There have been a flurry of articles in the press in recent days about the significant risk that in a decade’s time, possibly sooner, the UK will suffer from power blackouts as electricity generating stations fall out of use and as there is nothing – apart from some renewable energy sources such as windmills – to pick up the slack. The trouble for the Tories, of course, is that assuming they are in power by then, the blame for the disaster will fall on their shoulders, rather than on those of politicians who have chosen to play to the Green gallery by not giving the go-ahead to new power supplies, such as from nuclear energy. Of course, Mr Cameron’s own flirtation with the Green movement may come back to haunt him.
The problem, as I see it, as that not only do we not have a genuine market for energy in this country as the current setup is heavily regulated. Even if the industry were freed from worrying about complying with Green restrictions on CO2 production, there is still not enough of a genuine market to ensure that supplies keep up with demand. To say this is an urgent issue for any incoming administration next year is an understatement.
A question that I have is there anything that can be done to generate electricity on a smaller scale. rather than on the model that has operated for decades? I mean, could a group of firms join up to pay for a small nuke station, for example? (I am assuming that the security issues to that will not be a barrier).
Here is a new blog on the issue by the politician, Greg Clark. Meanwhile, Christopher Booker is in fine form on the same topic here.
The gap in generation capacity could be filled quite quickly by building gas-turbine power stations. The development of the trade in LNG will mean that these will not be dependent on Russian supplies, so there is not a security of supply problem. A large aero-derivative gas turbine can produce 60MWe, that’s megawatts of electricity. Fifty, plus a few spares would fill the generating gap (3000 MWe or 3 GWe) and this is easily within the capacity of the industry to supply. It’s not the ideal solution either from a cost or environmental standpoint, but it could be done quickly and the capital cost is relatively low. Frankly we’re not going to have blackouts but we may end up with a sub-optimal generating system. (BTW I am an engineer with some experience in power systems!)
I suspect when power supplies start to run low the party in power will buy nuclear-generated electricity from France. That’s what oh-so-green Germany is doing.
The short answer to your question is yes, meet the Hyperion nuclear battery:
The Los Alamos based company Hyperion Power Generation is developing a new power source called the Hyperion Hydride Reactor, a sealed fission reactor that can supply power to a small community. Although the portable nuclear reactor is the size of a hot tub, when it’s hooked up to a steam turbine, the reactor can generate enough electricity to power a community of 25,000 homes for at least five years. As it is self-contained and involves no moving parts, the reactor doesn’t require a human operator and is considered “extremely safe”. Some experts, however, are still questioning the logic of using even this relatively safe kind of nuclear energy. These experts are worried about the pollution created in the process of extracting the radioactive ore, and by the storage problems of the spent nuclear fuel.
LINK(Link)
Shipstones.
That Heinlein guy was a true visionary.
There’s a fair bit of work going on to produce cheaper, safer, quicker Nuclear Power Stations including what’s called ‘right sized’reactors.
And even this nulabour mob appreciates that we need to replace our current baseload generators as they fall to pieces with age and are granting new coal-fired and even nuclear generators licences and seeking to cut the time for planning permission. It will be a close run thing as to whether the new generation will come on stream in time to prevent large scale power cuts and the French option is already being used to a large extent and may not be sufficient to plug the gap. Though it helps that the French own most of our electricity generation and supply industries.
Gas is already overused in the supply business as it is far more useful for space heating, cooking and back up generation rather than replacing large scale base load generators, and may well have a bigger role to play in transport in the near and medium term.
Pretty much everyone knows that our generating capacity has been heading for a fall in the not too distant future, but at least we’ve taken steps to avert the danger. We have, for instance, banned incandescent light bulbs.
So that’s all right then.
Gas turbine generators at private manufacturing facilities.
The German activity (buying in French nuclear energy) shows the true hypocrisy of the “Green” position – although this is better than an “honest Green” position which would lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people in a demented effort to return to a preindustrial society.
In the long term nuclear fusion may be the way – but in the short term nuclear fission (perhaps in the ways that commentors describe above) has to be done.
As for nuclear waste – the founder of the modern British environmental movement, James Lovelock (the “Gaia man”) has a solution “bury it all in my garden”.
After all we do not ban people living in Corwall or Aberdeen.
Of course J.P. is correct – the energy market (both in Britain and in the United States) is so regulated that it hardly a “market” at all.
And often these regulations (whether “health and safety” or other) have the effect of protecting established producers from competition – especially competition with small scale producers (such as people who would come out with a small nuclear reactor that could power a single town).
To supplement John_R’s link – Toshiba has made some spectacular progress on mini-nuclear reactors.
There are so many solutions, if the market were allowed to work. That is, however, one, big, huge, ugly IF.
From Christopher Booker’s article: “Eight of our nine nuclear power plants are coming to the end of their life. And half of our coal and oil-fired power stations are rapidly running out of the hours they are allowed to keep running under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants directive …”
Seems like there is no real problem here. Extend the (regulator-determined) life of the nuclear power plants, as has been happening in the US. Make a bonfire out of the EU’s Large Combustion Plants directive, and luxuriate in all the CO2 that fire produces. Then carry on watching TV as normal.
First, kill all the lawyers — as the Bard so eloquently put it all those years ago. The solution to so many of these non-problems that threaten to bring the end of civilization.
From the link by Plamus at September 3, 2009 12:52 AM:
Well, I searched for reports on that predicted first installation, but all I found were more similar reports, and this and this.
This leaves me with the question as to what label (hoax or interesting potential) Plamus was attaching to (John_R’s and) Hyperion’s Hydride Reactor.
Much though I love hi-tech myself, when one throws in Forlornehope’s potential future cost-effectiveness of LNG (certainly not yet from what I read), I think that maybe solutions to tomorrow’s problems needs to be today’s technology, and that the potential of techno-whizz is best left for next week’s problems.
Let’s ignore the super-hype of CAGW and take Alice’s suggestion of ignoring the uber-greens and delay phasing out of our still workable current power stations. Right now, we should build a few new clean coal-powered generators now, they’re cheap to run and the fuel (unlike gas and oil) does not have better ways to use it. Also we should build a few nuclear generators for the longer term growth in energy need.
Best regards
“is there anything that can be done to generate electricity on a smaller scale”
Yes, but only at vastly greater cost per unit.
Economies of scale do exist.
Regarding the bit about private nukes, it has been done to some extent – look up Bruce Power, they got a long-term lease of an old government-owned nuke plant, and are doing all the refurbishment with private dollars. It’s not strict private construction, but it’s a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Nigel, hat tip, Sir. Upon inspection, it does appear that the Toshiba mini-nuclear reactors may be a hoax, or at least something Toshiba does not wish to discuss. I withdraw the link.
You are right on about clean coal and nuclear energy being the medium term solutions. Not to sound snarky or bitter – I am always open to being proven wrong – but your suggestion of ignoring the extreme green may be harder to translate into reality than mini-nukes (not that they would like those either). For all the ridiculous amount of money spent on “stimuli”, the US could have built at least 30 nuclear power plants, and I suppose the UK no less than 15. Of course, under current rules, construction would begin around 2020, if (big if) approval were ever granted.
“Never put all your eggs in one basket” is an old saying. However, the same people in favor of diversity
in one thing, are in favor of all-in-one in other things.
It’s a matter of centralzing control of necessities on the
one hand; and, breaking-up those who may be denied
them, later.
Prison states want atomized populations, whose needs
are held centalized.