BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Western Energy Policy...

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
14:04 / 01.02.06
So, President Bush has urged that America ditch its oil addiction. And with the UK facing an impeding reliance on foreign energy sources, a number of Western governments are beginning to reassess their energy policies, particularly the viability of nuclear energy...

The whole debate is make for some strange bedfellows - Professor Ian Fells has long lobbied on behalf of the nuclear industry, but Sir James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis has joined the chorus of voices pointing out that nuclear power is now the only viable, secure source of energy that will enable us to continue using electricity in a manner we are currently uccustomed to.

So, what do people on Barbelith make of all this - is nuclear energy now desireble or inevitable? What say you all onthe subject of Wester Energy policy?
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:12 / 01.02.06
It's a tough question. Energy useage is going up all the time, and there are arguments that nuclear energy is more environmentally friendly than coal/gas energy. Although you only have to look at Sellafield and the Chenobyl disaster to see there are stonking big risks.

Most industrialised societys will only accept changes in their energy policy towards cleaner systems if they don't actually face a reduction in the amount they can use. But we're not going to be able to produce that with renewables alone are we?
 
 
Spaniel
06:35 / 02.02.06
After listening to Lovelock on Start the Week t'other day, it would seem that his enthusiam for nuclear is based around one simple premise: global environmental meltdown is inevitable given the growth of China and India, and the US's reluctance to change its ways. Lovelock is convinced that nuclear energy is the only way to ensure our (British) supply through the very hard times ahead. Of course, that's not all he has to say - ultimately he's proposing some kind of fortress Britain.
Obviously Lovelock's policy is deeply anglocentric, possibly worryingly so, but given the scenario he predicts I can really see the appeal. I mean, the notion that we're going to start relying on Russia for the bulk of our energy needs is starting to get me very worried indeed.
 
 
sleazenation
07:53 / 02.02.06
I don't think Lovelock's theory is anglocentric per se, but he is attempting to sell it to a uk audience in those terms, just as I'm sure he'd sell it in US-centric terms in the US...
 
 
nameinuse
11:39 / 02.02.06
It's a deeply worrying situation that we're entering, and the current US administration is only helping us get there faster (though we're not blameless by any means).

I was pleased to see that Brazil is using it's natural resources to grow plants which are then turned to alcohol to use in cars. It seems like a pragmatic way of dealing with the problem, and I'm surprised given the over-capacity in EU agriculture it hasn't been examined closer here. Even better, plant matter is taking carbon out of the atmosphere in order to grow, which will go some way to shifting the carbon balance in the atmosphere back in the right direction. The only downside I can see is that even more of the land is given over to intensive arable agriculture.

Nuclear energy has got to be the sensible approach to power generation, though. I can't see anything else providing nearly enough. Renewable sources of energy exist right on the very margin of creating more energy than it consumes to make and maintain them, and just aren't feasable to provide the majority power generation.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:29 / 02.02.06
Only another ten years until fusion reactors.

Sorry, make that always another ten years until fusion reactors.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
12:31 / 02.02.06
There's a phrase that crops up in almost any discussion involving energy resources and their use in the UK - 'at current levels'. As in, 'if we are going to sustain our energy usage at current levels', renewables simply won't fit the bill/new technology isn't ready/etc.

With Shell announcing it's the biggest corporate earner in UK history today, with car use increasing over the last 25 years, (while the actual cost of motoring has fallen slightly over the same period), and the government encouraging - but not seemingly funding - more investment in 'sustainable' energy, why is the thing we never question the way and extent to which we use energy.

I don't mean individuals, including those on Barbelith, who I am sure do this very thing. I mean as a broader political question - is it right to model what we can and want to achieve around 'at current levels'?

I think the perspective from which we ask the question needs to shift away from:

'what energy resources can allow us to continue unabated with the kind of lifestyle we want - oh and if we could minimise the impact on the environment and reliance on regimes we don't much like, that would be nice'

to

'what kind of lifestyle can we sustain on the energy resources that it is reasonable to use'.

