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 

U.K. May Have to Increase Nuclear O/P to Meet Carbon Targets

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



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:04 am    Post subject: U.K. May Have to Increase Nuclear O/P to Meet Carbon Targets Reply with quote

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aP4Zqe4nuWP8&refer=uk

Quote:
Bloomberg - 15/11/07

The U.K. may have to increase its nuclear power capacity in order to meet its goal for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions over the next 35 years, according to a study by market research company Datamonitor Plc.

It's unlikely that renewable energy sources including wind farms will be able to fill the future supply void that will be left by decommissioning fossil-fuel burning units as the U.K. attempts to cut emissions by 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, Datamonitor said today in an e-mailed report.

The government is considering public opinion about whether to back new reactors to meet supply needs while cutting greenhouse gases. Although nuclear stations produce radioactive waste, they emit lower levels of carbon dioxide when generating power compared with plants burning coal or natural gas.

``It will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to reduce carbon emissions to the levels being advocated with technology currently available in the foreseeable future, without the advent of nuclear power,'' Datamonitor analyst David Niles said in the report.

Since the start of this year, the number of announcements concerning the building of new nuclear units, or extending the lifespan at current reactors across Europe, outnumbered those about plant closures for the first time since 1990.

While only two countries have increased net nuclear generation capacity since 1990, nuclear output across the continent between that year and 2004 provided a greater share of total generation, according to the report.

Critical Supply

``Even where policy or economic factors restrict nuclear development, its contribution to the security of supply remains critical,'' Niles said.

Public opinion regarding nuclear power is changing, Niles said. More than 50 percent of people in 14 European countries including the U.K., Netherlands and Italy believe nuclear output should be increased. This may be prompted by higher natural gas prices which are feeding through to consumers paying more for their electricity, he said.

British Energy Group Plc, whose nuclear reactors can produce about a fifth of the U.K.'s electricity, said on Nov. 13 that it would be ``economically feasible'' to extend the operating lives of its Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B stations.

The U.K.'s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said last month it may extend the lifespan of its Wylfa nuclear plant in Wales until December 2010. The station was previously earmarked for closure in March of that year.

Its' suddenly dawned on them that PO is closer than they thought. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another blatant example of claiming reductions in emissions through re-locating them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Another blatant example of claiming reductions in emissions through re-locating them.


The Sustainable Development Commission have a number of objections to nuclear power but one of them isn't that it simply re-locates carbon emissions. They say they've done a careful review of all the evidence and concluded that nuclear has to be accepted as a low (not zero) carbon generating technology. Sorry I couldn't make the link work, but I found this statement quickly enough by googling for "Sustainable Development Commission" and following links from there to a Q & A about nuclear.

I must say I think their argument - also cited by Greenpeace - that nuclear electricity would reduce carbon emissions by "only" 4% is bizarre. Nobody's suggesting that nuclear's the only thing that needs doing. Which other approach is being rejected because it can't on its own deliver all the carbon emissions reduction that's needed? That total could be doubled or tripled if you built two or three times as many nuclear power stations, so that would be better? Seems to me they're undermining good arguments by deploying bad ones like this
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you saying, then, that building a nuclear power station in England, using ore from, say, Australia, is not an example of a re-location of CO2 emissions? It seems to me - and not a few others - that it is. The nuclear industry cons the Brits into believing they get their juice 'emissions free' - which might be true at the point of generation - but wilfully hide the whole picture.

OK, all methods of energy generating is going to produce climate-changing emissions at some point in their life cycles but none are more criminally glossed over than by the pro-nuclearites.

Anyway, loads of links out there, without really trying, that dispute the idea that nuclear is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.

http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Nukes&CO2.pdf

http://halgeranon.blogspot.com/2007/09/nuclear-or-unclear.html

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm

Quote:
...nuclear power generation entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.

According to calculations by the ?ko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany [4]. The results from other international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.

Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If nuclear energy is so good why don't British Nuclear Energy put their money where their mouth is and get on and build some new power stations. That is after they have provided a bond to cover the cost of decommissioning.

CAT have provided a plan for the production of sustainable power for the UK without resorting to coal or nuclear, but it requires a lot of conservation not Business As Usual. See http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
CAT have provided a plan for the production of sustainable power for the UK without resorting to coal or nuclear, but it requires a lot of conservation not Business As Usual. See http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/
I read that - it's very good and forward-thinking but of course the time scales are impossible; also, there's liberal use of the word 'will' where anyone else says 'could'.

Excellent document though and taken alone is good enough in the future to say, "told you so!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Are you saying, then, that building a nuclear power station in England, using ore from, say, Australia, is not an example of a re-location of CO2 emissions? It seems to me - and not a few others - that it is. The nuclear industry cons the Brits into believing they get their juice 'emissions free' - which might be true at the point of generation - but wilfully hide the whole picture.


No, I am saying exactly what I said - that the Sustainable Development Commission accepts, having carefully studied all the evidence, that nuclear is a low (not zero) generating technology.

Quote:
Anyway, loads of links out there, without really trying, that dispute the idea that nuclear is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.


Any body who says that any thing is "the best way to reduce CO emissions" is an idiot, and any body who says any thing is "the answer" or "the only way" to carbon emissions reduction is an idiot squared. There are plenty of ways, and we need to use all of them to their maximum possible extent. If we block off one of the ways, then the others will have to work even harder, ie beyond the maximum possible extent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
If nuclear energy is so good why don't British Nuclear Energy put their money where their mouth is and get on and build some new power stations. That is after they have provided a bond to cover the cost of decommissioning.



EdF are raring to go and their CEO Vincent de Rivaz has said consistently that they're not looking for any subsidy, but they can hardly be expected to put serious amounts of money and effort into a project while there is still a consultation ongoing as to whether the Government should prevent the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Are you saying, then, that building a nuclear power station in England, using ore from, say, Australia, is not an example of a re-location of CO2 emissions?

Clearly there is a degree of re-allocation, but it's minor. The fact of the matter is nuclear is every bit as deserving of a "low-carbon" label as wind turbines or the Seven barrage.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 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
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