Energy prices.

[addjunkie]

I think most here understand that nuclear has its advantages and is and will be an important part of our energy mix. It's very expensive though, so at times when energy can be harvested cheaply elsewhere, people are going to do that, too.

Balance is key as with most things all our eggs should not be thrown into one basket!

 

[julianthegypsy]

I'm buying some Solar PV for the farm, just working out where to stick it and how big. It will be DIY job. I have been using Victron solar chargers/panels on the trailer but think I may be paying for the brand name so will have a look around at panels and controllers while I'm at it.

Victron are very good. I've seen inside others, even name brands like Sterling, and frankly they were shocking.

 

[premmington]

I think most here understand that nuclear has its advantages and is and will be an important part of our energy mix. It's very expensive though, so at times when energy can be harvested cheaply elsewhere, people are going to do that, too.

I am not sure I have made my point clear. I am not articulate - only a fat dumb mechanic.

Nuclear power I see as "containment issue" - accidents have happened - but they have been accidents.

Where burning fossil fuels is no accident - it is preplaned - metered damage to the host planet. We are burning endless tons of fossil fuel and not cutting the rate we burn it.

We/most countries have been to war over "cheap diesel".

Cost... Normal people are gonna be led into energy/transport poverty - this is fact set into stone.

I see the future as the base generation need to be nuclear - with top ups by renewables.

I can't see why other people can't see this?

Yes is gonna cost. I know it is. But what real choice do you have? Not just us - worldwide this is the solution!

No I don't want nuclear power - who would if there was a better option.

But there is not...

(I am pro nuclear as it is the best option of a poor choice!)

 

[daleyd]

I am not sure I have made my point clear. I am not articulate - only a fat dumb mechanic.

Nuclear power I see as "containment issue" - accidents have happened - but they have been accidents.

Where burning fossil fuels is no accident - it is preplaned - metered damage to the host planet. We are burning endless tons of fossil fuel and not cutting the rate we burn it.

We/most countries have been to war over "cheap diesel".

Cost... Normal people are gonna be led into energy/transport poverty - this is fact set into stone.

I see the future as the base generation need to be nuclear - with top ups by renewables.

I can't see why other people can't see this?

Yes is gonna cost. I know it is. But what real choice do you have? Not just us - worldwide this is the solution!

No I don't want nuclear power - who would if there was a better option.

But there is not...

(I am pro nuclear as it is the best option of a poor choice!)

It’s not the accidents that are the problem (though they are obviously a big issue if they do go wrong, but that hopefully is very remote possibility) - there’s the exotic materials required to build reactors and power stations, security, waste that’s hazardous to deal with and remains so for a long time, decommissioning after they are finished, plus the fact that if every country decides to do the same then we are going to run out of easily recoverable uranium quickly.

It’s got a part to play but it’s no silver bullet that’s going to cure all our woes. Of course we need to be looking at getting whatever we can from other renewable sources, and developing storage tech as well - using nuclear fission as a stop gap until we can find “something” better.

 

[premmington]

It’s not the accidents that are the problem (though they are obviously a big issue if they do go wrong, but that hopefully is very remote possibility) - there’s the exotic materials required to build reactors and power stations, security, waste that’s hazardous to deal with and remains so for a long time, decommissioning after they are finished, plus the fact that if every country decides to do the same then we are going to run out of easily recoverable uranium quickly.

It’s got a part to play but it’s no silver bullet that’s going to cure all our woes. Of course we need to be looking at getting whatever we can from other renewable sources, and developing storage tech as well - using nuclear fission as a stop gap until we can find “something” better.

I liked your reply - you are better at wording things than I am...

 

[daleyd]

I liked your reply - you are better at wording things than I am...

I wouldn’t say that - I think you made your point perfectly! I think we have the same viewpoint, it’s a currently necessary evil - but to suggest that we shouldn’t also be investing in renewables and other tech I think is wrong. We need both, and hopefully some breakthrough that means we can move away from fission altogether at some point.

 

[premmington]

I wouldn’t say that - I think you made your point perfectly! I think we have the same viewpoint, it’s a currently necessary evil - but to suggest that we shouldn’t also be investing in renewables and other tech I think is wrong. We need both, and hopefully some breakthrough that means we can move away from fission altogether at some point.

I agree we should be investing in renewables and the "debated storage" people have been talking about here.

I am not against new tech - I get all new tech has a slow start - I also get some new tech does not deliver.

I am realist...

