Tax relief on sustainability

[NT]

Youre talking more about politics here than anything else.

Isn't the entire nuclear industry a political animal?
Electricity "too cheap to meter" while secretly building hydrogen bombs?

If at the time of Calder Hall being opened we had all been told that electricity was a mere byproduct of the nuclear industry and building bigger and better bombs was the real object I doubt nuclear power would have happened at all.

Politics comes into it a lot, just as it does with gas and oil, solar and so on. All the political and sales rubbish doesnt make it any easier to have fact based discussions.

Unfortunately due to factors not rooted in sound science, the anti nuclear camp is heavy on, well, factors other than sound science I suppose.

We hear a lot about the 'electricity too cheap to meter' slogan Of course there was never any truth in it, but it made a great sales line. And thats all it ever was, a sales pitch to manufacture public support for a technology that was to produce military weapons, and keep us at the front of the arms race. We can certainly have a wry smile about the catchline today, but its of no consequence to the facts now, just as it never was in the 50s. Every new development has its sales bull, the only thing about this one is it was so wild then and funny now.

I forget the figures for Calder Hall, but ISTR it ate more power in various services than it ever produced. It was really a factory plus a research project with 2 important aims, weapon production and future power production. Which is great, its not often you manage to combine 2 important aims in 1 project.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

For a relatively intelligent discussion about the Windsave system see:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3112

The conclusion that t'lad draws is:

I think it's only good for three things:
Showing off to the (uniformed) neighbours.
Mitigating some CO2 (though we're not told about the embodied CO2 in product manufacture which could be more!).
Stimulating the market in the hope that what costs £1495 will cost £149.50 in a few years time.

In my opinion it would be better to take your £1495 and invest it in a commercial (or community owned) wind farm.

I'd just add that its a comparable price to a home cinema big flat screen thingy, and I know which I think is more useful.

 

[gsport george]

If you cant figure that one out then we really have no discussion mileage.

.... Re your long post, almost all of them.

We have no discussion anyway....

If you read anyone else's posts, you will realise that you are the only one here you are persuading of Nuclear's benefits....

I think that by posting a well reasoned arguement and links, I (and Biff and Lime) have done more to support our position than you have achieved by blunt, unsupported and pointless claims of "you are wrong"...

George

 

[wobs]

If you cant figure that one out then we really have no discussion mileage.

.... Re your long post, almost all of them.

We have no discussion anyway....

If you read anyone else's posts, you will realise that you are the only one here you are persuading of Nuclear's benefits....

I think that by posting a well reasoned arguement and links, I (and Biff and Lime) have done more to support our position than you have achieved by blunt, unsupported and pointless claims of "you are wrong"...

George

I beg to differ, he isn't the only one.

I've heard so many misleading arguments from anti-nukes its amazing.

The idea that solar PV will negate the need for nuclear is laughable. Both solar and wind provide a different type of supply, and is inappropriate to even compare them. Other than the carbon cost of course, where solar comes out worse.

I've already put up links about this, but there's plenty of info on this if you make the effort. Other little delights include off-shore wind: expensive per tonne of carbon and very high carbon cost.

Nuclear is the only large scale viable option for the continuous supply that wee need. It is proven technology, and safer than more traditional fossil fuel sources. There has been no major nuclear incident from a civilian nuclear site in the UK, and given how long we've had them and developed them, this is a telling sign. Nuclear plant designs today are far safer and simpler, and passive safety controls requiring no human intervention is a frequent feature on modern systems.

The level of regulation that industry sees today in the uk is enormous. In the process & chemical industries, safety and environmental regulation is extremely strict. Nuclear is even more strict.

The Government is looking to move forward on the nuclear option, although not, I believe, with enough committment. I believe we need more than what they have proposed.

The plan to link up with France to exchange in skills and knowledge should be a useful policy as well.

As people have been compring their qualifications, I did a degree in engineering with environmental studies. Included energy resource management.

