257 comments on Nuclear Britain
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
257 comments on Nuclear Britain
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- 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
Excellent and informative piece. Thank you very much.
It's really excellent.
But you can improve it in one way. You gave Sizewell B a 40 year life. But we aren't talking about a crappy old gas reactor from the 70's, so you could well increase the lifespan by 20 years, to 2055.
The scheduled decommission date is 2035 - I expect you're right and a significant extension will be possible. However our problems are sooner than that. The issue is what happens in the second half of the next decade - within 10 years.
And given that nuclear can't make any difference in that timescale, what "Plan B" would? i.e., how do we reduce our short-term future electricity demand (and/or increase supply) without increasing fossil fuel consumption?
This is the big question for the whole world not just the UK. Another question is ... how do we continue to grow our economies with rapidly declining fossil fuel consumption?
After reading the IPCC conclusions on Dangerous Antropogenic Climate Change the world's politicians have decided that CO2 emissions MUST fall to 80% of the 1990 levels by 2050 - however this assumes that the levels of CO2 start falling steadily from NOW.
If the 80% decline is to be met by 2050 then by 2020 we need to have reduced emissions by 30% or so - if we delay the decline then the deadline is not 2050 but some much sooner time - especially if we continue to actually increase emissions in the short term, or if the politicians are too optimistic with their 'best guess' as to what is safe.
So, what is the UK (and the world) to do? ... it looks like the UK can easily meet the 30% targets just by avoiding imports of coal, oil and gas ... a large number of new nukes may be out of the question as well, since they put a lot of CO2 into the air during the construction phase (just at the time we will be struggling to reduce the emissions).
It doesn't look like the UK has a coherent, adequate, timely plan 'A' let alone plan 'B' and we actually have oil, gas, and some coal - unlike most other European countries!
Does that mean we will get dangerous climate change because growth will be more important than climate change? ... if so forget about the nukes! ... we will need the money and declining energy earmarked for them to rebuild all our major coastal cities on higher ground.
Dear Xeroid,
This simple, harsh, and depressing answer to your last rhetorical question, 'Does that mean we will get dangerous climate change because growth will be more important than climate change?' is 'yes, 'we' will choose growth above any other consideration, until the bitter end!'
Anything else is unthinkable and unrealistic, regardless of the consequences. Putting ameliorating climate change would mean reversing, at the very least, as a timid start, the last thirty odd years of Western and now global economic policy, the so-called Reagan-Thatcher 'revolution' which has become the socio-economic paradigm of our age. The presumed foundation of our wealth and prosperity, though the model is now beginning to falter and totter. Such a reversal will not be easy or occure overnight. Too many people, though a minority, have benefitted and have never been richer or more powerful. One is almost talking about a social revolution and the resistance to this type of change will be dedicated, and red in tooth and claw.
The more I understand how the world all hangs together the more I'm sure you are correct, and therefore am basing my strategy on that basis!
That means the oil, gas and coal will not last anything like as long as they could ... no growth in primary energy = no growth in economy!
So, what do I advise my son or grandchildren to help them plan for the future ... their long term outlook is 80 years or so?
Within 10-15 years there will be various of short term fixes that will help alleviate the situation:
1) Electricity and NG imports. AFAIK France is building an EPR reactor on the other side of the channel specifically for exports to the UK
2) Conservation - I expect a huge amount of the electricity currently wasted for non-essential purposes (e.g. using A/C in the British climate) will be foregone once electricity rates double or triple
3) Coal - I don't think the plans of retiring the UK coal fleet will ever materialize, once the seriousness of the situation sinks in
4) Wind will add some help, but I expect its contribution to be much less material than expected, and to reach some point where not a lot more could be added - specifically the decline of NG powered generation will decrease the ability to absorb more wind in the UK grid.
Overall I think it is too early to press the panic button yet, which is not to say that the situation could become very dire. It all depends on the speed UK moves on building the nukes and implementing the measures listed above.
