Nuclear Power

[Lateralthinking1]

I am afraid I can't read it Frances as it isn't free on the Internet. I am more for The Independent myself.

What do you think of the articles about thorium that Calum has provided? Is this the way ahead?

[vinteuil]

I am afraid I can't read it Frances as it isn't free on the Internet. I am more for The Independent myself.

here is Aaronovitch:

Edit: The rest of this post has been removed following a claim of infringement of intellectual property by Times Newspapers Ltd

[Lateralthinking1]

Vinteuil - Thanks. Would you like me to comment? I hope Frances and others do too. Just to start with, I edited my last post to Frances to say "What do you think of the articles about thorium that Calum has provided? Is this the way ahead?". They look very interesting to me. Secondly, Mr Aaronovitch is one of the few people who still think that it was right to invade Iraq without an international mandate. Still, we will leave that point aside.

He mentions a farmer. Quite why he needed to say he was 64 I don't know. David King is 71. He still has some worth. He ignores the fact that some brave workers inside the plant are now seriously ill. I think he is also making too early an assumption that "leaked radioactivity will not be great enough to cause serious long-term risk to human health". In any case, ultimately, we will look back and know that there could have been no leakage, less, more or considerably more. The impact was haphazard. Even now, no one knows quite where all the radiation is coming from and perhaps they never will. Yes, there have been a lot of deaths from the natural disaster. There generally are. More often than not there can only be limited management of them although a bit of planning sense might help. Where we have choices, I am not sure that it is wholly rational to make comparisons with natural disasters. In fact, what we are asking there is how many we are prepared to risk sacrificing additionally, if at all.

CT body scans - We dealt with these earlier. While the percentages of associated cancers may be surprising to some, CT scans exist to help people identify illness. The comparative risk pitches the risk of one illness against another rather than illness against no illness. There is a difference there. Because the vast majority of people who have CT scans do not develop cancer, and particularly because it would take several decades for anyone to do so, the risk for those of middle age and over is probably less than the risk of having an unidentified illness. Crucially, cancer risk from radiation is considerably lower for physical contact than from ingestion, even with a full CT scan. The spinach Aaronovitch dismisses is significant because it is a part of the food chain.

He does not address consumption levels. To me, this is the most important failing in his article. He says "renewables and conservation.... can’t realistically hope to plug the coming energy gap, which itself constitutes a risk to wellbeing". He may well be right on the first point. But that not being able to plug the coming energy gap constitutes a risk to wellbeing is just a wild, arms waving in the air, boggle-eyed, statement. Who says? What assumption of future energy use is this based on? And has he looked at the data for well-being recently? There is not in any way a direct correlation between levels of energy use and wellbeing. The eskimos are arguably more content than Londoners and those in Barbados or the Solomons, notwithstanding climate problems, certainly are. Next he says of nuclear opponents "They have to show that their alternative is less risky than developing the new generation of nuclear power stations. And they have to do it quickly". Well, yes, I can. It is called Britain in 1970. Reverse the tide. Be proactive in doing so via policy mechanisms rather than reactive. Meet your emissions targets at the same time.

Finally, my understanding is that the Lib Dems went into the election on a platform of scepticism about nuclear new build. Their statements are therefore hardly surprising. In cold politics, Japan gives them an opportunity to argue their case rather than having it smothered by the Conservatives. Similarly, in Germany, Merkel would not be where she is now if she hadn't been an astute politician. It would be irrational for her not to have adjusted policy to take account both of the developments in Japan and what was already an increasingly strong Green opposition. Like everything else, nuclear does not exist in an apolitical world, even if some journalists might prefer that it did so. I'd still be interested to hear more from those with expertise about thorium. - Lat.

[johnb]

Although I usually disagree with David Aaronovitch the article seems pretty sensible and it agrees with other information I have read.

Lat, [Edited] I agree that energy consumption needs to be addressed but it is a very difficult task. If your solution is to revert back to the 1970s I think you might have a problem on your hands. It would necessitate a 40% reduction in electricity consumption. (In 2009, 30% of electricity was used by industry, 29% by services, 3% by transport and 38% domestically.) [Department of Energy and Climate Change] Note also that the consumption of electricity for transport will actually increase if electric vehicles become more popular.

Crucially, cancer risk from radiation is considerably lower for physical contact than from ingestion, even with a full CT scan.

[Edited] I'm not too sure what you are getting at.

As for Angela Merkel's decisions on nuclear power, they are desperate panic measures to try to shore up her party's vote in the elections. They are totally unprincipled, IMO.

[Lateralthinking1]

This from "The Economist" last September shows the intricacies of Germany's energy politics long before Fukushima. It was never all that clear cut inside the German Government. The majority CDU was split with a not-keen-on-nuclear CDU Environment Minister while one of the Ministers most enthusiastic was in the minority FDP. What has happened this week is a reversal of a position formed just a few months ago and then uneasily following a policy review. Nick Clegg's position changed last May for political reasons and now it appears that it might change back again. http://www.economist.com/node/169472...y_id=16947258.

"Crucially, cancer risk from radiation is considerably lower for physical contact than from ingestion, even with a full CT scan" - Yes I wondered about the clarity of that sentence when I wrote it. Am getting tired. Sorry. For a start "contact" is not quite the right word and the sentence is in an odd order. What I am saying is what someone advised earlier and I fully accept - that radiation has a more direct route into the body orally than through the skin and that even though a CT scan involves certain risks, those risks are still likely to be smaller than if radiation is absorbed through food or drink. Of course, quantity of inputs and radiation levels would matter but I think we are talking here about comparable levels and also taking account of the broad impacts - length of time and repetition of exposure, numbers of people affected - of it being in the food chain etc. etc.

johnb - I need to think through your point about the 40% reduction before commenting.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . Angstlust . . .

a nice word. Was it already known to Freud we wonder?

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, I like it. Probably preferable to anschluss.

johnb.....actually have you got the context for that statement? What date is this a comparison against? Is it based on a forecast or the current time?

Also, a reduction of 40% of electricity consumption is not a 40% reduction of energy consumption and therefore we need to consider where this sits overall.

[Lateralthinking1]

.........What I can confirm for now is that energy consumption increased by 15% between 1970 and 2001. Consumption in the mid-eighties was actually lower than in 1970.

The overall energy consumption for transport rose by 95% between 1970 and 2001.

[johnb]

The 15% increase between 1970 and 2001 is the temperature adjusted (for cold/warm weather) primary energy consumption, i.e. the total energy that is needed to produce the energy eventually consumed and takes in consideration, for example, the inefficiencies of power stations, etc, etc.

The increase before any temperature adjustment is 13%.

It just happens that 2001 was the peak, since then energy consumption has declined, most noticeably in 2007-9 and especially in 2009, presumably due to the recession.

The equivalent increase in primary energy consumption between 1970 and 2009 (without any temperature adjustment) is just 0.5%. So you already have your wish to go back to 1970 energy levels!

However, although you are correct in saying that electricity has to seen within the overall context of energy consumption, at the same time it is a bit misleading. Apart from its use in heating (which is a waste of such a high grade energy source), electricity cannot be replaced by other fuels, e.g. you can't run your PC, TV, washing machine, vacuum, etc on gas. So it is perfectly valid (even essential) to consider electricity consumption on its own, whilst bearing in mind its part in the overall energy mix.

Source for electricity consumption 1970-2009:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/electricity/electricity.aspx

The select "Electricity supply, availability and consumption, 1970 to 2009 (DUKES 5.1.2)"

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The level of world energy consumption is likely to go on rising until something drastic happens, as a result of
(a) continuing human greed
(b) ever increasing population
(c) the desire of countries like China and India (to name but 2) to have the same standard of living as Europe and the USA.

Until "b" is tackled internationally, the human race will continue to accelerate into a huge brick wall.

[Lateralthinking1]

.....New Oil Found - Astonishing timing!

"Statoil Makes Norway's ‘Most Important’ Find for 10 Years in Barents Sea"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/statoil-eni-advance-after-striking-oil-gas-in-norway-s-arctic.html

Electricity

Chris Huhne announced in December that electricity use could increase by 50% by 2050. This is an unacceptable consideration. It will only do so if the Government lets it and that level of increase would be entirely unprecedented. There is a greater crossover in domestic and business energy resource than you imply. All electric central heating uses more electricity than other forms of heating. At the moment, transport is using up the oil resource we have as if it were water. As you say, electricity could be a component of vehicle technology in the future. The overall energy consumption for transport rose by 95% between 1970 and 2001. This needs to be reversed.

Thorium

Would it be fair to say that Prof King's study is biased because it doesn't mention thorium and all of its arguments are based on the notion that there is no alternative when clearly there is?

1. US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation. The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs.
2. Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.
3. If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself.
4. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.
5. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth.
6. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium.
7. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.
8. Dr Cywinski at Huddersfield University is developing an accelerator driven sub-critical reactor for thorium, a cutting-edge project worldwide. It needs to £300m of public money for the next phase, and £1.5bn of commercial investment to produce the first working plant. Thereafter, economies of scale kick in fast. The idea is to make pint-size 600MW reactors.Yet any hope of state support seems to have died with the Coalition budget cuts.

Would it also be fair to say that British politicians prefer to (a) deceive the public year after year and (b) place the public at unnecessary and increasing risk essentially (a) to save money (b) maintain one of the biggest weapons capabilities in the world and (c) have undue room for control on the internal affairs of other countries in North Africa and the Middle East?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

[QUOTE=Lateralthinking1;43445Would it also be fair to say that British politicians prefer to (a) deceive the public year after year and (b) place the public at unnecessary and increasing risk essentially (a) to save money (b) maintain one of the biggest weapons capabilities in the world and (c) have undue room for control on the internal affairs of other countries in North Africa and the Middle East?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

[johnb]

The equivalent increase in primary energy consumption between 1970 and 2009 (without any temperature adjustment) is just 0.5%. So you already have your wish to go back to 1970 energy levels!

I hate to do this, but in fairness I should mention that the marked decline in the energy used by industry (42%, from 89.0 to 46.9 million tonnes oil equivalent) is a major factor and it dwarfs the changes in any other sector. What has actually happened is that with the decline of our manufacturing base, especially in heavy industry, and our reliance on imports we have effectively exported the energy consumption for that manufacture. (Nevertheless, in 2009 our consumption of primary energy was more or less at 1970 levels.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This is quite true. It's an international problem and we can't shift our responsibilities quite so easily.

[johnb]

Would it also be fair to say that British politicians prefer to (a) deceive the public year after year and (b) place the public at unnecessary and increasing risk essentially (a) to save money (b) maintain one of the biggest weapons capabilities in the world and (c) have undue room for control on the internal affairs of other countries in North Africa and the Middle East?

Oh for heaven's sake - stop ranting!

Thorium power plants are at the research and development stage. The option to build a new generation of thorium power plants DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST. If such plants were established and proven I have no doubt that the government would be extremely interested, but that is not the situation we are in.

Why on earth do you view everything through a filter of paranioa?