Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

COAL - to dig or not to dig

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

:)

Well, yes...

Considered as an engineering problem, I'll pull a number out of the air and say it's doable in just under a decade.

But that would require central planning: someone issues a decree on Monday saying "you will break ground for the pipe-making plant here, on Wednesday, and you will finish it in August 2009; you will break ground in the Sahara on 1 March 2009... send the bill to us".

Considered as a political problem, it's about 25 years off, at full tilt; 40 at normal pace.

To achieve it without central planning, you'd need international treaties to set up market conditions that would make it profitable to bid for the work.

Considering the political problem in engineering terms: it is a system with massive built-in lags and hysteresis. It takes a minimum of six months to prepare the papers and positions for a diplomatic conference: this is determined by how fast the "sherpas" that prepare for climbing the Summit can read and how rapidly they can call meetings with the democratically-elected politicians they control :)

Mind you, in this week's New Scientist economist Susan George proposes that the answer is, indeed, to put the economy on something as urgent as a "war footing":

There is a historical precedent. When the Allies faced fascism in the second world war, it was as dire a foe for them as climate change is for us. The US had not yet fully emerged from the Depression, but it had in Franklin D. Roosevelt a president who understood what was required. Under his guidance, the economy was shifted to a war footing in an amazingly short time. My native city, Akron, Ohio, the "rubber capital of the world", switched to producing tyres and equipment for the army and air force. Every other industrial centre also switched to meet military needs. Chief executives became prestigious "dollar-a-year men", paid that symbolic sum by the treasury for meeting government quantity and quality targets. Many framed the cheque like a badge of honour.

Yes, there were still worker-management conflicts, but on the whole it was a time of opportunity, especially for women and minorities. Workers were well paid, everyone pitched in, "victory gardens" were cultivated, children used their allowances to buy war stamps, petrol was rationed. The country had never been so united before - or since. The war pulled the country out of the Depression at last. It was Keynesian economics, named after British economist John Maynard Keynes.

A similar effort is required to fight environmental meltdown and it would be less difficult than it sounds. The political point is that ecological Keynesianism is a win-win scenario that could provide something for everyone. People are generally way ahead of governments in recognising danger, and they tend to build coalitions to convince politicians they will vote for whoever takes a specific crisis as seriously as they do. Politicians can win on a Keynesian environmental programme because now, as then, it promises a society of highly skilled, highly paid quality jobs and renewed export opportunities.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...hink-big-to-fight-environmental-disaster.html
 
Well, yes...

Considered as an engineering problem, I'll pull a number out of the air and say it's doable in just under a decade.

But that would require central planning: someone issues a decree on Monday saying "you will break ground for the pipe-making plant here, on Wednesday, and you will finish it in August 2009; you will break ground in the Sahara on 1 March 2009... send the bill to us".

Considered as a political problem, it's about 25 years off, at full tilt; 40 at normal pace.

To achieve it without central planning, you'd need international treaties to set up market conditions that would make it profitable to bid for the work.

Considering the political problem in engineering terms: it is a system with massive built-in lags and hysteresis. It takes a minimum of six months to prepare the papers and positions for a diplomatic conference: this is determined by how fast the "sherpas" that prepare for climbing the Summit can read and how rapidly they can call meetings with the democratically-elected politicians they control :)

Mind you, in this week's New Scientist economist Susan George proposes that the answer is, indeed, to put the economy on something as urgent as a "war footing":

I see what you're saying, but think you're actually wrong.

Reason being that this isn't based on one big project that has to all happen at once, it's a whole series of easily doable projects that all make economic sense to all the countries involved.

We could have the first hvdc cable from the UK to North Africa installed very easily through a bilateral agreement, which is fully proven and commercially available technology.

Then it becomes instantly economically viable to build CST power stations in the desert using public or private finances.

they're estimating 12 years for new nuclear, which given the fin's experience is likely to be more like 15.

15 years a combination of Concentrated Solar Thermal in North Africa with HVDC cables direct to the UK, Seven Estuary Tidal Barrage, large scale offshore wind, tidal stream, biogas from waste, Geothermal in Iceland (via the HVDC cable that's being laid already), and hydro from Norway via the HVDC cables (Norway > Holland > UK that are already being installed - or direct cables) would easily be able to beat the 10 gig their talking about from nuclear.

