 | 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
2) Waste: We have a dreadful problem with indecision in the UK. This could have / should have been dealt with already. Geologically suitable sites exist.
3) Decommissioning. Yes, big issue , time, manpower and energy intensive. You said `and more importantly where will the energy in say 30 years to do this come from?' - Perhaps from the nukes we would need to build in the next 20 years?
4) Staff. Again, a big issue. Lead staff , experienced engineers will most likely have come from abroad. While we train up UK staff to work with them. Our education system will feel the strain, but we could still deliver. We could start by dropping all the Psychology courses and pumping money back into physics, chemistry and engineering.
5) Staff make up. Why would we wish to stop a Muslim from working in N-Power? . We have government vetting. Right wing fundamentalist Christians scare me a hell of a lot more than Muslims do.
6) Uranium. Yes, we will be in competition for U. Australia and Canada are good sources.
7) Costs: Look to the French example and the Finns. Yes we can afford them. We could ring-fence UKCS oil tax revenues - while we still have them. This money could kick start the building program. Instead of windfall taxes on Oil Companies going into the general coffers, these taxes could equally be used in this way. Indeed what is to stop say BP and Shell being involved in Nuclear Energy? They are , after all Energy Companies. If my asset base (reserves ) were slowly bleeding down and If I was cash rich, I would look to investing in an alternative, rather than slow motion liquidation.
8) Design Cock ups. UK's record was bad. This, like any other prototype industry is always the same with initial, differing designs. It doesn't have to be this way this time around. The French don't have this problem.
9) Honey pots: Agreed. But then I have always maintained that UK Energy is a strategic issue and look back to the days of the CEGB. Everybody says ah yes, but look how cheap our electricity bills are compared with the bad old days? `The bad old days' allowed for spare capacity and planning ahead in the long term. The gas market is a similar case in point (IMO). Water in England looks like a similar foul up. Short term profits always screw up long term , national imperatives. This issue will need to be dealt with in a less than free market way.
10) Europe: I have no doubt that Europe will try to control energy, what success `Europe' will have is another matter. By 2020 it may be a case of `save your selves'. I would rather be a vendor of surplus capacity than a beggar looking for hand outs.
11) Imported technology: I can see the French getting involved here as well. But I would rather import French cooperation in building Nukes than import gas from people who may switch it off whenever they please.
12) Your last point: There are many ways that a lot of things can mess up. Nukes are just one of many. The UK still has the money, the people and imagination to resolve these issues. I maintain that Nukes must be a strong part of the UK energy portfolio. This portfolio will comprise of many low carbon, home grown solutions. Which will comprise of Wind, Solar, Tidal, Micro-generation. Coal with sequestered Carbon and last but not least, Conservation and efficiency. We don't have to bet on one system as we almost did with the `dash for gas'.
Yes , there are lots of problems. No , they are not insoluble.
We can solve the electricity gap relatively easily. It will not be pleasant if we are fighting the electricity gap, the liquids gap and the fertilizer gap all at the same time.
Or we could just roll over, face the wall and die
I see your point. Sadly I can imagine everything being left too late.
Can you REALLY imagine a successful mass migration to your portfolio of energy sources within say 10 or 15 years?
This would require a "backs to the wall" push from the government plus huge investment plus authoritarian government. I just can't see it happening with the class of politician that we have today.
The middle classes will probably set up their own private systems ... but what the heck will happen to the innner city regions?
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but I suspect that Peak Water, Peak Oil, Peak Gas (dare I say it, Peak Immigration & Peak BNP), Peak National Debt, Peak Outsourcing, Peak Coal could all interact at about the same time to cause a Peak Mess.
The only safe thing for anyone concerned for their family is to make some basic preparations of their own.
However I would be most grateful if someone could please convince me that when I retire in 15 years time I will have a pension, access to the NHS, access to electricity & food & warmth, fish & chips on Friday, Panorama on TV and a car with fuel.
I look foward to your heartwarming comments full of ebullient confidence ... I really, really do NOT want to be playing Mad Max when I am 65!
Thanks, that is the first time I have been tagged with that.
We may not manage it, but (IMO)we have to give it a go.
The alternatives appear much worse if left even another 5 years. Some already think its too late. Some are positively salivating at the possibility of it all going badly wrong; most notably the BNP (I dont think we are at Peak BNP). I think Peak BNP is more likely If we cannot keep the lights on. Regrettably, these guys have latched on to PO in a big way. If you can stomach it, go to the BNP Website. It has a very large section on PO and what I means.
Hopefully, Blair's speech has stirred up a hornets nest. If it brings the debate to the forefront , be you pro or anti nuke, then maybe this year It will be debated and a plan worked out. But we are running out of time for considered, calculated responses.
I am pro - nukes. I think we will need nukes to help cover essential base load. If I believed any other way(s)were possible, I would go for them.
We will know soon enough. This next Hurricane season and our next winter may be a wake up call.
That seven year build time is as fast as reactors are ever built, I don't think it's conceivable the UK could be a world leader in fast reactor build. Your suggestion of just picking a builder doesn't recognise that all organisations capable of building are already building elsewhere in the world - there's a waiting list.
Again, those experienced engineers aren't just twiddling their thumbs abroad, they are already working. Perhaps the UK could lure some people here though.
Didn't China just sign a deal for most of Australian U output from 2010?Look at the Finns? The EU is investigating the financing arrangement there since there is suspicion of excessive French government subsidy to get the first reactor built. Also the Finnish reactor is being built specifically for a consortium of industrial users and won't have to sell it's electricity in the Finnish energy market proper. As for UKCS tax revenue, well they are already earmarked for other things and private investment from the oil majors (or any cash rich entity) is unlikely since there are better investments with less risk and quicker returns.
If we were talking about this a decade ago and the decision to build was taken in 1996 rather than 2006 then maybe new nuclear build could be come on-line to replace decommissioned nuclear plant. Gas decline could be met with powerdown. As it is I have no confidence that new nuclear build can come on fast enough to be any use regarding the energy gap. For this reason I think the financial and political capital should be spent in areas that can deliver results (both supply and demand side) before 2020 not after as new nuclear sure would.