The case against nuclear power - does it stack up?

[A380]

I know, hence the attraction of the Magic Grand Projet that will solve everything at a stroke using Technology. I'd love nuclear to be that thing, but it isn't. Pity.

There isn’t one thing. Even ITER won’t be for years.

We are lucky in the UK. Could do it with wind and gas and DSR. Not all countries could.

Adding a few new nukes would reduce the days we were running the CCGTs as base load.

 

[elbows]

This is from the IEA assessment of the UK that was done in 2019:

The United Kingdom remains a leader in the civil use of nuclear energy. Its institutional infrastructure is sound and all the important issues of nuclear power development, which include regulation, financing, construction, supply chain, fuel supply, skills, and decommissioning are systematically addressed. A UK export strategy for nuclear power components and skills that was always part of this framework does not look unreasonable. In addition, the United Kingdom is one of European countries in which the first concrete has been poured as part of the construction of a new NPP.

However, there is no longer a momentum in the United Kingdom today to fill a potential supply gap with a fleet of new Generation 3 PWR and ABWR reactors (following the phase-out and retirement of coal plants, closed Magnox reactors, and ageing AGRs). One of the reasons is the Brexit process that drains policy-making resources from other sectors. Nuclear energy, with the large size of its installations, the need for special safeguards, and the difficult-to-quantify benefits, is likely to be more affected by this Brexit process than other energy carriers. At the same time, the government is aware of this and has launched a number of initiatives in the nuclear field, most importantly with the publication of its Nuclear Sector Strategy of June 2018 that set out a coherent case for new nuclear development.

Ultimately, however, the overall dynamics of the UK nuclear sector will depend on continuing and expanding nuclear new build. Inevitably, the ambitious target of the UK industry of 16 GW of new nuclear capacity by 2030 that was initially announced, establishes the backdrop against which success or failure will be assessed. The new build project at HPC by a French-Chinese consortium with 3.2 GW is a sizeable step, but will not be sufficient on its own to carry the momentum of UK nuclear development forward. At least one additional project needs to be agreed in the coming two years to maintain momentum. Otherwise, the creation of an internationally competitive UK supply chain for nuclear new build will be difficult to sustain in an industry that is subject to very strong increasing returns to scale at all levels.

A decisive element in this context is the need to articulate better the contribution that is expected of nuclear energy to the UK low-carbon electricity supply. Do current projections of the evolution of the UK electricity market suggest that nuclear energy will be able to run in an economically efficient baseload mode or will it be primarily used as a low-carbon backup for the generation from variable or intermittent renewable resources? The answer will have a bearing on the cost and financing of nuclear electricity, on its optimal share, as well as, to some extent, on the appropriate technology to be chosen.

Overall, nuclear energy in the United Kingdom benefits from a strong policy framework and good public support. However, current arrangements do not yet ensure the economic viability of the projects for new NPPs beyond HPC. This means that UK nuclear power is approaching, rather quickly, a bifurcation that will decide whether the original ambitions for its development can, by and large, be maintained or whether the share of nuclear power in UK electricity supply will decrease dramatically after 2025. If UK policy makers are convinced that nuclear energy should remain an important part of the electricity mix, they will need to set out the overall system’s contribution of nuclear power in terms of carbon emissions, reliability, flexibility, grid services, and diversification, to create a broad consensus that the economic incentives required do, indeed, constitute good value for money.

From https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/a..._IEA_Countries_United_Kingdom_2019_Review.pdf

If we assume that the pandemic has slightly affected some of the timescales they talk about, I suspect we are still entering a crucial period where they need at least one new build deal really quite soon in order to maintain the necessary momentum.

 

[pug]

I thought rolls Royce were going to build 16 mini nukes?

 

[co-op]

This is from the IEA assessment of the UK that was done in 2019:











From https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/a..._IEA_Countries_United_Kingdom_2019_Review.pdf

If we assume that the pandemic has slightly affected some of the timescales they talk about, I suspect we are still entering a crucial period where they need at least one new build deal really quite soon in order to maintain the necessary momentum.

Thanks for that, interesting. I used to be quite involved in this but I'm out of touch.

