Share
Jon Excell
Editor
The Engineer
Power generation is a 'risky' business
The radiation leaks triggered by the earthquake in Japan in 2011 prompted an understandable - if not always rational - debate on the safety of nuclear energy. The Engineer was quick to point out that ‘Fukushima’ shouldn’t - and probably wouldn’t - trigger a nuclear rethink. But it seems that we underestimated the impact of the disaster on the public relationship with atomic power, and the extent to which politicians would be prepared to back the technology.
One year on and the industry’s worst fears are being realised. Two weeks ago, Japan shut down its last active reactor. In Europe, Germany and Switzerland are phasing out the power source, while in France the industry is anxiously considering president Hollande’s pledge to reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear energy.
“Nuclear has to be a major component of any credible low carbon energy mix”
Wherever you stand - and we stick by our argument that nuclear has to be a major component of any credible low-carbon energy mix - there’s no denying the world’s appetite for it is diminished. However, no energy source is entirely without risk. And if the world does turn away from nuclear, these risks will only become more pronounced, whether it’s the financial risk of subsidising the renewables sector; the risk to the climate of relying too heavily on fossil fuels; or the environmental tightrope we tread - illustrated by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster - when we try to exploit untapped deep-sea oil and gas reserves.
As always, engineers have a major role to play in mitigating these risks. Recently, we looked at how new approaches to manufacturing could help the cost-effective production of offshore wind turbines. In our latest in-depth feature, we look at how advanced blowout prevention technology could help prevent a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill.
It’s a reassuring development. Although as one of the contributors to our careers feature, BP’s Simon Drysdale, points out, oil and gas exploration is a frontier-busting pursuit, with perhaps more in common with space engineering than anything else. Indeed, one of BP’s top safety experts is a recent recruit from NASA.
It’s an important reminder that the technology that sustains our largely comfortable lives frequently pushes at the limits of what is possible. And if we want to sustain this existence, then surely we must accept an element of risk.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (23)
CG | 16 May 2012 10:03 am
Editor,
I am sorry about having to persist with this question, but I think it is a subject worth discussing and I haven't heard any discussion about it yet, so I am asking it again.
I have to say that I am surprised that some journalist hasn't seen the value of looking into this different view of our electricity generation in the future.
Here's the question.
Of all the electricity generated by mankind for its use, whether coming through your meters at home, or for people off an electricity grid, over 98% is generated just one way. Do you think in 100 years time that percentage figure will be as high as it is today? Please give reasons for your answer.
This is no trick question, and I am pretty sure my percentage figure is correct - when I first read it five years ago it was 99.5%, so there's a little lee way there.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 16 May 2012 10:03 am
To clarify, do you mean that 98% of electricity is generated through fossil fuel burning? Would you mind providing a source for this figure?
ssam | 16 May 2012 2:38 pm
IEA world stats reports have breaks downs of energies use by fuel type. For 2008 it has nuclear at 5.8% and hydro at 2.2% of total primary energy supply for the world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
brian M | 16 May 2012 3:16 pm
There is only two ways the energy crisis will play out:
1. We create more energy from nuclear/renewable or perhaps yet unknown technology (fusion) for the missing 95% of power requirements
or
2. We reduced demand drastically including human population which is increasing faster than the fossil stuff is running out.
Even as engineers if we can succeeded in (1), it will only be a temporary win as population is increasing virtually exponentially so (2) will occur whether we like it or not. Hopefully politian's will realise the problem before nature plays it hand.
Of course the population crisis is not just an energy problem, but a global resource issue and one that could become an extinction event for the human race.
Solving the energy crisis is like putting the accelerator down while heading for the cliff edge, it's good for a short time................!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 May 2012 3:16 pm
What I want to know is why we're happy to spend billions on Trident and yet only apparently willing to part with a measly few million to research into nuclear fusion. I'm sure if the government shifted its priorities we could be at the forefront of developing this potentially limitless energy source.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Graham | 16 May 2012 3:47 pm
Did anyone catch the excellent BBC programme "Do we really need the moon" The answer was touched upon there - solar generation with electricity beamed to Earth by microwave. The cost - about the same as 2 years worth of what is spent getting oil and gas from the ocean floor.
