Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

UK Government Needs "Plan B on Nuclear" – Wind Energy Can Rise to the Challenge

By Zoë Casey
March 6, 2013   |   30 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

 
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

30 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 30
March 7, 2013
'New onshore wind costs around (Euro)6.5 per kilowatt hour, while new nuclear costs around (Euro)10/KW h (2010 figures)'

Something's wrong here cos I pay about (Euro)0.15/KWh, are we talking KWhs or KW here?
Comment
2 of 30
March 7, 2013
I think they are referring to the cost of producing it, not the end user price of the power.
I think the installation of solar cells on every rooftop worldwide would eliminate the need for additional fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.
Comment
3 of 30
March 7, 2013
54GW of wind power will only generate 41% of the UK's power production is an average figure.
On a cold winters evening when there's an anticyclone sitting over the UK, 54GW might struggle to provide 4.1% of the UK power. Conversely in the middle of summer when its blowing a gale at 2 o'clock in the morning 54 GW of wind could well overload the grid, even if it was the only source of power.

There is a big mismatch between supply and demand with wind, and the same applies for solar too, which in the UK varies on average by about 10:1 between July and December. Don't get me wrong I'm not batting for the nuclear club and I'm not anti wind and solar, far from it, but we need an energy storage technology that can economically store the summer wind and solar energy for use in the winter if we are to make full utilisation of these resources.

Interestingly, the technologies that could do this do actually exist, i.e. the ability to store multi TWhs of energy on a seasonal basis, but at the moment some of the technologies are not at commercial scale and I'm not sure if the scheme is economically viable yet, I'll let you know when I find out.
Comment
4 of 30
March 7, 2013
john-mccann

'I think they are referring to the cost of producing it, not the end user price of the power.'

That makes it even worse, how can they sell it for 15 Euro-cents/KWh when it costs 6.5-10 Euros/KWh to produce (note: Euro sign doesn't work with comments).

I have to assume they mean 6.5 or 10 Euro-cents/KWh
Comment
5 of 30
March 7, 2013
You wouldn't expect the power companies to not make a profit and the government not to take it's share would you?
Comment
6 of 30
March 8, 2013
Global warming is not caused by CO2. It is caused by the heat emitted from our energy usage. Fossil fuels emit both CO2 and heat. Nuclear power emits heat, twice as much total heat as its electrical output. Both fossil fuel and nuclear must be phased out. That leaves renewables such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, etc.as our only alternatives. So lets quit dithering around and start doing it.
No image available
Comment
7 of 30
Anonymous
March 8, 2013
Phillip writes in comment #6:
"Global warming is not caused by CO2. It is caused by the heat emitted from our energy usage."

Heat emitted directly from the burning of fuels is entirely negligible when calculating the planetary energy balance. This is well known and it is surprising that anyone would think thousands of climate scientists might have ignored such a term if it wasn't negligible. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere are important to understanding the amount of solar insolation that is absorbed. Thus, CO2 and water concentrations are key factors to understanding climate change, and if Phillip had even the most cursory of experience on this topic he would understand this.
Steven
No image available
Comment
8 of 30
Anonymous
March 8, 2013
Nick writes in comment #1:
"'New onshore wind costs around (Euro)6.5 per kilowatt hour, while new nuclear costs around (Euro)10/KW h (2010 figures)'

Something's wrong here cos I pay about (Euro)0.15/KWh, are we talking KWhs or KW here?"

These presumably are just energy production costs but ratepayers pay the retail rate for delivered energy. This includes a significant cost for distribution (to cover transmission losses, the cost of the grid infrastructure, the cost of maintaining some spinning reserves, etc.), which is usually higher for small residential customers than for larger users. As renewables increase their market share there will be increased costs associated with curtailment during periods of excess supply. There is also some profit and some taxes, but these would typically be smaller than the distribution costs.
Steven
No image available
Comment
9 of 30
Anonymous
March 8, 2013
The author writes: "New onshore wind costs around €6.5 per kilowatt hour, while new nuclear costs around €10/KW h (2010 figures)."

This price estimate does not include any of the costs of intermittency, which is modest for a small market share but which will be quite considerable if wind is relied on to supply a large fraction of total electricity needs. The author is a lobbyist for the wind power industry, so one can understand why she wishes to neglect such matters when comparing wind power to the costs of nuclear power. As Nick remarks on in comment #3, seasonal variability and shorter-time-scale intermittency are key considerations when one starts to talk of providing 40% of the electricity market. When you factor in these concerns, new nuclear power seems cost competitive.
Steven
Comment
10 of 30
March 8, 2013
A Thorium Liquid Reactor LFTR will eliminate many of the options.

