The energy debate - Nuclear vs renewable

[WindyMiller]

Have just read an interview with Alan Simpson MP who says that 80% of the power put into the national grid is wasted before it reaches the consumer. So I would say based on that micro renewables is the only efficient way to produce electricity.

 

This is slightly misquoted (He actually said 70%) and is a misrepresentation by him or, more likely, a mistake by the reporter. The quote attributed is:

"we have a monumentally inefficient national grid energy supply system. Some 70 per cent of the energy input is lost in energy production or transmission. In Denmark and the Netherlands, decentralised energy systems, using co-generation techniques of combined heat and power, are 90 to 95 per cent efficient".

The problem here is that the percentages refer to different scales.

It is conceivable that from basic principles you could lose 70% of energy input into the national system because most of the energy from fossil fuel fired power stations goes up the chimney as heat. But it is unfair to compare that to small-scale individual projects where they may be able to use that heat and gain efficiencies. Such projects exist in the UK as well. Lerwick's district heating is a good example. Denmark's national grid does not get anything like those percentages and the wider figures will be a lot closer to the losses experienced on the UK system. Microgenertion is fine for many but the UK overall has an urban population. Micro-renewables cannot power London and other population centres because there is simply not enough room or roof surface. Presuming we all favour renewables, you are left with the discussion on whether it is better to build an inefficent generation facility near the population or a much more efficent generation facility somewhere where the resource is better and then transmit the power to the population. Transmission incurrs costs and losses but if the value of the increased output is greater than those costs and losses then it would seem logical to favour siting renewables where the resource is best.

[Njugle]

On the subject of renewables in an international context:

 

Just when the Americans seemed to be incapable of redeeming themselves, business rather than policy has sprung a surprise attack on the renewables debate.

 

Verasun was launched onto the stock market this week as a producer of ethanol. Predominantly made from corn it may do little for global warming, but it does successfully replace gasoline. Currently the fuel being used is a blend, 80%ethanol/20%gasoline.

(Sorry, been reading yank stuff, replace word 'gasoline' with 'petrol'if it annoys you! )

 

Here's what motleyfool.com had to say about it all (Their info requires registration, so i'll quote to save you the bother)

The current craze

Part of the growing ethanol hype is yesterday's share offering of VeraSun (NYSE: VSE) to the public at $23. VeraSun is the second-largest producer of ethanol in the U.S. The company plans to use the stock proceeds to build more ethanol plants and expand market share. Imagine that. The stock opened at $28 and shot to $30 by the close of the market for a 30% gain on the day. Great Scott! No wonder investors want in on the action.

 

And shares of Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM) have nearly doubled this year as investors discovered it's the largest producer of ethanol in the United States. Soon-to-be-public companies include Aventis Renewable and Hawkeye Energy. There will be no shortage of ethanol IPOs as long as investors willingly snap up the shares.

The issues with ethanol

Clearly, there are merits to producing ethanol and using it as an alternative to oil-based gasoline. It would most definitely benefit domestic farmers with a huge new market to sell corn into. It would also reduce American dependence on oil from the geopolitically charged Middle East.

 

On the flipside, it's unclear whether ethanol is, or will be, more affordable than gasoline. The issue is further complicated by factors such as subsidies provided to ethanol producers and fluctuating oil prices. If oil were to return to $20 a barrel, for instance, SUVs might even revisit their heyday. There's also a rather critical debate as to whether more energy is actually expended to create ethanol than is spent using it as a fuel source. And what about concerns that ethanol might damage engines and clog up filters? In other words, there are quite a few issues yet to be worked out.

 

And for a link as to how the actual fuel market is developing click here to read a report on the "Midwestern ethanol corridor" being created, to allow wider usage of the fuel, in the Midwest of the US.

[DavidThomson]

The Government's Energy Review is now out.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/page31995.html

Those in charge have set out where they think the nation needs to go and what they are going to do to support that.

