PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Some thoughts on Nuclear...after Lovelock

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ballard



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 826
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:37 pm    Post subject: Some thoughts on Nuclear...after Lovelock Reply with quote

Having read Lovelocks book I was back on the seesaw regarding Nuclear, here is a bit of a debate I'm in the middle of...

Lovelock says Nukes are A,OK because they actually do very little harm to the biosphere, and most forms of life are little effected by radiation (see pictures of Chernobyl (Pripyat town), it looks a lot greener now that the people have left.

In fact build your nukes in the rain forest, It's probably the best way to protect it!

However...

Quote:
I'm not convinced by Lovelock because he spends so little time "proving" his case that nuclear waste is as benign as he suggests. I look across the Channel and see the French generating 75% of their electricity from nuclear and accept that it is technically feasible and probably not the very high risk that the NGO's insist it is. However, it fails for me as it is not a sustainable solution. Here's why:

a) It suffers the low thermal efficiency of all our centralised power stations in that 60% of the fuel energy is wasted to water or the air. Crazy. It does not lend itself to CHP and so the proponents of nuclear now talk vaguely about possibly using the waste heat to generate hydrogen for what?

b) Given a) I firmly believe the answer is distributed generation (not more centralised generation) using CHP - some gas, some biomass, anaerobic digestion, etc. Also, much more renewable energy. We must adopt the kinds of renewable energy fiscal incentives long since used in Germany, Denmark, etc and now adopted by China.

c) Our standards of energy conservation are still very low in this country compared to Scandanavia even with revised Part L. Our highest SAP rating is below the minimum required in Sweden. We must do something about the demand side as resources are limited, including uranium. High levels of waste with a soaring global population competing for limited resources is not acceptable. When Angela Merkel came to power last year almost the first thing she did was allocate funding to upgrade pre-1978 (?) houses in Germany to the best energy standards over 20 years (5% per annum). UK politicians are consistently failing us.

d) Therefore a combination of b) and c) can provide a perfectly viable alternative strategy to new nuclear. Which is what we thought we were getting from the 2003 White Paper.

e) Nuclear has always been more expensive than claimed and when cradle to grave costs are included is still very expensive in my view. What other industry can hive off ?70 bn costs for waste management onto the taxpayer. It is insulting the way Blair and the other UK politicians dictate to us. We must strive for One Planet living, which is the only viable way for the generations to come.


What do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DamianB
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 553
Location: Dorset

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I totally agree and would add that serious thought needs to be given to changing/updating the grid so that it supports multi-band pricing, demand control, micro-generation, domestic and community storage, etc
_________________
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovelock has had a couple of seriously good ideas - a gadget that detects very small quantities of certain molecules in a gas and the Gaia idea that atmosphere and biosphere have evolved together and are interdependant.
But having two seriously good ideas does not disqualify one from being barking mad in other areas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andy Hunt



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 6760
Location: Bury, Lancashire, UK

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But having two seriously good ideas does not disqualify one from being barking mad in other areas.


Just look at Clive Sinclair . . . but then again, maybe the C5 is going to make a come-back?

A friend of mine thought it was called the C5 because "you'd be lucky to C5" . . . Wink
_________________
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote:

I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group