It'd also set us well on course to being able to keep up with the new generation needed to replace aging power stations as they close with new CST in the deserts, increasing HVDC links across Europe and down to Africa, large offshore wave generator fields and all the other renewables.

Never mind the input from micro renewables.

essentially what's needed is a stepped programme that aims to replace existing generation capacity as it goes offstream, and that's well within the scope of what's technically and politically possible given some serious political will and investment. Something that could be kicked off by the government stopping it's recent practice of stealing £150 million a year or so from the funds raised from the non fossil fuel obligation that were earmarked for funding for renewables projects, but instead have been being taken by the treasury.
 
Yep, I'd have thought the EU would have to get involved for Europe. It would be relatively easy for the US though, just bang em up in the desert?

I think it would also probably help kick start the logistics if we invaded Spain.
 
But only if someone says:

well yeah, obviously someone's got to pay for it, but there's around half a billion quid the treasury's so far robbed from the NFFO funds that should have been ring fenced for renewables investment, and a current annual underspend of around £150 million that should by rights be being spent on renewables projects but isn't.

also it looks like the Iceland HVDC link up may end up being mostly financed by Germany, with 1 or 2 UK links via scotland and potentially the north east (fucked up in the previous post, as I don't think they've actually started work yet).
The Icelandic National Energy Authority signed a deal last month with Energie Baden-Wörttemberg, the German energy company, that could lead to the resulting electricity being transmitted to Europe along a 1,200-mile seafloor cable. It would be capable of carrying energy to Britain’s national grid before reaching Germany.
[times]

If the UK government had any sense though IMO they'd be loaning Iceland the wedge they need currently in exchange for long-term geothermal / hydro power contracts... effectively loaning them the money to build the extra hydro and geothermal plants, and HVDC links to supply the UK with ultra low carbon electricity at prices that are lower than (or at least competitive with) either UK based coal or nuclear. Meaning we get our money back, and get cheap reliable renewable power guaranteed.

...there should be no major difficulties in the manufacture and laying of submarine cables of the length and type necessary for the link; the availability of the connection should be at least equal to that of a new coal or nuclear plant; and the cost of energy delivered would be very competitive with that from new coal or nuclear power stations
[IEEE study - from 1989 ffs]

Geologists say that Iceland has barely scratched the surface of its geothermal energy potential. The country's National Energy Authority estimates that only 20-25% of the technically and environmentally feasible hydropower, and only 20% of the conventional geothermal potential available for electricity production in Iceland, have been harnessed.
[guardian]

from some rough calcs, fully tapping the geothermal and hydro capacity of iceland would cover around 10% of the UK's annual consumption... but more importantly would be able to act in place of spinning reserve to enable the UK to have much higher levels of wind than would otherwise be possible... probably the real reason for the German interest given their current high levels of wind power. The only reason Denmark has been able to have such high levels of wind power is their use of norwegian hydro as back up for periods when the wind stops blowing, and as an export market for when there's too much danish wind generation.

The UK currently has a bit over 2 GW pumped storage, it needs much more than that if it's to fully expoit it's huge wind, tidal and wave potential without the need for fossil fuel spinning reserve. An Icelandic HVDC link should be a major part of this, together with links to norway, and the link ups to north africa for the CST stuff.

Nuclear has zero capability to assist an electricity grid coping with the adaption to high levels of renewables, and actually hinders this development as it increases the risk of oversupply problems when renewables peak during the night when demand is at it's lowest, and the nuclear can't just be switched off.

Sorry I've kinda jumped off the desert CST thing for a minute...
 
well yeah, obviously someone's got to pay for it, but there's around half a billion quid the treasury's so far robbed from the NFFO funds that should have been ring fenced for renewables investment, and a current annual underspend of around £150 million that should by rights be being spent on renewables projects but isn't.

also it looks like the Iceland HVDC link up may end up being mostly financed by Germany, with 1 or 2 UK links via scotland and potentially the north east (fucked up in the previous post, as I don't think they've actually started work yet).
[times]

If the UK government had any sense though IMO they'd be loaning Iceland the wedge they need currently in exchange for long-term geothermal / hydro power contracts... effectively loaning them the money to build the extra hydro and geothermal plants, and HVDC links to supply the UK with ultra low carbon electricity at prices that are lower than (or at least competitive with) either UK based coal or nuclear. Meaning we get our money back, and get cheap reliable renewable power guaranteed.

