Wylfa is cancelled. good news. its about time the plug was pulled completely on this expensive and polluting method of electricity generation. Keep on with the research reactors because the potential is there for it to become useful but current tech simply is not good enough. too unreliable, too polluting, too expensive.
In other good news - In scotland the use of Wind and PV to make hydrogen to power busses, trains and ferries is going ahead.
Hydrogen is a ridiculous fuel for vehicles.
Incredibly dangerous.
Needs extremely expensive infrastructure.
Uses massive amounts of electricity to produce.
Once you consider the storage system required on a vehicle, has terrible energy density.
I agree TJ, but you've just lit the touchpaper...
I'm still optimistic about tidal and wave in Scotland, or indeed the developments in efficiency such as Microsoft's underwater server farm in Orkney.
Vive la revolution.
but you’ve just lit the touchpaper…
No way! surely this is non controversial?
Even XR can't agree within them selves about this topic....
Gubuchal - read up on the Unst project / PURE
Hydrogen is and has been used to power the island including a car for a decade or more. ( wind, catalyser, fuel cell.) Yes conversion wind ( kinetic) to electricity to hydrogen to electricity to kinetic has losses at every stage - but when your input is cheap to free all you do is build more capacity.
the real key to renwewables is energy storage. it can be done using hydrogen on a small scale. will it scale up? We are going to try
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels and I say that as someone who works in oil and gas. Yes it is expensive but energy generation requires a mix of solutions, there is no one solution that will solve all the disparate issues with power generation.
It is far from perfect but it is also not the villain it is often painted to be.
Gonfishing - tidal flow? perfect for baseload.
Interesting to note how much of our electricity we import from Europe - much of it coal or nuclear derived
So when we see reports that we had x number of days without burning coal to generate electricity in the UK it doesn't give the complete picture
That said the UK has seen an explosion in the use of wind and solar power, putting us ahead of many European countries in this respect
A commenter on the FT won the internet yesterday
"
Where we're going we don't need infrastructure
"
Gonfishing – tidal flow? perfect for baseload.
No one has managed it yet, on a decent scale. Prototypes only.
Not saying it's impossible but the installation of tidal turbines in areas of high current is INCREDIBLY difficult.
Gubuchal – read up on the Unst project / PURE
Unst - population 632
when your input is cheap to free all you do is build more capacity.
There is nothing "cheap" about wind turbines or tidal turbines.
I love this site.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
There used to be one that showed exactly how much we were importing at any one time but i can't find it now. Must be getting old...
Here you go, the dials on the right show where we are getting what from...
Gonfishing – tidal flow? perfect for baseload.
Pretty rubbish for base load as it varies literally all the time albeit on a predictable basis. If you are talking barrages then you are talking about very significant damage to the local marine environment. Tidal flow stuff like I believe is installed at Strangford lough are much less damaging but not suitable for all location and only generate 1.2 MW which is fairly paltry.
gobuchal - compared to nuclear they are cheap - and its almost all capital cost - no or minimal running costs.
Imagine how good tidal would be ( and its not prototypes only - its now being built at commercial scale) if all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 20 years had been invested in it instead - and if the energy "market" was not rigged so as to make generation in Scotland uneconomic. ( done purely for political reasons)
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels and I say that as someone who works in oil and gas. Yes it is expensive but energy generation requires a mix of solutions, there is no one solution that will solve all the disparate issues with power generation.
This is the current reality.
Also, this is interesting
Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America
If we ditch fossil fuels, surely Nuclear is the only currently available option to provide the power we need to meet the residential, commercial and industrial demands?
Gonfishing Tidal flow not barrages and if you have one station in the sound of Islay and one in the pentland firth you get a lovely smooth baseload capacity as the tides are 4 hours apart. Needs a little smoothing but little enough that its easily done.
tidal flow is perfect for baseload
TJ - I'm intrigued. How is the market "rigged" to make generation in Scotland uneconomic?
Capacity factor i.e. actual energy over name plate or maximum energy (looks like best figures):
- nuclear 90.4%
- wind 47.7%
- hydro 45%
- photovoltaic 29.1%
Another link for the USA
Nuclear is the most reliable energy source.
It also has the fewest deaths per unit power produced
and its almost all capital cost – no or minimal running costs.
Really? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
So you install a huge, high tech, turbine in an offshore location and it has no running costs?
Or even more complex, you install a tidal turbine UNDERWATER and it has no maintenance costs?
Have you even considered what is required to get a person to either of those locations to perform even basic planned maintenance?