Current projections are based on Business As Usual. If shortages ever happen, IMO you will see how quickly you are able to proceed on things that used to take years. It's human nature to protract problems until they reach a crisis point.
Chris,
I think your information about costs is useful but incomplete. You give an estimate of 3.25 euro/Watt ($4.84/Watt) to build but with a subsidy to cover the risk of a nuclear accident. Do you know if Lloyd's was consulted to determine what the premium would be to cover a plant built on an inland site with a Chernobyl scale accident? Building on the Thames, for example, might run to $0.04-$0.10/kWh I think. Also, do you know if the EROEI was considered in this decision? I suspect that nuclear power can't approach even half of the EROEI of wind and thus would be more expensive.
Thanks,
Chris
Hi Chris (mdsolar),
Your blog on Nuclear EROI is really good. Do you have a reference for the French enrichment numbers that you quote? (only thing I see missing from your great article).
So, essentially, the nuclear EROI values have been skewed by inputs from the cold-war era. H.T. Odum supports your position of low nuke eroi. And I notice that C. Hall also puts the value at the near 10 mark. Without a high eroi, then uranium really will run out by 2050 or so.
The estimate for France is pretty crude since it only uses numbers of reactors. The three reactors used for diffusion are at Tricastin. I see now 59 power plants in 2002 in France. A more careful calculation would include the size of the reactors and the amount of enriched uranium France exports, but since the calculation only looks at enrichment, it should still give an idea. The main point of the post is that even using centrifuges, nuclear power does not compare well with renewable sources. This is shown using industry supplied numbers in the table. I don't think that cold war uranium skews EROEI as much as I originally thought, it should still be above one I now think. But, cold war weapons grade uranium, taken together with actual EROEI numbers that are lower than for coal, makes it painfully obvious that nuclear power is primarily about politics, especially non-proliferation, rather than about energy generation. We may be able to keep it limping along if we use higher quality energy sources for the majority of our energy generation, but increasing its fraction of the whole would be impoverishing. I think there is a risk that even maintaining the current fraction of nuclear power could lead to plants being shut down before the end of their design lifetime owing to lack of fuel. This would tend to reduce EROEI since the energy cost of construction would not be carried over the anticipated period of operation. Shifting the associated finacial risk to pivate investors, as the UK is proposing, is a wise move I think. Proposed federal loan guarantees in the US seem like a problem.
Chris
It's not even numerate. I went through this in the previous thread, but it's worth a repeat just to show the disappointingly dishonest arguments Chris seems to think he's somehow justified in making.
In his blog article Chris use this formula to calculate EROEI:
(1) EROEI = (Net Energy/Ein) + 1
where Net Energy = Eout - Ein
This is where alarm bells should first have started ringing. Why does Chris use a more complicated formula to calculate EROEI when it is easily computed with Eout/Ein? We shall see in a minute when we consider the example given on his blog (my original thought experiment from the other thread). But first let's show that equation (1) is equivalent to EROEI:
EROEI = (Net Energy/Ein) + 1
= (Eout - Ein)/Ein + 1 (step 1)
= (Eout/Ein) - (Ein/Ein) + 1 (step 2)
= (Eout/Ein) - 1 + 1 (step 3)
= Eout/Ein
Thus equation (1) does indeed calculate EROEI and Chris is within his rights to use it.
Now on to the example. We consider a country whose reactors use uranium with an energy equivalent to Eu each year. Their only energy input is for diffusion enrichment which takes half the output electricity of the reactors and hence half the input uranium. In such a situation you might think the EROEI would be 2 (and you'd be right) but Chris calculates a value of 1.5. How does he do this? Here's his formula with all values inputted:
EROEI = (Eu/2)/Eu + 1
For net energy he uses Eout = Eu and Ein = Eu/2 (Eout - Ein = Eu - Eu/2 = Eu/2).
However, the value he uses for Ein in the denominator is Eu, the entire energy value of the uranium used by the reactors, not just that used to power the enrichment process. Thus he is using a different value of Ein in the denominator than in his calculation of net energy in the numerator. As can be seen above in step 2, this means that Ein/Ein does not equal 1 and therefore equation (1) is not equal to EROEI.
