|
|
Subsidies disguise the real cost of nuclear powerLetter published in the Financial Times: January 12 2010 02:00 From Dr Gerry Wolff. Sir, It is not correct to say that nuclear power is "the cheapest large-scale low-carbon electricity source" ("A nuclear Britain can lead the way on emissions", FT.com, January 8). The report "Nuclear Subsidies" from the Energy Fair group shows how the real cost of nuclear power is disguised by several subsidies. Without those subsidies, the price of nuclear electricity would rise to a level that would make it deeply unattractive to investors. There are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper than nuclear power, quicker to build, and with none of the other headaches of nuclear power. Research that is reviewed in the November issue of Scientific American shows that renewables can meet 100 per cent of the world’s energy needs (not just electricity) and that it is technically feasible to do it by 2030. This is in line with several other reports showing how to decarbonise the world’s economies via renewables and improvements in efficiency. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences published a report showing that wind power could supply more than 40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity and more than five times total global use of energy in all forms. Another report from the European Environment Agency shows that the "economically competitive potential" of wind power in Europe is three times projected demand for electricity in 2020 and seven times projected demand in 2030. Offshore wind power alone could meet between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of projected European demand for electricity in 2020 and about 80 per cent of projected demand in 2030. The supposed problem of variability in wind power is much less of an issue than is sometimes suggested. There is a range of techniques available for matching variable supplies with constantly varying demands. A report from the Tyndall Centre shows that photovoltaics (PV) could generate about 266 terawatt hours in the UK – about 66 per cent of the UK's present electricity demand. Dr Gerry Wolff, In search of a better source of energyResponse published in the Financial Times: January 14 2010 02:00 From Mr David Sawers. Sir, Dr Gerry Wolff tells us that "the supposed problem of variability in wind power is much less of an issue than is sometimes suggested" (Letters, January 12). But the FT on January 11 reported that British wind turbines had been generating about 4 per cent of their capacity in the cold weather of the previous week because the wind had not been blowing. Fossil-fuelled power stations had had to supply the demand. Low wind speeds often accompany low temperatures, so when the demand for power is at its highest, wind turbines may not provide it. This is a real problem, not a supposed problem: the output of a wind turbine cannot be adjusted to meet demand. It is little better than a Potemkin power station, which looks like a source of renewable energy but may not provide electricity when it is needed most. The supply of fossil-fuelled power stations cannot be reduced when wind turbines are built. Wind turbines will merely represent an addition to the capacity of the electricity supply system. This duplication of generating capacity will be achieved by subsidising the construction of wind turbines, a subsidy that will be paid by the long-suffering user of electricity. We desperately need a better source of carbon-free energy generation than the wind turbine provides. David Sawers, Last updated: 2007-08-19 (ISO 8601) |