Great word though "momentum" - it does always make me assume that the thing is on the point of running aground. The main "momentum" demand of the last 2 decades driving nuclear energy in Europe has really been the French need to come up with some sort of strategy to replace their aging and nearly-dead nuclear fleet. The cost is going to be phenomenal, the timescale horrendous (their existing plants will all be dead before they can get new ones up now) and there's an obvious argument to pile into renewables and take advantage of the common European energy market neither of which were around in the 70s when the oil crisis pushed them into nuclear. On the other hand they have a strong nuclear lobby. They need to keep AREVA (their principle nuclear build/design engineering co) alive until then (it's on the brink of bankruptcy, another reason not to buy EPRs) and have been hawking EPRs around the world trying to spin out business until they can decide what to do. Hinckley C is basically keeping AREVA going at the moment.

And yes Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.

 

[A380]

I thought rolls Royce were going to build 16 mini nukes?

They are pitching for their ‘modular’ nuclear reactor model. Technically it would make sense. The problem is how would you guard so many sites to stop baddies nicking the glowing hot stuff. The only ‘probably successful’ way is for lots of women and men with guns to guard them. It’s really expensive at the big plants with The Civil Nuclear Constabulary ( who are much more an armed guarding service than anything resembling a ‘normal’ police force.) You’d probably need almost as many people at each modular site than at a big plant.

I did hear someone suggest you could put them on military bases and really on that for security but I imagine that the MOD might not be that keen and I don’t know how many airbases or barracks are near grid connection points.

 

[A380]

Thanks for that, interesting. I used to be quite involved in this but I'm out of touch.

Great word though "momentum" - it does always make me assume that the thing is on the point of running aground. The main "momentum" demand of the last 2 decades driving nuclear energy in Europe has really been the French need to come up with some sort of strategy to replace their aging and nearly-dead nuclear fleet. The cost is going to be phenomenal, the timescale horrendous (their existing plants will all be dead before they can get new ones up now) and there's an obvious argument to pile into renewables and take advantage of the common European energy market neither of which were around in the 70s when the oil crisis pushed them into nuclear. On the other hand they have a strong nuclear lobby. They need to keep AREVA (their principle nuclear build/design engineering co) alive until then (it's on the brink of bankruptcy, another reason not to buy EPRs) and have been hawking EPRs around the world trying to spin out business until they can decide what to do. Hinckley C is basically keeping AREVA going at the moment.

And yes Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.

I can’t see how the French get out of it. They are massively nuke dependent, their fleet as you say is ageing and was built by the state. Even with the French approach to applying EU law I can’t see them getting away with direct state funding and no companies are big enough to even carry one nuclear plant development on their books, let alone a fleet.

And untill someone can make deep water off shore wind work, they are t as fortunate as us given the challenges in the Atlantic as compared to the North Sea.

Mind the French do love big technology solutions . Perhaps they will pull it off. If ITER does work then I think the race will be between France and China for the first fission power station…

 

[elbows]

Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.

I'm rusty and have only started paying attention to detail again this month. I aim to continue from now on.

Interconnectors are very much on my list of things to pay attention to. I dont think the new one between us and Norway has officially launched yet but I've still seen flows showing up on this interconnector via live data recently so official launch is probably close. Imports show up much more strongly than exports, although the picture has also been affected by the fire which has taken out 2GW of capacity to/from France, half of which was originally off for planned reasons but with slipping restart timescales as a result of the fire (now late October not late September), and the other half not even currently scheduled to become available till next March ( UK's National Grid says IFA Interconnector planned outage extended to Oct 23 ). The most obviously consistent exports have been to Ireland via the Moyle interconnector, which isnt surprising especially as Ireland got in deep shit on September 9th and we came to their aid using a rather expensive source we had on standby, which caused a spike in the price stats on that date.

EDF are probably still smarting from having to make a decision that they were never going to be able to restart Dungeness B, and moved to the defuelling phase instead ( EDF Energy scraps plans to restart Dungeness B nuclear plant ) . And there have been plenty of unscheduled outages recently, which I keep an eye on via Power station daily status . 4 reactors are currently still down due to unplanned outages, and one due to a planned outage. I wait to see if they can bring them back online in the currently envisaged timescales.