Don't get me wrong, I think there is a future with this tech but it's not as straight forward as some people think. If you haven't worked in offshore construction or production of any kind, then you are unlikely to understand how expensive any operation is.
theaccountant
Free MemberTJ – I’m intrigued. How is the market “rigged” to make generation in Scotland uneconomic?
Access charges I think they are called - to allow generators to connect to the grid. the further you are from london the more you pay to be allowed to put your electricity to the grid. This means that any electricity generated in scotland starts off with a huge disadvantage in the marketplace. Build a generator in the south of england you get subsidised. Build one in Scotland you pay to access the grid.
gobuchal - offshore wind is half the price of nuclear. Onshore even cheaper.
TJ – I’m intrigued. How is the market “rigged” to make generation in Scotland uneconomic?
Probably because Sturgeon needs the oil revenue for the revolution! 🙂
gobuchal – offshore wind is half the price of nuclear. Onshore even cheaper.
So it has no running costs?
You do realise that the a major reason that offshore wind has become cheaper in the last couple of years is the oil price crash?
This has meant that huge numbers of offshore vessels are competing for work and the market rates are very low, to the point that they are not viable long term. They are bidding low to get work to simply pay the loans on the vessels and keep ticking over, in the hope that things will get better.
tidal flow is perfect for baseload
You're not an engineer. If you were you would never come out with such statements of certainty. Nothing is ever perfect.
What is the base load requirement for the UK? How many tidal sites are there? What is their total generating capacity?
I think the only way out of this mess is a huge change in how society works along with a whole raft of technologies. For example, we could automate our factories to the point where they can stop and start nearly on demand with low workforce. This would let us make our stuff when the sun is shining or wind blowing, and stop when it's not. That may not work, but that's the kind of change to working practice we'll need.
We might end up with gasometers in towns again only they'll be full of liquid flow battery reagents storing power, instead of gas.
Molgrips - others have done the calculations. There are the two main sites available for tidal flow. pentland firth and sound of islay. as the tides are 4 hours part on these two sites they are perfect for baseload and the potential capacity -is plenty to provide reliable baseload for the whole of the UK
Of course there are other ways of reducing baseload and total consumption
Alex - what are you going to do with the waste - thats the pollution problem along with the huge amounts of concrete used and the fossil fuels required to get the fuel.
You’re not an engineer.
+1
Part of the problem is that well meaning people, with little or no knowledge of the challenges involved, come out with statements like "tidal flow is perfect".
It seems to be a free and unlimited source of energy.
However, harnessing it on an useful scale is incredibly difficult and complex.
Personally, I would be looking to build some tidal barrier type systems and just accept it will disrupt the local wildlife.
Last summer I went for a fascinating tour round Dinorwig hydro power station (next to Snowdon)
One of the strange facts was that at the time it used more energy (to pump water back up the mountain) than it generated but was still economically viable because electricity generated (day) was sold for a much higher rate per KWh than the energy used (night)
I am not an expert. It seems that there are experts who have lots of data available for you to look at if you wish. Or you could make statements based on opinion and then not listen/read the opinions of experts. Up to you.
Gobuchal - tidal flow is already providing commercial scale generation. Its proven.
the accountant - thats not a hydro generator - its a pump storage scheme ie a way of storing energy not generating it
plenty to provide reliable baseload for the whole of the UK
How many turbines would you need to install?
The only commercial tidal turbine produces 1.2MW for 18 - 20 hrs a day.
The UK needs between 20GW and 60GW to fulfill demand. Depending on time of year etc.
So what would be a base?
along with the huge amounts of concrete used and the fossil fuels required to get the fuel.
This is also required for offshore wind or tide.
Alex - exactly what I have done. I have been reading and following this for decades. i have seen all the money wasted on nuclear and alternatives starved of investment. despite this tidal flow is now a proven tech capable of being scaled up. Hydrogen storage is proven on small scale - can it be scaled up?
There are the two main sites available for tidal flow. pentland firth and sound of islay. as the tides are 4 hours part on these two sites they are perfect for baseload and the potential capacity -is plenty to provide reliable baseload for the whole of the UK
According to http://www.withouthotair.com/c14/page_81.shtml the amount of tidal power in the north sea is 250GW. He suggests we could get 5 kWh per day per person (odd units explained elsewhere in the book) at most from tide. A big contribution but not enough to power the UK once we are entirely electrically powered - he estimates that demand at 125 kWh per day per person.
I *really* recommend reading this book to anyone with an interest in how we power the UK.
