Share
Jason Ford
News editor
Nuclear future: a case for engagement
I’m sure there are a few of you out there who forgo returning home straight after work, preferring instead to head straight to a welcoming pub.
I put myself in this category at least twice a week and every now and again I’ll seek opinions from my acquaintances on issues of national importance that you - engineers - are expected to deliver.
A recent topic of debate revolved around the UK’s energy mix, a discussion that my drinking buddies might as well have entitled: why Britain should eschew nuclear.
All degree-educated and in their thirties, they are firmly of the opinion that nuclear is not a risk worth taking because potentially catastrophic accidents could leave an indelible mark on the world.
Maybe they have a point? After all, Ukraine still lives with the legacy of the Chernobyl accident of 1986 (its confinement is still being built at a cost of £600m and is due for completion in 2016) and the events at Fukushima in March 2011 saw Germany turn its back on nuclear entirely.
It would appear that my acquaintances are not alone.
Three months after the Fukushima incident Ipsos Mori published details of global research that found 62 per cent of those polled opposed the use of nuclear power and that 26 per cent of them had been influenced by events in Japan.
However, back in January 2012 the mood in the UK appeared to have improved in favour of nuclear with the same research company finding 50 per cent of those surveyed saying they supported new nuclear plants replacing those scheduled to be shut down. Similarly, overall favourability towards the nuclear energy industry stood at 40 per cent and unfavourable opinion stood at 19 per cent.
In isolation Fukushima - plus Chernobyl, the partial melt-down at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Windscale fire in 1957 - are enough to turn most rational people anti-nuclear.
However, the world hasn’t stopped storing oil because of Buncefield and people still travel by air and drive cars despite the risk of accidents.
Its also worth noting that Europe, post-Chernobyl, is a different place entirely with engineers from western and eastern Europe plants engaged in reciprocal exchanges.
The World Nuclear Association notes that since 1989 over 50 twinning arrangements between plants in the East and West have been put in place and many other international programmes were initiated. Furthermore, Western aid totalling almost $1bn has been made available for over 700 safety-related projects in former Eastern Bloc countries.
I wouldn’t describe as an evangelist for nuclear but I found myself sticking up for the industry simply because I worked at a nuclear power station in the 1990s.
Entering my time there with the same fears as the dipso dandies of my acquaintance, I soon realised that the chances of ‘potentially catastrophic accidents’ were pretty slim, thanks almost entirely to the dedication of engineers, technicians and clerical staff who worked there.
My barroom buddies were interested to hear that the safety culture was - and likely still is - all pervasive and transparent, with event reporting encouraged and a dedicated office policing modifications being two of many measures taken to ensure safety at all times.
There’ve been occasions when The Engineer has criticised the nuclear industry for failing to engage with the public but it seems like the shoe is now on the other foot with EDF launching a national initiative to improve public accessibility at all eight of its nuclear power stations in the UK.
This might be of interest to one of my ale loving friends who regularly takes his family to Suffolk, home of Sizewell B and proposed C station.
EDF is constructing a temporary visitors centre there with plans to expand it if Sizewell C goes ahead.
For the first time in many years, visitors will be able to pre-book tours of the site, something my nuclear averse friend might like to get involved with. Between 7,500 and 10,000 visitors are expected each year so he might like to join the queue soon.
Similarly, formal public consultation of EDF’s application for Hinkley Point C in Somerset concluded last week and the same process is now in place for Sizewell C.
Planning laws have changed and nuclear new build won’t be held up by public inquiry, but that does not mean that concerns from the public will go unheard.
EDF say that during their formal consultation stages, they ‘directly engaged with around 6,500 consultees, held 34 exhibitions, attended dozens of meetings with local authorities and other groups, and attracted 109,000 unique visitors to its project website.’
As well as local engagement the company is listening to concerns from the wider public and this morning an EDF spokesman told me that a dedicated website has been set up for this very purpose.
This is excellent news. After all, I’m sure EDF and suchlike are in a much better position to engage with the public than a former contract worker who likes the odd bevy after work. As for my acquaintances, it gives them a chance to stop talking as if the world were flat and actually get out there to see what’s happening.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (55)
MIKE EGGLETON OBE | 28 Sep 2012 2:50 pm
After 55years of planning, designing ,operating and decommisioning NUCLEAR STATIONS I am satisfied that original assessments of risk and economics have been verified and the lights kept on in many cases because of our our vision of a nuclear energy base.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sam | 28 Sep 2012 2:54 pm
I strongly agree. Fatal disasters in the fossil fuel industry barely make news, how many people know of Reynosa gas plant fire, Amuay refinery fire, or Xiaojiawan coal explosion. And that's just in the past few months.
If someone spills their coffee in a nuclear plant its headline news, and people call for all nuclear to be shut down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Trevor Best | 28 Sep 2012 3:03 pm
How are we going to charge our brand new I5 Phones when the lights go out!! By the time the first new nuclear station is built there will be many more electronic gadgets and play thing essential gizmos available all requiring electricity in some form or another. Wind power is not enough and wave power is not yet producing adequate kilowatts and fossil fuels are depleting at a fast rate so what can we do?? There will be contaminated waste to dispose of and control but will the price be worth it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ed Burrows | 28 Sep 2012 3:05 pm
The US, India and China are looking at thorium as a safer alternative to uranium (and thorium doesn't lend itself to weapon-grade -- plutonium -- by-product). Do a Google search, then get Richard Martin's book 'Super Fuel'. Then start a campaign to get rid of those windmills.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mick | 28 Sep 2012 3:30 pm
Not this old chestnut again , one would think that the engineer had some kind of axe to grind, remember the adage , there's lies, dammed lies and then there's statistics. and it took the japanese three months to tell the truth, and i am sure you i don't need to tell you about statistics .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rosie | 28 Sep 2012 3:52 pm
I agree that nuclear is currently the only viable way to feed our ever increasing electrcity habit. I also think that four major accidents in 55 years is not a bad record, although I'm surprised that Chernobyl containment is still under construction.
I've been thinking about the legacy (the Olympics has much for which to answer!) of nucear power...surely our combined brain power could find a way to extract [peaceful] use from the waste? Even low grade heat can be useful locally.
Can anyone tell me how many magnitude 7.1 earthquakes occur in Germany? Are there other factors that have informed their totally eshewing of nuclear power?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Baker | 28 Sep 2012 4:34 pm
Following the 9/11 incident, the general public access to UK Power stations was curtailed.
Which is a shame, because many of us, in the 70's and 80's enjoyed those visits, and developed our own opinions rather that having to rely the many biased opinions that exist today because of the lack of first hand experiences are curtailed.
The Western Europe, Nuclear experience is excellent when compared to fatal air crashes or death from flue ...
So please, lets stop painting the blackest of pictures on the 4 or 5 extreme failures over the last 60 years, ALL of which could have been prevented, had engineering been put before economics ....
Which today is the greater risk in the solution of everyday problems .........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Kenworthy | 28 Sep 2012 4:39 pm
Before anyone starts throwing around that old argument that Nuclear is expensive may I suggest people read:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
This clearly demonstrates that Nuclear is the way to go in terms of cost.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Freer | 28 Sep 2012 6:06 pm
The simplest way to demonstrate that we need nuclear power stations would be to turn them all off for a day. The country would come to a stand still. The future is nuclear power or candles. I prefer nuclear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Larry Wiley | 28 Sep 2012 9:05 pm
Why is that the people with the narrowest views are the loudest and most heard on any subject. These kinds of people do not allow for any kind of technology improvements in their mind set. It is human nature for people to only remember their failures and very very few of the their successes. So until those who are in decision making positions learn to listen to the knowledgeable people instead of the loudest voices or are replaced by people who are knowledgeable themselves the world will be dependent on a diminishing supply of fossil and biological fuels.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rajagopalan Venkataraman | 29 Sep 2012 0:55 am
In India we have several nuclear plants working over a decade. The burst of opposition for Kudangulam Nuclear project is based on lack of detailed horizontal communication with the lower strata of the society who are ill informed and offered explanations by non knowledgable ministers and officials. Your article prompts me to do something on your line in India. I am an instrumentation person with 40 years of experience .I plan to initiate immediately
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mike blamey | 29 Sep 2012 10:00 am
It was always the link in the public mind -ably fueled by the meja- between 'bombs' and peaceful uses of nuclear created energy that was the primary stumbling block.
Three Mile Island was the result of a mis-fit of 'ordinary' and 'instrument quality compressed air couplings: as the man siad 'One cannot legislate against stupidity'?
All this 'grief' will continue until the lights start to go out.
Best
M
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 29 Sep 2012 10:09 am
"
Not this old chestnut again , one would think that the engineer had some kind of axe to grind"
Hear, hear. The article and most of the comments are simply PR. The statement that it is the only way forward is ridiculous. What about coal?
Most of the accidents in the coal mining industry occur in China which can not be regarded as typical.
In spite of all the improvements in safety and increasingin PR by interested parties, the risks remain.
Just because wave energy has not yet been developed is no reason to reject it. There is enough available to satisfy demands.
I was a member of a Nuclear Club some time ago so am fully aware of the power of vested interest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Sep 2012 10:16 am
Sadly the World will not fully wake up to the need for nuclear power until the lihghts start to go out. Anyone who supports the reduction of CO2 must support nuclear. A wind power station is as expensive to build per Kw as a similar sized nuclear station and cannot provide a guaranteed supply of power. The money being poured into wind power should be fully redirected now to the construction of nuclear stations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 29 Sep 2012 5:45 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html.
The subsequent western hysterical overreaction was to be expected. We really do need to get at the juveniles in Parliament and now in Government and get them to modify their weltshaung before the lights go out for ever.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Oct 2012 11:51 am
Just one noteable comment copied from http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/:
Time to get real = construction costs + production costs + decommissioning + long-term waste storage costs (for how many 1000s of years) – lets stop this nonsense now, we cannot discount this into the future for our children to inherit.
Saying sorry just doesn’t cut it.
Totally agreed!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 1 Oct 2012 2:51 pm
I visited Sizewell 'B' many years ago and was impressed by the QA procedures in place. Notably, it's never had an 'event' that I know of (and I've still got most of my hair!). The visitor room was, if I recall, directly above the reactor and the counters showed many times less radiation in there than from naturally occurring Cornish granite!
