COAL - to dig or not to dig

[zoltan]

The OC industry in germany is pretty much Lignite these days - as I said, its proper filthy shit

 

[two sheds]

I'm with cripsy on medium term solutions being nuclear oriented, and that's coming off the fence after a long time over the issue. Solar thermal on the sun belt is great, but again it creates a supplier-dependency relationship in a similar style to oil and gas supplies; as far as possible the UK should be generating enough leccy to manage (not be extravagant) on it's own.

There are loads of ways to go as well - greater energy efficiency, a concerted national programme to upgrade existing building stock, changing the rules so it's easier to sell self-generated leccy back to the grid, wind, tidal, but all of these are 20-30 year projects, whereas nukes are 10-20 year timescales.

Coal should be left in the ground IMO. CCS is popular in Germany because they have a big open-cast industry...it's equally unpopular with the greens who want to reduce the amount of open cast mining being done!

Only point i'd take issue with would be security of supply aspect. We'd still be dependent on supplies of uranium wouldn't we? And if there's a massive nuclear expansion in the world that could lead to competition and supplies being threatened for political or other reasons.

If we did the solar thermal across the equator type option then we'd be feeding power into the grid from the north too, with wind/wave, so that would increase security of supply.

Nuclear at best seems a huge and temporary nasty unhygienic sticking plaster. Sorry to bang on about the supply chain, but it means high-security transport (and we're still not talking about disposal) and potential leaks/accidents/attack points through the country for the next 50 years.

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't disagree about nukes being temporary, but to fill the gap between now and say 30 years it's available and proven generation technology that's reliable.

 

[Nigel]

Bring Back Coal Mines/Re-Proletarianise Britain

Have to go with the Nuclear option for the time being, as much as it appalls me - France does about 80% of its Leccy gneration from Nuclear IIRC - thought they are also investing in geothermal stuff, albeit on a test basis at the minute

Coal is filthy shit, even with the best technology around to clean it up as much as possible. Much of the cheapest "coal" aound is lignite and thats apalling noxious stuff compared to the anthracite/ hard coal that we have in the UK - Its available, but Its very much short term with plenty of downside. Although Nuke has serious cost & maintanece downsides as well

Remember seeing a debate with Arthur and pro-nuclear power guy, where he put a peice of coal in his mouth(which is apparentely good for certain ailements) and challenged the guy who was into Nuclear Power to do the same with a particle that was encapsulated to prevent leakage. Needless to say he refused.

 

[kyser_soze]

Remember seeing a debate with Arthur and pro-nuclear power guy, where he put a peice of coal in his mouth(which is apparentely good for certain ailements) and challenged the guy who was into Nuclear Power to do the same with a particle that was encapsulated to prevent leakage. Needless to say he refused.

What's that got to do with the price of fucking fish?

And proletarianise Britain by bringing back mines? You're having a fucking laugh aren't you?

 

[Nigel]

Only point i'd take issue with would be security of supply aspect. We'd still be dependent on supplies of uranium wouldn't we? And if there's a massive nuclear expansion in the world that could lead to competition and supplies being threatened for political or other reasons.

If we did the solar thermal across the equator type option then we'd be feeding power into the grid from the north too, with wind/wave, so that would increase security of supply.

Nuclear at best seems a huge and temporary nasty unhygienic sticking plaster. Sorry to bang on about the supply chain, but it means high-security transport (and we're still not talking about disposal) and potential leaks/accidents/attack points through the country for the next 50 years.

It could also(and most probably would) be used in conjuction with and production of raw materials for Apocalyptic Weapons of mass destruction in a new Arms Race.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/53.html

Interesting site portraying the link between Nuclear Arms Race & Uranium Mining
www.miningwatch.ca/updir/umine.pdf

 

[Nigel]

What's that got to do with the price of fucking fish?

And proletarianise Britain by bringing back mines? You're having a fucking laugh aren't you?

Coal is hardly as 'dirty' as nuclear, especially if you take into the equation the mining of Uranium, which if expanded in areas such as Wester/Southern Africa, Kazakhstan or other developing countries could be disaterous for the population their.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

 

[kyser_soze]

Coal is a dirty fuel, end of.

