The interesting documentary on More4 last week showed some truths about nuclear power - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKtALX6FZk . It seems only Finland has decided to deal with it's nuclear waste - by building a huge underground bunker in rock to store it in - whilst the rest of the world still wonder what to do with their waste. This bunker has to last 100,000 years (the time taken for the waste to become safe). To gain some perspective, 100,000 years ago being when Homo Sapiens first appeared.
The engineers of Finland commenced building their bunker in the 1990s, and constuction will be finished in the 2100s - if it takes 100years to build the bunker, how much Co2 will be released during that build program? I think nuclear releases a lot of Co2 when viewed as a full lifecycle -incorporating the fossil fuel energy used to mine the fuel, build the plant, and despose of the fuel. Nuclear also does not work with renewable energy on the national grid - so is not so good an option for future energy production. This is because with the output from renewable sources (wind, hydro, PV) varying during the day a backup source is needed that can be increased when the renewable sources are low - gas powerstations can do this fine. Nuclear cannot, being only able to ouput a constant amount of power.
Renewable energy has a quite large (but falling) build cost, but has zero fuel cost once up and running, so financially examined over the generator lifetime, renewables are cost effective - how much cost to spend 100 years building a bunker strong enough to last 100,000 years?
Households produce around 28% of UK CO2 emissions mainly through space heating, hot water provision and lighting. Here at Touchwood Homes we are passionate about reducing these emissions (and so running costs) in the home through improved quality in house design and construction methods. We hope to bring you both current industry news, and also company information and build progress in the coming weeks. Visit our website for further information at www.touchwoodhomes.co.uk
The DECC press release yesterday re-started the nuclear push by the goverment after the Japanesse disaster by stating 'nuclear is the cheapest option'. quite how they worked this out is a mystery - probably involving the tax payer sorting the nuclear waste problem.
ReplyDeletethe most recent new build nuclear station in Finland cost so far 2,000million - running 50% overbudget and still not finished. unlike renewables you then need to buy fuel and dispose of it. if the disposal method is anything like the example of Finland above, then we're talking about a 100 year mining project through rock, which to give ball park figures could be compared to building the channel tunnel (though would be much more expensive due to going through rock rather than soil). Channel tunnel took 7 years, so if it took 100 years would have cost 2,800million. so estimates for nuclear cost for a 1400MW plant;
build cost: 2,000million
fuel cost: 300million (guess)
disposal cost: 2,800million
so costs 3.8million / MW
1 MW wind turbine currently costs:
build cost: 1.5million
fuel cost: 0
disposal cost: 0
cost / MW 1.5million
without leaving a 100,000 year waste problem. How DECC state nuclear is cheaper is a bit of a mystery. Probably related to the tax payer funding the disposal (hiding from view) of the waste. Disposing of waste in the UK is a problem govermnents have spent the past 60 years leaving as a problem for the next government, thinking it more sensible to leave it all in sheds at Sellafield. Renewables wont ever run out fuel, and will get cheaper and cheaper over time as the industry developes. Nuclear and renewables also cannot run together - since renewables need variable background production (like gas) - nuclear cannot do this, plants only running at capacity or not running.