Nuclear necessary for low carbon energy generation

SeanW · 11-08-2011 11:46PM #1

I have a question for the anti-nuclear "environmentalists" on this board and elsewhere.

Do YOU actually believe in the Anthropogenic Climate Change?
And if you do, why are you promoting policies that will - in all circumstances - lead to an increase in, or prevent a decrease in, the rate of emissions of carbon dioxide which we are to believe threaten the world and its ecosystem with chaos and destruction?

I am writing this query with particular reference to the insanity that is going in Germany at the present time, where the government has now moved to expedite its "nuclear phase out" which will have an obscene carbon cost.

I've been screaming about this for years, posting data about all the coal fired power plants the supposidly enlightened Germans have been building, but to little avail. Now, it seems there are some numbers, courtesy of NewScientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128236.300-the-carbon-cost-of-germanys-nuclear-nein-danke.html

NS article wrote:

Around 23 per cent of Germany's electricity comes from nuclear and 17 per cent from renewables. That's a 40 per cent share for zero-carbon in total - one of the highest in the European Union.
The German government has admirable plans to raise renewable electricity to 35 per cent of consumption by 2020. But even this planned increase falls 5 per cent short of filling the hole in zero-carbon electricity left by abandoning nuclear.
How will Germany fill that hole? With coal and other fossil fuels. It has plans to build 20 gigawatts of fossil-fuel power stations by 2020, including 9 gigawatts of coal by 2013

So, in the best case scenario, assuming Germany meets this target and doesn't bankrupt itself doing so, their national emissions will RISE by 5% in the next 9 years SOLELY because they don't want nuclear power anymore. If they fail, emissions will rise even more.

Further:

Trevor Sikorski, head of environmental market research at London investment bank Barclays Capital, calculates that Germany will emit an extra 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020. That is more than the annual emissions of Italy and Spain combined under the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS).

There's other stuff in that article and elsewhere that makes me question whether this is a case of extreme myopia (as I used to believe) on the part of environmentalists or whether it goes as far as economic treason. But that's for another thread.

For this debate though, I seem to think we're living in a bizzaro world where up is down, left is right and nothing makes sense to anyone except a few green lunatics in solar-powered ivory towers.

And specifically for those calling for the abandonment of nuclear energy while simultaneously warning of climate chaos, how the hell do you reconcile what are demonstrably diametrically opposed positions?

BryanF · 12-08-2011 11:45AM

this is a constant problem and focuses these sort of accusations at environmentalists. By saying one fuel source or material is dangerous or bad for the environment, there is alway the chance that any subsequent solution may not be any better, or in some cases as outlined the unforeseen consequences are worse. I'd refer you to some of the UK solution proposals like the Zero Carbon Britain, or McKay's scenarios, interesting even Guardain pundit Monbiot(an occasional Muppet) has changed to a pro nuclear stance. without getting into conspiracy's here, there is big business involvement in nuclear and the actually set-up and running cost are often not transparent. the EROEI (in generating electricity) from nuclear is less than wind, wave and tidal. http://oco-carbon.com/2010/05/19/eroei-of-electricity-generation/, but maybe we need the current Nuclear plants until we can get enough off-shore wind turbines (& wave as it develops) with inter-connectors & pumped storage reservoirs commissioned and excepted by some of the environmental community. weighing up the lesser of two evils may be necessary to really reduce fossil fuel use and the atmospheric CO2 ppm concentration

most educated environmentalists will be aware that Ireland's proposed main fuel for the next 50 odd years is gas, and that currently nuclear power is wired in from the UK (albeit to smallish amounts currently). personally I believe in the end goal: renewable energy and solutions that do not cause any harm to the environment, cradle to cradle, which unfortunately Nuclear waste is not (currently anyway). in saying the above I do not believe that Ireland needs to develop nuclear plants as we do not have the capital, expertise or regulatory history to manage it successfully.

Amateurish · 12-08-2011 05:47PM

Are you actually asking a question or providing the answers?
questions for you Sean...
do you believe 6 billion+ odd people with cars power stations agriculture etc have no effect on CO2 levels? Or that CO2 is not a GHG?
Is it that you say there's no AGW or that nuclear is harmless? Because if AGW=No, then no need for nuclear eh?
Is nuclear harmless? Seriously? (Since you're ranting is nuclear CO2 neutral? Including the non-nuclear powered machinery, construction of plants, storage of waste etc) Which way do you want it, get off the ****ing fence loike.

Personally I think in 20 odd years that as a high proportion of cars go electric the issues with energy storage disappear and the only issue remaining is where can we build turbines. AGW may even be a bit of a red herring. Energy in all its forms is unbelievably cheap compared to generations ago because we can dig/pump it out of the ground.That wont last forever. Allowing even for resources we cant tap at the moment there will eventually come a day where we cant dig or pump it. Even BP and shell admit that. It will be hard to whinge about renewables then.

BryanF · 13-08-2011 01:16AM

Amateurish wrote: »

(
Personally I think in 20 odd years that as a high proportion of cars go electric the issues with energy storage disappear and the only issue remaining is where can we build turbines. AGW may even be a bit of a red herring. Energy in all its forms is unbelievably cheap compared to generations ago because we can dig/pump it out of the ground.That wont last forever. Allowing even for resources we cant tap at the moment there will eventually come a day where we cant dig or pump it. Even BP and shell admit that. It will be hard to whinge about renewables then.

I'm lost can you explain position

Amateurish · 13-08-2011 08:53AM

BryanF wrote: »

I'm lost can you explain position

Yeah I'll try ...
Basically a big part of the argument against renewables is storage, the need for conventional generation when the wind is not blowing and that running large plants in a manner to accomodate renewables results in a drop in efficiency. Well with 200,000 ecars connected we would have a huge capacity to absorb high wind generation outputs even with turbines on a scale not yet seen. My one car one motorbike household uses more energy on transport than on domestic heat and electricity - so its easy to assume that transferring those transport loads to electricity can help flatten the peaks of demand and supply.

BryanF · 13-08-2011 08:16PM

Amateurish wrote: »

Yeah I'll try ...
Basically a big part of the argument against renewables is storage, the need for conventional generation when the wind is not blowing and that running large plants in a manner to accomodate renewables results in a drop in efficiency. Well with 200,000 ecars connected we would have a huge capacity to absorb high wind generation outputs even with turbines on a scale not yet seen. My one car one motorbike household uses more energy on transport than on domestic heat and electricity - so its easy to assume that transferring those transport loads to electricity can help flatten the peaks of demand and supply.

absolutely, that's one of the scenarios made by McKay.

SeanW · 13-08-2011 08:54PM

Amateurish wrote: »

Are you actually asking a question or providing the answers?
questions for you Sean...
do you believe 6 billion+ odd people with cars power stations agriculture etc have no effect on CO2 levels? Or that CO2 is not a GHG?
Is it that you say there's no AGW or that nuclear is harmless? Because if AGW=No, then no need for nuclear eh?

For the sake of argument in this thread, let's assume that the theory of AGW is 100% certain, and that we face imminent climate catastrophe.