 

[gsport george]

The idea that solar PV will negate the need for nuclear is laughable. Both solar and wind provide a different type of supply, and is inappropriate to even compare them. Other than the carbon cost of course, where solar comes out worse.

Nuclear is the only large scale viable option for the continuous supply that wee need. ....

Why is it so laughable? Apart from the last 40 years the ONLY power we have had is Solar based.

Sure Solar "only" provides power during daylight hours. But guess what, we use the vast majority of our power during these hours too.

I have NEVER tried to suggest that solar alone can offer an alternative to Nuclear Fission, it needs to be jsut one aspect of a sustainable energy policy that includes ALL the renewables AND new options in terms of energy storage/buffering.


I can level the same accusation at Nuclear Fission.

Nuclear Fission may be viable (though expensive long term in my opinion) for the UK, but there is no way it can provide power for all the world.... Even if you believe that there is anough fuel, there is no way in hell that it is sensible to be encouraging countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc to build such Terrorist targets/sources of radiactive material for dirty bombs.... This is just ONE of the problems with Nuclear that NT chose to dodge with his "too many errors to mention" type response... Maybe you have one?


Equally do you contest that Solar PV and other renewables are getting cheaper (per kWh generated) whilst Nuclear Fission is getting more expensive?

Or that private investors are far more interested in Renewables than Nuclear?

George

 

[wobs]

Why is it so laughable? Apart from the last 40 years the ONLY power we have had is Solar based.

Only in as far as fossil fuels are orignially created by the sun, so what's your point?

Sure Solar "only" provides power during daylight hours. But guess what, we use the vast majority of our power during these hours too.

Not quite right. The commercial break during Coronation Street is one of the highest peaks of demand in the UK. About this time of year that would be kind of an issue if PV was the norm. On a still night during Corrie, what intermittent supply would you switch the nation to? What stored energy would you use? Batteries? Pumped storage?

I have NEVER tried to suggest that solar alone can offer an alternative to Nuclear Fission, it needs to be jsut one aspect of a sustainable energy policy that includes ALL the renewables AND new options in terms of energy storage/buffering.


I can level the same accusation at Nuclear Fission.

What people who support the nuclear option actually support is a mix, with nuclear providing the baseload supply. Renewables cannot provide this. Their intermittency means they can only provide a mirror supply to more permanent and predictable supplies.

You may recall the figure of 20% being the max for intermittent supply for the UK. This is to cover the fact that you need a back up (generally a fossil fuel source). Having renewables as a back up is the most cost effective, as you still have the economies of scale for your baseload, although even then with less than 20% you can have problems with unpredictable drops in supply due to sudden drops in wind. (Canada has been experiencing this).

Nuclear Fission may be viable (though expensive long term in my opinion) for the UK, but there is no way it can provide power for all the world.... Even if you believe that there is anough fuel, there is no way in hell that it is sensible to be encouraging countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc to build such Terrorist targets/sources of radiactive material for dirty bombs.... This is just ONE of the problems with Nuclear that NT chose to dodge with his "too many errors to mention" type response... Maybe you have one?

Equally do you contest that Solar PV and other renewables are getting cheaper (per kWh generated) whilst Nuclear Fission is getting more expensive?

We are not discussinmg how to power the world, we are discussing the UK. How other countries obtain their electricity depends on a number of factors including: geography, population distribution, political climate, environmental opportunities/risks..... And if we don't invest in nuclear, it won't stop others from doing it.

You risk confusion over how a rise in raw material can effect the cost of nuclear. The fact is that the raw material costs have little impact on the cost of generation. Also, I feel I must remind you that there is no risk of running low on sufficiently high grade ore in any foreseable future. Even if we see more new nuclear plants than predicted, you must remember that uranium mines have in the past closed down due to lack of demand, as there wasn't the take up as expected in the past. Many people sight the ore being mined as being the only available ore. This is clearly false as there are other mines that can be reopened, and new sources can be explored, just as we have with gas/oil.