I'm not suggesting a completely post-industrial lifestyle living off the land, but does every household really need two cars? Take this news item about a gas cut in East London. This was one of the major news items on London news - People without gas for one possibly two nights shocker. People were given electric heaters to keep warm. There are quite probably a few extremely vulnerable people who were threatened by one night without central heating, but wholesale dispensing of heaters?? Does everything I buy need to be encased in packaging with all its energy and other environmental costs?

I'm not saying this change will solve the energy problem, but I really think that a fundamental shift in how we look at it might help. If being profligate with energy became frowned upon instead of lauded. I also don't think that this would in any way harm the drive the develop alternative sources of energy, although I have heard the argument made.

How much energy do we really need - not how much can we get and where can we get it. Then, once we've started looking at how little we can get by on, we can really work out what we need to provide it.
 
 
elene
12:57 / 02.02.06
Renewable sources of energy exist right on the very margin of creating more energy than it consumes to make and maintain them, and just aren't feasible to provide the majority power generation.

One can produce electricity efficiently using a combination of wind and water power, nameinuse, and the nuclear industry has always been massively subsidised. Furthermore, a large part of the total costs of nuclear energy are wrapped up in the issue of waste disposal, an issue that's not yet been seriously dealt with, and has certainly not been paid for.
 
 
elene
13:00 / 02.02.06
I do agree we need to reduce energy waste as much as is possible, Tabitha, but I'm not for reducing energy use. We obviously don't need two cars, or usually even one, we must waste less oil and we should obviously use efficient modern technology, e.g. insulation, where appropriate. This is all good. This is all to reduce waste. Beyond this though, how would it be benefit us to use less energy?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:01 / 02.02.06
does every household really need two cars?

A very good point. In my family's case we used to have one car per person whilst all living in the same house. Five cars in total and an absolutely massive waste of energy. Although my friends and I did carpool a lot (if only so the majority could get drunk).

Modern society still equates cars as something that grants freedom. When you're a teenager, your first car is a mark of your independance from your Parentals.

There are efforts to educate people in energy saving. I myself was galvanised by television to cut back on my use of energy around the home by keeping the thermostat below 21c, and only using the 40c washing cycles. Little things that add up.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
14:58 / 02.02.06
elene - can you explain why you are not in favour of reducing energy use?

I suppose one of the problems is who decides on the definition of waste. I try to live quite an energy spare lifestyle I think - I cycle, always turn off lights, minimise use of appliances and always turn them off, etc - and consider some people's lives very energy wasteful. I dare say they don't, though.

Do we really need the volume of products we have? If a household doesn't need two cars, does it even need one? I suspect that people might think some of my views extreme when it comes to what we don't need - ie, what's waste.

My point is that going beyond the reduction of waste, should we not be saying 'this is how much energy we can currently produce using these sustainable/renewable technologies/resources, supplemented by this level of acceptable use of non-renewable resources - that allows us to do x things or requires to modify our lifestyles in y ways'.

Obviously, the acceptable in the above sentence is going to be contentious.

Evil Scientist - I think the importance in your changes is not as much in the immediate impact of making them, but in the change to the way you make future decisions. For me, when I see things from a different point of view, I find I begin asking different questions and that can have a massive impact. Which is very cool.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:03 / 02.02.06
If a household doesn't need two cars, does it even need one?

That completely depends on where you live. For instance it's a waste to run a bus every half hour in an area where only one person would use it. In the countryside cars can be the better option. In London it's irresponsible to own a car without a specific reason. For instance if I was living in a vaguely residential area and had a disabled child I'd want a car because it would make things vastly simpler.

Beyond this though, how would it be benefit us to use less energy?

If we all insulate and double glaze our homes, use energy saving lightbulbs, fit our fridges with special plugs and more then renewable energy sources will provide all of the electricity we need. Using less energy could stop severe weather problems in the near future. Using less energy is a significant part of lowering carbon emissions.
 
 
elene
18:39 / 02.02.06
Most things you mention, Tabitha. I don't want each device to burn up energy in standby mode. I don't want poorly insulate buildings. I don't want anything remotely like a SUV. I don't want them to be permitted. I don't want lights left on for no reason and I would subsidise energy efficient technologies.

I'm merely opposed to this becoming dogma, and that’s what I feel reasoning like, should we not be saying 'this is how much energy we can currently produce using these sustainable/renewable technologies/resources, supplemented by this level of acceptable use of non-renewable resources - that allows us to do x things or requires to modify our lifestyles in y ways, leads to. How is the acceptable use of non-renewable resources to be determined, and more importantly how will this budget be distributed? May we use non-renewable resources freely in order to – we hope - harness renewable resources for the future?

Society needs to let people do a lot of things that require energy because that’s how we get things done and also because that’s how we keep people happy. And things definitely do need to get done. In the coming years we must, for example, develop replacements and alternatives for oil, and we'll be faced with practically endless problems resulting from our having wrecked the planet’s climate. I certainly don't want to see a project like ITER stopped because we can't budget it, or more likely because we simply can't do it at all using only redeemable energy sources. There are a thousands of such projects, and I don't want to stop ordinary businesses getting things done either.

On the other hand I definitely do want to maintain technology like the internet and I want it to be available to everyone, I don't want people to feel cold all winter, and though I'm generally opposed to private cars I do strongly believe in maintaining a very complete public transport system.

I’m afraid of the opportunities we might stymie by curtailing the use of energy rather than just its waste.
 
 
nameinuse
13:10 / 04.02.06
elene - About the sustainable energy vs. nuclear issue - I'm deeply concerned that what we're investing in (admittedly under-deveoped) sustainable technology won't actually reap a positive effect on our energy use in a useful timescale. If, for example, it takes 50 years to recoupe the energy cost of building and maintaining a wind-turbine, and we hit the energy-crunch in 40 years, then all it's done is push us closer to the edge. I'm not saying that's the case with all renewables, they're probably the long-term solution, but in the short term they don't deliver. The only thing we have that does, and doesn't use fossil fuel, is nuclear. I agree about the waste disposal problems, and therefore nuclear energy can only ever be a short term solution (until fusion is managed, or until renewables advance to a state where we can rely on them). It's the only way out of the current short-term mess we're in.

I completely agree with your sentiment about reducing waste and not curtailing technology, that's one of my greatest fears too. There are a significant minority at the edges of those lobbying for sensible, sustainable energy use that seem to want to return us to pre-industrial revolution living. That scares me and makes me less inclined to join my voice in with the overall sense being spoken.

As someone who uses a train to commute to work, I have mixed feelings about cars and efficiency. Given that the car I share with my partner is small, efficient, and well looked-after, by most metrics it is only marginally less efficient than the train. If I could organise a car-share arrangement, it would be moreso. There are occasional situations where people require a car (and I wish they'd introduce one of those pay-as-you-go car schemes in my town so I could get rid of the one we have), and many where they don't, but where I live (the SE of England) the infrastructure is at it's limit already. Trains are full, and they can't run any more on the tracks. Roads are full, and there are traffic jams all the time. We're also running out of fresh water. Short of living elsewhere (and it would be difficult, as there's less work elsewhere) I don't know what can be done to fix this problem, really.

Maybe we need to concentrate on using the advances in communication technology to replace travel, at least to some extent. I suppose that is the only way we can keep the advances we've made and manage our resources more efficiently.
 
 
elene
06:14 / 06.02.06
Hi nameinuse, sorry I've not yet replied. I was exhausted, which was I think quite clear from my last reply to Tabitha (e.g. "redeemable energy sources"). I still am, actually.

I don't think we can count any investment in sustainable technology a waste as long as we're squandering our non-renewable resources at every opportunity. There must be applications and investment if there's to be research, and without research there'll never be highly efficient renewable energy sources. As far as I know wind energy is already quite efficiently gathered, there have been great advances in turbine technology in recent years. The 40-years-to-recoup example applies rather to tidal hydro energy generation, but even here there are promising advances that might make it more feasible. I do agree however that nuclear energy will probably remain an essential energy source in the short and mid-term. I sincerely hope fission will be replaced with fusion early in that mid-term.

Having more or less lived off the land for a couple of years during my youth - we ploughed with a horse, had no electricity and drew our water from a well half a kilometre from the house - I certainly don't want a return to pre-industrial civilisation forced on anyone.

