I'm going to attempt to summarise the reasons why we should abandon nuclear power. I'll give a summary and then try and go into more depth.
1. The sourcing of uranium leaves a terrible legacy and can never be sustainable or carbon neutral. This is the elephant in the room that no one ever discusses.
2. Nuclear power stations can never be totally safe. Even though designers cater for every foreseeable event, it is the unforeseeable ones which have created the disasters of the last 50 years in Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island and many other smaller ones
3. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years. It already costs in the UK lb3 billion or lb1000 per person per year to look after the existing legacy. How can it be safe, responsible or cost-effective to bequeath this to a distant and unknown future population?
4. It is not carbon neutral, or low carbon, but emits in its life-cycle about 30% of the carbon of gas generation, not including mining and looking after the radioactive tailings that results
5. It is highly centralised and so more vulnerable than a decentralised system
6. The nuclear industry has a reputation for secrecy and dissembling of the truth. This includes information about safety and costs which invariably rise. We need a power supply from sources we can trust.
7. We can satisfy our power needs from a mixture of existing and almost market ready renewable technologies, implementing the smart grid, low- and zero-carbon building design and refurbishment, better planning, more efficient transportation and other energy and resource efficiency.
8. New reactor designs are commercially unproven and improperly costed.
9. Uranium supplies will run out within 70 years - sooner as more plants are built. Why not invest instead in developing the renewable technologies whose fuel we will be able to use for much longer into the future?
10. Many power stations are on the coast. They will not be safe in 50 or 100 or more years' time when the sea level has risen as the Antarctic ice cap and glaciers melt.
11. Renewable energy (the source of it, i.e. the fuel) is free, and there is plenty of solar power - which fuels the wind, the waves, the tides and biomass growth - to supply the energy needs of the planet many times over. This means operating costs are in general lower as there is no fuel requirement. If only resources and subsidies currently channeled into nuclear and fossil fuels were channeled into renewable energy technologies, we could easily meet our needs this way.
Below, find some notes supporting some of the above statements. I will hopefully add to these in future posts.
SAFETY
None of the four Generation III designs submitted to the UK regulators for pre-licensing assessment have been proven commercially; they are design concepts without working prototypes to test their safety.
NUCLEAR WASTE
Are we expected to believe our energy companies will be around in any time over a few decades hence, for thousands of years, to pay for the full cost of management of the new radioactive waste produced?
How many companies are here now that were here 500 years ago let alone tens of thousands? None.
Existing nuclear waste is currently managed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Its 2010-11 budget is lb2.8bn, of which lb1.69 billion comes from the taxpayer via DECC. DECC's overall budget in this year is lb2.9bn. This means that the cost of managing existing radioactive waste is a staggering 58% of the Department's total expenditure.
The cost of looking after the waste for each new power station is estimated to be about lb1 billion.
URANIUM MINING
The World Nuclear Authority admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring.
It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing Principles of Uranium Stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Safety Guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores are not legally binding on operators.
To produce enough uranium fuel - about 25 tonnes - to keep your average (1300 MW) reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The conversion plant will generate a further 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste. To supply the number of power stations worldwide expected to be online in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residue every single year.
Uranium mining has often been a disaster for indigenous peoples. this includes as just one example the people in Niger around Areva's mines. The area has suffered conflict for ownership due to the huge profits involved, and the water table has dried up leaving cattle dead and farmers destitute. Radioactive contaminated goods have been found in street markets in villages.
British Energy is responsible for purchasing uranium in the UK.
COSTS
Insurance: Nuclear plant operators have limited liability in the case of an accident. Any cost over lb700m is covered by the taxpayer. Are taxpayers prepared to take on board the full insurance liabilities, which in the case of Chernobyl have already run to several tens of billions?
The cost of the new generation plant being constructed in Finland, which was alleged to be cost-effective and show what could be done by the new generation designs, has soared during the construction phase.
The same is true of its sister plant in Flamanville in France, now under construction.
NUCLEAR IS NOT LOW CARBON
Nuclear power produces roughly one quarter to one third of the carbon dioxide as the delivery of the same quantity of electricity from natural gas.
This is according to the Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA) by The University of Sydney, which concludes that the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of nuclear power varies within the range 130-160 g/kWh.
A second estimate (below) by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (SLS) is higher because it reflects best practice, especially for waste treatment and disposal, and because the reality of errors and problems in the nuclear cycle typically raises the energy cost well beyond the planned level. ISA's estimate includes all GHG emissions from the nuclear cycle.
Breakdown:
Construction: 12-35 CO2 g/kWh
Front end: 36 CO2 g/kWh
Back end: 17 CO2 g/kWh
Dismantling: 23-46 CO2 g/kWh
Total: 88-134 CO2 g/kWh
To compare: GHG emissions from gas-fired electricity generation are about 450 g/kWh.
By contrast, the U.K. Government's 2007 Nuclear Power Consultation accepts industry estimates that, across its whole life-cycle, nuclear power emits 7 - 22 g/kWh.
Additionally, no one can convince me that the mining and the care of the huge piles of tailings at uranium mines is carbon-free. It takes a lot of - almost certainly fossil-fuelled - energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed - certainly in the case of the UK. So that's why it's called 'carbon free'.
THE THREAT OF RISING SEA LEVELS
The Met Office has said that rising sea-levels, increased wave height and increased storm surge height must all be considered in the planning of the UK's future nuclear stations.
Their report was commissioned by British Energy. It concludes future power plants will need to be further inland and may need added protection.
At Sizewell in Suffolk, for example, site of Britain's most modern reactor, the prediction is for the most severe storm surges to be 1.7 metres higher in 2080 than at present. But that's only if the Greenland ice sheet doesn't melt. If it does, much of it will be underwater.
At Dungeness in Kent, the storm surge increase could be up to 0.9 metres. Already this plant, which is sited on land only two metres above sea-level, is protected by a massive wall of shingle which needs constant maintenance in the winter. Waves erode so much of it that it needs to be topped up constantly with 600 tons of shingle every day.
RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVES
Britain doesn't need to build major new power stations to keep the lights on and maintain security, according to, for example, this report by independent consultants P"oyry.
Space and water heating counts for 83% of domestic energy use and about the same for office use. Together, offices and homes account for around 35% of UK energy use. Ie, 28% of total UK energy use.
Providing 40% of this by passive solar, solar water heating, heat pumps, domestic CHP, and woodchip/pellet boilers, would account for a significant proportion of the amount of power requirement as that required to compensate for the loss of old nuclear power stations.
It would have almost as great an impact in a shorter time scale and far cheaper but with little environmental impact than building new nuclear power stations, as well as creating more, sustainable jobs.
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has pitched herself against Government policy on energy-from-waste (EfW) plants by withdrawing support for such a plant in Kings Lynn, Norfolk.
At the same time, DECC, in its new consultation on the Renewables Obligation, is ignoring advice from its own consultants that EfW should receive no financial support and is instead proposing plants receive half a ROC of subsidy per megawatt generated.
Mrs Spelman took the unprecedented step yesterday of withholding lb169m of PFI credits from Norfolk County Council's project at Saddlebow, near King's Lynn, saying that she wanted more information about environmental impacts, the Council's waste strategy and a greater consensus that the plan should proceed amongst the local population.
The Conservative-controlled Council has reacted with fury, accusing her of causing "chaos".
Bill Borrett, its cabinet member for environment and waste, said: "After years of carefully following the criteria laid down, this apparent late moving of the goalposts has surprised and dismayed us.
"Worse, we are concerned it may lose Norfolk people as a whole a government grant worth a staggering lb169m."
In fact, a statement said they were expecting "in the region of lb500 million over 25 years".
The project is already suspended pending a High Court hearing on December 5th, brought by opponents, to determine whether it should be subject to a full Judicial Review.
The winning bid for the plant's construction, out of ten initial submissions, was from a consortium of Cory and American energy-from-waste specialist Wheelabrator.
Apart from domestic waste, the proposed plant would also process commercial waste that would otherwise go to landfill.