This is also required for offshore wind or tide.
wrong. go and read up. the shetland tidal flow is a floating station requiring almost no concrete. 30 different prototypes have been tried and the most promising ones are being scaled up to commercial size. pentland firth and sound of islay are able to provide 20+% of the Uks energy needs IIRC
if all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 20 years had been invested in it instead
We have spent almost no money in the last 20 years in the building of Nuclear power stations. All money pent has been in the operation and decommissioning of plant.
he pentland firth you get a lovely smooth baseload capacity as the tides are 4 hours apart.
Then you need to look at tidal currents not high and low tides. Very different things.
Needs a little smoothing but little enough that its easily done.
That's literally the opposite of what baseload means.
pentland firth and sound of islay are able to provide 20+% of the Uks energy needs IIRC
I find that claim extremely difficult to believe. Even were we to limit it to electricity needs, rather than energy needs, I'd still be extremely skeptical almost to the point calling it a lie.
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels
"currently" being a key word there. While the problems nuclear offered are very long term (and are problems there are for now no solutions other than to store the problem in the hope there will one day be a solution) the solutions nuclear offer are very short term.
Before we were worried that fossil fuels were contributing to climate change our more pressing worry was that they'd run out. You can point at one nuclear power plant and say its doing less harm in climate terms than a comparable fossil fuel plant. But if you replaced all the fossil fuel plants with nuclear plants tomorrow - lets say so that every country generated as much power from nuclear as France does... than the globally obtainable fuel for those plants would both get more expensive and would also run out in a few decades. Nuclear just kicks the can a short distance down the road. Nuclear offers a local solution to rich nations - to feel smug about not burning coal to heat your home even though every object in that home made in fossil fuel powered factories from coal burning nations - but it doesn't solve any problems in climate terms if its not adopted globally. But if it is adopted globally then the fuel runs out.
the further you are from london the more you pay to be allowed to put your electricity to the grid
The further you move power through the grid, the more it costs, both in transmission loss and cost of building the lines. I don't think it's political, just distance to point of use.
The market is, however, rigged very strongly against nuclear. The pricing algorithms reward flexibility, so if you can turn generation off and on quickly, as you can with gas turbines, you can get much higher prices. Nuclear sits as the baseload, always less then demand, and not a good idea to switch it off and on, but still has to work within that pricing structure so they don't get much for their electricity. Every stage of every safety calculation has to be pessimistic, and in a complex safety case the compounded pessimism means the actual risks are much lower than calculated - but the expensive equipment has to be installed anyway. Even the targets are higher; HSE expects the value of preventing a fatality in nuclear to be double what it is elsewhere. The efforts of anti-nuclear campaigners have succeeded in making the public paranoid about nuclear - witness the panic over the tsunami damage to Fukushima Dai-ichi (no recorded deaths) compared to the tons and villages that were devastated by the same tsunami (about 16,000 deaths).
Tidal power has potential and I'd like to see it, but it's not easy. I'm currently looking at tidal generation scheme in Wales. Massively disruptive to the local ecology and recreation use, mainly because they are trying to put it too close inshore.
the shetland tidal flow is a floating station requiring almost no concrete
Floating, anchored objects in strong tidal streams are only viable in areas where there's no shipping, fishing or other boating.
wrong. go and read up. the shetland tidal flow is a floating station requiring almost no concrete.
TJ - what do you think is required to keep that thing in place in a 5 knot current?
My guess would be heavy steel wires secured to some kind of structure that is secured by piles in the seabed.
All this required concrete, fuel and a lot of steel for the construction and installation.
I am not disputing that we need to try and harness this energy but statements that it is already proven is a gross over simplification of the engineering challenges to be overcome.
The UK has some of the largest tidal ranges in the World and we should take advantage of this.
TJ - Dinorwig is still a hydro electric generator as it generates power using water flow. The technology used is a subset of hydro technology
I'd thoroughly recommend the tour to anyone though. Even my son (22) enjoyed it
Gobuchal - if a system that has been running for 3 years at commercial levels is not proven then what is?
the arguements pro nuclear folk use are so contorted relying on next generation nuclear tech ( thorium, fast breeders) and comparing it with last generation renewables.
No pro nuclear person will address the two elephants. 1) what to do with the waste?
2) where to get the fuel. At the moment nuclear provides somewhere in the region of 5% of the worlds energy usage and we have 40 years worth of fuel. for nuclear to have any significant effect on carbon emissions it needs to be scaled up hugely. where is the fuel going to come from
No one has ever given a coherent answer to these two issues.
The further you move power through the grid, the more it costs, both in transmission loss and cost of building the lines. I don’t think it’s political, just distance to point of use.
Building a generator near the scottish central belt intended to power those 3 million people attacts far higher access charges than one in England powering a smaller local population.
For example, we could automate our factories to the point where they can stop and start nearly on demand with low workforce.
If you can automate something that effectively, you'd run it 24/7 to reduce your capital costs. Humans have evolved to sleep at night and forage during the day. Electricity consumption patterns will continue to reflect that.
Gobuchal – if a system that has been running for 3 years at commercial levels is not proven then what is?
Proven on a small scale.
What you are talking about is the installation of literally 1000's of these units.
Besides 3 years, for an offshore installation is not a long time. For example, typically for offshore wind, you are looking at least 20 years for return on investment.
How long is that machine going to last for? The Pentland Firth is a wicked place and it has literally swallowed ships during winter storms. Anything floating around up there is going to take one hell of a beating.
There are things you can do at consumer end to reduce peaks and troughs in demand. smart chargers for electric cdars is one whereby they effectivly become a part of the grid charging only on excess electricity and stopping charging or even putting some energy back into the grid when demnand is high
IIRC Aus uses this sort of tech on electric water heaters
Alex – what are you going to do with the waste – thats the pollution problem along with the huge amounts of concrete used and the fossil fuels required to get the fuel.
The waste is a convenient solid format. Stick it in a hole.
Unlike CO2 which we just pump into the air.
Doesn't get greener than that.
Gubuchal - generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.
Nice shift of the goalposts BTW. You claimed it was not available at commercial levels now you insist a 3+ year commercial scale plant is only small scale.
you said there was only one commercial scale project. Untrue
What I honestly think would help is a little joined-up technology being deployed off-shore.
So you install a tidal stream generator, with a wind turbine on top of it. Then stick a cowl round the columns in the water and pass the air being pumped in/out the cowl through a turbine to generate power from the wave action.
Obviously, optimally positioning for tidal stream means it's likely to be non-optimal for wave/wind, but it means you get increased generation from a single location, and can use the infrastructure being installed anyway to increase overall generation.
I thought of this 20 years ago, and cannot believe no-one has done it yet...
1) what to do with the waste?
Well depending on the ACTUAL (rather than perceived) hazard you encase it properly and store it somewhere geologically stable and monitor it for the long term. By no means a perfect solution but if you waited until you had perfect solution you'd never do anything.
2) where to get the fuel
Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.
To be clear although I am generally pro nuclear I don't disagree that we also need other power generating options.
BTW are you going to back up that "20% of UK energy" claim you made earlier?
The waste is a convenient solid format.
Wrong IIRC.
What's wrong with sealing nuclear waste underground for 300 yrs? 300yrs is a tiny amount of time in lifespan of the earth, and we might have figured out what to do with it by then!
Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.
that is no answer. We know of 40 years worth of fuel deposits at 5% of the worlds energy needs. Where are you going to find 10X that to actually make a difference to climate change?
Re "waste" or spent fuel - mined uranium is so abundant and cheap that it's not worth reprocessing at the moment i.e. separating the "unburnt" uranium from the rest.
Fast spectrum reactors can use the waste with minimal reprocessing i.e. no need to seperate the minor actinides. When they do so, the resultant waste stream is less radioactive than the ore in ~ 300 years.
Example is Moltex
Another waste burner but thermal spectrum is Candu
Gubuchal – generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.
Really? Floating ones? Some one better get a Nav Warning out as they aren't charted!
[url= https://i.ibb.co/NjYkhYv/pentland.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/NjYkhYv/pentland.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I think you are just coming out with what you want to believe!
mined uranium is so abundant and cheap
Eh? according to the stuff I have seen we have 40 years supply and much of it it unstable countries - and extracting it is expensive
those two things are not yet built are they? - another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech
Yes floating ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445
that is no answer.
It is literally the only answer to your question.
and much of it it unstable countries
I think Australia has the biggest deposits of Uranium, doesn't it? and Canada has loads as well. I know the Aussie like a drink or two, but I don't think it makes them unstable...
Yes floating ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445/blockquote >That is not the Pentland Firth.
It is location that is well protected from the worst of the weather.
There is not sufficient room for the installation of the thousands that would be required.
those two things are not yet built are they? – another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech
Which is exactly what you are doing!
There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.
If it was ready to go then a lot of the struggling high tech Aberdeen based O&G companies would be all over it.
Or are you suggesting it's being held back?
I think this point has been comprehensively proved by this thread
the arguements pro nuclear folk use are so contorted relying on next generation nuclear tech ( thorium, fast breeders) and comparing it with last generation renewables.
There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.
