Headlines
Nuclear power station could be built in county
 |
| Option: Didcot power station could go nuclear |
FEARS of a nuclear power station being built in Oxfordshire were mounting today as the Didcot area emerged as a likely site.
Harwell was included as a "key opportunity for nuclear development" in a report as the Government begins planning for a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Didcot, as an existing power station, could also be considered as a potential site for a nuclear power station, according to a Government paper.
The report, commissioned from a leading energy analyst, sets out why sites in Oxfordshire should be looked at among favoured locations in the South of England.
The report urges the Government to focus on existing civil nuclear licensed sites, such as Harwell.
The atomic research site at Harwell is viewed as one of the best available locations.
But alarm in Oxfordshire will be intensified by news that nearby Didcot Power Station is also mentioned as a possible site - meaning that the county has two potential sites for a nuclear power station.
For the consultants say that conventional power station sites should also be carefully considered.
The report, by Jackson Consulting, was commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Consultants say that a new power station would require vast cooling towers "as used by conventional coal and gas fired generating stations such as Didcot in Oxfordshire".
It suggests that building a nuclear power station on such a site would avoid many problems and some of the public protests that would likely arise elsewhere in the country.
The report says: "Cooling towers are very large structures which substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion, causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance, as well as adding to the cost of construction and reducing the station's power output three to five per cent."
According to the Jackson report, ease of connection to the national grid is the main factor in determining a site's suitability.
Ed Vaizey, the Conservative MP for Wantage and Didcot, said he had received no advanced warning of the report.
He said: "It does not surprise me that Didcot and Harwell have been put in the frame for the next generation of nuclear power stations.
"My constituency already supplies a third of the power for the South East and drives the South East's economy. The Government also wants us to supply half of London's water.
"But this is a research exercise. It is a million miles from being a firm proposal. But obviously we must be prepared for any proposal in the future."
The report was submitted to the DTI last year.
But efforts by Greenpeace to use the freedom of information rules to make it public were repeatedly blocked.
The study was finally disclosed as the Government published its latest energy white paper.
Greenpeace director John Saven said: "The list of preferred sites for new build in this report is a matter of national interest, not just something for civil servants to see. It is scandalous the Government was going to keep it under wraps."
Craig Simmons, leader of the Green Party on Oxfordshire County Council, said: "This suggests that Oxfordshire is the most likely inland site for a nuclear power station.
"Having a nuclear power station on Oxford's door steps highlights many issues of safety. It is an inappropriate site."
Neville Harris, county councillor for Didcot South, said: "There must be a huge and proper debate.
"And the outcome of this debate must not be prejudged. I know a lot of people will want to talk about renewable energy.
"Politicians at all levels must not abdicate their responsibility by seeking to privatise important environmental decisions."
Local people were appalled and surprised by the news that they could have a nuclear power station on their doorstep.
Tessa Avenell, of Harwell, said: "I am pretty shocked about this. I didn't know anything about it, so I am very surprised.
"I would consider moving if they built a nuclear power station near here."
Joyce Norton, of Barrow Park, Harwell, said: "I have been here for seven years and I really like it. I wouldn't be at all happy if they built something like that here."
Oxford Friends of the Earth spokesman, Andrew Wood, said: "It's largely speculation at the moment, if there would be a nuclear power station at Harwell, or indeed elsewhere in Oxfordshire.
"The Government is missing a golden opportunity to make the UK a world leader in developing a safe, clean and low-carbon future.
"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions.
"It would also divert valuable resources from sustainable solutions for tackling climate change.
"The Government should set out ambitious policies on energy efficiency, renewable power, carbon capture and cleaner systems of transport.
"Unfortunately, ministers have been taken in by the nuclear lobby yet again."
The DTI said the report's conclusions were those of the consultants and it was too early to consider the siting of any potential new stations.
Of the UK's 19 existing civil nuclear power station sites, only nine are considered feasible for new reactors, and only four are immediately available.
The report adds that new stations are unlikely to be feasible in Wales and Scotland because of devolution.
Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it would be a profound mistake to rule out nuclear energy at a time of dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies and pressure to tackle green house gas emissions.
7:00am Friday 25th May 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Barry, oxford on 1:39pm Thu 24 May 07
"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions
Why is a nuclear power station an ineffective way to cut carbon emissions? Surely as opposed to a coal fired power station it produces less carbon emissions. Meaning carbon emissions have been cut. Not that I really believe in man-made climate change anyway
"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions
Why is a nuclear power station an ineffective way to cut carbon emissions? Surely as opposed to a coal fired power station it produces less carbon emissions. Meaning carbon emissions have been cut. Not that I really believe in man-made climate change anyway
Posted by: james, Oxford on 2:28pm Thu 24 May 07
We would have to live with a nuclear new power station at Didcot until well into the middle of this century. This means we will have to live with the risk of terrorism targeting nuclear power for more than fifty years. Who knows how terrorists will operate in ten, twenty or thirty years? Nuclear power is too dangerous. If it made a massive difference to CO2 emissions or energy security then perhaps the risk would be worth taking, but is doesn't. To make a significant difference to CO2 emissions on a global scale, more than one new reactor would have to be built every year for forty years! A nuclear enegry policy is bound to fail.
We would have to live with a nuclear new power station at Didcot until well into the middle of this century. This means we will have to live with the risk of terrorism targeting nuclear power for more than fifty years. Who knows how terrorists will operate in ten, twenty or thirty years? Nuclear power is too dangerous. If it made a massive difference to CO2 emissions or energy security then perhaps the risk would be worth taking, but is doesn't. To make a significant difference to CO2 emissions on a global scale, more than one new reactor would have to be built every year for forty years! A nuclear enegry policy is bound to fail.
Posted by: Ed, Oxford on 2:36pm Thu 24 May 07
Nuclear power is expensive, dirty and opens many cans of worms with terrorism, potential environmental damage, storage of waste, etc. Given the resources (i.e. manpower). We could build around 100,000 wind turbines in the same time it takes to build 1 nuclear power station. At life end, they can be dismantled in a few days, and at minimal cost. They're not solely the answer, but a big part of it. Let's capitalise on our status as Europe's windiest nation and generate as much power by wind as as possible. Perhaps a policy of every MW of non-renewable power to be matched by 10MW of renewable is a good start?
Nuclear power is expensive, dirty and opens many cans of worms with terrorism, potential environmental damage, storage of waste, etc. Given the resources (i.e. manpower). We could build around 100,000 wind turbines in the same time it takes to build 1 nuclear power station. At life end, they can be dismantled in a few days, and at minimal cost. They're not solely the answer, but a big part of it. Let's capitalise on our status as Europe's windiest nation and generate as much power by wind as as possible. Perhaps a policy of every MW of non-renewable power to be matched by 10MW of renewable is a good start?
Posted by: Peter, Faringdon/Harwell on 3:02pm Thu 24 May 07
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
Posted by: Paul, Oxford on 4:14pm Thu 24 May 07
[quote][bold]Peter[/bold] wrote:
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
[/quote] The reactors built 50 yeas ago such as the ones at Harwell were *really* dangerous and there have been no serious accidents. Modern reactors are completely safe and the time is long past when they were built in the middle of nowhere for fear they'd blow up. Didcot in particular would make a very sensible site.
Wind farms are the solution are they? The green party fanatics obviously haven't realised that the wind doesn't blow all the time, especially in the hottest days of summer when air conditioning is needed or the frostiest days of winter. We have enough problems with peak oil and climate change without misguided 'environmentalists' trying to block nuclear power.
Peter wrote:
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
The reactors built 50 yeas ago such as the ones at Harwell were *really* dangerous and there have been no serious accidents. Modern reactors are completely safe and the time is long past when they were built in the middle of nowhere for fear they'd blow up. Didcot in particular would make a very sensible site.
Wind farms are the solution are they? The green party fanatics obviously haven't realised that the wind doesn't blow all the time, especially in the hottest days of summer when air conditioning is needed or the frostiest days of winter. We have enough problems with peak oil and climate change without misguided 'environmentalists' trying to block nuclear power.
