Planned Somerset nuclear plant on hold ? or not ?

[adam2]

The main problem with PV on the scale proposed is that it wont help at all with the winter evening peak load as this occurs in darkness.
Various technologies have been tried or proposed for storing electricity for later use, none have proved economic on the scale needed.
Shifting demand to daylight hours would help to an extent, as would use of natural gas for peak demand only, rather than base load as at present.
Biogas shows promise because it is fairly easily stored and then used for the evening peak demand.
Wind is arguably more suited to UK conditions since production peaks in the winter and it is always windy somewhere, at least to an extent.

[emordnilap]

The main problem with PV on the scale proposed is that it wont help at all with the winter evening peak load as this occurs in darkness.
Various technologies have been tried or proposed for storing electricity for later use, none have proved economic on the scale needed.
Shifting demand to daylight hours would help to an extent, as would use of natural gas for peak demand only, rather than base load as at present.
Biogas shows promise because it is fairly easily stored and then used for the evening peak demand.
Wind is arguably more suited to UK conditions since production peaks in the winter and it is always windy somewhere, at least to an extent.

Plus there is a massive amount practically everyone can do on the demand reduction side. And the fair means to achieve that reduction already exists!

[emordnilap]

Plus there is a massive amount practically everyone can do on the demand reduction side. And the fair means to achieve that reduction already exists!

Indeed, no-one has to wait to reduce their impact on the planet. This article puts it better than me:

The problem is daunting; making changes can be difficult. But not only can you do something, you can’t not do anything. Either you will continue to buy, use, and consume as if there is no tomorrow; or you will make substantial changes to the way you live. Both choices are “doing something.” Either you will emit far more CO2 than people in most parts of the globe; or you will bring your carbon footprint to an equitable level. Either you will turn away, ignore the warnings, bury your head in the sand; or you will begin to take a strong stance on perhaps the most significant moral challenge in the history of humanity. Either you will be a willing party to the most destructive thing humans have ever done; or you will resist the wants, the beliefs, and the expectations that are as important to a consumption-based global economy as the fossil fuels that power it

[kenneal - lagger]

Having read the above article I now realise that the current government is doing as well as it can in reducing our carbon footprint. If it were to come out and say that we all have to use less it would be chased out of office but if it says that austerity is required to get the economy back on track many will accept it because it's "good for the economy" in the long term.

The fact that most of us are being squeezed and can't afford to buy things is good for the environment. The fact that money is being funnelled into the hands of a few rich people who in turn are funnelling that money into the financial economy is a good thing because the production of lots of little bits of worthless paper is much less polluting than the production of electrical goods or travelling to foreign countries which most of us plebs would indulge in. In short, the government is inducing the recession which is necessary for the reduction of the rate of climate change.

So overall the actions of our present government should be applauded for environmental reasons although their real motives might not be. I wish I could say that I was joking!!

[RenewableCandy]

I would agree with that Ken but unfortunately this government is making the rich richer as well as making the poor poorer. The increase in the rich's collective C-footprint plus other damage is making-up for the decrease in that of the poor.

In particular, by raising rents in all their forms they are forcing the rest of us to do more work, which roughly translates to, do more damage.

[Tarrel]

Also, although reduced spending power does to some extent suppress consumption, it also creates a "race to the bottom" in which consumers choose the cheapest products. This can encourage, for example, the industrialisation of agriculture and the mass transport of goods from whatever corner of the World is providing the cheapest labour costs at any moment in time.

We have a store recently opened in our town called "Home Bargain Centre". I take my mother up there for cheap birdseed. It tends to be frequented by those from the more deprived area of town, and is full of cheap Chinese tat, especially at this time of year. Their prices are incredibly low, but I don't think there's a local product in the place.

[emordnilap]

I take my mother up there for cheap birdseed.

Good swap!

Seriously, if it's for wild birds, please don't buy 'cheap birdseed'. I was talked into buying a sack once and the wheat etc that filled it out was ignored by the birds (fine for pigeons though). In fact, some birds sorted through it, throwing the crap out.

For most garden birds, peanuts and black niger seeds, along with soft stale bread and fat, is plenty.

Back on topic now

[kenneal - lagger]

I would agree with that Ken but unfortunately this government is making the rich richer as well as making the poor poorer. The increase in the rich's collective C-footprint plus other damage is making-up for the decrease in that of the poor.

In particular, by raising rents in all their forms they are forcing the rest of us to do more work, which roughly translates to, do more damage.

The rich's carbon footprint doesn't rise much with increased income because they are usually spending all they can anyway. Increased income goes into the financial market to , er?, increase their income!

I don't think that the poor, even the middle classes do more work in the face of decreasing income because there isn't the extra work to do at the moment. Those other than the very rich are just being squeezed.

I would just like to say again that I don't approve of this. Wouldn't want Steve on my case!!

[Tarrel]

I take my mother up there for cheap birdseed.

Good swap!

Seriously, if it's for wild birds, please don't buy 'cheap birdseed'. I was talked into buying a sack once and the wheat etc that filled it out was ignored by the birds (fine for pigeons though). In fact, some birds sorted through it, throwing the crap out.

For most garden birds, peanuts and black niger seeds, along with soft stale bread and fat, is plenty.

Back on topic now

Actually, they do love the bird seed round here. In this case, I don't think cheap necessarily means poor quality.

You could say; "The birdseed going cheap keeps the birds going cheep!"

(Could this be the start of a new career in advertising?)

[RenewableCandy]

Right well, er, back to the Nukes

http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.u ... -sign.html

Government implies it may not sign Hinkley C deal before General Election

The Government has refused to confirm that it it will sign a contract with EDF allowing Hinkley C to be built before April 2015, which is only a few weeks before the General Election.

[emordnilap]

Right well, er, back to the Nukes

Dotty Aunt PS.

[PS_RalphW]

EDF to receive £1billion for not shutting down nuclear and coal power stations they already operate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30545091

[biffvernon]

And now Austria gets involved in Hinkley

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 40309.html

[emordnilap]

Greenpeace on the fracas

In the document, Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s director, Vijay Rangarajan, pointed out [three] areas that the UK has identified to challenge:

Austria’s new electricity labelling law, which would mean the source of the electricity must be known. As nuclear is so unpopular in Austria this in effect mean Austria could go nuclear free. The UK believes this law could violate EU internal market rules.

This is blatant Monsanto/TTiP tactics. As regards favouring nuclear, the current UK government is clearly in the minority.

[emordnilap]

Greenpeace Energy to launch legal challenge to UK nuclear subsidies

Last October the EU Commission approved State aid for the new build of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset. GPE estimates that the immediate subsidy is worth about €22 billion, or £16 billion.

However the picture is complex as the aid package includes an inflation-proof generation subsidy of £92.50 per MWh for 35 years, construction guarantees, limits on liability for decommissioning, and a low accident liabilty cut-off. Other analysts believe the true cost as far higher and could amount to £30 billion or more.

The generation subsidy alone guarantees Hinkley's power a wholesale price of £92.50 per MHh, double the market price, or 9.25p per unit - equivalent to almost 13€c. Adding all the elements together, says GPE, "The resulting subsidy is far higher than that for wind or solar power in Germany."