Electricity Supply

[JBR]

Up to a point you are correct. The lights will go out at some point , but they will go out even if we just build nukes without curbing demand. Energy has been too cheap for a long time leading to wastage and giving some the idea that they have some sort of God given right to use it as they want. TEQ's are the obvious solution but politically expedient to implement ? Difficult to say at the least , the masses won't vote for rationing so an increase in price is probably going to happen. Perhaps a sort of graduated charge could help , say the first thousand units charged at a lowish price and doubling after that . That should help protect the old and poor and penalise those whose use is more profligate .

We all have to pay for the electricity we use, and I don't regard it as cheap. So who are the profligate users who, apparently, can afford to throw money away? I assume they must be big business companies and the like, as I have seen large office blocks with all lights blazing away all night for no apparent reason. Perhaps graduated charges might help in such cases, but what about heavy users who do so of necessity: hospitals, factories and so on?

By the way JBR you refer to Greens as naive and foolish . Could you expand on that please? On other forums I use the same accusations are used for those that have the opposite view , deniers are labeled foolish for ignoring the mass of evidence and holding the belief that the economy is the most important thing and simply carrying on with BAU will solve all our problems. We all are entitled to our opinions , just interested in your side.

It's a matter of opinion, I suppose. I see Greenies as people who are out of touch with the real world and believe we should all stop using energy in order to 'save the planet' which, I'm sure, is big enough to look after itself. The same people think that paying millions to build and operate windmills is the only answer to our energy needs, disregarding the fact that they are nowhere near capable of meeting our demands. The same people fear and detest the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity, yet are oblivious of the background radiation that we have all been subjected to for as long as mankind has existed. If you accept that we need electricity, even if we stop wasteful and unnecessary use, do you accept that the Green lobby has any practical solution to the problem?

 

[wobs]

Mention of the subsidies that green technology has received is not really relevant as pretty much all forms of generation has received such help both historically and currently. If it wasn't for governmental intervention we wouldn't be here talking about nuclear as an option , left to the so called free market it would never have happened. Fusion is in an even worse situation , absolute shed loads of money , time and energy devoted to it with virtually nothing in return. But again irrelevant .

Renewables receive far more subsidies than any other technology per unit produced. Fossil fuels still receive subsidies, but should no longer do so.
Nuclear is a different issue, as it varies so much.

Fusion is hugely expensive but should be worth it if it ever comes off. The new ITER looks to be a significent step in getting fusion into a viable technology (Lockeed's announcement seems unconvincing ATM).

Could the world be powered solely by green renewables? Simple answer is yes but with a big if. It would work but not with the current economic and social situation we have at the moment . It would take a quite seismic shift in society to get us into a lower energy frame of mind and that is much much harder than generating electricity from the wind. Continuing on the track we are on now then it's very likely that nuclear has to be part of the equation.

Its not economics that is the issue, its technology. We need nuclear to get us onto 100% renewable. Albiet not in our lifetime, but will take many decades, probably over 100years.

The energy trap is a tricky beast, which will render our efforts pointless unless we have the energy to build new energy systems and keep the lights on.

I say part because the old adage about keeping all of one's eggs in one basket applies. Trying to power the whole world with nuclear will run into other problems in itself , uranium is already expensive to source and will only get dearer and harder to get with increasing demand.

No one is saying we should run the world on just nuclear. But we could do it in theory. Uranium is currently a small portion of the cost of nuclear, so an increase in fuel costs would have to be substantial for it to be an issue.

There are limitless sources of uranium, and if we really started to reprocess on a global scale, and used more of the potential of uranium, it would be more expensive, but we could use it to power the world in theory at least.

The world is built upon cheap energy and profligate use of that energy and it's that basis that contains the seeds of it's own destruction because the real issue isn't generation but consumption. We could generate more and more but unless the consumption is controlled then all we are doing is kicking the can down the road and delaying the inevitable crash.

True, but its economic growth that's the killer. GDP is tied to energy consumption, and there's no sign of it changing. When economic growth grows to a point where our energy consumption heats the Earth from direct waste heat, we find the limit of growth, and by extension, consumtpion. About 275years is the best guess so far before we heat the Earth by 3.5C from direct heating (even if we stop burning fossil fuels).

It matters not a jot how electricity is generated

This is wrong. Very wrong.
Burning fossil fuels speeds up the problem with the release of greenhouse gases at a rate that is even less sustainable than using nuclear/renewables.

but unrestricted access or low prices will see more consumption leading to more generation need leading to more consumption and so on. I'm not really fond of the idea of nuclear but if we do make more use of it at least charge more for it or introduce TEQ's or some mix of the two.

We need affordable energy for development. But we also need a limit to growth at some point.