I pointed this out to Chris in this post and yet he repeats the same flawed argument here. Either he cannot comprehend simple mathematics or is blatantly attempting to deceive.
I think you need to read the blog again. For net energy I use Eu/2, the energy that can be converted to electricity for use by society. For Ein I use Eu, the energy that is expended. I think you have your ins and outs confused.
Chris
Chris:
And net energy = Eout - Ein, so if Eout = Eu then your Ein must logically be Eu/2.
Chris:
So you admit your Ein's are inconsistent leading to an incorrect calculation of EROEI?
Seriously, Chris, this is getting ridiculous. I'm a proponent of nuclear power, believing it vitally necessary to help us cope with climate change and fossil fuel depletion. However, I can honestly say that in all the words I've written about nuclear and renewables I've never knowingly tried to deceive anyone with a lie. Anyone with even small mathematical ability can see that your calculation of EROEI is flawed, designed to produce an artificially low value that tells you nothing about its energetic sustainability. Did you really expect to get away with this on TOD where there are lots of people far brighter than either of us?
Your really are confusing yourself I think. Ein is Eu, not Eout. If Eout were Eu, then EROEI(thermal)=1 not 1.5. Obviously Eout is Eu/2 to be converted to electricity for use by society plus Eu to be used for the process next year, just as you originally proposed. Thus, EROEI(thermal)=1.5. If you take Eout to be Eu then you have not bothered to enrich any uranium.
Chris
If Eout = Eu/2 and Ein = Eu then
Net Energy = Eout - Ein = Eu/2 - Eu = -Eu/2
and
EROEI = Eout/Ein = (Eu/2)/Eu = 1/2
The reason we get these nonsensical values is that you include all the energy of the uranium as an input. If we were talking about oil, for example, were you got a 100 barrels back for every one you invested, it would be like pretending that Ein was 100 instead of 1. This is why you use this equation:
EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1
in order to hide the fact that you are using different values of Ein to suit your purposes. However, as I've shown above, when doing so, this equation no longer calculates EROEI.
Read what I wrote again. Eout is both the energy going to society and the energy in the enriched uranium to be used during the next refueling. The net energy is what is available to convert to electricity for use by society. You seem to be confusing yourself by not reading carefully.
Chris
Chris:
I've read everything you've written very carefully, Chris, and the fact that you can't admit your mistake and stop trying to deceive is increasingly painful.
EROEI = Eout/Ein
and also
EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1
If you are correct, Chris, then you should be able to explicitly state your Eout and Ein and get the same value of EROEI using either equation. We both know you can't do that.
Better read again. I've stated what Eout in both my last two posts since this seems to be where you are getting stuck. Divide that by Eu and you'll get 1.5. I thought your example would give two before converting to electricity by analogy with oil but it doesn't. I tried rather hard to make it come out to two because I was somewhat surprised. Perhaps it would help you to try to carry out the calculation yourself.
Chris
Chris:
Very well.
Thought Experiment
A country has nuclear reactors and uses half the output to enrich the uranium for next year. The other half is used to power factories, homes, etc. There is no other energy input but that used to power the enrichment process. The energy used to mine the uranium, build the reactors, deal with the waste, etc, is assumed to be zero.
Energy Content of Uranium = Eout = Eu
Energy required to Enrich uranium = Ein = Eu/2
Net Energy = Eu - Eu/2 = Eu/2
EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1 = (Eu/2)/(Eu/2) + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2
Thus giving the obviously correct answer. This would be the same for oil, gas, coal, etc if half the output were used to mine/refine the input. It is no different for uranium.
This is helpful because it shows where you are confused. The energy expended is obviously Eu rather than Eu/2. The energy produced is also clearly Eu in enriched uranium plus Eu/2 in thermal energy that can be used elsewhere. You are undercounting both the input and the output. The net energy is indeed Eu/2, but you must calculate this as (Eu+Eu/2)-Eu rather than the way you have done. You don't get that net thermal energy unless you use the whole system. Confining your analysis to half the system is what is steering you wrong.