Can't Melt Down, Fuel can't burn
Can't be diverted for Bombs
Extremely simple, no heavy redundancy,
Small size
Very cheap to produce
Virtually all the fuel is burned instead of 1% in current reactors
Can be used to eliminate existing radioactive material
Thorium very cheap and very abundant
byproducts produced needed for medical and NASA explorers produced etc
No additional mining needed
Thorium co-located with rare earths currently preventing mining those elements
Solves green house gas issues
$30K Thorium = 1/2 billion in electricity = less than 3 cents KWH
Thorium enrichment not needed
Thorium reactors work at ambient pressure i.e, no explosions
Technology proven with working reactor in 1960s
Thorium reactors waste has a 1/2 life of 300 years not 10,000



Brief overview from 17 out of 32 presentations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk&list=PL098D071EE5755361

Great presentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecoci4vEbzo

Interesting web site about Thorium Energy
http://energyfromthorium.com/#ResourceCenter

We have the solution but the coal and oil and existing reactor industries will fight it.
We are falling behind cause China and India are going full blast on this technology
Congress is setting on its ass while the world moves forward. The US could build these in less than 10 years for the cost of one aircraft carrier
Comment
11 of 30
March 8, 2013
Wave power is the overlooked safe option. Britain is a country surrounded by water, some of it with strong and virtually constant waves. We know from Oregon tests that wave power generators are fish-friendly. They would be out of sight of land. The development cost would be a small fraction of nuclear cost, and wave power could be up and running in five years or less. The costs are likely to be close to that of offshore wind. So why use offshore wind when offshore waves produce far greater push power? All the above would also apply to alternative energy production in the Sea of Japan.
Comment
12 of 30
March 8, 2013
"Anonymous" should quit hiding, make his negative comments, and defend them openly. Heat emitted from energy use can directly be calculated as to its effect on atmospheric temperature rise. The fact that it is small compared to total solar input is immaterial. We are concerned with the balance. In 2008 energy use was 16 terrawatts or 50x10E16 btus per year. Also equivalent to 500 Mount Saint Helen's eruptions. The atmosphere has a mass of 1166x10E16 pounds and a specific heat of 0.24 btu/#. The potential rise in temperature was 0.17*F. Actual rise was ~1/4th that due to cooling from glacial melting and photosynthesis. Glacial melting is causing a loss of one trillion tons per year of ice. The energy balance has been upset by our energy use and there is no place else for the heat to go. It cant leave through radiation since radiation loss is a 4th power function of absolute temperature and temperature hasn't risen significantly..yet. What "all scientists know" is just garbage coming from you. Even our revered Kyoto "scientists" blamed the wrong emission from fossil fuels as the cause of global warming and a bunch of sheep jumped on that bandwagon. Some started research projects on how to mitigate CO2. Countries across the world are discussing sequestering of CO2 or taxing CO2. I believe that within a year more of our recognized "scientists" will begin to accept the obvious, that Heat emissions must be held accountable.
Comment
13 of 30
March 8, 2013
For all those commenting on my comments.

I wasjust pointingout that the article has either got its decimal point wrong (Eruos when they meant Euro-cents) or they've got there units wrong (KWh when they ment KW), the latterwould indicate build cost.

I was just asking for clarification.
Comment
14 of 30
March 8, 2013
I've just noticed the comment:
"This blog was originally published on the EWEA blog and was republished with permission"

So I checked on their site and the original article states Euro-cents/KWh, which makes sense, cut and paste would have been much simpler than republishing and avoided all this confusion.
No image available
Comment
15 of 30
Anonymous
March 8, 2013
Phillip writes in comment #12:
"Heat emitted from energy use can directly be calculated as to its effect on atmospheric temperature rise. The fact that it is small compared to total solar input is immaterial. We are concerned with the balance. In 2008 energy use was 16 terrawatts or 50x10E16 btus per year. Also equivalent to 500 Mount Saint Helen's eruptions. The atmosphere has a mass of 1166x10E16 pounds and a specific heat of 0.24 btu/#...."

This is an argument he has posted in the past and which I have already commented on in detail in other threads. The flaw in his argument is that he assumes heat is only absorbed by the atmosphere or polar ice, but the earth includes much larger heat sinks: the oceans and the land mass. If one calculates how much the ocean temperatures would change due to an amount of heat released that is equal to that generated during all thermal energy generation you find that the temperature change is trivially small. Thus, one can easily see temperature changes due to thermal energy generation are entirely negligible. One could also do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate the incremental energy absorbed due to increases in CO2, etc. This would be a much larger value than the amount of energy released due to thermal energy generation, again suggesting a major flaw in Phillip's argument.

Phillip seems to hold climate change researchers and those that follow their work in very low regard. The notion that many thousands of scientists--some of whom spend their whole careers developing climate change models--could have mistakenly neglected such an obvious term in the global energy balance is naive. There are lots of uncertainties in the climate change models, but the people that work on them are not all utterly incompetent, which is what Phillip would need to believe to have any confidence in his theory.
Steven
Comment
16 of 30
March 9, 2013
Good try Philip Haddad, almost had me convinced until I scrutinised the 'energy balance'

'It can't leave through radiation since radiation loss is a 4th power function of absolute temperature and temperature hasn't risen significantly.'

Apart from the words 'It can't leave through radiation' the rest of this sentence is true.
Using Stefan's Law (radiation loss is a 4th power function of absolute temperature) and inserting the insignificant temperature rise (e.g. ~0.35*C 1990-2010) it works out that this increase would result in about 40 times more radiation than our additional energy use generates. The key point is that the amount of power we use is also not significant compared to the amount we receive from the Sun (nearly 10,000 times more). As Philip points out, it's all to do with the 'energy balance', or to be correct the 'power balance' i.e. rate of energy radiation.

PS.
I noticed Anonymous' last post after this post, I fully agree with him on the climate change topic but I do agree with Philip that it would be nice if he would not hide as anonymous, or give a reason why he or she cannot reveal their identity.

PPS

By the way Philip, wolrd energy use is equivalent to about 5,000 Mount St Helen's eruptions per year, not 500, scary! (it's a lot easier to do these energy calculations in metric, but keep imperial for everyday practical use, e.g. fruit and veg, 227g of cheese - too precise)
No image available
Comment
17 of 30
Anonymous
March 9, 2013
Nick writes in comment #16:
"I noticed Anonymous' last post after this post, I fully agree with him on the climate change topic but I do agree with Philip that it would be nice if he would not hide as anonymous, or give a reason why he or she cannot reveal their identity."

I imagine that many people prefer to post anonymously because then they cannot be retaliated against based on their beliefs. For example, current (or future) employers can legally consider internet posts when deciding if someone may retain (or gain) employment. I much prefer that when someone googles my identity that the first several dozen hits they see concern my professional activities such as my published work, rather than some off the cuff comments on an internet blog post. I note that each of my comments contains a moniker at the bottom so that my remarks may be distinguished from those of other anonymous comments and this is really all one needs to evaluate my arguments. Nick and Phillip should be convinced by force of ideas rather than by the personalities of those holding particular positions. I also note that if I google Nick or Phil by their full names (assuming they correspond to their true identities), that their names are so common that I cannot easily learn anything additional about them; thus, effectively, I know only as much about them as they know about me.
Steven
Comment
18 of 30
March 9, 2013
Anonymous Stephen

My appologies, I didn't notice the Stephen at the bottom, that's fine by me, just wanted to know which Anonymous is which.
Comment
19 of 30
March 9, 2013
Nick I would like to see the calculations that you made to arrive at you conclusion regarding radiation. I have had a hard time arriving at a starting point for this calculation and would appreciate a look at yours. Thanks, Philip.
Comment
20 of 30
March 10, 2013
I'm interested to see how much shedding of heat occurs on the dark side of the planet under various thermally conductive conditons (humidity levels in each layer, atmospheric content, etc.) Also, the amount of energy propagated via the percentage of each wavelength reflected. If there is a simple explanation in layman's terms that would help.

Also, I wonder how much influence turbulance contributes to the balance and risk. With what Anon-Stephen says about the ocean's collection and release of thermal energy I can see how much influence the evaporation of water that lags behind the daytime helps release energy and also how it acts as a buffer. This insight helps me believe that if necessary, our choice of thermal output at different times of days and weather conditons may either nudge ocean temperatures up or down ever so slightly. But how might that kind of influence may be limited by the propagation rates of rising "working fluids"?
Comment
21 of 30
Zoe
March 11, 2013
Apologies. Prices should have been in Euro cents, not Euros.
Comment
22 of 30
March 11, 2013
Solar constant = 1.361 KW/m²
Earth Mean radius = 6,371.0 km, area facing Sun (Pi r2) ~= 127.5e12m2
Earth average albedo ~0.3 (~30% reflection)

Therefore energy received from sun ~= 174,000TW or 174PW (127.5e12 x 1,361)
Therefore Sun's energy absorbed by earth ~= 174 * 0.7 = 121PW
Radiation loss from earth must equal/balance this or Earth would keep getting warmer (note I haven't allowed for geothermal warming which would make this figure a bit bigger).

Average earth temp ~15*C, ~288*K
1990 – 2010 temp rise ~0.35*C

Radiation increase [Stefan's law] = (288.35/288.00) to 4th power ~= 1.00487
Therefore a 0.35 deg C rise gives a radiation increase of ~0.487%
0.487% of 121,000TW ~= 589TW,
which is about 37 times more than mankind's 16TW Power use/emission.
Therefore only about 2-3% of GW temperature rise can be accounted for by additional heat into the atmosphere.
Comment
23 of 30
March 11, 2013
Nick, thanks for your response. The 0.35*C rise was over a 20 year period. and the 16 TW was an annual energy usage. The energy used over the twenty year period would make the numbers much closer. Still it's something I'll have to think about. Regards Philip
Comment
24 of 30
March 11, 2013
Philip:

16 TW is NOT annual ENERGY usage, it is current average POWER (Joules [energy] per second), if you want annual energy multiply by 365*24*60*60. If you want to do the sums over 20 years using energy you also have to multiply the 589TW by twenty years etc. Actually you need to integrate all the energy inputs and outputs over twenty years but this gets unnecessarily complicated, the power balance at the two points gives the same results.

The point is that Earth is about 0.35 deg.C warmer than it was at some other time, the timescale is actually immaterial. The extra 0.35 deg C increase means the earth is radiating an additional 589TJ/s and to maintain this difference requires 589TJ/s (or Watts) being added to the Earth's system, which is about 40 times faster than we are adding it by releasing energy for our own use regardless of source.
Comment
25 of 30
March 11, 2013
Nick, you are correct that 16 TW is average power use. I converted this to btus by multiplying by 8640 hours per year and by 3416 btus per killowatt hr x 10E9 to get 50x10E16 btus per year. So no argument there. The point is that heat emissions must contribute half the total heat at least, and CO2 anywhere from zero to half, depending on all the uncertainties in the various data and calculations. What is important is the concession that heat emissions are significant, and that nuclear power is a heat contributor and must be phased out just as fossil fuels must be phased out. Are we in agreement on this point? Philip
Comment
26 of 30
March 11, 2013
Steven: Regarding comment 15, the heat emissions do not have to heat up anything but the atmosphere. The geothermal heat flow of 44 TW will raise the earth's temperature to maintain the temperature gradient necessary to dissipate the 44 TW.
No image available
Comment
27 of 30
Anonymous
March 11, 2013
Phillip writes in comment #26:
"Regarding comment 15, the heat emissions do not have to heat up anything but the atmosphere. The geothermal heat flow of 44 TW will raise the earth's temperature...."

The atmosphere is in contact with the surface, including the oceans, so you cannot heat one without heating the other. The heat from geothermal sources was extant at pre-industrial times and at a similar level; thus it was in the energy balance before the recent warming. Even if you included this 44 TW with that from fossil fuel consumption you would find that to heat the oceans by ~0.3 degrees C would require many centuries. I suggest you do the calculation as an exercise. This should suggest to you that there is another, and much larger, energy input responsible for the vast majority of planetary warming observed in recent years. This additional energy is from small changes to the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed. People have been modeling these things for decades, you are not the first person to become aware that fuel consumption is a tiny contributor to the global energy balance. If you bothered to look at the magnitudes of the other contributors you might realize how naive your theory is....
Steven
Comment
28 of 30
March 11, 2013
As I said Stefans law (E = kT^4) shows fossil & nuclear only contribute a very small percentage towards global warming. It's all basic High school Physics.

Over and out
Comment
29 of 30
March 11, 2013
Steven and Nick. Are you saying that heat emissions are an infinitesimal contributor to global warming and that the increased CO2 is totally responsible?
No image available
Comment
30 of 30
Anonymous
March 11, 2013
Phillip asks:
"Steven and Nick. Are you saying that heat emissions are an infinitesimal contributor to global warming and that the increased CO2 is totally responsible?"

I am saying yes to the first (heat emissions are negligible). CO2 and H2O concentration increases are a significant contributor but there isn't enough evidence to conclude they are totally responsible (although that is a plausible theory).
Steven
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Zoë Casey

View Zoë Casey's Profile
About: The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) is the voice of the wind industry, actively promoting the utilisation of wind power in Europe and around the world. more »

Advertise With Us

SMA America, LLC Sunetric Everblue Panasonic Eco Solutions North America Quickscrews International Corp. Sol Systems LLC Second Wind Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters