Blair is discussing the possibility of building more nuclear power plants. Some of the U.K.'s older plants will be going offline in the next decade or so and according to CarbonFree (a company betting on renewable energy schemes):
November was a bad month in the UK for advocates of power generated from renewable sources. There was a seven-day cold period during which temperatures hovered around zero; a lack of wind becalmed wind turbines and fog blinded solar panels. Panic over bird flu was replaced by concerns that gas producers in the rest of the EU were reluctant to pump natural gas into a pipe under the North Sea that supplies power stations and homes in the UK. Rumours circulated that this winter will see rolling power cuts, firms shutting down and old people shivering around candles.Their concluding line however, had the opposite effect on me than intended:
"A perfect time for the government to announce that nuclear power is back on the agenda."
Call me a skeptic, but after reading that paragraph I can see why nuclear might be put back on the agenda. Is Blair posturing or, now that more performance data is showing up, is he changing his mind based on new information? One thing is for sure, this guy is capable of making wrong decisions. But what if renewable-power advocates really cannot meet Britain's needs in time, if ever? Is Blair having second thoughts on renewables, having first supported them, now hoping to avert a looming energy disaster should predicted performance continue to fall short, or is it all a clever ruse to blah, blah, blah? A risk analysis might favor nuclear against the possibility of coming up short on renewable energy, assuming that coal is not an option.
This article by the CarbonFree Company is an excellent example of the problem. You cannot sell a concept while at the same time admitting there is a chance it might not work. They tell us that solar panels in sunny parts of the world will electrolyze salt water, producing hydrogen, which will in turn be shipped to Britain in gas lines. Homes and small companies will also generate power and it will all be shared on a kind of gas pipeline power grid. Throw in a couple of analogies to the Internet and you have a ... "neat concept ... probably two decades away."
Wait a minute, I thought the hydrogen economy was just a cruel hoax. The wind, solar, and wave guys would all paint equally positive pictures of their pet projects. But seriously, what if they continue to come up short? How long would it take, and how much would it cost? If it takes too many wind turbines, then the interest on the loans taken out to build them plus the cost to maintain them may make the power produced by them prohibitively expensive. Consumers who can't afford it will go without, and that will be the start of an economic and quality of life downturn, just the thing we are all hoping to avoid. Can't happen? Are the risks associated with nuclear greater than those associated with coming up short?
The British are between a rock and a hard spot. They are about to lose power generation and thanks to global warming, coal is not an option, leaving only nuclear or renewables to fill the gap. If they wait too long and renewables can't fill the gap, they are screwed.
Just to stir controversy, might I suggest that a couple of nuclear power plants might be what they need, if for nothing else but to buy time? They might be viewed as a kind of insurance policy on the off-chance that renewables don't meet expectations.
Comments
View as Flat
cian Posted 8:21 pm
02 Dec 2005
Ignoring the problems with Blair (untrustworthy and a shiny eyed believer in the power of the market/industry/business), this is currently a huge distration in this country which ignores such basic facts as:
We have had a boom in European flights, due to extraordinarily cheap flights ($40 for Rome to London, anyone?). The government are trying to extend our airports
We have one of the worst records for conservation of energy in the first world. Our houses are poorly insulated, etc, etc. Similarly commercial buildings. The government has ignored calls for them to subsidise this, which would do more for carbon reduction than all the shiny nuclear power stations in the world
We fly food in from the other side of the world THAT WE GROW HERE. I mean apples for godssakes. We fly in apples from New Zealand. Madness.
The government are trying to build more roads, and have been pretty stingy (despite promising to do lots) about investing in public transport.
As for nuclear. well Electricity generation is a small part of our carbon production. Its not that carbon neutral (1/3 of gas). It also would take about 20 years before the power station came on line. Nulcear power stations are also lousy as back up power, unlike gas. So they don't solve the problem mentioned on that website.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:10 am
04 Dec 2005
However, they may be a short term solution when compared to coal if gas supplies run short, conservation efforts prove inadequate, and renewables do not come up to speed in time.
Hey, anything would be better than buying some of the dirt cheap excess electricity being generated by France's (almost) CO2 free reactors (that's a tongue in cheek barb aimed at you sons of a silly person).
The truth is that we don't have the answers yet. We are working the problem though. I just hope we can also find ways to save our biodiversity while we're at it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
cian Posted 7:35 pm
04 Dec 2005
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:19 am
08 Dec 2005
Also, Since France can build nuclear plants much faster couldn't Britain tap their expertise and build them even faster? Resistance to the idea might decrease should significant winter power shortages materialize, creating a national emergency of sorts.
What if your gas supplies become tenuous? Can you stockpile gas, assuming Britain will tap out its own gas fields before long? Too many eggs in one basket may be asking for trouble.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink