uplyme.com Forum Index uplyme.com
The Uplyme Debate
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More nuclear power - yes or no ?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    uplyme.com Forum Index -> Beyond the Boundary
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Are we happy to have more nuclear power in the UK ?
Yes
75%
 75%  [ 9 ]
No
25%
 25%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 12

Author Message
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 01/12/05, 00:25    Post subject: Re: Nuclear Power Justification Reply with quote

gepalmer wrote:
Please read:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devtwelve.html

Yes the website of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rolling Eyes
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 01/12/05, 09:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

RichardH wrote:
The "government" (that's us) surely can't simply invest in them, and what private company is going to set aside a few tens of billions in the hope of an operating profit in 2030? OK, maybe Eurotunnel.

Of course as the means of electricity generation is now in private hands shouldn’t it therefore be left to market forces? This emphasizes what a disaster the privatization of the electricity generation and transmission industry was. This is an industry much too important with its consequences on society’s long term well being to be in private and self-interested hands.

RichardH wrote:
If we are going to invest large sums of money - which we will have to - then this will probably have to be spread across a range of technologies, including local generation, such as micro CHP and mini turbines. This would reduce transmission losses, and make people more aware of generation and consumption.

The installation of small domestic generators on houses and gardens should be encouraged by giving householders a realistic price for surplus electricity that is sold to the grid.

RichardH wrote:
A lot will have to be done in educating people to change their ways, anyway. Was anyone else as annoyed as I was during our recent mini-winter, seeing people starting their cars in the frosty mornings and just leaving them to run until the screen was clear and the inside warm enough for their cossetted toes? I was sorely tempted to reach inside and turn the engine off.

You weren’t alone Richard. Having lived in a country where it was compulsory to turn your engine off at traffic lights, admittedly primarily to reduce pollution in towns, coming back to England was quite a shock with our profligate use of energy.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
geoff



Joined: 17 Sep 2005

Posts: 704
Location: Lyme Rd, Uplyme

PostPosted: 01/12/05, 15:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rhodie wrote:

The installation of small domestic generators on houses and gardens should be encouraged by giving householders a realistic price for surplus electricity that is sold to the grid.


Agreed as a fringe part of a broader energy policy, but can you seriously expect such generators to produce enough energy for the household upon whose house it is mounted, let alone have excess to sell ? In the real world the demands for energy are growing so the problem today is how do we plan for the near future's energy requirements without burning more fossil fuels and releasing vast quantities of CO2?

G.
_________________
it's never too late
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 02/12/05, 06:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

geoff wrote:
Agreed as a fringe part of a broader energy policy, but can you seriously expect such generators to produce enough energy for the household upon whose house it is mounted, let alone have excess to sell ?
G.

Sure thing. Admittedly you would be pushing it if you had one of the smallest wind turbines with a peak output of 0.5 KiloWatts. But even then with the average household using about 1,000 KWs per quarter and there being 2190 hours in the average three month billing period we can say that the average hourly consumption is 0.46 KWs per hour. Yes the output would often be well below this but so also would be energy consumption.

Scale the generator up to the size of the one for which planning permission has been granted at Yawl Hill, that is 2.5 KWs, and with the generator ticking along at a fifth of its maximum output it is evident that the average demand will easily be provided for.


he also wrote:
In the real world the demands for energy are growing so the problem today is how do we plan for the near future's energy requirements without burning more fossil fuels and releasing vast quantities of CO2?
G.

By having a mix of generating methods, and as RichardH said,” a range of technologies, including local generation, such as micro CHP and mini turbines” and by encouraging, perhaps with financial incentives, the more efficient use of energy and making what we do use go further
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
geoff



Joined: 17 Sep 2005

Posts: 704
Location: Lyme Rd, Uplyme

PostPosted: 02/12/05, 11:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair point I guess Rhodie, but isn't the problem then that you will have oversupply of electricity on stormy days and undersupply on calm days ?
Also, the peak demands are during the evening. We do not have a workable system for storing electricity apart from a couple of small pumped water plants in Wales, so conventional and nuclear will still be required for the 'calm evenings' scenario.

I am not saying for one moment that we should not step up renewables just as fast as we can, but we need to address the problems of powering the next few decades whilst reducing carbon emissions.[/i]
_________________
it's never too late
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
martin



Joined: 05 Oct 2005

Posts: 7
Location: Yawl Hill Lane, Uplyme.

PostPosted: 02/12/05, 20:04    Post subject: Wind Farms Reply with quote

Just out of interest I`m told it takes approx 150 years to recover the energy used in making a wind turbine . :?:
_________________
Martin Young (cert RHS)

Garden Swing seat maker
Garden open 13th-15th June 2008 and 24th-25th July 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oliver



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 117

PostPosted: 02/12/05, 20:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

But how long do they last because if its over 150 years then no one is making any power from wind turbines there for nuclear power is better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 04/12/05, 07:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

geoff wrote:
Is there a viable carbon-neutral alternative in the short- to mid- term ?

For a short-term fix you can forget nuclear. With a minimum lead-time of 10 years we are unlikely to see new plant up and running before 2017. The decision with what to replace nuclear should have been made years ago, but the privatisation of the electricity generating industry got in the way of this and market forces took hold. With scheduled nuclear de-commissioning we must be aware that by 2010 only seven stations will be left running producing 70% of the original nuclear contribution. A further four will have gone by 2014 with the remaining three producing just 30% of the original nuclear contribution. This will mean that if demand stays static, which is extremely unlikely, the three stations will only be able to supply 6 or 7% of the demand as against the 22% at present. Where will the short fall of 16% come from?
http://www.energybulletin.net/8422.html
It may be wise to invest in your own wind generator in the next few years.Cool

geoff wrote:
Fair point I guess Rhodie, but isn't the problem then that you will have oversupply of electricity on stormy days and undersupply on calm days ?

Regarding the home generator, you can’t expect the National Grid to buy your surplus at times when they have an over supply. It would be part of running your own generator to organize your energy consumption according to its generation. This would mean heating the water in your extra large capacity immersion heater cylinder and using dishwashers and washing machines at these times. Perhaps you would have under floor heating that you would also charge up. Then you may have an electric flywheel car once they have been developed. The possibilities are endless.

geoff wrote:
Also, the peak demands are during the evening. We do not have a workable system for storing electricity apart from a couple of small pumped water plants in Wales.....

SMALL Shocked http://www.electricmountain.co.uk/gallery/gallery.htm

geoff wrote:
...so conventional and nuclear will still be required for the 'calm evenings' scenario.

These Welsh hydro storage systems were developed to store energy – pumped water – during the night for use when demand increased during the peak periods because nuclear generation, and to a lesser degree large coal fired stations, can’t be turned on and off at will and there was a surplus during the night. Economy 7 tariff was devised to soak up this nocturnal surplus. Gas generators were introduced because of their advantage, as with hydro schemes, of being able to be turned on and off almost at a moments notice.

Unfortunately in this country we seem only to consider one form of generation by renewable means and that is wind. This is partly understandable it being the windiest country in Europe. But we are also ideally placed to benefit from wave and tidal schemes. Solar is also a worthwhile option not to mention bio fuels and using methane from various sources. With a broad mix of these renewables the peaks and troughs of individual systems would largely be ironed out.

geoff wrote:
I am not saying for one moment that we should not step up renewables just as fast as we can, but we need to address the problems of powering the next few decades whilst reducing carbon emissions

If a programme to build more nuclear power stations is launched than it must follow that sufficient capacity must be installed to store un-wanted electricity during the night instead of wasting it on un-necessary street lighting when the roads are virtually empty. But these schemes as with nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel processing are far from carbon neutral. As “one million tons of concrete, 200,000 tons of cement and 4,500 tons of steel” went into the construction of the Dinorwig scheme, the largest of the pumping plants, it makes them very far from carbon neutral Sad
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 12/12/05, 20:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Buncefield oil depot accident has come at an opportune time when the country must decide whether or not to go down the nuclear road for electricity generation.

We were told that oil storage depots are not supposed to explode and the utmost is put into their design and systems to make that eventuality a near impossibility. But the design and operation is by mere mortals notorious for mistake making, none more so than in imagining that they control all.

We will soon hear the time honoured statement we always hear after such disasters that “It must never happen again”, and improvements in design and operating procedure will help towards that end but other previously unimagined complications, mistakes and problems will as sure as night follows day crop up.

No it must never happen again that we ignore the fallibility of mankind and nowhere more so than in the field of nuclear power.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Homer



Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 53
Location: Hawkchurch

PostPosted: 13/12/05, 19:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

As yet there is no proof that any human error is to blame for the explosion maybe as a country it is time to give up the blame culture and actually... for once... prehaps... even consider that this may in fact have been


An Accident!!!

Now i know that may be a problem for some people who still believe that some how the government is to blame for everything (yes... lots of things but not everything) and I think its time we just give up blaming scapegoats and accept that, at times random events will occur. For example we can invest billions in anti-terrorist programmes but one freak event that we had no control over happened nearly one year ago and killed 120,000 people. And still people believe that we can blame the US for not having put up a warning system...

It's time to let accidents happen...

...It's what makes life interesting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 13/12/05, 20:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Homer wrote:

It's time to let accidents happen...


And indeed they will whether on the road, at an oil storage depot or in a nuclear power station or processing plant. Those on the road have minimal consequences even the present disaster will pale into insignificance compared to one at a nuclear plant. The fact that accidents will happen is precisely why no more nuclear power stations should be built. Thank you Homer.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 13/12/05, 23:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

The BBC Radio Four “You and Yours” programme dealt today with the coming energy crises and their Tuesday phone in section was on this subject. A page is also available on the website where you can attempt to influence the Environmental Audit Select Committee regarding this matter.

You can “Listen Again” at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_promo.shtml

Scroll down to the bottom and click on “Tuesday” under “You and Yours”. It was the first subject that they dealt with and the phone in section begins on the dot 30 minutes into the programme. It’s worth listening to.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gepalmer



Joined: 15 Oct 2005

Posts: 4
Location: Harcombe

PostPosted: 09/01/06, 12:27    Post subject: Britain's future energy crisis - Ruth Lea Reply with quote

A beginner's guide to Britain's future energy crisis
By Ruth Lea, Centre for Policy Studies(Filed: 09/01/2006)


There are increasing concerns about the future security of the UK's energy supplies and the inadequacy of the Government's current energy policy.

Given the prospect of Britain becoming a major importer of Russian gas in the not-too-distant future, President Putin's recent decision to turn off the supply to the Ukraine vindicated these concerns.

There is currently a mix of energy sources for generating electricity. Nuclear provides about 20pc, coal-fired power stations 33pc, gas-fired 40pc, with the remainder met by a miscellany including oil-fired stations (1pc) and renewable sources (3pc-4pc).

Most of the electricity from renewables is hydropower, though an increasing amount is from the costly and heavily subsidised wind farms. British North Sea fields still provide 90pc of gas supply but, reflecting the faster-than-expected decline in our reserves, 10pc is imported via the European gas network.

This relatively happy and secure situation will not persist. It is expected that most of our ageing nuclear stations will be decommissioned by 2020, and by early that decade will probably only account for a mere 3pc of total electricity generation.

In addition, the DTI expects that coal-fired stations will account for around 16pc of electricity by 2020 (half of today's proportion) as EU directives to cut emissions force the closure of capacity. Taking the reductions in nuclear and coal together, this represents a loss of capacity of around one third.

The DTI's policy response to this huge loss of capacity was discussed in some detail in the 2003 Energy White Paper*. There were two strands to the proposed policies. Firstly, there was an emphasis on greater energy efficiency.

But energy efficiency has been a policy priority for the past 30 years yet, with rising affluence and economic growth, electricity demand has risen relentlessly and it is currently around 60pc higher than 30 years ago. Moreover, the UK is already a relatively energy-efficient country. Short of raising prices to prohibitively expensive levels and/or introducing restrictions on use, the prospects for major energy savings seem fanciful.

Secondly, the White Paper suggested that the expected capacity loss should be replaced by very substantial capacity increases in both renewables and gas. New nuclear capacity was not an option. The DTI's optimistic, if not totally unrealistic, targets for the renewables' share of electricity supply were 10pc by 2010 and 20pc by 2020. (The DTI referred to the 2020 target as an "aspiration".)

Much of the increase in supply was to come from wind - both offshore and onshore. But there are major problems with wind power. The turbines do not generate any electricity when the wind does not blow and when wind speeds exceed 55mph they are, apparently, shut down for fear of damage. A world of gently and steadily spinning blades is one restricted to the world of the Teletubbies.

They need, therefore, back up from other sources because electricity cannot be stored in bulk. Moreover, the unpredictability of electricity generation from wind can cause "supply and demand balancing" operating problems for the National Grid.

Much of this "dash for wind" policy is driven by the Government's targets for the reduction in carbon emissions, firstly, as agreed under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change for a 12.5pc cut between 1990 and 2008/12 and, secondly, reflecting its self-imposed target of a 60pc cut by 2050.

But, as the House of Lords** concluded last year, the agreements under the Kyoto Protocol, even if the targets were met, would have little effect on the rates of global warming. And, to add insult to injury, it now looks as though most of the EU member states will miss their Kyoto targets with the exception of the UK and Sweden. The Government's "dash for wind" policy looks thoroughly flawed.

Even if the 20pc target for renewables is met in 2020, natural gas would still have to be the energy source for around 60pc of electricity generation. Moreover, because of the rapid depletion of the North Sea reserves, it is expected that about 80pc of the gas will have to be imported.

In other words, about half of our electricity supply will rely on imported gas from countries including Russia and Algeria. This policy is not just complacent, it is downright reckless. The country's economy could be held to ransom at any time by Mr Putin and his friends.

This dreadful prospect can, of course, be averted by a new programme of advanced nuclear power stations. The Government does, at last, seem to recognise the problem and in November 2005 announced an energy review for a "clean and secure future".

And, yes nuclear power did get a mention. But, given the years needed to develop new nuclear capacity, time is running out.

* DTI White Paper, Our energy future - creating a low-carbon economy, Cm 5761, February 2003, DTI

** House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, The Economics of Climate Change, Volume I, HL Paper 120I (July 2005), TSO

• Ruth Lea is director of the Centre for Policy Studies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 11/01/06, 00:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not much there that we didn’t know and discussed here, in fact it could have been that Ruth Lea had been reading the Uplyme Forum Wink

Where are we now Question

Still up the creek and nuclear power is no safer Sad

(Geoff picked a winning topic here. With over 1000 viewings can they all be from Uplyme Surprised)
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhodie



Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posts: 425
Location: Rhode Hill, Uplyme

PostPosted: 15/01/06, 07:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since I wrote:

For a short-term fix you can forget nuclear. With a minimum lead-time of 10 years we are unlikely to see new plant up and running before 2017. The decision with what to replace nuclear should have been made years ago, but the privatisation of the electricity generating industry got in the way of this and market forces took hold. With scheduled nuclear de-commissioning we must be aware that by 2010 only seven stations will be left running producing 70% of the original nuclear contribution. A further four will have gone by 2014 with the remaining three producing just 30% of the original nuclear contribution. This will mean that if demand stays static, which is extremely unlikely, the three stations will only be able to supply 6 or 7% of the demand as against the 22% at present. Where will the short fall of 16% come from?
http://www.energybulletin.net/8422.html

The government has given British Energy – the privatised company running eight nuclear power stations in the UK – a stay of execution by extending the life of their stations until 2020. This will give the country essential time pushing the energy gap further into the future. We can only hope that the time will not again be wasted. The cynics amongst us will suggest that Tony Blair’s promise to announce a decision, this year, on whether or not to go for a nuclear future will now be postponed until after the general election as it will no longer be his responsibility.

But what are the safety consequences of running ageing nuclear reactors beyond their designed lifetime Question
A number of plants have already been shut down prematurely before reaching the end of their designed lifetime. Also the Torness and Heysham plants are experiencing ageing problems.

The cost of decommissioning the existing plants is likely to raise to £70,000,000,000 or to over £1,000 per man, woman and child in the country.
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/jan06/Britishnuclearcleanupcostsrise.html
Sad

_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    uplyme.com Forum Index -> Beyond the Boundary All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group