Posted by: Ed, Oxford ish on 8:00pm Thu 24 May 07
[quote][bold]Paul[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Peter[/bold] wrote:
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
[/quote] The reactors built 50 yeas ago such as the ones at Harwell were *really* dangerous and there have been no serious accidents. Modern reactors are completely safe and the time is long past when they were built in the middle of nowhere for fear they'd blow up. Didcot in particular would make a very sensible site.
Wind farms are the solution are they? The green party fanatics obviously haven't realised that the wind doesn't blow all the time, especially in the hottest days of summer when air conditioning is needed or the frostiest days of winter. We have enough problems with peak oil and climate change without misguided 'environmentalists' trying to block nuclear power.[/quote] No they're not the solution, no-one said they were. Not even the green lobby. Wind doesn't blow all the time, but turbines only need a breeze to move them. Remember that they are 45m+ high, not at ground level. Also, turbines out at sea where it is considerably more breezy are more efficient and don't attract as much NIMBY complaints. I'd be happy to have a few on Wittenham Clumps, and I live under a mile from it.
What so many people forget about nuclear is that you still need uranium ore to make fuel rods. This ore is available in quantity from places who are not exactly reliable (err, Russia, Uzbekistan, China..) and the only long term "safe-bet" on ore supply is Australia - who only have enough for 50 years for their own needs.
For all the money we've wasted on nuclear fusion research (£60bn+) we could have had clean alternatives decades ago.
There is no reason Africa, with it's sun-soaked deserts, can't be a solar power-station for Europe. Think of the economic change it could bring....to more corrupt dictators...oh I give up.
Paul wrote:
Peter wrote:
what is all the fuss about Harwell?
Harwell is the research home/birthplace of commercial nuclear power in this country. What is the problem with a new reactor? how many reactors have already been on that site over the last 50+ years?
Why are people so stupid and naive?
sigh....
The reactors built 50 yeas ago such as the ones at Harwell were *really* dangerous and there have been no serious accidents. Modern reactors are completely safe and the time is long past when they were built in the middle of nowhere for fear they'd blow up. Didcot in particular would make a very sensible site.
Wind farms are the solution are they? The green party fanatics obviously haven't realised that the wind doesn't blow all the time, especially in the hottest days of summer when air conditioning is needed or the frostiest days of winter. We have enough problems with peak oil and climate change without misguided 'environmentalists' trying to block nuclear power.
No they're not the solution, no-one said they were. Not even the green lobby. Wind doesn't blow all the time, but turbines only need a breeze to move them. Remember that they are 45m+ high, not at ground level. Also, turbines out at sea where it is considerably more breezy are more efficient and don't attract as much NIMBY complaints. I'd be happy to have a few on Wittenham Clumps, and I live under a mile from it.
What so many people forget about nuclear is that you still need uranium ore to make fuel rods. This ore is available in quantity from places who are not exactly reliable (err, Russia, Uzbekistan, China..) and the only long term "safe-bet" on ore supply is Australia - who only have enough for 50 years for their own needs.
For all the money we've wasted on nuclear fusion research (£60bn+) we could have had clean alternatives decades ago.
There is no reason Africa, with it's sun-soaked deserts, can't be a solar power-station for Europe. Think of the economic change it could bring....to more corrupt dictators...oh I give up.
Posted by: Robert Palgrave, Oxford ish on 7:02am Fri 25 May 07
Nuclear power provides 19 per cent of the UK's electricity but - much more importantly for both climate change and energy security - only 3.6 per cent of our energy.
Replacing our whole fleet of nuclear power stations would reduce our carbon emissions by just [bold]four per cent[/bold] . Some time after 2024. Far too little too late to tackle climate change (and that four per cent would be wiped out by emissions from aviation expansion alone).
There really is no need for nuclear power in the UK or in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
Nuclear power provides 19 per cent of the UK's electricity but - much more importantly for both climate change and energy security - only 3.6 per cent of our energy.