I've found it astonishing for many years now that so many meetings must take place in the flesh. How can we possible run a project without actually being able to smell each other's fear or arrogance? We'll learn though.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:55 / 06.02.06
What are the raw materials you need to feed into a nuclear power plant to create power and where do we get them from? Are there limits to those?
 
 
Axolotl
10:59 / 06.02.06
I was just reading an old collection of Jerry Pournelle essays on this topic. It's about 20 years old and it's an odd mix of the strangely prescient and the horribly out of date. Pournelle himself is a bit too right-wing for me to take entirely seriously but his main crux is that dependence on fossil fuels is extremely short sighted and will lead to disaster, but that the way forward is not to reduce our use of power but increase generation of renewable power. The two techniques he mentions are solar power satellites and ocean thermal energy conversion.
I'm not sure how practical the ideas are but increasing energy production for everyone (including the developing world) appeals to me more than the zero-growth style alternative. However it is a deeply utopian vision, and probably is deeply unpractical.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:30 / 06.02.06
Pournelle I believe suspected that if we didn't reduce our use of fossil fuels slowly we would catapult the planet into an ice age.
 
 
elene
13:18 / 06.02.06
What are the raw materials you need to feed into a nuclear power plant to create power and where do we get them from? Are there limits to those?

We can't envisage building one at present without using a lot of oil and quite a bit of uranium or MOX, a uranium/plutonium blend. The U/MOX is the fuel. A lot of metal is used too, of course.

I've often heard that the OECD expects the world's uranium reserves to last between 35 and 63 years at the current rate of consumption. That would involve it becoming financially viable to mine less easily accessed reserves. I've no reference for this though. With the intensified usage we foresee there may only be enough for 20 to 30 years, starting quite soon. One can certainly hope to drag this out somewhat longer, but it looks as though the alternatives had better be mature by 2040.
 
 
■
14:09 / 06.02.06
I occasionally wonder if we should be supporting nuclear, but have two big objections:
1) It takes a shitload of energy to get Uranium out of the ground and into a usable state. It also takes a lot to transport it to where it can be used,with al the risks that entails. Once it's used it then has to be disposed of. Hardly any of these are factored into the model for nuclear provision as it stands, especially disposal and decommissioning, which usually ends up being subsidised by the taxpayer.
2) The guys who run these places tend to be short-term quango fidiots. My experience is anecdotal but, I think, telling.
A few years ago our class was invited along to act as the press at a simulation of what would happen in the event of an incident at Torness power station. This was required by the HSE as part of its two-yearly evaluation. Police, health boards and others were there, and the story was that a leak of CO2 had occurred at the power plant. Knowing a bit about how reactor works (which the health and police people evidently didn't), I knew this would probably be a cloud from the coolant system (it was) and be likely to contain some nasty radioactive materials such as Caesium. Even though we weren't real journos, they still tried to deny this, insisting for hours it was just CO2, and locals taking their iodine tablets would be enough to stop them experiencing any problems should there be any contaminants.
My first question, about 2 hours after the supposed leak was: "What are you doing about traffic diverted from the A1? You have closed it?" [Slightly worried stares] "and the east coast rail line?"
This is kind of important. Here is a map of how close these routes are to the power station (the white blobs). It's about 100m away from both busy routes, which go into the centre of Edinburgh and, at the other end, London.
The simulation took them another hour or so to halt all the traffic, by which time they couldn't say how far the contamination would have spread.
They hadn't even considered it in their safety plans. At all. The eventual solution to the problem was that they would advise all drivers that had been through the area to wash their cars. Excellent, hello groundwater contamination.
It was the way the head of the company seemed to have no idea how the facility worked that scared the crap out of me. Oh, that and the Food Standards Authority declaring that for the next 10 years or so no food would be edible or allowed to be exported from IIRC West Lothian, Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian and, depending on wind conditions, Fife.
I think about this every time someone complains that those magnificent windmills are blighting the landscape.
I just wish I had kept all my notes Grr.
 
 
sleazenation
15:24 / 06.02.06
Interesting estimates on the lifespan of unranium and uranium/plutonium mixed resources... I'd like to see some more on this if anyone can dig up more figures...


also, does anyone have any details on which countries are currently using nuclear energy? The NNPT grants all signitaries the right to peaceful use of nuclear technology... I was just wondering how far it actually had proliferated at this point - a factor that is bound to be important in any calculation of Uranium/plutoinium resources left to us...
 