There are, in my view, weakness to the report. There are also some positive proposals. There are a number of outcomes that relate directly (or are pertinent) to Shetland.

Nuclear is supported but not instructed. They seem to suggest it will be for the private sector to propose. develop, construct, operate, maintain and decommission any new stations. The point of discussion is the waste issue where the same companies are expected to meet "their full share of long term waste management costs". What does "full share" mean? Why is this different from the other stages where it is clearly stated to be a fully met cost? Is it not 100%? How much will the taxpayer have to pick up?

It is interesting that there has never been anything (planning process aside) to stop anyone building a new nuclear power station. However, there are no privately owned and operated nuclear stations. They tried to privatise British Energy but investors refused, the management buyout went bust and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. If the market is unwilling to build these then does it not indicate that these stations are uneconomic?

Lot of support in the document for renewables, both large-scale and small-scale. An open door for Shetland's ambitions?

[ArabiaTerra]

It is not up to Blair whether we go for new nuclear power stations, it's up to us. Blair is simply covering all the bases in case, when Global warming really starts to bite, we turn out to need nuclear power in a hurry, The decades long lead time before any new nuclear power stations will be ready mean that the process has to start now or else nuke power will be irrelevant.

 

Ever since the Rio earth summit in '92, NGO's and much later the government have been telling us to insulate, install low energy light bulbs, buy smaller, more efficient cars, fly less, recycle, etc.

 

Instead we continue to build things the old way (All new buildings could be net contributors to the energy grid instead of consumers), we buy king cab 4WD pick-ups and people carriers to move two kids and a dog, We install patio lights and coal burning patio heaters, we use budget airlines to take two or three foreign holidays a year. Electric tin openers for God sake! Juicers, Digiboxes that use as much power on standby as they do when in use. 'Standby' in general. Computers, 10 years ago my computer ran fine with a 200W PSU, now it requires a 480W unit.

 

If we have to go for a new generation of nuclear (nucular?) power stations it will be OUR fault and no-one elses.

 

PS. My particular bugbear is the King Cab pick-up. Can anyone justify these things?

[trout]

The thing that gets my goat about large cars is the "Chelsea Tank" brigade!

 

You have people driving a vehicle that is obviously far far too large for them to control as they don't seem to have a clue as to the width / length of their own vehicle! I've seen people taking more room than an artic or bus, and near ploughing head on with their bulll bars into me, just to get around the simplest of objects! 8O

 

I'll also bet only a fraction of these vehicle actually ever see any "land" to "rover" across!! rather just bumbling around on the roads in our cities belching out 13 miles and less to the Gallon !!!! ... 8O 8O just so "Mummy and Daddy" can look like they're part of the "Country Set" as they career around the road ....

[DavidThomson]

PS. My particular bugbear is the King Cab pick-up. Can anyone justify these things?

 

I had an L200 Warrior for 3 years. Great vehicle. 2.5L Diesel engine no bigger than many cars.

There are indeed smaller options but you try getting a yaris up the side of a hill twice a week. Or to carry a petrol lawnmower.

[junior]

My gripe is with the ever more popular outdoor patio heaters. Could global warming be more direct? It would be more efficient to light a fag with burning oil field!

 

Back to the general debate: I heard that the only source of renewable energy which has the potential to satisfy our power demands is solar. Yet its the type which I see being developed the least. Seems odd, why are wind, tidal, wave, bio etc. all coming to (or at) the stage where they can be used for real yet no-one has any plans for a solar panel "farm" to feed the national grid?

[DavidThomson]

Back to the general debate: I heard that the only source of renewable energy which has the potential to satisfy our power demands is solar. Yet its the type which I see being developed the least. Seems odd, why are wind, tidal, wave, bio etc. all coming to (or at) the stage where they can be used for real yet no-one has any plans for a solar panel "farm" to feed the national grid?

 

There's a serious amount happening in solar. The reason we don't hear too much about it is because the research, development and deployment are being focused in parts of the world where the resource is best. It will become more and more available in the UK over time but if you were testing a device would you rather test the device in a place that got 4,000 hrs of sunshine every year or 2,000?