Replacing our whole fleet of nuclear power stations would reduce our carbon emissions by just
four per cent . Some time after 2024. Far too little too late to tackle climate change (and that four per cent would be wiped out by emissions from aviation expansion alone).
There really is no need for nuclear power in the UK or in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
Posted by: av, oxford on 11:05am Fri 25 May 07
Unfortunatly there are not many alternatives as long as the world needs electricity and its being used more and more, flat screen tellys, everything on standby, more computers all adds up. The populus will not cut it down so will have to put up with nuclear power stations, where else is it going to come from all the people complaining have not come up with one viable alternative.
CSP thats a good idea but needs a very large tower and a lot of acreage of land for the mirrors, good idea though, and there is one in Spain recently put into service.
Unfortunatly there are not many alternatives as long as the world needs electricity and its being used more and more, flat screen tellys, everything on standby, more computers all adds up. The populus will not cut it down so will have to put up with nuclear power stations, where else is it going to come from all the people complaining have not come up with one viable alternative.
CSP thats a good idea but needs a very large tower and a lot of acreage of land for the mirrors, good idea though, and there is one in Spain recently put into service.
Posted by: col, Oxford on 11:08am Fri 25 May 07
What is going to provide all the power for the multitude of Electric cars some people want to replace combustion engines?.
What is going to provide all the power for the multitude of Electric cars some people want to replace combustion engines?.
Posted by: Rebecca, Oxford on 11:27am Fri 25 May 07
Ed, you say all the money wasted on nuclear fusion research, but we are close to having the solution, and should have the first nuclear fusion power stations up and running within 30 years (nuclear fusion is what powers the sun, and is completely different to nuclear fission which is currently used in nuclear power stations).
Nuclear Fusion is the perfect solution - it is produced with abundantly available fuel (water and lithium, and very small amounts of each); it is completely clean, producing no greenhouse gases at all; it is safe - there is no chance of a chernobyl-type explosion; there is no radioactive waste produced (although the walls of the reactor do become slightly radioactive); and no nuclear weapons materials are produced.
Yes it is expensive to research and get it working (great temperatures and pressures are needed to get the power), but when it is working, it really will be our solution.
We need alternatives in the mean time because if we wait 30 years, it will be too late, but it is worth the money for research. £60billion is obviously a hell of a lot of money, but to put it in perspective, to replace Trident is expected to cost over £15billion, and which is more important - clean, abundant fuel, or an obsolete nuclear warhead capability?
Ed, you say all the money wasted on nuclear fusion research, but we are close to having the solution, and should have the first nuclear fusion power stations up and running within 30 years (nuclear fusion is what powers the sun, and is completely different to nuclear fission which is currently used in nuclear power stations).
Nuclear Fusion is the perfect solution - it is produced with abundantly available fuel (water and lithium, and very small amounts of each); it is completely clean, producing no greenhouse gases at all; it is safe - there is no chance of a chernobyl-type explosion; there is no radioactive waste produced (although the walls of the reactor do become slightly radioactive); and no nuclear weapons materials are produced.
Yes it is expensive to research and get it working (great temperatures and pressures are needed to get the power), but when it is working, it really will be our solution.
We need alternatives in the mean time because if we wait 30 years, it will be too late, but it is worth the money for research. £60billion is obviously a hell of a lot of money, but to put it in perspective, to replace Trident is expected to cost over £15billion, and which is more important - clean, abundant fuel, or an obsolete nuclear warhead capability?
Posted by: Mr Man, Oxford on 1:03pm Fri 25 May 07
It's only Didcot.
Posted by: Si, Didcot on 4:08pm Fri 25 May 07
I think if you actually read the Goverment paper it states that reusing existing Nuclear sites is more feasible. It only mentions Didcot as an example of what Cooling Towers would be needed inland as the usual Sea water availability is not there.I t goes on to mention Harwell because of its History as a test site in the Fifties.
The comment by Mr Man is the usual Drivel from a person who does not live in Didcot themselves.I reckon that a power stattion running on gas could be built and rub from all the hot air that is expelled daily from Oxford "The Seat of Learning " residents !
