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 

Jonathon Porrit lays into George Monbiot re nukes
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ujoni08



Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 880
Location: Stroud Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject: Jonathon Porrit lays into George Monbiot re nukes Reply with quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jul/26/george-monbiot-renewable-nuclear?CMP=twt_gu

'I've come to the conclusion that Monbiot's controversialist instincts have blinded him, in this instance, to the inadequacy of his research, the untrustworthiness of his sources and the potentially damaging consequences of his bizarre pro-nuclear advocacy. Monbiot has caused many in the nuclear industry (and in government) to delight in his "Damascene conversion", an unexpected turn of events that they are already ruthlessly exploiting. All this might be seen as an acceptable price to pay if he had a solid case to make – which he transparently does not'.

Jon PS the comments at the bottom are getting quite heated Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this the best he can do? Not worthy of comment really, but I'm tempted by just the one:

He claims:
Quote:
The high-capital costs and the nature of nuclear reactors means you need to run them all the time for both economic and engineering reasons. If there are 16 GW of new nuclear, as the government proposes, preference will clearly be given to purchasing from this source.



Dead right Porritt. It's called baseload. And amongst the trifling engineering reasons you'd base load nuclear are (a) the sun doesn't shine at night, (b) the tide doesn't flow round the clock, and (c) it's not always windy. Even worse, somes a, b and c happen all at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5267
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

However, there are tidal flows (between isalnds off the coast of Scotland for example) which flow 24/7. They are ideal baseload.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Jonathon Porrit lays into George Monbiot re nukes Reply with quote

ujoni08 wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jul/26/george-monbiot-renewable-nuclear?CMP=twt_gu

'I've come to the conclusion that Monbiot's controversialist instincts have blinded him, in this instance, to the inadequacy of his research, the untrustworthiness of his sources and the potentially damaging consequences of his bizarre pro-nuclear advocacy. Monbiot has caused many in the nuclear industry (and in government) to delight in his "Damascene conversion", an unexpected turn of events that they are already ruthlessly exploiting. All this might be seen as an acceptable price to pay if he had a solid case to make – which he transparently does not'.

Jon PS the comments at the bottom are getting quite heated Very Happy


Nice. And another version on Jonathon's own new website at http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/why-george-monbiot-completely-wrong-nuclear-power

Curiously, I was discussing nuclear power with a pretty intelligent person the other day, and he said that Porritt had converted to being pro-nuclear. "I very much doubt that" I said. Phew.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RalphW wrote:
However, there are tidal flows (between isalnds off the coast of Scotland for example) which flow 24/7. They are ideal baseload.

Great. Any estimate of how much GW capacity baseload they could deliver? How far is it from these locations to the SE? Has anyone extracted large scale power (TWh) from tidal flow to date? Didn't Greenpeace and FoE oppose the Severn barrage?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Baseload" is so last century. It assumes every source of power on the grid is dispatchable, and that there is no demand management.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very true. Demand management is the future. We do it all the time now that we have responsibility for generating half out consumption.
(Rather more than half actually.)
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monbiot had no option but to convert to pro nuclear as he believes that BAU will find a way to carry on as usual. If BAU is to carry on but in a low carbon way nuclear is the only way that we could possibly power it, in theory, at the moment. The problem is that we can't build new nukes in time to replace the coal and old nukes so we will have to build a new generation of gas plants to tide us over. That is if you assume that the economic system doesn't break first.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Monbiot had no option but to convert to pro nuclear as he believes that BAU will find a way to carry on as usual. If BAU is to carry on but in a low carbon way nuclear is the only way that we could possibly power it,
Leaving the other important issues to one side for the moment, your 'Monbiot had no option' suggests that we can increase electricity generation capacity quicker by the nuclear route than by wind and solar. What evidence do we have for that? Clearly for the first 10 years, before the first nuclear unit is generated, the renewables win hands down, as it only takes a few months to build a wind or solar farm from scratch. Looking forward to the 2020s I find it easier to imagine big scale increases in the production rate of solar cells than speedier nuke builds.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Biff once again ignores the problem that wind and solar cost 4 or 5x gas/coal/nuclear
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
"Baseload" is so last century. It assumes every source of power on the grid is dispatchable, and that there is no demand management.

Sure! It's just taking a long time to die!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
. . as it only takes a few months to build a wind or solar farm from scratch.


Really! It took over 18 months to build 90 MW of Rhyl Flats (at a cost of £198m) and now it's going to have to undergo pitch control refurbishment after a whole 18 months of operation.

You could build a 2000MW gas station in that time at half the cost per MW installed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
kenneal wrote:
Monbiot had no option but to convert to pro nuclear as he believes that BAU will find a way to carry on as usual. If BAU is to carry on but in a low carbon way nuclear is the only way that we could possibly power it,
Leaving the other important issues to one side for the moment, your 'Monbiot had no option' suggests that we can increase electricity generation capacity quicker by the nuclear route than by wind and solar. What evidence do we have for that? Clearly for the first 10 years, before the first nuclear unit is generated, the renewables win hands down, as it only takes a few months to build a wind or solar farm from scratch. Looking forward to the 2020s I find it easier to imagine big scale increases in the production rate of solar cells than speedier nuke builds.


I don't think it's possible to build out enough renewables to carry on with BAU, neither will we be able to build enough conventional. We will have to power down considerably for either to be affordable.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well yes - that was one of the important issues I was leaving to one side for the moment.

You'll like this one, Ken Smile
http://theenergycollective.com/petertroast/61269/infographic-nuclear-power-vs-energy-efficient-homes
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The trouble is, Biff, you and I can see the logic but those who crave growth can't and they call the shots.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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