Assessing the 4 options against the criteria in figure 10
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Assessing the 4 options against the criteria in figure 10



Work we did in

Work we did in



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Assessing the 4 options against the criteria in figure 10 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Assessing the 4 options against the Criteria in Figure 10 – score 1 = very bad, 5 = very good in the little boxOption Environmental impacts Cost Security of supply Reliability Total ScoreNuclear - Radioactive waste - Cost of power stations massive - Power stations have 30-40 years - Rare accidents can disruptpower - 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 operationShale 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 incomeCSP - 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