Energy prices.

[fizzy]

I have started a new role, due to a lot of things being at stage 3 I can't talk about most of what im working on.
However one project is public knowledge, a 50MW battery, the first stage of 600MW of grid storage. This is just the start as well

I agree a base of nuclear generation would shield us from gas price rises etc but there are far, far bigger things that need to be considered first, such as the clean up at the end of its life

We do not inherit the earth from our fathers, we borrow it from our children

Battery storage is a very expensive joke. Ok for smoothing but nothing else.
That 600mw Battery would power a container ship for just 5hrs.
You would need 60 of those batteries to just cover a 1hr drop in grid power.
To cover a wind lull of 2 weeks which does happen you would need 20,000 of those vast Battery banks.
Why do people think we are now paying 28p per kw/h for electricity

 

[Seadog]

I'm sure they're toxic, but it's wasteful. There are claims that they can be recycled.

Wind Turbine Blades Don’t Have To End Up In Landfills

In this blog post, we will examine land-based wind turbines and the recycling opportunities that exist but are not yet widely implemented for the turbine blades.

blog.ucsusa.org

Home

This giant wind turbine blade can be recycled

Energy companies are trying to redesign wind energy so the giant components don’t end up in landfills. Siemens Gamesa’s RecyclableBlade can be broken down into its raw materials at the end of its life.

www.fastcompany.com

 

[Greeves246]

I must admit I have never seen a rad with the thermostat at the top.

The race is on for affordable energy for the UK's homes and businesses

War in Ukraine has focused minds on how to get enough affordable energy for homes and businesses.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[brewdexta]

We've all seen the pics of the thousands of tons of non biodegradable 'clean and green' junk being buried, as a gift for our decendents.....

The Big Cover Up: Wind Industry Burying Millions of Toxic Turbine Blades In Landfills

Mike Moore’s Planet of the Humans lifted the lid on the mountains of toxic filth generated by so-called ‘green’ energy, much to the horror of renewable energy rent seekers and climate cult zealots,…

stopthesethings.com

View attachment 337163

Compared to

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/31404684750.pdf

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

US: Nuclear waste tank in Washington state may be leaking

Officials say an underground nuclear waste storage tank in Washington state that dates to World War II appears to be leaking contaminated liquid into the ground.

apnews.com

I know what I would prefer.

 

[Seadog]

I must admit I have never seen a rad with the thermostat at the top.

The race is on for affordable energy for the UK's homes and businesses

War in Ukraine has focused minds on how to get enough affordable energy for homes and businesses.

www.bbc.co.uk

I saw lots in Austria this year. No reason not to.

 

[fizzy]

Compared to

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/31404684750.pdf

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

US: Nuclear waste tank in Washington state may be leaking

Officials say an underground nuclear waste storage tank in Washington state that dates to World War II appears to be leaking contaminated liquid into the ground.

apnews.com

I know what I would prefer.

Stick it down a very deep borehole. Way below ground water.
In Africa a natural underground reactor ran for a few million years. Quite safe at the surface.

 

[fizzy]

Why don't people seem to understand we are in this mess because we have been messing about with renewables. So is Germany.
Our carbon footprint is still much higher than France.
And our electricity is far more expensive.
Just one Rolls Royce SMR will produce as much electricity as 2 massive windfarms. Cost six times less to build and provide continuous power with no CO2.

 

[fizzy]

Green is just anti nuclear under a different banner.
Sod the environment as long as we are seen ti be trying. Germany's solution is to burn more coal. British solution is to cut down more trees in the Amazon and ship the wood 4000 miles to Drax

 

[Kayos]

Battery storage is a very expensive joke. Ok for smoothing but nothing else.
That 600mw Battery would power a container ship for just 5hrs.
You would need 60 of those batteries to just cover a 1hr drop in grid power.
To cover a wind lull of 2 weeks which does happen you would need 20,000 of those vast Battery banks.
Why do people think we are now paying 28p per kw/h for electricity

I will remember that when I park a container ship in my garden

What a stupid, pointless comparison

 

[fizzy]

I will remember that when I park a container ship in my garden

What a stupid, pointless comparison

Not really.
How can you run a whole country on a battery that will only power 1 ship for 5hrs?

 

[Kayos]

Not really.
How can you run a whole country on a battery that will only power 1 ship for 5hrs?

Instead of just spouting nonsense on here, why don't you do something to make a difference?

 

[fizzy]

Instead of just spouting nonsense on here, why don't you do something to make a difference?

Getting personal is not on. I NEVER insult other forum members!

 

[AVI_8]

It's not that bad,wave, tidal and hydro make up about a 1/3 of Scotland s power generation.

