This enviroment saving the

[wobs]

To be fair not all Geography teachers are qualified scientists.

Safer than most, but safest is a pretty high bar. There's working at heights issues with wind farms and domestic solar panels but they're pretty damned safe.

Armed guards is an example. There is a lot of maintenance cost for a nuclear plant. I don't think anyone can disagree that in the UK it's a really expensive way to get base load power. That's just the reality we live in.

It's also a type of power that doesn't play well with other power types, it can't scale up or down fast so it is only able to do base load.

Safest.
And this is using an outdated measure of radiation risk (linear, no-threshold model), which is almost certainly wrong, which puts nuclear as being even safer.

Also, wind will get more expensive, as you increase the capacity. Why? Well, as you have to have more and more capacity to provide back up energy, it becomes less economic, as you need more capacity to provide the amount of energy, and you need the infrastructure of storage and added cabling.

I'm not against wind/solar, but they have their limitations.

The idea that wind kills loads birds is outdated BTW.

 

[JP_]

I wonder, has anybody researched / published info on how much we could reduce our need for fossil fuels if all new housing developments had community energy of some form? Sure I heard that a development in the UK was putting in a ground source heat pump for geothermal heating. This is probably the sort of thing we need - rather than mega power stations serving millions of people, maybe a smaller approach is needed, with geothermal, solar and wind providing some of the energy needed to homes?

 

[JP_]

Safest.
And this is using an outdated measure of radiation risk (linear, no-threshold model), which is almost certainly wrong, which puts nuclear as being even safer.

Also, wind will get more expensive, as you increase the capacity. Why? Well, as you have to have more and more capacity to provide back up energy, it becomes less economic, as you need more capacity to provide the amount of energy, and you need the infrastructure of storage and added cabling.

I'm not against wind/solar, but they have their limitations.

The idea that wind kills loads birds is outdated BTW.

Interesting, but need to consider the amount each is used, and the danger is recent times. Maybe far more people used to die in coal mining that would today with our improved health and safety?

 

[wobs]

Interesting, but need to consider the amount each is used

Its per unit, so no.

, and the danger is recent times. Maybe far more people used to die in coal mining that would today with our improved health and safety?

Much of the coal is from air pollution, and coal mining in recent years (eg. China). It still kills people, and not just in China.



As an aside, (not energy related), ammonia kills about 3000 people in the UK every year:
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...g-farm-emissions-could-save-3000-lives-a-year

 

[IT Minion]

I'm not against wind/solar, but they have their limitations.

Agreed. I'm not sure they have enough limitations to make nuclear cost effective. After all if you can build three times as much wind for the same amount of nuclear then that probably covers off most of the issues with intermittency.

According to that sheet there should be around 150 wind related deaths for 1,000 THW, so there should have been about 50 deaths from wind turbines last year over the EU. I wonder what the actual figures are. God knows where you'd find them.

 

[wobs]

Agreed. I'm not sure they have enough limitations to make nuclear cost effective. After all if you can build three times as much wind for the same amount of nuclear then that probably covers off most of the issues with intermittency.

According to that sheet there should be around 150 wind related deaths for 1,000 THW, so there should have been about 50 deaths from wind turbines last year over the EU. I wonder what the actual figures are. God knows where you'd find them.

You seem to be under the impression that they are comparable. They are not.

Wind/solar are not suitable for baseload supply, no matter how much you wish it be so. On a cold winter night, (eg. deep freeze of 2010), the demand is at its highest, and renewable output is at its lowest. People would die if we relied too heavily for such services.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml

Oh, and nuclear costs are coming down as well. Not that it is a deal breaker, as we need to stop burning coal.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-questions-about-nuclear-power/#more-11459

BTW, Much of the wind related deaths come from the mining of the raw materials.

 

[IT Minion]

You seem to be under the impression that they are comparable. They are not.

