Cav
pfm Member
Well, the MoD does know what to do and has a plan to do it. The article says as much, but that does not sell newspapers. I doubt they are "rusting away" either.
Where do you stand on nuclear power (fission)?
- Thread starter Sue Pertwee-Tyr
- Start date
G
Guest432
Guest
I thought I recognised that name didn't you sign off an inspection report for Windscale in 57 with a comment of "slightly warm to the touch but nothing to worry about"
darrenyeats
pfm Member
My understanding is that green energy sources have made progress at an unexpected speed in the last years. Not 5 years ago I read green energy would only EVER supply a small fraction of UK electricity needs, but it's already approaching half today. That's been a shock.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
The storage problem will need to be addressed for much more progress to be made, but I feel more positive about things now than I have for a while.
Nobody I've talked to wants a nuclear reactor or its waste storage near their home. I think there's no need to explain why.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
The storage problem will need to be addressed for much more progress to be made, but I feel more positive about things now than I have for a while.
Nobody I've talked to wants a nuclear reactor or its waste storage near their home. I think there's no need to explain why.
drummerman
pfm Member
Just watching 'Chernobyl', Episode 4 on Atlantic.
Truly, truly grim and yet I think it's the only viable option as things stand.
The important thing is to go with the most up-to-date options when constructing new power stations rather than accepting older technology 'buy two get one free' done through shady behind scene deals to further trade relationships.
Truly, truly grim and yet I think it's the only viable option as things stand.
The important thing is to go with the most up-to-date options when constructing new power stations rather than accepting older technology 'buy two get one free' done through shady behind scene deals to further trade relationships.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Indeed, and Germany has a significant Green Party presence, which goes to my post on the other thread -ie, I am very supportive of Green Party policies, except for their stance on nuclear power.
richardg
Admonishtrator
Cav wants one.
The fact that green technology has accelerated so fast and new ideas are constantly brewing makes me think against new nuclear technology. Couple that with a constant stream of selfish, incompetent government in my life only makes me think the authorities will take their foot off the green journey accelerator if we knock up a couple of nuclear plants in the meantime.
How much is a nuclear plant anyway
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Alternatively, new nuclear (Thorium or SMR) tech could put U.K. back in the forefront of nuclear technology development. We’re going to need some new stuff to bring to market, post-Brexit.
Swamp Thing
Remainiac Terrorist
Sometimes it is both not sunny and not windy. Look at the yearly graphs...
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
(If you are unable to read graphs, please feel free to dismiss me as an "expert")
Also in the winter strong daylight is quite sort in duration. So we need storage and we haven't got it. Lagoons store. Batteries store. Hydro stores. Energy conversion can store (use peaks of electricity to make hydrogen for example). But the technology to store isn't good enough for today, and we will need to generate a lot more energy cleanly to replace all that petroleum we are burning. A lot more. So we will need a shedload of storage.
So do you want to bet on technology solving the problem(s) of storage of peaks, and actually hope that we can generate enough renewables - or should we maybe invest in some new nuclear?
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
(If you are unable to read graphs, please feel free to dismiss me as an "expert")
Also in the winter strong daylight is quite sort in duration. So we need storage and we haven't got it. Lagoons store. Batteries store. Hydro stores. Energy conversion can store (use peaks of electricity to make hydrogen for example). But the technology to store isn't good enough for today, and we will need to generate a lot more energy cleanly to replace all that petroleum we are burning. A lot more. So we will need a shedload of storage.
So do you want to bet on technology solving the problem(s) of storage of peaks, and actually hope that we can generate enough renewables - or should we maybe invest in some new nuclear?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Indeed. Baseload demand is an issue for renewables, and if we are to move to electric cars (as I think we should) then baseload generation, especially overnight, is going to be crucial.
Swamp Thing
Remainiac Terrorist
One possibility which I quite like is your house stores. Your TV, cooker, computer, lights, hi-fi all store - like your laptop and phone does now, and you have a house battery and if you have a car that can be connected up as well. And an intelligent distribution program will connect and storage energy in these place when there is a surplus based on a hierarchy of demand (babies incubators, fire engines.. ..fairground rides, vibrators - exact order can be crowdsourced later) and by considering that John Smith leaves for work at 0600 and Peter Brown at 0900.
We still need better tech, batteries, more rare earth find or different tech etc.
We still need better tech, batteries, more rare earth find or different tech etc.
jtrade
pfm Member
andyoz
pfm Member
I'm generally in favour of nuclear.
One thing to watch when the 'green' generation stats are thrown around though...
When they state say 30% of the UK's energy was green generated on a particular day, the 30% of traditional carbon based energy sources haven't just been turned off like a light switch.
Because green energy supply varies so quickly they just throttle back the carbon based generation. That means it isn't always operating in its most efficient zone. But they don't report that part.
One thing to watch when the 'green' generation stats are thrown around though...
When they state say 30% of the UK's energy was green generated on a particular day, the 30% of traditional carbon based energy sources haven't just been turned off like a light switch.
Because green energy supply varies so quickly they just throttle back the carbon based generation. That means it isn't always operating in its most efficient zone. But they don't report that part.
Seanm
pfm Member
I've heard that there isn't sufficient uranium to scale nuclear power to the point where it would make a meaningful contribution to displacing fossil fuels, so it's a dead end: better to put the money elsewhere, in something that is scaleable. I had this explained to me by someone who generally knows what she's talking about on energy matters and I just took her word for it, to be honest. But Google backs her up and I'm surprised no-one's at least mentioned it here.
Cav
pfm Member
Is that the Germany that burns lignite?
Cav
pfm Member
The waste does not need to be near to anyone's home.
Cav
pfm Member
Every nuclear - powered sub has one so they can't be very expensive.
Cav
pfm Member
Scientific American say 200 years worth still commercially viable and with enrichment and breeder technology that could be extended by at least 30%.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think there are adequate reserves, but would advocate development of (more plentiful and less problematic) Thorium in any event. But also, there are viable technologies to exploit existing high level waste as fuel, which would surely be a win-win.