Skip to main content

If ...The Lights Go Out

I just started reading James Lovelock's new book, The Revenge of Gaia, and I've already tripped over some interesting passages in his chapter on energy sources. It was in that chapter that I read about a BBC program that aired in 2004 entitled, If ... The Lights Go Out. Here's a description:
In the first episode, set in the winter of 2010, Britain is struggling to generate enough electricity to cope with demand. Most of our gas reserves in the North Sea have been used up and the country is already heavily dependent on imported gas to generate electricity, most of which we buy from Russia. At that time gas fuels almost 60% of UK electricity generation, and renewables (mostly wind) 10%. Coal and nuclear have fallen to about 16% each. A terrorist attack on a gas pipeline in Russia cuts off much of the UK’s gas supply. This incident coincides with prolonged cold and calm weather, causing massive power cuts in the East and South of England with devastating effects.

[...]

Such a scenario is neither implausible nor sensationalist, but could occur as a direct result of our current energy policy. In an electricity market that provides little incentive to generators to invest in new capacity, with coal and nuclear stations coming to the ends of their useful lives, and increased reliance on intermittent wind and gas imports for the bulk of our generating capacity, Britain’s security of electricity supply will be in serious jeopardy. According to research by Professor John Gittus, Britain could move from being the most to the least energy self-sufficient country among the developed nations within 20 years.
In the wake of the program, the BBC asked viewers if Britain should keep its nuclear plants (see left).

More details, here. There are all sorts of drawbacks to overreliance on Russian natural gas.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…