Chris
And this is helpful in showing where you are 'confused'.
Chris:
No, the energy produced by the inputted uranium Eu is Eu/2 to enrich next years uranium, Eu/2 thermal energy to be used elsewhere, and Eu embodied in next years uranium. This sums to 2Eu, hence net energy is Eu and EROEI = Eu/Eu + 1 = 2.
Your mistake, Chris, is in ignoring the energy used to enrich the uranium as an output. You seem to be conflating net energy and gross energy. You do have a penchant for apples/oranges comparisons. They're seldom valid, you know.
Before you were undercounting, but now you are overcounting. The energy used to enrich uranium is used up. All you get is the enriched uranium as an output. You are kind of wanting to keep your cake and eat it at the same time. Hope this clears things up for you now.
Chris
Oh things are now very clear. Let's recap:
The Mdsolar Patented Way to Calculate Nuclear EROEI
1) Take as Ein all uranium used Eu, not just that for enrichment.
2) Eout is now the energy in next years enriched uranium, Eu, plus the thermal energy not used for enrichment.
3) EROEI can now be calculated with Net Energy/Ein + 1.
This accurately describes the method you use to calculate EROEI in my original thought experiment, in which half the reactors were powering the enrichment process, leading to a value of 1.5.
Okay, now the fun part: we vary the original assumption of the thought experiment and see what happens.
Enrichment uses only 1/10th reactors output
Ein must still be Eu
Eout is now the energy is the enriched uranium, Eu, plus the thermal energy not used for enrichment, 9Eu/10.
Therefore Net Energy = 9Eu/10
and EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1 = (9Eu/10)/Eu + 1 = 1.9
Hmmm, very strange. We've reduced the power needed to enrich the uranium by 5 times, and yet our mdsolar approved EROEI has only increased from 1.5 to 1.9.
Okay, let's really go mad:
Enrichment uses only 1/1000th reactors output
Ein = Eu (of course!!)
Eout = Eu + 999Eu/1000
Net Energy = Eout - Ein = 999Eu/1000
Therefore EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1 = 1.999
Curiouser and curiouser. Only one fivehundredth of the original energy is used for enrichment but our EROEI still hasn't breached 2.
Hmm, wonder what would happen in the case were no energy at all was used in the nuclear lifecycle. Surely Chris's foolproof method will give us an infinity for EROEI, as it must. Let's see:
Enrichment uses none of reactors output
Ein = Eu
Eout = Eu + Eu = 2Eu
Net Energy = Eout - Ein = Eu
Therefore EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1 = 2
That's right, Chris, in the event were there are no energy inputs your method calculates an EROEI of 2. May I humbly suggest you are mistaken.
Reductio ad absurdum. I was puzzled by that result. Thanks.
Chris
And if I weren't so dense that I actually read what you wrote rather than assuming, we'd have got to this point ages ago.
I've corrected the blog and added an acknowledgement as a comment. I think you'll agree that the thermal/actual terms help to clarify what we were discussing in a previous thread, but let me know it you disagree.
Chris
mdsolar:
I know you'll be just delighted to find out I have other problems with the blog entry, Chris. I'll concentrate on the next one.
We've finally come to an agreement that in the thought experiment were half a country's reactors are used to enrich their uranium - and there are no other inputs - then EROEI = 2 in terms of primary energy input to output.
You then go on to calculate EROEI in terms of electrical output to primary energy input using this formula:
EROEI = (0.3*(Eu/2))/Eu/2) + 1 = 1.3
However, this is incorrect. The point I was erroneously making in our discussion above about inconsistent Ein's is ironically valid when discussing this calculation. Essentially you're multiplying the net energy by 0.3, which leads to a different Ein in the numerator than in the denominator. If we multiply the equation out we shall see that it does not equal the traditional definition of EROEI:
If EROEI = (0.3*Net Energy)/Ein + 1
then EROEI = (0.3Eout - 0.3Ein)/Ein + 1 = 0.3Eout/Ein - 0.3 + 1 = 0.3Eout/Ein + 0.7
If your equation was truly calculating EROEI(electric) then it would simplify to 0.3Eout/Ein. Also, reductio ad absurdum, if Eout = 0, EROEI = 0.7 not zero.
The actual calculation of EROEI(electric) is:
(Using a factor of 1/3 to account for conversion to electricity and make the maths prettier)
Net Energy = Eout - Ein = (1/3)*Eu - Eu/2 = Eu/3 - Eu/2 = -Eu/6
Therefore EROEI = Net Energy/Ein + 1 = (-Eu/6)/(Eu/2) + 1 = -1/3 + 1 = 2/3
Which brings us right back to the motivation for the original thought experiment: to show that EROEI(electric) is a poor measure of energetic sustainability, giving a value of < 1 for a process that produces an energy profit.
I want to consider two cases. The issue we are dealing with here is scope because I want to compare what it takes to run an electric toaster given EROEIs in various forms. So, how do we handle scope?
Let us say we have an oil well with EROEI(well head) =2 and a refinery at some distance. The oil company has two choices on how to transport the oil. It can use a sail boat with the strange property that 70% of the oil transported during the journey evaporates, or it can use a tanker that burns 70% of the oil. To calculate EROEI at the refinery terminal rather than the well head the way I am doing it, I want the evaporation case so net energy is 0.3*(net energy at the well head) and I get EROEI(terminal)=0.3*1/1+1=1.3. You object to this because you want to retain the difference in the net energy calculation and apply the conversion also to oil that was used to pump I think. In the case of the tanker I think we would both say that Eout=2 and Ein=1.7 so that EROEI=1.176. Net energy is the same in both cases, 0.3, but in one case we just lost the oil while in the second case we used it so that it affects the denominator.
Based on this, we might account for waste in conversion as though that energy were actually used as an input. So, if X is a reported thermal EROEI and Y is the conversion efficiency then 1-Y is the fractional loss which is applied to the original net energy. This is (X-1)*Ein. So, we write (1-Y)*(X-1)*Ein as the additional term for the denominator. X=Eout/Ein and without loss of generality we can set Ein=1 so that Eout=X. This then gives:
X'=X/(1+(1-Y)*(X-1))
Where X' is the desired effective EROEI for X greater than 1.
If Y=0 then X'=1. If Y=1 then X'=X. If Y=0.5 and X=1.05 then X'=1.024. If X=10 and Y=0.5 then X'=1.8 and at higher X we approach 2, just as you pointed out to me earlier. In the case of actually burning the oil, this would make sense since we are seeing the limiting case of the tanker using half the oil it transports. When Y=0.3 then X' approaches 1.43 (1/(1-y)).
But this is not really sensible when we are considering losses because we do expect improvements in X to lead to improvements in X' that are quasi-linear.
So, I think that we need to work on the numerator.
I am indeed multiplying net energy by 0.3, so now X'=Y*(X-1)+1. If X=1 then X'=1, if X=0 the X'=0, If Y=0, then X'=1 and if Y=1 then X'=X. If X=10 and Y=0.5 then X'=5.5. Now, I think you criticism is not so strong because I am looking for a way to carry forward from the net energy, and what it's composition was beforehand does not seem to me to be all that important. It is the net energy which undergoes a loss. But I do notice is that taking X to the limit gives an asymptotic behavior with successively lower X' going to a limit of 5 for Y=0.5 and this is not transmitting improve initial EROEI.
So, I think that there is a way to compare thermal sources with those that provide electricity directly and it looks something like 0.3*Eout/Ein in its behavior, but I'm not sure yet what it is.
Chris
Oh dear, you have constructed a house of cards, Chris. You concoct this oil analogy and consider it to be essentially equivalent to our earlier uranium thought experiment, only it isn't. In our earlier discussion all the uranium - i.e. the gross Eu - was converted to electricity at an efficiency of 0.3. In this example only the net energy is subject to conversion.
Also the EROEI in your example is 1.3 regardless of whether the tanker or sail boat is used. Why?
Beginning of Process:
Ein = 1 unit of oil
End of Process:
Eout = 1 unit of oil at well head + 0.3 units at terminal = 1.3
Therefore EROEI = Eout/Ein = 1.3/1 = 1.3
This is true for both transport methods.
With regard to costs, I'd also be interested to know what sort of payback time there is on the building of a nuclear plant. If a plant first goes live in 2021, when is it likely to start making money?
The point has often been made, including in Gail's latest posts on the oil drum, that with peak oil, the calculations for lending over long periods of time are likely to change. I think that most peakists see an oil peak well before 2021, so it's not unreasonable to think that the latter stages of any nuclear construction project will be completed when general sentiment has come to question perpetual growth. Will banks and governments be willing, or even able, to lend for what I'm guessing is quite a long time, in such a situation?
Peter.
mdsolar,
The problem with fully charging for risks for the nuclear industry is that we ought in order to rationally compare our choices to charge for the worst possible events in other industries as well as in the nuclear industry to have a level playing field.
There is the additional point that no-one now will build a plant to the same specifications as Chernobyl, ie with no containment vessel, so in practise you are asking the industry to over-insure simply because it bear the same label, ie nuclear.
That is a little like asking a modern steamship to be insured against loosing it's masts, because it is still called a ship and wooden ships had masts! :-)
Having a containment vessel means that even in the unlikely event that the accident is not fully contained, then releases are still reduced by many orders of magnitude compared to not having one.
Here is a discussion by Bill Hanaghan of risk costs for different industries:
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005617&start=360
Just scroll down for his post.
The fact is that nuclear bears far more of it's costs than any of the alternatives.
The coal industry just sends out of it's chimneys large amounts of radioactive uranium, a substantial fraction in fact of the quantities which is carefully treated as waste in the nuclear industry.
I actually work in the insurance industry, and in practise all very large risks such as war are uninsurable and uninsured - the reason for that is simple, firstly that you could never afford to do anything at all if you had to pay the full premium for the risk, and secondly that any event which has a real impact on the whole society will also impact the guys who have offered to insure, so they won't have any money to pay out.
Even before you take into account any allowance for relative carbon emissions nuclear power is far cheaper on any equally-costed reckoning than any of the alternatives, in coals case for obvious reasons, in renewables case because at northern latitudes at least the intermittencies of present renewables makes them unreliable as well as vastly expensive.
I am not against the development of renewables, but do feel that we need a rational assessment of present technological capabilities.
Should the UK go for the off-shore wind power scheme they are talking about, they will be paying huge amounts for a unreliable source.
This is not a theoretical question,as in northern Europe cold kills, and energy that expensive will kill hundreds or thousands of societies most vulnerable.
As it is, the complete cock-up the British government has made of the energy industry means we are faced with a massive gap in supply, as so ably pointed out in this article.
My guess is that they will build a load of gas-plants to fill the gap, as that is the quickest and easiest option, and so for many years we will be stuck with a by then very expensive and insecure energy source.
You seem to have a strange conception of reliability. I know of no forecasts that wind will cease to blow around the UK while there are credible forecasts that uranium will be in shortage fairly soon. But, what is even stranger is your logic: First you say that there is very little risk with nuclear power, and then you say that the risk is so large that the insurer could be wiped out, not by the payout, but by the effects of the nuclear disaster itself. To avoid this result, one could consult with some other firm other than Lloyds, but I would say that it would be very useful to know what an insurer would charge as a premium. My estimate is based on one major accident every 40 years and estimated property values near Indian Point. I use this because Indian Point has been poorly run and thus seem more accident prone than most other reactors. But, input from an insurer might be very useful in guiding the siting of new nuclear power plants. Premiums related to the risk of not realizing a plant's design lifetime at a low population density coastal site might be balanced against premiums for using an inland site with high population density. It might turn out that cost savings could be realized by designing for a shorter plant lifetime, with a plan for migration to slightly higher ground should sea-level rise be a problem. Current estimates for the cost of new nucelar power stations near $5/Watt are pretty high so some rethinking is in order in any case. Lacking input from insurers, decisions are poorly informed.
