Energy Security for the UK, Free of Emissions: It's Up To You!

This video compresses all the technicalities of LFTRs into the crucial advantages over PWRs and Fast Breeders: Safety - Minimal Waste - Affordability - Ease of Manufacture - Speed of Deployment:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkqbxYdadg&feature=player_embedded#!

ThoriumPetition.com is for people of the USA, but the UK also has the expertise and manufacturing capacity to produce factory-built LFTRs. We have 2 petitions going for manufacture of LFTRs in the UK, to give us growth in the manufacturing sector and prosperity we have not seen in 3 generations.


Please spend 20 minutes of your time on this video and then vote as quickly as you can for:

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title


and


 http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20095

LCAs - You can't get a cigarette paper between LWRs and Wind Turbines!

Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization

The U.S. Department of Energy enlisted NREL to review and "harmonize" life cycle assessments of electricity generation technologies. Hundreds of assessments have been published, often with considerable variability in results. These variations in approach, while usually legitimate, hamper comparison across studies and pooling of published results.

By harmonizing this data, NREL seeks to reduce the uncertainty around estimates for environmental impacts of renewables and increase the value of the assessments to the policymaking and research communities:     http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lcah.html

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor Technologies

Assuming consistent performance characteristics, the median LC GHG emissions estimates were nearly identical for PWR and BWR technologies after harmonization. The median life cycle GHG emission estimates for PWR and BWR technology types are 14 and 21 g CO2eq/kWh, respectively, as published, and 12 and 13 g CO2eq/kWh, respectively after harmonization.

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Onshore to Offshore Wind Technologies

The median published life cycle GHG emission estimates for onshore and offshore technology types are both 12 g CO2eq/kWh and 11 g CO2eq/kWh after harmonization. This similarity, combined with the tight distribution for both technology types, suggests that the two technology types may not have significantly different life cycle GHG emissions.

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Specific Photovoltaic Technologies

The median as-published life cycle GHG emissions estimate for c-Si PV is 57 g CO2eqkWh; the harmonized median is 45 g CO2eq/kWh. Harmonization reduced the IQR from 44-73 g CO2eq/kWh to 39-49 g CO2eq/kWh, a reduction of 62%. Additional analysis comparing mono-Si and multi-Si technologies, and ground-mounted with roof-mounted systems suggest that these system differences are not key factors in lifecycle GHG emissions from c-Si PV.

------------------------------------//------------------------------

You can run by a LFTR design, or for that matter GE Hitachi's PRISM reactor and know that they only involve a fraction of the material content of an LWR of equivalent power - and, by extension, assume that only a fraction of the energy of construction is used.

WIND ENERGY 'WANNA-BE LIEVERS' WHAT'S THE POINT - JUST LEARN TO LOVE NUCLEAR.

It's not asking much, is it? We want the light switch to turn the lights on any time night or day; this includes 3:00 am, when we've got to get up and find the Alka-Seltzer. In other words, living in an industrialised, developed-world country should entitle us to power on tap 24/7. We want the rest of the world to get up to this standard; we don't want to drop down to a standard lower than this.


So getting away from the figures so beloved by the wind industry and supporters, which are always averages, percentages and totals, what amount of electricity actually gets into the grid from this proposed steel rain forest (less the bio-diversity) of turbines and interconnecting grids, pumped storage and OCGT back-up?

From 'A Report by Stuart Young':   ANALYSIS OF UK WIND POWER GENERATION, March 2011

The final two paragraphs of:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on "average output" figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged.

It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to providen any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirements.

And leading up to these paragraphs:

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 

in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. 

wind farms which are metered by National Grid, 

November 2008 to December 2010 

The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.

1.   “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.” 

2.   “The wind is always blowing somewhere.” 

3.   “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.” 

4.   “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.” 

5.   “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:

1.   Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and  24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive. 

2.    There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the wind farms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW). 

3.    The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.  

4.    At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand. 

5.    The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

-----------------------------//----------------------------

Well informed speculators, shrewd wind farm operators and industrial opportunists along with the 'wanna-believers' hope that wind turbine deployment will continue to grow and grow. Well they'd better ponder the nature of essential, back-up technologies which will need to be in place in 2 or 3 generations time, when scarce and unaffordable hydrocarbons disappear.

GE Hitachi - PRISM Power Block

It will be breeder reactors.

So be honest - what's the point in subsidising this inconsequential technology? Why spend massive amounts of already taxed income (much of  it from those who can least afford it) on a mass of interconnected wind farms, when breeder reactors can do it all anyway?

IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER - AGAIN!

Yes indeed - I managed to get myself an invite!


-------------------------------//-----------------------------------


I am pleased to invite you to a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy:

Is there a Safer, Brighter Future for Nuclear Power?

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili OBE (University of Surrey, Dept. of Physics,)

  

Prof. Robert Cywinski (University of Huddersfield, Dean of Applied Sciences)
Prof. Robin Grimes (Imperial College London, Dept. of Physics)
DECC Speaker (TBC)

Monday April 23rd - 5.30-7.00pm

Committee Room 6, House of Commons


---------------------------------//--------------------------------


A compelling, but strange atmosphere with the 'Division Bell' sounding off periodically accompanied by a partial evaporation of the attendees.


Professor Al-Khalili was on the button with his presentation, carrying a take-away message of a dire need to present/inform/educate the electorate as to why nuclear energy must represent the best bet of 'curing' our addiction to hydrocarbons. If peace and prosperity are to be maintained as the inevitable scarcity problem unfolds and the population expands to 9 billion, only nuclear power provides the numbers that add up to a centuries-long, or even millenia-long solution.


Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to - please everybody with a finger in the energy supply and distribution pie. Just how tortuous can the thinking of the DECC get? I DON'T UNDERSTAND! Just before I went down for the meeting, the boss of DECC was thinking of installing an underground cable to Iceland - What???


There was striking clarity of thought from Baroness Worthington, in the conduct of the meeting. In the Q & A session, I tried to make a point about the importance of the PRISM reactor, now being considered for burning our stockpile of plutonium, as a potential game-changer for the UK's 'New Nuclear'. I'm afraid it got a bit lost in the rambling nature of my 'contribution'.


My expectations of what might come out of the meeting were tempered by the realisation that, as a first get-together, we (the foot-soldiers) were never going to have the battle-plan for the next decade laid out for us. The generals need some heads-together time for their plan of action, within the Chambers, but I do hope that, in the not too distant future, they have messages and possibly activities to keep the troops motivated.


Just before I left, the Bishop of Hereford asked me if I was the chap who wrote to him to make him aware of LFTR technology and energy from thorium. After pleading guilty, he said that, in taking up the baton, he had asked questions in the House and was instrumental in the creation of the APPG.


I couldn't have been more chuffed - in my amateurish way, I have made a difference.


LET'S HEAR IT FOR 'LFTRs to Power the Planet'

This is JAPAN we're talking about!

Japanese nuclear fuel cycle under review

18 April 2012
Japan is evaluating a wide range of nuclear fuel cycle options as part of the larger reviewof the future role of nuclear power within energy policy, a government minister told the annual meeting of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum.

".....Five options are being considered, one scenario involving direct disposal of light-water reactor fuel after use, two scenarios where this is reprocessed and with fuel materials recycled as mixed-oxide fuel. Two more scenarios look at the use of fast reactors and fast breeder reactors....."

".....This review will quantify the amount of plutonium and used fuel generated by each option as well as looking at broader impacts such as energy security, the international perspective, and the impacts of the changes resulting from each of the potential policies.


Separately Japan is reviewing its Basic Energy Policy, which may recommend nuclear's contribution to electricity be targeted at either 0%, 20%, 26% or 36% for the medium term....."


--------------------------------------//-------------------------------------


Now I'm a betting man and:   Japan - the need for energy security - breeder reactors - 36% nuclear contribution - all go hand-in-hand.

I can forsee where the politics is going:  persuing energy security; the imperitive of keeping the lights on for the Japanese 'way of life'; the clamour for an emission-free electricity supply; the demonstration of dumping PWR and BWR technologies because of their safety frailties - all nicely leading into a programme of deployment of inherently safe, fast breeder reactors, with enough 'home-made' fuel to power Japan for a century or two!

Any one prepared to give me any decent odds on this 'outsider'?

Professor Paul Howarth and the Future of Fast Breeder Reactors in the UK

Is it reasonable to surmise that this individual in charge of this organisation could well dictate the UK's nuclear direction for the foreseeable future?

Will he dictate the timing or even the prospects of UK deployment of breeder reactors?

As of mid-April 2012, no apparent utterances on his opinions of the potential or capabilities of the GE Hitachi PRISM.

This is the situation so far:

Legal Status and Ownership

The National Nuclear Laboratory is a UK registered private limited company in which the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change holds all of the shares through a holding company NNL Holdings Ltd.

Objectives

The Government’s objectives for the NNL are for it to:

• operate as a sound commercial business;
• demonstrate value for customers;
• create a platform for UK and internationally funded R&D;
• ensure the latent value of the UK’s R&D can be demonstrated and realised;
• become an international centre of excellence in nuclear research and development, playing a vital role in cleaning up the UK’s nuclear waste legacy and contributing to the programme of nuclear new build;
• safeguard the UK’s high tech nuclear expertise, facilities and skills;
• ensure the stability of the immature UK civil nuclear R&D market;
• provide a basis for opening up the UK market to nuclear facility operational and clean up R&D; and
• safeguard the contribution that the NNL makes to the West Cumbrian economy and local ambitions to become an Energy Coast.

Professor Paul Howarth
Director of Science,
Technology and Project Delivery,
National Nuclear Laboratory, UK

Vision, Mission, Values:

Our strategic vision is the overarching guide to what NNL aims to achieve:

To be a valued and successful nuclear science and technology laboratory, world renowned for its exceptional staff, cutting edge facilities and excellent value for money.

GE Hitachi - NNL Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

“With our recognised technical capability and long experience in fuel cycle analysis, we are pleased that GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has looked to NNL to provide independent and authoritative input to the potential U.K. application of a PRISM reactor,” said Paul Howarth, managing director of NNL.

 

Add caption

April 2012 Issue of Ethos Journal:  Paul Howarth - "Nuclear Future"

".....There are three approaches to managing the UK’s plutonium stockpile: store it, treat it as waste, or use it as fuel. My feeling is that it should be turned into fuel – we should derive the benefit of electricity from it....."

News:  13 April 2012

NNL Managing Director participates in Prime Minister’s top level business delegation to Japan

Managing Director of the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Paul Howarth, was part of the top level business delegation which visited Japan this week.

The group was led by Prime Minister David Cameron..... During the visit UK and Japanese officials agreed and signed a Framework on Civil Nuclear Cooperation, providing the basis for UK companies to engage in multi-billion pound decommissioning opportunities in Japan. In a separate development, the UK Nuclear Industry Association and the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum signed a Memorandum of Understanding to further industrial collaboration between companies from the UK and Japan.

Paul Howarth said: “I was delighted to be invited as a delegate on this tremendously important trip to Japan. There is clearly a huge opportunity ahead for the UK and Japan to work together to address nuclear challenges across the sector – including the areas of new nuclear build, waste management and decommissioning....”

In keeping a close eye on Professor Howarth's utterances in respect of the Plutonium Question and Breeder Reactor Deployment, I intend to publicise any developments with alacrity.

THE ENERGY REVOLUTION - LA GUILLOTINE FOR HYDROCARBON ENERGY

The Tumbrel takes Energy from Coal, Gas, Oil 
and PWR Reactor to their Deaths.
Public Funds for  Wind, Solar PV and 
Other Renewables are aboard.

The wheels of the Tumbrel grind into motion, with its payload of doomed energy technologies. Along the way, investors will be clawing at their former milch cows to get their money out; politicians will be telling how 'it's time to move on'; most of the crowd will be listening to the scores, texting or talking on smartphones; a few will be thanking a variety of deities or other things, that the day has come at long last!  

It's only a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), but may this move be the defibrillator applied to the heart  of UK manufacturing. We have the expertise and capacity to manufacture plant and equipment for Breeder Reactors which operate at atmospheric pressure.

Who cares at this stage that they use solid fuel and that they're unnecessarily huge. We're on our way to renewable energy at affordable prices and free of greenhouse gas emissions.

We're on our way to using plutonium stockpiles and stores of long-lived nuclear waste, which at the moment do nothing but soak up immense expenditure; while we're doing that, we're able to provide valuable electricity for a few centuries, without digging anything else out of the ground.

We're on our way to burning up masses of existing 'nuclear waste' (in fact it's valuable fuel), leaving only minuscule amounts of left-over waste, which decays to background radiation levels in 300 years and this can be safely and cheaply stored.

We're on our way to a Reactor Technology to displace Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs), which is currently the foremost nuclear technology to generate electricity. This rids us of the burden of high pressure operation, with its 'driver' potential to eject radiotoxic substances upwards and outwards into the environment.

We're on our way to rapid deployment, by virtue of modular construction and factory-made units capable of transportation on flat-bed trucks. We eliminate the constraint of single-sourcing of PWR pressure vessels - only Japan Steel Works have the capacity. Breeder operation is at atmospheric pressure and any plant and equipment required can be multi-sourced.


But best of all - we're on our way to a foothold for LFTR technology. The advantages over fast breeders are irresistible:  Elimination of solid fuel - the bane of accidental high temperature excursions - with meltdown potential ever-present. The greatly reduced fuel payload, with all that means in terms of muting one of the most potent anti-nuclear arguments and reinforcing the safety message to the public at large. The greatly reduced reactivity of coolant salts over liquid metals - a very saleable safety bonus.

 

Breeder Reactors will become embedded as the only renewable, clean, emission-free way to equitably meet the future energy needs of everyone on the planet. 


This will include the birth of a global Hydrogen Economy, for the manufacture carbon-neutral liquid fuels, from atmospheric CO2 for all of our transport needs, and the manufacture of ammonia, as feed-stock for nitrate fertilisers, from atmospheric nitrogen, to feed a burgeoning population. 


During this period, which can be reasonably envisaged as into the 2020s and 2030s, LFTRs will start to dominate demand as public perception of their inherent, passive safety gains more and more  credence. There's every chance that LFTRs will send other breeder designs the way of video tapes. 


If only the UK could get into the manufacturing race as a front-runner, we would see scientific activity, manufacturing employment, growth and prosperity last witnessed 3 generations ago.