 

[Nigel]

On an ecological level inporting Uranium from other countries(with all the disasterous effects this could have if something goes wrong) thousands of miles away half way around the world, while Britain could almost definitely be self sufficient using its indigenous carbon/fossil fuels, would cause less ecological damage.

Unless you're proposing opening up Uranium mining in the Orkney Islands or Cornwall which would go down like a lead balloon with the local population.

 

[Nigel]

Coal is a dirty fuel, end of.

http://www.cleancoalcentre.com/site/ieacoal/news

 

[kyser_soze]

Unproven technology.

 

[two sheds]

It could also(and most probably would) be used in conjuction with and production of raw materials for Apocalyptic Weapons of mass destruction in a new Arms Race.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/53.html

Interesting site portraying the link between Nuclear Arms Race & Uranium Mining
www.miningwatch.ca/updir/umine.pdf

Mind you - something in that article I'd not realised - putting the depleted uranium in shells and firing them at civilians does sort of solve the problem of what to do with all the nuclear waste from power stations.

I might have to re-evaluate here, I'd just not thought it through

 

[Nigel]

Unproven technology.

People say the same about climate change.
I find it really strange that people on the left and especially on a site like U75, find the mining of Uranium in Third World & Developing countries preferable than coal stations, as a short term solution for more sustainable and ecologically friendly alternatives
Especially in places like China & ex-USSR where Human Rights abuses are abundent, complaints and campaigns around environmental problems are repressed ruthlessly and this will also undoubtedly be used to build nuclear weapons in the escalation of a new arms race.

Now that Monbiot has gone completely off the deep end into Laa Laa Land he's got a lot to answer for.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Carbon Capture is still pie in the sky. But because the government has been so completely shit at investing in renewables and helping reduce energy use we are in a position where it is only coal or nuclear that can supply the base load, at least for the forseeable. Coal is preferable but we should aim to scale it down as much as possible.

Of course, the best way to reduce greenhouse emmissions is to be vegetarian, but thats still way too taboo that is.

 

[Nigel]

Carbon Capture is still pie in the sky. But because the government has been so completely shit at investing in renewables and helping reduce energy use we are in a position where it is only coal or nuclear that can supply the base load, at least for the forseeable. Coal is preferable but we should aim to scale it down as much as possible.

Of course, the best way to reduce greenhouse emmissions is to be vegetarian, but thats still way too taboo that is.

Would'nt that just cause people to fart more, creating more greenhouse gases?
(this is a joke, before anyone takes it more seriously)

 

[two sheds]

Was just thinking that people advocating nuclear are sort of in the same position as that woman will be in 50 years who's just predicted the aliens were visiting but didn't.

Remember the promise of endless supplies of problem free and clean 'energy too cheap to meter'? No of course you lot all wouldn't but that was how nuclear was pushed on people the first time round. It was a con. It didn't arrive like they said it would. Now they're saying that it's really going to arrive this time, it's just a bit late.

After we've sunk hundreds of billions into it all and still not solved the problems. That'll be the difference then - I don't believe them this time either.

 

[elbows]

Putting climate change completely to one side for a moment, a lot of this is about how to replace the electricity currently generated by the old nuclear stations, the old coal stations, and gas. New nuclear replaces old nuclear, clean coal replaces old coal and some gas. Although they seem to expect they wil continue to be able to import a lot of gas in future, to compensate for north sea decline, I guess coal is a contingency plan.

I really wish I wasnt in favour of nuclear, but I look at the state of current power stations, how far renewables can reasonably be scaled up,international energy supply issues, and demand, and I can never make the number add up if nuclear is completely removed from the mix.

Anyway there's been some UK energy announcement that goes well beyond coal today, so I think I'll start a thread about that if there isnt one somewhere already.

 

[homooxoniensis]

I think that till we can do all renewable a mix of clean coal and renewable is the least bad choice. The cost of nuclear in human health risk and cleaning up terms is too high. We have also to think about what we can save, cut consumption.

 

[elbows]

Reducing demand is certainly part of the mix, still not sure if we can do it enough to remove the nuclear option, especially as the current nuclear stations should be replaced already.