[IEEE study - from 1989 ffs]

[guardian]

from some rough calcs, fully tapping the geothermal and hydro capacity of iceland would cover around 10% of the UK's annual consumption... but more importantly would be able to act in place of spinning reserve to enable the UK to have much higher levels of wind than would otherwise be possible... probably the real reason for the German interest given their current high levels of wind power. The only reason Denmark has been able to have such high levels of wind power is their use of norwegian hydro as back up for periods when the wind stops blowing, and as an export market for when there's too much danish wind generation.

The UK currently has a bit over 2 GW pumped storage, it needs much more than that if it's to fully expoit it's huge wind, tidal and wave potential without the need for fossil fuel spinning reserve. An Icelandic HVDC link should be a major part of this, together with links to norway, and the link ups to north africa for the CST stuff.

Nuclear has zero capability to assist an electricity grid coping with the adaption to high levels of renewables, and actually hinders this development as it increases the risk of oversupply problems when renewables peak during the night when demand is at it's lowest, and the nuclear can't just be switched off.

Sorry I've kinda jumped off the desert CST thing for a minute...

No, no keep going - interesting :) Nice idea about the loans to Iceland in exchange for cheap geothermal.
 
No, no keep going - interesting :) Nice idea about the loans to Iceland in exchange for cheap geothermal.
ok then... briefly, if we pull our collective fingers out

by 2015
- 6.6 GW installed offshore wind capacity
- 8.3 GW additional installed onshore wind
- 5-7 GW from the severn tidal barrage
- 2 GW HVDC cable to Iceland, with 1-2 GW new geothermal & Hydro
- 1-2GW HVDC cable to Norway to use their hydro as a buffer for our wind
- 0.1-0.5GW Tidal stream
- 0.1-0.5GW wave
- 1 GW biomass (including co-firing at Drax)
- 0.5 GW CCS coal
- 0.1-0.3 GW Biogas from waste (landfill gas + anaerobic digestors for compostable waste separated from municipal waste streams, farm waste and sewage treatment plants)

using Icelandic and Norwegian hydro as back up for wind, you should be able to up the actual average delivered energy from wind, eg you'd combine the total wind and hydro and take a percentage of around 40-50% (educated guesstimate) of that total to give you the average energy delivered to the UK from the combined systems. Actually you'd probably want to do that for the tidal and wave stuff as well, so all that would give us a combined total of around 8-12gw average generating capacity, 20-24gw peak... plus the CCS coal and biomass to give 10-14 GW average additional generating capacity

note, the figures for onshore wind are a combination of the total wind power currently under construction, and total wind power that's already got planning permission but construction hasn't started on yet. Offshore wind figure from BWEA report

also potential for significant contribution from multiple smaller scale urban wind turbines, domestic solar thermal for hot water, solar thermal with inter-seasonal termal stores for space heating for larger buildings (schools, hospitals, offices etc)

additional nuclear capacity capable of being built by 2015 = nothing.


by 2020
more of the above, plus
2GW concetrated solar thermal from north africa via HDVC
2-5 GW CCS Coal

offshore wind, tidal lagoons and similar, urban wind, tidal stream would probably be developing fastest in this period, along with solar thermal for water and space heating.

which should give a potential for 20 GW + of new renewable / carbon neutral power generation (from current levels not additional to 2015 figures)

nuclear would probably have 1-2 GW of new generation capacity on stream at most by 2020.

by 2025 nuclear could potentially have the full 10 GW new generating capacity on stream if they went full tilt at it, but 2030 would be more realistic really. By that stage all the renewable and carbon neutral technologies could be fully tried and tested, with economies of scale kicking in to make them all much more economic, and the skills base would be developed enough to enable the process of installing them to be much faster, so we could easily be looking at 30-50 GW of new installed capacity from the range of renewables and carbon neutral generators... ie 3-5 times what nuclear can deliver in the same timescale.


figures are mostly educated guesswork other than those for wind, but based on my uerstanding of the state of play, current planned and easily feasible developments in the various sectors. All these developments should be possible at costs per unit of energy delivered comparible or less than the nuclear option - particularly if you include realistic decommisioning and waste treatment/storage costs in the nuclear equation.
 
btw I think the concentrated solar thermal in North Africa and HVDC cable link would really ramp up from 2025-2030 onwards, as would tidal lagoons, and largescale offshore wave power fields spread over hundreds of square miles of the sea...

all this is based on us not falling for another con job by the nuclear power lobby like the one they used in 1982 to close down the wave power research programme when wave power was only about a year or 2 from commercial scale installations generating electricity at 3-5.5p per kwh.

had that programme been allowed to continue we'd have had tens of gigawatts of wave power installed by now, potentially have avoided the disastrous 1990's dash for gas and still have enough north sea gas reserves to keep us going for another couple of decades without needing to import gas.

