RESPONSE TO BRENDAN
From Energy-Experts
Dear bRENDAN – thanks for your response, and to which I have appended some points, and indeed amended my original version in line with some of your comments.
In the interests of balance, for the Claverton Group does not have an opinion, can I invite you to submit a letter for criticism, which I will then send to the same several hundred media outlets?
Kind Regards
Dave Andrews
PS Please have a look at my comments in caps (merely to aid distingushment, not shouting) below
From: claverton@yahoogroups.co.uk On Behalf Of brendan.mcnamara Sent: 20 January 2008 19:22 To: claverton@yahoogroups.co.uk Subject: [claverton] Anti-nuclear letter
Dave and everyone
The proposed letter reads just as an anti-nuclear rant,
THAT SURPRISES ME – AS FAR AS I CAN SEE IT IS THE SOBER ASSEMBLAGE OF FACTS – WHICH ONES DO YOU DISAGREE WITH AND WHY
open to counter arguments at every paragraph. PLEASE MAKE THEM THEN, CITING EVIDENCE
Classic round-file material. SORRY, WHAT DOES “CLASSIC ROUND FILE” MATERIAL MEAN?
The claims about a 100% wind solution are full of holes described in the letter - a 100% dependence on fossil fuel backup WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH 100% FOSSIL FUEL BACK UP – WHY IS THAT A HOLE? FIRSTLY NUCLEAR REQUIRES A VERY LARGE FOSSIL BACK UP (SEE FRED STARR’S LETTER ATTACHED) ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE FRENCH SYSTEM USES 5 GW OF DIESEL FROM TIME TO TIME?
SECONDLY, SO WHAT? THE FOSSIL BACK UP WOULD ONLY BE USED ABOUT 2 WEEKS PER YEAR, A BIG IMPROVEMENT ON CONTINUOUSLY, 52 WEEKS PER YEAR AS NOW
and interconnects with friendly countries who do not need the power at the same time in mid-winter as we do. THIS IS FRANKLY A STUPID POINT – AND ONE THAT HUGH SHARMAN HAS ERRONEOUSLY PROPAGATED. ALL LARGE GRIDS ARE INTERCONNECTED FOR REASONS OF STABILITY. AN INTERCONNECTOR CAN JUSTIFY ITSELF EVEN IF IT NEVER CARRIES POWER, IT’S THE FACT THAT IT COULD, IF NECESSARY THAT ADDS A LOT OF VALUE.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE FRENCH GRID IS CONNECTED TO OURS, AND THAT THEY EXPORT AND IMPORT POWER WITH NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES? OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN LOADS AND GENERATIONS ARE MISMATCHED AND POWER WILL FLOW. IF IT TURNS OUT THAT ON RARE OCCASIONS THERE IS NO DEMAND AT EITHER END, THEN FOSSIL WILL HAVE TO BE USED – JUST LESS OF THAN IF THE INTERCONNECTORS WERE NOT THERE/
DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT WHEN THE NATIONAL GRID WAS PROPOSED IN THE UK THE SAME WRONG POINT WAS MADE? THE POINT IS THAT, JUST AS THE NATIONAL GRID ENABLED MANY SMALL POWER STATIONS TO BE CLOSED, AND THE BACK UP CENTRALISED, AND LESS OF IT, THE SAME WILL APPLY AT EUROPEAN LEVEL
A very parochial and self serving view. WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN – IT APPEARS TO BE AN EMOTIONAL JIBE WITH NO BASIS.
The Irish Wind study carefully avoided all the contentious issues and should not be cited as a PROOF of anything but their willingness to give this a go. THE REVIEW I READ STATED THAT IT WAS A VERY CAREFUL STUDY. CAN YOU GIVE ANY SPECIFIC ERRORS? SURELY BACK UP WAS THE KEY THING, HOW COULD THEY NOT HAVE ADDRESSED IT? SINCE THEY SELF EVIDENTLY HAVE THE POWER STATION ALREADY, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TO START UP THE EXISTING ONES WHEN THE WIND DROPS
Backup power in particluar was not properly addressed. PLEASE SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY NOT ADDRESSED PROPERLY.
The specific statements about nuclear power are still at the level of UK media coverage of nuclear and display no knowledge WELL PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US – BUT HOW CAN YO UBE SO SURE OF THE FUTURE
of how this will really develop ovwer the next 50 years. The UK could be the ONLY western country fully dependent on wind power and the charity of our neighbours. WHY WOULD WE BE DEPENDANT ON THE CHARITY OF OUR NEIGHBOURS ANY MORE THAN WE ALREADY ARE ? WE JOINED THE eu TO TRADE DIDN’T WE? WITH ENOUGH WIND POWER WE WOULD ON AVERAGE BE FLOGGING POWER TO THEM.
FRANKLY YOUR STATEMENT IS DAFT. WITH 100 % WIND IN THE UK, WE ARE IN NO DIFFERENT A POSITION FROM WHEN WE WERE 100% RELIANT ON OUR OWN OIL AND GAS, AND NOW IT HAS RUN OUT WE REALLY ARE DEPENDANT ON IMPORTING GAS AND OIL FROM OUR NEIGHBOURS. WHY DO YOU USE THE EMOTIVE WORD CHARITY? THE CONTINENTALS ARE QUITE HAPPY TO FLOG US GAS AT TIMES WHEN WE NEED IT – THEY GIVE US A PRICE AND WE PAY IT. SAME WOULD APPLY TO A GRID – THEY WOULD STING US FOR AS MUCH AS THEY COULD, AND WE WOULD MAKE DECISION ABOUT HOW MUCH TO INVEST IN INDIGENOUS FOSSIL GENERATE TO USE, - COAL, STORAGE, TARIFFS ETC JUST AS WE DO NOW, ITS CALLED A MARKET, NOT CHARITY.