 

[elbows]

Oh and regards loss of momentum, I remember that at some point after Germany decided to phase out nuclear, there were some signs of them getting cold feet over that decision. But the industry told them it was too late to u-turn because too much momentum and skills/investment base had already been lost. I wish I could find the artilcle I read about this some years ago, but so far I cannot.

Nuclear stuff being like a giant ship that takes a huge amount of time to turn around is one of the things that make me unclear about the future of that industry here. Because the pandemic did rather demonstrate how equations with a strong 'value for money' emphasis can end up going straight in the bin if the shit really hits the fan to the extent that security and necessity suddenly trump cost, not to mention how much costs of certain competing alternatives can explode in such circumstances (although those often end up affecting nuclear costs anyway). Its not hard to imagine our energy picture reaching a point where security of supply suddenly becomes the big undeniable issue of the day, but very few of the solutions apart from significant demand destruction could come to the rescue quickly, least of all nuclear.

 

[elbows]

Sizewell's strike price is likely to be in the range £30-60 per MWh, way cheaper than the current grid price of £150 per MWh, which is so high due to the need to burn gas to compensate for the deficiencies of renewables.

Suggestions from EDF about the strike price for Sizewell C are inexorably linked to haggling about how the build is funded. Specifically RAB keeps coming up in connection with this at the moment. And there is still the hangover from the golden era of relations between the UK and China to deal with.

If there is one thing I dont take seriously with nuclear, its the price estimates, especially at this stage. Plus some of the price increases elsewhere inevitably affect the build costs, so its not as simple as the rise in gas prices making nuclear generation costs seem more attractive.

This sort of article from just a few days ago touches on some of the above in more detail:

Ministers close to deal that could end China’s role in UK nuclear power station

Exclusive: deal in which UK government would take stake in Sizewell C would risk inflaming geopolitical tensions

www.theguardian.com

I suppose if I were forced to guess, I'd say the UK establishment will be quite desperate to ensure that at a bare minimum Sizewell C goes ahead. And if momentum is gained via Hinkley and Sizewell success, Bradwell may be unlocked. And seperately, the USA is sniffing around Wylfa possibilities.

 

[weltweit]

Couple of articles I found interesting

US team claims viable path to commercial fusion power - The Engineer

A record-breaking superconducting magnet developed by researchers in the US could pave the way for practical, commercial, nuclear fusion.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Magnet protection spurs tokamak fusion development - The Engineer

Tokamak Energy has developed a new magnet protection technology that promises to bring spherical tokamak power plants to market sooner.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Basically saying that high powered magnets required for fusion are coming and may lead the way to the promise of clean and cheap energy for all.

 

[elbows]

Couple of articles I found interesting

US team claims viable path to commercial fusion power - The Engineer

A record-breaking superconducting magnet developed by researchers in the US could pave the way for practical, commercial, nuclear fusion.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Magnet protection spurs tokamak fusion development - The Engineer

Tokamak Energy has developed a new magnet protection technology that promises to bring spherical tokamak power plants to market sooner.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Basically saying that high powered magnets required for fusion are coming and may lead the way to the promise of clean and cheap energy for all.

Its hard to take those claims too seriously due to the long history of hope not delivering.

I'd still take it seriously enough to keep funding research, but not seriously enough that I can include it in calculations about how the hell we are going to cope in future. I am neutral in terms of expectations about whether it will ever happen, just cant begin to bank on it, and its dangerous if false hopes on that front get in the way of all the tougher choices required elsewhere. Better to plan as if it will never happen, and then experience much relief and joy if it ever manages to come good.

 

[A380]

I'm rusty and have only started paying attention to detail again this month. I aim to continue from now on.

Interconnectors are very much on my list of things to pay attention to. I dont think the new one between us and Norway has officially launched yet but I've still seen flows showing up on this interconnector via live data recently so official launch is probably close. Imports show up much more strongly than exports, although the picture has also been affected by the fire which has taken out 2GW of capacity to/from France, half of which was originally off for planned reasons but with slipping restart timescales as a result of the fire (now late October not late September), and the other half not even currently scheduled to become available till next March ( UK's National Grid says IFA Interconnector planned outage extended to Oct 23 ). The most obviously consistent exports have been to Ireland via the Moyle interconnector, which isnt surprising especially as Ireland got in deep shit on September 9th and we came to their aid using a rather expensive source we had on standby, which caused a spike in the price stats on that date.

EDF are probably still smarting from having to make a decision that they were never going to be able to restart Dungeness B, and moved to the defuelling phase instead ( EDF Energy scraps plans to restart Dungeness B nuclear plant ) . And there have been plenty of unscheduled outages recently, which I keep an eye on via Power station daily status . 4 reactors are currently still down due to unplanned outages, and one due to a planned outage. I wait to see if they can bring them back online in the currently envisaged timescales.

Interconnector nerd alert. The Norwegian one is t technically an interconnector as it isn’t designed to work both ways. It’s funding is to sell Scandi hydro power here.

I really ought to get out more…

If you get really bored start digging into TERRE which is a future platform for trading ‘virtual capacity’ across the various European synchronous areas and is designed to promote inter connector development. It made my head hurt if I’m honest.

 

[A380]

Couple of articles I found interesting

US team claims viable path to commercial fusion power - The Engineer

A record-breaking superconducting magnet developed by researchers in the US could pave the way for practical, commercial, nuclear fusion.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Magnet protection spurs tokamak fusion development - The Engineer

Tokamak Energy has developed a new magnet protection technology that promises to bring spherical tokamak power plants to market sooner.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Basically saying that high powered magnets required for fusion are coming and may lead the way to the promise of clean and cheap energy for all.

Its hard to take those claims too seriously due to the long history of hope not delivering.

I'd still take it seriously enough to keep funding research, but not seriously enough that I can include it in calculations about how the hell we are going to cope in future. I am neutral in terms of expectations about whether it will ever happen, just cant begin to bank on it, and its dangerous if false hopes on that front get in the way of all the tougher choices required elsewhere. Better to plan as if it will never happen, and then experience much relief and joy if it ever manages to come good.

My understanding is it’s not so much the controlling fusion burn anymore. They can run Jet as long as the magnets hold out - 8 seconds? - ITER is to prove this. I haven’t been down to Culham for over three years though.

The issue is how you get the power out. Current plans require refitting the torus with sacrificial steel for about a third of its life ( i.e a Tokamak would run two thirds of its life and be in refit the other third. Because of the radiation this would probably need to be delivery by robotics there are several other second order issues,, if ITER does prove the JET findings correct.

My predictions- it won’t be quick and it won’t be cheap.

 

[elbows]

Interconnector nerd alert. The Norwegian one is t technically an interconnector as it isn’t designed to work both ways. It’s funding is to sell Scandi hydro power here.

I really ought to get out more…

If you get really bored start digging into TERRE which is a future platform for trading ‘virtual capacity’ across the various European synchronous areas and is designed to promote inter connector development. It made my head hurt if I’m honest.

Whats your source for it only being one way, and if so then how come everything I read about it online including sources such as those who built and operate it say that it works both ways? And how come I've seen it go into negative (=UK export) territory once or twice on the graphs that the following site and many others visualise from a common source of data? National Grid: Live Status

The market and trading aspects of some of this data and systems are what largely prevent me from going beyond a certain level of detail and monitoring of nerdy data myself, I cant be arsed with some of those layers.

 

[A380]

Whats your source for it only being one way, and if so then how come everything I read about it online including sources such as those who built and operate it say that it works both ways? And how come I've seen it go into negative (=UK export) territory once or twice on the graphs that the following site and many others visualise from a common source of data? National Grid: Live Status

The market and trading aspects of some of this data and systems are what largely prevent me from going beyond a certain level of detail and monitoring of nerdy data myself, I cant be arsed with some of those layers.

You are right, it is bi directional . My knowledge came from talking to the grid interconnector teams a few years back. I’ve probably got it mixed up with the proposed Iceland link. At least this shows I’m not the interconnector nerd I thought I was…

 

[elbows]

They are pitching for their ‘modular’ nuclear reactor model. Technically it would make sense. The problem is how would you guard so many sites to stop baddies nicking the glowing hot stuff. The only ‘probably successful’ way is for lots of women and men with guns to guard them. It’s really expensive at the big plants with The Civil Nuclear Constabulary ( who are much more an armed guarding service than anything resembling a ‘normal’ police force.) You’d probably need almost as many people at each modular site than at a big plant.

I did hear someone suggest you could put them on military bases and really on that for security but I imagine that the MOD might not be that keen and I don’t know how many airbases or barracks are near grid connection points.

I dont think the security aspect is that big a deal because

(a) That security threat gets overhyped, and that was especially true in the early years of the 'war on terror'.

(b) I think one of the reasons nuclear power woos successive governments is that the job creation aspect is very attractive to them. Specialised jobs and local jobs. Temporary jobs and permanent jobs. So I think thats considered an upside for them, not a downside. And Rolls-Royce probably need the business, and both need the exports, given aviation sector woes.

(c) The current plans arent that mini or that numerous. A quantity of something like 16 perhaps (still early days in regards me reading about Rolls Royces plans). With output per unit that may look small compared to the big beasts, but still seem kind of equivalent to each of the highest rated Magnox generation of reactors we once had (again, unless I've misread something).

Press reports recently seem to indicate that the government are going to combine their pro-nuclear instincts with momentum from the recent crisis and push ahead big time with funding etc for these sorts of plans. I suppose that shouldnt surprise me given that the tory 'levelling up agenda' is rather hollow and this sort of idea will be seen as something that could add a bit of substance, and killing multiple birds with one stone.

Probably the flaw/risk I would focus on with this sort of plan involves the modular construction aspect. Track records are long proven in terms of the engineering side of the equation, but like the other size of nuclear developments the story of nuclear is so messy in part because it involve the building industry. And when it comes to the history of building and modular/factory construction, thats an industry that has a very messy history that drives me batshit crazy over the lost opportunities to bloody do it properly and dislodge other, on-site forms of building that have managed to remain dominant. We probably need a separate thread about all of that, more broad than nuclear, but my point remains that there are very few aspects of nuclear power that I can think about without having to drag the whole world of building into the equation.

 

[A380]

I dont think the security aspect is that big a deal because

(a) That security threat gets overhyped, and that was especially true in the early years of the 'war on terror'.

(b) I think one of the reasons nuclear power woos successive governments is that the job creation aspect is very attractive to them. Specialised jobs and local jobs. Temporary jobs and permanent jobs. So I think thats considered an upside for them, not a downside. And Rolls-Royce probably need the business, and both need the exports, given aviation sector woes.

(c) The current plans arent that mini or that numerous. A quantity of something like 16 perhaps (still early days in regards me reading about Rolls Royces plans). With output per unit that may look small compared to the big beasts, but still seem kind of equivalent to each of the highest rated Magnox generation of reactors we once had (again, unless I've misread something).

Press reports recently seem to indicate that the government are going to combine their pro-nuclear instincts with momentum from the recent crisis and push ahead big time with funding etc for these sorts of plans. I suppose that shouldnt surprise me given that the tory 'levelling up agenda' is rather hollow and this sort of idea will be seen as something that could add a bit of substance, and killing multiple birds with one stone.

Probably the flaw/risk I would focus on with this sort of plan involves the modular construction aspect. Track records are long proven in terms of the engineering side of the equation, but like the other sie nuclear developments the story of nuclear is so messy part because it involve the building industry. And when it comes to the history of building and modular/factory construction, thats an industry that has a very messy history that drives me batshit crazy over the lost opportunities to bloody do it properly and dislodge other, on-site forms of building that have managed to remain dominant. We probably need a separate thread about all of that, more broad than nuclear, but my point remains that there are very few aspects of nuclear power that I can think about without having to drag the whole world of building into the equation.

I don’t think we will see them. Security plus numbyisn will
See them off. Unfortunate as I quite like the idea.