I dont think most people are going to get an opportunity to cut consumption in a green, feelgood, free choice way. OK we can get the efficiency better through shopping for a new generation of electrical goods that dont suck as much power as the last, but a good proportion of the reduction is going to come through recession and being priced out of consumption. If the numbers still dont add up then we get rolling blackouts.

Am I right to say there is quite a time gap between the new nuclear stuff, other sources, and when the existing nuclear stations have to be closed? If so then we can expect blackouts which will certainly focus peoples minds on the problem, we'll stop taking electricity for granted, and opposition to nuclear will diminish somewhat, maybe.

 

[david dissadent]

Before everyone jumps of the nuclear bandwagon, has anyone done a proper study to ensure there is enough unranium mines being opened over the next thirty years to meet demand?

As for carbon capture, well there are a host of technologies that have been around for years and the technology is on the shelf. Being on the shelf is not the problem, it is the life cycle net output of energy, removing CO2 from the waste air, compressing it, transporting it then injecting that into the earth will not be energy free, the net return is of energy is what determines whether it is really viable.

Here is the UK we have faced peak energy production since the early 00s and will experiance rapid and sustained drops in our energy production for the forseeable future. You dont have to buy into the global peak oil theory to accept this, just look at the DTIs website. The effect of this is that we will be paying out more and more of our pounds to bring in energy. This will see a steady weakening of the pound and of our economy. Our sololution is one that needs to start arriving in the next 5-10 years at the most.

I am deeply loath to support nuclear as its lifecycle costs are so controversial and its future (especialy price) is still the subject of so much debate, but I think every techonolgy we have that can spin a dymnamo is going to be needed to be combined with every bit of old fashioned british ingenuity to cut back and conserve.

We have painted ourselves into a mighty tight corner this time.

 

[elbows]

I only looked at Uranium supply issues briefly, got the idea it is a problem but a bit more of a cert that the UK will lay its hands on enough to tide us over for some decades, unlike oil & gas. In the longer term it probably combines with all the other nuclear downsides to make the technology pointless. So barring massive progress, nuclear is just a stopgap whilst we transition to whatever massively less energy intense world we're gonna get by 2050.

 

[david dissadent]

Having run my cycnical eye over the wikipedia page of CCS to refresh my mind I see that it takes about 50% of energy generated to capture the carbon at an efficiency of around 90% of carbon captured. The figure given there also indicate a cost of about twice as much per KWh (thats the low estimate, the high is three times). So to keep global energy consumption from coal stable, we would need to add 50% to our global production of coal. This ignoring the price increase that coal would experiacne. Then to replace the gas production being lost in Europe and North America we would also need to increase global coal production plus 50% for CCS, and in addition we would need to increase global coal production (plus 50% for CCS) to meet rising demand from emerging economies.

Given that expanding global coal production is not going to be easy the answer is staring us in the face. We are going to be using less energy that costs more.

Oh and on storing CO2 in old gas fields, getting gas out the ground is easy. Its hot and under pressure, you just op a tap and it comes out for a long while, then you need to start pumping water in to force more of it out until its not economical anymore. This is the reverse, you pump gas in, YOU add the pressure to first force the water out then increase the stored pressure. The energy arithmatic worries me.

Still as I have said it is a techonolgy that if it works will be used.

Edited: Call me as cynical as you like but having watched the impact on corn prices from deriving a fraction of Americas oil from corn ethanol I have come to the conclusion that most wont accept the downsides of alternatives till they have to pay for them.

 

[free spirit]

Having run my cycnical eye over the wikipedia page of CCS to refresh my mind I see that it takes about 50% of energy generated to capture the carbon at an efficiency of around 90% of carbon captured.

The process would increase the fuel requirement of a plant with CCS by about 25% for a coal-fired plant and about 15% for a gas-fired plan

[source=[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage"]wikipedia[/URL]]

 

[free spirit]

Before everyone jumps of the nuclear bandwagon, has anyone done a proper study to ensure there is enough unranium mines being opened over the next thirty years to meet demand

a proper study - no - several cursory scans of the internet - yes... and the answer really depends on whether it's just us that goes for a next generation of nuclear, or if us going for it acts as a partial catalyst for lots of other countries also going for a next generation of nuclear... which is the more likely scenario. If it's just us, then security of supply won't be an issue, but if lots of other countries also go for nuclear in a big way, then firstly security of supply will become a major issue, and secondly the length of time that nuclear remains an option for even lower levels of generation will be significantly reduced. I'm sure if the price rises enough then the supply for the next 30 years will become available to meet demand, but the price rise means the economic assumptions made now when deciding on a new generation of nuclear are null and void.

 

[david dissadent]

[source=[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage"]wikipedia[/URL]]

I was taking my figure from this

The cost of this extra fuel, as well as storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances

but did not word it well. So then even given the 30% figure the argument still stands. There will be a substantial increase on demand for coal, simply to keep current current energy production at current percentage output from coal. Given that the UK has already hit peak oil and gas and the world will hit both most likely within the next ten years I have seen nothing yet to suggest anything other than a dramatic power down is necessary.

To me it looks like global power down is already happening. The collapse of the SUV market in the US and the global shut down of 7% of airflights this year seem to suggest that Adam Smiths invisible hand is the fist smashing the consumption of energy for those who can no longer afford it.

The first people hit though were the worlds poorest countries.

Our civilisation has reached an inflection point. How we deal with it will define us for centuries to come.

 

[david dissadent]

a proper study - no - several cursory scans of the internet - yes... and the answer really depends on whether it's just us that goes for a next generation of nuclear, or if us going for it acts as a partial catalyst for lots of other countries also going for a next generation of nuclear... which is the more likely scenario. If it's just us, then security of supply won't be an issue, but if lots of other countries also go for nuclear in a big way, then firstly security of supply will become a major issue, and secondly the length of time that nuclear remains an option for even lower levels of generation will be significantly reduced. I'm sure if the price rises enough then the supply for the next 30 years will become available to meet demand, but the price rise means the economic assumptions made now when deciding on a new generation of nuclear are null and void.

Well everyone is piling into nuclear these days and China amoung them. Basicaly if no one can expand the production of fissile material rapidly then we will face an energy crisis in another sector.

This was the article that first really got me thinking about just how much fissile material we have.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3450

 

[laptop]

This was the article that first really got me thinking about just how much fissile material we have.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3450

This, I think, is the killer:

Olympic Dam is at present an underground mine, and the plan is to expand it to opencast, but there is a fundamental problem: the average ore grade is 0.029 percent, on the margin of what is even theoretically capable of yielding net energy.

Politically, the future costs of clean-up will be discounted. That's what the "discount rate" is for.

But put it like this: build more than a handful of new nukes, and we rapidly get to the point where we're using more energy - burning more diesel to schlep the ore - than we get from the uranium.

That, politicians - and even economists - can understand.

 

[david dissadent]

This, I think, is the killer:



Politically, the future costs of clean-up will be discounted. That's what the "discount rate" is for.

But put it like this: build more than a handful of new nukes, and we rapidly get to the point where we're using more energy - burning more diesel to schlep the ore - than we get from the uranium.

That, politicians - and even economists - can understand.

EROI, energy return on investment.
Or to put it a simple way how long would it take for an energy source to run to return the energy involved in building it and maintiantaining it up to that point before it even breaks even. From then on it returns a net energy gain and all that need be taken off is the energy involved in maintenance.
Shifting earth to dig minerals is energy intesive. The lower the grade ore the more eath that needs to be shifted to find a kilo of said element.

 

[Crispy]

The only short-to-medium-term solutions to the looming energy shortage are

1. Nuclear
2. Coal
3. Massive change in lifestyle

3 will never happen in the democracies we currently have
2 climate change
1 shit nukes it is then

if we wanted to make a quick switch to renewables, it would mean a drastic cut in the net amount of energy we use. there just isn't the energy density available for rapid depolyment.
I'm not happy with it, but rather nukes than coal, right now

 

[two sheds]

The only short-to-medium-term solutions to the looming energy shortage are

1. Nuclear
2. Coal
3. Massive change in lifestyle

3 will never happen in the democracies we currently have
2 climate change
1 shit nukes it is then

if we wanted to make a quick switch to renewables, it would mean a drastic cut in the net amount of energy we use. there just isn't the energy density available for rapid depolyment.
I'm not happy with it, but rather nukes than coal, right now

0. solar thermal across the equatorial regions feeding into grids, wind/wave feeding down from the north