CEMETERY TECHNOLOGY
Monday, June 11, 2012 at 9:54PM There has been a fairly concerted effort this year in the UK from a small minority of Tory politicians, backed up by furious lobbying from some well funded bodies to try and put the brakes on the very impressive roll out of our renewable energy infrastructure.
These chaps are ranting about wind turbines, they will take any opportunity to discredit them, the energy they produce and the supposed massive subsidies the wind farming industry is ‘bleeding out of the tax payer to prop up this green-wash sillyness.’
Then my eye falls on a story in the Independent newspaper I found on the train the other day. The headline said it all;
PICTURE COURTESY visitcumbria.com
Sellafield Pleads for Extra £276 million.
I just want to focus on the word ‘extra,’ because ladies and gentlemen we have already forked out several hundreds of thousands of wind turbines worth of cash to deal with nuclear waste in my lifetime.
It’s important to point out that Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing facility in Cumbria isn’t just a nuclear power station, they also deal with the stuff that’s left over when the generating has been done elsewhere.
I quote from the Independent article
‘Sellafield Ltd said that the final costs of building the Evaporator D complex to handle Britain’s liquid nuclear waste will need to be increased from £397m to between £599m and £673m. This is more than six times the original estimate for the project.’
I am not now and never have been ‘opposed’ to nuclear power. I would much prefer to see a new nuclear power station built than another coal burning plant. I am utterly and irrevocably opposed to burning coal, if there is one thing we must stop doing as soon as possible it’s stop burning coal.
However I am very critical of some aspects of the nuclear industry and very aware of the historical link between nuclear power and the nuclear weapons industry, although to a lesser degree today than it was a few years back.
When I heard someone refer to nuclear power as cemetery technology the other day, something clicked in my slow moving brain. It’s a very illuminating term, the sites where these power stations once stood will in effect become cemeteries, we can’t do anything else with that land, it has been taken out of the picture just like a cemetery.
I would be not only happy, but proud if I could erect a 100 meter wind turbine in my garden. It’s very windy where I live and it would produce enough electricity for the surrounding villages and towns, and it wouldn’t burn anything or produce any highly dangerous waste. Yes, it might receive subsidies when it’s constructed, just like the nuclear industry does, although obviously nowhere near as much.
When, in 20-25 years time the turbine comes to the end of it’s productive life, it’s going to cost money to take down. The materials can be re-used to create maybe some other form of renewable energy source we haven’t discovered yet. But in that 20-25 year period, it will produce many gigawatts of electricity without burning anything, we won’t have to send loads of money for Uranium to Australia, coal to Poland, or Gas from Mr Putin or even more money for oil from King Khalid of Saudi Arabia.
When a nuclear power station comes to the end of its productive life, as many are now doing in the UK, it’s a slightly different story as we are seeing with the mind numbing cost of decommissioning the Dounreay site in Scotland.
Due to the highly toxic nature of much of the material still piled up there, a large 24 hour armed police presence is needed as well as all the brave engineers at work trying to figure out what to do with it all.
It’s going to take 20 years minimum and it will cost billions, and I think it’s vital to point out that those billions are not coming from some well funded corporation, no, they are coming from us, the numpty tax payer.
And lastly, the ‘carbuncle’ argument. A wind turbine is a large, industrial installation, if it’s stuck on the top of a hill you can see it for miles.
However earlier this year I drove through Yorkshire, all along the coast are massive, smoke belching power stations which burn through millions of tons of imported coal a year. You can see them from 100’s of miles away, they are a massive carbuncle, the ugliest of eyesores, giant, countryside disfiguring lumps of human engineering excerement and yet I don’t hear middle class NIMBY Telegraph readers putting signs outside their Yorkshire houses saying ‘No More Drax B, Bring Down the Chimneys!’
Maybe that’s because the people of Yorkshire are slightly more realistic, they know where their electricity comes from, they can see it every day. Some cosseted Tory neighbor of Ms Brooks or the Camerons don’t want that ‘ugliness’ near their nice houses.
