With a move to an energy economy with less dependance on carbon, many tote nuclear power as the solution due to the lack of carbon emissions. But what about the rest of it (Plant failure issues completely aside)?
The waste is problematic to say the least. One source I read a while ago suggested that in the US there was an area set aside for the centralized storage of spent fuel rods in sealed drums – however there was a few problems with this – first the heat form the sheer mass of fuel, and secondly the longevity of the storage containers. Presently fuel is stored at the plant as an alternative. Some suggest jettisoning fuel into space, while other suggest dropping it into an oceanic trench – the first would require prohibitive amounts of energy (probably from carbon sources too), and the second would no doubt have an impact on oceanic ecosystems.
Next when considering nuclear power is the useful life and commissioning phases of a plant. Useful life is of the order of 40 years with commissioning and decommissioning phases each of the order of 5-20 years. That’s a bloody long time to muck about for the amount of useful life a plant gives! Not to mention extending plant life can be risky when it comes to issues such as metal fatigue (on internal pipework), and concrete cancer. Never the less, this has been done on a lot of nuclear plants in The States.
When looking at alternatives, it must be said that as a member of the imeche, I found it interesting to read the amount of members willing to condemn wind power in the UK on the basis of the elctrical gride nearing capacity in early December 2010 due to low wind conditions and high demand due to the extreme cold. I must pose this question – did the lights go out? Nope. Not a failure in my mind. This does not suggest a failure of wind power and the immediate need for nuclear, what this does demonstrate however is the need for a robust grid. I dare remind those engineers that ‘robust’ when referring to a power grid means the ability to deliver energy under all manner of operating conditions. Clearly a wind power grid is not robust then, but neither is a uniquely nuclear grid. No single power source on its own can be a silver built or the basis of a robust grid. What does build a robust system though is diversity.
How best to build a robust grid? Firstly there is a need for a variety of input sources – namely solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power are all sensible options. None of these come anywhere near being robust on there own when compared with nuclear or coal/gas, individually but in combination it is hardly likely that a region is going to be dry, cloudy, and still at the same time. How best to manage these as a national grid? I personally believe that the majority of energy sources could be managed by the individual in a de-centralized grid of solar and wind power. This has several advantages, albeit not so obvious. When people are charged with managing their own resources they exhibit individual agency, and actively involve themselves in the situation – the individual can witness the direct cause and effect of their actions – i.e. leaving too many lights on will run the house out of stored power and the lights will stay out, or they will have to start paying for grid power. Essentially a de-centralized grid would make people more aware of how much energy they are using and graphically illustrate to them how to better manage their consumption. The second advantage is that the need for a heavy duty supply grid is secondary. Interestingly, prior to the wind power saga brought forward by the imeche they claimed that Britain is in need of a more robust power distribution grid. If it is to survive a warmer future. I do not believe that global warming will significantly change weather in Britain – it has a cool, unstable maritime climate to begin with. More importantly, a robust distribution grid would not rely on stronger lines between user and power generation, but multiples of these – the very kind that would come from a de-centralized grid.
So why are we not seeing de-centralized grids at present? Well that is sadly because it is not yet financially viable for the masses. The thing that drives the nuclear and coal power industries is capital investment, and good financial terms from governments. Home power rebates come and go, but the loans offered to build coal and nuclear power plants are still being paid off. It is a pity to note that the same financial terms are cringed at when it comes to large scale wind farms!
I clearly believe that an individually managed de-centralized grid made up of renewables poses our best solution to the un popularity of carbon based fuels, and the hassles associated with nuclear power, but there is one major thing not typically considered – overall demand. With the rise and rise of computing, smart phones, and plasma tellies, not to mention population rise there is an ever increasing demand for power. So in the mean time, don’t bother with the GPS – use a map or your memory, read a book – the information will probably be more accurate anyhow, and don’t bloody breed too much!
No comments:
Post a Comment