It's part of the argument we are making to bring big wind energy to Shetland. Shetland probably has the best wind resource in the world. Turbines here will be more productive than turbines anywhere else. We can use a big windfarm to benefit us directly but the resource is also our competative advantage to draw in the research and development of future wind energy technology, which can then be spread worldwide. From Shetland.

It would be unfair to say only solar can meet our needs. Pretty much all the renewable energy types offer potential beyond what Shetland could ever use itself. My personal view is that it is probably more sense for Shetland to focus on the types where Shetland has the best resources. Shetland is a wet windy place. So we can get a lot out of wind, wave and tidal. Solar will work but not as well as it would somewhere else. Biomass etc are also good options but we simply don't have the land area to do it as well as others. We should still do these various types but it has to be a mix. Hopefully we will also take a lead on the storage technologies then we can really be at the forefront of what will be an important global industry.

[junior]

It would be unfair to say only solar can meet our needs. Pretty much all the renewable energy types offer potential beyond what Shetland could ever use itself. My personal view is that it is probably more sense for Shetland to focus on the types where Shetland has the best resources. Shetland is a wet windy place. So we can get a lot out of wind, wave and tidal. Solar will work but not as well as it would somewhere else. Biomass etc are also good options but we simply don't have the land area to do it as well as others. We should still do these various types but it has to be a mix. Hopefully we will also take a lead on the storage technologies then we can really be at the forefront of what will be an important global industry.

 

When I said "our power demands" I was meaning the human race globally, not just Shetland. And that would include everything from heating our homes to powering our cars and our industries. I can't remember where I heard it and I have no figures to back it up, but I've heard more than once that only solar has the potential to meet these demands.

 

I agree completely that Shetland should focus its efforts in wet and windy ways and I will happily take your word that advancements are being made in solar generation which I simply haven't heard about. Certainly the immediate way forward for renewables is a mix of as many types as possible in order to help them all develop.

 

You raise an important and interesting issue about storage. I think efficiency in storage is just as important as efficiency in generation. Is this something which is being developed in Shetland? I'd be interested to hear more.

[Njugle]

Sorry to detract from the solar discussion, which is very interesting, but this is worth a mention from todays news.

 

Massive offshore turbine en-route

 

I was delighted to see this today, hopefully the future for these parts, i also loved the fact that during trials it will be powering an oilrig.

 

(some nice cranes on that barge too....now where is that old "cranes" thread )

[Guest Anonymous]

I think wind power, solar and tidal are the way to go, yes 100% all for it.

But one thing i have always wondered since the five mills started turning above dale golf course is "exactly how much diese per yearl does the powerstation not have to burn since they started spinning? and how many would we need to do away with the power station altogether?.

 

of course the hospitals and certain other buildings would need back up generating units, but the bulk of the population can survive quite comfortably without elecrticity 24/7.

[Guest Anonymous]

is there anybody out there that knows how much less diesel per year the power station burns since the windmills began generating??

is this not how to measure there true effectiveness?

[Pooks]

I doubt if it could ever give a figure of 'true effectiveness' due to a huge number of factors. The change in population, the difference in consumer electronic goods, the change in people using better (economical) rated goods.

 

The only way to see the difference would be to measure the energy created from the windmills and the equivelent energy used at the power station end.

[Guest Anonymous]

yes but the whole reason behind wind power is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burnt, one of my friends tried to tell me that the oil burned preparing the sites for them with diggers etc & then transporting them there meant they were not enviromentally friendly. I thought that argument was crap, as it would require energy use to build a oil burning power station to. surely it is not immpossible to work out how much less diesel is being burnt since they came online,? is it?

[Pooks]

BBC News is reporting Nuclear plants set for go ahead. An announcement should be made later today.

 

Interesting to note that Alex Salmond is quoted as saying there is no chance of any more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.