Nuclear power and the future of energy

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,292]

Government has announced its new energy strategy

Nuclear features big 

Is nuclear that bad 😄

Starmer is undoubtedly right that this is too late, but I don't think we can pin this all on the current government, the warning signs were there in the 70's

Personally, I think renewables are more desirable, but then I would say that  wouldn't I 😊

What's right for the UK?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

I read somewhere that wind power energy accounts for between 10 and 12% of our energy. I don't know what Norfolk is like but I can see why as there are thousands of wind mills in Cornwall. My next door neighbour monitors them on her laptop from home.

Is anyone brassed off sincerely with windmills? They don't bother me one bit. Would I feel the same if there were 8 times as many? I doubt I can conceive what that would like.

Solar has a finite amount of time each day of course so can really only be an addition.

I never really had any objections to nuclear. But I can't believe, seeing how long the new Hinckley Point took to get through finance alone, that there is serious talk of seven more. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,292]

Agree about wind farms 

I don't understand why people think they are an eyesore, when we have had slag heaps in the past. 

Nuclear power stations aren't exactly beautiful either. I worked for a few weeks on Sizewell B in the early 90's. I had the pleasure of residing near Sizewell A...that chucked out a fair bit of noise  as well as being as ugly as sin

Apparently Scotland is the windiest country in Europe, I'm sure we could make better use of wind power in the UK; other renewables also

[Icecream Snow 776]

Went for a drink with a guy from the National Grid a few weeks back, who was basically saying that Nuclear plants always want to be pumping out the maximum amount, which makes it hard to manage. There's natural peaks and troughs in electricity usage (ie spikes during commercial breaks for popular shows), and with gas it was easy to vary the output.

Some pretty scathing interviews has come out recently, how Tories blocked new wind farms since 2015 because they were predominantly in Tory voting areas and they didn't want to lose votes.

The Tories sold off the utilities in the early nineties and I can remember in school in 1992 or 1993 being taught how oil/gas/coal was going to run out in 2030-2040. The sad thing is the absence of a plan, and that the electorate have let this useless Tory government get away with it.

[Herman 10,958]

Wouldn't investing in battery technology and storage be a much better use of our money?

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

Wouldn't investing in battery technology and storage be a much better use of our money?

With France's nuclear program its going to be left to EDF, which 80% French Government owned. Our Government has pledged about £100M. Sizewell C is going to need about £80BN. Are there enough pension funds interested?

[Herman 10,958]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

With France's nuclear program its going to be left to EDF, which 80% French Government owned. Our Government has pledged about £100M. Sizewell C is going to need about £80BN. Are there enough pension funds interested?

That will buy them an office block and the staff to draw up the plans, so as you say, where is the money going to come from to pay for a multi-billion pound reactor? Another one of Johnson's great schemes that only looks good for about five minutes.

[Van wink 2,994]

[horsefly 5,163]

Offer me the choice between a wind farm and a housing estate on the field next to my property and I would vote for the wind farm without hesitation. Onshore wind is by far the cheapest, the quickest, and the cleanest alternative available. Nuclear would have been a good option 30-40 years ago but is now the most expensive option of the lot. The only objection to expansion of onshore wind seems to come from Tory shire nimby diehards who want no aspect of their sheltered life compromised in dealing with the national emergencies of climate change and fuel security. The time has come to change planning laws restricting the development of wind farms. Add further financial incentives to the local communities that accommodate wind farms and you have the potential for a scenario in which every interested party wins.

I have genuinely yet to meet a person who has described wind turbines as an "eyesore", apart from Grant Shapps (if that's currently the name he still goes by). For me they belong in the same aesthetic category as bridges; man made interventions that represent a triumph of human ingenuity harmonising and adding a certain majesty to the environment in which they are placed.

[horsefly 5,163]

9 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

With France's nuclear program its going to be left to EDF, which 80% French Government owned. Our Government has pledged about £100M. Sizewell C is going to need about £80BN. Are there enough pension funds interested?