This is one reason why peak oil predictions are always X number of years off. There is little if no danger that ore values will rise so much that it will be uneconomical to run a nuclear plant, in fact ore prices will probably drop before they get near the price of no production due to new reserves being opened up. Read The Ultimate Resource II, available to read online.

As for the cost of solar etc. Well the cost has come down, but PV has still got a long way to go before it becomes viable in the UK, if ever. It is just too unpredictable to sit and hope that the price will drop sufficiently to become viable (idealology keeps the price up, to an extent). But that's not the main reason why they aren't the main solution. Its the type of supply that they can provide.

Or that private investors are far more interested in Renewables than Nuclear?

George

The uptake for nuclear by investors is slow at the moment as its just getting a new surge of interest in this country. There are interests that are willing to money into nuclear in the UK. Its just that they don't make headline news.

Many renewables investments are smaller, but there's more of them. This is a good thing. We are even getting new wave energy plants, although even those aren't without controversy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against wind energy, and other renewables, its just that they do not offer large scale viable options that nuclear can provide. Your idea of buffering/storage would require gross over capacity, covering the land in turbines, and the cost new infrastructure, storage, and coping with changes in demand to changes in supply would put schemes an extremely high £/g of carbon cost.

Costs of wind and solar as supplymentary energy sources are bad enough, but to put in a system based on these would be extremely prohibitive.

 

[gsport george]

Why is it so laughable? Apart from the last 40 years the ONLY power we have had is Solar based.

Only in as far as fossil fuels are orignially created by the sun, so what's your point?

The POINT, is that plenty of solar ENERGY hits the average rooftop per day to supply ALL the inhabitants needs, even in the UK. Since this energy is arriving on a regular predictable basis right where it is needed, it seems a little obtuse to concentrate all our efforts on smashing apart the building blocks of the universe hundreds of miles away whilst ignoring this resource.

....The commercial break during Coronation Street is one of the highest peaks of demand in the UK. About this time of year that would be kind of an issue if PV was the norm. On a still night during Corrie, what intermittent supply would you switch the nation to? What stored energy would you use? Batteries? Pumped storage?

Why is the peak in domestic demand SO significant? What matters is when the majority of energy is used. The "peak" can be at midnight, but if it only accounts for 10% of the days energy requirements we can probably get away with burning coal if necessary and still reduce our overall CO2 emisions.

Solar power WOULD cover this peak in the summer of course, but as winter closes in Wind and Wave power only get better and dont stop as the sun goes down.
But we also tend to turn the heating on, and most households degrade high value heat into low value heat for heating without making any effort to use that high value heat for electricity generation. This is simply stupid. Once again we have a prime resource right where (and when) the electricity is needed yet we smash atoms up at the other end of the country instead...

As stated previously storing energy IS likely to be a big future market, super capacitors based on nano technology promise to make batteries obsolete eventually, being virtually 100% efficient and with a staggering energy density.
Energy IS already stored in pumped storage, but other options would be domestic flywheels, hydrogen generation, etc. One suggestion is to have electric cars charged by PV using super capacitors, these could also help to smooth out domestic supply and give power back to the house.

What people who support the nuclear option actually support is a mix...

How do they support a mix? What serious efforts have the government put into developing renewables? Bugger all! The Portugeese have put more effort and money into developing British wave power than the UK government has...

We are not discussinmg how to power the world...

You may not be, but I am.
If the UK cuts it's CO2 emmisions to zero tomorrow, the Chinese will make up the difference within 5 years... We NEED GLOBAL SOLUTIONS. An "I am alright jack" policy is pointless...

Our products are made in China etc, if you dont care where they get the energy then what is the point in doing anything?

We have HAD the "steam age", and by being at the forefront of development this country did EXCEPTIONALLY well out of it.

We have HAD the "oil age" and we didnt do too badly out of that.

The "Silicon age" has largely passed us by.