The nuclear lobby is also largely responsible for the slow uptake of wind in this country, with Bernard Ingham entirely coincidentally being a PR consultant for BNFL while at the same time founding country guardians the main UK opposition group to wind power, and using his influence on the board of the MOD to over-rule the airforce, and ensure MOD objections to several gigawatts of new windfarm developments (due to 'radar interference') that the RAF had previously had no problem with. The MOD being by far the biggest block on wind farm development in this country over the last 15 years... erm or so a pretty miffed wind farm developer told me a few years back.

the end result of all this being that the nuclear lobby can point to the failure of renewables to become a serious generator, and make out that only nuclear can offer the solution, the line they've pushed very successfully over the last few years.

bottom line, let's not fall for the nuclear lobbies bullshit again this time...

ah yes, speaking of bullshit from the nuclear lobby, Greenpeace has just won a ruling that shows the market research side of the last consultancy the government did on nuclear was biased. Why would they need to deliberately manipulate the research if the case for nuclear really stood up to scrutiny?
 
If this was a fair debate, the nuclear lobby should just have had the final nail hammered into the coffin of their arguements with the news that the first of the next generation of nuclear power stations to be built in Finland is now 50% over budget and 3 years behind schedule.

Bearing in mind that pretty much the entire thrust of the nuclear lobbies arguement for a new generation of nuclear around the time of the 2nd government energy 'consultation' was that this generation of nuclear power stations wouldn't be subject to the budget increases and delays of pervious generations, using this very same Finish power station as a demonstration of how they could be built on time and to budget.

for the number crunchers, that's EUR 4.5 billion for a 1.6 gigawatt nuclear power station, plus operating and decommissioning costs.
 
Yep I saw that about the nuclear industry Stuffing the Duck with the funding :( patriotic lot, too, aren't they.

I've just been reading about feed-in tariffs and how successful they've been in Germany. Has meant a lot of small to medium scale renewables have come on line - reducing transmission costs because they supply local demand. Interesting article talking about them (particularly as alternative to carbon trading and incidentally how crap that has been) on:

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____27513.aspx

And we've not really talked about reducing demand. I've always thought the way would be for building societies to provide loans for making the low-cost improvements and solar water heating, etc, paid out of the reductions in energy bills people would be getting. After three to five years the improvements would have paid for themselves and people would start getting the lower bills.

Eta: the solar thermal could come on stream a lot quicker than you've allowed for. Last time I looked Ausra (http://www.ausra.com/) would build as many systems as people could throw money at.
 
HVDC from Iceland is just about the best renewable project Ive heard off. Its awesome it ticks every box. The technology is old enough to be bullet proof, Iceland is not just politicaly stable its about the most politicaly stable nation on earth. I can see absolutely no show stoppers. Cost is the only real question and there I think that the past years price spike has taught us that our energy prices are probibly on the up for the forseeable future.

I seriously think that you can use that as basicaly guarenteed base load capacity. It predictable, on all the time, its effectively carbon nutral once we take into account the carbon used to manufacture it. By a country mile its the best energy solution Ive seen. 5 stars.

But its only going to be a mitigation not a complete replacement.
 
I seriously think that you can use that as basicaly guarenteed base load capacity. .
the thing is that we've got to redefine how we think about the 'base load', as a system with high levels of renewables is just not suited to the traditional 'always on' type base load of nuclear. What we need is a a more reactive system, capable of shutting down pretty much everything but wind/wave/tidal if we have a lot of these sources that are peaking overnight, and kicking in when the output from these sources drops.

If we have 10gw of nuclear that can't be switched off over night, then this effectively places an upper limit for renewables that's 10 GW lower than it otherwise could be for the next 40-50 years.

The only good thing to be said for nuclear really is that it's left us with the legacy of around 3 GW pump storage that is a ready made 6 GW buffer (3GW supply + 3 GW storage) for the fluctuations in wind etc.

