E.ON UK wants to replace two existing coal-fired units at a power station in Kent with two cleaner units. This one billion pounds investment would be the first new coal-fired power station capacity to be built in the UK for 24 years. Unsurprisingly, there is a bit of hoo-hah about whether the Government should give this development the thumbs up. I'm in two minds about this. Its one of these 'energy' issues where these seems to be an argument for both sides. (Unfortunately I can't find the story in the Telegraph Online to provide the link. Its in today's edition)
The case for is that the new units would be far more efficient than conventional coal-fired power stations, and would reduce the number of new nuclear power stations that will be built and reduce the number of landscapes that will be destroyed by wind turbines. The case against is that it would still be a significant polluter which would undermine the UK Government's commitment to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions, notwithstanding its greater efficiency
The debate about the shape of the UK's future energy supply network is going to be a dominating political issue throughout 2008, driven principally by the Government's imminent decision to give the green light to new nuclear power generating capacity. Hopefully, in a year's time, we will have enough information to make a judgement about whether environmentalists should support or oppose E.ON UK's proposal.
12 comments:
why dont we just get on with building more nuclear power stations and save our planet. you know its got to happen so why wait
Isn't coal natural? I mean, it comes from plant matter - right? And turns back into plant matter ... so isn't coal carbon neutral? You know, part of the Carbon Cycle that they teach in enlightened High Schools? Personally I think "they" should turn it into SCP (single cell protein) and feed it (literally) to the fishes on fish farms and save the fishing industry - now there's a thought, not a sermon.
anon - despit my instinctive antipathy towards nuclear power, I have somer sympathy with what you write. The prevarication of UK Governments over a long period has left us in a situation where we have little choice but go down the nuclear route - even though there remains no definitive method of disposing of muclear waste. I do not believe that the infrastucture to deliver renewable energy can be established sufficiently quickly to deliver the capacity or the energy security that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure.
Christopher - Difficult to respond. I'm not a scientist. Carbon capture sound san interesting possibility to reduce the supposed impact of coal-fired power stations.
what's going to happen to the waste from the new nuclear plants that you expect to be built glyn. dont you think its irresponsible to accept any more nuclear power until the waste is sorted out.
Glyn> don’t take this personal, but it’s just pathetic the lack of basic scientific and comparative math skills on the part of my beloved Welsh compatriots. Fact: the amount of carbon on this planet is essentially constant. Fact: the issue is how carbon is distributed and in what form; lots of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regarded by humans as a bad thing, but it’s a great thing for plants; lettuce and commercial plant growers for the food industry who use green houses know that carbon dioxide encourages plant growth, so it is not uncommon to see commercial green house operators use apparatus to boost carbon dioxide levels in their green houses.
Fact: the earth’s temperature is not constant, average temperatures are either going up or they are going down or the earth/Gaia is in-between – bit like the up and down curves (sinusoidal curve of, e.g., alternating current) that most school children see in physics classes on oscilloscopes. So we are on an up-curve, frankly that is a LOT BETTER than the alternative, i.e., being on the down-curve leading to another round of glaciers marching on our lands, robbing us of agricultural land and so on leading to famine on a grotesque scale – and plant will not much like it either!
Anonymous> the thing is, the bottom-line is … well, the waste issue is blown up into something that is a problem that must stop mankind using nuclear power, which of cause is a nonsense, the classic Luddite do nothing/hold back argument. Sadly, we don’t have the capacity to do nothing – the UK needs electricity, and needs a constant supply 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and so we must plan for that supply.
Turbines, and photovoltaic systems have their role, but it is expressly clear from electrical engineers that there has to be a base supply on the grid, a lot of electricity is needed when it is dark or when there is little wind, the grid can cope with a certain amount of variance in supply, but there is a limit which I rather electrical power engineers talked about this, the men and women who work on the national grid every day, the professional electrical engineers. The UK should not allow its generating capacity to depend too much on foreign imports of natural gas (methane), oil/coal etc.
Much of the natural gas comes from supplies under Gazprom control, this is very dangerous for those countries overly reliant on methane supplies directly or indirectly controlled by Gazprom. The UK must generate its electricity from in-house supplies, and part of that admittedly unpalatable solution is nuclear power stations, it’s a solution that China is taking on board.
The UK can’t keep its head in the sand. Constancy of supply 10+ years ahead is a serious issue that requires logically solution. It is not logical to let our nuclear power stations shut down one by one and not replace them with equal power output stations; not an option unless we want a UK that has regular black/brownouts. Btw, brownouts are worse than blackouts, least that is my experience having lived in a city where brownouts were sometimes used in preference to blackouts.
anon - I accept that there is a huge amount of uncertainty. At present the only storage plan is short term storage, pending identification of site(s) for deep burial - perhaps 40 years on. Problem is that our Government has l;ed us into a position where our only option may be to take this path - despite the risk. The irresponsibility has already taken place.
Christopher - But the great debate accepts all of this - but disagrees about the extent to which the warming we are experiencing at present is outwith this natural cycle. And if so, to what extent. And whether there si much we can do about it.