OPPOSITION
In her letter to the Council Mrs Spelman gives as the reason for her decision that she is not satisfied that its waste management strategy has popular support.
At the public enquiry stage, a record 2,592 responses were received, of which 2,524 (97.4%) objected to the incinerator and 27 (1%) supported it.
93 parish and town councils also responded, of which 61 (65.6%) were opposed and nine (9.7%) in favour.
Mrs Spelman's stance is supported by two local Tory MPs, Elizabeth Truss, and Henry Bellingham.
Bellingham and Kings Lynn Borough Council recently held a referendum on the topic in which 93% (65,000) voted against the proposal for economic, environmental and health reasons.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR EFW
Government waste policy is currently weighted in favour of incineration and uses PFI credits to support projects.
They have been allocated to 32 waste treatment plants (mostly, but not all, incinerators), and, although called credits, they do not have to be repaid, making them effectively grants.
The PFI credit for the proposed incinerator at King's Lynn is worth about lb40 per tonne.
A Government paper on EfW published in July notes that PFI credits worth lb2.48 billion have been committed to 37 waste projects.
There are additional projects in the application process, for which it is expected a further lb0.8 billion PFI credits will be awarded.
Norfolk Council also stands to benefit from landfill tax avoidance of lb56 per tonne, rising by lb8 per tonne for each of the next three years and an average of lb110 per tonne over the incinerator's 25 year life.
Then there would be the income from a gate fee of an estimated lb77/tonne and from the expected power generation from the Combined Heat and Power plant of 22MW of electricity and 20.4MW of heat, some of which will be used by a paper mill next door.
DECC REJECTS ADVICE ON SUPPORT FOR EFW
DECC has received evidence from consultants Arup that EfW should receive no financial support from Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), but is choosing to ignore it.
In its latest consultation on proposals for the levels of banded support under the Renewables Obligation for 2013-17, published yesterday, it says that it is rejecting this advice on the grounds of supporting renewable energy and jobs, because EfW plants have high initial capital costs.
It is proposing that the support goes from the current 1 ROC, (costing lb8.7m per year from 2016/17 onwards) to 0.5 ROCs.
It also expresses hope that the level of renewable electricity generation capacity from energy from waste CHP could reach around 60-70MW by 2020, and around 100-130MW by 2030.
"This level of deployment could potentially generate in the region of 0.3-0.4TWh/y of renewable electricity by 2020 rising to around 0.6-0.8TWh/y in 2030", they say.
Critics say that such a policy locks the UK into an unsustainable route, and that such energy is not truly renewable.
By halting the Council's plans in Norfolk, it looks as though Mrs Spelman sides with these critics against DECC.
THE DILEMMA OF WASTE OR RECYCLE
The dilemma experienced by Norfolk is being felt in many cash-strapped councils around the country: if there is cash for EfW - why shouldn't they accept it?
410,000 tonnes of municipal rubbish is produced in Norfolk every year and the county has a recycling rate of 43%.
The incinerator would need 170,000 tonnes of waste every year for 25 years.
The Council calculates that after incineration of 170,000 tonnes, there is sufficient margin left of the 410,000 tonnes total to meet recycling targets.
But the waste hierarchy that is key to the Waste Review prioritises reduction, re-use and recycling, and it is likely that in the future ways of reducing the level of absolute rubbish will be found, making it hard to meet the national appetite for burnable waste should many of these plants be built.
Waste destroyed in an incinerator will be replaced, requiring new raw materials, manufacture, transport and packaging.
By contrast, reduction, reuse and recycling represent a win-win strategy. A number of cities in Europe have already achieved high levels (over 60%) of diversion of waste.
Moreover, Defra's own paper on "The Economics of Waste Policy" states that it is desirable that "waste is allocated to the various management options such that the social marginal cost of each option is equalised".
This is far from the case at the moment.
The social marginal cost includes the health and environmental cost of the plants.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 Updated October 2009 Version 2.0, lays out the monitoring and reporting criteria to operate a waste incineration facility.
It requires continuous monitoring of emissions to air but not of heavy metal, dioxin and furan emissions, which are only regulated by spot checks once or twice per year for 6-8 hours, under the Waste Incineration Directive.
