Here is a letter from the excellent Gerry Wolff, who is one of the vanguard of nuclear power critics.
Dear Editor
NUCLEAR TOO SLOW
The Energy Committee of MPs is right to have doubts about the speed with which nuclear power stations can be built ("MPs 'sceptical' that nuclear power stations will be built on time", 26 January). They are notoriously slow to build, no such power station has ever been built on time in the UK, and the Olkiluoto and Flamanville projects are both delayed.
An analysis published recently by the Royal Society "suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2°C." and that "the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change."
Given the urgency of the need to cut emissions, renewable sources of power, with energy saving measures, are the way to go. A recent report from the University of Cambridge shows that, with existing techniques, it is feasible to cut worldwide use of energy by 70%. Germany installed 8.8 GW of solar panels in 2010 alone, producing more electricity than a 1 GW nuclear power station. Several reports show that renewables can produce more energy than the world is using now or is likely to need in the future. In case anyone objects that renewables are not reliable, unplanned outages of a nuclear power station are much more disruptive than gradual and predictable changes in wind power. Variations can be ironed out by connecting renewable sources across a wide area via the planned supergrid ("UK steps up plans for European energy 'supergrid'", 21 January). And renewable sources such as hydropower, geothermal power, concentrating solar power, and tidal lagoons, can deliver power on demand, day and night.
The Energy Fair group has shown that, when hidden subsidies are stripped away, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity. Instead of hitching its wagon to a failed technology, UK plc should be positioning itself to take advantage of the huge market for clean energy and conservation of energy that is now developing.
Sincerely,
Dr Gerry Wolff PhD CEng
www.energyfair.org.uk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Good post - one question though - who says that the temperature we have now is the right one or the best one?
@DocRichard
Gerry Wolff's example of Germany's PV program is misleading. According to a government document about renewable energy in germany [1], despite having an installed PV capacity of between 6 - 10GW in 2009 (actual amount was increasing throughout the year I assume), the power output for the whole of 2009 was only 6.6TWh.
Simple calculation shows the average power of their PV capacity in the year 2009 was:
6.6x10^12/(365x24) = 750MW
So despite having at least 6GW of installed capacity, average power output for whole year was only about 10% (probably less) of 'capacity'. Less that of one 1GW nuclear power station.
PV power output is normally quoted as 'Watt-peak': that is the output under laboratory illumination conditions. Of course real world conditions are nothing like laboratory conditions, which is why it is misleading to quote figures about installed capacity. Much better to rely on figures about actual power produced.
Germany's policy of PV solar power seems totally bizarre to me given its poor solar irradiation. Especially mass arrays in the countryside. Much better policy would be roof top solar in urban areas where land use not an issue...
[1] http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/ee_in_deutschland_graf_tab_2009_en.pdf
lol@above comment (Gideon Mack)
No one. Point is, change occurring too quickly, much more difficult to adapt to and predict consequences of.
---
JC
Here is source again sorry:
[1] http://bit.ly/hy3fad
---
JC
Hi Gideon
The answer is that the temperature we have enjoyed throughout human history has broadly supported our life, and that of the ecosystems that we depend on for necessities, as well as those we depend on for spiritual health. The projections of what we will experience if the greenhouse effect continues indicate that this situation will change drastically.
As ever, the clincher in the decarbonisation argument is that renewables will also address Peak Oil. Whatever the scientific uncertainties relating to climate change projections, Peak Oil is a dead cert for all. Except, of course, for the free marketeers, whose ideology will not allow for trifles such as finite resources.
JC, I have forwarded your points to Gerry Wolff.
Cheers
8.8 GW of PV with a capacity factor of 0.097 produces 7.4 TWh / yr. A 1 GW nuclear power station with a capacity factor of 0.7 produces 6 TWh / yr.
Gerry
Anonymous
There is a problem displayin that page on my machine at least.
[1] http://bit.ly/hy3fad
Anonymous
GW replies:
8.8 GW of PV with a capacity factor of 0.097 produces 7.4 TWh / yr. A 1 GW nuclear power station with a capacity factor of 0.7 produces 6 TWh / yr.
@DocRichard
Hopefully if you search 'ee_in_deutschland_graf_tab_2009_en.pdf' in google.co.uk, you'll see the second hit is the PDF file I refer to.
@Gerry Wolff
Now I see the capacity factors you have used, I agree you are correct. However, I still think it is not misleading but perhaps a bit 'hand wavey' to quote watt-peak regarding PV power. I imagine that most people (myself included not long ago) had no idea that PV only operated at about 10% quoted capacity.
I am also concerned about your low capacity factor for nuclear power. A short search found this from the nuclear energy institute:
http://bit.ly/grlmf2
It shows (assuming the data is trustworthy) that US nuclear power plants have been achieving capacity factors of around 90% for the last 10 years. Perhaps German/European nuclear plants are not as good?
---
JC
Post a Comment