 

[elbows]

You are right, it is bi directional . My knowledge came from talking to the grid interconnector teams a few years back. I’ve probably got it mixed up with the proposed Iceland link. At least this shows I’m not the interconnector nerd I thought I was…

No worries.

By the way I discovered that I can watch ESO Operational Transparency weekly webinars if I want to immerse myself in a world which I dont actually work in or have contacts within. ESO Data Portal: ESO Operational Transparency Forum - Dataset| National Grid Electricity System Operator

I watched one and I discovered that if I let all the jargon and detail that I dont need to understand wash over me, I can pick up clues about specific events and operational details. A lot of the questions sound like they are from people involved in the trading who dont agree with certain decisions about price etc, and are seeking a forum to grumble and probe. But for example thats where I got enough clues about what happened with Ireland on September 9th that I could then go and search news etc sources to flesh out the story in a different direction.

 

[elbows]

I don’t think we will see them. Security plus numbyisn will
See them off. Unfortunate as I quite like the idea.

I probably dont like them because its tempting in my mind to think about the risk of nuclear accidents increasing when far more reactors are in operation.

It might be possible to guess from my mini rant about the building industry that a major upside I'd welcome from successes with the modular concept would be if it provided some momentum and best practice success stories for modular building more broadly.

 

[A380]

I probably dont like them because its tempting in my mind to think about the risk of nuclear accidents increasing when far more reactors are in operation.

It might be possible to guess from my mini rant about the building industry that a major upside I'd welcome from successes with the modular concept would be if it provided some momentum and best practice success stories for modular building more broadly.

Are you signed up to Cornwalls insight bulletins? They use them to advertise their paid services and courses but provide a useful free précis of the sector, commercial, government and technical.

Cornwall Insight | Creating Clarity in the Energy Market

Cornwall Insight provides comprehensive energy market intelligence with analysis, consultancy & training, enabling you to succeed in the net zero transition

www.cornwall-insight.com

I used to vaguely know a couple of the people who put it together. They did like rubbish puns for sub headings but I think they got told off by the grown ups for doing it too much.

 

[HAL9000]

I'd say that we are generating significant amounts of electricity from renewable sources as a result of much progress over the last 10+ years. There is a long way to go, and some of that will come from further demand reduction rather than on the supply side, but progress has still been more impressive than I'd have dared to hope. People might have thought I was a nut if I'd been able to come out with these sorts of numbers 20 years ago.

The investment and progress with renewables also shifting the economic arguments because even if tricks are used to make nuclear appear cheaper than it really is, as of a few years ago UK renewables managed to become cheaper on paper than nuclear.

Wind has proven it can scale up, catch on big time, and be competitive in terms of costs. Issues of storage and dealing with periods lacking in wind remain as fairly major challenges, and I'd rather we directed funds there rather than on nuclear investment. But I also think demand reduction will be a bigger part of the picture than currently tends to be acknowledged, and that will be a messy picture that has implications politicians etc arent being completely open about yet. The longer they leave a hole where new nuclear was originally supposed to be, the more I think we can expect a rude awakening on that front at some point.

View attachment 290305

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/1016822/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2021.pdf

If that graph is accurate then I'd be inlined to reject the common narrative that we've used gas to replace coal for electricity generation. Gas replacing coal has got more truth to it if we go back far enough, but in terms of the last 10-15 years I'd say gas has carried on as before and that its renewables and some demand reduction thats replaced coal. With imports/other used to fill in much of the gap caused by dwindling nuclear capacity.

I think renewables will only fill the gap, if the electrical storage problem can be solved. This story suggests 20GW battery storage,

Report: An additional 20GWh of battery storage could significantly reduce wind power curtailment in UK - Renewable Energy World

whatever the final figure is, its likely to be a large number, to fill in the peaks when gas power station would run or capture excess power generated when there's less demand, like the middle of the day. Currently we have 50 MW of storage, we would need to increase this by 400x to get to 20gwh.

Battery storage power station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Lithium batteries are not a good solution, need something cheaper.
• At the moment, there are some potential solutions, like flow batteries. But no one has picked a winner yet.
• Electric vehicles may help a bit, but there's also the risk that the battery life is shortened if its constantly being charge/discharge to help the grid plus whatever the driver uses the car for.

Its also likely the electrical grid will need to be updated to cope with higher peak demand (see this McKinsey report The potential impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems). With more renewables, may need changes where more electricity comes from lots of medium/small power sources.

 

[elbows]

Cheers for the info.

I suppose I should consider separating this into two different things.

There is the stuff that has grabbed most of the attention so far, such as the need for storage and demand side stuff to cope with short-lived fluctuations in electricity generation from renewables vs demand at particular moments in time. It seems feasible that storage and demand solutions can be made to scale up to that challenge.

But what 2021 has probably drawn into sharp focus are issues arising from a much more prolonged dunkelflaute (dark wind lull). I havent studied the 2021 wind data properly yet but it seems likely that rare but prolonged periods with that lack of wind goes very far beyond what we can envisage dealing with using traditional storage solutions. Which probably means we are left with 3 ways to imagine coping with that in future: Ongoing secure supply of gas & associated generation capacity that can fill the gap when required (eventually combined with carbon capture), significant nuclear generation capacity, significant hydrogen production and storage. I suspect the 2021 wind situation will be used to bring fresh momentum to the nuclear plans. And I doubt we can afford to drop the ball in regards hydrogen this time around. But I still have a lot to learn.

 

[A380]

Cheers for the info.

I suppose I should consider separating this into two different things.

There is the stuff that has grabbed most of the attention so far, such as the need for storage and demand side stuff to cope with short-lived fluctuations in electricity generation from renewables vs demand at particular moments in time. It seems feasible that storage and demand solutions can be made to scale up to that challenge.

But what 2021 has probably drawn into sharp focus are issues arising from a much more prolonged dunkelflaute (dark wind lull). I havent studied the 2021 wind data properly yet but it seems likely that rare but prolonged periods with that lack of wind goes very far beyond what we can envisage dealing with using traditional storage solutions. Which probably means we are left with 3 ways to imagine coping with that in future: Ongoing secure supply of gas & associated generation capacity that can fill the gap when required (eventually combined with carbon capture), significant nuclear generation capacity, significant hydrogen production and storage. I suspect the 2021 wind situation will be used to bring fresh momentum to the nuclear plans. And I doubt we can afford to drop the ball in regards hydrogen this time around. But I still have a lot to learn.

Winter lulls ( probably caused by high pressure) are the main planned for threat. But then the most planned for threats no one had really planned for the massive drop in demand that Covid brought and the challenges of managing the grid. New products were being designed in days. A key issue was: if you don’t have enough energy to balance the grid that’s bad as you have to turn people off. However, if you have too much energy that’s worse as it can damage the transmission system itself in ways that could take days or weeks to put right.

The other good starting point, if you haven’t already read it is.

Cost of energy review: independent report - Dieter Helm

Commissioned by HMG from Helm it was supposed to inform the debate on the much delayed White Paper, (so it’s a tad dated.) The first section describes how we got where we are today, the next options and the final recommendations. If you are coming back to this after a few years ( or for people new to the area this is probably the ideal starting point.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Nuclear is the only energy that can steer us out of fossil fuels. It’s not perfect but right for right now. We’re already on 2.0 and 10.0 is coming soon.

 

[weltweit]

Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.

 

[elbows]

Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.

Spent fuel waste management, implications of accidents, build timescales, cost are the obvious big ones people probably tend to pick from.

The only downside that has at least diminished for me with nuclear is that if it had much more momentum in recent decades than actually turned out to be the case, it could have happened in a way that stifled the rise of renewables.

 

[8ball]

Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.

Guess we could balance that against billions of tons of carbon dioxide sat in the atmosphere.
Would be nice if renewables could get us through the coming pinch, but I haven't seen anything convincing on that score.

We'll probably have used the nukes on each other fighting over lithium deposits for home storage solutions by the time it becomes pressing anyhoo...

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.

 

[danny la rouge]

Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.

God’s giggling away, and Archangel Michael’s like (roll eyes) : “what have you done?”
“Oh, nothing, just irony”.

 

[A380]

Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.

It does make you proud to be British...