Well done wind

[JohnD]

Today is not very windy


And less than half the country is in sunshine



Yet wind and solar are providing half the nation's electricity needs



Perhaps some whiner will try to grumble about that.

 

[IT Minion]

Perhaps he wanted to get it right??

Si, What point are you trying to make, exactly??
Or are you just nitpicking/trolling??

I don't know why he even thinks it was AI? I googled the area of a football pitch and the achievable PV in earth orbit and multiplied them together.

Old people these days are so lazy they don't even think other people can use a calculator app and Google.

 

[IT Minion]

could you summarise?

He thinks we've spent 10x as much on renewables as the US did on the Manhattan project.

Seriously, he has no grasp of numbers.

 

[Justin Passing]

Post No. 1 on the topic, which I re-iterated over 20 times.

If the country had invested the same amount of money into nuclear research as 'clean energy' since the 80s instead of obsessing over windmills and solar panels, we'd likely be some way to building the first fusion plants. Zero cost energy, completely unlimited, zero operating pollution.

Thank you.
I don't think you're right, because we didn't see a way through for efficient fusion, at all, , whereas fission nuclear power research and investment has given incremental developments .
The murricans and Chinese have been spending a lot on fusion research, and not produced much. We colluded with others, at ITER, and again didn't get far. But now the tape-magnets are providing a new impetus.
They permit higher flux densities which reduce the size of a fusion tokamak by 40x.

The Chinese are leading, by the way, on solar panel development.
A huge disadvantage of course is the need to store their energy output. Battery research has been relatively UN productive.

I do agree that we should have maintained our nuclear power plant "fleet" better. Trouble is it's so darned expensive that it's more attractive to use US or Chinese designs, than develop our own. Designs have settled now, though.

If you have enough real estate, it's appropriate to move massive Data Cetres to where you can have a nuke reactor.
People, inconveniently, don't much like living beside either.





Thanks Quote Quote

Report

 

[IT Minion]

A huge disadvantage of course is the need to store their energy output. Battery research has been relatively UN productive.

I'd disagree with that.

Batteries have dropped in cost by 90% in just the last 15 years or so. Reliability, longevity, supply and price have improved as well.

Newer batteries use plentiful chemistries where there is no chance of running out.

Battery umprovements havent been flashy and eye catching but they've been seismic. All on a fraction of the funding wasted on near power.

 

[Si_]

Post No. 1 on the topic, which I re-iterated over 20 times.



Thank you.
I don't think you're right, because we didn't see a way through for efficient fusion, at all, , whereas fission nuclear power research and investment has given incremental developments .
The murricans and Chinese have been spending a lot on fusion research, and not produced much. We colluded with others, at ITER, and again didn't get far. But now the tape-magnets are providing a new impetus.
They permit higher flux densities which reduce the size of a fusion tokamak by 40x.

The Chinese are leading, by the way, on solar panel development.
A huge disadvantage of course is the need to store their energy output. Battery research has been relatively UN productive.

I do agree that we should have maintained our nuclear power plant "fleet" better. Trouble is it's so darned expensive that it's more attractive to use US or Chinese designs, than develop our own. Designs have settled now, though.

If you have enough real estate, it's appropriate to move massive Data Cetres to where you can have a nuke reactor.
People, inconveniently, don't much like living beside either.

Fusion research is progressing quickly given its lack of funding, China and the US have been spending the most, yes, but it's not 'a lot'. It's very far from 'a lot'. China allocates approximately 0.07% of its annual spend to fusion research. The US, 0.01% of its budget. Given that fusion power would be, by ridiculous orders of magnitude, the most beneficial technology ever invented, it's initially incomprehensible that governments aren't interested in developing it. Then you think of how governments and economies function and it becomes clear.

In the UK we would have been in a far better situation if we'd have simply invested far more in nuclear fission, together with a big tightening up of regulation, the lack of which has contributed greatly to the cost.

 

[MNW67]

Fusion research is progressing quickly given its lack of funding, China and the US have been spending the most, yes, but it's not 'a lot'. It's very far from 'a lot'. China allocates approximately 0.07% of its annual spend to fusion research. The US, 0.01% of its budget. Given that fusion power would be, by ridiculous orders of magnitude, the most beneficial technology ever invented, it's initially incomprehensible that governments aren't interested in developing it. Then you think of how governments and economies function and it becomes clear.

In the UK we would have been in a far better situation if we'd have simply invested far more in nuclear fission, together with a big tightening up of regulation, the lack of which has contributed greatly to the cost.

Could you explain that a bit more, please. Usually, tighter regulation means higher costs. But here you seem to be saying the opposite would have been true.

 

[Notch7]

Fusion research is progressing quickly given its lack of funding, China and the US have been spending the most, yes, but it's not 'a lot'. It's very far from 'a lot'. China allocates approximately 0.07% of its annual spend to fusion research. The US, 0.01% of its budget. Given that fusion power would be, by ridiculous orders of magnitude, the most beneficial technology ever invented, it's initially incomprehensible that governments aren't interested in developing it. Then you think of how governments and economies function and it becomes clear.

In the UK we would have been in a far better situation if we'd have simply invested far more in nuclear fission, together with a big tightening up of regulation, the lack of which has contributed greatly to the cost.

so China is spending quite a bit on funding nuclear fusion research, around $1.5b

but China is spends $625b on clean energy most of it on wind and solar..............which according to you is a waste of time

 

[Si_]

Could you explain that a bit more, please. Usually, tighter regulation means higher costs. But here you seem to be saying the opposite would have been true.

Because of the extensive decommissioning and waste management work necessary due to historic bad decisions and poor planning.

 

[IT Minion]

Because of the extensive decommissioning and waste management work necessary due to historic bad decisions and poor planning.

Yeah, who could have thought that new technology involving nuclear radiation could have issues that take time to be realised.

Thankfully that can't happen with Fusion, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

 

[wobs]

In the UK we would have been in a far better situation if we'd have simply invested far more in nuclear fission, together with a big tightening up of regulation, the lack of which has contributed greatly to the cost.

Very true. And fear has resulted in over regulation in many respects to fission. While we want safe designs, we are in a situation where things like the valves used have to be to a nuclear standard and much greater cost. That sounds sensible, until you realise that they are the same valves used in industry, done to the same standard, it just that they have to have an additional certification for them, which is meaningless.

There are other issues as well that could make nuclear far cheaper, without comprising safety.
See here:

We can build nuclear reactors quickly. Here's how

Five ways to speed up nuclear construction

zionlights.substack.com

If we had invested in nuclear in the 80s rather than a dash for gas, we'd be in far better shape, and may even have gas still in the ground.

But we also need to build multiple reactors along the same design, which would also save money and time. Even at Hinkley Point C, they have learnt from the first reactor build and hope to complete the second in less time. By repeating this on other sites we could seriously bring the time and cost down. Chine and Japan seem to be able to build them at about 5-6 years

We do need renewables of course, but they are not the answer on their own, even with storage.

 

[IT Minion]

Very true. And fear has resulted in over regulation in many respects to fission. While we want safe designs, we are in a situation where things like the valves used have to be to a nuclear standard and much greater cost. That sounds sensible, until you realise that they are the same valves used in industry, done to the same standard, it just that they have to have an additional certification for them, which is meaningless.

There are other issues as well that could make nuclear far cheaper, without comprising safety.
See here:

We can build nuclear reactors quickly. Here's how

Five ways to speed up nuclear construction

zionlights.substack.com

If we had invested in nuclear in the 80s rather than a dash for gas, we'd be in far better shape, and may even have gas still in the ground.

But we also need to build multiple reactors along the same design, which would also save money and time. Even at Hinkley Point C, they have learnt from the first reactor build and hope to complete the second in less time. By repeating this on other sites we could seriously bring the time and cost down. Chine and Japan seem to be able to build them at about 5-6 years

We do need renewables of course, but they are not the answer on their own, even with storage.

That link isn't great if you dig into it with a sceptical mind.

For examlle It misrepresents the concrete requirements for nuclear related building.

Reinforcing steel in nuclear-grade concrete is the same material used in conventional concrete.

Which is true, except the document states you shouldn't use zinc coating or epoxy coating as the effect of irradiation on the materials is not known. No additional certification needed, just guidance on unsuitable materials. That's important because normal construction, even of power plants like coal can't generate the same level of force as a nuclear plant.

Another gem in the material section: You don't have to use special aggregate, but lightweight aggregate isn't allowed as it provides lower shielding.


For valves there are typically two loops in a PWR, the hot section is chemically very different to that of any other industrial situation and you want to select the components not just for the usual extreme corrosion and pressure concerns but how they degrade with irradiation and the particular chemical mix of the coolant fluid.

The Three Mile Island meltdown was caused by a faulty valve, in that case it was a badly flawed design. No deaths, but it melted the reactor and you don't repair those, you wall them up and pretend it never happened.

 

[Odds]

Renewable energy overtook coal as the world's leading source of electricity in the first half of this year - a historic first, according to new data from the global energy think tank Ember.

 

[Notch7]

If the country had invested the same amount of money into nuclear research as 'clean energy' since the 80s instead of obsessing over windmills and solar panels, we'd likely be some way to building the first fusion plants

.....................in your opinion

this is just an example of a simplistic argument to a complex problem

 

[Justin Passing]

I'd disagree with that.

Batteries have dropped in cost by 90% in just the last 15 years or so. Reliability, longevity, supply and price have improved as well.

Newer batteries use plentiful chemistries where there is no chance of running out.

Battery umprovements havent been flashy and eye catching but they've been seismic. All on a fraction of the funding wasted on near power.

You missed the point. It's still far from being useful on a large scale. In houses, yes, but it's not for example useful to store excess wind power. Relative to absolutely useless, yes it has moved a lot.

Still crap for energy density too:

A large wind turbine can produce about 2.5 to 3.5 megawatts (MW). I'll let you do the sums.
Order of 100 tonnes of battery for a day's worth. Each.