And there lies the problem IMO
We’ve now got the huge blight on our landscape, in order to get a third of our energy.
So we need some new nuclear power stations to replace the likes of Hunterston which has now been switched off.
Im not going to mention the political party up here who are totally opposed to the tried and tested way of power generation over the past many decades as my posts get taken down when I do.
But we can’t switch on a third of a lightbulb, we can’t watch a third of our TV screens and a third of a Tesla cars battery range isn’t much good either.

 

[fizzy]

And there lies the problem IMO
We’ve now got the huge blight on our landscape, in order to get a third of our energy.
So we need some new nuclear power stations to replace the likes of Hunterston which has now been switched off.
Im not going to mention the political party up here who are totally opposed to the tried and tested way of power generation over the past many decades as my posts get taken down when I do.
But we can’t switch on a third of a lightbulb, we can’t watch a third of our TV screens and a third of a Tesla cars battery range isn’t much good either.

In fairness all the recent parties have turned their backs on nuclear. They have finally woken up but it will take 10 years before the first SMR is ready and we need quite a few.

 

[AVI_8]

In fairness all the recent parties have turned their backs on nuclear. They have finally woken up but it will take 10 years before the first SMR is ready and we need quite a few.

Yes and now we’re all being bitten on the backside because of inept governments well practiced head burial in sand regime.

 

[daleyd]

Stick it down a very deep borehole. Way below ground water.
In Africa a natural underground reactor ran for a few million years. Quite safe at the surface.

Stop peddling myths - it wasn’t a reactor it was a natural phnemona that produced about as much power as a light bulb, so nothing like a reactor really.

I know I’ve said this before but I’ve had quite a few dealings with reprocessing nuclear waste and it’s nasty, energy intensive process (this is just the reprocessing of waste and spent fuel, no mention of the production of the fuel in the first place) so to say that it’s a trivial matter to simply bury it is just wrong.

I think we should certainly have nuclear as a part of our mix - for now - but to keep bleating on about it being some sort of panacea which will solve all our woes whilst ignoring the drawbacks means you are as brainwashed as the nasty greenies you seem to dislike so much.

 

[Blobber]

At the end of the day there is no such thing as green energy, whichever way you want to produce it you still have to make a ton of kit which in turn uses masses of energy, a lot the materials are raped out of the ground by workers with little safety or pay and transported around the world by dirty old container ships, the working life of this modern "green energy generating" stuff seems to have a short life span before something bigger and better comes along that the taxpayer has to fund

 

[fizzy]

Stop peddling myths - it wasn’t a reactor it was a natural phnemona that produced about as much power as a light bulb, so nothing like a reactor really.

I know I’ve said this before but I’ve had quite a few dealings with reprocessing nuclear waste and it’s nasty, energy intensive process (this is just the reprocessing of waste and spent fuel, no mention of the production of the fuel in the first place) so to say that it’s a trivial matter to simply bury it is just wrong.

I think we should certainly have nuclear as a part of our mix - for now - but to keep bleating on about it being some sort of panacea which will solve all our woes whilst ignoring the drawbacks means you are as brainwashed as the nasty greenies you seem to dislike so much.

Why is it wrong to bury it 3000 feet down? What harm can it do to anything? Totally sealed.
Fusion is the only real long term answer. Obviously Fission is not perfect - but just look at France. They aren't being held to ransom by Putin and they put out far less CO2 than us.
I don't ignore the drawbacks - it just seems to me there are less than anything else.
Imagine an Aberfan with nuclear. Nobody calls for coal to be banned.

 

[Kayos]

Getting personal is not on. I NEVER insult other forum members!

It's a fact

Have you published your net zero ambitions for your company?
How are you reducing carbon and energy usage?
Do you have any kind of strategy other than bleating on (incorrectly) that wind is useless and we should have more nuclear (which I agree with, but I also understand the longer term issues)

 

[daleyd]

Why is it wrong to bury it 3000 feet down? What harm can it do to anything? Totally sealed.
Fusion is the only real long term answer. Obviously Fission is not perfect - but just look at France. They aren't being held to ransom by Putin and they put out far less CO2 than us.
I don't ignore the drawbacks - it just seems to me there are less than anything else.
Imagine an Aberfan with nuclear. Nobody calls for coal to be banned.

Is it possible that similar thing could happen with uranium mining as Aberfan (You seem to have confused coal mining with the use of coal which although related are not the same) - why not? It's a mined product, so there's of course a possibility it could.

We don't actually have any uranium in this country that is actively mined so it's unlikely to happen in this country though.

As for burying it in boreholes then it's been looked at and it was deemed to be too expensive and no one could give any guarantees that it wouldn't cause problems (Presumably people who know more about it than you or I) - so again, to say that there is simply no problem as "It's totally sealed" is just not right.

Nuclear waste disposal: Why the case for deep boreholes is ... full of holes

A start-up in California wants to use directional drilling technology to put America’s spent nuclear fuel into deep boreholes. But such a solution won’t be cheaper, safer, or any less politically toxic than a mined storage facility.

thebulletin.org