I think if you actually read the Goverment paper it states that reusing existing Nuclear sites is more feasible. It only mentions Didcot as an example of what Cooling Towers would be needed inland as the usual Sea water availability is not there.I t goes on to mention Harwell because of its History as a test site in the Fifties.
The comment by Mr Man is the usual Drivel from a person who does not live in Didcot themselves.I reckon that a power stattion running on gas could be built and rub from all the hot air that is expelled daily from Oxford "The Seat of Learning " residents !
Posted by: Si, Didcot on 4:10pm Fri 25 May 07
I meant Run not Rub in the previous post !
I meant Run not Rub in the previous post !
Posted by: Roger, Didcot on 6:01pm Fri 25 May 07
Didcot A power station is due to close in 2016 so a nuclear plant would offer employment to the staff. I think a lot of hot air is talked about the dangers of nuclear power, it is no worse than any other high tech indsutry.
Personally I would prefer nuclear power to wind turbines anyway. The truth of the matter is that we have two choices, going with nuclear or going without electricity. The green solutions are simply not capable of providing the power needed in the time scale without covering the land in wind turbines and soalr generators.
Didcot A power station is due to close in 2016 so a nuclear plant would offer employment to the staff. I think a lot of hot air is talked about the dangers of nuclear power, it is no worse than any other high tech indsutry.
Personally I would prefer nuclear power to wind turbines anyway. The truth of the matter is that we have two choices, going with nuclear or going without electricity. The green solutions are simply not capable of providing the power needed in the time scale without covering the land in wind turbines and soalr generators.
Posted by: Shadow, Didcot on 6:43pm Fri 25 May 07
So what do the NIMBY's and Greens want? Apparently we cannot have a nuclear power station on our doorstep; and as we are seeing in Oxford the NIMBY's don't want a wind turbine to spoil their view!
The worry of a terrorist target is ridiculous - how is a power station going to put the area at a greater threat than in the past when there were tactical nuclear airbases bordering the region, not to mention nuclear research and weapons facilities, military bases etc.
So what do the NIMBY's and Greens want? Apparently we cannot have a nuclear power station on our doorstep; and as we are seeing in Oxford the NIMBY's don't want a wind turbine to spoil their view!
The worry of a terrorist target is ridiculous - how is a power station going to put the area at a greater threat than in the past when there were tactical nuclear airbases bordering the region, not to mention nuclear research and weapons facilities, military bases etc.
Posted by: Ed, Oxford ish on 9:52pm Fri 25 May 07
Rebecca...we don't have 30 years to get fusion up and running. Having known a lot of the (now redundant) scientists at Culham, we've been "close" to having it working for at least 15 years. We can currently only sustain a fusion reaction for a few seconds. Was that worth all those billions?
What the world needs NOW is some answers to our ever increasing energy demand. We can't buy more time. Time won't accept our money.
Rebecca...we don't have 30 years to get fusion up and running. Having known a lot of the (now redundant) scientists at Culham, we've been "close" to having it working for at least 15 years. We can currently only sustain a fusion reaction for a few seconds. Was that worth all those billions?
What the world needs NOW is some answers to our ever increasing energy demand. We can't buy more time. Time won't accept our money.
Posted by: Gerry Wolff on 3:56pm Sun 27 May 07
Regarding Reg Little's report "Nuclear power station could be built in county" (2007-05-25), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the UK (or anywhere else in Europe) because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with less than 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
The potential is absolutely massive. It has been calculated that, if it was covered with CSP plants, an area of hot desert measuring about 110 km x 110 km would produce as much electricity as the EU consumes. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***" (emphasis added).
In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
Regarding Reg Little's report "Nuclear power station could be built in county" (2007-05-25), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the UK (or anywhere else in Europe) because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with less than 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
The potential is absolutely massive. It has been calculated that, if it was covered with CSP plants, an area of hot desert measuring about 110 km x 110 km would produce as much electricity as the EU consumes. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***" (emphasis added).
In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
Posted by: Michael Stuart, United States on 5:03am Mon 28 May 07
Regardless of whether nuclear power is part of the answer, Palgrave and Wolff seriously exaggerate the effectiveness of solar power.