Simple considerations show that the UK must have Nuclear if it is to remain a viable country. There is not enough useable energy in wind (Indeed, all current and future wind farms should be scrapped as 'unfit for purpose'). Tidal, which should be pursued instead of wind, Coal and other fossil and renewable type fuels should be utilised in a unified energy policy until either energy usage reduces to levels manageable by 'renewables', or Fusion finally comes of age.
Whichever mix is used, the aim should be for the soonest implementation of 100% of UK power needs produced in the UK from UK produced fuels.
This should not be subject to the simplistic and changeable short termism of politicians (am I being too polite here?) but via an independent panel of Engineers set up as e,g. 'UK Energy Trust'. Such engineers to be seconded from industry on a maximum and fixed 3-year contract employing specialists as required.
As for the Nuclear gainsayers, 20 odd miles away the French use nuclear to sell us about 20% of our consumption of electricity at peak demand! I wonder if Germany does the same. Irony or Hypocrisy... you decide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Fulcher | 1 Oct 2012 7:52 pm
Well, Ed Burrows, you are in a minority there, ref Thorium. I'm afraid that it most certainly does lend itself to bomb making in a big way, having U233 as one of its end products. Plus it needs such as Plutonium to convert it into a fissile material, which would otherwise be used in a fast breeder for instance, so you cannot have it both ways. Plus, it seems, the two are best kept a long way apart.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Storey | 2 Oct 2012 2:29 pm
I visited Sellafield as a student and was impressed with the overall cleanliness, efficiency and attitude of the plant and its operators. I have always supported nuclear power and that has not changed - it needs to be in the mix with all other options
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Finn (retd Fuel tecnnologist) | 2 Oct 2012 6:07 pm
I could say a lot, but most has been said above.
Remember that at Fukushima there were NO fatalities of a nuclear kind, while COUNTLESS THOUSANDS were killed by the tsunami.
The reactor was eventually shut down safely, though this was made harder by the unexpected loss of auxiliary power generators.
Lessons have been learned from this.
The UK does not suffer from tsunamis, and our reactors are further from the sea or higher up.
The massive death toll (and 'life-changing injury' count) in the coal industry would probably surprise many non-technical readers.
I'm strongly with the nuclear supporters - 'candle-light' dinners are for wedding anniversaries, not for every night . . .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 3 Oct 2012 10:09 am
Dated yesterday:
Cost of repair for Crystal River nuclear plant could reach $3.98 billion.
Let's not get to wound up in the saftey of these things folks, let's consider the cost.
Chris Finn,
If you are retired then you must be about the same age as me and heard the same projections of how cheap nuclear was going to be for us lucky youngsters, are you tired of waiting for those cheap kilowatts hours, because I certainly am.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 3 Oct 2012 12:40 pm
It's always jam tomorrow from the naive supporters of nuclear power.
Only today a report has revealed that the nuclear plants in Europe alone need around £20 billion to rectify know existing problems. And one can double this figure before the actual costs are known.
There seems to be no end to the gullable nature of nuclear power supporters.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy H | 4 Oct 2012 10:50 am
If governments want to continue with their CO2 reduction agenda then unfortunately for the nay sayers Nuclear Fission is the only solution.
Of the so called 'renewables' for the UK, tidal is the only cost effective solution, but this will not meet the entire demand.
Solar and Wind are just too unreliable for their cost.
Unfortunately many governments have been avoiding Fission, betting that Fusion would be working before the existing systems needed to be decommissioned, this bet has failed and the consumer is paying the price.
Fission like any other energy source has it's issues, unfortunately for some the media and a few others have programmed the general public's mindset that as soon as the word Nuclear is mentioned, that it's the end of the world!
Fusion will come, but the timescales will be too long and as many have stated we'll be having Candle lit dinners every night if some of the 'green' extremists have their way.
In response to the article:
"All degree-educated and in their thirties, they are firmly of the opinion that nuclear is not a risk worth taking because potentially catastrophic accidents could leave an indelible mark on the world."
I am degree educated and in my 30's and I am entirely pro-nuclear, so your statement is incorrect.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 4 Oct 2012 10:50 am
Jason's comment pertained to the people he was talking to, not to degree-educated people in their thirties in general.
JohnK | 4 Oct 2012 4:50 pm
Galump..... - You seem to have a figure for the current maintenance cost of Nuclear installations.
Do you also have the same calculation for the current cost of maintaining the existing crop of working & non-working wind Turbines? Maybe as a cost/year/kilowatt produced.
Only when the maintenance costs for this and other forms of electricity generation is offered as a comparison may you offer criticism.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gary Furness | 4 Oct 2012 4:55 pm
Engineers are the architects of tomorrow, I agree with all the above the combined knowledge which as been gained over the last 60 years must make Nuclear a viable and safe option as long as the politicians don't control the safety purse strings.
I am also sure that Engineers working on alternative energy sources would welcome the extra breathing space a Nuclear solution brings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 5 Oct 2012 10:10 am
Andy H
Solar unreliable? My solar lights come on and go off pretty reliable. Can you name a day when the sun didn't come up?
The cost of PV is falling like a brick, which is certainly not the case for nuclear.