Well, I live also in the Cotswolds and I think, due to it’s high hills and windy enchantments we should be the new North Yorkshire. We should have massive, 150 meter tall wind turbines on every hill, we should walk around proudly knowing we are producing electricity for the low-landers. I’m talking hundreds of turbines, spinning away day and night, their gentle whooshing sending the children of the Cotswolds into gentle sleep on late summer evenings.
Then we could knock down those vile coal burners in Yorkshire and return that wild, savage coastline to it’s former natural beauty. Nice
Reader Comments (15)
Just a thought, but while they're waiting to decide what to do with the dead, unproductive land left over when we dismantle a nuclear power station - that land that had an ugly, massive, industrial, electricity-generating plant on it: could we stick a few wind turbines on it?
I mean - hideous, ugly and wasteful as they are you could say it's a like-for-like replacement. Apart from the lack of sterility-inducing radiation, the reliance on foreign raw materials, the massive workforces trusting their health to biosuits etc.
Robert, 1 point ... I live in Clacton-On-Sea - directly opposite the MASSIVE windfarm @ Gunnfleet Sands, I disagree with a lot of locals and find it quite relaxing to look out at the gentle turning of the blades. my 1 ... quibble if you will ... is about "the gentle swoosh of the blades" ... on a night when the wind is blowing the right way you can hear/feel a thruzz (1/2 throb 1/2 buzz) which admittedly isn't too disturbing but the turbines are some 7 kilometres away. I know something needs to be done, and this is by far the most sensible and practical solution but I don't think I'd want to live under or near one anymore than I'd want to live near a nuclear plant ... there must be a solution to quietening them down surely!
BBUK
Nice rant! ;-) Of course you can do something with old nuclear facilities (and old coal/oil/gas fired power station sites for that matter): put in a mixed wind and solar farm on the site.
I'm always surprised that nobody has done that at Willington. As the cooling tower of the old power station still stand sentry over the town, nobody could say that a wind turbine or two would dominate the landscape. And of course there's already a handy Grid connection still there, so connection costs would be lower than a green field site.
Could the reason for the support be that some Tory MPs are shareholders in the nuclear industry? Afterall, they're trying to privatise the NHS by the back door because a lot of them are shareholders/directors of private health & drug companies.
When will the British tory-voting-fodder wake up?
I think the Tories are just reverting to type. They want grouse shooting, not vultures; supply side solutions rather than fiscal stimulus; giant power stations somewhere a long way from their homes, rather than wind turbines "spoiling their view".
I don't think they mean anything by it, it's just how their heads work.
I'm not sure nuclear power has an association with nuclear weapons as such, more that it's been cursed by them. We have uranium reactors /because/ you can make weapons out of uranium, we're not allowed to have breeder reactors /because/ they can be used to make plutonium for weapons. We have massive piles of waste /because/ we can't build reactors that burn it...
King Kalid of Saudi Arabia http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/obama-saudi-2.jpg
(no, the wall isn't fake)
Perhaps all planning applications for wind turbines should be accompanied by an aplication for a coal or nuclear generating station. I'm sure the locals would very quickly get behind the turbines.
My problem with nuclear power is twofold. One, the waste has to be put somewhere - and it literally takes millions of years to degrade (at least). We can't just shoot it into space, and we haven't figured out a way to just recycle spent rods into our planetary mantle. Also, while there's risk associated with any commercial-scale energy production (even those turbines can throw a blade, but it's on the lower end of danger as energy production goes), nuclear plants just seem so very dangerous. There are so many things that can go wrong, and fast.
The thing about coal is, I'm torn. Burning it can be made cleaner with big filters (but it's expensive, and what company's gonna volunteer to pay for THAT without government force?), but it does not get the finest particulates, which can be the most detrimental to breathing health. And mining coal is still dangerous work, as we hear about often.
Nothing doesn't have a drawback; even growing corn for ethanol here in the U.S. means more nitrogen in the ground for potential runoff. But nuclear scares me and coal worries me. (Hurry up with the algae and cellulose, scientists!)
