The Nuclear Legacy

[Tempus Fugit]

well how about recycling this lot in the energy from waste plant before it all turns to dust, it's no use as timber any more !

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf, wind turbines and hydro aren't the only carbon friendly options ... burning plantation wood is another option, and I do think it was "envisaged" at the start that this was an option hence Drax being able to get the ROCs for doing it! Burning wood is expensive compared to coal, but much more friendly in terms of type of carbon released into the atmosphere.

No they arent the only carbon friendly options but not everyone, including me, thinks burning biomass is the way to go. Fair crack if its displacing dirty fuels but ...........

Drax are meeting the prerequisites of the scheme hence the ROCs. ROCs can be banked and used against carbon allowances. Some people are arguing Drax are being a bit cynical in swapping out ROCs for carbon allowances to use up when market prices are high and they can jack their output up. The net result might be more coal burned not less.

Encouraging forestry to develop a power station friendly product: size, moisture consistency etc. needs supporting and developing ... that is exactly what the ROCs Drax is earning are doing, totally justifiably in my mind. Even if this solution wasn't what was "envisaged" doesn't mean its not a good solution. ROC's are a market driven process and this is a good example of a market process reducing prehistoric carbon entering our environment with minimum disruption. I still don't understand your problem ... ROCs aren't there just to encourage wind turbines etc ... they are there to encourage reductions in prehistoric carbon output; how is up to human ingenuity.

There is a review underway of the effectiveness of ROCs. One amongst many other issues being examined

is the way facilities such as Drax have been able to negate the intention of a scheme which replaced the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. ROCs have been criticised by some renewable operators, and by British Energy, as a single technology incentive [on shore wind power]. I, for one am under no illusions this was the intention.

That said I dont disagree with anything you have said. [ although I suspect Drax operators have little or no interest in forestry management!]

The market in ROCs and in carbon is, in my opinion, a regrettable development. It hasnt incentivised renewable operators to develop their products beyond energy, as opposed to power, plant. Traded ROCs have been worth more than the price of power so quite the opposite is the case.

ROCs are intended to make renewable technologies competitive. With any luck the results of the current review will lead to that actually happening.

[Gladys]

Just to add my, uneducated, twopennyworth here. Horizon last night examined exactly what evidence existed on the real effect of exposure to radiation. The conclusion was that, in fact, very few deaths directly linkable to radiation had ocurred following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents.

 

Chernobyl (the worst ever nuclear accident) had resulted in a very low number; something like 47 directly from exposure at the centre of the incident to workers doing the necessary emergency work to bring the incident under control and something like another 9 since. That is in 20 years.

 

The most common cancer found afterwards has been thyroid cancer and the view put forward was that if you go looking for a particular disease in all the population, you will find a higher percentage than if you just record those who are diagnosed through normal medical investigation. In fact, the number found with thyroid cancer was high, but of those very few had developed tumours.

 

The reason put forward was that there is plenty of research of the effects of very high radiation but almost none at low level. Scientists working on a probability factor took the straight line relationship of the high radiation results and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just extrapolated them to apply to the lower end exposure. Thus possibly misrepresenting the effects of low level exposure.

 

I can't argue for or against, but it does seem that we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels and perhaps nuclear power does deserve another look with a more objective view of the risks and with the greater knowledge and expectation of accountability that we now have.

 

I would recommend anyone entering this debate to try to find this programme and see if there really isn't something in it.