So-called smart meters, digital devices which will be installed in all households and businesses, are designed to end unreliable estimated gas and electricity bills and stop the need for companies to send out meter inspectors. Instead, information about how much energy consumers have used will be sent electronically to their suppliers.
However, documents published by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) have confirmed that households will have to pay for the £11.3 billion roll out, and that they will only save £23 a year by 2020.
That saving equates to just 2 per cent of the current average household energy bill of £1,132 and does not take into account forecasts that gas and electricity bills will climb substantially over the next decade. Ofgem, the industry regulator, has predicted that bills are likely to rise by between £168 and £700 a year by 2016 because of the need by the energy companies to invest vast sums in new power stations.
Various green measures are likely to increase household bills even further. Tom Lyon, energy expert at uSwitch.com, the price comparison site, said:“The average household energy bill is already £1,132 a year with £84 of that made up by hidden taxes. Policies launched under the previous Government are expected to add a further 6 per cent or £72 in levies over the next decade – this means that the hidden taxes on our energy bills will add up to £156 a year, far outweighing the potential £23 net saving offered through smart metering.”
full article
Thursday 31 March 2011
Warm front contract extension for Eaga
Energy efficiency firm Eaga has negotiated an extension of its contract with the Department of Energy and Climate Change to deliver the department’s Warm Front Scheme across England.
The scheme will now run to 31 March 2013 on commercial terms in line with previous expectations.
Total funding allocated to the Warm Front scheme across the period to March 2013 is in the region of £210m.
full article
The scheme will now run to 31 March 2013 on commercial terms in line with previous expectations.
Total funding allocated to the Warm Front scheme across the period to March 2013 is in the region of £210m.
full article
Monday 21 March 2011
Safe nuclear does exist
This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.
If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.
China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.
Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.
“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.
“If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.
“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.”
Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own “issues” but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima.
Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.
Dr Cywinski, who anchors a UK-wide thorium team, said the residual heat left behind in a crisis would be “orders of magnitude less” than in a uranium reactor.
The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.
full article
If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.
China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.
Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.
“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.
“If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.
“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.”
Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own “issues” but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima.
Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.
Dr Cywinski, who anchors a UK-wide thorium team, said the residual heat left behind in a crisis would be “orders of magnitude less” than in a uranium reactor.
The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.
full article
Sunday 20 March 2011
Safety concerns are only one big reason wind and solar better
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down - releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees - have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy.
First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth. Meltdowns can be caused not only by human error and natural disasters, but also by a terrorist with a large plane.
This scary possibility, though, is dwarfed by the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, as evidenced by the attempted or actual development of weapons capabilities in Pakistan, India, Iran and to some extent North Korea secretly under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.
What about resources and space? Solar power in sunny locations can power the entire world for all purposes 30 times over; wind in windy locations on or near land can power the world 6 to 15 times over. Only 0.4% more of the entire planet’s physical land would be needed to power everyone, everywhere with WWS.
What about cost? Despite what you may have heard, on-land wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power are cost-competitive with conventional energy. Solar costs are higher but decreasing.
Policy makers who have begun leaning toward nuclear should consider the health and safety of the United States and the scientific method, instead of the trail of lobbyists, when deciding the future of this country.
full article
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy.
First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth. Meltdowns can be caused not only by human error and natural disasters, but also by a terrorist with a large plane.
This scary possibility, though, is dwarfed by the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, as evidenced by the attempted or actual development of weapons capabilities in Pakistan, India, Iran and to some extent North Korea secretly under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.
What about resources and space? Solar power in sunny locations can power the entire world for all purposes 30 times over; wind in windy locations on or near land can power the world 6 to 15 times over. Only 0.4% more of the entire planet’s physical land would be needed to power everyone, everywhere with WWS.
What about cost? Despite what you may have heard, on-land wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power are cost-competitive with conventional energy. Solar costs are higher but decreasing.
Policy makers who have begun leaning toward nuclear should consider the health and safety of the United States and the scientific method, instead of the trail of lobbyists, when deciding the future of this country.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