We are now entering an age when renewable energy sources and distributed generation and advanced technology can not only help us, but help us EXPORT and boost our economy. If we lead the way, then we will get the most benefits from the intellectual properties developed.
Buying nuclear power plants from the US wont do shit for our economy.

....As for the cost of solar etc. Well the cost has come down, but PV has still got a long way to go before it becomes viable in the UK, if ever. It is just too unpredictable .....

It isnt unpredictable at all. The video I linked to explores it in depth using some of the most respected statistical analysis around. I have little doubt that Silison PV will follow the trend of the last 30 years and continue to drop in price in line with that experience. Yet Nano Solar is set to do even better. Nano Solar has HUGE resources and investment behind it, they have a system for printing solar panels much like newspapers are printed... they are suggesting a 5 fold drop in prices and should be producing 450mW/year within 2 years from a single plant that they are building RIGHT NOW.

The uptake for nuclear by investors is slow at the moment as its just getting a new surge of interest in this country. There are interests that are willing to money into nuclear in the UK.....

Nuclear NEVER gets private investment without MASSIVE protectionism. Investors wont even look at it unless they are protected from any liabilities (they obviously dont think the "risks" trivial) and are guaranteed a return on their money...

We CAN innovate our way out of this crisis. We will have these solutions within 10-15 years without government help, but WITH government support it could be 5 years... however as long as politicians think we can "patch things up" with a few more Nuclear power stations (not on their back yards obviously though) then they wont put any serious efforts into renewables, or CHP or storage solutions and buffering.

George

 

[biffvernon]

There is little if no danger that ore values will rise so much that it will be uneconomical to run a nuclear plant, in fact ore prices will probably drop before they get near the price of no production due to new reserves being opened up.

The problem has little to do with price but everything to do with EROI (energy return on investment). If it takes more energy to extract the lower grade ores and convert them into a useable fuel than the amount of energy that is released from 'burning' that fuel then you are out of business.

Nuclear won't be the answer because there is not enough high grade uranium ore in the world.

 

[worms]

and should be producing 450mW/year within 2 years from a single plant

I do hope that is 450MW...?

 

[NT]

We have no discussion anyway....

If you read anyone else's posts, you will realise that you are the only one here you are persuading of Nuclear's benefits....

I think that by posting a well reasoned arguement and links, I (and Biff and Lime) have done more to support our position than you have achieved by blunt, unsupported and pointless claims of "you are wrong"...

George

I really cant understand your point of view here. I replied to 2 or 3 of your posts showing them to be riddled with very basic errors. How such a case could be described as well argued I really dont know. Your latest post about energy options shows a lack of even basic concepts.

I'm sure it would be nice if I supplied links to explanations of every little thing, but I havent. Its not my job to spend all day assembling such things, and I've no interest in doing it. My purpose is not to change the world's ideas on nuke power, I've much more significant matters in my life so I'll leave that to you. With references it may also be worth bearing in mind that no matter what ones point of view on nuclear, there are always sites to support it.

Sorry I wont give you what you want, but such is life sometimes.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

ENOUGH!!!

If all the hot air expended on this thread could be harnessed, we could I'm sure heat acres of housing with it for centuries to come.

But it's not going to illuminate enough to light much.

If you boys don't kiss and make up I suspect this thread will become locked. Otherwise it may take over the world wide webby thingy.

As you can see, my qualifications are not in any form of science.

 

[NT]

Nuclear Fission may be viable (though expensive long term in my opinion) for the UK, but there is no way it can provide power for all the world.... Even if you believe that there is anough fuel, there is no way in hell that it is sensible to be encouraging countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc to build such Terrorist targets/sources of radiactive material for dirty bombs.... This is just ONE of the problems with Nuclear that NT chose to dodge with his "too many errors to mention" type response... Maybe you have one?

Just once... but ONLY once.

The problem you describe is not one with nuclear at all, it is a problem with your understanding. What we discuss and Britain decides to do has NO effect whatsoever on who builds what in countries outside of our control. It has no effect, nada. What we choose here does not make the slightest difference one way or the other to your above scenario. Absolutely none.

