[dopper99]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

"... and £120m towards at least one new nuclear power station."

That will probably just about build the power station offices and canteen...


Hinkley Point C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle..._power_station

"The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion."

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by dopper99

That will probably just about build the power station offices and canteen...


Hinkley Point C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle..._power_station

"The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion."

beats the 5k grant to install a very expensive heat pump by a good margin.
Discussion of nuclear as an option is good to see there. In terms of output of power per £ spent I wonder how much more cost effective is it to invest in nuclear than say solar/windmill/Sea turbines etc.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

beats the 5k grant to install a very expensive heat pump by a good margin.
Discussion of nuclear as an option is good to see there.

Nuclear is the elephant in the room, when it comes to energy supply.

When I was in meetings/discussions with the guys in the energy business/development, it was clear nuclear was still required, whatever else is done.

We either have to conserve our use of energy, or there is the need for some serious electricity generation.

Doesn't appear 'eco compatible' to go BEV and have the energy generated by nuclear, does it?

[KRS_SN]

@HighlandPete
.
After all possible non nuclear avenues are looked at and global temps still rise I wonder if a debate about eco and nuclear will go hand in hand.
we are looking at the angle of reduced consumption which is likely to be painful for all,if anything we need more power and if this can be done with a greener method it would be better.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

@HighlandPete
.
After all possible non nuclear avenues are looked at and global temps still rise I wonder if a debate about eco and nuclear will go hand in hand.
we are looking at the angle of reduced consumption which is likely to be painful for all, if anything we need more power and if this can be done with a greener method it would be better.

One of the contradictions of going green, is the production of so much more 'stuff', useful or not. Consumption of energy and resources mean there are not the gains we see in isolation. Redundancy of usable product, some with years of life left, again seems to go against making genuine savings.

I do wonder if "shooting oneself in the foot" doesn't apply to much of what is proposed.

[KRS_SN]

@HighlandPete thought provoking that we need to spend a lot of energy in terms of manufacturing infrastructure etc whilst making a lot of existing systems redundant. A more gradual approach with natural retirements may have perhaps made sense maybe that will eventually happen.
Its 'cheaper convenient and easily available' type of mantra leading to mass adoption/success that applies to amazon, online ordering etc doesn't seem to apply for items like heat pumps etc.

[Tengocity]

I don't see how a carbon neutral future can be had without nuclear power in the foreseeable future. There are clearly issue with Nuclear, but when you look at the energy they can create given size of land a station takes up, then acres and acres of wind turbines hardly seem all that much better.
I read an article in MoneyWeek recently, that was espousing Small Modular Reactors as an alternative way forward, rather than building giant new ones like Hinckley C.

The basic premise is more along the lines of the reactors that are fitted to the submarines and aircraft carriers, where they can be built much more quickly, in much less space, and you build many of them around the country.

a 440MW SMR would require around 25 acres amd cam would produce 3.5 terrawatt hours per year, enough for about 1.2million homes. The equivalent solar and wind farms would require 13000 acres and 32000 acres respectively.

This article also boldly claimed that all the environmental issues have now been resolved. Not sure how true that is, but if so, I really do think these ought to be a the backbone of energy policy, in terms of it being efficient, secure, independant, and carbon neutral.

[KRS_SN]

one would think that in the way China moves that it would have thought of electricity production before a move away from fossil fuels and into EVs.
I remember reading an article in the BBC about their small nuclear reactor technologies and they'll be the first ones to have it operational. If so a good example of developing countries solving their own problems(excess air pollution linked to car fumes) which is a immediate visible measurable threat.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

@HighlandPete thought provoking that we need to spend a lot of energy in terms of manufacturing infrastructure etc whilst making a lot of existing systems redundant. A more gradual approach with natural retirements may have perhaps made sense maybe that will eventually happen.
Its 'cheaper convenient and easily available' type of mantra leading to mass adoption/success that applies to amazon, online ordering etc doesn't seem to apply for items like heat pumps etc.

So many conflicts, when we step back and look closely. A simple bit of lateral thinking shows the direction of travel, doesn't stack up.

Time is critical (years have been lost in the debates) if there is serious intention of avoiding greater climatic impact. As an example, we build on flood plains, when the knowledge is there that it's not going to go well. So the solution, build flood barriers... all temporary stop-gaps, because of not joining up the associated issues and looking at proper solutions.

Saving energy in transport is really a base requirement, if serious. We have something like a BEV (3-series equivalent) weighing in at something like 2.3 tonnes. Madness, when we think of energy consumption and conservation, typically for one person to get around.

[Bryans69]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...b0bd2421e1d5d6

Interesting article on SMRs.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...b0bd2421e1d5d6

Interesting article on SMRs.

interesting indeed
"An SMR facility would take up the space of about two and a half football pitches"

[KRS_SN]

https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...-nuclear-plant


“We can’t get to net zero without investing in new nuclear capacity, and this is a clear signal from government to investors that it sees nuclear as essential to our clean energy transition,” he said. “This is not only an investment in a greener future, but also in jobs and skills right across the country

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by dopper99

That will probably just about build the power station offices and canteen...


Hinkley Point C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle..._power_station

"The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion."

A rounding error or another 0.1% inflation would cover that

[Techno 9000]

Tis a shame we can't get tidal energy off the ground, given the island nature of our country, it ought to be just the ticket all the time the moon circles the earth...

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by Techno 9000

Tis a shame we can't get tidal energy off the ground, given the island nature of our country, it ought to be just the ticket all the time the moon circles the earth...

Climate change: Tidal energy projects ignored, say supporters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59066164

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Techno 9000

Tis a shame we can't get tidal energy off the ground, given the island nature of our country, it ought to be just the ticket all the time the moon circles the earth...

It is a shame, and a slow process to get to market. The first tidal flow unit has only recently been commissioned and generating electricity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-57991351

I got involved in tidal about 16 years ago with a concept design for an efficient water turbine, suitable for 'tidal flow' and 'run in the river' generation. I got to meet with guys in the business, like at the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney. I realised it was going to be a slow starter. The technology development was not the only hurdle to get over, the environmental issues were going to take years to sort, even marine life data collection was a major project ahead of these guys.

Plus wind turbines were visual evidence that a renewable source was ready to go, however inefficient. Development, easy by comparison to water sourced generation.

I spent many years helping build a successful company from a start up, I felt too old to start it all again, so bowed out and retired early, instead of investing my money into another long term venture. I have mixed feeling on that decision, but know 'for me' I did the right thing. Would have been too much frustration, knowing years would go by, before we got too far along, however well the project succeeded.

[gangzoom]

Regardless of generation capacity, you have to be mad to go for ASHPs at present given the projections for electricity costs going fowards. I dare not think who much heating your home in Jan this year will be with an ASHP if the government allows the energy companies to increase the current cap of 20-25p/kWh to 35p+/kWh which is currently how much its costing!!

At 10-15p/kWh ASHP are marginally cheaper than gas assuming 1:3-4 efficiency, at 30p/kWh they are going to be double the cost to run compared to gas heating (even with increased gas prices).

Unlike an EV where you can charge at cheaper times, go seek out 'free' chargers, drive it less etc, when heating your home you have to just do it all the time when its needed.

This government has totally lost the plot on any kind of energy strategy.