Assessing the 4 options against the criteria in figure 10
•Download as DOCX, PDF•
0 likes•279 views
The document assesses 4 energy options - nuclear power, shale gas, bioethanol, and concentrated solar power (CSP) - based on environmental impacts, cost, security of supply, and reliability. Nuclear power scores well on reliability but poorly on environmental impacts and cost. Shale gas has low costs in some areas but environmental and supply security concerns. Bioethanol could increase food prices and rely on harvests. CSP is expensive initially but long-lasting and reliable, relying on solar resources in stable regions.
Assessing the 4 options against the criteria in figure 10
- 1. Assessing the 4 options against the Criteria in Figure 10 – score 1 = very bad, 5 = very good in the little box Option Environmental impacts Cost Security of supply Reliability Total Score Nuclear - Radioactive waste - Cost of power stations massive - Power stations have 30-40 years - Rare accidents can disrupt power - Possible leaks of radioactive (and variable) of life supply material - Decommissioning costs + Provide baseload (24/7) + Once they are working they are - Radioactive contamination - Power in hands of few TNCs - Fear of terrorism reliable from accidents + Cheaper than offshore wind, + Uranium can be reprocessed - Problems with open case coal with CCS, Coal with FGD, + Reduced reliance on imports of mining Gas with CCS oil and gas + No CO2 during operation Shale gas - Possible water contamination + Price of energy has gone down - Unproven yet, we don’t know if + If it’s extractable (we’re just at - Minor earth tremors in the USA it’s extractable the exploration stage) it should - Greenhouse gas emissions, - In Europe it would have to pay + Potentially huge be plentiful for years but lower than coal or oil carbon taxes raising the price of + On Western European soil (good + Small land take fuel for Germany, UK, France, etc) - Not good for southern European countries (Spain, Portugal etc) - Bioethanol - Would encourage more - Could cause food prices to rise - Reliant on harvest (2012 was - Reliant on harvest (but most intensive farming and - The plant on Teesside had to bad. years will be fine!) therefore damage to close due to market problems - If harvest was bad would have to ecosystems (it wasn’t profitable) import (price would be higher + Carbon neutral - Farmers would have more income CSP - Minor damage to ecosystems - Expensive in the short term but - MENA countries have been in - Sunshine is reliable, technology in MENA/seabed long lasting and cheap in the political turmoil since the Arab proven (use in Spain etc) + No CO2 during operation long run Spring - + Once it’s installed should be fine + Provides baseload