John K
So what it the cost of wind maintainance, if you don't know why assume it is prohibitably high?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 5 Oct 2012 12:14 pm
Gary Furness,
Our politicians may have or not have control over the safety purse strings, but they will certainly not have control over the cost of electricity to the user; they will have to promise to buy the electricity at a pre-agreed rate before these nuclear reators are built.
What do the builders of these things know that we don't know? Or at least some of us, don't want to know.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 5 Oct 2012 12:44 pm
CG - I have no idea what the cost of maintaining the various wind installations is. I was merely pointing out to Galathumpian that no maintenance cost critisisms are valid without comparisons.
I could as easily assert that the cost of maintenance per KwH produced by wind is higher than for Nuclear but I can't say for certain so I don't offer it as a statement and I certainly don't assume the anti-nuclear people are gullible, just misled.
When the lights go out across the UK, either because the foreign imports of electricity are interrupted, or because we cannot produce enough, then I can say the anti-nuclear peoiple are, or rather were, gullible fools.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 5 Oct 2012 9:34 pm
The cost estimate I gave is not for normal maintenance. It is the additional capital costs of bringing the existing nuclear stations up to the current safety requirements.
The costs of maintaining the current crop of coal fired power stations is miniscule by comparison.
Another myth being put forward by the uninitiated and the companies/people wanting to build new ones, is that the existing fossil fuel stations are coming to the end of their working life. This is also ridiculous. All items of equipment can, and are, in more enlightened places, be renovated/upgraded almost ad infinitum.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 5 Oct 2012 10:18 pm
"Only when the maintenance costs for this and other forms of electricity generation is offered as a comparison may you offer criticism."
During my working life I have been responsible for maintaining and re-furbishing/re-locating conventional power stations.
It is a pity that so few engineers are left who actually know what one looks like.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 8 Oct 2012 10:14 am
JohnK,
I find it a bit rich for someone who parrots the phrase "When the lights go out all over the UK" should call anybody a guillible fool. The third and fourth largest economies' on this planet have both forsaken nuclear power, do you consider the Germans and Japanese guillible fools? I have experienced the lights going out all over this country, it was in the three day weeks of the seventies, I had to go and buy camping lights for my employer to continue doing business. At that time our nuclear industry was a lot more healthier that it is now, we had plenty of our own oil, and there was still a bit of coal mining going on. But it was the withdrawal of UK labour that caused the lights to go out then. On that historical fact I could put up a case for generation coming a bit closer to the user, I won't, but that's what seems to be going on in Japan and Germany, and we will see where it leads. Even the latest concern over electricity shortages expressed last week is only caused by EU directives to cut our use of fossil fuels - not only do we have to have foreigners building our power stations, we also have foreigners telling us what short they should be.
Nuclear was dead in the water until the Greenies got excited over CO2 emissions, and ran around like Corporal Jones saying "Don't panic, don't panic, go nuclear.". With the Green pressure groups behind it nuclear was put on the front burner as a saviour from global warming. But we don't need nuclear to save us, take a look at this site:
www.jouleunlimited.com
CCU comes to town, and not as a test plant but a fully commercial plant producing diesel, and proper diesel at that. Chemist have caused these CO2 emissions and chemists will solve them, not nuclear physicists. Other solutions to high CO2 levels will be found, and when they do the criteria for nuclear power will swing back to its cost, something it has failed to deliver on.
I have stated before on this site something that most people do not realise or just don't know, and that is over 98% of all the electricity generated on this planet for our use is generated just one way. This way has served us well, but if we want to get the cost of electricity down we must invest in other ways. This is being done on quite a large scale in other industrial nations, but not in the UK. So we will probably buy nuclear power stations, and halfway through their use UK customers will have to buy electricity at high prices that this government will have to lock into to get the stations built. But other nations that have invested in other technologies may be able to get their electricity a bit cheaper, who will be the gullible fools then.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 8 Oct 2012 5:00 pm
CG/Gala.
I’m delighted my input has prompted such spirited responses.
CG:
It seems from your words that for your option to work the UK would have to leave the EU. I'm not against that in principle, but we live in the real world where that is only a possibility. I for one am not prepared to see us gamble the future of UK power needs on such a possibility.
I also was working during the 3-day weeks of the miner's strikes led by Arthur Scargill. It is maybe ironic that UK production actually increased during that time....
I have visited the 'Joule' site and am concerned that, whilst the technology looks useful, it is also highly proprietary, viz:
"The company's helioculture™ platform incorporates proprietary, engineered photosynthetic microorganisms to directly produce infrastructure-ready diesel, ethanol and multiple chemicals with no dependence on biomass feedstocks, agricultural land or fresh water".
I have doubts about the scalability of the technology and the need for 'engineered micro-organisms' with the potential environmental dangers of such things.
All in all, if this monopolistic enterprise becomes a prime source of fuel/power, I foresee a relentless increase in prices. This is not a charity dispensing Utopia; it's a business first and foremost.
You write at great length about the lack of any need for a nuclear element of UK power production, but your response seems to not to include any meaningful alternatives (other than the 'joule' process above), just statements without material content. (and I’ve re-read it several times!)