At least no one has suggested energy efficiency as a way to cut our emission, or keep the lights on. Such ideas lead to more energy consumption and economic growth in the long term without some control such as carbon taxes.

And we need a lot more nuclear. Without it the lights will go out, and/or we'll harm the environment far more.

 

[Norcon]

"At least no one has suggested energy efficiency as a way to cut our emission, or keep the lights on.
Such ideas lead to more energy consumption"..

How does being energy efficient lead to more consumption?
That's nonsense.

My electric bill averages about £60 quid per quarter.
That's because I have no immersion, keep lights turned off, tv mostly off, pc on for a few hours per day.

Is that not being energy efficient?
Well if its not I'll just start and pull the trip everyday when I go to work.
And use the slaves in the evening to run the treadmill generator.

 

[Norcon]

"Burning fossil fuels speeds up the problem with the release of greenhouse gases at a rate that is even less sustainable than using nuclear/renewables"

I'd say that's debatable due to the huge carbon footprint constructing and de constructing atomic boilers.

 

[EddieM]

"Burning fossil fuels speeds up the problem with the release of greenhouse gases at a rate that is even less sustainable than using nuclear/renewables"

I'd say that's debatable due to the huge carbon footprint constructing and de constructing atomic boilers.

Is that not comparable to a gas / coal / oil powered generating station? Which of course continues to pour out greenhouse gasses?

 

[AronSearle]

"Burning fossil fuels speeds up the problem with the release of greenhouse gases at a rate that is even less sustainable than using nuclear/renewables"

I'd say that's debatable due to the huge carbon footprint constructing and de constructing atomic boilers.

Why do people just spout out ignorance rather than checking things.

Bath university and many others have done carbon life cycle analysis of many materials and construction.

What is a life cycle analysis, the clue is in the name, they count carbon at all points including disposal.

Nuclear is low carbon.

 

[wobs]

"At least no one has suggested energy efficiency as a way to cut our emission, or keep the lights on.
Such ideas lead to more energy consumption"..

How does being energy efficient lead to more consumption?
That's nonsense.

My electric bill averages about £60 quid per quarter.
That's because I have no immersion, keep lights turned off, tv mostly off, pc on for a few hours per day.

Is that not being energy efficient?
Well if its not I'll just start and pull the trip everyday when I go to work.
And use the slaves in the evening to run the treadmill generator.

History shows it to be true. You need to think more globally.

Energy efficiency improves quality of life (or increases profits for companies etc). When this happens, we consume more, which is good for GDP. When this happens, more energy is consumed.

Even if you stick the money saved in the bank, it will get used by the bank to invest in more things.

Its called Jevons Paradox.

We have been becoming more efficient since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and yet global emissions have been going up, because we consume more and this is partly because of the benefits of improved efficiency.

Another example are LEDs. Great things, and I have them in my house, but they are also good for making lighting available to much wider applications, such as lighting under developed countries where they struggle to afford the power, and outside of buildings that were not previously lit. The world will become much brighter due to the spread of LEDs, and energy consumption will go up as a direct result.

Also, take a new boiler: We fitted one this year. More efficient of course, but it means that we'll either have a warmer house (energy doesn't necessarily go down), or we save money on gas and we spend it elsewhere. That money (and the large wad of cash that went on the boiler) goes into the economy further stimulating growth.

However, there is another issue: The limit of efficiency.
We average about a 1% improvement each year over all technologies. Some have seen much more (eg. fridges), others less so (eg. electric motors), but there is a limit to how efficient we can make something. This means that with further economic growth, we'll eventually see the effect of efficiency dissappear, which will further drive up energy use.

 

[tony1851]

I see Greenies as people who are out of touch with the real world and believe we should all stop using energy in order to 'save the planet' which, I'm sure, is big enough to look after itself.

Quite so.

One would add that the Greens too often seem to enjoy mass protests for the fun of a day out, regardless of the issue.

A couple of years back they all descenced en masse on Kingsnorth power station (coal) and of late have been spouting their views about fracking up near Blackpool. All great fun.

Personally, I regard the Greens as the modern-day equivalent of figures such as William Morris, Ruskin, Pugin et al who were against industrialization and wanted to go back to the Middle Ages when everyone was happy and knew their place.

 

[Norcon]

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."

Thomas Malthus.

That'll sort it out.

 

[ladylola]

Thanks for your reply JBR , I could change a few words in it to give me the reply on other forums , to read along the lines that would say that non greens ( for want of a better term) are out of touch with the real world and believe simply increasing generation , consumption and the implimentation of free market economics will sort everything out. Do the Green lobby have answers? Yes , but as I said not as if we want to continue the 24 hr a day consumer society. Do as our forebears did and work with the natural cycles , work when it's light , eat foods in season rather than what we do now. One word in your reply says more than anything else and probably says why the world isn't going to change. You speak of our "demands" rather than our "needs" , which is something that would condem any chance of bringing in the single most progressive step , TEQ's.
Excessive or profligate users? Look around , yes shops and offices lit and heated all night and day , advertising , drive thru this and that, houses filled with electrical goodies and bedecked with lights , and the list goes on.