One has to be careful with bashing nuclear power generation. There are all sorts of new systems that are miles ahead when it comes to waste generation and safety. The pressurized water reactors that are used in the USA and UK are very old school and should be replaced as soon as they hit their "sell by" date. Take a look at LFTR, MOX (used in France) and Pebble Bed reactors. There are new reactor designs that will use the old fuel rods (some reprocessed, some not) in the systems for generation or to just "burn" down the radioactive byproducts. Keep in mind that we all still want certain manmade radioactives for cancer treatments and for power generation on deep space probes.
Coal and natural gas put out more radioactivity than nuclear power. It's call "Naturally Occurring Radioactivity" (NOR). Must be ok since is natural! You won't hear much about it. I don't have the link handy, but a quick search should dig out several scientific papers on radioactive byproducts of using coal for electrical power generation.
I like wind turbines. The problem in California near Tehachapi (near me) it that all of the red marker lights have been synchronized to blink in unison. There are several square miles of large turbines and at night, one tends to get a bit nauseated from the light show. Lots of people in the area are trying to get the lights un-synchronized. There is an airport in nearby, so the lights are needed to keep small planes from smacking into the turbines at night.
I would love to see more wind turbines used to pump water to high reservoirs when demand is low (or there is too much wind) for use during peak hours. It seems to be an outstanding way to store power. Hydro plants can be brought online in under 30 seconds and turned off just as fast. More reservoirs also mean more fresh water storage.
Since we are likely to have coal for some time to come, let's scrub the CO2 emissions with algae and hydroponic produce farms. I imagine that one coal plant could heat and saturate many acres of produce production. That could save the energy and water used on the cold side of the generation system to dissipate waste heat.
Here in Shetland there is a massive debate at present about wind farms, particularly why we should/should not have one. Let's face it, our biggest natural resource up here is wind. If we can make money out of that, then we should! Yes, we've unspoilt peat and moorland (much like chunks of North Yorkshire only without those inconvenient "tree" things to get in the way of the wind) but our electricity has to come from somewhere.
At present, a good chunk of our power comes from a waste-to-energy plant that burns what household waste it can (what it can't burn goes to landfill). With the right wind-farm - and a means to get the power off-island) Shetland could become a net producer of electricity rather than consumer and our life up here could be made cheaper (and thus more attractive to people considering moving here).
We already have a small wind farm, 5 turbines, visible from some considerable distance - if I look out of my office window, I can see them. The turbines have names! The schools run education trips out to see them.
The other natural resource we've got up here is the sea. Tidal power, with our relatively small tidal range when compared to Jersey, might not be as productive as wind but would still be worth pursuing.
Wind, solar, tidal and nuclear all have the same problem - they make electricity when they want (with various degrees of predictability).
Other than hydro (rain-fed or pumped storage) biomass, coal, oil and gas are the only controllable generating options - without much better demand management they're unavoidable.
The big problem with almost all renewables is their intermittent and unpredictable nature. In the UK at least only tidal and bio are predictable and wind, solar and wave power are all subject to lots of variation. Indeed wind farms in the UK only achieve about 20% of their maximum power output when average over the whole year. As the the storage of excess power is expensive, difficult, fairly inefficient and of limited capacity, then backup power generation is required. For instance, the pumped storage is only about 75% efficient, and more importantly, the number of suitable sites for such facilities are very limited in the UK, and they also have an environmental impact, not to mention being very expensive.
To some extent the effect can be averaged out by connecting together renewable sources over vast geographic areas. However, that doesn't cover all eventualities (there are extensive times when most of western Europe has very low wind speeds).
So what this means is that renewables allow use to burn less coal and gas, but it does not remove the need for most of the power stations. Indeed it looks like we would need to retain 75% or more of existing thermal power stations, which does not
Only if renewables can be developed to produce some form of intermediate, storable fuel (such as artificial hydrocarbons) will this be substantially changed. The prospect of using battery storage for grid-level power needs seems extremely unlikely with any likely prospective technology on cost and resource grounds.