I am also realistic that burning fossil fuels at the rate we are - is not a good idea.

@daleyd I do think we have the same view point.

"pragmatic" is the best way I can describe it

 

[knighty]

the last maths I saw said for the price of building a nuke plant, you could build enough renewables+storage to more than cover everyhting the nuke plant would produce

I've googled it but can't find it now :-(

 

[Maker]

the last maths I saw said for the price of building a nuke plant, you could build enough renewables+storage to more than cover everyhting the nuke plant would produce

I've googled it but can't find it now :-(

Hinkley C is currently said to cost £26 billion and will have a capacity of 3.26GW

Dogger bank Wind Farm should cost about £9 billion when it's complete and have an installed capacity of 3.6GW

That leaves £15 billion for storage. For reference, Dinorwig cost about £3.2 billion (adjusted for inflation) and can store 9.1GWh, with a 1.8GW capacity it should supply full chat for 7.3 hours (Though they say 6 hours on their website). Going off those numbers, £15 billion should get you 42.6GWh, or 3GW for 14.2 hours.

That's just installed capacity though, they can't supply full whack all the time. The capacity factor takes into account the wind not blowing hard enough, or downtime for maintenance and refuelling. Dogger Bank's capacity factor is about 45% (According to the first link I found with a figure) and Hinkley C should achieve 91%, adjusting for that:

Hinkley C will actually supply 2.96GW and Dogger Bank will supply 1.62GW, but if you were to scale it up 55% so it would supply the same as Hinkley, it would still only cost £14 billion, leaving £12 billion for storage, or 3.8 Dinorwigs, call it half a day's storage.


So yeah, nuclear makes wind look cheap, and nuclear money gets you a lot of storage, but not nearly enough for wind to truly replace nuclear. Also, if you're happy that nuclear is safe enough, there's no reason it can't provide district heating on top of it's generation capacity (I don't think any existing nuclear plants do it, but plenty of coal and gas stations do), which is a big bonus.

 

[S-Rail]

but to follow your point of nuclear V Dogger Bank , what is the expected life time of Hinckley’s output versus the lifetime of the wind turbine installation .

What if wind was half the price , I can’t see it being there for the long game , ie how many would be replaced in 10 / 20 years alongside the battery storage , which all has a finite lifetime span V the main build of Hinckley .

Again as others say , all for renewables , but it all needs to be like for like , not just on cost , the whole shebang . Life time , disposal , the infrastructure needed for wind farms .

A quick google says Hinckley has an expected life span of 60 years , whilst a wind turbine is 20 to 25 years , so at the worst , 3 sets of turbines , at the optimistic 2.5 sets .

I know there is no easy / simple / laymens answer

 

[cheb]

And the Kawasaki GT550 as I remember.

 

[Maker]

but to follow your point of nuclear V Dogger Bank , what is the expected life time of Hinckley’s output versus the lifetime of the wind turbine installation .

What if wind was half the price , I can’t see it being there for the long game , ie how many would be replaced in 10 / 20 years alongside the battery storage , which all has a finite lifetime span V the main build of Hinckley .

Again as others say , all for renewables , but it all needs to be like for like , not just on cost , the whole shebang . Life time , disposal , the infrastructure needed for wind farms .

A quick google says Hinckley has an expected life span of 60 years , whilst a wind turbine is 20 to 25 years , so at the worst , 3 sets of turbines , at the optimistic 2.5 sets .

I know there is no easy / simple / laymens answer

I agree, all things considered, nuclear probably is the answer for the foreseeable future.

there’s the exotic materials required to build reactors and power stations

Not an exotic material, but I worked out a while ago the embodied carbon in the cement to build Hinkley is about the same as Drax puts out in a week! Based on that, I'd expect the pollution from construction of just about anything is probably next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[S-Rail]

Not an exotic material, but I worked out a while ago the embodied carbon in the cement to build Hinkley is about the same as Drax puts out in a week! Based on that, I'd expect the pollution from construction is probably next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Something from the top of the grey matter and concrete , as an average produces 1 ton of CO2 for every 1 ton of concrete , that is from mining , transport of materials , mixing , to final site delivery / point of use .

And then look at the quantities used for the bases of a wind turbine , some where around 350 plus tons , nothing is without its “footprint” and if he jntetested to know wether the base is designed to be used once , ie one installation or reused for multiple replacements as I can see it being an easy task digging 350 tons of reinforced concrete out of the ground

 

[Beeezer]

And the Kawasaki GT550 as I remember.

Shaft drive….

 

[fizzy]

Figure sounds plausible, 10yrs to pay back and, on a 20yr life, 10yrs of free electric when the sun shines. Or a shorter payback, DIY.

Levellised cost isn't some tricksy manipulation applied to twist figures, it's just the words used to describe all the costs ("cradle to grave") associated with a tech Vs the output it gives.

View attachment 356009

It really does work out at <5p/kWh. When the sun's shining, nothing is cheaper.

And right through Winter when it isn't?
The amount of arable land being lost?
Sorry I just don't think that the amount of CO2 saved will be any greater than if the same parcel of land was covered in nice trees!

 

[fizzy]

the last maths I saw said for the price of building a nuke plant, you could build enough renewables+storage to more than cover everyhting the nuke plant would produce

I've googled it but can't find it now :-(

Rolls Royce small modular reactors will be far cheaper. And quicker to build once the idiot civil service regulators pull their fingers out! Oh yes they have a job to do - but why do ours take 3 times longer than any other countries

 

[fizzy]

It’s not the accidents that are the problem (though they are obviously a big issue if they do go wrong, but that hopefully is very remote possibility) - there’s the exotic materials required to build reactors and power stations, security, waste that’s hazardous to deal with and remains so for a long time, decommissioning after they are finished, plus the fact that if every country decides to do the same then we are going to run out of easily recoverable uranium quickly.

It’s got a part to play but it’s no silver bullet that’s going to cure all our woes. Of course we need to be looking at getting whatever we can from other renewable sources, and developing storage tech as well - using nuclear fission as a stop gap until we can find “something” better.

What about breeder reactors?
They died out as Uranium became cheaper. So not as viable at the moment but definitely an option if cheaper sources of Uranium run out. In fact they reckon with Breeder Reactors there is already enough fuel available to last a few billion years They have also been making good progress with extracting Uranium from sea water - although that is not commercially viable yet tbh.

 

[fizzy]

As a comparison, perhaps? What is the strike price agreed for our latest nuclear-build (when it eventually gets operational)? Yes, that’s right, it’s £95 for each MWh for the next 35 years. Go figure! How does that compare with renewables. Pretty expensive for our children and their children, I reckon.

Remember, too, that the strike price will increase over the 35 years of operation. What price for just some of our base load requirements!!

The local-to-me 350MW solar development will involve some storage, to level out grid supplied power, but I’m not yet sure of how long the stored energy will fill the peak usage hours. Anyone interested - just look up the Mallard Pass Solar Farm.

Covering over 2000 acres of farming land with solar panels
And panels made in Canada.
Can't see anything about the storage - maybe a few minutes worth perhaps?

I seriously wonder how people who pretend to care about the environment can allow such things to go ahead! Makes my blood boil.
And if Britain were to vanish off the face of the planet the difference in global CO2 levels would be minimal. Why should we destroy our landscape when other countries just use cheap power to make their industries more competitive?

Mallard Pass Action Group | Yes to Solar, No to Mallard Pass

The Mallard Pass Action Group is a collective of concerned residents formed from within and around the footprint of the Mallard Pass Solar Farm project.

www.mallardpassactiongroup.com

 

[Gareth J]

And right through Winter when it isn't?
The amount of arable land being lost?
Sorry I just don't think that the amount of CO2 saved will be any greater than if the same parcel of land was covered in nice trees!

We know output is variable but that doesn't mean it's also worthless!

It doesn't rain all the time either, that's pretty useful too

Do you still believe that total cost of generation of commercial solar is ~10p/unit?

 

[premmington]

but to follow your point of nuclear V Dogger Bank , what is the expected life time of Hinckley’s output versus the lifetime of the wind turbine installation .

What if wind was half the price , I can’t see it being there for the long game , ie how many would be replaced in 10 / 20 years alongside the battery storage , which all has a finite lifetime span V the main build of Hinckley .

Again as others say , all for renewables , but it all needs to be like for like , not just on cost , the whole shebang . Life time , disposal , the infrastructure needed for wind farms .

A quick google says Hinckley has an expected life span of 60 years , whilst a wind turbine is 20 to 25 years , so at the worst , 3 sets of turbines , at the optimistic 2.5 sets .

I know there is no easy / simple / laymens answer

Very valid point (not one I had concidered).

Life cycle versus - cost!

Not easy to weigh up the whole "shebang" is it...?