Wobs, I'm aware that the carbon needs to be left unburnt but for that post I was referring just to nuclear or renewables and how both need to be used with some sort of demand destruction put in place. Fusion as you say is a different beast with the end results being huge. So is it right or wrong to spend so much on it ? Probably , and I've read one scientist say that we should spend even more to speed it up as at the moment we are looking at four or five generational leaps before we are anywhere near functioning fusion.
I have to disagree that economics don't enter into it and technogoly has all the answers. In my opinion they are both intertwined and we won't be able to change one with out the other. On the uranium front , to talk of peak uranium is probably as wrong as peak oil because while we haven't run out of either we have started to run out of easily accessible sources. If memory serves there isn't a uranium mine that produces nothing but uranium . They all spread out costs by mining other metals such as copper. You are probably aware of EROEI and how the figures are declining for tight oil and the same is for uranium. Not quite 1:1 yet but dropping.
Oh one last thing , I'll agree with JBR that the Greenham Common women weren't the best looking but then the corporate world has some pretty ugly faces of it's own.

 

[wobs]

Wobs, I'm aware that the carbon needs to be left unburnt but for that post I was referring just to nuclear or renewables and how both need to be used with some sort of demand destruction put in place. Fusion as you say is a different beast with the end results being huge. So is it right or wrong to spend so much on it ? Probably , and I've read one scientist say that we should spend even more to speed it up as at the moment we are looking at four or five generational leaps before we are anywhere near functioning fusion.

From the context of this discussion, fusion is in a similar situation to nuclear fission and renewables, in that all are low carbon, and we need them sooner rather than later. Although they all give off waste heat, which is the limiting factor in terms of economic growth and energy growth.

I stated in my last post that the economy will need to be limited at some point, but your TEQs you mentioned is aimed at carbopn intensive techonologies, and so not appropriate. There are many ways to limit an economy, be it energy rationing, or some fiscal mechanism, but we aren't at that point yet. We will be, and we need to plan for it on a global level, not just national scales (which TEQs are based upon).

Fusion is a promising technology, and we should indeed be spending more on it. A baseload supply on a par with fission is much needed, although not all of the fusion fuel is limitless - tritium, which comes from lithium is an important efficient fuel for fusion, is also in demand for batteries.

The quantities are similar to fission reactors, just different substances.

I have to disagree that economics don't enter into it and technogoly has all the answers.

I didn't say that. Not in the slightest. Its that we don't need a radical new economy to move over from carbon intensive systems.

Nuclear fission can be much cheaper if we stick to a standard design for number of reactors (see what the UK is planning), solar is coming down in price, and wind is getting cheaper with bigger turbines being produced.

In my opinion they are both intertwined and we won't be able to change one with out the other.

I even pointed out that GDP follows energy consumption.

On the uranium front , to talk of peak uranium is probably as wrong as peak oil because while we haven't run out of either we have started to run out of easily accessible sources. If memory serves there isn't a uranium mine that produces nothing but uranium . They all spread out costs by mining other metals such as copper. You are probably aware of EROEI and how the figures are declining for tight oil and the same is for uranium. Not quite 1:1 yet but dropping.

I love the irony of rare earth metals used in renewable technologies being extracted from a uranium mine. I love it when I tell the anti-nuke greenies, and they struggle with the reality of this.

But as you say, peak uranium is not anywhere close. We spent decades of demand stagnation after Chernobyl, and so mine companies stopped looking for more. Why would they look for more when they have 40 years left to mine already? Now demand is going up, they'll look for and find more. We have seen similar with a wide variety of resources.

And even when we get down to less desirable reserves, society finds new ways to extract it. Then there's the sea water - we can extract uranium from sea water, and we have barely looked into it and it worked (although currently expensive). There is enough there to last millions of years. And you can extract uranium from certain types of coal ash - good for China and the US.

 

[JohnD]

fusion is in a similar situation to nuclear fission and renewables,

It is dissimilar insofar as it does not exist as a practical source of power.

 

[JBR]

fusion is in a similar situation to nuclear fission and renewables,

It is dissimilar insofar as it does not exist as a practical source of power.

It will.

 

[JohnD]

there is an Italian fraudster who claims it does.

 

[wobs]

there is an Italian fraudster who claims it does.

That's cold fusion, which is indeed a fraud. Nothing to do with the ITER being built, and its associated projects.