Debunking the myths around renewable energy

[tzijlstra]

In the past days I have noticed two threads were a lot of people got a lot of things wrong about renewable energy, simply because the facts surrounding renewables are not well known.

 

I thought I'd try and clarify a few things here in a (probably vain) attempt to rectify some of the misconceptions.

 

Economic sense, not green sense

 

Fossil fuels are finite. We have known this for a long time, the problem with finite resources is that the less becomes available, the more it is going to cost to buy. Simple economics.

 

Renewables are infinite - they are more expensive now but in the long term will be a lot cheaper. Not investing in them now will mean we don't develop more efficient manners of producing electricity.

 

Investing in renewables is more to do with economics than with being green.

 

North Sea gas

 

In the past 15 years production of North Sea gas has pretty much halved. Where it used to be sufficient for the entire British nation's gas needs, it is now only providing half of that. Britain is currently importing more natural gas than it is producing itself, this trend is set to continue. Although currently most imported gas comes from Norway, they too extract it from the North Sea and they too are beginning to witness a decline in total production.

 

Wind energy

 

Wind energy is often called inefficient. It might be more expensive per pound of investment, but it isn't inefficient. Britain is one of the most wind-swept countries in the world and it makes sense to use that source. Currently around 6% of the energy mix is produced through wind power.

 

Nuclear energy

 

People get very touchy whenever the word nuclear emerges. Yet Europe has one of the longest safety track records when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is mostly renewable (there is still plenty of plutonium left) and investment in nuclear power is sensible.

 

The big issue with nuclear is the waste and methods to clear waste have grown better and better, no longer is Sellafield a death-pool. Nuclear energy is efficient, but also very expensive - initial investment in nuclear plants is so large that most nations can simply not afford to make that investment. The advantage of things like hydro, wind, solar and soon tidal energy is that it has a much lower initial cost and doesn't come with the waste problem.

 

Does that mean we should not invest in nuclear? No. It is too valuable in the energy mix to ignore it. It is a near guaranteed flow of electricity.

 

Coal

 

"We have plenty of coal" - an often heard argument. If we have plenty of it, it is certainly proving very difficult to get out of the ground. UK Coal is rapidly going bankrupt because it is increasingly difficult to safely extract coal from the last few rich veins left in this country.

 

The coal-plants in this country are mostly fired on coal imported from countries like the Colombia, the USA and the biggest: Russia.

 

Concluding thoughts

 

The conclusion is pretty simple: We need to invest more in renewables, whether we like it or not. The UK is increasingly becoming dependent on other countries for its energy, not a problem if those countries are called Norway or the USA, but Russia? Qatar?

 

It is going to cost more, this is the awkward truth that the government is dancing around - but not ensuring our future energy supplies means that we lose out long-term. I can't put images up here, but imagine a graph with one line starting on the left in the middle and running horizontally and another line starting in the bottom left and ending at the top right. They meet in the middle - we are getting near that meeting point, the horizontal line is the cost of renewables and the rising line is fossil fuels. If we don't ensure we get enough of our energy from those renewables we are going to be spending a multiple of our current household energy bills within the coming generation, is that something we want to be responsible for?

 

This here text draws on numerous references, ranging from blogs by energy experts to data released by the DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change)

[jfish1936]

Has anyone published a survey comparing the radioactivity of wastes from a coal fired generating plant with a nuclear plant of equal power?

I've heard anecdotes that some coal has a measurable radioactivity. Can anyone confirm or deny?

The author Jerry Pournelle pointed out that people were afraid of living near a nuclear plant, but not of living down the valley from a big hydro-electric dam. Remember the Sheffield Flood!

[cgksheff]

Has anyone published a survey comparing the radioactivity of wastes from a coal fired generating plant with a nuclear plant of equal power?

I've heard anecdotes that some coal has a measurable radioactivity. Can anyone confirm or deny?

..........

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

You have to read it very carefully.

 

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

 

 

Nuclear power will produce waste with a higher load of radioactivity. As that is, usually, very well shielded and stored the relative release into the environment can be relatively small.

 

It only takes one accident to upset that balance, though.

[tzijlstra]

I wasn't aware that fly-ash produced radiation, interesting point.

 

Add to that the simple fact that coal-plants simply produce a lot of pollution full stop and it is a rather toxic combination.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Nuclear is the only way to go, honestly. Renewable, just an idea of the plastic sandal green brigade.

 

Angel.

[tzijlstra]

Nuclear is the only way to go, honestly. Renewable, just an idea of the plastic sandal green brigade.

 

Angel.

 

If there is enough investment in renewable energy it will turn out to be a LOT cheaper than nuclear in the long term. The cost of producing electricity through for example solar panels and wind-turbines has already come down enormously as new innovations improve the quality of electricity generation. This can only come down further. The problem with nuclear is that it will always be expensive due to all the processes involved with creating nuclear energy and the very strict protocols required to ensure safe production.

[angos]

If there is enough investment in renewable energy it will turn out to be a LOT cheaper than nuclear in the long term. The cost of producing electricity through for example solar panels and wind-turbines has already come down enormously as new innovations improve the quality of electricity generation. This can only come down further. The problem with nuclear is that it will always be expensive due to all the processes involved with creating nuclear energy and the very strict protocols required to ensure safe production.

 

I would think that nuclear is already the most expensive way to generate electricity, because of the up front costs, decommissioning costs and waste storage costs, I think we should be investing more in geothermal energy.

[Jmack]

The future for Uk energy will be a mix of Nuclear,renewable and fracking. I doubt the UK will ever run on a 100% renewable basis. For example there is no way that one day Sheffield will be powered by windmills and solar panels however i've always believed bio-mass and geo-thermal are a good bet. My guess is that our future energy mix will be 35%- Nuclear, 35%-renewable,20% fracking and coal, oil etc will make up the remaining 10%.

 

In terms of climate change, to make a real breakthrough we need to find ways of powering vehicles other than petrol. Hopefully with the emergence of gas powered cars this is not a long way of.

[retep]

If there is enough investment in renewable energy it will turn out to be a LOT cheaper than nuclear in the long term. The cost of producing electricity through for example solar panels and wind-turbines has already come down enormously as new innovations improve the quality of electricity generation. This can only come down further. The problem with nuclear is that it will always be expensive due to all the processes involved with creating nuclear energy and the very strict protocols required to ensure safe production.

 

 

Not doing to well in Germany is it,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/11/germanys-renewable-energy-subsidies-could-threaten-economic-growth/

[GLASGOWOODS]

Cheaper for who in the future? All I read is a few large snouts making millions out of us mugs.

 

One big power company has just pulled out of investing 5 billion in the construction of turbines somewhere off the West coast of Scotland.

 

I live near hundreds of those monster turbines.They never seem to turn??