Skip to main content

The British Present An Energy Plan

Ed-Miliband-visiting-the--002 Great Britain released last week its analogue of the Obama administration’s energy bill, called the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. It’s goal is to cut carbon emissions 34% by 2020, using 1990 levels as a baseline. That’s more ambitious than the American plan, but starts from a different place economically and industrially. To put it another way, it’s easier for the Brits to contemplate such a steep decline in such a short time – and it still qualifies as very optimistic.

Here’s what the report say about nuclear energy:

The Government is streamlining he planning and regulatory approvals processes for new nuclear power stations. It is currently assessing sites where developers would like to bring new nuclear power stations into operation by 2025, and this assessment will be included in a draft National Policy Statement for nuclear power, which the Government will consult on later in 2009.

So it’s in the mix. How much in the mix? We think the balance of nuclear and renewables is problematic, but that’s what you’d expect from us.

Energy secretary Ed Miliband said that 30% of electricity would be produced from renewable sources − primarily wind energy, and a further 10% would be from nuclear power.

We’ll really be surprised if that nuclear percentage doesn’t edge upward. Here’s the jobs estimate:

The nuclear power industry would need 11,500 to 16,500 new people by 2015, while the renewables sector will need another 400,000, he [Engineering & Technology Board chief executive Paul Jackson] said. “In order to achieve these [targets] we will need more skilled engineers with the relevant skills and further investment in green technology.

There’s a lot more, of course, but we’ll direct you here to read the whole plan. As you’d expect, energy efficiency, clean coal, a new grid and better fuel efficiency all play a part. We’ll look at some of the reactions to this proposal later, particularly the balance between nuclear and renewable energy.

We’re not expert enough in British government to know how Parliament interacts here (the report itself says it was presented to Parliament), but we’ll see if we can’t sort out how that will go, at least roughly.

Here is the Telegraph’s James Delingpole on Energy and Climate Change minister Ed Milliband, pictured:

“There are, of course, many things to loathe about Ed Miliband: his wonky, slightly sinister face like a giant egg with a hedgehog on top; the way he says “sure” all the time; his Estuarial inability to pronounce his final consonants; the fact that there’s not just him but his ruddy brother too; the annoying missing “l” in his surname; but definitely the worst is the drivel this grinning eco loon is allowed to spout, largely unchallenged, on “climate change.”

Classless and snobby at the same time, a unique combination.

Comments

perdajz said…
Jobs, jobs, jobs...

Isn't this post stark evidence that renewables (whatever that means) are not competitive with nuclear power in the long run? To outproduce nuclear power 3:1 "renewables" would require 30 times as many workers. So per unit output, "renewables" require 10 x as many workers.
woofer said…
Has anyone done a good study of worker safety on renewable energy sites including necessary extra power transmission infrastructure?
perdajz said…
Hey woofer,

Paul Gipe is the only researcher I know who's done it right. He tallies up wind power accidents, fatalities in particular, and normalizes them on a per unit output scale.

It's bad news for wind power fans. A few years back, Gipe conceded that per unit energy, wind power is little better than coal mining, although wind power doesn't have the emissions problem. Still, that's pretty bad compared to nuclear power.

I haven't seen anything on extra transmission infrastructure. Wind power fans never count that as part of the wind power problem.

You might check out the European Commission's Externe study.
Aaron Rizzio said…
Specifically Paul Gipe found the "current mortality rate of wind energy of 0.15 deaths per TWh is roughly equivalent to that of mining, processing, and burning of coal to generate electricity according to some researchers."

@ 0.15 deaths per TWh we'd have ~250 annual coal miner and coal plant deaths per year in the US, which seems a bit high (unless one includes latent black lung disease) but certainly if averaged worldwide especially including China.

The NRC among others surely keep vary rigorous stats on nuke worker injuries for comparison, a 0.15 per TWh mortality rate would mean ~120 worker deaths per annum, so I'm guesstimating wind work is some two orders of magnitude more dangerous; apart from automobile accidents among commuting workers which are probably not included in such data.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…