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/gro
ss_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/com
parative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/gen/fy98/24496.
pdf ), these systems are often "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, the rest of the world cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/i
ndex.asp?catnum=1&ca
tid=11 and http://www.casenergy
.org/WhyNuclear/TheB
asics/tabid/66/Defau
lt.aspx
Michael Stuart
Regardless of whether nuclear power is part of the answer, Palgrave and Wolff seriously exaggerate the effectiveness of solar power.
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/gro
ss_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/com
parative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/gen/fy98/24496.
pdf ), these systems are often "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, the rest of the world cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/i
ndex.asp?catnum=1&ca
tid=11 and http://www.casenergy
.org/WhyNuclear/TheB
asics/tabid/66/Defau
lt.aspx
Michael Stuart
Posted by: Michael Stuart, United States on 5:10am Mon 28 May 07
As for replacing nuclear with either wind or solar (or any renewable for that matter) consider that where total energy is concerned, more than 80% is still generated by fossil fuels.
Considering the dire implications of climate change, it would be wise to keep every bit of solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, and any other renewable you can get.
Despite the exaggerated claims against nuclear, western nuclear designs have an excellent operational record. And modern, advanced nuclear designs are safer still. That's probably why so many environmentalists, including Dr. James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore support nuclear energy.
As for replacing nuclear with either wind or solar (or any renewable for that matter) consider that where total energy is concerned, more than 80% is still generated by fossil fuels.
Considering the dire implications of climate change, it would be wise to keep every bit of solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, and any other renewable you can get.
Despite the exaggerated claims against nuclear, western nuclear designs have an excellent operational record. And modern, advanced nuclear designs are safer still. That's probably why so many environmentalists, including Dr. James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore support nuclear energy.
Posted by: Phil, Oxford on 4:10pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Europe's new flagship nuclear plant has been in the contstruction phase for just one year. Somehow it is already 18 months behind schedule.
Don't expect nuclear to be the cheap option.
Europe's new flagship nuclear plant has been in the contstruction phase for just one year. Somehow it is already 18 months behind schedule.
Don't expect nuclear to be the cheap option.
Posted by: Chris Church, london formerly Oxford on 5:24pm Fri 1 Jun 07
The idea of a nuke at Didcot is not a new one. In 1978 the central Electricity Generating Board had such a proposal. It was seen as being ridculous then (We had material on this in the Oxford Mail autumn 1979) because of the need for cooling water and the risk of contamination of the Thames (the only potential source of such water) which just happens to be a major drinking water source for c.8 Million people. The Thames is if anything carrying lower levels of water in summer now than then.
Harwell is totally unsuitable as a site. The two tiny reactors that were there ('Pluto and 'Dido' I believe) were for research only but still managed to have 'interesting' safety histories from what little has been made public.
The idea of a nuke at Didcot is not a new one. In 1978 the central Electricity Generating Board had such a proposal. It was seen as being ridculous then (We had material on this in the Oxford Mail autumn 1979) because of the need for cooling water and the risk of contamination of the Thames (the only potential source of such water) which just happens to be a major drinking water source for c.8 Million people. The Thames is if anything carrying lower levels of water in summer now than then.
Harwell is totally unsuitable as a site. The two tiny reactors that were there ('Pluto and 'Dido' I believe) were for research only but still managed to have 'interesting' safety histories from what little has been made public.
Posted by: Niklas Smith, live in Oxford, currently in Sweden on 7:53am Thu 28 Jun 07
I am glad that most of the comments here are open-minded about nuclear power. Personally I would not mind having a nuclear power plant nearby, although Chris Church's point about Didcot not being appropriate because of the low level of the Thames and the (admittedly remote) risk of contamination may be valid.
Sweden is fortunate enough to have 45% of its electricity generated by nuclear power and 47% by hydroelectricity, compared with only 8% generated from fossil fuels (figures for 2005, http://www.uic.com.a
u/nip39.htm). Unfortunately many politicians there are as short-sighted as those quoted in this article and have been trying to phase out nuclear power, with two reactors out of the original 12 shut down in 1999 and 2005 (http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Nuclear_po
wer_in_Sweden). At least the new government has promised not to close any more.
As for Olkiluoto 3 in Finland (the "flagship nuclear plant" Phil refers to, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Olkiluoto), hopefully they will learn from the delays and so be able to build the next plants on schedule and on budget. Given how few nuclear reactors have been built in Europe recently (Olkiluoto 3 is the first in more than a decade apparently) it's not surprising that they're not very good at estimating the cost and schedule yet.
I am glad that most of the comments here are open-minded about nuclear power. Personally I would not mind having a nuclear power plant nearby, although Chris Church's point about Didcot not being appropriate because of the low level of the Thames and the (admittedly remote) risk of contamination may be valid.
Sweden is fortunate enough to have 45% of its electricity generated by nuclear power and 47% by hydroelectricity, compared with only 8% generated from fossil fuels (figures for 2005, http://www.uic.com.a
u/nip39.htm). Unfortunately many politicians there are as short-sighted as those quoted in this article and have been trying to phase out nuclear power, with two reactors out of the original 12 shut down in 1999 and 2005 (http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Nuclear_po
wer_in_Sweden). At least the new government has promised not to close any more.
As for Olkiluoto 3 in Finland (the "flagship nuclear plant" Phil refers to, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Olkiluoto), hopefully they will learn from the delays and so be able to build the next plants on schedule and on budget. Given how few nuclear reactors have been built in Europe recently (Olkiluoto 3 is the first in more than a decade apparently) it's not surprising that they're not very good at estimating the cost and schedule yet.
Posted by: Ed W, Abingdon. on 12:54pm Wed 4 Jul 07
I was somewhat dismayed to see the original article start with the words "Fears of a nuclear power station...." and continue in much the same vein. This is an unfortunate habit of the media and seriously misinforms those who rely on the media to form their personal estimates of the risks and hence their views on nuclear power.
The best information I have is that per unit of energy supplied nuclear has had the lowest death rate of any generation technique - even if the casualties of Chernobyl are included. Overall the safety record of nuclear power is excellent and I believe there is little to be feared from a modern plant.
This is not to suggest complacency - robust planning regulatory processes - including public debate - are essential to the continued safety of nuclear power. Nor do I suggest nuclear is a 'cure-all' - the numerous other paths to green energy should also be energetically followed: however in the medium term it appears no renewables (including conservation) are capable of replacing nuclear as a green and safe means of reliably generating the bulk base-load power essential to the electricity network.
Personally I am more concerned about the health effects of the existing coal fired Didcot (radioactive substances and fine particulates in the stack gases etc)than I would be about a nuclear station on the site. I would welcome the closing of Didcot and the building of a nuclear plant in the County.
Ed W
I was somewhat dismayed to see the original article start with the words "Fears of a nuclear power station...." and continue in much the same vein. This is an unfortunate habit of the media and seriously misinforms those who rely on the media to form their personal estimates of the risks and hence their views on nuclear power.
The best information I have is that per unit of energy supplied nuclear has had the lowest death rate of any generation technique - even if the casualties of Chernobyl are included. Overall the safety record of nuclear power is excellent and I believe there is little to be feared from a modern plant.
This is not to suggest complacency - robust planning regulatory processes - including public debate - are essential to the continued safety of nuclear power. Nor do I suggest nuclear is a 'cure-all' - the numerous other paths to green energy should also be energetically followed: however in the medium term it appears no renewables (including conservation) are capable of replacing nuclear as a green and safe means of reliably generating the bulk base-load power essential to the electricity network.
Personally I am more concerned about the health effects of the existing coal fired Didcot (radioactive substances and fine particulates in the stack gases etc)than I would be about a nuclear station on the site. I would welcome the closing of Didcot and the building of a nuclear plant in the County.
Ed W
Posted by: jess hyde, hereford on 9:35am Tue 27 Nov 07
i hav to do dis for skwl lol n i dunno nefink bout it hahxxxx
i hav to do dis for skwl lol n i dunno nefink bout it hahxxxx
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