I keep an open mind with regard to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I am not a scientist and I don't pretend to be one. While some people seem to think the science is more or less settled, and it may indeed be, what concerns me is that the people screaming the loudest about ACC are the ones simultaneously looking for policies that will aggravate the problem.

In short, I question whether senior figures in the environmentalist movements actually themselves believe in ACC?

Is nuclear harmless? Seriously? (Since you're ranting is nuclear CO2 neutral? Including the non-nuclear powered machinery, construction of plants, storage of waste etc) Which way do you want it, get off the

Yes, a nuclear programme properly run would indeed be nearly harmless. Major catastrophes like Chernobyl can only occur under circumstances of extremely poor operation and/or carelessness. Most claims to the contrary are either breath taking exaggerations or are completely baseless. For example in Fukushima only 2 people died - and those were of physical causes, i.e. crane operators who died when their cranes collapsed. Also the environmental destruction in Japan has largely been of oil and chemicals and other things that were ripped out of their storage areas in the tsunami.

As for the carbon output of nuclear power, of course nuclear energy causes CO2 emissions from the indirect lifecycle (building the power plants transporting fuel etc) but ALL forms of power, including your beloved windmills, share this aspect.

On a per kw/h basis however, nuclear energy has one of the lowest carbon outputs of any power source, comparable to wind and better than solar, and by any measure better than fossil fuels.

Personally I think in 20 odd years that as a high proportion of cars go electric the issues with energy storage disappear and the only issue remaining is where can we build turbines ... It will be hard to whinge about renewables then.

This is nonsense. Renewables are not cost effective and they wont be for a very long time.

Back on the topic of Germany, where they've been paying for a long time for all this renewables lark, it's emerged that they pay the 2nd highest electricity costs in the EU. http://www.thelocal.de/money/20100528-27497.html

Denmark pay the highest electricity rates in Europe, again largely to subsidise windmills, at US42.89 cents per kw/h. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

The only country to pay more for electricity is Tonga. If you've never heard of Tonga, that's because it's a microscopic archipelago out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that is an extremely long distance away from any other significant landmass. It's also the 6th most corrupt country on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga#Economy

If we listen to people like you, we may well avert the climate catastrophe the same way Ireland suddenly became compliant with the Kyoto Protocol after 2008 - by way of the complete destruction of our economies and a large scale reduction in our living standards, not to mention turning all European countries into absolute economic vassals of Russia and Gazprom, who have been the sole beneficiaries of Germany's recent changes.

Do you seriously expect that Intel, Facebook etc will stay here an keep giving jobs to our people if we start charging them Tongan electricity prices? Or any other kind of industry for that matter? Of course not - they'll follow the rest our factories etc either to India and China, or into liquidation.

Amateurish · 14-08-2011 12:55AM

For the sake of argument in this thread, let's assume that the theory of AGW is 100% certain, and that we face imminent climate catastrophe.

I keep an open mind .....
Assume nothing but at least have some kind of opinion if you want to debate.
Yes, a nuclear programme properly run would indeed be nearly harmless.
The devil’s in the detail though, nearly never bulled a cow and when this particular cow is let down we get very un-harmless Chernobyls.
Major catastrophes like Chernobyl can only occur under circumstances of extremely poor operation and/or carelessness.
Being staffed by humans, fool proofing and idiot proofing will never be enough, accidents will happen.
Most claims to the contrary are either breath taking exaggerations or are completely baseless. For example in Fukushima only 2 people died - and those were of physical causes, i.e. crane operators who died when their cranes collapsed. Also the environmental destruction in Japan has largely been of oil and chemicals and other things that were ripped out of their storage areas in the tsunami.
Is it all over then? Back to work nothing to see here?
Sample quote from NYTimes
Aug. 1 The Tokyo Electric Power Company said radiation levels were at their highest at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power since the plant was crippled by the March earthquake and tsunami. Workers found an area near Reactors No. 1 and 2, where radiation levels exceeded their measuring device’s maximum reading of 10 sieverts per hour — a fatal dose for humans.
July 13 Prime Minister Naoto Kan said that Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy June 19 The Tokyo Electric Power Company said that the filtration system it had struggled to put into operation at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant had broken down after just five hours, a disappointing setback in its efforts to cool the reactors. The company is quickly running out of space to store the tens of thousands of tons of water that have been contaminated after being poured into the reactors and spent-fuel pools
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/japan/index.html

As for the carbon output of nuclear power, of course nuclear energy causes CO2 emissions from the indirect lifecycle (building the power plants transporting fuel etc) but ALL forms of power, including your beloved windmills, share this aspect.

On a per kw/h basis however, nuclear energy has one of the lowest carbon outputs of any power source, comparable to wind and better than solar, and by any measure better than fossil fuels.
Comparable in manufacture only since wind is CO2 free I believe. You’re still neglecting mining and of course millennia of storage. What are the price predictions for this circa 3000AD? I cant find anything.
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html
The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs

Renewables are not cost effective and they wont be for a very long time.

I totally agree with you, sending our money to (squeaky clean) Saudi oilfields or Russian gas is far better for the economy. It gives an excellent return of almost nothing. To think that Ireland has the capacity to make big dynamos go around, powered by wind wave biomass or sun is ludicrous. Worse again to think of creating some employment.

SeanW · 14-08-2011 02:25AM

Amateurish wrote: »

Assume nothing but at least have some kind of opinion if you want to debate.

The standing rule on this board is that you can only question the theory of ACC in one specific thread. Further, if it were the case that I were sure ACC were a load of nonsense, I would be primarily concerned with opposing carbon taxes and energy restrictions, not with promoting nuclear energy.

Besides, the point of this thread is to ask why the mainstream environmentalist movement promotes policies that aggravate the problem of CO2 emissions, or at least conveniently overlook the fact that their anti-nuclear policies come with a hefty carbon cost.

The devil’s in the detail though, nearly never bulled a cow and when this particular cow is let down we get very un-harmless Chernobyls.
...
Being staffed by humans, fool proofing and idiot proofing will never be enough, accidents will happen.

I suggest you do some proper research into the Chernobyl disaster before you repeat this claim: for example how the RBMK design was invented in the former Soviet Union, and never used outside the USSR because the outside world knew that the reactor design was dangerous. Another causal factor was the Soviet hierarchical command structure that caused a chain of missteps, both leading up to and, afterwards, aggravating the final magnitude of the disaster. Throw in a little bad luck and KABOOM: you have very nasty accident that could only ever have happened in the Soviet Union or someplace with equally crappy government.

Workers found an area near Reactors No. 1 and 2, where radiation levels exceeded their measuring device’s maximum reading of 10 sieverts per hour — a fatal dose for humans.

Presumably inside the plant property.

Comparable in manufacture only since wind is CO2 free I believe. You’re still neglecting mining and of course millennia of storage.

