|
Dear Radsafers I would like to point out that issue relating
to radiation protection don't feature in the following (rather long
contribution). To those that choose to read to the end -
enjoy!
To add to the burgeoning debate on this issue I would like to
make the following comments.
It is incorrect as other have pointed out to say that Wind
energy CANNOT supply our future energy needs. It would be more
appropriate to say that it unlikely to supply ALL our future energy
needs. We in the UK are slowly increasing the use of wind energy.
Many studies have indicated that the UK has the most abundant (if that's the
right phrase" wind energy in Europe. Once again statements are made about
being able to supply three times the electricity needs of the UK if we built
enough wind turbines. Cost is no longer prohibitive for wind energy
projects in the UK increases in size and efficiency of wind turbines means that
current capital costs are in the order of £1000 per Mw of installed capacity,
this contrasts with current estimates by British Energy (co-owners of Amergen
and owners of Bruce Power in Canada) and BNFL are that new nuclear build of
between six and ten 1000 MW plants based on new CANDU or AP1000 designs are in
the order of £1500 per MW of installed capacity. However, although on this
basis wind turbines appear to win hands down, their life design life is only 20
years, compared with a minimum of 40 and probably 60 years for new nuclear
build. So you would need to replace the wind turbines at least once in the
lifetime of the nuclear plant, if not twice. This is not the only
complicating factor. The next issue is the load factor. It is also
incorrect to state that wind turbines will only generate for 12.5% (I think that
was the figure quoted) of the time. My understanding is that modern wind
turbines will generate for about 70% of the time but only at a fraction of the
potential output. A study undertaken in the UK by the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) found that the existing wind farms in place in 1998 had a
load factor of 27-28%. This compares with an average load factor for UK
nuclear plants of around 80%. So to produce the same amount of electricity
in any given year (in the UK) in kW/h would require approximately 2.7 MW of
installed wind turbine capacity to every 1 MW of installed nuclear
capacity. Wind turbines are on the increase in the UK due to government
subsidy and regulation. All of the new build in recent years has
been through Government contracts where the price of the electricity and an
annual amount of guaranteed market has been fixed through contracts with the
Government. This benefit of this has been to reduce the cost from early
projects of approximately £0.11 per kW/h to around £0.025 per kW/h. This
has brought new future projects almost to within economic break even. The
Government has recently changed the way future wind energy projects will be
subsidised in the UK, BUT they will continue to be subsidised. It should
be noted that even British Energy are planning to invest in new wind projects
both in the UK and in Canada.
However it is important to recognise that wind energy is not
likely to displace nuclear power in any electricity market. This is
because of the inherent variability in the rate of production of
electricity. This means that the majority of Baseload Power plants will be
unaffected. Wind will only generate in the flexible section of the
electricity market where changes in output can be compensated for using other
flexible generators. Although wind energy supporters make great headlines
with statements that the UK could produce 3 times its needs using wind the
British Wind Energy Association state that they do not see wind energy being
able to contribute more than 20% of the UK's electricity needs for this very
reason. People will not want to have to sit and listen to their wind up
radios to find out when then they can switch on their electrical appliances
because the wind has increased around some wind farm or other. I would
finally like to dispel the myth that wind energy consumes vast tracts of
possibly otherwise useful land. Yes large generating parks would require
lots of land, but the footprint of the turbines is quite small in comparison and
would not preclude other uses for the land e.g livestock farming. You
don't stop using a field just because it has an electricity pylon in it do
you?
Moving on from wind. What other forms of renewable
generation are there, Hydro, pumped storage, solar, geothermal and
biomass. Starting with Hydroelectric, this form of large scale generation
has become increasingly discredited. There are several large schemes in
progress now (somewhere in Turkey, the three gorges dam in China etc.)
which the green lobby opposes just as vehemently as new nuclear build.
There are considerable environmental affects from these types of large
scale hydroelectric schemes and these are unlikely to
be built in the 1st world countries again. Pumped storage is not really
appropriate, while it is renewable, it takes tree units of electricity to return
the water to its starting point for each 2 units it generates. This type
of scheme can only really operate where there is a large excess of nuclear
capacity which can be utilised at periods of low grid requirement e.g. night
time, to return the water for re-use during period of peak demand -half time at
the super bowl! Solar, some comments have been made already about the
other pollutants from the production of Photvoltaics (I think that's right) and
I remain to be convinced that these are a genuine "green" alternative. The
other form of solar power is through direct heating of closed water systems to
produce heating for homes etc. I don't frankly know enough about the
production of these to comment (but if anyone has more information I would
appreciate it) although I recent report that I came across stated that "solar
energy for space heating and cooling .....must be among the most ecologically
benign sources of energy" [ source: The likely adverse environmental
impacts of renewable energy sources. APPLIED ENERGY Vol. 65 S.A Abbasi,
Naseema Abbasi]. Geothermal energy production is also not pollution
free. The same article (above and worth a read if you can find it, it is
on the net somewhere) stated that a review of the Wairakei geothermal
plant in New Zealand "discharges approximately 6.5 times more heat, 5.5 times
more water vapour and one-half as much sulphur per unit of power produced as
would a modern coal plant", "It also contaminates the Waikato river with
hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, arsenic and mercury at concentrations that
have adverse, if not calamitous effects". The final option biomass
while renewable cannot be regarded as environmentally friendly, any form of
generation that relies on combustion will produce adverse environmental
effects. This can only be regarded as an improvement if the process itself
reduces the amount of hazardous material and pollution that might otherwise
occur e.g through very high temperature incineration of potentially hazardous
refuse. Although the ash waste may then become another form of hazardous
waste.
My personal view is that wind energy, wave energy and solar
heating (not solar electricity) should all play a role on the worlds future
energy needs. These should be combined with genuine efforts to reduce or
at least stabilise the current level of energy usage through energy efficiency
measures. There will continue to be a need for large scale baseload
electricity production, which should contain a significant proportion of nuclear
generation. At least in the next 40-60 years I would like to see (and I
will continue to lobby for) the UK producing nearly 30% of its electricity
requirements from nuclear power.
Regards
Julian Ginniver
|