Given that it wont be as easy as it sounds it still has to be worth a good try - along with proper investment in fusion research its about all we have because the human race as a whole will never get it together to stop pollution and ruining the planet. So its look at this seriously or stop wasting time with renewables and get on with building the spacecraft to get us the hell out of here!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 16 May 2012 3:57 pm
It is good to see The Engineer back the idea that Fukushima shouldn't provoke a nuclear rethink, especially when one considers all of the media space given to it - often eclipsing the fact that thousands actually died in the earth quake.
It is also interesting that all the ecoworriers are happy to use 'The Science' to back up their mono policy (i.e. cut back) over global warming, but less so over nuclear (fission or fusion). Even when some eco-individuals back the nuclear option - it is through a variation of the prism of fear and morality - rather than the technical (and economic) reasons for expanding nuclear . How about the idea that more energy (how ever produced) is a 'good thing' on balance and allows for material and technological development which enable any problems we have to be solved?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 16 May 2012 4:29 pm
Unfortunately the media use peoples conceptions and more accurately, peoples misconceptions to grab a headline and nothing more. More importantly the media exploits these popular misconceptions for sales, yet do more damage to an already ignorant public by perpetuating the myths.
Ask the public question, do you want electricity? and when they reply YES, simply ask where they expect it to come from. Do they want it from wind turbines? if so tell them they can only have it when its windy enough to generate and ask whet they will do when theres no wind and no electricity. Do much the same with solar and any other renewable source which is inconsistent, then ask them to tell you where electricity is coming from.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham Field | 16 May 2012 4:58 pm
Even if we developed a working fusion reactor today, it would be a sticking plaster on the problem. You cannot have uncontrolled exploitation of Earth's resources indefinitely; and you will have with a continuing expanding world population!
Our best source of energy is, always has been, and always will be (whilst the Earth is around), our Sun. We should be researching better ways of harnessing this clean source of power.
In the meantime, better energy efficiency should be pursued to make better use of the resources we already have.
The idea that you can continually rape the planet for it's resources ignores the huge resultant damage to the ecosystem - including all those who live on the planet.
(Don't think that, just because it's not happening in your back garden, that it doesn't affect yo!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John MacKinnon | 16 May 2012 5:00 pm
I feel brian m is wrong to assume unchecked exponential world population growth. The world consists of numerous countries, all of which, at some point, will become sufficiently affluent to stabilise it's own population, if not the availability of resource to sustain the population will set the limit, not globally but by country. Regarding nuclear vs current known technology, if the number of deaths caused directly or indirectly by current means of power generation, including smoke, fumes, toxic substances etc. could be calculated I feel nuclear caused deaths would be proportionally infinitesimal. Our governement had a duty to push for UK sourced nuclear generation while also researching other potential sources of energy, it will be many years before sufficient alternatives can replace or fulfill enticipated future requirements and currently there is no viable alternative.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 May 2012 5:43 pm
Presumably the question relates to the practice of generating electricity by arranging to have conductors influenced by a changing magnetic field as opposed to other means (e.g. shuffling protons)
so PV solar & fuel cell usage on the increase would be likely to add to the non magnetic number in increasing quantities e.g. gulf solar
However in the magnetic induction camp we have much geothermal, solar thermal, wave, tidal, micro hydro and wind power currently being built so this is likely to prop up the magnetic number
simple really
On the other hand at least some of the current magnetic "big feature" technologies tend to be based on either rare earth element dc magnets or (slightly more over the horizon) near room temperature superconductors and there may be a long term issue in that rare earth elements feature strongly in both of these and so are likely to be over exploited and get rarer and the resulting more expensive tech may not be invested in as heavily as predicted........?????
But if hydrogen fuel cells in cars (trucks, trains etc) take off they could greatly boost the non magnetic number if the hydrogen comes from coal...........????
On the other hand if the hydrogen comes from splitting water
(reversible cycle fuel cells) and the electricity for that comes from magnetic induction
would that not add to the numbers on both sides............????
