 | Extrapolating UK's oil production history to the World case | The Oil Drum: Europe | Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
We need Nukes for the following reasons:
1) To cover the energy base load requirements currently supplied by Coal and Gas fired power stations.
2) Security of supply
3) Other sources, Microgen, Tidal, Solar, Wind will all help.
4) Blair mentioned Conservation in the same speech: That is very new. This is more serious than they are letting on.
High value , high skilled jobs for Brits is a very useful by-blow. Better than paying through the nose for out-sourced gas which may not even be available in two decades.
But 1) and 2) remain the main reasons.
`'Energy gap fact / fiction. `' No, I don't think the coming gap is a myth. It is a looming reality.
What are the costs? -lots But we can do this now , before we start bleeding money out of the exchequer to pay for outsourced gas and oil.
Who Shall pay? - we will. Ring fence Oil revenues, get The Oil Majors on side, there are many options
What of Time scales? - Just in time (I hope). From decision to switch on could take as little as a decade. But, no doubt it will take longer in the UK. 2020 is still feasible if the decision is made now.
rgds
In any event imports for a long period on this scale look unaffordable for UK plc especially as our manufacturing base has moved to China etc.
Nuclear power won't really address the energy trade balance as it cannot readily replace fossil fuels for transportation and doesn't produce plastics, fertilizer etc. Gas would also still be required in large quantities for domestic boilers unless it is proposed to convert homes to electric space and water heating on a large scale, if so who would pay for such conversion?
Given that new nuclear plants won't be commissioned in sufficient quantities until well after 2015 there still looks to be a large supply and funding gap (trade balance) for oil and gas. Also I'm rather in the camp that doesn't really like NP in view of cost, decommissioning and waste disposal issues. Private industry won't take NP on without Gov't guarantees to fund these 'big ticket' issues - to me that indicates energy is still being underpriced as consumers rather than taxpayers should meet the entire cost. It's also worth noting that the Scottish Executive has a current policy not to accept new NP plants until the issue of waste disposal is totally addressed, regardless of what Westminster decides. My understanding is that the SE can prevent their construction in Scotland via the planning rules.
At best I see new NP builds as simply filling the gap due to decommissioning of ageing coal and NP plant. Consumers will still face big hikes in energy costs and have to conserve big time.