Britain powers on without coal for three days

[Robbo]

13 minutes ago, carlt said:

No less a solution than suggesting that Nuclear is the answer.

We are producing adequate amounts of energy using unacceptable methods.

Substituting one unacceptable solution for another far more expensive one is no solution...We might as well stick with what we've got and invest in clean, low (inert) waste alternatives.

As for fusion...It is the energy solution for the future and always will be.

Usable fusion energy is at least decades away despite generous funding (such as the multi-billion pound ITER programme.

No it isn't.

Especially when that waste is potentially so dangerous.

And I believe Reneables will never provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels and a mass storage solution will be longer away than Nuclear Fusion.   Keeping with what we have not really no option, kinda already running short of it or too reliant on other countries for it.

The waste we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere for the last century is the most dangerous!

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[peterboat]

Well Carl we have a subject we agree on ☺️ We have to take responsibility and that starts with building houses with solar tiles, and a usable power wall plus proper insulation, offshore wind turbines will soon be 15 mW and no doubt spinning constant. Wave power whilst expensive does work, fields of solar I disagree with we have plenty of roofs it can go on. Coal/biomass well both pollute but can be cleaned up to an extent, I would rather the only biomass was from waste and not imported wood from thousands of miles away and coal the same we have it use it! The blinkers have to come off otherwisw our kids lives are buggered!!

[Robbo]

I think some people live in a fiary tale world and looking at solutions that are idealistic rather than obtainable.

[carlt]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

 

The waste we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere for the last century is the most dangerous!

At the moment but, in years to come the waste we bury out of sight may well become far more dangerous.

In the short term keeping with what we have is the only option considering the monumental balls-up this new generation of nuclear plant building is turning out to be.

Putting more money into a defunct, unsafe, dirty system is folly.

We might as well spend it on clean coal burning and reopen the mines and use the 300 years of reserves sat underground.

At least the end product is some great nature reserves.

Not necessarily a long term solution by the way but certainly a better stop gap than the nuclear alternative.

Just now, Robbo said:

I think some people live in a fiary tale world and looking at solutions that are idealistic rather than obtainable.

It was you that mentioned fusion.

Billions spent on research and the pointy heads slap each other on the back when they produce a tiny spark of energy for a nanosecond.

 

[Robbo]

Chernobyl is probably one of the best Nature Reserves we have!

[Robbo]

4 minutes ago, carlt said:

At the moment but, in years to come the waste we bury out of sight may well become far more dangerous

Most of the fuel “waste” can actually be reused, so it’s not really waste now if we build the plants to use it.   Most of the other waste isn’t that radioactive. 

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Chernobyl is probably one of the best Nature Reserves we have!

Indeed.

However I'm not sure that extolling the benefits of a nuclear plant disaster helps your argument.

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Chernobyl is probably one of the best Nature Reserves we have!

Exactly and it should be remembered how bad it could have been if Russian special forces hadnt given their lives to stop it

[carlt]

Just now, Robbo said:

Most of the fuel “waste” can actually be reused, so it’s not really waste now if we build the plants to use it.   Most of the other waste isn’t that radioactive. 

Ah yes...Sellafield reprocessing plant for example?

No problems with decommissioning that site at all are there?

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, carlt said:

Indeed.

However I'm not sure that extolling the benefits of a nuclear plant disaster helps your argument.

Well it’s was one of the unsafest designs of Nuclear plant even at the time.   Nuclear still has the least amount of deaths for the amount of GW produced even with the major disasters in its history.

[Robbo]

25 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

It was you that mentioned fusion.

Billions spent on research and the pointy heads slap each other on the back when they produce a tiny spark of energy for a nanosecond.

 

No I’m mentioning Fusion as I believe one day it will happen, but I don’t believe it will be in the near future or even in the next 50 years.   I believe that Fission is a stop gap.   I don’t believe renewables will ever work alone with out a storage breakthrough and I believe that will take longer than Fusion.

I believe biomass will just lead to deforestation and reduce our natural “CO2 suckers” even more!

Edited April 30, 2018 by Robbo

[peterboat]

However plans are going on even as we speak to make all energy clean http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43576226

[carlt]

14 minutes ago, Robbo said:

No I’m mentioning Fusion as I believe one day it will happen, but I don’t believe it will be in the near future or even in the next 50 years.   I believe that Fission is a stop gap.   I don’t believe renewables will ever work alone with out a storage breakthrough and I believe that will take longer than Fusion.

I believe biomass will just lead to deforestation and reduce our natural “CO2 suckers” even more!

...and I believe different.

I don't believe that fusion is anywhere near as close as mass storage systems.

Storage is existing technology whereas fusion is pie in the sky.

[frahkn]

57 minutes ago, carlt said:

Ah yes...Sellafield reprocessing plant for example?

No problems with decommissioning that site at all are there?

 

Sellafield will never be decommissioned, at least with current technology.

 

They don't even know what is in the early ponds, let alone have any idea how to decommission it.