You and I and some others understand that, but an awful LOT of folks don’t understand that and the politicians of our land feel they have to keep in with the mass of voters who don’t know or understand that global warming is also a natural phenomenon and instead believe is man made. Frankly Glyn, it is incredibly arrogant on man’s part to actually think he can really mess up Gaia. Fact: the earth was a sterile molten piece of rock, yet life thrived here. Fact: there is an island that experienced massive volcanic activity and it was sterile, yet life took hold there and generated countless numbers of new species. As far as Gaia goes, man has very little impact on biodiversity on Gaia scale (i.e., through time, time being the fourth dimension). Man can not destroy Gaia, this is a fundamental truth which many of those that go on and on about global warming don’t publicly acknowledge, and instead they twist this fundamental truth into: man can destroy the earth. No, man does not have that capacity. Because of the way this fundamental truth has been twisted we now have these essentially false arguments about global warming. Yes, there is global warming – and yes it will at some point, regardless of what man thinks or does switch to global cool down. Are you aware Glyn that Gaia puts out far more SOX than man? Man is a polluter and should control pollution. Man should respect all life especially life under His/Her control – and that goes for chickens too. Man should never take life for granted, should never be systematically cruel to animals (e.g., battery hen/chickens, non-free range pigs, stuffing food down geese throats, not letting all farm animals live in comfort and security). Don’t get me wrong, I hate the way mankind treats this planet – but let’s not make up false stories based on a false truth, man doesn’t have the capacity to destroy Gaia, and man will not wipe out biodiversity because as a function of time, Gaia brings forth new species at a phenomenal rate – no matter what we do. But yes, man can destroy or harm his/her existence as part of Gaia. After all, man is but one species and yes, mankind has the capacity to destroy him/herself, but not Gaia. Let’s not forget that fact – but the global alarmists play on this lie, that man can destroy the planet when this is a lie, man has no capacity to destroy Gaia, only him/herself along with a portion of biodiversity, not the capacity to generate new species. If mankind detonated every nuke on this plant simultaneously, this would in the great scheme of things be but a pin-prick to Gaia. It is so arrogant to think we have that kind of power, we don’t
... and on the storage option ... let's not forget we are in effect sitting this very second on a nuclear pile - planet Earth. Great physicist as he was Lord Kelvin made a fundamental error when calculating the age of the earth, Lord Kevin did not take into account that the Earth beneath our feet is generated billions upon billions of Joules of heat energy through billions and billions of natural fission events. The reason Earth still has a molten core (and hence volcanoes, and will one day have another supervolcano eruption (could be Yellow Stone Park, could be somewhere else) which will likely switch the Earth from global warming to instant global cool down (the only question will be for how long). The Earth produces so much heat, much of it trapped in the earth, that we have volcanic eruptions, plate movements (we sometimes call them earthquakes). There is a great deal of heat energy generated by the Earth itself and we depend on it. The ground we live on is changing - because he Earth is still hot inside. Lord Kelvin omitted to take into account natural nuclear fission events going on beneath our feet, and so calculated that the Earth's age was ridiculously short of the mark. Btw, did you know Glyn that the universe, as we know it, has a fundamental problem with the big-bang theory? For big-bang to be true, there had to be faster-than-light travel, something our scientists argue is not possible. It's a world and universe that we still don't understand, let's not fall into the Victorian error where we thought we know everything when in fact sciece is about theories which for the most part turn out to be wrong, some are on point, but some are very off-point - ask Lord Kelvin when you are in the after-life - he got the age of the Earth totally wrong, but Lord Kelvin got the Absolute Temperatute Scale spot on, that's why temperature units in engineering and science are in Kelvins - not F or C. Kelvin extrapolated backwards the coldest temperature that matter can be, and this was termed "absolute zero", so when you hear it on the Fifth Element movie a temperature of minus two million Kelvins (or some such figure), it was wrong, O K is (from memory) minus 273.16 Celsius - I just checked a physics article, it says -273.15 Celsius - which scientists and engineers call 0 K (zero Kelvin).
Opps ... I shouldn't really use the term "Kelvins" - only Kelvin or K. I bet you an arm and a leg that there's a Russian scientist who believes "they" discovered the absolute temperature scale - along with antibiotics, steel girders and things that go "ping".
It's strange how man/woman-kind can be subverted to think something is true when it is not actually as stated. Much like the global weather alarmists whose argumens are based on a false premise, and they sound "so very good". I guess indoctrination comes in many forms, but generally only has an impact when folks "fail to engage brain" and accept 'truths' without question, forget that scientific theories are just that, and more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories that more often than not need modification or replacement with more up-to-date theories etc.
Christopher - I've read your comments twice, and am left speechless. Basically, you reinforce my cynicism about 'fact'. There have always been great scietific minds who believed that man had learned all there is to know - and they have immediately been proved to be wrong. I have never been convinced by the absolute certainty of the 'Al Gore' case - but I do think it is as well to act in away that diminishes the impact of natural change - so I've always felt that it does no harm.
Post a Comment