Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

What about a LFTR that makes heat only for desalination. simple demonstration.

What about a LFTR that makes heat only for desalination. simple demonstration.

I have received this reaction from Dr Robert Gross, via the UK Energy Research Centre:

I am Director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College and Senior Lecturer in Energy and Environmental Policy at Imperial. I run the Technology and Policy Assessment theme of UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). I have a long standing interest in the costs of energy technologies and in the issue of 'intermittency'.

The technical implications of integrating wind into modern electricity systems are well understood and have been reviewed across many countries, mixes of power plant, climatic conditions and levels of wind penetration. In this subject, as in most others, there is a large body of broadly consistent analyses, undertaken by technically competent bodies such as university research groups, specialist consultancies and network operators. There is also a smattering of 'outliers', often produced by individuals or groups with particular agendas, such as anti-wind lobby groups. Extreme estimates usually result from flawed or overly simplistic methodologies, unrealistic assumptions, or misallocation of costs.

UKERC undertook a thoroughgoing review of the evidence base available in 2006 on the costs and impacts of intermittency, and is in the process of compiling a new review of the relative costs of different generation options, for publication later this year. Electrical engineering based modelling and simulation, and increasingly empirical data from countries where the penetration of wind farms has reached a significant level (such as Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Germany and some US states), demonstrates conclusively that wind does reduce emissions. Economic studies also indicate that the costs of intermittency, though potentially significant (particularly when wind reaches very large penetrations), are currently very small in the UK context. UKERC's assessment concludes that intermittency typically represents less than 10% of the costs of power generation when wind is below 20% of electricity - less than £9/MWh rather than the £60/MWh cited by Civitas. The potential efficiency losses that result from increased 'cycling' of fossil fuel stations responding to wind intermittency are real, but represent a very small fraction of the savings in emissions and fuel that results from the electrical output of wind. UKERC's review indicates that losses typically amount to just 1% of the percentage savings. The options for dealing with intermittency are also diverse; including increasing interconnection, demand side response, and storage, as well as fossil fuel back up.

There is also a substantial consensus that the lifecycle carbon emissions associated with the construction and maintaining of wind power are very small compared to those of fossil fuel sources.

I find it disappointing that Civitas has chosen to disregard the large body of analysis that indicates that the costs and impacts of intermittency are modest and that wind is an effective fuel saver. There is of course a legitimate debate about the cost and feasibility of the 2020 target for renewables, about which renewables deserve how much support, how best to deliver such support and the role of nuclear, carbon capture and other supply options. This debate is not well served by reporting which ignores the findings of a large body of credible, peer reviewed and professional analyses and selects extreme estimates which have not been peer reviewed, do not emerge from credible engineering/economic simulations or models and are widely out of step with the scientific consensus.