Wind/solar are not suitable for baseload supply, no matter how much you wish it be so. On a cold winter night, (eg. deep freeze of 2010), the demand is at its highest, and renewable output is at its lowest. People would die if we relied too heavily for such services.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml

Oh, and nuclear costs are coming down as well. Not that it is a deal breaker, as we need to stop burning coal.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-questions-about-nuclear-power/#more-11459

I'm not sure that holds up anymore. Decade old wind farms had a capacity factor typically around 30%. Current stuff gets over 40% and the expected offshore farms being designed and build expect close to 50%. By Building bigger you get into the more reliable higher level winds.

There is a potential need for something that scales up to provide power when renewables lag, and when storage systems like batteries, pumped hydro and compressed gas can't fill the gap. Nukes aren't it though.

But I guess we'll see.

 

[JohnD]

Windfarms can now make a profit and sell electricity cheap with no subsidy.

The reverse is true for nukes.

 

[wobs]

I'm not sure that holds up anymore. Decade old wind farms had a capacity factor typically around 30%. Current stuff gets over 40% and the expected offshore farms being designed and build expect close to 50%. By Building bigger you get into the more reliable higher level winds.

This suggests you don't actually understand how they work.
The capacity factor of wind turbines aren't greatly enhance by building bigger. It makes sense to build bigger of course, owing to the law of physics and economy of scale, but even the biggest cannot provide baseload supply. And no matter how many you build, this will not change. I say that as someone who has a large turbine factory nearby by providing many jobs.

And of course if you build big, you can go offshore, where the capacity factor is higher.

There is a potential need for something that scales up to provide power when renewables lag, and when storage systems like batteries, pumped hydro and compressed gas can't fill the gap. Nukes aren't it though.

Storage only provides a limited scope. Eg. Solar CSP in the Sahara has the potential of providing huge amounts of energy, but is uneconomic to have more than 18hr storage using molten salt storage. The same principle applies to other storage technologies. So a baseload supply in the times I outlined earlier when demand is highest means people would go without power.

You have yet to provide any evidence to show why nuclear is not suitable for baseload supply when its the safest and cleanest method we have. Just saying it isn't is not enough.

 

[IT Minion]

I'm not that impressed or interested with the concept of base generation as a goal in itself. I expect that storage prices and over provisioning of renewables, as well as developments like renewable hydrogen will drop to the point where nuclear is still more expensive to provide base load.

 

[EddieM]

Windfarms can now make a profit and sell electricity cheap with no subsidy.

The reverse is true for nukes.

With current gen ones yes, guess what old cars needed servicing more often than modern ones and were nowhere near as efficient. Decommissioning a Thorium reactor for instance is theoretically orders of magnitude less than any commercial reactor in operation today.

Decommissioning a single wind turbine costs about $500,000

 

[JohnD]

theoretically

 

[EddieM]

Indeed, unless you build it, it's always gonna be theoretical is it not.

It's funny how the uneducated flinch at word nuclear. Dear Mr Bloggs, we need to get to the bottom of you problem, we've booked you in for an MRI scan. (Joe Bloggs is very happy)

Joe Blogs is blissfully unaware an MRI scanner is a big NMR machine (Nuclear magnetic resonance) Joe Bloggs thinks he's going to be irradiated.

Joe Bloggs is an idiot.

 

[Brigadier]

'm not that impressed or interested with the concept of base generation as a goal in itself.

Regardless, unless we fundamentally change our expectations from life, we need base load capacity. Whether it impresses /interests you, or not.

 

[IT Minion]

Regardless, unless we fundamentally change our expectations from life, we need base load capacity. Whether it impresses /interests you, or not.

Does it? I believe we need reliable and predictable electricity. I dont think that means that we can't have a 100% renewable grid. Nor do we have to have a base of power that can't be shut down or turned up. It's classic marketing spin to turn a limitation into a positive.

Nor do I think that Nuclear has to be part of the mix as it doesn't support renewables, just provides a floor of electricity that you can't reduce or increase.

When you start talking about the premium that nuclear demands it starts making other solutions practical. Heck carbon capture and sequestration might even be competitive. That way you can have dispachable power without the huge fixed costs.

Either way, nuclear as part of the solution or not, it doesn't make sense today unless something big changes.