So the idea that wind power will eliminate the need for thermal power stations is just a dream I'm afraid. At the moment, engineering reality means that's just not possible. Yes, we can burn less fuel, but the reduction in the number of power stations is rather limited.
Small niggle - Sellafield, in my understanding, Is no longer a power station and all the components are gradually being dismantled. Also the residual radiation levels are on a par with those found in parts of Exmoor - no I can't find where I read this and this is a source of current frustration, so ultimately the Sellafield site could be used for other purposes - Business park or light industry perhaps should we no longer require the reprocessing plant.
Wind turbines though - bit of a no brainer isn't it? if we have some better solution in the future we can just gradually decommission them at the end of their lives and suddenly they are gone from the countryside again with no harmful effects.
Finally can someone discover how to harness the power of constant rain?
Apart from the cooling ponds, which are loaded with the most dangerous waste in the world, enough to contaminate the Uk at least and probably most of Western Europe.
Wind turbines and renewable energy won't happen for a generation. Our society is in a state of massive, irreversible decline due to, as far as I can make out, the death wish, what Freud called Totenstreib.
I think it's very brave of people like you to do what you do and I'm glad you are, but it's important that you are aware of what you're up against. People like nuclear power for the same reason they like nuclear bombs - it makes them feel powerful and secure. There are additional deep reasons for officials to choose nuclear - they like way it cements their power plus continued access to plutonium for bomb-making. A heady mix indeed.
Keep on truckin'!
@BBUK We live less than a mile from our local "patch" of turbines / windflowers ..call em what you will & have never had glare off the blades, flicker, or the subsonic "thrum" you very accrately describe, with sound anything is possible & of course nighttime unmasks sounds that are masked during the day...(eg noisy fridges)
We have 24 (or so) 2 megawatt turbines all within a few miles of us, never heard a complaint from locals when they went up, nor since, & they are so inoffensive that i'm sure we'd welcome more of them.
However we shouldn't be a dumping ground for the nimby brigade. get them to change or ask them to move nearer a bloody nuclear plant.
I laugh when they post up images of their local "ruined landscape" round here (often a new housing estate on the site of ww2 bomber airfields ...probably as polluted as hell the photo montage pales in comparison to how much landscape another drax or windscale / sellafield would dominate & shadow.
note to all: read "Singing for mrs Pettigrew" with regards to "choosing" a site in the country & buggering up the landscape, "to keep it safe for all those city folk"! ..if it's so safe build em on the banks of the thames with lots of housing on top!
I'd prefer to reduce my dependence on electricity & invest in renewables, we can live amongst those without the need for barbed wire & gun toting security for starters.
just don't opt for a roof-mounted turbine which are a total con (read up there Robert), we need turbines, big turbines, & the land immediately around can be put to good use either for industry, grazing & food production.
Even the RSPB at Sandy Lodge (Bedfordshire) are now erecting their own BIG turbine, compared to just a few years ago when they were fence sitting & entertaining daily mail-esque headline with comments about bird / bat decapitation!?... rspb hq is also a big bird reserve, ..interesting turnaround, but why? part of the government financial incentive??
As for 25yr lifespan a well maintained commercial unit can go on... the first noticeable unit here was /is a vestas unit at woodgreen (godmanchester shelter) circa 1988 ...still providing all their electricity needs for their much expanded site.
If only we'd said "sod the olympics" & set in motion some real locally owned largescale windfarms that would have turned a profit for each & every council that would run for years & benefit everyone rather than a lacklustre London event for a month of one year from which only LOCOG, the very corrupt olympic commitee & sponsors get rich(er) from!
instead we (the taxpayer) invest in more millenium domes that don't turn a profit till sold off on the cheap to a big tax dodging phone corporation (for example) ...how much sense!?
the rationale is well & truly skewed, ..smegging smegheads lucky we can invest in green electricity producers that invest in more green power eg ecotricity!
Yes I am aware wind farms are "supplemental" however from my window the local turbines output are pretty damn constant!