No, (in terms of CO2 costs) I am not, for there are two types of CO2 emissions generally caused by power generation.
Direct, from fuel burning (which is applicable to neither nuclear nor renewable energy), and Indirect, from the life cycle, i.e. building and decommissioning plant, transporting any non-thermal fuel etc. These costs can be, and are, fully accounted for here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/greenhouse_gas_from_generation.html

Renewables are not cost effective and they wont be for a very long time.

I totally agree with you, sending our money to (squeaky clean) Saudi oilfields or Russian gas is far better for the economy. It gives an excellent return of almost nothing.

Did you even read the title of this thread before you posted this nonsense? The entire premise of my thread is to find a clean, large scale and credible (i.e. not dependent on the weather) non-fossil alternative to enriching foreign power blocks, and one that won't have us paying Tongan electricity prices or getting raped by the taxman to pay the subsidies. I am not sure, but at least I think I mentioned that ambitious idea of "NUCLEAR POWER" once or twice.

Oh and by the way, again I think I mentioned this, when you reject the nuclear option you have no choice but to go fossil fuels, as the Germans are now doing.
http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/61545/gazprom-profiting-mightily-german-nuclear-exit
It's your side that's looking to enrich the likes of Russias Gazrprom, by the looks of it.
And I want to know why !!

Grudaire · 16-08-2011 02:03PM

Seeing as the graph is from the IAEA (International ATOMIC Energy Agency) is there any neutral data on the 'Greenhouse Gas emmissions' (Or indeed general emissions) failing that, can I see the report that the graph is from?

I love actual numbers

SeanW · 17-08-2011 01:08PM

Cliste wrote: »

Seeing as the graph is from the IAEA (International ATOMIC Energy Agency) is there any neutral data on the 'Greenhouse Gas emmissions' (Or indeed general emissions) failing that, can I see the report that the graph is from?

I love actual numbers

I rechecked the page it was linked from (I put the link over the picture), and they did quote a number of reports, but they didn't post online links to the reports. I think I'm going to fire off an email to the WNA and ask them if they can identify or provide a link to that IAEA report.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-08-2011 09:56PM

I've posted before that it would be cheaper to insulate commercial premesis in the US than it would be to build nuclear power plants.

So nuclear is not necessary if you do the proper cost accounting.

Chloe Pink · 18-08-2011 05:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've posted before that it would be cheaper to insulate commercial premesis in the US than it would be to build nuclear power plants.

So nuclear is not necessary if you do the proper cost accounting.

But this could be said of any power generation source; conservation of energy is a way to reduce the supply needed so it could negate the use of some gas/coal/oil/solar/wind/geothermal/biomass etc.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-08-2011 09:05PM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

But this could be said of any power generation source; conservation of energy is a way to reduce the supply needed so it could negate the use of some gas/coal/oil/solar/wind/geothermal/biomass etc.

Yeah you are ignoring the capital costs of Nuclear and lead time to get a new plant built. And that's assuming that there are no show stoppers before comissioning or when the plant goes on line.

Other sources would be available far sooner and for a lower capital cost.

It's also a moot point because Ireland is too small to support Nuclear. One reactor would provide 1/4 of our peak demand, 1/2 of our base line demand. An unplanned outage would almost certainly lead to rolling blackouts.

pljudge321 · 18-08-2011 09:49PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's also a moot point because Ireland is too small to support Nuclear. One reactor would provide 1/4 of our peak demand, 1/2 of our base line demand. An unplanned outage would almost certainly lead to rolling blackouts.

Moneypoint and Aghada can both supply roughly this amount of power as is with enough rolling reserve to cover their loss.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-08-2011 11:44PM

pljudge321 wrote: »

Moneypoint and Aghada can both supply roughly this amount of power as is with enough rolling reserve to cover their loss.

Moneypoint has 3 generators of 300MW. Aghada has several generators too. It would be extremely unlikely for either plant to loose all capacity for an extended time in the order of months.

Roughly half of the nuclear reactors in the US have had unplanned outages of a year or more.

dynamick · 21-08-2011 04:11AM

SeanW wrote: »

So, in the best case scenario, assuming Germany meets this target and doesn't bankrupt itself doing so, their national emissions will RISE by 5% in the next 9 years SOLELY because they don't want nuclear power anymore. If they fail, emissions will rise even more.

Sean, you know how a cap and trade system works, right?

The overall quantity of emissions from electricity generation in the EU is capped by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The cap falls over time so that by 2020, the quantity of emissions from major polluters will have fallen 21% compared to 2005. Carbon emissions from electricity in Europe will not rise as a result of nuclear power stations shutting in Germany. However, the price of electricity will probably rise in Germany and across other European countries in response to increased cost of Carbon allowances.

So we can expect heavier use of gas compared to coal and accelerated investment in new lower emitting fossil fuel power stations, CCS and renewables across Europe.

Removing nuclear power on its own would cause emissions to rise if there were no EU ETS. There are thankfully many ways to reduce emissions.

Chloe Pink · 21-08-2011 11:41AM

dynamick wrote: »

Removing nuclear power on its own would cause emissions to rise if there were no EU ETS. There are thankfully many ways to reduce emissions.

I'm not completely clear on what is being said here e.g.
- are Germany prevented from increasing their CO2 emissions by the ETS scheme
- or can they increase their emissions but at a cost
- or something else

Do you have any links providing info to counteract or contradict the New Scientist link in post 1 please.

dynamick · 21-08-2011 02:13PM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I'm not completely clear on what is being said here e.g.
- are Germany prevented from increasing their CO2 emissions by the ETS scheme
- or can they increase their emissions but at a cost
- or something else

The ETS allocates a fixed number of permits to emit carbon dioxide to the largest polluters. The permits are allocated on a national basis so yes there are a certain number allocated to Germany. However, the permits may be traded internationally, so if a German power plant finds a way to lower its emissions it can sell on the unused carbon credit to a French company.

If a new power plant is built, the owner has to purchase carbon credits for the amount of carbon dioxide they want to emit. They can only buy these from existing holders. In this way, the total quantity of CO2 emitted by the participants stays fixed.

If the EU or anyone else wants to cut carbon emissions they can buy up some permits on the open market and not use them.

Permits are issued every few years. Some are freely allocated, some are auctioned, some governments (like Ireland) tax companies who receive them freely as a benefit in kind. The next round of permits to be issued is in 2013. The new round is to be issued centrally rather than through national agencies.

Do you have any links providing info to counteract or contradict the New Scientist link in post 1 please.

The EU site describing ETS is here: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
The UK site is here: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/32232.aspx

Chloe Pink · 21-08-2011 09:49PM

dynamick,
Thank you for the explanation and for the links re the ETS.
However, if I've understood correctly, Germanys' plans to abandon their nuclear generators will lead to an increase in their actual CO2 emissions; the ETS don't actually stop this.
And although the links you provided are appreciated, I was asking if you had links contradicting or counteracting the New Scientist article linked to in the OP, can you help here please?
Thanks CP

dynamick · 22-08-2011 08:41AM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

However, if I've understood correctly, Germanys' plans to abandon their nuclear generators will lead to an increase in their actual CO2 emissions;

No, Germany's emissions are falling in line with their commitment to a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. If they build more co2 emitting power stations they will have to emit less co2 elsewhere to make up the difference.

the ETS don't actually stop this.