Norfolk County Council has stated that "technology in today's modern energy from waste plants stops the formation of dioxins",
But the proposed plant does not use the latest technology which reduces dioxin production.
Opponents cite a 2008 dioxin breach from the Dundee incinerator, which they say illustrates how even a 'modern' energy from waste plant can still release dioxins over 100 times the legal limit.
Residents are also worried about smell, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), and low level ozone.
The County Council has alleged that the incinerator would produce around one nine-hundredth of such emissions compared to other sources like traffic.
But this statistic is a national average, not a local observation.
Nationally, municipal EfW incinerators make a small contribution to the UK's total emissions because there aren't many of them.
And even the Environment Agency has identified bottom ash as potentially hazardous, which cannot be disposed of casually.
It seems that Caroline Spelman has found a way to make herself popular and support health and the environment.
But the prospects for energy-from-waste look entirely unclear.
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India could start installing 20,000 megawatts of solar power capacity as early as April after companies pledged to support the government's drive for clean energy, an official told Reuters.
Details of the plan, which has drawn commitments from U.S., German and Chinese companies, will be announced on Friday, said Upendra Tripathy, secretary of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
"We have got commitments from very established industry, both foreign and domestic for next year," he said in an interview at his office.
Foreign companies will be allowed to decide where they manufacture the required equipment, he said.
The rapidly falling cost of solar power, which is expected to reach parity with conventional energy by 2017, has ignited interest in its potential in India.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has looked to industry for help in funding what could be a 100 billion expansion in clean energy.
For its part, the government will have to find the land required to build the solar panels on.
Modi aims to make India one of the world's largest renewable energy markets, targeting 100,000 MW of output by 2022 from just 3,000 MW currently.
One megawatt can power roughly 1,000 U.S. homes although this varies widely, depending on the amount of heating or cooling needed, for example.
Despite more than 300 days of sunshine a year, India relies on coal for three-fifths of its energy needs while solar supplies less than 1 percent.
U.S.-based First Solar (FSLR.O) and SunEdison Inc (SUNE.N), Canadian Solar (CSIQ.O) and China's JA Solar (JASO.O) are among the companies keen to expand into India.
Yet analysts say India's target will be difficult to reach given the weak finances of electricity distribution companies that would buy in solar energy and the slow pace at which land for plants is made available.
"There's a lot of interest, but there are concerns as well," said Ajay Goel, chief executive of Tata Power Solar, one of India's largest solar manufacturers and a unit of Tata Power Ltd (TTPW.NS). "Who is buying the power and do they have the ability to pay?"
(Additional reporting by Aman Shah in MUMBAI and Swetha Gopinath in BANGALORE; editing by Jason Neely)
Article source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/india-solar-idINKBN0LA15G20150206
The post Companies set to back huge India solar expansion appeared first on Renewable Electron.
For more hydrogen fuel cell news articles.
Share on Tumblr
SOLAR IMPLUSE-2 TOOK OFF FROM ABU DHABI ON MONDAY AND SAFELY LANDED IN OMAN.
Solar Impulse-2 intends to be the first plane to fly around the globe fueled entirely by solar power and, so far, it has successfully completed the first leg of its journey, with Swiss pilot Andre Borschberg at its controls, taking off from Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates early Monday and safely landing in Muscat in Oman, 12 hours later.
DURING THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS IT WILL CROSS BOTH THE PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC OCEANS, FLYING FROM CONTINENT TO CONTENT.
Prior to taking off, Borschberg told BBC News that he was confident in the plane and in the journey, saying that "we have a very special aeroplane, and it will have to be to get us across the big oceans." Borschberg will eventually share pilot duties of the one-seater plane with Betrand Piccard, a fellow Swiss pilot.
Borschberg said that "We may have to fly for five days and five nights to do that, and it will be a challenge," but added that they have the next two months to train and prepare themselves, at which time they will be flying the legs to China.
Throughout the journey, the pilots intend to stop off at a variety of locations around the world, not only to rest and to maintenance the solar energy aircraft, but also to spread a campaigning message about the need for clean technologies for a clean future.
BY 2050, SOLAR POWER HAS BEEN PREDICTED TO BECOME THE LEADING SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE WORLD.
Based on the present cost of fossil fuel, the Deutsche Bank has forecasted that before 2020, solar will generate energy as inexpensively as gas in two thirds of the world. This may very well be the case considering that, in recent years, the price of solar panels dropped 70 percent and the price is expected to reduce by half again this decade.
As for the Solar Impulse project, it has already set many world records and will likely set more before its journey around the globe ends. The plane is equipped with 17,000 solar power cells, as well as energy-dense lithium-ion batteries to aid when flying at night. It has an extremely light weight design, weighing only 2.3 tons, in spite of having a wingspan wider than a 747 jumbo jet, at 72 meters (236 feet).
For more alternative energy news headlines today.
Slowly, but surely, solar energy has become a more prevalent energy source. Building owners everywhere are experiencing the benefits of investing in solar energy. Want to learn more? Keep reading to discover if solar energy is right for your needs.
When you maintain it, your solar power set-up will last. You should inspect your equipment at least once a month, and wash the surface of the panels carefully. Don't fear hiring a pro to clean and check the panels, but remember that you may save a lot of you can do it yourself.
Find solar panels that maximize energy to save money in the long run. New solar energy systems can store a great deal of energy so that you can make complete use of your system 24/7, 365 days a year. If you most of your energy usage occurs at night, this is ideal.
When thinking about going solar, start out small. There are two ways to do this. The first is to find window-mounted panels for powering electronics. You might also find standalone solar powered equipment such as lanterns, camp stoves and more. Every little bit shaves a little off of your electric bill.
Figure out if solar energy is a good choice for your home. There are several things you need to consider. If you live in a remote setting and aren't on the grid, solar energy can be a fantastic option. It can also be a great option if you're willing to pay more money upfront to reduce your energy's environmental impact.
If your home is undergoing new construction, this is the perfect time to explore solar power for your home. Using solar energy is good for the planet and your wallet. This is the ideal time to conduct more research on solar energy.
Lots of folks fail to realize the fact that with a solar energy system, connecting to the grid is optional. The solar power system provides your home with all the electricity it needs; therefore, you do not have to worry about losing power whenever your city does. This means that there's no monthly electric bill for you to pay or that you don't have to set up electric service any more when you move.
A full solar energy system is costly, and you may wish to install an attic fan that is powered by the sun instead. An attic fan that runs on solar power will turn on due to a sensor if the temperature in the attic reaches a certain number. This will keep heat out of your house so your cooling costs will be lower. Even better, the fan does so without driving up your energy costs.
Think carefully about what would be easiest to switch over to solar power. Start by using solar-powered appliances to get used to it. Switching gradually helps you stick to it.
A cheap and quick way to get solar energy working for you is by using pathway lighting in your business or home. These small lights absorb the sun's energy throughout the day and then illuminate throughout the night. They are not very difficult to install, and they can add some charm to your outside area.
If you're interested in a particular solar panel model, determine when this panel was created. Newer solar panels are much more efficient, however you will still see vendors selling old technology. While it may be more affordable for you, you will fare better with newer equipment.
If you are considering investing in solar panels, you should start monitoring the weather. A good rule of thumb is to ensure your panels will receive a minimum of five hours of good sunlight per day. For example, solar energy may not be your best bet if you live an area where most days are snowy, mostly cloudy or foggy.
Regardless of the type of solar energy system you choose, you must be sure your panels have ample sun exposure. Your solar energy system will be more efficient if your panels are always facing the sun, even if it means adjusting them throughout the seasons.
Get your solar system checked two times per year to make certain it is performing well. Your solar technician will examine connections and readjust the angle of your panels for the best performance of your system.
Solar panels don't just help the lights turn on. They are able to warm water and give you heat. This all means, therefore, that having a solar system could make a big difference (or even completely eliminate! It may even eliminate it.
You probably had a number of reasons for wanting to read this article. With any luck, this article should have answered your questions regarding solar energy. If you like what you read, make use of solar energy today and reap the benefits that it provides.
