meshuga

Further to this, the only technologies in the document's solutions that fit your description of "needing development and may never work" are tidal and wave power. Thankfully they form only a small proportion of the solution and there is enough give and take to account even for the very worse case scenario - that those solutions may never work. I personally doubt that.

But we already have enough nuclear that will guarantee that the lights stay on while we develop off shore wind, tidal etc. Surely the choice seems to be down to where the billions are spent developing technology that meets our requirements? But as far as I can see we can't spend the money on both. I do have faith (perhaps foolishly) in man's ability to come up with the answers in a renewable way. I mean it's hardly a manned mission to Mars is it? Its not for me to come up with the solutions, I'm no expert - others have already done that. The Centre for Alternative technology has produced a nearly 400 page document on acheiving a zerocarbon britain by 2030. I'm afraid it is beyond me (and if you're honest you) to read into the future and say what will definitely work and what won't. CAT document here, summary of energy provision page 13. http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/index.php/zcbreportmenu/category/1?download=1%3A2030

And also with reference to your above post. So in your view I am wrong to rely on technologies that still need to be developed and which may well never work? And yet to counter my criticism of new nuclear you have come up with - wave reactors - thorium fueled reactors neither of which have been built, tested or costed, and neither of which may even form part of the UKs new nuclear fleet (again please feel free to show me where I'm wrong). So how is that different to what I have proposed?

I apologise if thats how it came across. I was merely grateful for the constructive debate.

In 2004 the EC took our government to court over Sellafield's refusal to let its inspectors into one of its dumps (i think Blair and Bush started on Iraq over something similar). In 2003 EC inspectors discovered a pond containing over a tonne of plutonium that had been sitting there unacknowledged and unchecked for thirty years. No wonder Sellafield didn't fancy letting them take a peek the following year. In 2005 investigators found that a pipe at the complex had been leaking, undetected , for over eight months, spilling nitric acid and 20 tonnes of uranium and a few kilos of plutonium, a mere bagatelle! Why stop with Sellafield? In 1997 Dounreay's operators admitted they had been dumping waste for years into an open hole they had dug above the crumbling coastal cliffs. The shaft had exploded 20 years prior to this, scattering plutonium over the beaches, but the operators decided that was best kept quiet. When found out they promised no more cover ups, but the following year they were forced to admit they had dug a second hole into which it was still dumping unsealed waste.

Thanks, so I think in summary we can agree with my original statement that useful fusion is 50+ years away?

Absolutely not! But my "chosen method" should read "chosen methods". It would be foolish to suggest that one source of power should provide the entire solution. I'm saying that there is little room for nuclear to be part of the mix. It is expensive, potentially dangerous and environmentally unsound (and you can debate that point till the cows come home but hardly a year goes by in the UK without some new and terrible revelation about Sellafield), and still doesn't provide us with energy security (unless I am missing a UK based source of uranium, thorium or whatever fuel you want to use).

Oh come on thats not what I meant and you know it! The joint european torus managed to produce output that was 65% of input for a second or so. I.e the energy the device required to maintain magnetic containment of the plasma was more than the ensuing fusion reaction produced. Future designs are supposed to do better, but my point is that commercial and viable generation of electricity is not going to happen soon enough.

Sorry the snip was not intended to mislead, just to address that specific point. We already have powerplants in cities. We have one in sheffield, there is a similar one in southampton, and other examples around the country. I believe that hot water from these plants is used for local heating? As for transmitting heat over long distances - is there a solution to the thermal losses encountered over many miles? I didn't know that.

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure I'll take your rebuttal at face value just yet without a reference. So we could build a wave reactor - a theoretical design at present. Will that solve our carbon problem before 2030? You also mention the CANDUs. Sounds promising. Any idea what reactors the UK government are considering? Will these reactors survive a direct hit from a heavy passenger jet? Or am I letting my paranoia get in the way of progress?

Surely you have fallen foul of one of the biggest myths surrounding nuclear power - their carbon footprint. Now I don't know if this is all 100% correct or not - http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/Energy%20Security%20and%20Uranium%20Reserves-July%202006.pdf and certainly it has it's opponents. But if it is correct, the mean ore grade of known uranium reserves is becoming so low that nuclear power "falls off the energy cliff", i.e. the energy it takes to enrich such poor ores outstrips that that is gained from energy production. Yes they don't produce carbon in electricity production, but they sure as hell do when making the raw material and reprocessing the waste. Your solution of providing energy in this country or around the globe entirely from nuclear power would be a very short sighted one.

My bold. We don't. I am happy to be subjected to the same laws that other road users are. I don't think anyone here is against such a private members bill being passed. Won't bother me in the slightest. Now, this is getting painful. Please just answer the question. Why is not indicating around a parked car dangerous? Is it for the same reason that cycling on a roundabout is dangerous? Or the same reason as not using a cycle lane?

Then consume less oil! You know, back in 1998 I remember finishing college when diesel was a shocking 60p per litre. I thought back then - "the price of fuel never goes down does it?". Sure enough here we are 13 years later with diesel at £1.40 per litre. Ten years ago I took what steps I could to reduce my personal transport reliance on oil - I cycle almost everywhere and made sure that when I replaced my car I bought a low emissions vehicle (not a Pious, just an efficient diesel). When will people realise that the cost of fuel is not going to go down ever, and when will they start to make changes? Anyway, I digress...

Fusion may provide answers, but currently uses more energy than it produces. That solution is 50+ years away. Let us not forget - if you accept climate change (and that is not the case with many I know, but lets say you do), we have 20-30 years to make a difference. Nuclear power is NOT carbon free. That I think is one of the biggest myths. How carbon costly it is is precisely open to debate but the costs are not nil, and ongoing costs are certainly more than renewables. In my opinion (wrong or otherwise), I can't see nuclear providing us with the solution quickly enough or even ever, depending upon the carbon they save us.

A good question. But the issue of baseload disappears with storage schemes, be they large or small, or have I totally misunderstood? As for where the off peak energy comes from - I have read sources (and I will try to quote them when I have more time) that suggest that marine wind power ALONE (ignoring tidal/wave and all coal/gas/oil/nuclear) can provide all the electricity we need three times over (which is good because I am suggesting that it also provides our heat. Losses in transmission of supply over great distances from offshore plant can be overcome by (admittedly expensive) DC power lines. Wind energy I believe (and again I will try to quote and correct if I am wrong) doubles for every 50km off shore. There is enough of the stuff around the UK waters to provide for all we require given political will and funding. On the issue of funding - renewables are immediately on the back foot, as they are not compared for like for like with nuclear. Last year Chris Hulme (Energy/Climate secretary) exposed a £3 billion deficit that is required to decommision existing plant. Tax payers pick up that bill and he said "we are paying for decades of cheap nuclear power for which we have suddenly got a massive post dated bill". I don't know, perhaps someone pro-nuclear here could tell me - are the costs associated with building, running, waste management (excluding decommisioning) included in cost estimates for new nuclear? As I understand it nuclear power always has been and will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer to take into account these "hidden" costs.

Absolutely right, Maxwell, Newton, Einstein and other great scientists have always maintained that there must be a conservation of momentum, energy, mass etc. But I think my point was missed slightly. The micro-CHP idea is suggested to overcome the problems intermittency that renewables have. If x is consumed in the day, then that has to be provided for by the equation x=on peak kWh + offpeak kWh.

No, just typing it as you were. Patience sir!

I don't know, honestly, I'm the first to put my hand up to lacking the technical know how to answer that question. At least I'm being honest. If I had to take a guess, I would say probably not. Not without a redesign of the grid and the plant that feeds it. But are we not falling into the trap of thinking that the way we have done things over the past 60 years i.e national grid and massive powerplants, is also the best way forward for the future? Especially if rernewables are to form a larger part of the energy mix. Take for example the prospect of microgeneration... Each home has a hydrogen based CHP plant. As I understand the chemistry and physics -> electricity (from off peak sources i.e. sea based wind and wave/tidal at night) + water = hydrogen and heat. Store the hydrogen, use or store the heat. During the day - hydrogen + oxygen = heat and electricity + water. With micro CHP and home storage there is no need for a hundred Dinorwig pumped storage schemes. No need for such a baseload. As I understand the current technology we aren't far away from producing such micro CHP plants the size of a fridge freezer. With the sort of funding new nuclear receives could things not improve? It only takes a series of small imaginative leaps to make such technology happen. I'm just asking a question. Show me how I'm wrong by all means. At the very least respect the fact that I am a self-professed non-expert!

A nutter in a 747 would put that accolade to the test.

Must someone with concerns about the environement be labelled a whiner? Is it not right that we ask industry to be accountable or are we just a nuisance in the way of scientifioc progress in the area that you are most interested? It may appear that the environmental lobby is light on solutions but given the funding that the nuclear industry asks for I'm sure the solutions would not only be apparent but already in place and solving the problems. There is indeed little evidence that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima cause the hundreds of thousands of deaths and birth defects that some campaigners like to say. I read somewhere that the true figures are unlikely to top 1000. It is important to back up statements with fact. But what is clear is the damage to the economies these disasters cause. The clear up operations cot hundreds of billions of dollars. I notice that doesn't end up on the energy bills that drop through the doorstep.

Oh, so now they want 40 billion to build the new nuclear and another 40 billion to sort out the old. I as a taxpayer am not in favour! My argument is that you can only spend a billion pounds once. With nuclear they want us to spend to build, then spend again to clean up or decommission. Our generation is paying the bill for the last few decades of "energy too cheap to meter"! Just think it's right that the taxpayer has a say.

We already have enough problems with the waste of the last 40 years. Investment problem indeed. If thats the case why not pour the billions from new nuclear into remedying the waste of old nuclear first? Sort out the problems that Sellafield has first. Building 30 at Sellafield "dirty 30", has been dubbed the most dangerous building in Europe.

Incorrect. Smaller combined heat and power CHP based in cities and near centres of population will produce hot water, distributed locally to buildings. Like the one in Sheffield. Nuclear power cannot do that as the plant is too far away and the heat would be lost in transit.

Depending upon your point of view of course, the planet will be stuffed in 30-50 years. 100 years is almost certainly too late. No source of power is carbon free. Carbon costs of manufacturing any of the plant are inherent in all systems, renewable or not. However nuclear has ongoing carbon costs from mining and transport of uranium ore, and from reprocessing. Some source claim that nuclear power will fall off the energy cliff and actually produced more carbon than it saves, worse even that coal or gas. Of course, it depends which source you believe. plekhanov and I had a stimulating debate a long time ago about the carbon cost of nuclear power production. I don't have all the answers but wouldn't it be better to not risk it? The consequences of getting it wrong don't just come down to keeping the lights on. It comes down to losing the planet's ecosystems for ever.

Some excellent posts, thanks for keeping it sensible. 50% of the UK energy requirements are in providing heat. New nuclear replaces nuclear plant going off line, and current nuclear provides little towards heating our homes - most of this comes from gas and oil. Why champion a power source that cannot provide the country with a complete solution? It's not a choice between electricity or heat, its a choice between providing electricity in an expensive way, or providing both electricity and heat sooner and cheaper. Is it any wonder renewables aren't up to scratch yet. Given the funding that nuclear has had since the 60s, renewables would be providing our energy solutions now. Are we going to repeat the mistakes and show we have learned nothing in 50 years?