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.
Fission is available, fusion is not.
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.
Prize for the least self aware post of the year goes to...
Edit, Molly beat me to it...
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
TJ I posted the details of the tidal flow turbines in strangford lough. At no point have I EVER said that tidal generators do not exist. No one has. I've questioned their suitability to provide base load but that is a totally different thing. Now how about you
"back up your claim of 20% of the UKs energy that could be available from the Pentland firm I believe it was."
Estimates for the potential of the pentland firth are in the 10 GW range - and that is NOT the only site available. ( the range of estimates is huge tho)
another reason is the SNP are in thrall to the O&G industry and really do not get it.
Aberdeen is on its arse.
There are so many people out of work and companies going to the wall, it's terrible.
If this was viable on a large scale then people would be jumping on it.
There are loads of construction vessels sitting idle. They are desperate to find work.
4 prototypes, that have a number of faults, is not proven. Why can't you understand that?
The SNP have been going on about it for years. From wiki:
Currents of up to 5 metres per second (11 mph) make the Pentland Firth potentially one of the best sites in the world for tidal power. This has taken on a political dimension. The SNP Energy Review of July 2006 claimed that the Firth could produce "10 to 20 GW of synchronous electricity" and First Minister Alex Salmond claimed that the Pentland Firth could be "the Saudi Arabia of tidal power"with an output of "20 gigawatts and more than that"In July 2013 Dr Thomas Adcock of Oxford University stated that the Firth "is almost certainly the best site for tidal stream power in the world" although a peer-reviewed study he led suggested that the maximum potential of the Firth was 1.9 GW of tidal power, with 1 GW being a more realistic figure.
So 1 GW, could replace 1 typical Nuclear power station.
No you are not mate. People are basing their arguments on false premises
and I still await the answers to those two questions on nuclear.
Estimates for the potential of the pentland firth are in the 10 GW range – and that is NOT the only site available. ( the range of estimates is huge tho)
Back up your actual claim that it can provide 20% of the UKs energy needs and whilst you're at it quote me where I said Tidal didn't exist.
You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed
No, I stated that there were none in the Pentland Firth.
TJ - that floaty thing you linked to, have you any idea how difficult it would be to safely moor that in an area that has extreme currents and terrible winter weather?
The engineering involved would be pretty impressive.
Then you have to maintain it.
x 50.
Can you imagine what dynamic loads would be on that structure with it's turning turbines in a 5kt current below and heaving up and down in 20m seas?
and that is NOT the only site available
How many other sites have identified?
From what I understand, you need around 5kts of current to make it worth while.
Where else is suitable?
People are basing their arguments on false premises
What like the Pentland Firth supplying 20% of UK energy needs?
When a peer reviewed study estimated it could produce 1 MW?
Really? Floating ones? Some one better get a Nav Warning out as they aren’t charted!
I wouldn't place any confidence in comments from a power generation specialist about a medical condition.
When a peer reviewed study estimated it could produce 1 MW?
TJ he said there weren't any in the Pentland Firth that was abundantly clear to anyone reading the post. The link you provided to make your point related to Orkney, which isn't the pentland firth.
Actually I'm talking crap there. Got my geography completely wrong. No idea what I was thinking.
No Gobuchal- tidal could produce 20% of the UKs needs using existing tech and that estimate of IGW is the lowest bar far ( not 1MW)
other sites - sound of islay is the ideal partner site to the pentland firth. I believe portland bill is another although i have not looked into it at all and others such as the menai straight have been mentioned.
40 GW ish is the total UK electricity consumption? 1 GW at a very conservative estimate from the pentland firth, similar from the sound of islay. 2 gw of 40 GW is 5%. thats just from 2 sites using the lowest estimates
20 % is certainly within range
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.
Oops. Misread that. FUSION not currently available.
TJ – Dinorwig is still a hydro electric generator as it generates power using water flow. The technology used is a subset of hydro technology
It's still just a big battery.