Possibly not a trick but still a tricky question
Owww my head hurts - (I also appear to have at least 3 hands)
I'm off to have a kip and figure out how to generate the electricity for my phone from the sound of my snoring
- Perhaps piezo electric ribbons for the high frequencies and magnetic induction for the bass tones......................
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 16 May 2012 6:02 pm
Brian (and to a certain extent John) firstly why is population always talked in terms of humans being consumers or resources - and not producers (both materially and intellectually) of resources and ideas which can solve problems and identify and process new (often unthought of) resources. Uranium only became a 'resource' during the last century being just one example.
If people used just a fraction of their febrile imagination, which only sees armaggedon, and use it to see how problems have been solved in the past though human ingenuity - and will no doubt be solved in the future - then ridiculous terms and ideas such the 'rape' of the planet - the planet isn't static and it's getting more and more 'artificial'- get over it- might get shown up as the pointlessly unhelpful and emotive ideas they are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian m | 16 May 2012 6:19 pm
John- Hope I'm wrong, but the current evidence would contradict that - just look at the increase in our UK population over the last 40 years - how affluent does a country have to be?
In nature populations tend to increase until some other factor limits the population, usually with a population crash.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Baker | 16 May 2012 7:16 pm
NIL power generation - is even more risky.
I have written many times in favour of nuclear power generation, based on the UK experience between 65 and today. I have ignored the ill informed, hysterical and politically driven media which is dominated by over represented minorities.
The essential need to provide bulk power, under the control of a UK generator, is essential to our society’s long term economic well being.
The longer we delay, the greater the risk of, system collapse.
We either build on the exemplary record of the past UK nuclear generation, (as operated by our National Grid), or we push men back into coal mines, or contend with unreliable power availability, (small at first, catastrophic later) by reliance of wind, wave and solar power, or reduce power consumption by making it unaffordable by using gas and oil.
That regrettable term “No brainer” comes to mind.
It’s obvious to any informed engineer, that we really have only one sensible choice, the one a better informed public in the 50's and 60's supported, before we had mindless 24 hr media and witless politicians.
We must have significant nuclear generation, and wait with growing concern as Europe is driven to war, over the supplies of gas and oil over which it has no control.
That’s the risk in further delay.
Lets us not stand by and let minorities shout down the UK majority.
Its time to make a very noisy stand, and say YES to Nuclear Power.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan | 17 May 2012 9:34 am
Re CG's mysterious comment. (Thank you editor for asking him to clarify). It does waste time when people don't write clearly. The figure of 98% doesn't make sense as 24% of electricity is from hydro and about 10% from nuclear. Fossil fuels are the bulk of the balance. (SSAM- primary fuels include fuels burnt in engines, here we are discussing electrciity generation).
To help the discussion along CG could you be more specific? Please spell out your question!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 17 May 2012 11:14 am
Editor,
You are making the same mistake as most people do when asked this question, you are thinking of energy systems that are tapped into to generate electricity, I am talking about the way it is generated.
But anonymous is on the right track. The very simple question , that has worn him or her out, is do you think the electromagnetic induction will hold very very high portion of electricity generation that it has now, in 100 years time? Please give reason for your answer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adrian C. | 17 May 2012 4:04 pm
I don't have the solution to the whole problem, but as far as domestic use is concerned it is in the government's hands that every new build should have its southerly facing roof covered with PV collectors. As the demand increases the cost of the installations wills fall whereby other old homes can be 'encouraged' to switch.
If every suitable roof in the country was covered, would we need as many FF or nuclear plants? Excess electricity could be fed back into the grid and supplement commercial usage. All it needs is someone to start the ball rolling. Before we end up living in a forest of uneconomic and useless wind turbines.
As an aside the same applies to water conservation. Unless the government starts dictating that new build have rainwater harvesting systems, the public will be slow to adopt them
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P Field | 17 May 2012 4:23 pm
The danger is the sheer cost of renewables and the fact we always get the hard sell in articles, never the hard facts. There are enough prototype schemes now that have been running for some time. The country needs to know actual average energy outputs and realistic costs. Without these hard facts The Engineer is right to point out the grave financial risks to the country.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DOUGLAS BEAZER | 18 May 2012 9:20 am
I, for one, have always had my concerns about nuclear energy for two main reasons. Firstly about what we do with the waste, particularly in the long term rather than simply dumping it for future generations to deal with and secondly the security aspect particularly as terrorist organisations are becoming much more sophisticated in their activities.
