 | An insight on US strategic thinking - why so much cowering fear? | The Oil Drum: Europe | Even CATO libertarians say energy deregulation does not work |  |
38 comments on The UK Energy White Paper: An Academic Critique
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
When you talk about the large scale systemic issues that would enable change are you referring to a system like TEQs?
If so I agree that such a system is necessary, and that it seems very possible that it will only be implemented as a reaction to some shock, but I think the argument is still there to be won to ensure that the Government turns to TEQs rather than nuclear in that circumstance. After all, nuclear power stations take well over a decade to build, so they represent a strange choice as a 'quick fix'.
Very good point - I see no evidence suggesting that some 8GW of new nuclear capacity can be built and online by 2018, the year by which a total of 8GW of current capacity will be taken offline. Gee, some 6GW will be gone by 2014!
New nuclear build simply isn't an option for replacing the old fleet - we've left the decision too late.
I have to wonder if some of these plants really will be taken offline on schedule - after all, the political pressure to keep them running and hence avoid blackouts will be high.
There are three types of reactor in the UK, Magnox, (advanced gas cooled reactor) AGR and (pressurised water reactor) PWR. The Magnox are mostly already closed (only 2 left from 11 in total) with the last one closing in 2010. I don’t think there is any opportunity to extend their life as the facility that handles the fuel is also at end of life.
The 7 AGRs make up the bulk of the fleet, all approx 1.2GW and had decommission dates from 2008 to 2023. Dungeness B that was due to close in 2008 but was granted a 10 year extension to 2018. The next two facing the chop are now Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B, both due to close in 2011 after 35 years operation. However these have both past their recent safety inspection which in theory means they are good for another 10 years. An extension to 2017 is under consideration for both these two – decision made in March 2008.
The only PWR is good ‘til 2035.
Let's face the reality - you simply can not afford to lose those nukes. And this will become brutally obvious this winter or next.
My prediction - all AGRs and PWRs will get extensions. The 2 Magnox reactors of course will go but these are quite small units and it will not affect the overall balance significantly.
Tony Benn was reminiscing on a politics programme on BBC 4 yesterday and explained how the civil servants when he was energy minister wanted US made PWR. But Tony wouldn't have any of it.
Very proud of how he stood in the way and pursued more loony (and unproven) schemes.
ON a general point, fascinating overview ut nobody wants to pick up the ball and run and put down an over arching strategy ... sleepwalking seems to be the style of academia.
Needs a Barnes Wallis to put a banger up someone's bum... The guy who was banging on about energy security was 100% correct.
Final note ... OK so we build (hurriedly) say 10 Nuclear power plants ... where are the engineers ?
Interesting on the recent comment re Sputnik how that was a banger up the bum of US academe to to produce engineers by the bus load.
Perhaps if Putin (AKA Gazprom) who own the Belgin compressor stations (well a large % of) cut off our gas.
Thye would be doing us a favour.