Is it time to ditch green power generation?

[wobs]

There was mention of a "level playing field" because of subsidies to renewables. This surely must apply to nuclear generation too as subsidies to that industry are far higher than to green energy. The taxpayer is forking out to help build the stations and paying for their decomissioning too.

Renewables already receive far more subsidies than nuclear. Wind farms even receive money for shutting down, as they are so badly matched to demand.

Also, any new build of nuclear would have the cost of decommissioning and fuel disposal built into the billing. Renewables meanwhile would continue to receive subsidies to keep them viable.

With offshore wind being the main option for large scale expanion for wind, we could be looking at £130 – £200/MWh for offshore wind.

This compares with a high nuclear investment giving us about £55 to £100/MWh.

While coal currently is £75/MWh

Sure we could just burn our own coal , even if as has been pointed out Thatcher decimated that industry and left pits beyond economic recovery, but what happens after that? The chinese are in the forfront of developing green power now but we are talking about abandoning all that. The future will invole us buying foreign power or the machines to make that power from abroard.

We could build our own new reactors if the Government hadn't cancelled a LOAN to Forgemasters.

New Solar PV production meanwhile can only be built in China now, as it isn't viable to build anywhere else.

They are also expanding wind turbine production, although so are many other countries.
http://www.kpmg.com/uk/en/issuesand...e-price-of-electricity-up-by-60-per-cent.aspx
http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAnd...ities/new-nuclear-an-economic-perspective.pdf
" To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change

Joe90 wrote:

Too late to take the nuclear option as it takes 15 years to get online.

No. While a first new plant would take many years, it can also be as low as 3 years (although can be higher) if one uses a standard design across many sites.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
15 years is an outdated estimate.

PS. I'm not actually against wind or solar, but we have to get real that we need large scale expansion of our nuclear plants if we want to keep the lights on, and reduce our emissions.

 

[ellal]

But if we do cut our consumption by 50% (which we won't), it woud not increase our fuel bills, as demand falls, and the price should in theory drop. (assuming supply availability stays the same).

But as with what happens now, the energy companies will simply increase their profit ratio per customer by increasing the unit price (or not dropping it) irrespective of the actual wholesale cost of the gas/oil...

That's why most 'green' taxes are also a con, because when they achieve an aim they are then 'modified' as they can reduce the tax take..

An example is the fuel escalator. 'Sold' as a green tax, when added to increasing raw fuel cost rises, it has actually helped reduce the amount going into the treasury by 15% . Because people are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - drive less!

 

[ladylola]

" To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."

A hidden cost is of course the insurance for the nuclear industry.
The estimates of the cost of the Fukushima accident currently stand at around $250 billion and rising.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...sed-post-fukushima-case-ending-price-anderson

safest place for a nuclear reactor is 93 million miles away.

 

[joinerjohn]

Wind powered generation isn't viable. Denmark invested billions in it and wind power now accounts for almost 20% of their electricity needs, But paradoxically, have to export a large percentage of electricity produced by their wind farms. Neither cheap nor a green way to produce electricity.

http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

 

[ladylola]

The only answer then is to walk everywhere and go to bed when the sun sets and get up when it rises.

 

[Brigadier]

Why the sweat over greenhouse gases? Aren't we well overdue an ice age around here? I say "burn the coal" and keep the mile-thick ice sheet at bay!

 

[joe-90]

Whatever we go for there is little time to sort it. Even if oil doesn't run out then we still can't increase production over 85mbpd. China, Brazil, India and the USA are all using more and more each year. Shortage of supply means prices will rise steeply. China has loads of cash and can pay way more per barrel than we can so we'll have to live without. This will happen very shortly. Petrol at £5 per litre? It's not such an outlandish proposal as you may think.

 

[EddieM]

" To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."

A hidden cost is of course the insurance for the nuclear industry.
The estimates of the cost of the Fukushima accident currently stand at around $250 billion and rising.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...sed-post-fukushima-case-ending-price-anderson

safest place for a nuclear reactor is 93 million miles away.

That's a fusion reactor. It is pointless comparing the UK to Fukushima, we are not in a geologically unstable region. Modern nuclear reactors produce far less waste than previous generation reactors. It really is the only way, forget, wind, wave, solar, it's not enough.

Unpleasant as it may be, it's fission reactors.

 

[ladylola]

the 'powers that be' won't actually countenance that, because that means the end of the capitalist model..Hence why if we reduce our consumption by 50%, the cost of energy will at least double!

This quote plus many uses of the word " viable" lead me to one conclusion.
It seems no form of energy production is economically viable without vast government subsidies and we are told that it's impossible to reduce consumption surely it is time to take power generation out of the market place and nationlise the whole thing, it's too important to be left to private concerns. Or we remove all subsidies and make the shareholders pay for development , construction, running and decomissioning.