 

Some years ago I was taken round the site by the chief engineer, I've never seen a scouser so worried.

 

I think you are too pessimistic about fusion, ITER is expensive but it is good research.

[carlt]

Just now, frahkn said:

 

 

 

Some years ago I was taken round the site by the chief engineer, I've never seen a scouser so worried.

 

 

Sounds like the ex's brother.

 

As for fusion I don't think it is impossible but it is nowhere near as advanced as some mass storage technology.

For example they have yet to get out anywhere near as much as they have to put in to create the reaction.

Mass storage, on the other hand, already has plants up and running successfully and profitably.

[furnessvale]

14 hours ago, Robbo said:

We need around 150-200 Nuclear plants to cover our current needs in energy if we remove fossil fuels.   That’s a lot of wind generators, we don’t have enough land or sea for that amount.   Wind may have a small contribution, but unless we have a mass storage breakthrough, the backup for wind and solar will be Gas.   If we do have a breakthrough in mass storage, the amount of land needed will more than likely be the amount used for Nuclear.

We would probably serve the whole of Europe with that many.

 

UK current maximum demand is 55GW.  We have 8 operational nuclear power stations (most having 2 reactors each) each site producing ca. 1GW.  At the worst scenario, with no other production from wind, hydro etc, we would need 55 nuclear power stations.

 

George

[furnessvale]

20 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

Is the consensus in favour of coal-fired power stations outside one's back door, then? Or is it OK that plebs in industrial areas have views of cooling towers? What about an underground nuclear storage facility next door, is that acceptable? The 'me me me' attitudes of middle England sicken me sometimes.

House prices, by the way, are not a legitimate planning concern.

The "consensus" is in favour of coal-fired power stations outside SOMEONE ELSE'S back door.

 

George

[Robbo]

11 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

We would probably serve the whole of Europe with that many.

 

UK current maximum demand is 55GW.  We have 8 operational nuclear power stations (most having 2 reactors each) each site producing ca. 1GW.  At the worst scenario, with no other production from wind, hydro etc, we would need 55 nuclear power stations.

 

George

The amount 150-200 is the figure quoted is what would be needed to replace all fossil fuels if Nuclear was to be the sole provider.   It includes heating and transportation so that’s why the figure is fairly high.   The lower figure is if we used heat pumps for heating.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Robbo

[furnessvale]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

The amount 150-200 is the figure quoted is what would be needed to replace all fossil fuels if Nuclear was to be the sole provider.   It includes heating and transportation so that’s why the figure is fairly high.

Digressing into my favourite topic, we can save 75% of the current energy use on road freight by transferring it to rail which only uses 25% of the energy per unit moved.  Can't see it happening though!

 

George

[Machpoint005]

32 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

The "consensus" is in favour of coal-fired power stations outside SOMEONE ELSE'S back door.

 

George

Yes, that was exactly my point.

 

20 hours ago, Robbo said:

The land taken by a Nuclear power plant is in order of magnitudes less than the equivalent Wind or Solar farm.   The radiation from Nuclear power plants is lower than coal.

 

17 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

Order of magnitudes? 100 times or more? I very much doubt that, unless you include all the area in between the wind turbines, which usually remains as farmland or forest. In any event, I was talking about the nuclear waste storage dump. 

 

17 hours ago, Robbo said:

One Nuclear plant is around 2000-3000 wind generators.   Nuclear Waste is usually stored onsite, very little waste actually lasts the 1000 of years and the majority of Nuclear Waste is very low in radiation.

In addition Wind (and solar) doesn’t store energy.  If we ever get a solution of mass storage and only use wind/solar then the land usage will probably be quite a lot as well.

Haven't you just gone  from an orders of magnitude lower land take to an orders of magnitude greater power output? Did anyone else spot the confusion?

As Carlt said, you can't graze (eg) sheep on a nuclear site, and you can't take a walk across one either. There is usually nothing to stop you walking right up to a wind turbine, and the actual land take (ie land that can't be used for anything else) is minimal.

 

Meanwhile back in the world of engineering, I see that Exeter University has found a way to use light to get hydrogen from water. If that's not promising research for a carbon-neutral future I don't know what is. It probably won't become commercial in my lifetime, but my grandchildren will see it.

 

For the hard of understanding, electricity storage is a problem at present, but hydrogen can be stored, so the intermittency of solar energy will no longer cause difficulties.    

[LadyG]

On 25/04/2018 at 19:06, Sea Dog said:

If only it was "around the corner". I'm sick of seeing (often non-rotating) wind turbines plonked in beauty spots.

There are  pair at Hunterston, giants, they are "testing" them; one never, ever, moves, it must be "the control"

Edited May 1, 2018 by LadyG

[carlt]

53 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

For the hard of understanding, electricity storage is a problem at present, but hydrogen can be stored, so the intermittency of solar energy will no longer cause difficulties.    

 

Robbo severely overplays the storage problem by comparing it to Fusion.

 

In the real world the fusion bods have so far managed to produce 16 megawatts of power by putting 24 megawatts in.

 

Dinorwig pumped hydroelectric power station can deliver up to 1.7  gigawatts.

 

Obviously there are geological considerations to consider (but a lot less than nuclear waste dumps) but Germany are looking at converting disused mines into pumped water facilities and we don't have a shortage of those do we?

 

As for hydrogen storage, compressed air can be stored in the same way and is another, already viable, mass storage method.

 

Personally I don't believe the solution is in mass storage or even mass generation for domestic power.

 

One of the things we all have in common on this forum is that we are all to a greater or lesser extent users of micro grids where we generate and store our own electricity using a variety of methods.

 

For 10 years I lived off-grid generating my own electricity using mainly solar but also wind for a while and a generator as back up when there was no wind or sun.

 

Micro grids are the future.

[KevMc]

20 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

Robbo severely overplays the storage problem by comparing it to Fusion.

 

In the real world the fusion bods have so far managed to produce 16 megawatts of power by putting 24 megawatts in.

 

Dinorwig pumped hydroelectric power station can deliver up to 1.7  gigawatts.

 

Obviously there are geological considerations to consider (but a lot less than nuclear waste dumps) but Germany are looking at converting disused mines into pumped water facilities and we don't have a shortage of those do we?

 

As for hydrogen storage, compressed air can be stored in the same way and is another, already viable, mass storage method.

 

Personally I don't believe the solution is in mass storage or even mass generation for domestic power.

 

One of the things we all have in common on this forum is that we are all to a greater or lesser extent users of micro grids where we generate and store our own electricity using a variety of methods.

 

For 10 years I lived off-grid generating my own electricity using mainly solar but also wind for a while and a generator as back up when there was no wind or sun.

 

Micro grids are the future.

The cynic in me thinks they are the way forward, but big power companies don't want us generating our own power 'cos that means they won't get the income and profit from our consumption.

[Tumshie]

2 minutes ago, KevMc said:

The cynic in me thinks they are the way forward, but big power companies don't want us generating our own power 'cos that means they won't get the income and profit from our consumption.

The smarter big companies are aware of this and are now making and supplying the technology and hardware to make this happen. 

[Dr Bob]

It's been an interesting discussion but I am not sure anything posted here is going to change anyones opinion. For what its worth, here is my input, but it is a long post and I have similar views to Robbo so look away now if you dont want to hear them.

I worked for an energy company for 30 years (BP – yes an energy company!), the later stages in a senior position so was party to their long term thinking and values. It gave me an insight into what was and what was not possible. It all points to me that although Nuclear is not perfect it is the best we have for now. (BTW that wasnt BP's view when I left!!!)

200 years ago, the holy grail was to turn lead into gold. That wouldnt be much use these days and just devalue gold. Instead there seem to be 3 main breakthroughs required (commercially) to help mankind.

1. Find a way to transfer a hydrogen atom from a hydrogen rich molecule (say methane, CH4) to heavy residue or coal. This would allow much cleaner burning and stop heavy fuel/coal burning and make far better use of 60% of a barrel of oil or coal. (up to 60% of a barrel of oil is residue which is almost as bad a coal)

2. Be able to break the hydrogen oxygen bond so that we can get hydrogen from water (remember – I said commercially)

3. Fusion.

It's 'only' down to overcoming activation energy to make these chemical reactions happen and I believe at some time in the future we will learn the way (maybe as soon as someone finds some dilithium crystals......). We will do it as long as mankind spends enough money on research...which is my main concern...Are we? There have been many technical breakthroughs in the last 60 years and someone, somewhere will crack it. The 'Oil' companies are not sitting on the backsides doing nothing. We have found 'catalysts' to do a lot of things.....we just need a few more.

In the meantime we are stuck with what we have. Wind power might seem 'green' now but what about 20 years time when the wind turbines break down....or need painting....or need a new turbine? At least with the big oil/petrochems companies, they budget in their projects to remove refineries/plants at the end of life. Will all these small companies putting in wind power remove these monstrosities at end of life? Some hope! Likely I wont be round in 20 years time but 50,000 rotting wind turbines will not look nice. I dont agree with Carl that micro grids are the solution. 20 years down the road at the end of their life, they will also be an eyesore. How are we going to recycle all these old solar panels that are no longer viable?

I like the sound of tidal power and having witnessed the power of the tide in certain estuaries, it has to be a player. It would have been interesting to see the Severn barrage built but environmentalists stopped it.

What we need then is a 'stop gap' for another 20-50 years and for me that is Nuclear. The French have successfully implemented it. High level waste can be stored safely and for sure there will be ways of disposing of it in the future. The damage to the environment from burning coal and heavy fuel has been far worse than that from Nuclear. I spent a number of years in the 70's/80's researching encapsulation of magnox fuel rod waste in polyester/epoxy so do know something about it.

My money is on Fusion …....but I have never been successful on betting on the horses...so what do I know??