I am aware the UK, if we had continued development of our land based oil & coal resources, has (had?) at least 300 years of energy capacity in known reserves. It is various ‘clean-air protocols’ which are forcing us down a particular path and have closed coal mines wholesale. (Notably, labour closed more mines than the Tories).
As for Germany/Japan.....
1) How much electricity does Germany import, how much of their power is generated by coal, and how are they proposing to meet EU emission targets.
2) As far as I recall, Japan is facing a severe energy shortfall, caused in part, but not wholly, by its abandonment of nuclear capacity. As it has little burnable reserves it has to import almost all of its power production leaving it at risk if shipments are curtailed, hence the current row with China over islands which may hold oil/gas reserves.
Whilst I am not a 'greenie', I think it’s a tad unfair to shift the emphasis for supporting a nuclear option onto them. A lot of 'normal' people have backed a nuclear content for a long time.
You say 98% of global power is produced just one way (you don't say which way, but I assume it's the burning of fossil fuels). Yes, easy to say, as the USA, China, India, South America, Africa and the Middle East almost certainly use mainly fossil fuels, so there's a good chunk of your 98%. This does not mean we should choose just that way. As I have clearly stated elsewhere, the UK needs to be independent of imported fuel/power and to achieve that will require careful long term planning and a mix of technologies, notwithstanding a longer term solution (Fusion?).
As you infer, CHP plants should be part of any strategic planning. It makes no sense to generate remotely and lose a large part of what is generated in lengthy transmission. Local plants, which were common in most large cities in past years, should be reconstructed and the waste heat produced sold for local use. With your experience (or Gala’s) you may confirm or correct my understanding that modern CHP plants under such usage reach efficiencies approaching 85%. I’m not technically aware, but would DC electric power transmission reduce losses?
However, we may well face an energy gap, that even with the careful planning required, may still take 30 to 50 years to fully solve.
Note that I discount solar and wind as both being uneconomic, uncertain, and therefore 'unfit for purpose'. Tidal has distinct potential to be a useful element. CG. To compare your solar lamps with industrial scale power generation is a little disingenuous don’t you think? As you also say, the sun does rise every day, but in the UK, often above the clouds.
Gala:
I am most certainly not against coal fired generation, but am trying to offer realistic rationales to cover the requirement for meeting the various ‘clean air’ acts and protocols etc. Unless Flue gas scrubbing of all noxious elements from coal powered generation becomes economic then regrettably, coal may not be included in such a realistic assessment. All my observations are based on this premise. See my comment above re. CHP.
By the way, I am old enough to remember the pea-souper fogs in London caused entirely by the burning of coal for domestic and power.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 9 Oct 2012 9:42 am
JohnK,
I can't reply today in full because I could only get a 15 computer at the library, but I can tell you that Germany is a net exporter of electricity.
See www.solarserver.com news archives, title german coal electricity declines, or something like that. It was in last weeks news sections, I think.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 9 Oct 2012 10:08 am
Hi CG.
Looked at web for 'German coal electricity declines' and this was there.....
"The electricity market in Europe involves lots of imports and exports to help balance demand so there are times when Germany exports to France, but exports from France to Germany are much larger than exports from Germany to France. Thus, France is the NET exporter of electricity in the Germany-France submarket. German net exports in 2011 were down sharply even though their nuclear shutdowns occurred midyear. The further drop in nuclear generation--if the phaseout occurs on schedule--is almost certainly going to make Germany a net importer of electricity, even though it is building several new coal plant. "
Building new Coal plants.... Brown coal at that, hard to make them 'clean' if I recall previous readings on this. Also as Brown coal is essentially solidified Peat is there a substantial release of Co2 just by mining it? I'm not sure, but I believe Irelands strip mining of peat does so in great quantities.
So, I'm not sure holding Germany up as a shining light to make a case for not needing nuclear in the UK is necessarily valid.
Germany also seems rather quiet on the use of imported Natural Gas in its current generation capacity and future plans.
I suspect we will continue to differ on this, but discussion and debate is always informative and interesting.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 9 Oct 2012 11:22 am
Johnk,
Here's part of Paul Gipe's report on German electricity generation from coal, I can't tell if he's playing with words, but he is well known in the wind turbine world
and quite well respected.
I am using the term "generation" of electricity here rather than "consumption" of electricity, because Germany, like France and other European countries, both imports and exports electricity to meet the demand of its consumers.
In the case of Germany, generation exceeds consumption. Yes, that's right. Despite the claims, Germany exports electricity to neighboring countries--including France.
Thus "consumption" is less than "generation" in Germany for 2011 and for many other years as well.
Net exports declined in 2011 but they still remained a positive 6 TWh or 1% of generation. Net exports have remained positive during the first six months of 2012 as well.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 10 Oct 2012 8:49 am
It's been fun, but I think we should now agree that we differ in our estimates of how to best serve the UK's future energy needs.
The item you show was in the same discussion topic I read, so both sides were shown.
As was commented upon, Germany is rather quiet on Natural Gas generation, and also on how soon it's Nuclear plants will be finally closed as they still produce a significant proportion of Germany's demand.
As to whether Germany has a net input, or output of overall energy needs, it is worth noting that any import of energy will certainly include nuclear generated power, so is it a case of Germany politically 'shifting the blame'?
As in all things such as this, the real truth is often concealed by big business and politics using the well worn "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" approach.
Hope to raise discussions with you in other blog strings. Meanwhile....
Regards
JohnK
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 10 Oct 2012 9:34 pm
JohnK,
"I am old enough to remember the pea-souper fogs in London caused entirely by the burning of coal for domestic and power."
That's really scraping the barrel. The circumstances which led to the smogs in urban areas have not existed for decades. The anti-coal brigades will have to come up with something better than that!
And the adoption of clean coal techniques will be implemented when the generating companies are forced to do so by legislation, and not before. But it will still be cheaper than nuclear, which is a non-starter without guaranteed subsidies in one form or another.
It seems that at the present time, rightly or not, the issues of greenhouse gasses will be subordinated to the requirements for cheap power.
I am also old enough, and then some, to have lived for years with the smogs you referred to.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 11 Oct 2012 9:36 am
Gala:
Had you read my observations and responses you would realize that far from being anti-coal, I am fully in favour of coal fired generation being part of the 'mix', especially as part of local CHP schemes.
However, this is entirely dependent upon a completely 'clean' process being developed, mandated and used for managing flue gas emissions.
I have also maintained all along I am not a 'pro-nuclear' fanatic, far from it. I have consistently maintained the UK needs to strategically plan for full energy independence regardless of technology used.
Due, arguably, to the short termism of successive governments investing in 'fashionable' generating technologies we have no single way of ensuring both independence of supply and providing sufficient power for current and future needs.
Therefore it is my contention that a mix of technologies will be needed to tide us over until a well thought out, long term strategy can be implemented(30 - 50 years?), and I truly hope coal has a major part to play as well as UK sourced Nuclear,Gas, Oil, Shale gas, Tidal, Hydroelectric and all other forms of power generation excluding wind, which has now shown conclusively that it is 'unfit for purpose'.
I back Nuclear as part of the mix as it is, apart from the build element, essentially clean. Any surplus resulting from fluctuating load patterns can be used for H production, and this can then be burned for peak demand power provision, or sold as a 'portable' fuel. Also, few lives have been lost to nuclear generation compared to coal.
The UK needs urgently to address its power needs and longer term also needs to improve the overall efficiency of its power provision and distribution to point of use. (Note: Only at point of use is an efficiency measurement valid).
I mentioned the smogs as being indicative of my age rather than using it in an anti-coal way, as you would have gathered had you read all my input.
Finally, your statement:
"It seems that at the present time, rightly or not, the issues of greenhouse gasses will be subordinated to the requirements for cheap power."
I've read and re-read this several times, but for the life of me I can extract no real meaning from it. As far as I can see neither cheap power nor the reduction of greenhouse gases are mutually exclusive.
And, before you once again jump down my throat, I do question what comprises the 'baseline' of greenhouse gases against which it is claimed we should reduce.
I propose to no longer respond to any further questioning of my motives or logic on this subject. As with CG, if we must, then we must just disagree on this subject.
Respectfully yours.
JohnK
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jebus 3rd | 11 Oct 2012 5:37 pm
I have been reading through all these posts and I must say that I feel the main problems facing energy sustinence in the UK were touched on but not entirely explored.
I think we need to stop letting the government dishing out ideas and propaganda depending on what ever group is popular or what ever is deemed to be publically viable (as a way to gaining votes) at any given time.
Whether you are pro or anti-nuclear you all seem to agree that we need to do something, and in my lifetime (which is admittedly shorter than most of yours by the sound of it) the government has behaved like a see-saw on not only this subject but a variety of others.
In my opinion, this was again touched on by one of you, we need an energy commision of people not affiliated with any political or commercial entity. One who is focued on finding a proper solution and to evaluating and deploying the "right" technologies.
i say "right" as you guys seem to have a variety of ideas as to what this is and iIam not as educated on the various options avaiable as most of you are. Saying that I personally think nuclear is a viable option, if handled correctly. humans have never been put off by risk, although we do seem to have a much deeper respect for it lately (as long as it doesnt cost too much unfortunately) and I think our record of 4 major incidents is entierly acceptable. as long as we have learned from them.
Surely the UK has enough intelligent people to sort through all of the mis-information and political shenanigans, to get to the heart of the subject and produce a proper report that forwards no other agenda.
Upon readin your reviews I was happy to see that you all afford each other a great level of civility even when your opinions are polar opposites and this is very refreshing as most forums for people my age (that makes me sounds about 15, I'm 28 just not old enough to remember smog, candles or three day weeks) are full of ignorant loudmouths who want nothing more than to show their opinion down as many throats as possible (again touched upon by a previous post). Its vitally important that these people be ignored. The internet (and indeed the press/government/tv channels) has given idiots and imbeciles the opportunity to shout from the proverbial rooftops and its drowing out the informed (and usually more timid) amongst us.
There are many problems facing society that cannot be allowed to be ignored or commandeered by the ignorant that society seems to be breeding in greater numbers and this is one of them.