We also need much greater dynamic demand management to automatically switch off stuff like fridges, freezers, and hopefully the large amount of overnight charging ground source heatpumps, and electric vehicles, to give an instantly reactive system to reduce demand for 20-30 minute periods while we get the Icelandic / Norwegian Hydro / UK pump storage / biogas generators onstream.

Luckily all the different renewables have different rates of fluctuation, so they'll not all peak and trough at the same time, eg.

wave power's peaks and troughs will tend to lag behind the peaks and troughs of wind, and be a much slower rate of change,

tidal has highly predictable patterns as does tidal stream, and tidal can be done with added pump storage to smooth out the peaks and troughs, produce greater overall output, and better match supply with demand,

hydro can just sit there quite happily doing nothing apart from meeting the peak demand when production from other renewables is limited (which would also generate the biggest return on investment for the hydro operators)

Biogas could also operate like hydro storing up the gas for use to supply the peaks when other supplies are limited.

etc


btw the BWEA and UKERC say there's no problem with upto 20% of the UK's generating capacity coming from wind with very little adaption of the rest of the system. The stuff I'm talking about is more for looking at preparing for the situation from 2020 or so onwards, once we've hit that 20% mark.
 
the thing is that we've got to redefine how we think about the 'base load', as a system with high levels of renewables is just not suited to the traditional 'always on' type base load of nuclear. What we need is a a more reactive system, capable of shutting down pretty much everything but wind/wave/tidal if we have a lot of these sources that are peaking overnight, and kicking in when the output from these sources drops.
"Load shedding"

I really understand why people want to go running off and build survival 'homesteads', 'bunkers' or 'shelters'. The economic consaquencies of these changes are going to be a massive reduced amount of economic activity. We have been given a glimpse of what a lack of confence in the market looks like, when this all hits home things could get ugly.

By 2020, I would say that I have a high degree of confidence we will be well into the downside of oil production with huge gap in total energy. Probibly significant drop in natural gas although NG has a few cards up its sleave. Very high energy costs completely changing the costs of large civil engineering ventures.


I wonder when the penny will drop and people will actualy realise we need to get working solutions rapidly?
 
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.
On a think global, stay local perspective their is the possibility of mining Uranium in Orkneys and Cornwall, Thatcher failed to open these because of Public Pressure.

However i'm sure like with many other policies of recent Conservative governments, New Labour could acheive this, where as the former could only dream about it.
 
According to Arthur, Carbon Ommisions have gone up as the use of Coal has decreased, and there is only enough Uranium at the moment to last us 50 years:

ENVIRONMENT



THE PUBLIC IS BEING MISLED BY SO-CALLED EXPERTS WHO CLAIM THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY CO2 EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS.

THE REALITY IS VERY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DESTRUCTION OF A RAINFOREST THE SIZE OF EUROPE RELEASES THOUSANDS OF TONNES OF CO2 AND REMOVES THE TREES WHICH CAPTURE CO2 AND EMIT OXYGEN. ENVIRONMENTALISTS, WHILST WELL-MEANING, ARE MISGUIDED. THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES AND PLANTS RESULTS IN 20% OF ALL CO2 EMISSIONS WORLDWIDE.



THE SO-CALLED EXPERTS HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY EMISSIONS FROM POWER STATIONS HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE AND NOT THE DECREASE PROJECTED IN CO2 BETWEEN 1993 AND 2007.

IN 1993, THE UK WAS SUBJECTED TO A SECOND MASSIVE PIT CLOSURE PROGRAMME WITHIN 10 YEARS AND A SWITCH FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION TO GAS-FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION.



THIS POLICY WHICH ITS SUPPORTERS CLAIM WOULD (a) BE MORE ECONOMIC AND (b) REDUCE DRAMATICALLY THE EMISSION OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) HAS HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.



IN 1993, POWER STATIONS PRODUCED 171.7 MILLION TONNES OF (CO2*), YET IN 2007, POWER STATIONS PRODUCED 180.2 MILLION TONNES OF CO2, 8.5 MILLION TONNES MORE OR AN INCREASE OF 5% IN 14 YEARS.



