Thank-you. This is my point, there are better ways than nuclear to solve the problem, you are moving away from your previous argument of nuclear not being safe, not being low-carbon, not being proven etc towards it being low value.jo wrote:You say :-
"Doubling our nuclear capacity would reduce the country?s emissions by 8%? That?s huge!"
The major question is here : How large are the Carbon Cuts provided for the amount of Cash spent on a particular technology ?
In other words, how much Carbon bang for your buck ?
To put it another way, if people/Government/companies now spend ?30billion on 20 new Nuclear Power stations, would that cause the same kind of Carbon Cuts as spending ?30billion on Renewables ?
You don't know that because it's not true. I just said their figures are towards the extreme end, there are (self-confessed) large uncertainties. It is not a case of me not accepting them. In fact I published an article on The Oil Drum very recently based largly on their work: New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?jo wrote: Let's look at those Storm/Smith figures again, shall we (said very patronisingly) ?
Coal : 755 gCO2/kWh
Nuclear (Storm and Smith) : 84 - 122 gCO2/kWh
Wind : 11 - 37 gCO2/kWh
Now, I know you do not accept Storm/Smith figures, but there is something very enlightening about their approach.
I wouldn't have done that if I simply didn't accept their figures.
Sure there's a risk, same with every project - the lifetime carbon costs are the more important metric.jo wrote:They point out the very obvious fact that as you start your nu nuclear build you go into Carbon Debt for the first tranche of years until the plant is operational.
It cannot be known whether the plant will ever become operational, or at what efficiency, so the whole approach is Carbon Risky - it risks significantly more Carbon Emissions for the sake of possibly cutting some.
I wouldn't say they don't factor in decommissioning or disposal of waste (in fact Storm identifies several that do), just they don't allocate 25% of operational energy to the task. Whether it?s 2%, 10% or 25% is unknown, by me, by you or by Storm/Smith. We simply don't know exactly what needs to be done or how best to do it. Storm/Smith?s approach is (self-confessed) ?speculative? in character (they take the cost estimate of decommissioning and dismantling and multiply by the energy intensity of the industrial sector of New Construction, 12.34 MJ/$2000). Is that the right figure? Maybe nuclear decommissioning is a whole new type of sector, maybe it?s driven by expensive but low-energy bureaucracy, legalities and health and safety meaning the energy intensity is far lower than new construction? Storm/Smith?s work is a valuable contribution but it isn?t, and Storm doesn?t claim it to be, the final answer.jo wrote:Apart from your couple of technical points about Storm/Smith, can you please explain to me why other, lower estimates of Nuclear Carbon Emissions never seem to factor in decommissioning and disposal of waste ?
Thank-you, now you're getting somewhere - this is a better line of attack. To show there are better alternatives to nuclear. To quote myself from above:jo wrote:It is from my point of view, a waste of time, energy, resources and Carbon to go Nu Nuclear. You get less kWh for your euro and probably much more CO2 than Wind Power.
Wind Power works economically, even at the small- to medium-scale end (as long as it's not on your house in an urban area, Mr David Cameron).
Community-scale schemes are able to fund themselves and make handsome profits too.
You can do Wind at any scale you like.
The same cannot be said of Nuclear Power. It's just not flexible.
All this talk of "baseload", that we need a "guaranteed baseload" and that only stalwart, worthy Nuclear can provide it. Well, when a nuclear reactor fails then the stepdown is significant - all that generating power lost in one hit. When a Wind Turbine fails, or the wind dies down in one area, another one will still be whirling somewhere else.
You really ought to read the work by Graham Sinden on the compensation for variability.
You really ought to read up on Zero Carbon Britain (dot com) and our Plan To Take Over The World With Green Electricity Generation.
We love TEQs.
clv101 wrote:Concentration on showing there are alternatives that can improve the supply demand balance in a sustainable way FASTER and CHEAPER than nuclear... and without being vulnerable to sea-level rise. That?s where the anti-nuclear argument will be won.