Chris
It seems you are being deliberately obtuse - or at least I hope so.
It was entirely clear in the context I wrote that 'reliability' referred to 'Is the power on when I need it?'
In that context you do not know when the wind is going to blow.
As for 'credible forecasts that uranium will be in short supply' you are presumably talking about disingenuous chat, not forecasts, based upon the amount of uranium in the proven supplies when uranium was very cheap and there was no incentive to look for more, and also assuming zero reprocessing and a once through fuel cycle.
This ignores the fact that the only reason reprocessing does not occur is because uranium is so cheap that there is no incentive to do so, that that includes no allowance for the use of thorium, which is four times as abundant and for which there are firm plans to burn, including in the ultra-safe CANDU reactor, or that fuel is a tiny part of the cost, so that for very marginal increases in total costs you could process resources which were 100 times leaner in uranium than that which you are counting as resources.
You are either entirely ill-informed or else disingenuous.
Your 'figures' are in fact based upon fantasy, and in no way deal with a true comparison of risk - at the present there is little if any premium charged for the risk of terrorist action against a natural gas tanker - what do you imagine happens if one of those goes 'bang'?
Are you an advocate of levelised costs including all the risks of present production?
Do you think that the many thousands of people who have been killed by dam-burstsin that 'renewable' resource should be accounted for as a 'risk' against the almost entirely theoretical 'risk' of large accidents killing thousands in the west?
Most people who want to be absolutely sure the power is on when they want it are not adverse to using a battery, of which there should be a plentiful supply. The reason uranium in spent fuel is not reprocessed is because it is poisoned, so you are asking for a much larger energy input. In fact, you are asking for increased costs for electricity by requiring high processing costs. In any case, I am thinking of nearer term shortages than running out of uranium in workable mines.
Do you think that an attack on a tanker would place the port out of commission for thousands of years? You are talking about an act of war, not a risk that is an intrinsic part of peacetime operations.
I'm always surprised when the bit of FUD about dams is brought up. Dams play a role in flood control. How much property and how many lives have been saved by dams? Yes, they don't always work, but there is a reason they are built nonetheless. Occasionally airbags kill people too.
Chris
You obviously have no idea what batteries cost.
Get some figures for what you are talking about, then come back.
Bear in mind that during the doldrums of the summer,and during the cold. clear days of winter, you might have little wind for days or weeks.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say' I am thinking of nearer term shortages than running out of uranium in workable mines'
So what shortages are you talking about, bearing in mind that it is going to take around 15 years to build Britain's first new reactor, against the action of the Luddites?
As for acts of war and so on, you were talking about risks, and a risk is a risk - presumably you do not discount the risk of a nuclear site being targeted by terrorists? (hint: it is actually a fairly hard target)
In any case, it would not need an act of war to explode a LNG tanker, just a spark in the wrong place.
I did not say that dams should not be built, just that any form of construction, and any method of generating electricity, has a level of risk - there is no perfect way, and the assumption of some that 'renewables' are in some way risk free is erroneous.
From your comment, it is clear that you did not read the link I provided which deals with the cost issue. You may not have read this concerning uranium supplies.
Chris
I don''t really understand how the link you gave is relevant in regard to battery costs- it mentions no specific costings.
However, since it is talking about solar power, perhaps it is worth remembering that in the UK for a 1Kw installation,during the months of Dec,Jan and Feb you get around 3watts on average!
Sine the normal PV installation is around 2.6kw, you would not be able to boil a kettle for three months were that your only source of power.
The intermittency of wind means that it is no better.
There are proposals for off-shore wind, of an installed capacity of 33GW, available probably 10GW on average, but that is the key, point - it is on average - sometimes it ain't windy.
The cost is projected to be huge, possibly of the same order as to build 33GW of nuclear power, perhaps 30Gw average output.
The only thing renewables do is to entrench the position of fossil fuel, as you need that to back up this unreliable source, often running at lower than optimum efficiency, as you do if you are not running it all the time.
As for the point about not having sufficient uranium, it is odd that this is usually raised by those who are against nuclear power anyway, and so presumably would welcome it.
There are so many contrary opinions and options available to counter the link you give, that it is really redundant to quote them, as I am sure you are aware.
Perhaps suffice it to say that the ex-Chief Scientific officer for the UK has recently quoted that with re-processing we could run the whole of the nuclear industry in the UK for around 60 years using the waste form Britain's past nuclear program.
Or should I take it that you are a supporter of this Fuji technology, which would allow a 50% burn-up of fuel, against 1% currently, and would welcome it's fast-track introduction?
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/thorium
Somehow I don't think that you would, and are looking for any stick to beat the dog with.
For the record, I strongly support cost-effective, sensible renewables such as residential solar thermal and heat pumps.
thank you for the original article, anyway, which is certainly very informative.
I actually referred you to the information about batteries in the post. As indicated in the abstract, it is towards the end. Your figures for solar seem a bit skewed. The lowest value I could find for a suprisingly lossy 1 KWp system in the UK was for December giving an average output of 25.4 W, with May giving the highest at 149 W. You can check yourself. Perhaps you have missed a factor of ten somewhere? The UK does not have a great solar resource though it might be worth considering for export to France which has difficulty with its sumertime generation. However, batteries work with wind as well.
Chris
That's a great link - thanks.
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps3/pvest.php#
Dear Davemart,
You seem to be getting angrier and angrier with people who dare to venture an alternative view to yours. Is this tone of contempt really necessary? Do you imagine it actually gives weight to your comments and is good style or form? I think it undermines your posts and the way I respond to your arguments. Can't we attempt to keep a reasonable and civil tone on this site?
Personally I have great contempt for many of the leaders and politicians who have ruled the UK over the last few decades. I think it's OK to insult them, the people responsible for the mess we're in, but they are outside this site and it's rather impersonal. Insulting people here who one disagrees with is something else.
If you wish to make a criticism of my postings, please do so in relation to a specific post, and the post it was in response to, rather than a generic comment on how I respond.
Like most of us, I vary from time to time, and would be the first to admit it were I too hasty on a specific occasion.
This comment of yours seems to me rather ad hominen.
I agree completely. Those advocating nuclear sound like "nuclear fundamentalists" who will not tolerate those who dare to question or ask for clarification of their assumptions.
My knowledge of nuclear power is growing and my views are becoming more nuanced (I hope) DESPITE their posts rather than BECAUSE OF them. The nuclear fundamentalists are probably doing more to swing informed opinion away from nuclear than a whole team of Greenpeace or FofE campaigners!
Keep up the good work guys!
Like many who decry renewables, you are apparently unaware that power stations are not hooked directly to homes, factories and businesses, but that there's something called "the electrical grid" which is carefully managed so that when demand rises, generation rises, when generation in one area is insufficient power is taken from a surplus elsewhere, and that the whole system is deliberately designed to have a surplus to shuffle around to match variability in demand and supply.
For example, late last year in my state there was a collapse at the coal mine near a coal-fired power station, lowering the amount of power it could generate. You could say that the power supply had become... unreliable! We simply drew power from other stations instead.
We already balance varying supply and demand, and often in response to things we've had very short notice of - mine collapses, wind dropping, etc. Every country with more than one power station of whatever kind does this. It's called "an electrical grid".
I am puzzled as to why an unplanned drop in generation of 500MW from coal-fired stations we can cope with, but an unplanned drop of 500MW from wind or solar stations we couldn't cope with. After all, with modern weather forecasting, we'll have more notice of still-aired overcast days than we'll ever have of mine collapses.