I'm afraid I dont have any ideas how to bring about such a commision and am not naive enough to believe that it ever will, certainly not free of external influence's. I'm just pleased to have found a forum to speak my mind, safe in the knowledge that when you oldies (said in jest, no offence intended) shoot my ideas down in flames, you will do so politely instead of threatening my mother or questioning my sexuality, which will be nice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CG | 12 Oct 2012 11:30 am
Jebus 3rd
Seeing as you don't mind some imput from oldies, and expect intelligent people to find an answer to our future energy problems, I'll tell you a story, that will show how hard, even for experts, to predict what's going to happen, in regards to energy
It's 1959 and I am in an auditorium to hear a speech given given to us pupils of a bog standard Secondary Modern School by a well-known member of the scientific chatteratti of that day. His name was Calder, and he thought he would start of with a little joke. So he told us that Calder Hall was not named after him. Calder Hall was the first commercial nuclear power station built in the UK. He then went on to tell us just how lucky we were to be born in the nuclear age, because it could also be used for powering our houses just as it could be for making bombs. He told us how one little spoonful of uranium was worth fifty trucks of coal, in energy terms, so electricity would become very cheap for us.
That was all a long time ago, but nowdays I think about what might have happened if one of the pupils had interupted him and said he was quite wrong in his predictions, that nuclear not sweep away all the other forms of electricity generation, that giant windmills would be built and sited in the North sea, and we would have solar panels on our houses generating our own electricity. You must remember the cane was still in use in schools at that time, and I think that child would have got one caning for the interuption and other for being so silly.
I was born in the age of gas lighting in the home, my house had it, my school had it. It was distilled from coal, in things called gasworks - you may have a gasworks road or something like that in your town. I won't jam up the Engineer's file server with all the changes I have seen in my lifetime, but take if from me there have been a lot. My advice to you it to join a public library, go to the main branch in your largest town, and get as many books on electricity generation and energy in general as you can, then read, read and read some more. Remember one third of our energy needs are for electricity, one is for heating our homes, and the other is for running our vehicles. Think what we are doing when we generate electricity, don't worry about the energy systems that we tap into, get a good basic knowledge of the physics of electricity generation. You do not have to be led by anybody, you have a brain, so fill it with data, and try to work it out for yourself. But do let people know what you think, do not leave it up to lobbyists or politicians to have all the say.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jebus3rd | 12 Oct 2012 3:29 pm
CG
I appreciate what you are saying, and i must say i do have a basic working knowledge of how many forms of energy are created, even down to E=MC2 (i don’t know how to do a squared symbol on a keyboard though ha ha). I know (again in basic terms) which ones are efficient, which ones are cost effective and which ones have no real future (long term - 100 years plus). But i am by no means an expert. I have a full time job and fiancé and kids, so don’t have the time to learn all the ins and outs to a level where i could be useful on the topic of energy generation. At least not on the level i was mentioning.
You seem to be agreeing with what i was trying to say (whether i managed to say what i meant is a different story). That the lobbyists and the politicians have other agendas. the green people want a clean renewable source (not always with an aim for efficiency or cost effectiveness) the politicians want cheap and anything that makes them look good in the eyes of the voters (not always with an aim for long term health of the planet or running out of resource which won’t happen in their lifetimes). What i want is an independent body. People like your MR Calder. albeit his predictions were wrong, but i suspect he was working on the assumption that we would figure out how to deal with the byproducts, maybe he thought we would crack fusion within his lifetime, and as we had no major nuclear catastrophes, he wouldn’t be counting on public opinion turning against it as it now has in Germany and japan. (And the UK??)
Out with that, with the evidence he had to hand at the time (in conjunction with a level of public morale that i feel hasn’t really existed in my lifetime) he was probably considered spot on by most of the other respected people in the field. but now we know we can generate clean and efficient (more or less) energy if we pump in the proper funds, if we find ways to work out the bugs, if we find ways to make it more profitable for the investors (something i consider scandalous considering the results of failure, but I’m not naive enough to think it’s going to change). But these things won’t happen for one reason
Energy is big business. No matter what form it in at the moment. People rely on it more and more. Something i would have said ten years ago (again naively) had reached its peak. I didn’t foresee the mobile phones, the tablets, games consoles even electric cars. (I’m not meaning populations growth which is also a factor i simply mean each individual uses more energy personally than then). And what’s going to mess us up, or at least has the potential to, is that the current energy consortiums don’t want anything new and cheap as it will diminish their profits. But what if they don’t correctly predict the next ten years or twenty or 50 the way i did. What if something else comes along demanding more and more energy? Which they greedily provide as all the see is pound signs. Then by the time they realize our current production isn’t anywhere near enough, and they never started this research now due to short sightedness, we are royally screwed. There will be worldwide scrabbles for the last remaining fossil fuels and we will be forced to go nuclear because it’s the only reliable form we have left.
Those will be dark days (pardon the pun) but my overall point is that the public can be convinced. It’s not too late. but we have to create some form of committee free from the constraints of profit and global warming. The people involved will be smart enough to know not to ignore these factors all together but hopefully also smart enough not to let them be primary concerns.
As i said i don’t think it will happen, i don’t think anyone with enough power and money to make it happen will step forward with the innocent motives it requires to work properly. But what if, what if people could be convinced to do it themselves?