Ta gonefishing
I'd like to see the HRA for 1GW of tidal in a single location
Then again in Scotland SEPA take a more "nuanced" view
40 GW ish is the total UK electricity consumption?
So we're now down to Electricity rather than energy.
1GW being the best estimate by experts representing approximately 2.8% of the 1Q of electricity for the UK in the 1Q 2020 (78.3 TWh I've averaged at 38.6 GW). Quite some way short of 20% and that's from the best site in the UK. Worth having absolutely no argument from me but don't kid yourself that it's easy. The new wind farms that are going in produce orders of magnitude more than that.
If tidal worked as claimed, why have other countries around the world not set up their own? We are not the only island country, or the only country with strong tidal streams. It is nothing to do with trying to suppress the Scottish economy and everything to do with the technology not being ready yet. They have been talking about tidal stream energy for decades, those of old enough to have watched "Tomorrows World" will have seen early examples.
It is a very difficult problem to solve which can be scaled up at an economic rate to make it a viable solution. I think of it a bit like Fusion - when it works, it will be great, but until it works and can be scaled with a viable economic cost, then it is just the future. But how do we solve the need now to meet our electricity demand and reduce burning of carbon fuels? Yes, we can mange demand better, but with the move to electric cars the demand will go up.
HRA?
using existing tech
I will ask again, which tech is this?
Yes, I know that if you put a turbine in moving water you can attach it to a generator and produce electricity. We all know there is more to it than that.
A handful of glichy prototypes does not "prove" anything.
No Gobuchal- tidal could produce 20% of the UKs needs using existing tech and that estimate of IGW is the lowest bar far ( not 1MW)
1000 MW = 1GW.
Drax has 4GW capacity.
Pentland could replace an average power station.
That's not my opinion but that of Dr Thomas Adcock, Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford
sadmadalan
Scotland is in a very unusual place with regard to tidal flow. I know of no other country were the same conditions exist ( narrow channels and high flows)
Other countries do have tidal barrage schemes
HRA?
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
Takes into account all of the hazards and subsequent risks from any activity.
There would probably be potentially serious environmental issues from the change in the natural water flow that such a large tidal "farm" would cause.
yes - and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
total extimnate tidal power avaiable from scottish coasts alone is 14 GW on the most optomitic estimates. thats 30+ % of UK needs from tnhe scottish coast alone
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
and all that done with tiny invesatment
Scotland is in a very unusual place with regard to tidal flow. I know of no other country were the same conditions exist ( narrow channels and high flows)
West Coast of Canada has larger tidal ranges and plenty of narrow channels.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
total extimnate tidal power avaiable from scottish coasts alone is 14 GW on the most optomitic estimates. thats 30+ % of UK needs from tnhe scottish coast alone
Transmission losses?
Oh that risk assesssment will be fun for sure. wonder what its like for sizewell?
it really amuses me tho the way that pro nuclear folk will use the opposite arguments to promote nuclear and to state tidal will not work
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more. No solution to waste - tech will provide
West Coast of Canada has larger tidal ranges and plenty of narrow channels.
Posted 2 minutes ago
good point. I have only really been looking at the scottish stuff
it really amuses me tho the way that pro nuclear folk will use the opposite arguments to promote nuclear and to state tidal will not work
I think it's more the evangelical promotion of a technology by someone who has no experience in the renewables or power generation sector. Coupled with the wiff of conspiracy theories...
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
TJ stop making numbers up.
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
By whom? Because if the answer is an SNP (or to be fair another party) politician the number is almost certainly wrong.
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
Scaling from MW to GW is not an easy task. Also I don't have the data to determine just how reliable the operation of those trial units have been and neither do you.
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more. No solution to waste – tech will provide
Oh and if you could stop misrepresenting what people say that would be great.
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
I haven't discounted it but it's not yet ready to scale up. It needs further development.
As I said earlier, a few years is not really enough to prove it and invest millions/billions in a major installation. Those prototypes have had issues.