We are an island nation surrounded by tidal waters which present us with a wonderful opportunity to capture, at very little cost, its energy. This can be done by turbines placed in the tidal flows acting both ways; one turbine placed in the incoming tidal flow and another turbine placed in the outgoing tidal flow with both of these two turbines being mounted on the same pylon. This would not blot the landscape or seascape because the only sign of the turbines would be the tops of the pylons above the water line which will enable the turbines to be raised for servicing and repair or replacement. This type of turbine technology already exists and would not require any great change to adapt it for water power generation.
We also are blessed with the ultra violet (UV) light from the sun, which again we do not appear to be keen to harness. The sun shines producing UV light every day, even through the clouds, free of charge and therefore with on-going technology we could surely develop our UV energy sector much more.
Wind energy, either on land or sea can only generate power when the wind blows between certain parameters, therefore sometimes no energy is produced, yet the Government stills seems intent on this form of power generation.
I am very suspicious of this and fear that there is a hidden agenda that they want these RENEWABLE energies to fail so that we have to turn to nuclear. This, of course, has inherent problems and dangers of security, development and decommissioning (largely an unknown technology- except for burying it in the ground).
I hope we can persuade the Government to put more resources, both financial and physical, into water and solar power as a true renewable. This would give our future generations chance to live in a much reduced carbon climate and a safer world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 18 May 2012 10:30 am
I will start with the redox reaction.
Oxidation reduction (redox) is a chemical reaction, and combustion is a chemical reaction. Methane, with its four hydrogen bond, is a very good combustible and it gives off plenty of heat. Gas fired power stations use this heat to force water through a phase change to steam. The steam is driven over turbine blades, and on the same shaft are magnets (electrical or permanent). The turbine spins, the magnets spin over copper wires and electromagnetic induction produces electricity.
Fuel cells use a redox reaction in their use, and methane can be used to power certain types of fuel cell. The difference between the two uses of methane in a redox reaction, is that in combustion the reactants are mixed together, so the electrons make a short, mad rush to form new bonds after oxidation has broken old ones. This creates heat and no electricity - directly. Fuel cells keep the reactants apart, and forces the electrons to travel down a copper wire to make their new bonds, and only when electric power is drawn. This creates electricity and very little heat.
You can now buy types of fuel cells of one megawatt, the sieze of early utility siezed wind turbines - and look how big they are now. If these fuel cells could be powered by natural gas, they could be placed in shopping malls, or anywhere in urban areas. They make little noise, their transmission lines would be short, and the heat generated by them could be used for CHP. But their use would depend on the capacity of our gas grid.
That's enough food for thought for you on fuel cells, a good site to keep up with developments on fuel cells is: www.fuelcelltoday.com
Next comes nuclear power.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 18 May 2012 11:07 am
Nuclear power is another reaction that creates a lot of heat, but it's not a chemical reaction, like redox is. The heat is used the same way as all other forms of thermal power stations, and it will produce electromagnetic induction in the end. But I do wonder if, like the fuel cell, there is an alternative to just using the heat of fission. Many charged particles, which we live in mortal fear of, are created in this reaction. But charged particles, whether electron travelling down a copper wire or protons crossing a thylakoid membrane, can be a boon as well as a danger. Alpha radiation is just helium without its electrons, and all we need is something that wants to give up electrons, then we have an electric current, the product an inert gas. Beta radiation is highly speed electrons, could they not be used some how? I know there is beta votaics, but that's about all I do know. I am not a physicist, and I guess they would have looked at these things if they were possible. But you never can tell, once they had what they wanted, a bomb, or heat to boil up water for all that other stuff, perhaps they stopped looking. One thing's for sure, even when we get the wonderful fusion reactor, it will only be another giant kettle to heat up water, for electromagnetic induction - so don't expect the price of electricity to drop.
Next the fusion reactor we have always had, the sun, and PV.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment