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 

Article about Blair's opportunity to promote nuclear

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



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:27 pm    Post subject: Article about Blair's opportunity to promote nuclear Reply with quote

The perfect time to go nuclear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Blue Peter



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1936
Location: Milton Keynes

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A slightly strange article, because the number one reason for Blair going nuclear (according to the article) is his lead on global warming. But I thought that he'd changed his tune on that.... Confused


Am I correct in thinking that the consensus here is that nuclear is a distraction in a good response to peak oil? or does it have a part to play (new nuclear, not the stuff which we already have, of course)?


Peter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Peter wrote:
A slightly strange article, because the number one reason for Blair going nuclear (according to the article) is his lead on global warming. But I thought that he'd changed his tune on that.... Confused


Am I correct in thinking that the consensus here is that nuclear is a distraction in a good response to peak oil? or does it have a part to play (new nuclear, not the stuff which we already have, of course)?


Peter.


I think we need nuclear because:

a) We cannot cope with PO and a eletricity crisis all at the same time.

b) We need a more diverse energy mix, 80% gas and 20% renewables is an insane combination when you consider where the gas is coming from( Shocked )

c) Mass transit solutions (trains, trams, some hydrogen buses?) are going to need a power supply. The private motor car is dead for us normal people, oil will simply too precious to pi** away in a SUV. It will be reserved for making stuff.

d) Gas is far more efficiently burnt for cooking and heating rather than making electricity. I think you lose 60% of the energy during all the conversions. Imagine this, we boil water using gas to spin a turbine to trasmit electricity hundreds of miles to someones house so some can boil water !( Shocked )

e) Less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

f) Uranium supply (potentially) is available for hundreds to thoudsands of years.

In short , it wont solve PO, but it may soften the blow and be the difference between a complete meltdown and bareable transition.

Just MO
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4105
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree TB. Although the purists and idealists may not want Nuclear, realistically we need it, as electricity is essential imo to keep going.
_________________
Real money is gold and silver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstly, I think we'll get nuclear, regardless of the merits/demerits, because it is seen as a way to reliable energy for a few decades AND because a lot of very powerful lobby groups are at work.

I think the real answer to "should we build more nuclear plants" is intrinsicly tied in with "how rapid to we want the transition to a less-energy UK to be".

We could - and maybe SHOULD - bypass the nuclear option (and not expand coal use) and go directly to a high-renewables, high-conservation scenario.

Alas, even with great leadership and direction at all levels, this would be hard and a tough pill for most brits to take and the acknowledgement that we need to move to a low-consumption world would likely have profound consequences on the collective psyche.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing that anyway, only that it's a big ask (and IMO will not happen).

Nuclear can maybe give the powers-that-be decades to asses a smooth transitional path while keeping the big-corps happy with billion-dollar contracts.

Personally I'm not convinced either way by the pro and anti nuclear power arguments, but I would happily take the plunge straight to the sustainable end-game as I think we'll have to get there sooner or later and I hate that "oh, power source X will buy us time, lets forget about making any more changes for ages" thing that we always do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blue Peter



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1936
Location: Milton Keynes

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally_Baffled wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
A slightly strange article, because the number one reason for Blair going nuclear (according to the article) is his lead on global warming. But I thought that he'd changed his tune on that.... Confused


Am I correct in thinking that the consensus here is that nuclear is a distraction in a good response to peak oil? or does it have a part to play (new nuclear, not the stuff which we already have, of course)?


Peter.


I think we need nuclear because:

a) We cannot cope with PO and a eletricity crisis all at the same time.

b) We need a more diverse energy mix, 80% gas and 20% renewables is an insane combination when you consider where the gas is coming from( Shocked )

c) Mass transit solutions (trains, trams, some hydrogen buses?) are going to need a power supply. The private motor car is dead for us normal people, oil will simply too precious to pi** away in a SUV. It will be reserved for making stuff.

d) Gas is far more efficiently burnt for cooking and heating rather than making electricity. I think you lose 60% of the energy during all the conversions. Imagine this, we boil water using gas to spin a turbine to trasmit electricity hundreds of miles to someones house so some can boil water !( Shocked )

e) Less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

f) Uranium supply (potentially) is available for hundreds to thoudsands of years.

In short , it wont solve PO, but it may soften the blow and be the difference between a complete meltdown and bareable transition.

Just MO


I suspect that we will go the nuclear route (though hopefully Paul Mobbs' (?) testimony that the uranium supply is not plentiful if everyone switches to it may make people think again Laughing ). But will spending a lot of energy to build lots of power stations soften the blow more than spending the same amount of money/energy reducing demand? That's a step in the right direction which will soften the blow; whilst I think that nuclear is a step in the wrong direction which will (may) soften the blow (and then lead to a hard one?).

Has anyone done a study on the comparative benefits of insulating every home (or however many it would be) versus building a new power station?


Peter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh I agree with you BP ,we have to look at conservation as well.

But in reality , even if we reduce demand by 50% , we still need 50bcm of gas , 20 mtoe of coal , 45TWH of nuclear and 20TWH of renewables.

To get to the level of demand reduction required 50% +++ , we are going to need time. The only way we can secure this time is with nuclear IMO.

As for uranium, according to the WNA there isn't an issue.

But even if there were , not everyone is going to be able to expand nuclear to the extent that it would compromise uranium supply. Most countries simply could not afford the levels of nuclear build required.
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
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