To state the uber-obvious, foreign country leaders do not decide their nuclear programs dependent on our encouragement, whatever that might mean. If they think nuke a good idea, they'll build, If they dont, they wont.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NT]

Something strikes me as not quite right about the waving around of qualifications here.

First, I expect none of us here are qualified to design nuclear plants, so our quals are all of limited relevance anyway.

But the biggest issue I have with it is the absence of formally recognised qualifications at the genuinely relevant skill level. We all know engineering degrees, and having completed one I know just what they are and arent - and qualifications to design safety critical systems they certainly arent. Theyre not even a start on it. A lot more skills need to be learnt to be able to do such things competently, a lot more skills need to be learnt to understand the energy industry, a lot more skills need to be learnt to properly understand envionmental impact, political aspects, and so on.

And the trouble is these chunks of learning lack formal well known names and recognised tests. In my industry of qualification they look at experience and track record, ask various technical questions to see what sort of level of skill has been picked up, and look at completed projects for the same reason. A degree is not enough to even get a foot in the door, to be admitted to the beginners stage. And I have every reason to believe the same is true of nuclear plant design, since it shares a lot of fundamental principles in common.


NT

 

[gsport george]

Just once... but ONLY once.

The problem you describe is not one with nuclear at all, it is a problem with your understanding. What we discuss and Britain decides to do has NO effect whatsoever on who builds what in countries outside of our control. It has no effect, nada. What we choose here does not make the slightest difference one way or the other to your above scenario. Absolutely none.....

You dont think that if we develop serious alternatives to Nuclear power that other governments wont consider them as an alternative? Just because our government is blinkered doesnt mean they all are.

We will no doubt be putting serious diplomatic pressures on any potentially "unfriendly power" NOT to develop nuclear power stations.
Are they supposed simply to stop developing? "Turn off" all their industry and go home?

The WORLD needs power. Selling renewable energy devices IS going to be big business, we SHOULD be fighting for a share of this market instead of giving all our money to the US for their "superior" reactor deisgns...

George

 

[gsport george]

... a lot more skills need to be learnt to properly understand envionmental impact, political aspects, and so on.

... track record, .....look at completed projects for the same reason. ....the same is true of nuclear plant design, since it shares a lot of fundamental principles in common.

And the environmental impact of Nuclear has been horrible. Both in terms of mining and reprocessing as well as generation.

Politically, Nuclear has failed too. The MAJORITY of the population do NOT want it.
Sweden was brave enough to have a referendum on the issue and will NOT be building any more, will continue to de-commision the ones they have AND will stop importing energy by 2012 a decision they took AFTER the referendum on nuclear. So they obviously think they can manage just fine without it.

"Track Record"? The Nuclear industry HAD no track record when it began "experimenting" with Nuclear. We were lied to and put at risk by reprocessing plants and processors that had little accidents. We were TOLD Nuclear was safe, now we are told it REALLY is safe and that the cracks in the cores are safe... But their "track record" does not lead me to trust them....


Renewable energy is PLENTIFUL.

We are clever enough to use it if we try.

We just arent trying in this country because a few individuals have a disproportionate amount of sway.

I would be a LOT happier with the plan to invest in more Nuclear power if we were putting a similar effort into renewables.... but we arent. We are putting all our eggs in a big Nuclear Basket.... or Hamper... from Farepak...

 

[NT]

For once I agree with some of what you say. Scary.

You dont think that if we develop serious alternatives to Nuclear power that other governments wont consider them as an alternative?

of course, and it'd b great to see more of that. what I support is nuclear to provide a heavy portion of our short term energy needs, and ongoing research into 'nicer' energy systems, so that maybe one day we can use those to provide a significant percentage of energy supply.

We will no doubt be putting serious diplomatic pressures on any potentially "unfriendly power" NOT to develop nuclear power stations.

Its often not practical. They can make a noise to pretend theyre doing something, but thats it really.

The WORLD needs power. Selling renewable energy devices IS going to be big business, we SHOULD be fighting for a share of this market instead of giving all our money to the US for their "superior" reactor deisgns...

Pitting one against the other is simply not a realistic view of the situation. At all.

Renewable energy is PLENTIFUL.
We are clever enough to use it if we try.

No George. Plentiful uncaptured energy is no use for anything. Plentiful captured energy does not exist, and can not be bought at practical prices. The only avenue that does need to see deployment is solar space heating, which will help, but will not displace any huge amount of nuke power.

We just arent trying in this country

Unfortunately I'd agree. Vast resources have been committed to solar pv, despite it being a particularly unpromising option, while no govt resources at all have been committed to solar space heating. Despite it being the one technology that is viable, govt avoids the subject entirely. And that tells us something about whats really going on there.


Repeating the nonsense about nuclear being a failure wont make it true though.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Renewable energy is PLENTIFUL.
We are clever enough to use it if we try.

No George. Plentiful uncaptured energy is no use for anything. Plentiful captured energy does not exist, and can not be bought at practical prices.

Take a look at the piece by Duncan Graham-Rowe in this week's New Scientist. It starts:

In just one hour enough solar energy reaches the Earth's surface to meet all our energy needs for an entire year

and then continues to discuss the work underway to capture this energy at practical prices using artificial analogues of photosynthesis.

It is quite clear that nuclear power is an expensive and ugly distraction from our efforts to live sustainably in beautiful houses.

 

[gsport george]

..... Vast resources have been committed to solar pv, despite it being a particularly unpromising option...

I would take issue with the claim that "vast resources" have been committed. Sure Nasa spent a bit in the early days, but since then it has been virtually non-existant and compared to Nuclear it wouldnt even register.


I really dont understand why you are so closed minded about Solar PV. It is a technology that has already proved itself in a whole range of applications.

Prices of Solar cells are falling steadily and have been for 30 years (see video linked previously).
20 year ago they were ONLY of any practical use for satellites, with an unlimited budget and un-interrupted sunshine.
10 years ago they had carved out a few more niche applications and started to provide some domestic power.
NOW, we have half the new houses in Japan being built with arrays and widespread use in countries like Germany for domestic power.

The rate of price drop is accelerating (with respect to time) and is on course with respect to volume of sales.

What makes you think that this wont continue?


Sure Solar PV cant provide all our energy needs without huge advances in storage/buffering. But wind, wave, geothermal, biomass, efficiency measures and CHP could help to reduce this gap.


The Nuclear lobby can stamp it's feet and swear nuclear is "safe" all they like, but leaks continue to happen, cracks continue to appear, lorrys continue to risk the gauntlet on our roads etc. We have absolutely no way of knowing for sure how vitrified waste will perform over thousands of years. Sure they have run simulations, but they presumably did this with the reactor cores and it didnt warn us of the cracks we have now did it?

The cracks on the cores worry me. We really are in uncharted territory here and safety is clearly NOT the prime concern. If one of these goes pop next week or next month, it will give me very little satisfaction to say "I told you so".... Sure the risks may be low, but the stake is enormous. We simply cannot afford ANY mistakes on such a small island. The Russians could pull back 100miles without much loss... we couldnt.

George

 

[NT]

Renewable energy is PLENTIFUL.
We are clever enough to use it if we try.

No George. Plentiful uncaptured energy is no use for anything. Plentiful captured energy does not exist, and can not be bought at practical prices.

Take a look at the piece by Duncan Graham-Rowe in this week's New Scientist. It starts:

In just one hour enough solar energy reaches the Earth's surface to meet all our energy needs for an entire year

and then continues to discuss the work underway to capture this energy at practical prices using artificial analogues of photosynthesis.

All very interesting, but such speculative research is of no relevance to power generation decisions in the short term.

I'm not sure if you realise or not, but the odds of new techs making it from research attemtps to mass deployable technology are extremely small.


NT