WE DID IT (MAYBE?) DID WE JUST STOP MOORSIDE?

THANKS TO ALL YOU FOLK who have campaigned tirelessly to raise the alarm about the diabolic plan for 3 reactors on greenfields near to Sellafield.

The Guardian and other press have reported today that: ““Toshiba recognises that the economically rational decision is to withdraw from the UK nuclear power plant construction project, and has resolved to take steps to wind-up NuGen,” the firm said in a statement.

While the press has not mentioned our vehement local campaign against the Moorside plan Radiation Free Lakeland would like to thank all who have already raised a banner to protest a new nuclear nightmare in Cumbria.

Not least the brilliant Arnie Gundersen a former US nuclear regulator turned whistleblower  who accepted our invitation to speak about the Moorside plan way back in 2014.  Incredibly Arnie and another equally qualifed expert Dr Ian Fairlie were considered too controversial and banned from speaking a

View original post 297 more words

One thought on “WE DID IT (MAYBE?) DID WE JUST STOP MOORSIDE?”

  1. It is far from diabolical for our Government to seek to reduce emissions to zero by 2050 and campaigning to stop nuclear power could attract similar pejorative adjectives.

    By 2050 we would need to supply 4X more electricity to decarbonise not just electricity, but also heating and transport. I put the comment below in response to a recent Guardian article. In summary, it works out for renewables or nuclear to do the job at:
    £10,000 billion for renewable every 25 years
    or
    £668 billion for nuclear every 60 years.
    ———————————-//———————————
    “…Ditching new nuclear would require a huge increase in the amount of wind and solar power already expected in coming years…”

    To decarbonise heating and transport, the grid has to go up fourfold from the current 80 GW to 320 GW and we’d need to meet a peak demand of about 200 GW. Assuming we can stand about 4X more onshore wind – that would deliver 8 GW. Assume we can stand about 4X more solar pv – that would deliver 6 GW. That leaves 186 GW of demand for those super-efficient 9.5 MW offshore wind turbines, like the ones to be used at Moray East Offshore Windfarm [MEOW]. We’d need 510 MEOWs and they’d occupy 150,450 km².

    All sounds pretty reasonable so far. But – do a near-shore estimate of around the whole of the British Isles, including the island of Ireland and the Scottish Islands and it’s about 4,450 km long. That’s 51,000 9.5 MW wind turbines ringing the British Isles, extending outwards by 34 km and costing £918 billion. And, they’d need replacing every 25 years.

    “…It would need dramatic progress on energy storage…”
    There were 13 days of continuous low wind at the end of May into June, when all of the UK’s wind turbine fleet delivered less than 5% of installed capacity. Forget the trivial onshore wind and solar pv – the 186 GW of offshore wind would be falling short of its average generation by 19.3 million MWh over the 13 days. The Australian experience with “energy storage for commercial renewable integration” is looking at £420,000 MWh for ‘big battery’ installations, so 19.3 million MWh of battery storage would cost £8,100 billion.

    That’s onshore wind, offshore wind, solar pv and batteries costing up to £10,000 billion, every 25 years or so.

    “…All those things will be difficult. But pursuing an impossible atomic dream, as Moorside demonstrates, looks even harder…”

    The first walk-away-safe 720 MW NuScale nuclear power plant [npp], with its Emergency Planning Zone at the boundary fence of the 0.243 km² site, will be operational in 2026. We’d need 287 of them to deliver 186 GW, if they were only generating electricity. They would cost £668 billion – for 60 years – of 24/7 electricity requiring no battery backup.

    But these reactors are so safe they can be sited near population centres. One of these could supply all of the electricity a city the size of Birmingham uses – domestic; commercial; industrial. So, used in Combined Heating & Power [CHP] mode it could also supply most of the city’s heating. It may be that using these npps for CHP could get the figure below 200 units.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s