If all goes according to plan we will have a nuclear power plant in 10 years with a capacity of 16GW. Exactly how much electricity will we be getting? Well, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 Twh in 2012.
Putting that in perspective between 2002 and 2012 enough capacity from renewables was installed in Germany to increase the electricity supply by 92 Twh making a total of 136TWh, that’s about 37% of Britain’s electricity needs. By the way the German economy, public finances, unemployment and the standard of living are no worse than that in Britain or France. So it’s not surprising that in the recent election neither the conservatives nor any other established parties wanted to reverse the commitment to renewables.
Back to Britain, what will happen from now till 2023 is anyone’s guess particularly with our current governments energy policy. The greenest government ever one day, giving vast subsidies for foreign investors for some electricity and the next blaming renewables for the high electricity costs. Never mind the huge profits the big utility companies make year after year after paying directors and management vast salaries, never mind the vast subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear, never mind Fukushima, never mind the nuclear waste we managed so far by dumping it into the sea and storing it in a rather improvised manner.
In a nutshell, the Government has failed in spectacular manner to encourage renewable energy generation and distribution and instead is increasing our dependents on fossil fuel.
The good the bad and
the ugly
an update
on renewable, fossil and nuclear energy/electricity generation
The following article has been written using the most up to date credible
information and the relevant bibliography with hyperlinks can be found at the
end.
The good News
In 2012 Renewable
in Germany generated net 25.8% of Germany’s electricity,
that’s the equivalent of 37% of Britain electricity needs. On sunny days
photovoltaic solar alone produces some 40% of Germany’s electricity using pv
systems which have an efficiency of between 12-15%. Consider the power increase
if all existing systems would be upgraded to commercially available 20% or in a
few years to 40% efficient pv. Only this September scientists at the Fraunhofer
institute announced that a solar cell with an efficiency of 44.7% was produced
and something like this to be on the market by 2020.
Energy provision from Renewable
sources has grown in the last 10 years at a tremendous speed and between 2002
and 2012 enough capacity was installed in Germany to increase the electricity
supply by over 92 Terawatt hours to 136TWh. Better still, if the overall energy
production is included, renewables produced some 314TWh in 2012, almost a
200TWh increase since 2002 saving enormous amounts of CO2. This is an
outstanding achievement because all infrastructures from roads to electric grid
connection had to be built from scratch. Demonstrating
clearly that the energy storage issue is artificially inflated and what's
needed is an electric grid which can distribute the power quickly.
Putting this in perspective all
16 nuclear reactors in Britain produced in 2012 some 64TWh, the all historic
height was 90TWh receiving vast amount of subsidies, still do and leaving us
with catalogue of problems.
Germany which was very much pro
nuclear and hostile towards renewables managed to build 36 reactors over
30 years generating at its peak some 170TWh, still below what renewables
achieved in a third of this time.
France the dream land of most
nuclear fans built since 1959 some 70 reactors and the 58 operational ones produced
net 405Twh in 2012 of electricity/energy. Even if we generous and divide that amount of electricity by only three
decades renewables
outperform nuclear power in terms of energy generation.
In the nineteen eighties at
the height of the hostility against renewables in Germany an enormous wind
turbine was build, key people at the time stated that the sole purpose of
GROWIAN was to demonstrate that renewables cannot produce any meaningful
energy, are uneconomical and that Germany had to invest into nukes, and so it
did. Even today there are many using the same principle and examples can be
found everywhere. Councils putting very expensive marine pv solar&wind
combination between shady trees is one of them.
Against all the odds the Green party, together with the Social
democrats took office between 1998 and 2005 and things changed quickly. The
greens negotiated an orderly shutdown of all nukes whilst at the same time
providing a framework to encourage energy generation with renewables. When the
Conservatives took office the nukes lifeline got extended again and after
Fukushima reversed back to the green shutdown policy, but now costing Germany
dearly in fines as it broke the contracts signed by the conservatives when
these took office.
In 2012 renewables provided in
Germany some 350k decent jobs in engineering, manufacturing, installation,
maintenance and so on. In 1998
renewables in Germany provided only 5% of electricity. Since Germany has
invested heavily into renewables and the economy, public finances, unemployment
and the standard of living are no worse than that of Britain or France. Japan had before Fukushima over
50 nukes on the grid and has been for the last 20-25 odd years in an economic
slump. Japan has also one of the highest debt ratio of developing countries in
2011 nearly 3 times that of Britain, France or Germany.
Renewables offers what nukes can’t, power to the people and true democracy, because responsibility and income can be spread between many with only little risks for humanity now and in the future, something which cannot be said about nuclear power.
For all these reasons it is not surprising that in the recent
election neither the conservatives nor any other established parties wanted to
reverse the commitment to renewables and the quote below sums it up nicely.
World Finance Magazine
July/August issue 2013 pp. 158/9 …‘In
January we offered possibly one of the lowest tariff for pv energy recorded in
the world at a cost of 12cents per KWh. To offer a basis for comparison: to
deliver this quality of electricity at this price using oil as a fuel, one
would need to provide 3400 barrels of oil every day for the next 25 years at a
price of $40 per barrel; an unimaginable subsidy when compared to the marked
oil price of $90 to $110 per barrel…..…
The bad News
Germany is producing some 50% of
its electricity with fossil fuel worse, most of it is coal (also radioactive)
with some of these power station being the dirtiest in Europe. That’s as bad as
it gets in particular as it is totally avoidable. While Germany has some of the
very dirtiest, Germany has also some of the cleanest, most efficient coal
powered plants in the world.
The concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is a huge long term problem that needs long term global solutions.
Even if we find now a magical device producing energy without generating any
CO2 and worse problems or stop all human activity we still all have to deal
with the consequences such as changing weather patterns and everything which
comes with it, inconveniencing some of us and causing devastation for many.
Call a worldwide competition to find a solution dealing with our surplus of CO2
and we will get somewhere. Perhaps trees will do the trick, a bit less
deforestation? In the meantime we have to use energy more wisely, prepare better
and help those worse affected.
Some of the renewable energy
sources used in Germany use wood from sustainable forests in Canada which has
to be shipped for thousands of miles, this still better than shipping oil or
other fossil fuels around the globe with all the consequences we know so well.
Wind turbines are not more ugly
or dangerous than train lines, motorways, airports, Pylons or power stations
all of them impact visually and kill, not only wild live.
Unfortunately resentment against
renewables is stirred on many different levels. People using renewable are made
responsible for the fuel price increase, fuel poverty and so on and so on. When
the British banking system was close to collapsing the government stepped in
guaranteeing hundreds of billions, losing some £66 Billion, when the car
industry suffered incentives were handed out towards a new car. How much did
the government subsidise the coal mining, the shipbuilding, agriculture,
fishery, the nuclear industry and importantly still does! Currently billions of
pound sterling is spend per year dealing with the coal and nuclear heritage and
unfortunately it looks like more billions will be spend by generations to come.
Poor short sighted energy policy creates fuel and general poverty
not renewables.
The ugly news
Well, for a start none of the
good news ever makes it into the headlines instead only the bad news. There is
no balanced reporting, journalist or other personalities opinions are quoted
and often these opinions are based on out of date info. Worse, opposition gets
spied upon not only by undercover police and government agencies but by
cooperation’s; activists who walk the walk get intimidated and criminalised.
The Deepwater Horizont’ accident
in 2010 off the coast of America is costing BP some Billions of pound sterling
which so far the company is paying for but the costs of the Fukushima disaster
will be carried by the whole Japanese population for generations to come.
The operator of the nuclear plant
(also in Britain) has only to pay the first millions not billions in case of an
accident. Whenever we had nuclear accidents we get the explanations,
justifications afterwards, Chernobyl happened because it was in Russia, Fukushima
happened because…. What happened in Japan demonstrated how merciless nature can
be but whereas most of the affected population were able to go back to rebuild
the people of Fukushima can’t and no insurance or company is paying for this in
any proportional way. The last Tsunami in Europe happened in the 17th Century
wiping out Lisbon killing thousands of people, reaching the coast of England as
a 2m wave. Who is saying that something like this can’t happen again? What
about terrorism or again a series of very unfortunate events, no one person or
company or nation will be able to live up to its responsibilities.
Even if we leave accidents out of
the equation what do we do with all the waste? It was irresponsible to build
the first nuclear power plants without knowing what to do with the waste.
Committing to any more nuclear power while all we done so far is sinking the
radioactive waste into the sea and storing it very improvised is beyond
irresponsible. We are not only talking about spent fuel which can be reused
(current rate in France 17%) but about pumps, pipes; water etc. not at last the
reactor itself all totally deadly radioactive for thousands of years.
How much money has been spend
over many generations in so many different countries to make the dream work,
having endless amount of energy with no risks.. Why imitate the sun when you
have one? The sun is radiating more energy onto earth than humanity will ever
be able to consume, surely we could if we were all wasteful enough. This is
also true for nuclear, even if we plaster the whole world with them if we are
all as wasteful as some of us today we will not have enough energy for all.
My main concern is
that Politian who make decisions on our behalf don’t even know half the facts
and have been fed glossy brochures full of science mixed with wishful thinking.
That’s why I promote this petition as I believe only an enquiry will deliver
the facts needed to make future proof decision.
Conclusion:
Saying
no to nuclear power is neither an emotional nor an ideological response but
evidence based please look at the facts.
Going for renewables
reduced CO2, betters the trade balance, increases competitiveness and creates a
balanced, diverse economy with decent jobs for many.
Above all energy saving combined with sensible research
and the responsible use of all available resources is the key for a brighter
future.
Sources consulted:
‘International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information
System’
‘Nuclear Energy Statistics’, September 2013’ House of Commons
Library
‘Public Accounts Committee - Twenty-Fourth Report Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing
risk at Sellafield’
‘Recent facts about photovoltaic in Germany, September 2013’,
‘The World Nuclear Status Report 2013’,
The World Bank
The
Guardian
Evening
Standard
If all goes according to plan Britain will have a nuclear power plant in 10 years. What exactly will we get for our money? To put it in perspective, the 16 nuclear reactors currently on the grid produced 64 terawatts of energy in 2012. That was one-third less of the amount that Germany produced from renewables in the same year. Germany has forged ahead with the expansion of its renewable energy sector to a point where it could now meet over one-third of Britain’s electricity needs: demonstrating that green energies can be built to meet our energy demands now and in the future.
What will happen in Britain from now until 2023 is anyone’s guess. One day this government is the greenest ever, the next it’s over-paying foreign investors for the construction of a nuclear station with clapped-out technology. Never mind the huge profits the big utility companies make year after year, never mind the vast subsidies paid for fossil fuels, never mind Fukushima, never mind the nuclear waste polluting our oceans.
