I simply do not know what to make of this.
I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???
When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...
"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power forward. The Government?s Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to
2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets, within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Government?s Carbon Plan nuclear energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of the UK?s electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by 2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. But even then..
Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.
That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times existing demand.
Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct electrical heating?
Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?
In case it is a joke, and gets removed from DECC's web site, I took a copy.
- if carbon reduction is the aim. spending the money on 75GW of nuclear power is enough to make for 70GW of reliable zero carbon power. Adding wind to it to 'save uranium' will not result in one iota of emission reduction beyond what is already achieved and indeed will increase emissions by dint of having to build and maintain the windmills.