 
Axolotl
18:14 / 06.02.06
Pournelle I believe suspected that if we didn't reduce our use of fossil fuels slowly we would catapult the planet into an ice age
As I said half of it is ridiculously dated, especially the lack of knowledge about climate change, it's all abou running out of resources that concerns him. I don't agree with all he (and others like him) says, but it does seem to be a view that you just don't hear anymore. It seems to be either bumbling along as things are and kind of hoping they don't get worse or retreating away from technology, which condemns much of the world to a slow death and/or grinding poverty. I like the idea of saying, "here's the problem, what can we do to solve it using science and technology" while still acknowledging the problems have been created in part by our use of science and technology.
The most depressing concept in the book was the ridiculously short window that we had in which to make the jump to these technologies, after which we won't be able to do so, ever. Which kind of ties into the concerns about the limited amount of fissionable material.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:19 / 06.02.06
I was pleased to see that Brazil is using it's natural resources to grow plants which are then turned to alcohol to use in cars.

Sugarcane, actually. And we've been doing that since the original Oil Crisis, all the way back in the seventies. But, truth be told, we didn't do it because we were environmentally aware (we were under a right-wing military dictatorship at the time). We did it because we could not afford oil prices. And the same goes to everywhere, most of all the US: they won't change ultil it hurts in theiur pockets, which is just starting to happen now.

And there are other issues arising from that too: sugarcane is harvested by very poor workers in near-slavery conditions earning a pittance, so nothing is perfect. But we're trying, and that's something


btw, how far off in the future is Cold Fusion reactors? That would help a lot.
 
 
Axolotl
06:53 / 07.02.06
Possibly never, and not in the near future. Hell, we can't even do normal fusion properly.
 
 
Brunner
07:04 / 07.02.06
Bio-diesel (or whatever its called)....I assume it produces greenhouse gases as well? How much land would have to be given over to grow these crops if all cars were converted to run on it? I think I view it as a bit of false dawn....
 
 
elene
07:10 / 07.02.06
... estimates on the lifespan of unranium and uranium/plutonium mixed resources... I'd like to see some more on this if anyone can dig up more figures...

This may be a reference for the OECD document I mentioned hearing quoted yesterday, Uranium 2003: Resources, Production and Demand It's known as the "Red Book". It's conclusions are discussed in Uranium Supply and the Nuclear Option, which concludes that:

It would be unwise to advocate adopting the nuclear option when we have no realistic idea of how long the uranium resource will last. Clearly the 'once through' cycle has no future. if the world were to adopt the 'once through' option the world's uranium resources would be exhausted in a few decades. We would very quickly shift from shortages of oil and coal to shortages of uranium [Mobbs 2005]. The principle solution to the problem of the 'once through' cycle, adopting a more 'closed' cycle using fast breeder reactors, is itself fraught with dangers. There is no tried and tested fast breeder technology. In addition the scale of the increase in nuclear capacity required to displace fossil fuel is such that the lifetime of the resource would still be a matter of decades, not centuries. For this reason it may be that the longevity of the uranium resource, quite apart from the issues of waste or radioactivity, could be more significant to the future viability of the nuclear industry.

Nuclear fuel resources: Enough to last? is a summary of the 2001 Red Book. It's very, very optimistic and concludes that:

Vast uranium resource potential supplemented by the possible use of fast breeder reactors and thorium-based fuel cycles point to a nuclear energy future that can meet sustained demand.

Also worth a look is the slide show, Energy Beyond Oil: Slides from the 'Uranium Supply' Workshop, and there's more at Free Range Activism.
 
 
Dead Megatron
11:33 / 07.02.06
Bio-diesel (or whatever its called)....I assume it produces greenhouse gases as well? How much land would have to be given over to grow these crops if all cars were converted to run on it? I think I view it as a bit of false dawn....

Answering your questions: Yes, it does, but not as much as gasoline anyway. And, quite some land, specially if we're talking about world wide consumption, which would lead to furhter deforestation ans less land to grow, well, food.

Problems, problems...
 
 
nameinuse
14:14 / 08.02.06
I hadn't appreciated that about the alcohol-as-fuel, Megatron, thanks for the background. Obviously the only way for that to work is farming with minimal fertiliser and pesticides, too, as that'll just be damaging something else instead. I think as an adjunct to the waste and overproduction that already happens in western societies (fermented food-waste, for example?) rather than a concerted effort to use it as the sole supply of car-fuel would be the most sensible path.

I can't help feeling that none of the current energy sources provide us with an ideal solution, which is kind of depressing. Is using what we currently have available, whilst we conserve our current resources by using communication and other technology, the way out?

How do we go about getting government/business, who tend to think in short and medium terms, to consider something that is potentially 40 years away and might cost them lots of money now? It seems we're staking an awful lot on the advent of fusion power, and that doesn't seem like a wise bet given the consequences of getting it wrong.

elene - You're right about research, and I suppose that doesn't come without deployment of things for actual use. I just don't want to see a situation where we've spent the last of our dwindling resources on something that it's going to give us back enough to look after it properly. I suppose it comes down to using the energy we have left to develop sensible things rather than squandering it. If we devote energy to renewables that aren't quite energy efficient yet, it can only be on the proviso that they are going to be sufficiently good that we recoup that expendature in time (if that makes sense).

You're dead right about meetings - I was reading at the weekend that more and more people are using private jets so they can travel for business. Madness. I wish government(s) would grow some backbone, stand up to the airlines, and put a decent tax on jet fuel. That way the true cost of air travel would be much more in-line with less polluting alternatives. Flying should be a luxury, not a routine occurence (unless you're talking about small-prop seaplanes and you live in Alaska, or something suitably unlike the majority of the population).
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:15 / 08.02.06
Bio-diesel (or whatever its called)....

I forgot to mention: the fuel produced by sugarcane is simply know by us as "alcohol"...
 
 
■
08:51 / 09.02.06
Sorry to harp on about nuclear but many people seem in the press to be buying the safe and clean line, so a story about missing Uranium is apposite and helps confirm my reservations. That and the Mark Thomas episode where he hijacked a nuclear train using only a bunch of hippies.
 
 
nameinuse
09:02 / 09.02.06
I think the point about missing uranium and train hijackings is that the stuff in question isn't very difficult to get hold of. The hard bit is making it all explode. It's taken dubious regimes years to get anywhere near exploding a bomb. As a contaminent in a "dirty bomb" it's pretty rubbish, too, there are lots of easier and more toxic things to get hold of. If there's an alternative to nuclear power, other than going without, in the short term at least, I'm yet to hear of it.

This http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1705315,00.html also sounds vaugely sensible as a direction to be aiming for. Didn't Southampton have a big geothermal project at the end of the 80s?
 
 
Loomis
14:01 / 09.02.06
What surprises me is the massive investment planned for additional runways at airports. Surely, whatever your opinion on global warming, most people agree that it won't be too long before rising oil prices begin to make air travel more expensive and the budget airlines all go bust? Even from a purely financial point of view, a long-term investment in the airline industry seems madness when quite possibly budget air travel will be extinct in 10-20 years. Or am I missing something?

Even if alternative fuels become workable and adaptable for aeroplane use, I can't see it happening for a long time yet.
 
 
Dead Megatron
00:17 / 10.02.06
Is there even enough air traffic in the world today to make it significant to global warming, oil prices, and the such? I thought car traffic was the problem
 
 
sleazenation
08:12 / 10.02.06
Some information on some of the impact of air travel on the environment...
 
 
Brunner
11:55 / 10.02.06
Article from the New Economics Foundation on BBC website today:

Our new calculations from research in progress with WWF, based on Treasury statistics, show that UK government income from the fossil fuel sector - conservatively estimated at £34.9bn ($61bn) - is greater than revenue from council tax, stamp duty, capital gains and inheritance tax combined.

New policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and develop new forms of energy production could therefore have a major impact on the government income - a serious disincentive to take real action.

Full article here
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply