Here are details of yet another better alternative to building new nuclear power stations:
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Wednesday 3 October 2007
Monday 1 October 2007
Renewable energy better than nuclear power
My 11 reasons why the government should invest money in wind, soar and marine power rather than new nuclear power plants:
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)