Could that work? Enough smart people coming together, working on their own time to find a solution over the coming years?
I think it is (my naivety is shining like a nuclear powered led display) but i think I’m probably alone in that.
Anyway likely i haven’t made any points worth listening to, but they are my points to make and i hope at least one person agrees. Simply to prove to me that I’m not the imbecile i appear ha ha.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy H2 | 12 Oct 2012 4:30 pm
Bring back the CEGB! They had only one purpose; to ensure the lights remained on, so had a mix of generators.
I believe they also employed engineers to make engineering decisions, not politicians.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jebus3rd | 12 Oct 2012 5:32 pm
i agree with what you are saying andy but the only reason that was allowed was because there was an actual danger of the lights going out
as we arent there yet the powers that be dont want to do anything that sensible as it wouldnt be cost effective
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 13 Oct 2012 10:18 am
I know, I know.... I said I was complete on this blog, but I'd just like to congratulate jebus3rd for his contributuon.
jebus.... There are no 'stupid' contributions, only some that may be less valid than others. A patently daft remark may well light a spark in someone elses mind and invent, or develop great solutions. Age is not a barrier to good ideas and even less so for good intentions, so keep going.
Andy H2 - I'm not a huge fan of monopolistic nationalized industries because the lack of competition may engender needless cost increases caused by inefficiencies and also of course from Trade Union interests, as has been experienced in the past.
However, as with the NHS, I must admit to a sneaking feeling you may be absolutely correct that a nationalized CEGB or equivalent may be the solution. It should however be entirely managed, as I said before, by a seconded cadre of qualified Engineers on 3 year fixed term contract. This will help ensure no 'vested interests' are allowed to dominate.
Regards all
JohnK
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 15 Oct 2012 1:48 pm
"Bring back the CEGB."
Hear, hear. It should never have been sold off.
And the idea that low price gas will be available from fracking is just nieve. The gas produced will be sold at "market" prices, which have little to do with "supply and demand". It will be the market "fixers/gamblers who will set the prices, with no relationship to actual costs or economic values.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jebus3rd | 16 Oct 2012 3:05 pm
thanks John thats appreciated.
Ideas are not something i am short on, for many problems facing society.
how to get these accepted and on the road to implementation (or re-structured if they turn out to be stupid) is another story
as for the last part of the comment i think you are spot on, but cant help but think its a crying shame that money penetrates the fabric of everything humanity does so that "vested intrest" invariably means "whats in it for me" whereas it SHOULD mean "whats in it for my fellow man".
maybe one day we will see sense and realise that we should all realise our vested interests from a selfless viewpoint. somehow i doubt it will be in my lifetime or even that of my kids. but we can but live in hope
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 16 Oct 2012 3:59 pm
jebus - Hope so too. Selflessness rather than selfishness is whats needed. Maybe one day when we're grown up as a race.
Gala - I believe you are absolutely right about pricing. Market forces define prices but as you say it's who defines/sets the market forces we should be targetting. This applies to everything, not just fuel. Supermarket milk suffers from the same thing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jebus3rd | 16 Oct 2012 4:14 pm
john
I believe we are mature enough as a race, i just dont think we have an outlet for it to grow and convince the people that remain ignorant. (or even to convince the people that agree that they aint alone in their convictions)
On top of that society seems to be structured to minimise group efforts that aren't money oreintated or business minded.
and the ever present trolls, not just online but in day to day contact. the people who are so convinced that their opinion is 100% correct (usually an extreme opinion - racism, bullying or just plain stupidity). these are the people that are, unfortunately, are heard above the din.
for all i believe that the majority of people (worldwide - i have done a bit of travelling) are good and moral, we still have the minority (loud enough to sometimes sound like the majority) who like nothing better than to antagonaise and spread hate and fear.
after all, doesnt everyone want power, fame and money? not by a long shot but thats what these people would have you believe. thats its called the human RACE for a reason. and if you aint first, your last. not at the top your at the bottom.
utter drivel at its best. but we dont do anything to dissuade people. once we do then we start seeing progress
teach people HOW to think. not WHAT to think.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 16 Oct 2012 4:24 pm
As just one example, important though it is. Crude oil costs around $22/barrel to extract from the deepest water depths, whilst some easily accessible deposits cost a mere $2 or less.
Why then is the World market price around the $100 mark? Recently there has been little relationship between supply and demand as demand has fallen. It's time the futures market gamblers/banksters were dealt with. But it would create such huge problems for the whole financial system that no one has the guts to do it for fear of the severe short term consequences to those brave enough to initiate it. Also we must remember that those with the power to do anything about it are themselves surrounded by hoards of individuals from the same financial background; even the heads of some major European countries (Greece and Italy being just 2 of them)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin | 17 Oct 2012 11:05 pm
How many rivers are there in the UK that have loads of weirs that could potentially produce electricity. There are many other ways of producing electricity, such as every south facing house, supermarket or factory etc could have literally hundreds of solar panels all connected to the grid & produce peak electricity during the day when it is most needed. Also what most manufacturers are not really doing is saving electricity in all of the products they produce. For instance every electrical heating device such as radiators, hot water tanks etc could be pulsed and use 50% or less electricty! Not enough is being done to save electricity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment