Finally (nuclear power)

+paul

andyxm wrote:

+paul wrote:

Some useful stats:
EREOI (energy return on energy invested) for nuclear: 3. For comparison, Hydro: 87; offshore wind: 40; Biodiesel: 2; coal: 8.

Carbon footprint: (grams of CO2 per kWH): offshore wind: 2.5; Hydro: 3.5; nuclear:250; coal: 974.

Source?

Sorry - should have included. The figures come out of the Rob Hopkins book linked in my original post, and there is a reference to the original work in the book. I am currently at work and the book is at home - I will dig out the reference later and post it.

+paul

Pross wrote:

Be interesting to know where that came from. In their calculations have they taken account of the energy used in producing materials required in constructing dams or wind turbines? Are the energy costs associated with constructing the power station included? Is this a whole life assessment? Why is bio diesel so high when it could be harvested and transported by vehicles running on bio diesel? Also, if the energy being used to produce the fuel is being generated from carbon free sources does it matter how much is used?

As posted in my follow up email, I will post the the reference to the investigation when I get home. I believe the whole life impact is considered with respect to energy used to build, and for the CO2 production. What assumptions are therefore made to convert the figures to a per kWH basis are currently not understood by me.

On the Biodiesel question, the most important question: "what impact are we having on the food security of some of the poorest people in the world?" Please read "Soil not Oil" by Vandana Shiva for more information about the impact of biodiesel expansion.

cjw

+paul wrote:

andyxm wrote:

+paul wrote:

Some useful stats:
EREOI (energy return on energy invested) for nuclear: 3. For comparison, Hydro: 87; offshore wind: 40; Biodiesel: 2; coal: 8.

Carbon footprint: (grams of CO2 per kWH): offshore wind: 2.5; Hydro: 3.5; nuclear:250; coal: 974.

Source?

Sorry - should have included. The figures come out of the Rob Hopkins book linked in my original post, and there is a reference to the original work in the book. I am currently at work and the book is at home - I will dig out the reference later and post it.

Those figures are orders of magnitude different from other sources;

Adding further confirmation to figures already published from Scandinavia, Japan's Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry has published life cycle carbon dioxide emission figures for various generation technologies. Vattenfall (1999) has published a popular account of life cycle studies based on the previous few years experience and its certified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for Forsmark and Ringhals nuclear power stations in Sweden, and Kivisto in 2000 reports a similar exercise for Finland. They show the following CO2 emissions:

g/kWh CO2 Japan Sweden Finland
coal 975 980 894
gas thermal 608 1170 (peak-load, reserve) -
gas combined cycle 519 450 472
solar photovoltaic 53 50 95
wind 29 5.5 14
nuclear 22 6 10 - 26
hydro 11 3 -

The Japanese gas figures include shipping LNG from overseas, and the nuclear figure is for boiling water reactors, with enrichment 70% in USA, 30% France & Japan, and one third of the fuel to be MOX. The Finnish nuclear figures are for centrifuge and diffusion enrichment respectively, the Swedish one is for 80% centrifuge.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html gives life cycle energy ratios ratios of;

Hydro 2%
Nuclear 2% - 6% depends on enrichment method
Coal up to 14%
Natural gas up to 20%
Solar 10% - 20%
Wind 2 - 17%

+paul

Interesting figures cjw - thanks. I have looked up the link in Rob Hopkin's book, and it cites "The Ecologist Magazine". Looked at their website to see if I can find a direct link to the original research, but unfortunately it looks like I will have to pay to get access.

Having looked a bit deeper, there are many different studies available (as you have shown), with differing results. Clearly I am going to have to research the information available more carefully! I still believe the issues around nuclear power are persuasively against, but I want more clarity in the facts in order to make the case.

rake

Cressers

Will these nuclear power stations be privately funded, or as I dread and suspect, subsidised by the taxpayer?

Pross

+paul wrote:

Pross wrote:

Be interesting to know where that came from. In their calculations have they taken account of the energy used in producing materials required in constructing dams or wind turbines? Are the energy costs associated with constructing the power station included? Is this a whole life assessment? Why is bio diesel so high when it could be harvested and transported by vehicles running on bio diesel? Also, if the energy being used to produce the fuel is being generated from carbon free sources does it matter how much is used?

