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: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Electricity, Nuclear Power, James Lovelock, Climate Change, Global Warming, GHG, Russia

Comments

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog