advertisement


Where do you stand on nuclear power (fission)?

Cav said:
The key question is, whatever the storage medium, where and how is the energy to be stored produced?
Click to expand...

Given that I live in Scotland I'm happy with a lot coming from wind and water. The second includes tidal movements. The first includes offshore.

Note also the improvements in solar power *and* in long-distance low-loss dc transfers.

As previously: There is no one single magic way. Just a sensible combination of developments. Personally, I don't think fission will be a major part of this, but suspect fusion will be now that smaller reactors are on the cards, rather sooner than those accustomed to ever bigger systems might expect.

FWIW one thing I took from my work on developing diagnostics equipment for JET was that a lot of the scientists were more focussed on finding out more about plasma dynamics than in devising alternative ways to make use of it. Research science academics, not injuneers. :)

A parallel to this is the obsession of particle physics with ever-bigger versions of their toys and massive groups of scientists. Which is being disrupted by 'tabletop' accellerators now as well. :) No, you don't need a ring the size of a Canton to do high energy partical experiments any more, either. And I suspect this will impact on fusion work as well in time...
 
Not about making it easier. It’s about getting it right. You wouldn’t get the mark in a GCSE exam. Even state is incorrect. Try form.
 
You are far too clever for me. What the f*** are you on about?
Or are you just diverting from something you have no answer to?
 
Just correcting your science. You always seem so keen to correct others. Didn’t have you down as a snowflake.

My answer is yes to nuclear power.
 
You claim to have corrected my science but, even now, you do not say what is wrong with what I said.

Truly, I want to learn.
 
scolarest said:
Jim I am not sure if you have seen this doom and gloom article: https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/new...oJPUfeg6QOsflhuz__wawuq1iNa8yIbYzupzlp1Z2IFYg but it does beg the question whether experts will try and run these plants past their sell by dates.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the basic report is now old news. So far as I recall, the policy of the Scottish Government is to shut down and decommission all 'Nuclear' (i.e. fission based) plants asap. Big push for wind and water power. The real problem isn't trying to 'run' - i.e. use - these plants any more. It is the decomissioning and disposal.
 
Obviously when you own an expensive plant like Hunterston B you will want to run it as long as possible to maximise profit, it may or may not be reassuring to know that internal to EDF there are managerially independent nuclear safety assessors that are there to stop unsafe mad cap schemes assuming anybody in the industry did come under undue pressure to make money at the expense of safety, then there is the ONR and NII who are separate bodies within the HSE to ensure that EDF can't just do what they want, they have to prove risks are as low as reasonably practicable, no expense spared, to continue to run older stations. Obviously such protection is not exciting news like talking about mushroom clouds over Edinburgh. Regardless of whether they get permission to bring Hunterston B back online, Torness is smashing out the MW for Scotland, and due to do so until 2030 on current estimates. Nuclear free Scotland is a great pledge but you are 11 years off minimum it would seem. Then there are the nuclear subs and experimental fast breeder reactors in Scotland ... all more of a concern i might suggest than Torness or Hunterston B.
 
I'm more concerned about the old subs that Westminster have left 'parked' in Scotland than I am about the power stations. Even if Scotland became independent I'm not sure that the rUK would take them back, of they'd be safe to move that far if they did! Now add in the *new* subs... Madness wrapped up in insanity when the old scenario for them is long past its rely-by date! It buggers belief that so many ignorant politicians regard supporting the new subs as a mantra for being electable!
 
A couple of years later and Boris is putting cash into SMR development.

Last estimate i saw put the electricity cost just over half the proposed rate being paid for Hinckley point output.

Would 20 SMRs distributed around uk get us through the crisis and make electric cars and heat pumps viable?

£13k mentioned this morning as the cost of a heat pump install, my oil boiler cost £700; even with £5k from your donations that won't make the greenwash convincing.
 
dweezil said:
A couple of years later and Boris is putting cash into SMR development.

Last estimate i saw put the electricity cost just over half the proposed rate being paid for Hinckley point output.

Would 20 SMRs distributed around uk get us through the crisis and make electric cars and heat pumps viable?

£13k mentioned this morning as the cost of a heat pump install, my oil boiler cost £700; even with £5k from your donations that won't make the greenwash convincing.
Click to expand...

Heat pumps save money, they extract heat from the surroundings and you get about four times as much energy out as you put in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top