Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"

On 28 Mar, 18:19, "bill" <ford_prefec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:07 pm, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

For one thing, all of the British nuclear power stations are on the
coast.
So they've recently been shitting themselves over the question of
whether sea-level rises will actually render them inoperative within
less than a century.
(Allegedly not, but check the latest posting on 'Real Climate' on
that, which states that 1 meter sea-level rises are a *possibility* by
2100)
The East Coast of Britain, where Sizewell Nuclear Power station is
sited, is also particularly prone to Storm Surges, as happened in
1953, with disastrous consequences. So, combining the two, that's
quite a worrying scenario and there are plenty of people who simply
don't want any expansion of Sizewell.

Nuclear power plants are not that big, and can be protected for a
relatively low cost. Having looked at Dungeness from the outside, I
would suggest some land side sea defences. That said, whilst water in
the plant would be very unfortunate, its difficult to see a major
catastrophe short of a Krakatoa style tsunami.

snip

There are only 2 options for primary electricity generation in
any except a very small very lucky subset of countries, 1 = coal,
50-80% coal. 2 = nuclear, 50-80% nuclear.

Well, that can't be true since about 50% of electricity now comes from
natural gas. Though this is not a desirable long term position.

wind is a distraction from
a real solution, pursuing it beyond 20% absolutely guarantees that any
coal quotas will be misses and that emissions will continue to grow
apace. the only way to reduce emissions is nuclear power. once you
get used to that fact, you can begin to be a constructive part of the
solution instead of another coal shill painted green. What prevents
your co2 quotas from being acted upon is nothing more or less than the
resistance to nuclear. that is true today and will continue to be
true for the forseeable future.

There are two/three disruptive technologies that could enable wind to
take more than 20%.
1. Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles - these could be connected to the
grid most of the time, and will take their electricity when the price
is right (i.e when demand is low and/or the wind blows). That said, 30
million cars only need an average of 5GW (est. 120 GWhrs per day).
2. Whispergen style technologies, where home heating boilers can make
electricity as a byproduct of heat. In winter the electricity is then
produced with an effective efficiency of close to 100%. You could have
20 million households able to generate 3KW of electricity each. This
also provides a massive reserve capacity, that could be called upon in
the summer.
3. Not for the UK, but for hot sunny countries, solar power. This has
potential where peak power consumption is day time summer, mainly for
aircon. Thin film technologies will enable roof top solar to undercut
domestic electricity rates in the day time.

Point 2 shows a major disadvantage of nuclear (and most existing UK
generation) : The scale is too large to make use of the waste heat.

Given that, I'd probably look at a scenario in 2030 of a UK generating
mix:
1/3 nuclear
1/3 renewables, mostly wind, but also a Severn barrage and perhaps
wave power
1/3 microgeneraton, mostly natural gas, but with some fuel crops, or
perhaps syn gas if the Russians get nasty.

The UK is rather fortunate with regard to wind resources. Makes up
somewhat for the lack of hydro potential.

BTW - nice to see strong arguments without insults. Too rare on
Usenet.






.

Loading