I THINK YOU WILL FIND IT IS NUCLEAR POWER THAT RELIES ON CHARITY NOT WIND, WIND IS GROWING AT 35% PER YEAR, NONE IN CHINA, BECAUSE IT CANNOT FUNCTION IN A MARKET BUT RELIES ON CHARITY LIKE THE TAX PAYER BUILDING THE UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY AND INSURING IT.
I am pleased that you have not advocated solar power stations in the UK, something not envisaged by any Utility or by any of the studies on grand plans for Solar. GLAD TO HAVE GOT SOMETHING RIGHT Unfortunately you do support the ludicrous rooftop power systems
I THINK THAT IS BIT OF A DISTORTION – THE LETTER MENTIONED THEM IN A BAG OF RENEWABLES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED – IT MAY BE THAT THE COSTS WILL COME DOWN ENOUGH TO MAKE ROOF TOP SOLAR WORTHWHILE FOR ALL WE KNOW
which are discredited completely for the UK. (Monbiot: HEAT).Just because the Green Party in Germany forced a massive rooftop programme does not mean we should do likewise.
Tidal, lagoon, wave, or rain power might be contributors one day but should not be introduced as part of a renewables scattershot of possibilities.
THAT IS AN ASSERTION – WHY NOT – CAN YOU GIVE US SOME REASONING BEHIND THIS CLAIM. VARIOUS PEOPLE – SINDEN, BARRAT ETC HAVE SHOWN THAT WITH SUCH A BASKET OF RENEWABLES WE CAN DO ALL OUR ELECTRIC POWER AT A REASONABLE COST – WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. WHAT IS THIS RAIN POWER OR IS THAT SARCASM?
TIDAL ELECTRIC HAVE OFFERED TO BUILD TIDAL LAGOONS AT THERE OWN COST BECAUSE ACCORDING TO ROTHSCHILD’S, THEY ARE ENTIRELY SELF FUNDING UNLIKE THE BARRAGE. CYNICS ARGUE THE LATEST STUDY IS MERELY A DELAYING TACTIC BECAUSE LAGOON POWER IS CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY WANTS TO BUILD IT WITHOUT SUBSIDY.
I have been evaluating the implications of a 100% nuclear solution for a couple of years. This does require that the great developments in the works for fission and fusion actually come to fruition in timely order. WELL I SUPPORT YOUR ENTHUSIASM, BUT WHY TAKE A GAMBLE ON WHAT YOU SAY MAY HAPPEN, BUT WHICH MAY NOT – WE KNOW IF WE START BUILDING ENOUGH WIND NOW WE CAN PROVIDE ENERGY DEFINITELY AT A REASONABLE PRICE – THIS IS NOT CERTAIN WITH FUSION OR FISSION
None of the current popular views of nuclear will be valid by 2020 and most of the problems will have been convincingly solved. SO YOU ASSERT We will also understand the giant rip-off proposed by the NDA. SORRY WHICH ONE IS THAT. WHO ARE THE NDA?
You should know that EdF/Areva are world leaders in all these developments. They tell you little about it as it is not in their interest - or in ours - to abandon new nuclear builds in UK, Dubai, China, etc... on the basis that the next models will be quite diffeerent and even better and completely safe.
The fact that nuclear will not do better than 18-20% MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WILL ONLY HAVE BUILT THE FIRST ONE BY THEN – CAN YOU CONFIRM BUILD RATES of our electricity by 2020 is irrelevant on the 2050 timescale and reflects more on UK folly than failings of the nuclear industry. DOESN’T MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT IS, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITIES
Try not to make a big issue of short term arguments for long term problems. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN PLEASE I am nearly ready to publish my study, and have lectured on it at the Inst. Civil Eng, UKAEA Culham, and eleswhere and will offer you the details quite soon. They are very interesting and include electricity from fusion by 2020. WE HAVE VISITED CULHAM AND SPOKEN TO THE SCIENTISTS. ITS QUITE CLEAR THAT FUSION CAN EVEN BEGIN TO MAKE ANY IMPACT ON ELECTRIC PRODUCTION TILL AT LEAST 2050 AND NO SEROUS IMPACT FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS WHICH IS A) UNCERTAIN AND B) TOO LATE. WE DO KNOW THAT WE CAN DO THE WHOLE THING WITH WIND NOW
Dump the letter. WHY- WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS WRONG WITH IT – GIVE ME FACTS NOT OPINIONS
Write something more balanced asking for solutions and timescales. I THINK WE HAVE DONE JUST THAT
There are many good reasons for including wind power in the UK mix but lots of flaws in the idea that wind can do everything. WE NEVER SAID IT COULD, EXCEPT IN AN UNDESIRABLE BUT THEORETICAL CASE
It does little for your case for high ROCs and a high, punitive cost for Carbon, demands for new network grids, smart meters, and other subsidies for wind, to fight like rats in a sack over who has the best piece of cheese. THIS LAST SENTENCE IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE – YOUR USE OF METAPHORS IS CONFUSING. PLEASE SPECIFY CLEARLY WHAT YOU MEAN.
Think again.
Regards Brendan
