![]() | The word is slowly spreading that we have have a problem | The Oil Drum | A gentle cough in the direction of the NYT | ![]() |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b8cda898-610f-11da-9b07-0000779e2340.html
Where does Britain get its energy from currently?
Britain generates around 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, 33 per cent from coal, 40 per cent from natural gas and 4 per cent from renewable sources. The balance is mostly made up of oil and hydroelectric power.
What's the problem?
Britain's ageing nuclear power stations are reaching the end of their lives. The proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power stations, which produce no carbon emissions, has already slipped from 24 per cent in the past few years. By 2020, only 7 per cent will come from nuclear power stations. If they are not replaced, all but one of Britain's nuclear plants will be closed by 2023.
Because of strict new European Union rules, the amount of power generated from coal is also set to fall sharply. The government expects coal to generate just 16 per cent of the UK's power by 2020 -- half its current contribution. If nothing is done, this emerging gap would most likely be filled by generators using natural gas. Gas would then produce more than 60 per cent of Britain's electricity by 2020.
With this mix, however, Britain would not be able to meet its commitment to cut its carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 - the central plank of its effort to combat global warming. Because the country's own supplies of North Sea gas are running out, it would be highly dependent on imports from politically-unstable parts of the world.
Didn't we already have an energy review?
In 2003, the government published a white paper setting out its energy policy. It gave strong backing to renewable energy sources as a way to reduce carbon emissions and cut reliance on imported energy sources.
The government is committed to generating 10 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and waves, by the end of the decade. The white paper set a goal to reach an even more ambitious goal of 20 per cent of electricity generation from those sources in the following decade.
However, the government seems unlikely to meet its first goal in 2010, let alone the second. Widespread local opposition to wind farms has stymied their construction in many parts of the country. And research from countries such as Germany has shown that wind farms have to be backed up by conventional generators because the wind is not always available.
The 2003 white paper sidestepped the issue of nuclear power, saying only that the option should be kept open. Critics called it a fudge, spurred by the fact that the government was having to bail out British Energy, the privatised owner of Britain's oldest and least economic nuclear plants.
So what will the new energy review look at?
The government has said it will be a wide-ranging, cross-departmental review, looking at both the supply and demand sides of the energy problem. The review will look at the role of existing electricity generating technologies - renewables, coal, gas and nuclear - as well as emerging technologies, such as carbon capture.
It will also look at ways to reduce demand, including energy efficiency in homes and even transport policy, although no details were given. The government is at pains to say that this will be a comprehensive energy review and not just focus on nuclear energy. It also said there are "no foregone conclusions about nuclear or anything else".
Behind the scenes, however, there are strong indications the government is laying the groundwork for the construction of new nuclear plants.
What is the timetable for all of this?
The government said that that its timetable was "urgent" but wanted to involve the public and business in the process. It will launch a public consultation in early January and embark on talks with the myriad interest groups with strong opinions on the issue.
The review team is due to report to the prime minister and trade and industry secretary in "early summer". If it concludes nuclear power stations should be commissioned, the government may wish to wait until a committee releases recommendations on how to dispose of Britain's existing nuclear waste. The panel is due to report in July 2006.
What's the rush?
Coal and nuclear power stations accounting for around 30 per cent of Britain's current generation capacity are due to shut down by 2020, the government says. However, companies do not want to start building replacements until the government gives some clarity on its future energy policy.
Given the long lead times on investment decisions, industry says it needs government to make choices now. New nuclear reactors could take 10 years to start producing electricity because of the lengthy approval and construction process.
"electricity generated by nuclear power stations, which produce no carbon emissions"
Strictly speaking it is true that nuclear fission does not involve carbon emissions. However, the entire process of mining and processing uranium, manufacturing the materials needed to build a reactor, supporting a reactor all consume large amounts of fossil fuel. As yet we have little information about the fossil fuel required to decommission a reactor.
An analysis has been done showing that in the case of hard rock ores containing low levels of uranium more energy is consumed in processing the ore and enriching the uranium than is produced in the reactor.
Obviously not all reactors are run this way but the point is that it is wrong to assert that nuclear reactors produce zero carbon emissions.
I can google up nuclear industry papers assuring that the volumes are small compared with the energy output from the plant. But they are of course not independent papers. They give figures like 1.35% lifecycle energy input of the electrical output for the Forsmark nuclear plant in Sweden. Other statements are 1,7% up to 2.9% with poor ores. If all that energy is oil and it is 3% we get one unit of oil energy giving 33 units of electricity.
> As yet we have little information about the fossil fuel required to decommission a reactor.
I have a hard time imagining any reasonable way for a decomissioning to need large ammounts of fossil fuels. Most of the volume of materials are not radioactive and can be recycled. The rest needs concrete etc for the burial. It ought to be significantly less then for building the powerplant.
> An analysis has been done showing that in the case of hard rock ores containing low levels of uranium more energy is consumed in processing the ore and enriching the uranium than is produced in the reactor.
This ought to mean that someone is giving energy (oil) for free to the nuclear fuel industry. If the energy input for making the fuel is as large as the energy output from the fuel it would give an enourmous price increase for the uranium fuel.
Was it a calculation for the EROI where the rock isent an ore any more?
> Obviously not all reactors are run this way but the point is that it is wrong to assert that nuclear reactors produce zero carbon emissions.
It is wrong for simpler reasons. Much of the mining machines and all of the transportation infrastructure is run on fossil fuels. It is worse for some of the nuclear fuel wich for historical reasons use old inefficient gas diffusion plants run by large ammounts of coal generated electricity. I do not know why those plants have not been replaced by gas centrifuges 10 years ago or more.
When demand increases to the point that new enrichment plants must be built, they'll be gas centrifuges. Even the GD plants aren't that bad; look up the number of SWU to fuel a reactor and the kWh/SWU, and you'll see the enrichment burden is a single-digit percentage of plant output.
Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith
http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/
I can't speak for the accuracy of this work but it is thought provoking. They calculate from published sources the energy required to build, operate, supply fuel for and dismantle a reactor. They also calculate the CO2 generated by all of these processes.
The short of it is that the authors would agree with some of the above statements. Relatively rich ore in soft sandstone can easily produce a healthy energy yield and fewer CO2 emissions than a gas fired plant. The issue is as poorer ores from harder rocks are used at what point does the net energy yield fall to zero.