The ETS guarantees that the quantity of co2 emitted by europes largest producers in aggregate does not increase. If certain large emitters in Germany increase pollution then large emitters elsewhere in Germany or across Europe will have to emit less.

The NS article points out that net of renewables, Germany will lose 5% of its capacity to produce electricity without carbon emissions. The article states that this will push up the price of carbon credits and that this will likely be reflected in the price of electricity not just in Germany but across Europe. However then the article states that " it is a major reversal for the climate". This is untrue.

Removing nuclear plants from Germany will neither increase emissions in Germany nor in Europe. Instead, Germany and Europe will be compelled to carry out more of the emissions reductions actions they had planned on a faster schedule. More house insulation, more car taxes, more public transport, more carbon taxes, more renewable energy, more forestry, more investment in improving conventional stock of power stations (eg replacing moneypoint)...

And although the links you provided are appreciated, I was asking if you had links contradicting or counteracting the New Scientist article linked to in the OP, can you help here please?
Thanks CP

I don't know - you'll have to find them yourself. New Scientist is a weekly popular science magazine not a peer reviewed journal. Articles like this are provocative and thought inspiring but not infallible. Even the conclusion that the price of electricity will rise for European consumers is not guaranteed because the price of electricity depends not just on the price of carbon credits but also on the price of coal, gas and oil and on public demand.

SeanW · 24-08-2011 03:15PM

dynamick wrote: »

Sean, you know how a cap and trade system works, right?

The overall quantity of emissions from electricity generation in the EU is capped by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme ...

Removing nuclear power on its own would cause emissions to rise if there were no EU ETS. There are thankfully many ways to reduce emissions

Yes, I know about the ETS, but "cap and trade" or not, common logic dictates that if you intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, getting rid of one of one of the main non-fossil energy sources is NOT a good place to start.

Unless you have another agenda, and Anthropogenic Climate Change is just a smokescreen.

dynamick wrote: »

No, Germany's emissions are falling in line with their commitment to a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. If they build more co2 emitting power stations they will have to emit less co2 elsewhere to make up the difference.

And the task of reducing emissions will be much, much harder now because they've elected to go on a coal burning spree the likes of which isn't to be seen outside of China.

The ETS guarantees that the quantity of co2 emitted by europes largest producers in aggregate does not increase. If certain large emitters in Germany increase pollution then large emitters elsewhere in Germany or across Europe will have to emit less.

And I suspect that this "guarantee" will work in the same way Ireland suddenly fell into line with its Kyoto Protocol obligation in 2008 - through the complete collapse of our economy and the near final destruction of our way of life.

The NS article points out that net of renewables, Germany will lose 5% of its capacity to produce electricity without carbon emissions

A) That's a best case scenario - assuming that they succeed in adding all this renewable electricity generation.

It also assumes they don't destroy themselves with sky high energy costs in the process.

The article states that this will push up the price of carbon credits and that this will likely be reflected in the price of electricity not just in Germany but across Europe ... more car taxes ... more carbon taxes, more renewable energy (with crazy renewable energy subsidies) ... more jobs lost because industry finds yet one more thing (energy) cheaper in low cost countries ...

FYP.
I suspect that this is the ultimate objective of the mainstream environmentalist movement.

We already know what happens when you let mainstream environmentalists dictate energy policy, because they let it happen in Denmark - the Danes (and their businesses) pay the highest electricity rates in the world after Tonga, a corrupt, microscopic island chain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Can you really imagine something like that being a magnet for investment in European (e.g. Irish) business? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

Would you like to be the IDA chief back in the 1990s or whenever that had to approach Intel and say "Would you like to invest in a heavy fabrication plant in Ireland? We want to be part of your success story. We have an English speaking population, a highly skilled workforce, and by the way, our electricity prices are sky high and comparable only to Tonga, a corrupt little ****hole surrounded by 1000 miles of ocean."

D'ya that that would have all these high end industry employers like Intel and Facebook queuing up to set up data centres and fabrication plants here? Neither do I.

And from an environmental prospective How do you defend a policy that leads to a mass increase in the use of fossil fuels, especially coal? (see link)

Even the conclusion that the price of electricity will rise for European consumers is not guaranteed

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is transparently disingenuous.

SeanW · 24-08-2011 03:40PM

Cliste wrote: »

Seeing as the graph is from the IAEA (International ATOMIC Energy Agency) is there any neutral data on the 'Greenhouse Gas emmissions' (Or indeed general emissions) failing that, can I see the report that the graph is from?

I love actual numbers

Hi Cliste;

Sorry for neglecting this point for a while, but I sent a quick email to the WNA asking about that graph, and I got this back a few days ago:

Sean

It's from an IAEA publication (magazine or quarterly publication I think) in 2000. The two bars give the range of credibly published figures. Red = direct emissions, white = from balance of fuel cycle.

Ian Hore-Lacy

I might have a look around the IAEA website see if I can dig something up.

dynamick · 24-08-2011 05:48PM

SeanW wrote: »

... they've elected to go on a coal burning spree the likes of which isn't to be seen outside of China.

If Germany were to replace every nuclear power station with coal, not build any further renewable capacity and fail to achieve any reduction in energy demand then those new coal powers stations would generate 5% of China's coal-powered electricity output.

(China generated 2900TWh of electricity from coal last year.
Germany's nuclear power stations generated 138TWh)

Of course this is not going to happen. Germany will double output from renewables. Germany's target is to reduce electricity demand by 10% through efficiency measures.

The problem with the NS article is that the closure of Germany's nuclear programme is not going raise Germany's or Europe's emissions. What it will do is accelerate non-nuclear measures to reduce emissions.

We already know what happens when you let mainstream environmentalists dictate energy policy, because they let it happen in Denmark - the Danes (and their businesses) pay the highest electricity rates in the world after Tonga..

Yes we know what happens. Poor Denmark has outperformed nearly every country in the world becoming the 4th or 6th richest according to The World Bank and the IMF.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DNK:TON:USA:GBR:FRA&ifdim=country&tstart=51836400000&tend=1282604400000&icfg&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5

The Danish government can borrow long term at 2.4%. Unemployment is 7.4% Their country's economy is a huge success despite having little in terms of natural resources.

...the Danes (and their businesses) pay the highest electricity rates in the world...Can you really imagine something like that being a magnet for investment in European (e.g. Irish) business?

Danish domestic electricity prices are very high (not so much for small businesses).
This is due to very high taxes. This is a Danish policy choice to discourage waste. Pre tax electricity in Denmark is cheap as they have so much wind power at zero marginal cost.

Despite this Denmark is still attracting FDI. Why are companies not put off by the high price of electricity?

Electricity prices are not important to most businesses. Wages are hugely important, then commercial rents, then taxes, then transportation costs and finally utility costs of which electricity is one component.

KPMG has a review of location sensitive costs for business, estimating utility costs at between 1% and 7% of costs.
http://www.competitivealternatives.com/highlights/components.aspx

D'ya that that would have all these high end industry employers like Intel and Facebook queuing up to set up data centres and fabrication plants here?

Electricity price is not important to companies like Facebook. I doubt their utility costs are even 1% of their wage costs.

Datacentres are located in Ireland because of
tax
mild climate
rule of law/political stability
access to staff
availability of redundant bandwidth
quality of electricity supply

Intel is a much heavier power user than a software company, running three fabs in Ireland and announced investment of .5bn this year in refurbishing a fourth. I presume they're staying here because the cost of staff has fallen.

Chloe Pink · 24-08-2011 10:15PM

dynamick wrote: »

Removing nuclear plants from Germany will neither increase emissions in Germany nor in Europe.

This above is untrue.
This is true: "Removing nuclear plants from Germany will neither increase emissions in Germany nor in Europe only if alternative methods of reducing CO2 emissions are successfully implemented in sufficient time to coincide with the proposed closure of Germanys' nuclear generators."

The point is though that if Germany implemented alternative methods of reducing CO2 emissions and maintained its nuclear capacity, it would be saving even more CO2 than if it abandons its nuclear capacity. That it exceeds its targets is surely a good thing in relation to climate change. If you feel this is not the case it raises the question of which in your view is the greater threat, nuclear power stations or climate change.

dynamick wrote: »

I don't know - you'll have to find them yourself. New Scientist is a weekly popular science magazine not a peer reviewed journal. Articles like this are provocative and thought inspiring but not infallible.

I believe it is up to you to provide evidence to support your points, not me. Furthermore if the NS article is not infallible, it should be easier to find the counter evidence or view; I don't think I asked that it should necessarily be peer reviewed.

Anyway, I think the conservation of energy stuff is great and we should be doing more of it (although this could be detrimental to the power generating industries).
What combination of renewables are proposed please (with reference to the 'doubling of renewables' that you cite in a later post) to counteract the increase in CO2 emissions through the loss of nuclear generators?

Heroditas · 25-08-2011 11:11AM

dynamick wrote: »

Intel is a much heavier power user than a software company, running three fabs in Ireland and announced investment of .5bn this year in refurbishing a fourth. I presume they're staying here because the cost of staff has fallen.

They're here because of low corporate tax rates and also US export licencing laws forbid them from setting up a microprocessor manufacturing plant in a very high percentage of countries across the globe.
Staff costs haven't fallen in terms of wages dropping. They may have reduced headcount due to the old IFO section closing but they're still taking people on.
However, an engineer in Intel here gets paid an awful lot less than his or her counterpart in the USA.
Intel uses a massive amount of juice here. They use somewhere in the region of 0.5TWh per annum IIRC.

dynamick · 25-08-2011 02:37PM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is true: "Removing nuclear plants from Germany will neither increase emissions in Germany nor in Europe only if alternative methods of reducing CO2 emissions are successfully implemented in sufficient time to coincide with the proposed closure of Germanys' nuclear generators."

agreed. note that Germany's emissions reduction targets are mandatory and legally enforceable.

The point is though that if Germany implemented alternative methods of reducing CO2 emissions and maintained its nuclear capacity, it would be saving even more CO2 than if it abandons its nuclear capacity.

Why would the German finance ministry allow money to be spent to exceed emissions targets when there are competing demands on the public purse?

Chloe Pink · 25-08-2011 05:38PM

dynamick wrote: »

Why would the German finance ministry allow money to be spent to exceed emissions targets when there are competing demands on the public purse?

But by abandoning their nuclear generators, they are allowing more money to be spent than was otherwise needed in order to meet their emissions targets, never mind exceed them.

From your posts on this page
"However, the price of electricity will probably rise in Germany ..... in response to increased cost of Carbon allowances."

"More house insulation, more car taxes, more public transport, more carbon taxes, more renewable energy, more forestry, more investment in improving conventional stock of power stations"

And all at a time when there are competing demands on the public purse.

I understand that at some level Germany has made a choice and has decided to elect for a no nuclear policy which will increase the cost of their mitigation against climate change at a time when there are competing demands on the public purse but my question to you was, which, in your view is the greater threat, nuclear power stations or climate change.

And I also asked what combination of renewables are proposed please (with reference to the 'doubling of renewables' that you cite in an earlier post) to counteract the increase in CO2 emissions through the loss of nuclear.
And if these figures aren't yet on the table, what is your view on what they ought to be please?
The reason I ask is that I'd like to better understand the proposals:
- say they fill the 23 per cent of Germany's electricity that currently comes from nuclear with 18% from renewables and the further 5% through conservation - that's the job done isn't it save allowing for the increase in energy demand.
- why then do they want to build 20 gigawatts of fossil-fuel power stations by 2020, including 9 gigawatts of coal by 2013, that's just going to create more CO2, how's that going to be offset, (more demands on the public purse maybe to satisfy the ETS) but still more physical CO2 emissions.
- will 35% renewables work and what is the working combination

dynamick · 25-08-2011 06:21PM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

But by abandoning their nuclear generators, they are allowing more money to be spent than was otherwise needed in order to meet their emissions targets, never mind exceed them.

Yes. More money and not just for Germans, because as the article points out a rise in the cost of carbon credit will be borne by all Europeans.

I understand that at some level Germany has made a choice and has decided to elect for a no nuclear policy which will increase the cost of their mitigation against climate change at a time when there are competing demands on the public purse but my question to you was, which, in your view is the greater threat, nuclear power stations or climate change.

They are different kinds of threat. Climate change is distant and won't affect us or our children. Nuclear threat is mostly about tail risks and the eternal question of how to deal with waste. (The French were posting it to Russia as recently as 2009. The Japanese kept some in a box on top of a nuclear reactor.) What bad effect has France's nuclear programme had on the French - not much. So I'm not specially bothered by either risk right now. Although 90,000 Japanese living in camps and unable to return to their homes around Fukushima might disagree.

And I also asked what combination of renewables are proposed please (with reference to the 'doubling of renewables' that you cite in an earlier post) to counteract the increase in CO2 emissions through the loss of nuclear.

The doubling was mentioned in the NS article and widely quoted elsewhere. Germany's target for use of renewables is defined by the EU in terms of primary energy (transport fuel + heating + electricity). The target can be met with any mix of these. Germany's primary energy target from renewables is at the end of the Renewables Directive and no I'm not going to look it up for you.

Germany's Environment ministry provides a wealth of information about renewable energy in Germany including estimates for the toal possible energy generation from various sources. You can see they're still expecting nuclear to make up a portion of generation in 2020.

The offshore wind target seems optimistic to me but we'll see... There's a big input from biomass which has predictable output and there's a drop in total consumption through efficiency measures. Existing wind farms are to be upgraded with more efficient turbines. No CCS predicted and they don't envisage using a lot of gas. (I guess they hate relying on the East)

SeanW · 27-08-2011 09:42PM

Well, I had a look around, and found out that German energy costs are most likely going to rise as a direct result of this arbitrary decision, from what are already pretty silly rates.

Bayer threatens to quit Germany over nuclear energy shutdown. (Guardian article)

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan could lead to some of the country's major companies relocating elsewhere in search of cheaper energy.
Marijn Dekkers, head of Bayer, the pharmaceuticals group, said: "It is important that we remain competitive compared with other countries. Otherwise, a global company like Bayer will have to consider relocating its production to countries with lower energy costs."

Dekkers told the business magazine WirtschaftsWoche that Germany's electricity costs were already the highest in the EU, making the country "unattractive" for the chemicals industry.

I don't know, perhaps you've had your head in the sand for the last 20 years, but the Western world has already lost an extreme amount of jobs to low cost countries like China, India and Eastern Europe. Gazprom (i.e. Russia) will also be benefiting richly.

It would seem to me that threatening more lost business and jobs in the West is - at best - gravely misguided, and at worst, economic treason.

The report also quoted Robert Hoffmann, head of the communications company 1&1, saying that taxes to subsidise renewable energy sources were too high in Germany. Hoffmann said that his company drew energy from Norwegian hydropower plants, but that it still had to pay a contribution to German renewable energy costs.

The move has also prompted concerns about disrupted power supplies. German transmission systems operators have warned there could be a risk of power outages this winter, and have questioned the reliability of renewable energy sources, saying there is still a need for base power sources to ensure the stability of the grid.

In other words, your graph showing a potential for 50% wind in Germany is a crock of ****.

Furthermore, accessible from the same article, is another piece in which an official from the IEA spells out the consquences of this rather bluntly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/16/iea-international-energy-agency-fears-loss-of-nuclear?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

International Energy Agency fears higher emissions if nuclear power is cut
Reducing nuclear will cost much more, be less sustainable and there will be less energy security says IEA chief Nobuo Tanaka

dynamick wrote:

Electricity price is not important to companies like Facebook.

Oh it isn't? I see. That's why Facebook in particular has been in Greenpeace's crosshairs for some time. Because energy costs are so irrelevant. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Here, I'll let Greenpeace tell you all about it themselves.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/System-templates/Search-results/?all=Facebook

Oh and as for Facebook Ireland, it seems Greenpeace had plenty to say here too. (see link)

Do you still want to pretend that anti-nuclear "environmentalism" is anything other than irrational, counter-productive, economic treason?

end a eknny · 27-08-2011 09:58PM

nuclear is the way to go. but sure we dont want it here. much safer if we let somebody else ( say britain ) produce cheap electric and sell it to us dear. that way if something goes wrong it wont affect us...... no we could use all the wind turbines on the east coast if we put the charge through them and blow the radiation across europe

Paarse Krokodil · 28-08-2011 06:28PM

end a eknny wrote: »

nuclear is the way to go. but sure we dont want it here. much safer if we let somebody else ( say britain ) produce cheap electric and sell it to us dear. that way if something goes wrong it wont affect us...... no we could use all the wind turbines on the east coast if we put the charge through them and blow the radiation across europe

Its much safer for the rest of europe if all the nuke plants are concentrated in the west of Ireland

We're already being milked dry by the brits with their expensive bailout loans so we'll have nothing to buy their dear electricity with

In years to come there won't be much work for us anyway due to recession and the Chinese and the robots doing everything for us instead. So the work thats left to be done can be done on windy days

dynamick · 28-08-2011 07:04PM

SeanW wrote: »

Oh it isn't? I see. That's why Facebook in particular has been in Greenpeace's crosshairs for some time. Because energy costs are so irrelevant. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Here, I'll let Greenpeace tell you all about it themselves.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/System-templates/Search-results/?all=Facebook

Greenpeace is an evironmental agitprop outfit. They manufacture stunts to raise awareness of issues in mass media. I wouldn't trust anything they say. Although I imagine their net effect in the world is positive.

A more useful discussion of Facebook's datacentre concerns is here.

includes this quote:

Facebook reckons that finding the ideal climate will, in the long run, prove more economical than locating close to cheap power.

Nearly half of US electric power comes from coal. Like most US states, Oregon is moving to renewables from coal with similar targets to EU countries (20% by 2020)

Do you still want to pretend that anti-nuclear "environmentalism" is anything other than irrational, counter-productive, economic treason?

I suppose that anti-nuclear environmentalists estimate that the the risks and pollution associated with nuclear power exceed the benefits of a non-co2 emitting power source.

Mickeroo · 30-08-2011 12:02PM

Supposedly the Japanese have deveoped a new form of wind turbine called a "wind lens" that triples the output of normal wind turbines. Apparently that would ake it cheaper than Nuclear? Ireland has great potential for this kind of thing IMO.

SeanW · 01-09-2011 05:45PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Supposedly the Japanese have deveoped a new form of wind turbine called a "wind lens" that triples the output of normal wind turbines. Apparently that would ake it cheaper than Nuclear? Ireland has great potential for this kind of thing IMO.

Perhaps, when the wind is blowing ... when it ain't we will still need something else.

And that's the crux of the problem. No matter how advanced these silly weather based renewables get, nor no matter how much money (and jobs and businesses) we throw away down these 'green' drains, renewables will only provide juice as nature dictates.

The need for todays' "dirty" energy types will NOT go away. It is my view that to use nuclear energy as the best of this lot is a fundamentally good idea. The French think so, and this is why their energy supply is 90%+ non-fossil. Irelands energy will never be this clean - EVER - so long as this anti-nuclear insanity continues.

Furthermore, the embrace of nuclear energy as a pollution reduction measure and a climate change combatant would give the people of world a way around the "Green" taxes and idiotic anti-human regulations that senior figures in the main environmentalist movements want to impose upon us all. It would also stem the flow of jobs to low cost countries (like the BRICs) since the 1st world could offer cost-effective energy to business. It would also stem the flow of energy payments to the BRICs (like Gazprom).

These, I suspect are the REAL reasons why environmentalist organisations oppose nuclear energy. They've already shown to be engaged in borderline economic treason, and I suspect that carbon taxes, aggravated car taxes and other taxes, regulations and demands for subsidies etc. are their real agenda. Why, I don't know, I am loathe to engage in conspiracy theories and the conclusion that the mainstream Green movement is actually working to hurt us, damage our quality of life and harm our economy for some nefarious purpose is one which I find difficult to believe or to accept.

However the evidence is mounting.

dynamick · 01-09-2011 10:27PM

Let's go back to the thread title. Nuclear is not necessary for low carbon energy generation. This is like saying "cornflakes necessary for breakfast". Nuclear is a non-exclusive option for low carbon energy generation. There are many others.

SeanW wrote: »

No matter how advanced these silly weather based renewables get, nor no matter how much money (and jobs and businesses) we throw away down these 'green' drains, renewables will only provide juice as nature dictates.

Intermittency is not unsolvable and not all renewables are intermittent. Think geothermal, biomass and hydro. Even nuclear does not provide 100% regular output. Scheduled and unscheduled downtime lead to an availability factor of about 80% for European nuclear power stations.

Your view of the secret evil motives of environmentalists is no different from Greenpeace suspicions of nefarious corporate types in Big Oil. You exhibit the characteristics of your opponents. The truth lies in between. Nuclear is not all good and likewise with renewables and fossil fuels.

The story about the Germans shutting down nuclear power is not such big news. They had been going to do this all along until last autumn when they chose to extend their nuclear power stations by 8-10 yrs to save a few quid on renewable investement. Then Merkel's party changed its mind after Fukushima and its own political meltdown in the state elections.

Even without the political opposition, post Japan, nuclear now seems very pricey. Everyone is looking cautiously at Finland's experience of building a new generation nuclear power plant. The project was sanctioned in 2002 at an expected cost of 3bn. It has already cost 5bn and the operator now hopes to have it running in 2013.

Macha · 01-09-2011 11:01PM

<mod>Please cut out the insults like "eco-whackjobs". If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn't have to resort to name calling.

Also, this isn't the politics forum so less of the party-bashing and more of the policy discussion please.</mod>

SeanW · 02-09-2011 10:42AM

Macha wrote: »

<mod>Please cut out the insults like "eco-whackjobs". If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn't have to resort to name calling.

Also, this isn't the politics forum so less of the party-bashing and more of the policy discussion please.</mod>

Fair cop. I've edited my post.

Chloe Pink · 02-09-2011 06:35PM

dynamick wrote: »

Intermittency is not unsolvable and not all renewables are intermittent.

True, intermittency is not unsolvable, it simply requires firm generators alongside the intermittant ones.

dynamick wrote: »

Think geothermal, biomass and hydro.

... which begs the question, why then have Germany, leaders in the renewables arena, opted for 50% from wind, an intermittant generator (as per the bar chart you brought to this thread (thank you by the way).

Mickeroo · 02-09-2011 07:22PM

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, when the wind is blowing ... when it ain't we will still need something else.

And that's the crux of the problem. No matter how advanced these silly weather based renewables get, nor no matter how much money (and jobs and businesses) we throw away down these 'green' drains, renewables will only provide juice as nature dictates.

The need for todays' "dirty" energy types will NOT go away. It is my view that to use nuclear energy as the best of this lot is a fundamentally good idea. The French think so, and this is why their energy supply is 90%+ non-fossil. Irelands energy will never be this clean - EVER - so long as this anti-nuclear insanity continues.

Furthermore, the embrace of nuclear energy as a pollution reduction measure and a climate change combatant would give the people of world a way around the "Green" taxes and idiotic anti-human regulations that senior figures in the main environmentalist movements want to impose upon us all. It would also stem the flow of jobs to low cost countries (like the BRICs) since the 1st world could offer cost-effective energy to business. It would also stem the flow of energy payments to the BRICs (like Gazprom).

These, I suspect are the REAL reasons why environmentalist organisations oppose nuclear energy. They've already shown to be engaged in borderline economic treason, and I suspect that carbon taxes, aggravated car taxes and other taxes, regulations and demands for subsidies etc. are their real agenda. Why, I don't know, I am loathe to engage in conspiracy theories and the conclusion that the mainstream Green movement is actually working to hurt us, damage our quality of life and harm our economy for some nefarious purpose is one which I find difficult to believe or to accept.

However the evidence is mounting.

Wind isn't all that intermittent in ireland TBH. Doesn't really drop below force 3 or 4 all that often at all. I'd be delighted if it did then I 'd get to surf a lot more.

I'm not anti nuclear at all for the record, when compared to some of te alternatives a lot of environmentalists would consider nuclear to be more or less a "green" source of energy actually, as would I. Unfortunately it's never recovered from the scare mongering after the likes of chernobyl and three mile island. Fukashima didn't help either obviously.

Not sure I buy into the conspiracy theory you put forward there though

Chloe Pink · 02-09-2011 08:23PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wind isn't all that intermittent in ireland TBH. Doesn't really drop below force 3 or 4 all that often at all.

Intermittancy isn't just a case of whether the wind is not blowing sufficiently for turbines to generate electricity; it's also whether it's blowing too much for the turbines to generate electricity; and whether or not it's blowing in line with demand; and whether we can predict with sufficient warning and with sufficient accuracy to bring other generators on and off line or up and down a peg or two.

end a eknny · 02-09-2011 09:22PM

Paarse Krokodil wrote: »

Its much safer for the rest of europe if all the nuke plants are concentrated in the west of Ireland

We're already being milked dry by the brits with their expensive bailout loans so we'll have nothing to buy their dear electricity with

In years to come there won't be much work for us anyway due to recession and the Chinese and the robots doing everything for us instead. So the work thats left to be done can be done on windy days

sure everbody knows that wind turbines cause a massive aount of health problems. not to mention devaluing properties in the near vicinity. to get a full list of the alledged health problems propose a wind turbine near you and just sit back and watch the panic

dynamick · 03-09-2011 12:19AM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

True, intermittency is not unsolvable, it simply requires firm generators alongside the intermittant ones.

or storage or interconnect to a larger external grid.

... which begs the question, why then have Germany, leaders in the renewables arena, opted for 50% from wind, an intermittant generator (as per the bar chart you brought to this thread (thank you by the way).

The chart shows 2 scenarios:the reference scenario and the innovation scenario. Under conservative assumptions they expect less than 20% wind ini 2020. Under optimistic innovation circumstances they predict 50% from wind in 2050. I think it's hard to predict with accuracy the mix of generation technologies in 40 years time.

As technology stands now, to source 50% of electricty from wind would require wind capacity of 150% of peak. So they would need to export when the wind blows too much.

Chloe Pink · 03-09-2011 08:16AM

dynamick wrote: »

or storage or interconnect to a larger external grid.

Storage is key and as technology stands now, we haven't mastered a way to store energy effectively.
Interconnectors may assist to some degree but apparently their smoothing effect is not strong.
Another option is curtailment, which although wasterful, does allow grid balancing at times of good wind output but low demand.

dynamick wrote: »

As technology stands now, to source 50% of electricty from wind would require wind capacity of 150% of peak.

And if the wind isn't blowing enough at the points of peak demand?

dynamick wrote: »

So they would need to export when the wind blows too much.

Assuming there's somewhere willing to accept these exports.

Macha · 03-09-2011 09:48AM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Assuming there's somewhere willing to accept these exports.

Britain are interested - in fact there is talk of them providing financial support for Irish wind projects:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/18/ireland-wind-power-grid?INTCMP=SRCH

Chloe Pink · 03-09-2011 11:57AM

Macha wrote: »

Britain are interested - in fact there is talk of them providing financial support for Irish wind projects:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/18/ireland-wind-power-grid?INTCMP=SRCH

As mentioned earlier, interconnectors may assist to some degree but apparently their smoothing effect is not strong. So the chances are that England and Ireland will both want to export at the same time as each other and visa versa, to import at the same time as each other. We've been here before.
(There are some interesting comments on the article you linked to.)

easychair · 03-09-2011 12:11PM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

the chances are that England and Ireland will both want to export at the same time as each other and visa versa,

From an energy security point of view, it does seem foolhardy to hope it will be possible to import energy on demand in the future, especially if there are more cold winters ahead. why would the UK want to export energy to us and go short itself at times of peak demand?

Macha · 04-09-2011 09:21AM

Chloe Pink wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, interconnectors may assist to some degree but apparently their smoothing effect is not strong. So the chances are that England and Ireland will both want to export at the same time as each other and visa versa, to import at the same time as each other. We've been here before.
(There are some interesting comments on the article you linked to.)

I was specifically dealing with your comment on if someone would be interested in buying renewable energy and I think it's quite clear the answer is yes.

<mod>More generally, can we try to keep this thread as a discussion of the pros/cons of nuclear, not renewables, as much as reasonably possible.</mod>

Chloe Pink · 04-09-2011 07:07PM

Macha wrote: »

I was specifically dealing with your comment on if someone would be interested in buying renewable energy and I think it's quite clear the answer is yes.

True but I realise we are discussing the export of renewables in two different contexts:
- my reference was to exporting renewable electricity that is surplus to a country's requirements, in order to balance its grid
- your reference was to exporting renewable electricity as a major provider of electricity, in order to aid Ireland's economy.

My point still stands i.e. as a means of grid balancing, the chances are that England and Ireland will both want to export at the same time as each other and visa versa, to import at the same time as each other.

Your point stands also i.e. Ireland could be a major host to renewable generators (beyond its own requirements) and could export it's electricity to England thereby aiding Ireland's economy.

On the same note, Ireland could be a host to nuclear generators and could export it's electricity to England thereby aiding Ireland's economy; the supply chain would be less erratic. This works for France.

(Slightly off topic I know but while we're here, for those interested in the British-Irish Council plans for wind turbines off Ireland, here's environmentalist Michael Vinney in the Irish Times in 'Wind turbines, rural Ireland and my back yard'. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0628/1224299677588.html He looks at the environment and the boost to Ireland's economy etc)

Macha wrote: »

<mod>More generally, can we try to keep this thread as a discussion of the pros/cons of nuclear, not renewables, as much as reasonably possible.</mod>

I agree and will try, I guess though, my point is that if renewables don't work effectively in reducing CO2 emissions (and providing a secure electricity supply), then after energy conservation, isn't nuclear the only option - this then addresses the point in the OP that nuclear is necessary for low carbon generation. Mod direction noted all the same.

It will be worth watching Germany closely as they step into new territory.
There are already fears of blackouts although I doubt they'll allow this.
http://www.scotsman.com/world/Germans-are-braced-for-blackouts.6828109.jp?articlepage=2
Does anyone know please, could Germany bring their closed nuclear power stations back on line if they needed to?

SeanW · 04-09-2011 10:23PM

The title wasn't chosen by me, a mod moved my post to a new thread.

In any case, no nuclear power isn't essential for a low carbon society - if we wreck our economy or go back to the Stone Age, that might not have a high carbon cost ...

Assuming though that we want to continue to enjoy a 1st world quality of life though, while doing so in a cost effective and environmentally friendly way while having energy security, would seem to require the use of nuclear energy.

The problem with a renewable only strategy is not just that things like wind turbines not only cannot be controlled. It's that we know they will let us down when we need them the most.

We got a timely warning of this last Christmas - demand for power surged to about 6GW because temperatures plummeted to as low as -17C while the wind stopped blowing because the sort of Arctic/Siberian system that came calling provided no wind. At all.

Interconnectors wouldn't have done much because presumably the United Kingdom had similar problems.

Smart Cars, another idea that does the rounds on here, wouldn't be much help either because, with the cold front having started in and around Christmas Eve, many drivers would have taken their cars and gone somewhere.

Smart Metering, ok now if we had that, and were dependent on wind turbines, it would only have resulted in people dying because they didn't think they could afford €5+ per kilowatt hour for heating. Or, you would have had a lot of people with €1000 - €2000 electricity bills for that time. Assuming the grid stayed up.

So the choice still has to be made - dirty fossil fuels that cause all sorts of ecological and environmental damage (carbon dioxide contributions to climate change are just one of the many issues with fossil fuel power) and keep people in the "Climate Change" trap, subject to a whole load of regulations and "green tax" costs, versus nuclear energy that is clean, cost-effective, and reliable, not only that but it enhances energy security because A) uranium can be stockpiled very easily and

the fuel, where it has to be imported, comes from other 1st world countries with whom we have more equal relations, like Canada and Australia. Though its interesting to note that two uranium exploration companies thought we had a pile of the stuff in Donegal.

Yet for some reason the leaders of mainstream environmental movements either A) Don't see this

Don't actually believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change and/or have another agenda.

dynamick · 05-09-2011 10:07AM

SeanW wrote: »

The title wasn't chosen by me, a mod moved my post to a new thread.

my apologies, i thought it was your thread title.

In any case, no nuclear power isn't essential for a low carbon society - if we wreck our economy or go back to the Stone Age, that might not have a high carbon cost ...

Do you really believe we have two options:
A) wreck our economy/go back to the stone age
or

build nuclear powers stations.
?
There are a number of options to deal with a loss of output from nuclear: many different kinds of renewables with different strengths and weaknesses, CCS, offshore grid, energy efficiency measures, distributed storage, demand pricing. These technologies are advancing quickly and it's hard to say which will be dominant in 10 or 20 years time.

I think you are assuming that high energy use is linked with high living standards. People in Switzerland use less energy than people in the USA. The Swiss use less energy for transport. They live in smaller better insulated houses. Does this mean the Swiss have a lower standard of living than the Americans? I don't think so and I've lived in both countries.

We got a timely warning of this last Christmas - demand for power surged to about 6GW because temperatures plummeted to as low as -17C while the wind stopped blowing because the sort of Arctic/Siberian system that came calling provided no wind. At all.

Were there power cuts?

Nobody is proposing to build an electricity power system for Ireland that doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.

Smart Metering, ok now if we had that, and were dependent on wind turbines, it would only have resulted in people dying because they didn't think they could afford €5+ per kilowatt hour for heating. Or, you would have had a lot of people with €1000 - €2000 electricity bills for that time. Assuming the grid stayed up.

How did you arrive at your cost estimates? It would be silly to make up numbers that emotionally appealed to a prediction of an apocalypse if people don't follow your advice, so I'm sure you didn't do this.

So the choice still has to be made...

This pattern of thinking is known by many names.
False choice/dilemma/dichotomy. Black and white thinking and so on.

The problem is that the choices you present may not be mutually exclusive and they may not be exhaustive.

...nuclear energy that is clean, cost-effective, and reliable...

Nuclear waste is rarely described as clean.
Nuclear power station costs have risen as constantly as renewable costs have fallen.
Nuclear power produces a predictable and relatively reliable output but it is difficult to alter the output to match demand as required by wind and solar. And once in a while something very bad happens.

Time magazine's take on nuclear economics:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603-1,00.html

Nuclear necessary for low carbon energy generation

Comments