Why not? Nuclear's fine, if you're not scared of the isotope boogymen. Solar energy's useless in the UK (and the panels cost more to make than they produce) wind is so-so and almost impossible to store, and anything built in or near the sea corrodes so quickly it falls apart in a couple of years.
If we're not going to all use a hell of a lot less energy, we could do a lot worse than a safe nuclear reactor or ten.
Realistically, nuclear will have to play a part, but it's hardly "fine."
From a management standpoint, the issues of safe sequestration of waste for 100K+ years is a challenge (especially on your islands of crumbly limestone teeming with people and property), the fuel reprocessing & geopolitical issues associated with it (nevermind Sellafield's safety record), plus the demand management challenge of base load versus peak demand are hardly problems you can magic away.
Oddly though, you may find that the UK could do a lot more by improving the housing stock. Oxford may have been unusually run-down, but British housing generally is hardly the picture of energy efficiency.
Then there's the whole dimension of materials efficiency in your economy which is not particularly good, but then neither is the US's.
b) it's certainly not carbon neutral. The amount of energy needed and pollution caused by extracting and processing the material makes large numbers of the arguments in favour of nuclear invalid -- the fact that nuclear plants need subsidy clearly demonstrates that.
Could identical arguments be made of concrete and steel wind farms (or whatever)?
No, largely due to the time horizon of disposing/recycling of wind turbine components vs. those for nuclear power ... and the masses alone are considerably different (shipping, assembly/disassembly, etc.). Much of the surrounding structure for the core and the building have to be disassembled and carted off for final disposal with particular radiation practices in mind, and greatly changes that cost structure. In the US at least, the decommissioning cost is what has made nuclear particularly prohibitive (beside the rigorous design safety).
Also, a lot of the newest turbines are carbon-fibre blades and housings.
Now...hypothetically, if you built enough wind farm capacity to match a single nuclear reactor station, you may* find yourself using a lot more concrete for the tower bases...but you may come out ahead in the end since you won't have to treat the wind farm bases as hazardous materials unfit for reuse/recycling.
Ha ha ... fine, I'll do a napkin calculation and get back to you. But you really have to look beyond the masses involved, you also have to look at what special handling each solution requires.
Take the carbon-fibre for example - very efficient for weight, but not very recyclable ... so one is left with landfilling or incineration with energy-capture as options.
I'm juist teasing - my position is extremely similar to yours. Nuclear power is so expensive that for most purposes I'm perfectly happy to assume that renewables would be better, and leave the burden of proof to the other side. The government's big energy review will provoke much more accurate calculations than either of us could hope to achieve.
I actually don't think it's very relevant, though, how much concrete and/or steel is used to build this stuff - it's going to be much, much less than we use for houses, cars, etc, so if it's relevant to the pollution calculations then we're already doomed.
Plus, the amount of carbon it costs to make a certain bit of steel gagetry obviously depends on the energy input and, hence, the mix of sources of your energy. So for either nuclear or renewables, which I think we can assume are both better than the current fossil-fuel-heavy mix, there's presumably a "virtuous circle" where the more you build, the less carbon it costs to build more.
I actually don't think it's very relevant, though, how much concrete and/or steel is used to build this stuff - it's going to be much, much less than we use for houses, cars, etc, so if it's relevant to the pollution calculations then we're already doomed.Unfortunately it may be, in the end
( ... )
(The comment has been removed)
If we're not going to all use a hell of a lot less energy, we could do a lot worse than a safe nuclear reactor or ten.
Reply
From a management standpoint, the issues of safe sequestration of waste for 100K+ years is a challenge (especially on your islands of crumbly limestone teeming with people and property), the fuel reprocessing & geopolitical issues associated with it (nevermind Sellafield's safety record), plus the demand management challenge of base load versus peak demand are hardly problems you can magic away.
Oddly though, you may find that the UK could do a lot more by improving the housing stock. Oxford may have been unusually run-down, but British housing generally is hardly the picture of energy efficiency.
Then there's the whole dimension of materials efficiency in your economy which is not particularly good, but then neither is the US's.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Could identical arguments be made of concrete and steel wind farms (or whatever)?
Reply
Also, a lot of the newest turbines are carbon-fibre blades and housings.
Now...hypothetically, if you built enough wind farm capacity to match a single nuclear reactor station, you may* find yourself using a lot more concrete for the tower bases...but you may come out ahead in the end since you won't have to treat the wind farm bases as hazardous materials unfit for reuse/recycling.
*Haven't done a napkin calc even, just guessing.
Reply
Reply
Take the carbon-fibre for example - very efficient for weight, but not very recyclable ... so one is left with landfilling or incineration with energy-capture as options.
Reply
I actually don't think it's very relevant, though, how much concrete and/or steel is used to build this stuff - it's going to be much, much less than we use for houses, cars, etc, so if it's relevant to the pollution calculations then we're already doomed.
Plus, the amount of carbon it costs to make a certain bit of steel gagetry obviously depends on the energy input and, hence, the mix of sources of your energy. So for either nuclear or renewables, which I think we can assume are both better than the current fossil-fuel-heavy mix, there's presumably a "virtuous circle" where the more you build, the less carbon it costs to build more.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment