According to The Times political editor, Philip Webster, a new generation of nuclear power stations will be built to supply unlimited amounts of electricity to Britian's national grid.
"The Cabinet will give the go-ahead for the new building programme today [Tuesday 8th January] and John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will announce the decision on Thursday.
"He will pave the way for the nuclear industry to play a much bigger part in meeting Britain's energy needs by making plain that there will be no limit on the amount of electricity it can supply to the grid."
"Again I agree with you however using the bitumen will double or triple the CO2 output making the tar sands an even bigger environmental disaster."
That's if you agree with the CO2 alarmism - but let's leave that for another thread!
"Nuclear is not even an option as most tar sands projects are now running into cost overun problems let alone adding a completely new type of reactor to finance. I don't think crude oil can climb high enough for that to be economic."
$100 a barrel oil buys a lot of financing. The cost overruns are being driven by supply vs. demand of all the resources required to build any sort of infrastructure in Alberta. Nothing special about nuclear here. Nuclear infrastructure can be very competitive particularly since it can be run on a cogeneration basis thus utilizing far more of the energy produced. Just don't let the government run the show. When a socialist government slipped through the middle to win a majority government here in Ontario 20 years ago, they put that idiot Maurice Strong in charge of the public power utility - what a disaster!
"Actually Lithium will turn out to be the problem as there is a limited amount available. If Lithium batteries become widespread then we will have to be really aggressive in recycling them to make the available lithium go further."
Oh my god - where will you get your pills? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one!). But seriously, you're right! Material will be a challenge even with recycling in terms of just building up the base of such storage capacity and not just in cars either! I'm not sure if you've heard of EESTOR who claims to have developed ultracapacitor technology that outperforms lithium ion batteries. They are supposed to be coming to market this year although they are already late and I've seen comments by people claiming to be experts in this field who state that EESTOR's claims are impossible. Then again, that is what was said about manned flight 100 years ago!
"I agree again however the utilities are already installing storage for grid stabilisation as are wind farms."
What technology are they using? I assume this is more to cover smaller fluctuations in the supply and demand balance rather than as any sort of larger scale storage capability?
"However if I were a Canadian I would be really really worried about that NAFTA you people signed and it's obligations. In an energy constrained future can you really afford to send so much energy to the US. Are Canadians going to freeze so people in the US can be warm? I guess that is a question for you and the way you vote."
This doesn't seem to be a big area of concern for Canadians. NAFTA or no NAFTA, the reality is that the Canadian and American energy infrastructure has been highly integrated since its infancy (as is the industrial infrastructure). The 49th parallel is a political construct not an economic one. Energy flows both ways across the borders. Because of the ineptitude of our provincial government who owns the power utility (and to be fair these failures span all the main political parties), it is the American power infrastructure that has bailed out Ontario power consumers on hot summer days for the last 10 years or so.
Historically western Canada has tended to over produce and send its output south while Eastern Canada imported oil. Due to the vast distances involved, it just made economic sense to do that. In addition, the only refineries that used to be able to handle the processing of the synthetic crude from the oil sands were down in the States. I believe that situation is now changing with the building of upgrading capability in Alberta that will allow Canadian refineries to process the output from the oil sands.
But it comes down to more than just that. Although there are certainly differences, for better or for worse (mostly for the better) Canadians and Americans have much in common and would see themselves in it together on a great deal of things. I don't think many Canadians (or Americans for that matter) would sit idly by while their neighbour hard to endure hardship. And the reality is that due to the strongly intertwined economies, Canadians would suffer too along with the Americans. It's not always a perfect relationship but in terms of the scope of history, it works pretty damned well. I'm sure this seems a bit strange to Australians who I am sure value their economic independence. Then again as they say, you don't "sleep next to an Elephant!".
Mark - "I've read lots on the oil sands and yes I know they consume lots of energy. However, the EROI beats the hell out of the EROI for ethanol production in N. America which is touted as this great environmental option by the Greenies!"
I completely agree with you here. This is one Greenie that does not support biofuels in anything other than small scale niche areas where nothing else will do. It is not the silver bullet and I totally agree with you. It causes more enviromental damage and compromises our food supply.
"As to the natural gas, the choice of fuel to drive the processing will be guided by that wonderful thing called economics. If gas availability is limited and the cost goes up then alternatives such as nuclear (egads), the bitumen itself and even geothermal will be used."
Again I agree with you however using the bitumen will double or triple the CO2 output making the tar sands and even bigger environmental disaster. Nuclear is not even an option as most tar sands projects are now running into cost overun problems let alone adding a completely new type of reactor to finance. I don't think crude oil can climb high enough for that to be economic.
"A key concern around the viability of electric cars is the associated material availability and what that will do to the economics. Hopefully they will be able to use abundant materials as the mainstay of the battery technology but the power stills needs to be moved around a vehicle and so what will this do to copper prices?"
Actually Lithium will turn out to be the problem as there is a limited amount available. If Lithium batteries become widespread then we will have to be really aggressive in recycling them to make the available lithium go further.
"But even if ecars are viable for the masses in 5 to 10 years, it will take at least another 5 to 10 years for sufficient number to be available to even begin thinking about V2G as a mainstream capability in support of renewables."
I agree again however the utilities are already installing storage for grid stabilisation as are wind farms so that they can sell more valuable power and become more economic. Wind is growing faster than most even in China where they are suprisingly very big on renewables. The new solar thermal systems should be online soon displacing more and more fossil fuels.
Hopefully in a few years you will not need the tar sands and can let them return to the wilderness. However if I were a Canadian I would be really really worried about that NAFTA you people signed and it's obligations. In an energy constrained future can you really afford to send so much energy to the US. Are Canadians going to freeze so people in the US can be warm? I guess that is a question for you and the way you vote.
"Mark - sure then perhaps you would like to read something on the oil sands - it is a good resource and you will see what the energy requirements really are. The EROI of oil sands is less than 3:1."
I've read lots on the oil sands and yes I know they consume lots of energy. However, the EROI beats the hell out of the EROI for ethanol production in N. America which is touted as this great environmental option by the Greenies!
As to the natural gas, the choice of fuel to drive the processing will be guided by that wonderful thing called economics. If gas availability is limited and the cost goes up then alternatives such as nuclear (egads), the bitumen itself and even geothermal will be used.
When electric cars become viable as a mainstream option (likely 5 to 10 years out) certainly the picture will change and is something for the oil sands producers to think about. Again, once the fear of future scarcity is removed, I think you will see oil prices plummet and that will not be good news for them as these oil sands operations take a huge capital investment.
A key concern around the viability of electric cars is the associated material availability and what that will do to the economics. Hopefully they will be able to use abundant materials as the mainstay of the battery technology but the power stills needs to be moved around a vehicle and so what will this do to copper prices?
But even if ecars are viable for the masses in 5 to 10 years, it will take at least another 5 to 10 years for sufficient number to be available to even begin thinking about V2G as a mainstream capability in support of renewables. Sure, it'll happen around the edges before then but again the vast majority of electricity consumers will rely on the grid and so you're looking at probably 15-20 years minimum before wind and solar will be able to play more than a marginal role in supplying electricity. Until then new nuclear and fossil fuel plants will have to be built to replace aging plant and meet increasing power demands.
Ender,
Just a thought, what do you think of putting a tidal power generator at the Heads of the Port Phillip Bay? the tidal movement is phenomenal!
Cheers