It's not just the turbines but the installation techniques and suitable vessels that can work in the location. I know personally of one installation where it wrong and they ended up with a "turn" in the export cable. Easy to do when working in those currents but a major issue.
There are currently no construction vessels that can operate safely through the whole tidal cycle up there. So you have limited windows of opportunity to perform the installation.
There are some other factors to consider, all these operations need to be insured. No underwriter will insure you until you have performed 3rd party verification on the engineering and procedures. So if you kit is flawed and procedures too risky, forget it.
Gonfishing - please educate me on the numbers then.
whats the UK total consumption? the 1 GW from the pentland firth is a robust estimate from a respected engineer. Its the lowest i have seen but lets use it. ( he actually says 1.9 GW possible but 1 gw more likely) other estimates are hugely higher but lets use that one.
sound of islay has similar potential. thats 10% of UK consumption from 2 sites.
Where is my arithmetic wrong?
Oh and if you could stop misrepresenting what people say that would be great.
Where is that misrepresentation?
again where is the uranium coming from to scale up nuclear? the best estimate is we have 40 years worth at current consumption and please as well me the solution to waste
“Pentland Firth promises to be one of the best sites in the world for tidal power. What our research shows is that it could potentially generate power equivalent to almost half of Scotland’s annual electricity consumption,” said Thomas Adcock, the Oxford University engineer who led the research.
I had the link to the report but lost it. the 8 times higher estimate is the political one. 1 gw is certainly a conservative estimate but using conservative estimates is good practice.
alex222
Free Member
Nuclear is safer than fossil fuel and as green as renewables.
@alex222 - that's NOT what it says. It says that it has equally low carbon emissions when compared to renewables. That's not the same as being "green". Decommissioning and storage of radioactive waste and equipment is in no way "green" It's literally toxic. For THOUSANDS of years and any leakage during that period would be an environmental disaster on a scale rarely seen. Neither renewables of even fossil fuels have such a negative after effect.
TJ- nobody is saying that you cannot produce electricity from tidal power. Of course you can.
The current situation is that it's not ready to be scaled up yet. Further work, in all aspects of the engineering and operation is required to make it feasible. There is absolutely no economic or environmental benefit from installing a bunch of kit that doesn't work properly and you spend the next 10 years fixing it before you rip it out and replace with a proven working system.
It would be like trying to drill for oil West of Shetland with 1970s kit.
the best estimate is we have 40 years worth at current consumption
So I googled that, and the first hit was from Scientific America...
According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.
TJ read my previous post regarding UK electrical demand for 1Q 2020. The 1GW that is the best estimate from an actual expert is the only figure that you have references. That number represents around 2.8% of the UKs total UK ELECTRICITY demand. You then state that the sound of Islay is about the same. you haven't included any sort of source for that number. You then added "other sites" and then magically say that you've got to 20%. You've demonstrated 2.8% and then made up numbers to get to 20%.
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
The other point you have misrepresented are as follows
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more.
I never said that. I said that nuclear fuel was like every other raw material that we would have to go looking for just like oil, lithium, coal or any other rare earth metal. I never said it was an infinite resource that was out there to be discovered.
No solution to waste – tech will provide
The solution is encasement and storage based on the actual risk associated with how hazardous the material actually is. This is existing technology that need political will and long term options to deal with. It is far from a perfect solution I agree but that doesn't make it unworkable.
Tidal power has a real potential; but there are issues that need further work.
1) O&M is currently expensive, after financing costs its the bigest cost for the sector - as above its underwater. Floating tidal mitigates this but it is still offshore. THis should reduce with time as further R&D gets fones
2) site phasing. - a lot of the best sites currently being considered are in phase which means that peak generation co-incides between sites. As technology is developed and lower flow sites exploited this can be mitigated. A combination of tidal range and tidal stream could probably provide baseload. However these sites are spatially seperated about the UK, which I think means the baseload isnt as useful as if generated in one place - I think becuase smaller sites are plugged into distribution network not directly to transmission.
3) Distance of sites from population cnetres has implcations for energy transfer and costs of bolstering grid infrastructure
4) Environmental impacts still need better understanding.
Lots of people researching hydrogen as an energy vector, which could have real potential for opening up renewable generation at remote sites, sites with high intermittency.
I made the 20% claim based on previous estimates fro tidal power. that showed the pentland firth at 10gw plus. During this debate the 1.9 - 1 gw number came to the fore and wbhile the lowest estimate i have seen is sufficiently robust that it seems prudent to use it as a base. so yes - that reduces my 20% number.
sound Of islay is again a site whith huge potential
BTW - a tidal generator has been running in norway since 2003 - and those are the proven turbines that are being installed in a plant in the sound of islay ( dunno if its started yet)
here are some peer reviewed numbers and analysis of other sites
Note they believe the 1.9 gw for the pentland firth is too low
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117302082
Bottom line is we don't have solution today, as we phase out fossil fuels we will need electrical generation to increase significantly to offset the direct use of gas in homes and businesses and ICE vehicles being phased out. Nuclear is an option, short term expensive but safe and reliable, medium term the fuel will run out and long term what do we do with the waste.
Tidal is years away from making a dent, nice to see today around 23% of electrical demand is solar and wind. We need to ramp this up fast, loads of roof space out there we could cover in panels, just need to sort out more mass energy storage. Wind also has a lot more to offer, loads of onshore possibilities if the NIMBYs can be made to shut up. I can see 5 major turbines from my window, space on the hillside for another 50 easily, it's all ex industrial moorland anyway, ironically used to be coal mines, when they put the first turbines in they actually cleared up some of the land.
However it will only really change when gas starts to run out, we're still at 50% electricity generation today from gas and a huge amount more used for heating and industrial processes.
We're going to need every energy source and a renewed drive to reduce usage, still massive amounts wasted through unnecessary use and refusal to upgrade to more efficient technology, how many homes still have incandescent bulbs.
Does anyone know much about hydrogen production, storage and transmission.
When I read the report this morning about Scottish windfarms being used to produce hydrogen I thought it was quite interesting as I understand that on windy days the installed capacity in Scotland produces more power than is actually needed and a lot of generation capacity is wasted?
The first test site is apparently going to go ahead at Whitelee.
Only way to settle this is to play a game; http://siemens.zincmediadev.com/energy/island/index.html
(Note - game is aimed at school children but I think it will work for STW people as well)
I was lucky enough to play with one of the reactors at Risø in Denmark before ignorant people forced them to close them all down.
They had tons of nuclear waste stored there, but most of it was from hospitals.
I assume you are dead against the use of all the radioactive isotopes in Hospitals as well due to the problem with the waste from that?
Its a very interesting idea richmtb but with issues. well proven on small scale ( Unst / PURE) but scaling it up has its own issues. Storing hydrogen at large scale is tricky. It can go thru ordinary steel and plastics so clever solutions needed materials wise and its low density so you need a lot of storage - even in liquid form and I believe making it liquid is not easy either.
its also very dangerous and making it back into electricity is not without issues - either burnt in engine which is inefficient or use a fuel cell which needs needs expensive catalysts
its something with huge potential and the main issue with renewables is energy storage but its a long way from proven tech. I am hopeful for it and whitelees is a good sounding project.
Mikkel - hospital waste is nothing like as dangerous as generator waste and has huge benefits.
Mikkel
Free MemberThey had tons of nuclear waste stored there, but most of it was from hospitals.
I assume you are dead against the use of all the radioactive isotopes in Hospitals as well due to the problem with the waste from that?
That's utter bollocks.
Hospital radioactive waste is tiny and relatively harmless compared to spent fuel rods.
90% of hospital waste has a decay rate which renders it inert inside of 30-40 days and the remaining 10% is inert inside of 30 years. nuclear power on the scale we're talking about generates 200-400 metric tonnes of extremely radioactive waste which will not fully decay for thousands of years. Not only that, but the spent fuel must be guarded as it can be used for weapons and cannot be stored together as there's a risk of explosion. Thus you need several sites.
Note they believe the 1.9 gw for the pentland firth is too low
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117302082/blockquote >
That's not how I read that although I haven't read it in depth. It is an interesting paper though and one I intend to read properly. What is does indicate however is where the disparity of 19 MW (ish) quoted by Alex Salmond might have come from. This is an estimate of the the peak power that is available from the pentland firth however as we are talking about tidal currents this will only be available for a very short period of time and my guess, although I do not know, is that Mr Salmond being the canny politician that he is has quoted the peak figure without context to grab a headline. The 1GW is to average over an entire tidal cycle which is a much better estimate to the real available power. I suspect, although again I do not know, that this figure will also account for times when the equipment is out of service for repair/maintenance/damage that sort of thing. If this is the case then the 1GW is likely to be a much much more realistic number of what can actually be achieved.
That game is tough by the way... Just saying.
That's shit news. I worked at Wylfa until it shut down. The area was struggling and Wylfa provided a massive amount of jobs, not only from the site but also the local economy. B and B for contractors, local shops and bus and taxi firms.
The locals were all for a new reactor. That is really crap news.
If this is the case then the 1GW is likely to be a much much more realistic number of what can actually be achieved.
I am going to have to agree with you on that. I had been listening too much to the politicians I guess. an example of learning thru debate.
When I read the report this morning about Scottish windfarms being used to produce hydrogen I thought it was quite interesting as I understand that on windy days the installed capacity in Scotland produces more power than is actually needed and a lot of generation capacity is wasted?
Yep - we pay operators a subsidy when production is too high. If we could efficiently store electricity instead, that would help balance it out.
Also - more pumped storage. There's another scheme planned above Loch Ness (Red John).
Pumped storage - we really do not have enough space to build enough to make a big difference from what I know IIRC current pumped storage is around 4 hours worth of usage and we need storage more like 2 weeks of usage.. Cracking the storage issue is the holy grail of renewables. Hydrogen looks the best bet IMO - but a long way of practical yet.
Hiya,
Read this with interest. If I may add something my background was electrical engineering at Uni and I remember with interest that peak power and top up is OK from renewals. The key issue is us all switching to EV cars and with that the increase in the need for increased production of electricity in non-peak times. Nuclear really is the only one that can support this demand currently and increases.
Finally as an Engineer it is the same old story we led the world in Nuclear power and we had up to about 10 years ago an industry. The government as per usual screwed it up and split up BNFL and sold the parts to EDF, America. So now with Hitachi pulling out we lack the skills and expertise to do it ourselves. Same old crap British political short sightedness prevails. In fairness to the current government at least they were trying to do something about it and the need for capacity. It was the Labour government that made the mistakes from what I can see and I'm a Labour voter ;-(
JeZ
we pay operators a subsidy when production is too high
The guaranteed prices being paid to wind farms are falling dramatically for new developments but the issue of energy storage, as opposed to generation, is one that will need to be addressed.
As for Hydrogen storage, whilst it is difficult, I can't see it being any more dangerous than storing LNG/LPG or petrol for that matter and we do that as a matter of course.
I was speaking to an engineer from ABB Cables a couple of years ago.
They were working on some ultra low loss cable system that would allow efficient power transmission over thousands of miles.
The idea being, is that you connect power stations that are on different time zones from your grid and as power requirements drop in their area, you take power from them and vice versa. Interesting idea.
If we really want sustainable power, we really need to look at again at hydro electric and start developing the already identified sites in the Northwest and Scotland.
£40-60bn saved from the two nuclear sites, kill off HS2 saving another £30+bn and we're well on our way to a £100bn infrastructure project.
Norway generates 95% of it's power from Hydro.
That game is tough by the way… Just saying.
Apparently, I did a really good job by building a biomass generator and some windmills. Only managed to get 41% though!
Daffy - sorry - large scale hydro is not going to happen and the small scale hydro is a help but thats all. Upgrading existing hydro may make a differnce but even in Scotland we do not have the space to have a 5 fold increase in hydro.
Only managed to get 41% though!
I bought 5 solar units and got 45% still managed OK...worst was tidal, just sayin'
Norway is huge, has loads of great hydroelectric sites and a very small population.
As for Hydrogen storage, whilst it is difficult, I can’t see it being any more dangerous than storing LNG/LPG or petrol for that matter and we do that as a matter of course.
You can't see, but maybe scientists and engineers who've looked into it can?
I am of the opinion that large scale liquid batteries could prove useful for storage, if they can be produced effectively. More work is required there still.
I'm not saying it's a single solution, but used as a means of energy storage in conjunction with solar and wind. When ts raining, we can store/generate, when it's sunny we can store/generate and when its typically British (windy and rainy), we can generate, store and export.
Daffy - its a question of land available. There simply is not enough to make a significant difference. Small scale flow hydro is being rolled out and will help but hydro cannot be extended on the scale needed in the UK
Pumped storage - from memory we have about 4 hours worth of storage. We need a couple of weeks worth of electricity consumption stored to cope with winter high pressure events. there simply is not the room in the UK to do this from pumped storage.
the plan i do like is to have an interconnect to Norway from scotland -Scotland becomes the generator and Norway the storage battery. the two countries share the electricity and sell excess to Germany
THing is... Nuclear is a great idea, when done right. We haven't done it right. And I don't mean disasters, although, those are certainly disastrous. I mean finance and project planning. Hinkley is a nuclear disaster of a whole new breed, frinstance, the sort that causes massive damage before it's ever turned on. IF it's ever turned on. And any project involving EDF is dubious on account of they're essentially bankrupt, because the entire French nuclear industry was financed by just making up decommissioning costs.
But the trouble is, it's now incredibly hard for nuclear to stand, or to fall, on its merits. For any power source in fact, since the economics of most power generation is so fictional.
tjagain
Full Member
Daffy – its a question of land available. There simply is not enough to make a significant difference. Small scale flow hydro is being rolled out and will help but hydro cannot be extended on the scale needed in the UK
But there's practically no one in Cumbria and Scotland (speaking as a Scotsman and a Cumbrian) and there's plenty of peaks and troughs - surely there's somewhere with adequate rainfall and catchment at which a dam could be built? Or could the Spey and Lochabler Hydro system be expanded as a start?
@daffy not all waste is weaponisable, it is perfectly possible to convert all our existing stocks (and those of other countries that we hold) to non proliferable isotopes.
Fuel is a finite resource and yes,the can has to be kicked to a degree. Fuel routes play a major part though and reactors can burn anything from low enriched fuel to mixed oxides. As pointed out breeders have far less hazardous daughter products and if the big bugger in Cadarache proves viable the can will need kicked no longer.
@monkeysfeet my sympathies, I'm at Hunterston B myself and when we shut down and the site eventually gets mothballed (as A station will next year) the area is going to be screwed. People think things are bad now, it's going to be a whole lot worse.
I hope all of you gloating take time to remember that. This isn't just ideology, this is peoples livelihoods and the life and death of towns. There is nothing else for folk round here. Think on that.
But there’s practically no one in Cumbria and Scotland (speaking as a Scotsman and a Cumbrian) and there’s plenty of peaks and troughs – surely there’s somewhere with adequate rainfall and catchment at which a dam could be built?
basically no - there isn't.
@squirrelking - that's only true if we were to build breeder reactors like LMFBRs, which we're not as they're deemed to be too expensive. I'd certainly be more behind building breeder reactors as I believe they're part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Building conventional reactors is a sticking plaster until full renewables or fusion takes over. But due to the costs, contracts and decommissioning it's a cost that we'd be paying for for decades even if renewables could take over in 5-15 years.