When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven
and yes - its being deliberately held back for political reasons
tjagain
and if the energy “market” was not rigged so as to make generation in Scotland uneconomic. ( done purely for political reasons)
tjagain
Access charges I think they are called – to allow generators to connect to the grid. the further you are from london the more you pay to be allowed to put your electricity to the grid. This means that any electricity generated in scotland starts off with a huge disadvantage in the marketplace. Build a generator in the south of england you get subsidised. Build one in Scotland you pay to access the grid.
Why do you think this is the market being 'rigged', as opposed to it reflecting the high cost of installing and maintaining the high voltage transmission lines needed to move electricity long distances?
Scotland already produces more electricity than it needs (around double, i think?) so it is not being used locally.
Well TJ I've made no such claims regarding nuclear power and Fast Breeder reactors aren't next generation tech, Dounreay was a fast breeder plant, was brought online in the 1960s and is no longer in operation.
Now about this "20% of the UKs energy" claim you made...
and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons
What political reasons are those?
There has been major investment in that location off Eday for years now.
Why would any government hold back energy technology that could be the equivalent of the North sea oil boom? Even BJ isn't that thick.
Offshore O&G is in decline. The UK has invested billions in offshore wind. I know I have worked in the industry one and off for 10 years and have seen the step changes in that period. To suggest it's being held back is absolute nonsense.
So why would they "hold back" tidal?
According to the website, it's all underwater.
Interesting discussion though.
scotgov publications - look it up. 14 gb from the pentland firth alone altho that is a disputed figure
Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose
No one has made a fast breeder work for electricity generation ( or is superpheonix actually online yet?) No one has made a commercial scale thorium generator yet have they altho IIRC india has a pilot plant
When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven
How much though? Just because a small scale plant works doesn't mean that it will scale up to all our energy needs, does it?
Your tendency towards being single minded does not help give you a broad overview of the problems and issues.
and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons
Really, 50p says this is nonsense. Any govt of any stripe would be all over this like a rash if they thought it would work, renewable energy, built "in country" what possible reason could there be?
On this tech it does molgrips. You do not build a bigger one - you build more of the smaller units. this has huge implications because repairs do not mean the whole plant goes offline as you are in effect having thousands of small generators. It also means economies of scale as you can build the units on a production line.
Molgrips - this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.
when people are pretending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows t e poverty of the arguement.
anyway - as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.
So why would they “hold back” tidal?
Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.
Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.
According to the website, it’s all underwater.
Interesting discussion though.
It's still basically 4 prototypes. They seem to be struggling to get it working properly.
faults-found-on-tidal-turbines-in-the-pentland-firth/
Like I said, potential but not yet proven.
The very fact that it's an excellent source of tidal power, means it's a very hostile environment particularity subsea.
Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose
It was I believe the worlds first fast breeder reactor to export electricity in January 1975.
Molgrips – this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.
I'm afraid you don't.
when people are prentending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows th epoverty of the arguement.
Literally no one has said that on this thread.
anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds
Pot meet kettle.
"Now about this “20% of the UKs energy” claim you made…"
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels
Except it's not currently available.
Last summer I went for a fascinating tour round Dinorwig hydro power station
It's not a power station it's a pumped storage scheme. Basically just a big battery.
Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.
Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.
What a load.
Non engineer/non mariner thinks that installing sub sea turbines in one of the most hostile marine environments on the Planet is not going ahead because of political motives, to restrict growth for a particular area of the UK, despite the fact that the whole of the UK would benefit if it was successful!
It's not happened yet because it's ****ing difficult and the tech isn't proven!
another reason is the SNP are in thrall to the O&G industry and really do not get it.
No gobuchal - when its been producing electicity for years then its proven - ior as proven as nuclear.
Its al rehashing old arguements as folk are wedded to the glamour of hi tech nuclear rtathrrt than low tech tidal
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming
No TJ you're just ignoring the answers same as you're ignoring my repeated question to you to back up your claim of 20% of the UKs energy that could be available from the Pentland firm I believe it was.
Literally no one has said that on this thread.
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
Gonfishing - so where are you going to increase the supply of uranium by a factor of 100 or more?
What are you going to do with the waste?
anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.
Talk about arrogant!
1) You're the most intransigent person I've ever known, so chastising us for not changing our minds in response to a weak argument (and yes, it is weak as we've shown) is a bit rich and extremely self-unaware.
2) You're assuming we haven't read up about it. There are people here who actually work in the industry and are aware of the projects and their problems, and you refuse to accept their input because you've 'read up a bit'.
Honestly, have a word with yourself.
once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste
Who's pro-nuclear? We're simply trying to educate you on the issues with tidal that you seem to be ignoring.
