Talk about a crazy world...

[MikeyBikey]

Nuclear is far safer than any other form of generation..
I'm curious now flecc, so with the cooling water, etc, requirements, could a Nuclear CHP stn be built in Battersea?
.. death rate of those in China mining coal for power stations..
V.good point, any figures for those lost mining other materials, e.g. rare earth minerals for electric motor magnets?
I'd be very happy to have a nuclear power station alongside me.. or nuclear waste. ,.

Well, if it was really safe, one would not need bike lights coz everybody & everything would glow in the dark! :-D sorry, couldnt resist, at least i brought it back to bikes. Cheers, Mikey

 

[flecc]

Referring to your query inclusions within the quote Mike:

I'm afraid the Thames hasn't enough water for cooling a nuclear power station, though if we hadn't reduced the west of London reservoir capacity that would have been viable. The French have successfully used lake and reservoir water.

I've no loss of life figures for mining rare earths, but considering the small quantities involved, they would be tiny compared with the worldwide horrific loss of life in coal mining. China is by far the worst, but many other countries kill substantial numbers and we were hardly blameless in our coal mining heyday.

On nuclear, the fact is that we have been generating 20% of our electricity that way for decades and also buying in 10% nuclear electricity from France for a very a long time, all without a single accidental death. Coal and wind power can't boast anything like that.
.

 

[trex]

I am always suspicious of the low carbon and the 25,000 job arguments.
why not buy more electricity from France and forget about Hinkley C?

 

[flecc]

I am always suspicious of the low carbon and the 25,000 job arguments.
why not buy more electricity from France and forget about Hinkley C?

The politicians are scared of too much dependance for energy, and have stated as much with supplies for gas generation. Nuclear fuel quantities and sources don't present much of a problem in that respect, quantities to last for years can be stored in a small space.

But anyway, why not have our own nuclear stations? They are safe, clean, very definitely low carbon since no combustion of fossil fuels is involved, and give Britons jobs in their construction and running. Win, win, win all the way.

 

[trex]

There is less and less proof of earth temperature being directly linked to carbon dioxide so the argument of low carbon generation is less convincing.
By the time that Hinkley C comes online, fracking may become reality, electricity produced locally with shale gas may be the cheapest form of generation.
I am afraid that Hnikley C is one of those poorly thought out PFIs. Not as bad as HS2 but bad nevertheless.

 

[flecc]

I agree about the earth temperature link and I also dislike PFIs. But given the politicians and policies we have, I believe that nuclear is the best option in the circumstances.

As for the fracking argument, "may" doesn't generate any electricity. I hope we do go ahead with fracking and hope that we are successful in getting a good outcome, but with threats of power shortfalls imminent we can't leave things to chance any longer. A proven solution is essential.
.

 

[MikeyBikey]

Interesting piece on Max Keiser show RT channel. He pointed out that EDF the French State Owned generators was offering this deal with the Chinese State Owned generation co. And only IF they were guaranteed TWICE the market price for Hinckley electricity for 35 YEARS.
This is State Subsidized ' competition ', trouble is it is 2 other states being subsidized by us to tune of £ 1billion a year.
Of course, if I was getting a 35yr job from it, my opinion might change ;-)
Ch.. Ch.. Chernobyl! oops sorry, I sneezed! Cheers, Mikey

 

[flecc]

Interesting piece on Max Keiser show RT channel. He pointed out that EDF the French State Owned generators was offering this deal with the Chinese State Owned generation co. And only IF they were guaranteed TWICE the market price for Hinckley electricity for 35 YEARS.
This is State Subsidized ' competition ', trouble is it is 2 other states being subsidized by us to tune of £ 1billion a year.
Of course, if I was getting a 35yr job from it, my opinion might change ;-)
Ch.. Ch.. Chernobyl! oops sorry, I sneezed! Cheers, Mikey

So what, electricity is going to cost very much more in the future anyway. Wind generated electricity costs for example are up-front like nuclear, and wind is far more expensive since it's maximum utilisation is 26% and the average far below 20%. Therefore it's cost per unit is multiplied by over five for the less than 20% operating time. So you'll be paying through the nose for that wind energy. Gas generation will largely be used to fill the wind energy large production gaps, but as the demand for the diminishing supplies of natural gas rises, the cost of that too will multiply.

With or without this nuclear deal, tomorrow's cost of energy will really hurt.

 

[Electrifying Cycles]

Having recently bought my own place it all means that I want to put solar panels in asap so that I have more control over my costs. Although I am lucky that my costs are only £30 per month so cant complain really

 

[JuicyBike]

So what, electricity is going to cost very much more in the future anyway. Wind generated electricity costs for example are up-front like nuclear, and wind is far more expensive since it's maximum utilisation is 26% and the average far below 20%. Therefore it's cost per unit is multiplied by over five for the less than 20% operating time. So you'll be paying through the nose for that wind energy. Gas generation will largely be used to fill the wind energy large production gaps, but as the demand for the diminishing supplies of natural gas rises, the cost of that too will multiply.

With or without this nuclear deal, tomorrow's cost of energy will really hurt.

Continuing with the nose theme... I have to point out that wind energy smells pretty damn sweet to me!

Reticent to take issue with the other most helpful member on these forums, but...

Benefits to take into account are also fuel costs staying the same with time (i.e zero, after construction, for 30 years or so), production scale benefits (costs come down with volume), efficiency gains over time as methods improve and they look so much more attractive than those darn massive alternatives.

Wind is also able to connect over much simpler infrastructure - smaller sub-stations, neater cabling.

And ownership, of course, can be so much more democratic and local than Nuclear, Gas or Coal.

 

[flecc]

Agreed, mostly good points which I'm aware of, but wind costs are still very high overall. The ongoing cost is far from zero since maintenance is always costly and often problematic in many sites, especially offshore.

There will be little efficiency gain since wind generation is a much older technology that most realise and now well understood. How many realise that the USA with many ideal sites is a pioneer with numerous turbines established, some major installations as far back as forty years.

I still think a major generating method that only delivers less than a quarter of the time with those times of delivery not under human control is bonkers. It just means we have to have 100% cover by other means anyway, so why not just use that 100% cover all the time and not spend vast sums on wind farms which scar our landscape, clutter our coastline and waste the manufacturing and installation resources used on them.

I'd rather see all that windfarm money used on the Severn Barrage scheme which would give large scale guaranteed supplies with low ongoing costs very far into the future, outliving all other green methods.

 

[banbury frank]

Hi I have been looking into reducing my gas and electric costs i going to put a air to water heat pump May add a small wind turbine

run by solar panels storing into batterys 36 / 48 volts also running the lighting should reduce my £1700 bill by 75 %

Frank

 

[Electrifying Cycles]

The issue is as Flecc points out not many people want wind farms near them. The best schemes have community involvement and benefits. Offshore has been developed partly because unlike our European neighbours we do not like them onshore. The costs of maintenace are much higher offshore (can not just drive up to them), as oil and gas companies know the north sea is not always a friendly environment. One interesting fact when wind production is higher energy prices go down. One other issue is that wind turbines sometimes have to be turned off because we have no way to store any additional energy.

Report below provides valuation of offshore renewables - note obviously companies supporting this do have a vested interest.
The Offshore Valuation

 

[JuicyBike]

Agreed, mostly good points which I'm aware of, but wind costs are still very high overall. The ongoing cost is far from zero since maintenance is always costly and often problematic in many sites, especially offshore.

There will be little efficiency gain since wind generation is a much older technology that most realise and now well understood. How many realise that the USA with many ideal sites is a pioneer with numerous turbines established, some major installations as far back as forty years.

I still think a major generating method that only delivers less than a quarter of the time with those times of delivery not under human control is bonkers. It just means we have to have 100% cover by other means anyway, so why not just use that 100% cover all the time and not spend vast sums on wind farms which scar our landscape, clutter our coastline and waste the manufacturing and installation resources used on them.

I'd rather see all that windfarm money used on the Severn Barrage scheme which would give large scale guaranteed supplies with low ongoing costs very far into the future, outliving all other green methods.

Agreed that more money invested in alternatives would be very sensible, especially including tidal schemes.

One thing, as I can't resist last-wording somedays (apologies in advance), but we already require more supply than is generally used for peak consumption periods. To date this has been supplied by the traditional power stations sparking-up during tea breaks at half time during the World Cup (let's not go there just now) or commercials during soaps.

Similarly, but in reverse, and requiring a little more cooperative planning, wind energy can be (conceptually) "stored" during peak wind periods, by prioritizing its consumption at the expense of the high carbon methods, effectively saving the fuel that would have been used.

Of course, competing suppliers would all want to be producing and selling whenever possible. And so cooperation between wind-based producers and fuel-based producers is unlikely, unless one supplier used both methods.

Perhaps a solution would be that every energy production company would be required to adopt and manage a complete range of methods - both fuel consuming and renewable - to ensure sensible management between methods. I guess we need a government willing to show some leadership for that to happen!

 

[Blew it]

....To date this has been supplied by the traditional power stations sparking-up during tea breaks at half time during the World Cup

Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. A gas fired generating plant cannot be "sparked Up" that quickly. ( if that's what you meant )

At times of peak demand, or when the wind stops blowing in the case of Wind Turbines, there has to be a backup. That backup will be a gas fired powerstation, termed a closed cycle gas turbine (CCGT). Unfortunately, to be able to take over, it needs to be already up and running.

You can’t wait hours for it to be ready. It needs to be instantly available. Therefore it must be running all of the time. This is termed “spinning reserve”, meaning that it is consuming gas but not producing electricity. It is however generating carbon dioxide, that obnoxious gas that causes everything to grow.

The Climate Change act calls for 33GW of renewable energy, mostly wind, and according to the experts, in this instance, The National Grid, requires 26GW of CCGT backup. Consequently we have 59 GW of plant to produce 33GW of electricity. That's 26GW of "spinning reserve" to plug the gaps in wind turbine output. Nuclear stations are far better suited to providing spinning reserve requirements.

I may have misread your posting, we could be singing from the same song sheet.

 

[JuicyBike]

Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. A gas fired generating plant cannot be "sparked Up" that quickly. ( if that's what you meant )

I may have misread your posting, we could be singing from the same song sheet.

I think we're pretty much harmonising to the same song Bob.

I did choose the term "sparking-up" tongue-in-cheek. The point I want most to make is that without the mix being sensibly and cooperatively managed, either by a far-thinking, multi platform supply conglomerate, or by a determined government, then there will always be an inherent inefficiency in wind energy just as Tony pointed to.

Appreciate your attention to detail!

 

[MikeyBikey]

I hadn't realised the huge amount of wasted fuel required to meet peaks in demand, its staggering!
Enormous potential savings. Could UK state owned barrage/nuclear combos be made to act like a 60 GW CCT? Using excess electricity to pump water up into a dammed reservoir, while being released thru permanently spinning water turbines to meet demand. Fascinating how the turbine & generator combo acts like a national battery! Still like the idea of a London nuclear CHP tho, hate to think of all that heat being dumped in the ocean when it could be warming houses Mikey

 

[Blew it]

....Using excess electricity to pump water up into a dammed reservoir, while being released thru permanently spinning water turbines to meet demand.

Ah! Dinorwig Power Station. I have a personal affection for that place, having spent several months working there when slate production was starting to wind down. The tiny narrow guage railway was still in use.

Briefly, in anticipation of demand, the turbines were pre-spun up to "synchro" with compressed air ( 75 seconds from 0 to 500 rpm ). The water valves were then opened and 16 seconds later full 1.728MW was available. For just six hours until the water ran out.

Worth a read.

DINORWIG PUMPED-STORAGE HYDROELECTRIC

 

[banbury frank]

Hi And there are more

Ffestiniog power station turns 50 - Utility Week


Government advisor calls for two new hydro plants in Snowdonia - Wales Online


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pumped+hydroelectric+energy+storage&client=opera&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=wKdrUp2jAqSe4gS364HYDA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1911&bih=981







Welsh pumped storage scheme gets green light for £100m investment - 03 Sep 2013 - News from BusinessGreen

I worked on this one about 30 years ago

http://www.visit-fortwilliam.co.uk/listings_130_Rio-Tinto-Alcan-Smelting.html

http://www.riotintoalcan.com

Frank

 

[MikeyBikey]

More on that Chinese & French 'deal', us paying double for 35yrs:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fricomedy/fricomedy_20131025-1900a.mp3
Good to hear that pumped storage, like wind power, is a mature, reliable, safe tech.
Cheers, Mikey