free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'm aware of the differences (though far from an expert in the field of fission), but it's fairly common to lump them together under the term nuclear power, and IMO the term 'nuclear industry' encompasses both.Look up the difference between fusion and fission
I was also referring to the fact that he works for the UKAEA, an organisation with a very poor history for impartiality when it comes to research regarding the renewable energy sector, so forgive me for being sceptical when a representative of the UKAEA appears to dismiss all currently economically viable renewable energy technologies in favour of nuclear power and a long term potential for fusion and solar. It fits a fairly obvious pattern, and whether he's aware of it or not, it's likely that his view of the other renewables is coloured by the long term thinking and (on occasion deliberately) biased research of the organisation he works for.
everyone in the solar industry thinks that all the other renewables are drops in the ocean and unreliable, with small niche market potential?
are you UK based?
if so you'll no doubt have noticed the variability of solar radiation in this country...
I had actually initially assumed you / he were talking about the potential for concentrated solar thermal in arid regions combined with long distance HVDC grids to transmit the power as outlined in the desertec proposal. It looks like you're talking about solar PV, in which case you really ought to think about the wisdom in dismissing other renewables based on their variability considering how poorly solar in this country matches with the countries annual and daily energy demand distribution. UK based Solar PV IMO has the potential to be an important part of this countries energy mix, and there are niches such as office buildings and schools where the supply and demand are better matched, but it really would only work on a bigger scale as part of a mix of renewables with substantial additional storage / reserve capacity (eg pump storage), and/or dynamic demand management to account for the variability in the supply.
If everyone in the solar PV industry really did think like you seem to be indicating, then the industry's got some serious problems it should think about addressing, one of which being who it's getting into bed with and what their agenda might actually be.
btw all this talk from the nuclear lobby of the problems associated with the variability of renewables is a load of disingenuous cock. An electricity mix containing high levels of nuclear also has major problems due to it's inability to respond to demand fluctuations. France has had to do a hell of a lot of demand management to flatten out the daily demand curve over a period of decades so that it's night time electricity usage is much closer to it's peak daytime usage than our currently is. France also benefits from being able to export it's nuclear to surrounding countries when supply excedes demand in France and they can't turn any more reactors off, an option that wouldn't be available if everyone else in surrounding countries also had large amounts of nuclear in the mix.
Also worth thinking that the move to nuclear in the 60's and 70's meant they had to build the 3 gigawatts (ish) of pump storage we have in this country to use the excess nuclear generated at times of low demand, and help meet demand at peak times. If it was ok for the country to pay for these huge civil engineering projects in the 70's and early 80's for nuclear, why's it not ok for us to take the measure now that are necessary to enable the country to work with a much higher levels of renewable energy supply, and the largely predictable increased levels of supply side variability that would come with it?
possibly, I was going off your summary, but I'll take a look if I can get it to download.
I'm not quite sure how much use I'll make of information from websites who's main data is from 2001, 1999, 2003, and 2004 being the most recent.... btw I'm not actually a complete novice in this field
also are you talking about this from a global or national perspective? I'll happily accept that PV is potentially much more relevant on a long term global perspective, though in reality it may well end up being largescale concentrated solar thermal that becomes the major global solar player... if we're talking globally though then if large proportions of the world goes for a high level of nuclear then there will be huge supply problems, fuel price hikes, major cost overruns from building the things due to lack of available expertise and equipment, and the current estimate of 80 years or so supply of uranium would be cut drastically meaning that pretty much at the end of the lifetime of this proposed next generation of nuclear plants we'd then be in the same situation we're in now, but with less options available to help ease the transition to whatever plan c is.
sorry but I'll call it like I see it - he's parroting the nuclear industries current line on renewables, and works in a top level job for the UKAEA. Whether he's knowingly parroting their lies, or has swallowed the company line and actually believes it himself I'm not sure.
Bottom line, I'll defer to his knowledge on nuclear fusion no problem, but when it comes to assessing the potential of the range of renewable energy technologies I doubt he's got much useful to add to the debate.
