In his book 'Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World and Build a Sustainable Future', which I enjoyed reading, Tim Gregory robustly attacks the arguments of those "environmentalists" who insist on energy future built solely on wind and solar, pointing out such an approach is in practice doomed to continue reliance on fossil fuels due to the well-known flaw of relying on the weather, if not here, then "somewhere else" where the sun must be shining and the wind blowing.
There now seems daily opportunity to read lurid stories of Russian aggression, forthcoming wars, and our vulnerability, most of which I ignore, but indeed, reliance on sub-sea inter-connectors isn't looking too clever as a strategy.
Finally, and purely for amusement: during a brief and pointless argument with my sister-in-law, I was met with "I've worked in the nuclear industry and nuclear waste is a big problem". I might have been impressed but for the fact that she has a geography degree, limited technical knowledge, and is a librarian. Tim Gregory argues that a significant proportion of "waste" is still very energy-dense and should be regarded instead as fuel for future reactors.
Nuclear waste is a problem but not as large as is usually made out. And my sister (who is an engineer and specialised in waste disposal) used to work in the nuclear industry (in Switzerland) dealing the issue of nuclear waste disposal. The bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste from dismantled plants to medical equipment using nuclear isotopes. Gregory's point is correct: a lot of the high level waste can be recycled as part of the fuel used by new designs of SMRs. But, of course, the capacity of governments to mess things up with foolish regulation is almost infinite.
As I have explained in other articles a lot of the resistance to long term storage is foolish state parsimony - give people decent compensation for agreeing to host deep long term storage and the issue will largely go away.
Yes - and Sweden too as that is a major exporter to Denmark and thus, indirectly, to the UK via the Viking Link. Until I did the data analysis I had not appreciated how consistently low the electricity market price is in Sweden. That would not persist if the obsessive greens who want to close Sweden's nuclear plants had their way.
As ever you have put your finger on several points that are crucial to the UK. I particularly noted your comment that the breakdown in Spain did not spread to France or North Africa, because the interconnectors were shut down. Who can blame the French for protecting their own domestic supply? And what do we think will happen when there is a simialr crisis here, with our heavy reliance on imports? How Neso and the Dept of Net Zero can just carry on ignoring this issue is beyond me. Thank you again! John
Thank you Gordon: as ever the model of clarity.
In his book 'Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World and Build a Sustainable Future', which I enjoyed reading, Tim Gregory robustly attacks the arguments of those "environmentalists" who insist on energy future built solely on wind and solar, pointing out such an approach is in practice doomed to continue reliance on fossil fuels due to the well-known flaw of relying on the weather, if not here, then "somewhere else" where the sun must be shining and the wind blowing.
There now seems daily opportunity to read lurid stories of Russian aggression, forthcoming wars, and our vulnerability, most of which I ignore, but indeed, reliance on sub-sea inter-connectors isn't looking too clever as a strategy.
Finally, and purely for amusement: during a brief and pointless argument with my sister-in-law, I was met with "I've worked in the nuclear industry and nuclear waste is a big problem". I might have been impressed but for the fact that she has a geography degree, limited technical knowledge, and is a librarian. Tim Gregory argues that a significant proportion of "waste" is still very energy-dense and should be regarded instead as fuel for future reactors.
Nuclear waste is a problem but not as large as is usually made out. And my sister (who is an engineer and specialised in waste disposal) used to work in the nuclear industry (in Switzerland) dealing the issue of nuclear waste disposal. The bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste from dismantled plants to medical equipment using nuclear isotopes. Gregory's point is correct: a lot of the high level waste can be recycled as part of the fuel used by new designs of SMRs. But, of course, the capacity of governments to mess things up with foolish regulation is almost infinite.
As I have explained in other articles a lot of the resistance to long term storage is foolish state parsimony - give people decent compensation for agreeing to host deep long term storage and the issue will largely go away.
Thank God for France and Norway.
Yet another example of our reliance on ‘the kindness of strangers’?
Yes - and Sweden too as that is a major exporter to Denmark and thus, indirectly, to the UK via the Viking Link. Until I did the data analysis I had not appreciated how consistently low the electricity market price is in Sweden. That would not persist if the obsessive greens who want to close Sweden's nuclear plants had their way.
The Finns I know are very grateful to their Nordic neighbours, particularly Sweden, given their historic reliance on Russia for power.
Yes - and this reliance was increased by Areva's shambolic mess in building the EPR plant at Olkiluoto.
Gordon,
As ever you have put your finger on several points that are crucial to the UK. I particularly noted your comment that the breakdown in Spain did not spread to France or North Africa, because the interconnectors were shut down. Who can blame the French for protecting their own domestic supply? And what do we think will happen when there is a simialr crisis here, with our heavy reliance on imports? How Neso and the Dept of Net Zero can just carry on ignoring this issue is beyond me. Thank you again! John