Nuclear power will remain the cheapest way

[bekisman]

Pleased to see the Committee on Climate Change has come up with this:

'Nuclear power will remain the cheapest way for the UK to grow its low-carbon energy supply for at least a decade, according to government advisers.

But renewables should provide 30-45% of the nation's energy by 2030, says the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

Its new report suggests ministers may want to temper ambitions for offshore wind, which is still fairly expensive.

"People argue that offshore wind is very expensive - and it's true, it is more expensive at the moment than some other technologies, so nuclear at the moment looks like the lowest cost low-carbon option," said CCC chief executive David Kennedy.

"But we can expect significant cost reductions over the next two decades across a range of technologies, whether wind, marine or solar, and that's why these technologies are promising."

Wind could replace nuclear as the cheapest option within about 15-20 years, he indicated.

By 2030, the cost of using these low-carbon technologies rather than fossil fuels would put about £50 onto the average household's energy bill.
The government's main strategy is to encourage the installation of offshore wind farms - committee calculations suggest that even if 10MW turbines come into the market, at least 3,600 would be needed.

Here, the committee has two concerns. Some of that electricity could be generated more cheaply through onshore wind or buying renewable electricity from overseas; and currently, financial incentives end in 2020.

"There isn't anything in the way of government support after 2020 - it falls off a cliff - so we have to ask, 'why would you expect anybody to build an offshore wind turbine factory in the UK?'" said Mr Kennedy.

They say that by 2030, it would mean generating virtually all electricity through low-carbon technologies - nuclear, renewables, and perhaps fossil-fuel stations that capture and store the carbon dioxide they produce.

Nuclear and renewables would each have about a 40% share, the report envisages.
This would require an additional two or three nuclear reactors on top of those developers are already planning to build.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13300595

[oldchemist]

It makes a lot of sense to use the mature technology of nuclear while the emerging but unproven renewable technologies demonstrate their technological and economic credentials.

[Tubthumper]

Large scale wind generation has been on the go for 25 years, it's hardly emergent & unproven. Nuclear's great as long as it doesn't break.

[Dog-eared]

Large scale wind generation has been on the go for 25 years, it's hardly emergent & unproven. Nuclear's great as long as it doesn't break.

and when it breaks it does it big time and the damage lasts a long,long time.
There are tides running around our island 24 hours a day, as well as wind.We can harness that and tie it into Hydro-electric high reservoir energy reserves to smooth the supply of energy.
We don't haveto run nuclear plants that need a thousand year housekeeping programme.

[ywindythesecond]

and when it breaks it does it big time and the damage lasts a long,long time.
There are tides running around our island 24 hours a day, as well as wind.We can harness that and tie it into Hydro-electric high reservoir energy reserves to smooth the supply of energy.
We don't haveto run nuclear plants that need a thousand year housekeeping programme.

Everyone, for facts about all forms of renewable energy, please read "Sustainable Energy- Without the Hot Air" by David JC Mackay who is Chief Scientific adviser to Departmen of Energy and Climate Change. You can down load it all at http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html .

[Dog-eared]

I think that the REAL facts are that we can't keep living like kings on energy that is hard won by any means.

[Whitewater]

For every megowatt of electricity generated by wind you need the same amount of m/watts in back up generation whether it be oil or gas. Windmills are only 20% efficient, if no wind or low wind they can't generate, if too much wind it is again zero generation. A few years ago turbines of less than 80% efficiency would not be considered for construction. Tidal/current flow generation is about 100% efficient, it is constant generation but unfortunately our government ignored it.
We have all been brainwashed into wind power, Windmills are cheep to build, require minimum maintenance and are easy to erect, they provide a lucrative income for the landowners that allow them on their grounds and they make the government of the day look like they are looking after our planet. What a load of crap. To lower our carbon output there is only two ways to generate i.e. tidal or nuclear. Solar panels are also excellent but require storage batteries and at the moment they are far too expensive to consider and they take up an enormous amount of space to provide a very small return in relation to size and cost.

[Better Out Than In]

Nuclear - if you make carbon fuelled stations collect all their waste the way in which nuclear does then nuclear will be considerably cheaper. It is only more expensive now because everyone else is allowed to discharge their waste and someone else down the line suffers the consequences (cancers, habitat damage, health issues, floods, landslides etc.). Don't forget that most fossil fuel fired stations discharge more radioactive waste than nuclear stations. Whilst it is true that some nuclear waste remains toxic for hundreds of years so would chemical waste if collected instead of discharged. What about all the mercury from low energy light bulbs - that will remain toxic for thousands of years also. (although admittedly easier to manage than used fuel). The worst nuclear accident (that we know of) is Chernobyl. To date Chernobyl has formally killed 43 people directly or indirectly through delayed cancers. Whilst terrible compare this to other distasters where hundreds have been killed. Far more are killed on UK roads alone yet no-one wants to ban cars. There are a lot of numbers floating around based on models as to how many could die (some say thousands) but no real evidence to say this is happening yet. The nuclear accident at Japan has not yet killed anyone and yet is creating more concern than the earthquakes and tsunamis that did. You can also build stations near existing centres of population, unlike most renewables.

Offshore Wind - this is the most expensive form of energy and will likely be for some time. Engineers are trying to devise ways to make it cheaper but they remain high risk. You also need the equivalent amount of normally unused back up supply for when the wind fails - which should really be added to the cost. It will usually have large transmission losses too. It appears to be relatively environmentally benign except during construction but large arrays need to be looked at over time to confirm. Hazardous to shipping and possibly aircraft. Ugly too.

Land Wind - OK for local generation on a small scale but of no real value for industrial generation. Expensive due to installation costs, transmission losses and back up power. Actually wind farms generally are environmental benign and some, once you get used to them, are not so bad to look at. Others though are being built where they should not be.

Marine energy - these seem to be environmentally benign when installed in small numbers (no harm to fish or whales etc.) We don't know yet what large arrays will do. If you start interfereing with nature it will have an effect - slowing down tidal flow rates may change flora and fauna. Tidal energy is intermittent but predictable. Both are very expensive at present but should become cheaper. They may impact on other areas though - loss of fishing ground (may not be bad), inteference with shipping, interference with leasure use.

Hydro - even hydro has its problems unless you have lots of land that know one lives in, uses or farms. It is clean, renewable, quite but not fully environmentally benign - however the environmental imact is more change rather than damage. Even hydro schemes are not always reliable - low rainfall and other causes can result in loss of capacity. Not without risk either - dam failures have caused more deaths than nuclear accidents.

Political - we have lots of coal and some oil and gas and all are finite and so subject to foreign control. We have no uranium and whilst currently quite abundant this is also now become an area of international polictical concern. Fast breeder technology (such as France, India and Russia are developing) would help with independence. At least no-one claims to own wind, air and tide but some own the seabed or land that goes with it. You will still get taxed.

I think a mix of clean energy is the correct way to go but in reallity we have no choice but to start to rely on nuclear power more (as are most countries). It is not long now before the last of the existing nuclear fleet and the coal stations are turned off. I have my doubts about carbon capture but may become viable and collecting carbns and sulphides creates it swon dangerous waste problem.

Energy will become startlingly more expensive. Gone are the days when you dig it out of the ground, burn it and blow all your waste out the stack.

If you really want to save the planet - don't have children. Or if you really must then just have one. Mind you if you follow that thread to its logical conclusion we should all kill ourselves.

[John Little]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

[Neil Howie]

Doesn't seem to be mentioned already, but the SNP is opposed to nuclear power so that option is removed...

[Rheghead]

Doesn't seem to be mentioned already, but the SNP is opposed to nuclear power so that option is removed...

Indeed and the country spoke very loudly recently.

'We want more renewables and we reject more nuclear'

[bekisman]

We had a referendum? what a rather silly billy thing to say...

[bekisman]

We had a referendum? what a rather silly billy thing to say...
Degenerating into nonsence