<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>Why is nuclear 'dead end'?</blockquote>

In my view it's probably the path that will eventually lead to truly clean and non-polluting energy, on a vast scale. Existing fission plants are very safe and just about the cleanest non-renewable way of generating power, but my hope is that fusion plants will be developed over the next twenty or thirty years. That really would be a step change in the way we view energy use, given the absolutely enormous energy potential they offer, with virtually no form of pollution or radiation hazards.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>'Nuclear fusion is 20 to 30 years away and it always will be'</blockquote>

True! When I started work for the UKAEA back in the very early 70's we were all convinced that ZETA was going to pave the way to fusion power.............

Posted By: SteamyTeaWhy is nuclear 'dead end'?

Who besides the British Tax payer is going to finance the next wave of nuclear power, where already paying the nuclear premium and the peasants are revolting.

Posted By: JSHarris

Posted By: renewablejohn

Who besides the British Tax payer is going to finance the next wave of nuclear power.

Interesting point of view.

Who, besides the British tax payer, is currently funding renewables?

If the government hadn't passed legislation to subsidise/incentivise wind, solar, biomass etc then I doubt that they'd have been developed, either, or at least not as quickly as they have.

Renewables is only first generation cost. Once built the operator will need to retain sufficient funds to replace the turbine in 25 years time.
Nuclear is second generation . The replacement cost of the first generation should pay for the second generation so for example When Sizewell A was decomissioned and replaced by Sizewell B there should have been sufficient funds in the kitty to cover the decommissioning costs plus erection of Sizewell B. Instead the generators got fat and then came cup in hand to the British taxpayer to bail them out.

Heres the end of any chance of a clean coal / clean biomass future

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8837141/Plans-for-UKs-first-clean-coal-plant-collapse-over-1.5bn-cost.html

I do feel sorry for Shell as this technology has been proven for over a decade. Pity its the Chinese who can afford to buy a dozen off the shelf and we cannot afford to buy even one.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: djh</cite>I feel the last sentence is particularly relevant to this thread.</blockquote>

It is indeed, and echoes a point I've tried to make several times, that high population density countries, such as the UK, simply cannot, and should not (IMHO) waste valuable agricultural land by trying to grow a tiny amount of fuel (in relation to our overall fuel requirement).

Biomass has a place in our future, but needs a radical shift (again IMHO) away from land based growth and on to marine based aquaculture if it is to have a hope of meeting our future needs. The potential is there for using algae to produce useful fuel, but there are a heck of a lot of technical and environmental issues to overcome.

I've had another all-veggie day today. It's not so hard and I'm sure it takes a great chunk out of my footprint.

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: JoinerOr just all go veggie and use all the land otherwise used for meat production for biomass.

Don't know that much about farming, but seem to remember reading that the 'Western Model' of meat production was not as effective as some others because we expect a different quality and we have less land area (compared with some other countries).

Think I have been 'all veggy' today, but considering going to get a Dhansak for tea.

Ironic that the majority of scientists involved in this kind of research work come from one of the most polluting countries on the planet. Good sign, bad sign?

Brian

I noticed Trafford Council have refused a Biomass plant in Manchester. I wonder how long it will be before it gets the go ahead on appeal.

Article in today's Telegraph headed Wood stoves "make global warming worse" . Based on research funded by Swedish Gov. Am aware Swedish research into impact of wood burning was announced 2003 with projected 3 year study . Anyone aware of research findings please and where available?
Telegraph article by Louise Gray but cannot locate link!!

I have lifted this bit out of a DECC paper on RHI and would welcome your thoughts please.

" The RHI is going to incentivise the installation of biomass boilers, which will increase the amount of
biomass burned for heat in such boilers above what would have been the case without a financial
incentive. It is important to note that emissions from biomass boilers are much lower than when wood is Renewable Heat Incentive
50
burned in open fires and larger boilers tend to have lower emissions than small ones. Also, even with the
RHI, emissions from biomass will continue to be much lower than emissions from other sectors such as
transport. Nevertheless, we recognise that we need to strike a balance between incentivising biomass on
the one hand and mitigating against its harmful impacts on the other.
The most significant air quality impacts are expected to come from particulate matter (PM10) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from the combustion of biomass. Therefore, we will work with Defra and the
relevant Devolved Administrations to introduce emissions limits of 30 g/GJ for particulate matter and 150
g/GJ for NOx.
However, as this is a technically complex area we feel it is right to work with stakeholders to establish
the most appropriate way of enforcing and administering emissions limits. Therefore, we will be
introducing these limits for RHI biomass installations below 20MWth in the next set of RHI regulations in
2012 so that we develop the best possible long term solution and allow industry to get their products
appropriately tested.
We expect uptake of biomass under the RHI to be low in the first year of the scheme, and primarily
outside urban areas, so the air quality impact of not introducing emissions limits in 2011 will be low."

The problem I have is not the levels of pollution but the numbers of things doing it

30 = 30 but 100,000 people all doing their 30 worth = 100,000 x 30 = SMOG, illness, unpleasant air quality in our towns and cities

I am with Tony on this, it is not the numbers in isolation but the scale that could happen. Thing is we have viable alternatives, just that they are major installations (nuclear and tidal). But hopefully the RHI will not be worth doing, so we will be no worse off than today. Feedstock price will also self regulate take up before there is a serious problem in the UK.

But that slow take up is for biomass and wood boilers certified for RHI

Millions of wood-burners of all descriptions have been installed and are being used already many of these with quite polluting fuel.