I'm not gloating here and hope others aren't also, and as someone who worked at both Sellafield and Barrow (Nuclear Subs) and lived 20 years in Cumbria, I feel for the people, but we can't base a future energy policy for the nation on the financial impact to a few thousand.
This is big picture stuff and like it or not, nuclear fission isn't looking too promising and hasn't done for the past 20 years in the UK - had Fukashima happened earlier, I very much doubt we'd have built Hinkley Point, we'd have gone another way.
The only glimmer of hope (for fission) is the Rolls Royce Civil Nuclear program.
Isn't that just a sub reactor by any other definition? I'm not knocking it, SMRs are the next logical step but they're not proven yet and, critally, we need new build yesterday. That's the massive issue, all the coal has been shut down, gas is unsafe from an energy security perspective and we are years too late on a new build program that came at the worst time possible. The EPR is (finally) proven and the AP1000 and ABWR were proven from the outset.
But you're right in do much as the cleanup costs are high. As are costs for fusion. Everything comes with its own toxic legacy, there is no silver bullet.
squirrelking
Free MemberIsn’t that just a sub reactor by any other definition? I’m not knocking it, SMRs are the next logical step but they’re not proven yet and, critally, we need new build yesterday.
SMRs do have the advantage of also taking less time to build. I made a 20p bet on here years ago that the first production ASMR enters service before Hinkley C does, that's maybe not the good bet I thought it was now with the (political and financial, not scientific) setbacks SMRs have taken over the last few years but still not terrible. (even if I don't include NuScale, on account of it's bloody enormous)
Sorry for trolling earlier.
Anyone know what happened to the nuclear power design that Bill Gates was involved with that had to be stopped due to the sanctions against China or whatever it was?
Both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa closed quite a while ago,and power is still provided uk wide without them and locally to me, Fiddlers ferry Coal powered and polluting power station also closed,and there is also the deeside power station,north wales gas fired also closed down.
Whats needed is wholescale reduction in power use, free low energy bulbs, cut all non essential building floodlighting, reduce manufacturing companies energy demand,turn off stuff, have a national campaign to reduce usage.
this is interesting
" the National Infrastructure Commission – are not banging the drum for new fleets of giant nuclear power stations.
The NIC reiterated its two-year-old advice only last month: “The government should take a one-by-one approach to nuclear and not agree to more than one new nuclear plant, in addition to Hinkley Point C, before 2025.”
Whats needed is wholescale reduction in power use
Lmao
And how do you propose doing that whilst doing away with fossil fuels?
TJ, that may be but we NEED the energy security. Right now we are beholden to foreign powers (as of this new year) to provide for shortfalls in generation and our fuel supplies. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but that's the way it is. Its another ****ing ridiculous situation we've found ourselves in.
@squirrelking - essentially, yes. It’s a PWR3, but has the advantage that RR have built 5 in the last 7 years and will be building 6-7 more over the next 5 years, so with the SMR, the economies of scale really start to show. Also, they’re very fuel efficient and your entire grid is VERY scaleable.
Large plants are, despite their fuel use, MUCH more productive than little ones, but as a stopgap, SMRs (I think) have the advantage.
RR have been trying to do civil nuclear for ages. I was involved in the business case aspect back in 2006/7.
I agree squirrel king that its ridiculous. where we disagree is on the solutions. Nuclear can never make up the shortfall in time. Plants simply take too long to build. Hinkley is how late now?
If all the money wasted on Hinkley had been put into renewables we would have less of an issue and we should have been pushing hard for a total reduction in energy usage
So a couple of things to add to any of this, first off I actually work at a gas (3 Gas Turbine Generators, 3 Waste Heat Boiler, 1 steam turbine setup) power station but the company also own and operate biomas / coal power station, other gas power stations, pumping hydro stations and in the process of setting up carbon capturing plant.