As posted in my follow up email, I will post the the reference to the investigation when I get home. I believe the whole life impact is considered with respect to energy used to build, and for the CO2 production. What assumptions are therefore made to convert the figures to a per kWH basis are currently not understood by me.

On the Biodiesel question, the most important question: "what impact are we having on the food security of some of the poorest people in the world?" Please read "Soil not Oil" by Vandana Shiva for more information about the impact of biodiesel expansion.

Hopefully the research into producing bio diesel from algae will turn up trumps and provide an ultimate solution. As I said earlier in the thread everything has got an environmental argument against (except energy conservation of course).

symo

Pross wrote:

+paul wrote:

Hopefully the research into producing bio diesel from algae will turn up trumps and provide an ultimate solution. As I said earlier in the thread everything has got an environmental argument against (except energy conservation of course).

and how will fuel requirements drop so much as to allow this solution to work?

rake

zanes

rake wrote:

Cressers wrote:

Will these nuclear power stations be privately funded, or as I dread and suspect, subsidised by the taxpayer?

well looking at how the private sector has done with railways,banks ,gas,electricity it is far better in public hands and gives the country control over it. no private sell offs so other countries can hold us ranson. that would be

If we (as a country) had funded proper training (as I alluded to earlier in the thread) we could be in a position to employ british companies employing british workers. As it is, the French will have a nice trip to the bank

And that's not racism you c*nts, so don't try and tell me it is.

tebbit

UK Plc got rid of it in the late 80s early 90s, Risley had a massive apprentice training school, with links into the universities, good training now all gone. Now we'll probably buy Westinghouse or Areva.

Bloody typical!

cjw

It is all going to be private. Three main companies / consortia have already purchased (or already owned) the land where the new builds are going to happen;

Edf own 3 potential development sites (EdF is a French company and now owns British Energy which own the AGR reactors in the UK) - they are planning to build stations at Sizewell, Hinkley and possibly Bradwell).

Next company is a consortium consisting of EON UK Plc and RWE Npower Plc (essentially a German consortia) planning to build at Wylfa and Oldbury.

Finally a consortia of Iberdrola S.A, GdF Suez S.A and Scottish and Southern Energy plc (sort of Spansh / Scottish consortia) has bought land near Sellafield for potential development.

Lack of skill s and the rundown has been well recognised and over the past few years, nuclear skills academy (funded to £20M over three years) has been set up in Cumbria with links to many universities and a Nuclear Graduates programme started a year ago - now recognised in top 100 graduate programmes in the UK.

GeorgeShaw

Cressers wrote:

Will these nuclear power stations be privately funded, or as I dread and suspect, subsidised by the taxpayer?

It won't happen unless:
1. The government underwrites all financing of waste disposal, as nobody knows how much it will cost.
2. The government guarantees a profitable selling price for the energy.

And ultimately, as with the banks, the government has to underwrite any company bankruptcy, as otherwise there is a grave security issue, and it's uninsurable.

cjw

Couple I forgot on the training and skills side;

A £4 million grant has been given to Bridgwater College to pay for a new nuclear training centre which will provide specialist skills for the South West.

The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) announced they would be giving £2.25 million and £2 million respectively for a county training facility to provide training in science, engineering and specialist construction.

cjw

GeorgeShaw wrote:

Cressers wrote:

Will these nuclear power stations be privately funded, or as I dread and suspect, subsidised by the taxpayer?

It won't happen unless:
1. The government underwrites all financing of waste disposal, as nobody knows how much it will cost.

2. The government guarantees a profitable selling price for the energy.

And ultimately, as with the banks, the government has to underwrite any company bankruptcy, as otherwise there is a grave security issue, and it's uninsurable.

There are estimates of the disposal cost to and operators are required to fund this themselves at the moment and in the future - this is an absolute requirement of the licenses under which they operate - British Energy has to do this now.

Number 2. You're probably correct and I expect this will be the case for any future investments - Nuclear, Wind, Coal (with carbon capture / sequestration) - refereing back to your first point, this cost of the end disposal will be included in the electricity price - as will be the cost of carbon capture for coal stations. The one thing you can expect is that electricity prices will go up :evil:

rake

cjw

rake wrote:

as mentioned by others its a case of not looking ahead and planning for the future until the shoot hits the turbine. or hoping some miracle private deal finds an answer.lets asset strip it while theres something left.

What do you mean by asset strip? There are really no nuclear assets in the UK - except British Energy - and that has been private for years - although bailed out by Gov't as well :evil:

Think your thinking about the The Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) cornerstone of the British electricity industry for almost 40 years; from 1957, to privatisation in the 1990s.

UK taxpayer ultimately owns the two operating Magnox stations which cease generation in the next 2 years, but the money from those is simply put into the overall decommissioning pot for the Magnox stations.

There has not been a UK energy company since Maggie Thatcher sold them all off - pretty much same with water companies.

rake

GeorgeShaw

cjw wrote:

There are estimates of the disposal cost to and operators are required to fund this themselves at the moment and in the future - this is an absolute requirement of the licenses under which they operate - British Energy has to do this now.

I don't see any long term waste disposal repositories, nor any resolution of this problem in the near future, so any estimate of what that might cost isn't worth the paper it's written on.

cjw

GeorgeShaw wrote:

cjw wrote:

There are estimates of the disposal cost to and operators are required to fund this themselves at the moment and in the future - this is an absolute requirement of the licenses under which they operate - British Energy has to do this now.

I don't see any long term waste disposal repositories, nor any resolution of this problem in the near future, so any estimate of what that might cost isn't worth the paper it's written on.

http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/geologica ... tation.cfm

A lot is happening in this area.

geoff_ss

rake wrote:

there is no alternative.simple as that. also someone mentioned super conductors. how would they generate power???

Unbelievably efficiently if only they could be realised at high enough temperatures (ie ambient temperature). Many of the inefficiencies of power generation are in resistance losses in the generator windings (same applies to electric motors). Super conductors ideally have zero resistance hence zero IR (current x resistance = power) losses. You could get zero windage losses as well if you ran the generator on a vacuum.

I've been retired for 14 years and when I was still working the professional magazines were full of 'high temperature' superconductor developments (ie much higher than 0degK) but it's all gone quiet since then.

Geoff

rake

GeorgeShaw

cjw wrote:

http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/geological-disposal/documentation.cfm

A lot is happening in this area.

"Government wants to build on the momentum CoRWM helped establish and suggests that it is likely to be around two to three decades from the beginning of the site selection process to a facility becoming operational and ready for waste emplacement."

No sites selected yet, so make that three decades minimum. They may have some estimates, but how meaningful are they going to be in thirty years time?

That's not to say there's not a lot happening. There has to be because the government has a rhetorical commitment to nuclear being privately financed, so they have to come up with some numbers that are vaguely realistic so that there is some pretence that it is costed and paid for. But really, do you believe this?

rake

nwallace

NapoleonD wrote:

But I once saw a documentary where the guy, was was some kind of nuclear 'engineer' didn't even know where the emergency shutdown switch was and apparently all he could think of were clowns. He even saw his friends as clowns dancing when they were in fact on fire.

It was shocking!

Been watching the Simspons while Stoned again?

cjw

GeorgeShaw wrote:

But really, do you believe this?

I should do really.. It's where I work

gabriel959

Nuclear is not the answer - at least the only answer....

Read this book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... Descending

rake

cjw

gabriel959 wrote:

Nuclear is not the answer - at least the only answer....

Read this book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... Descending

The book is written by David Mackay - Scientific Advisor to DECC.

He said (not in the book - but in the Times in October);

"THE government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change has proposed a quadrupling of Britain’s nuclear power generation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Professor David MacKay believes nuclear power could be the only way Britain can meet its soaring demand for electricity while keeping emissions under control."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 860181.ece

gabriel959

cjw wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

Nuclear is not the answer - at least the only answer....

Read this book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... Descending

The book is written by David Mackay - Scientific Advisor to DECC.

He said (not in the book - but in the Times in October);

"THE government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change has proposed a quadrupling of Britain’s nuclear power generation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Professor David MacKay believes nuclear power could be the only way Britain can meet its soaring demand for electricity while keeping emissions under control."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 860181.ece

I said, read the book - it is free on his website as well.