NEW COMBINED CYCLE GAS-FIRED POWER STATIONS PRODUCE 40% LESS CO2 THAN CONVENTIONAL COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS BUT THESE FIGURES ARE NOT MERELY MISLEADING, THEY AMOUNT TO A MONUMENTAL LIE.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE UK WAS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COMBINED CYCLE COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS EQUIPPED WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS CARBON CAPTURE THEN A COAL-FIRED POWER STATION EQUIPPED WITH CARBON CAPTURE WOULD REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS BY MORE THAN 90%!

CARBON CAPTURE DOES WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, A PILOT SCHEME IN CARLIFORNIA CAPTURES 800 TONNES OF CO2 PER DAY AND IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT A 500 MW COAL-FIRED POWER STATION COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A CARBON CAPTURE CAPACITY WHICH WOULD REDUCE UK POWER STANTION CO2 EMISSIONS BY OVER 90%.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW COMBINED CYCLE COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS WITH CARBON CAPTURE CAN BE A REALITY WITHIN 5 YEARS PROVIDED GOVERNMENTS WILL COMMIT THE FINANCE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS NUCLEAR MADNESS WITH NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS - WHICH WILL TAKE 15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT - AT A COST INCLUDING DECOMMISSIONING 400% HIGHER THAN THE COST OF A COAL-FIRED POWER STATION.

EQUALLY IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, IS THE FACT THAT BRITAIN’S INDIGENOUS GAS SUPPLY IS VIRTUALLY EXHAUSTED AND WE WILL HAVE TO IMPORT 90% OF OUR GAS WITHIN 5 YEARS.



OUR OIL RESERVES ARE VIRTUALLY EXHAUSTED AND WITHIN 10 YEARS WE WILL BE IMPORTING 80% OF OUR OIL.

URANIUM - THE FUEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER - WILL EXHAUST WORLDWIDE IN 50 YEARS.



IN 2007, CO2 EMISSIONS EMANATED FROM THE FOLLOWING FUELS/SOURCES:



GAS 193.79 MILLION TONNES (35.62%)

OIL 184.9 MILLION TONNES (34.00%)

COAL 150.5 MILLION TONNES (27.68%)

NON FUEL 14.5 MILLION TONNES (2.66%)



THE PROPORTIONS OF GREENHOUSE BASES WHICH ARE THE CAUSE OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT ARE: CARBONDIOXIDE 70%; METHANE 23% AND NITROUS OXIDE 7%. METHANE IS 23 TIMES MORE POTENT AS A GREENHOUSE GAS THAN CO2 AND NITROUS OXIDE IS 296 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN CO2 OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.



IT CAN BE SEEN THAT 378.69 MILLION TONNES OF CO2 OR 70% OF CO2 IS PRODUCED BY GAS AND OIL AND ONE HAS TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY ARE THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS NOT TARGETING THE REAL CULPRITS SUCH AS ROAD TRANSPORT, GAS USE, INCLUDING POWER STATIONS, INDUSTRY AND DOMESTIC USAGE?



NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT AN OPTION - - IT IS EXPENSIVE AND IS THE MOST DANGEROUS POWER SOURCE EVER INVENTED. THE RATE OF CANCER AND LEUKAEMIA IN AND AROUND NUCLEAR STATIONS - - PARTICULARLY FOR CHILDREN - - IS 10% HIGHER THAN IN THE GENERAL POPULATION.



SAFETY



THE DISASTERS AT WINDSCALE IN 1957, THREE-MILE ISLAND IN 1979 AND CHERNOBYL IN 1986 WILL RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF BETWEEN 100,000 AND 200,000 - - - - THESE FIGURES ARE NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION.



DR ROBERT GALE PREDICTED OVER 100,000 DEATHS FROM CHERNOBYL ALONE AND RICHARD WEBB PREDICTED THAT UP TO 280,000 WOULD DIE OVER A 30 - 40 YEAR PERIOD FROM THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER.



URANIUM



IN THE PAST 158 YEARS, OVER 100,000 MINERS WORLDWIDE HAVE DIED IN THE COAL-MINING INDUSTRY. COMPARE THIS UNACCEPTABLE FIGURE WITH THE PROJECTED DEATH RATE OF BETWEEN 100,000 AND 280,000 WHO WILL DIE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION IN 1986.

THESE FIGURES DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF RADIATION CONTAMINATION FROM MINING URANIUM OR THE NUMBERS OF WORKERS IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WHO HAVE DIED AND NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN AND AROUND NUCLEAR STATIONS WHO HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF RADIATION CONTAMINATION.

TODAY, THE LEVEL OF RADIATION AT THE DISCHARGE PIPES AT SELLAFIELD INTO THE IRISH SEA IS 56 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE RADIATION LEVEL IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATOMIC TESTING AREA IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN.
http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/upto_date_news_and_comment_can_b.htm
Another slp:
http://www.slp-energy.com/default.asp
 
Apparentely Britain could be self sufficient+ using coal.
Heard Arthur in a talk before saying that there are coal seams in Surrey: a good case for de-gentrification:rolleyes::D

"WE HAVE 1000 YEARS OF COAL RESERVES BENEATH OUR FEET. IF WE PRODUCE 250 MILLION TONNES OF COAL PER YEAR FROM DEEP MINING IN BRITAIN - WHICH COULD BE DONE WITHIN TWO YEARS - WE COULD EXTRACT FROM UK DEEP MINE COAL, ALL THE OIL, GAS, PETROCHEMICALS AND STILL USE THE FUEL TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY FREE FROM CO2 EMISSIONS."
http://www.socialist-labour-party.or...ment_can_b.htm
 
THE REALITY IS VERY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DESTRUCTION OF A RAINFOREST THE SIZE OF EUROPE RELEASES THOUSANDS OF TONNES OF CO2 AND REMOVES THE TREES WHICH CAPTURE CO2 AND EMIT OXYGEN. ENVIRONMENTALISTS, WHILST WELL-MEANING, ARE MISGUIDED. THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES AND PLANTS RESULTS IN 20% OF ALL CO2 EMISSIONS WORLDWIDE.
and of course, no environmentalists have thought about raising the issue of rainforest destruction over the last few decades have they... no wait, actually it's been one of the consistent issues environmentalists have been campaigning about, but we're capable of understanding that there's more than one problem going on at once.



THE SO-CALLED EXPERTS HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY EMISSIONS FROM POWER STATIONS HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE AND NOT THE DECREASE PROJECTED IN CO2 BETWEEN 1993 AND 2007.

IN 1993, THE UK WAS SUBJECTED TO A SECOND MASSIVE PIT CLOSURE PROGRAMME WITHIN 10 YEARS AND A SWITCH FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION TO GAS-FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION.



THIS POLICY WHICH ITS SUPPORTERS CLAIM WOULD (a) BE MORE ECONOMIC AND (b) REDUCE DRAMATICALLY THE EMISSION OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) HAS HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.



IN 1993, POWER STATIONS PRODUCED 171.7 MILLION TONNES OF (CO2*), YET IN 2007, POWER STATIONS PRODUCED 180.2 MILLION TONNES OF CO2, 8.5 MILLION TONNES MORE OR AN INCREASE OF 5% IN 14 YEARS.

well that one's fucking easy...

Total electricity generated in 1993 = 305433 GWH
Total electricity generated in 2008 = 358252 GWH

17% increase in power generated vs 5% increase in CO2...



arthur said:
IN 2007, CO2 EMISSIONS EMANATED FROM THE FOLLOWING FUELS/SOURCES:



GAS 193.79 MILLION TONNES (35.62%)

OIL 184.9 MILLION TONNES (34.00%)

COAL 150.5 MILLION TONNES (27.68%)

NON FUEL 14.5 MILLION TONNES (2.66%)

those figures aren't just for the CO2 from power generation though, they're the total figures for all usage - so for coal that's pretty much all power generation, whereas for gas it's power generation at roughly the same rate as coal, plus heating of 90 odd % of the countries buildings and hot water, and a fair amount of cooking.

THE PROPORTIONS OF GREENHOUSE BASES WHICH ARE THE CAUSE OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT ARE: CARBONDIOXIDE 70%; METHANE 23% AND NITROUS OXIDE 7%. METHANE IS 23 TIMES MORE POTENT AS A GREENHOUSE GAS THAN CO2 AND NITROUS OXIDE IS 296 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN CO2 OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.



arthur said:
IT CAN BE SEEN THAT 378.69 MILLION TONNES OF CO2 OR 70% OF CO2 IS PRODUCED BY GAS AND OIL AND ONE HAS TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY ARE THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS NOT TARGETING THE REAL CULPRITS SUCH AS ROAD TRANSPORT, GAS USE, INCLUDING POWER STATIONS, INDUSTRY AND DOMESTIC USAGE?
*sigh*
erm, when environmentalists were blocking the governments road building programme through the 90's, closing down roads at RTS protests, campaigning for public transport, car free city centres, bike facilities etc. and campaigning against airport expansions, I mistakenly thought we were targeting CO2 from oil use... silly me, how could I have got it so wrong?:confused:

he's got a point about the whole 'dash for gas' thing, environmentalists were IMO caught on the hop with that, as gas should never have been used for electricity generation - it's much more efficient for use for cooking and heating directly. We got confused by all the stuff about it being more efficient than coal, which it is in the short term, but now we're running out of gas to use for heating and cooking.
 
Apparentely Britain could be self sufficient+ using coal.
Heard Arthur in a talk before saying that there are coal seams in Surrey: a good case for de-gentrification:rolleyes::D

"WE HAVE 1000 YEARS OF COAL RESERVES BENEATH OUR FEET. IF WE PRODUCE 250 MILLION TONNES OF COAL PER YEAR FROM DEEP MINING IN BRITAIN - WHICH COULD BE DONE WITHIN TWO YEARS - WE COULD EXTRACT FROM UK DEEP MINE COAL, ALL THE OIL, GAS, PETROCHEMICALS AND STILL USE THE FUEL TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY FREE FROM CO2 EMISSIONS."
http://www.socialist-labour-party.or...ment_can_b.htm
he could well be right, problem is that because he's been so misleading with the figures I've commented on above, I've no confidence in anything else he says.

If he wants to be taken seriously in this debate, then he really ought to stop putting out very obviously misleading figures.
 
the possibility of mining Uranium in Orkneys and Cornwall, Thatcher failed to open these...


Orkney:

Orkney_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg


cliffs-south-ronaldsay-orkney-islands-scotland-united-kingdom.jpg


Uranium mine:

250px-MineArlit1.jpg


...because of Public Pressure.

You don't say :D

Cornwall it is, then.
 
I wonder what the cost is of building dams as energy stores rather than sources. Doing something like damning up a narrow scottish sea loch like Loch Broome and pumping sea water in to create a huge damn behind it that could be used to store solar and wind energy. There are currently few if any sites for really huge hydro electric damns but they could still be used as giant batteries, and by using sea water you would not be dependent on a running river.
 
Orkney:

Orkney_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg


cliffs-south-ronaldsay-orkney-islands-scotland-united-kingdom.jpg


Uranium mine:

250px-MineArlit1.jpg




You don't say :D

Cornwall it is, then.

Lol.

I think the Cornish, some of whom have an intense dislike of the English anyway (I'm part Cornish/part English and I can safely say this is true), would rise up like you wouldn't believe at the mere suggestion of mining uranium there.
 
The coal that is currently being got from surface mines could become more valuable as energy costs rise. The old deep mines will probably never be profitable now that they have been allowed to fall into disrepair.

Given that deep mines were dug as profit making ventures over hundreds of years, why do you think it will "never be profitable"?

It will if this is the only remaining source of energy and the price of coal goes up as energy sources become rarer......

Giles..
 
Yes unless science comes up with an impressive leap, the black gold will shine again one day, but it could still be quite a long time off.
 
Coal can be dirty but the CO² argument put forward by the nuclear lobby is plain hypocrisy. Just looking for another bullshit argument to keep that industry awash with huge subsidies. Arthur may be the king of the one liner but he once said that if British coal got the sme subsisides as nuclear energy they could delivery every tonne with a 20 poud note attached to it and that was when 20 quid was worth something.

I reckon the ruling class are loving it seeing greenies and leftires squabble over the issue.
 
Meanwhile the mine near me is on track to produce more coal this year than any other mine has ever produced in this country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/08/mining-fossilfuels

Sounds like it all goes to electricity generation. When I was a kid it probably went to the local power station, which was the biggest in Europe for a time, and probably exposed me to some nasties in the air in my formative years. That power station is long gone, now its a industrial park, big warehouses with a rail link to overseas. The coal now travels slightly further away to be burnt.
 
Lol.

I think the Cornish, some of whom have an intense dislike of the English anyway (I'm part Cornish/part English and I can safely say this is true), would rise up like you wouldn't believe at the mere suggestion of mining uranium there.

Put them down Once can do it again if nesscary .Much as I would like to see the hell which is dartmoor strip mined .Think a deal with iceland is a better idea .
 
Back
Top Bottom