With any energy production it’s not a simple subject with one answer. I am fully for the use of wind and solar generation but they do have a number of problems that means they can not be the only option to use. Obviously if it’s night time or not windy they will not be producing electricity so you will still need to produce the required amount using other means (so would still need a system that could product over 100% required without renewable).
Secondly you will never get 100% solar or windy due to the requirement of modulating the frequency of the electricity which you can’t do with renewable. We sometimes have to run when it is too windy or sunny due to the larger inertia (a big heavy turbine and generator) to control the frequency and make sure it stays at 50 hz. The pumping stations will pump water to the storage lake to use up some of the excessive electricity produced. There are even some power stations that will turn there generator into a motor to use up the electricity to help with the control of the grid.
Yes the pumping stations can supply a constant 4 hour connection to the grid (National grid set a minimum 4 hours running contact with energy supplies). They are mostly used to deal with sudden demand of electricity (10 minutes and they can be full operational V a boiler would take over a day if stone cold) when everyone suddenly decides to make a cup of tea in an add break.
My site will only operate when asked to by NG, this means we get a better price but also less Co2 released. Normally we only operate 2-4 times a week in the evenings.
One other form of electricity production that hasn’t be discussed is waste incinerators (burning anything that can’t be recycled). Since landfills are not allowed anymore majority of household waste will go to incinerators. Because the cancels pay them to take the rubbish away they undercut the price of gas power stations so run 24/7. The Uk even send of of their waste over to Holland to be burnt in their incinerators (which adds to the fun of Co2 production) and then sell the electricity back to the Uk using undersea cables (should the Co2 produced by these Dutch incinerators be counted as Uk carbon released?).
This afternoon energy production consisted of:
Solar - 14.3%
Wind - 14.9%
Hydro - 1.0%
Gas - 45.6%
Coal - 1.9%
Biomass - 5.0%
Nuclear- 12.3%
Pump stations- 0%
Import - 5.0%
The biggest way of reducing Co2 release is not just by changing the way that energy is produced but by how much is used, through out the beginning of lockdown energy usage was down by 30% (every day was a Sunday in the eyes of energy sector).
Lets face it, us humans have grown fat on a glut of extremely cheap and addictive hydro-carbon derived energy. Today, we are increasingly coming to the realisation that we have been paying another price beyond pure cost for that energy, namely the potentially unstabilizing effects of massive relases of Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere. Whilst groups like Greenpeace were worring about a few hundred of thousand tonnes of nuclear waste that might (<< note might, not did, or will) get realsed into the environment, we went ahead and ACTUALLY release tens of billions of tonnes of pollutants into our atmosphere unchecked. Anti-nuke peeps say "ooh but nuclear waste is soo dangerous" and then drive to work in their car without a single thought for the fact that every time they run the engine, pollution pours out the back. Pollution that kills people daily, and potentially could result in a significant issue for the human race as a whole.
So far, any new generation tech is simply based on "commercial worth" ie how much it costs, vs what you can sell it for, ie to make a profit for share holders. This is what has stiffled things like tidal or wave energy, not the (relatively) minor engineering problems involved in developing generation assets. The fact is, wave or tidal energy costs more per unit of electricty that wind or solar. And modern nuclear generation is even worse, because rather than saving money to pay for the decommisioning, you're giving the profit to your share holders.
I can see a sea change (sic) comming tbh. At some point, if and when we do run short of 'lecy, suddenly, the vast majority of people are going to stop worrying about saving 2 pence per kWH, and worring about keeping the lights on, the water and sewage pumping, their employers buisnesses running! Suddenly, "oh nuclear power is too expensive" will be replaced with "i need to keep my fridge running".
Unfortunately, without a non politicised, non commercial plan and methodlolgy for providing the Uk with a long term viable generation mix, by the time this happens it will, imo,be too late.......
(and if you are poor, live in a deprived location, are non skilled with a low paid job, then you are totally F'd when the lights go out, because at that point, money talks)
