footprints of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Constable, Bach, Michelangelo ...... (insert favourite cultural icon).

But their carbon footprints were an accident of history. They simply had no opportunity to generate the carbon footprint of today's cultural icon.

My point was that we don't have to burn fossil fuel to live happy, fulfilled, creative lives. The future is not the past but the lesson of the past shows that we do not have to be addicted to coal. We have to create a future that is good, armed with the faith that it is possible.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting article on the challenge of persuading people to change lifestyles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/08/perfect_storm_public_attitudes.html

 

[biffvernon]

Thanks. That is indeed an interesting piece from Mark Easton.