 

1 hour ago, Herman said:

That will buy them an office block and the staff to draw up the plans, so as you say, where is the money going to come from to pay for a multi-billion pound reactor? Another one of Johnson's great schemes that only looks good for about five minutes.

Expect the de-sanctioning of Russian oligarchs to be announced shortly.

[A Load of Squit 6,054]

16 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

I never really had any objections to nuclear. But I can't believe, seeing how long the new Hinckley Point took to get through finance alone, that there is serious talk of seven more. 

What they have announced (and have been announcing for about the last 5 years) in seven new SMR's. The reason they can't start to build them is that the technology still needs some work.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/energy/2022/04/06/rolls-royce-boss-earmarks-2029-for-production-of-small-nuclear-reactors/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

While there are dozens of modular reactor designs and yet unfinished demonstration projects, the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov, operating in Pevek in Russia's Far East, was as of May 2020 the first and only operating prototype in the world. 

[KiwiScot 1,660]

I've all for a little bit of everything though maybe not fracking even to the extent of that Cambo oilfield.

It's funny in the media hearing people talk about Nucleur energy being clean as I must have missed the bit where they stopped producing tons of waste thats radioactive for thousands of years.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,687]

I assume the ban on gas boilers being fitted in new houses from 2025 will help massively...

How long does it take from initial consultation to actually getting a nuclear power station up and running and producing power? I know that existing sites are targeted, but they still have to go through due process.

[horsefly 5,163]

2 hours ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

I assume the ban on gas boilers being fitted in new houses from 2025 will help massively...

How long does it take from initial consultation to actually getting a nuclear power station up and running and producing power? I know that existing sites are targeted, but they still have to go through due process.

As an example, Sizewell was identified as a site for future development of a new reactor (C) in 2010. Construction is yet to begin and when/if it does it would take at least 9 years to build. 

[Indy 3,434]

6 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

What they have announced (and have been announcing for about the last 5 years) in seven new SMR's. The reason they can't start to build them is that the technology still needs some work.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/energy/2022/04/06/rolls-royce-boss-earmarks-2029-for-production-of-small-nuclear-reactors/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

While there are dozens of modular reactor designs and yet unfinished demonstration projects, the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov, operating in Pevek in Russia's Far East, was as of May 2020 the first and only operating prototype in the world. 

Indeed I know a guy involved in this project, he’s raving about them, they’re cheap in comparison to large nuclear sites, cheaper the more are bought and safe!

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,234]

Nuclear power has to be the future as renewable are never going to meet demand. Fossil fuels are also killing people regularly, air pollutants from burning fossil fuels will kill more of us than something like covid ever will, it's not just about wanting to save the planet or nature, we're all being poisoned every day by burning fossil fuels, yet astonishingly (said sarcastically) you never hear much about it....hmmm wonder why?

Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest method of producing enough energy to meet the worlds demands that we have available to us, unfortunately people still don't really understand how it works so there's not much support for it.  Thanks to incidents like Chernobyl and Fukashima which were caused by a mix of human error and the malfunction of an old outdated design and a natural disaster that would never occur in this country and popular tv shows like the Simpsons people greatly overestimate the dangers of nuclear power plants and think nuclear waste is some mutation inducing glowing green goo that would end up in our water supply or something when that just isn't how the whole process works. 

We should've built more plants 20+ years ago to be honest. Renewables can play their part as well, but as it stands nuclear power appears to be the only viable solution to the problems we currently face and we need to get a move on. Sadly I think the switch is going to come too slowly because there just won't be enough public support. Most people would worry about having so many plants dotted around out of an illogical fear of it exploding like a bomb or something when in reality they should be much more worried about the poison they're breathing in every day from cars and fossil fuel plants. 

[Indy 3,434]

19 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Nuclear power has to be the future as renewable are never going to meet demand. Fossil fuels are also killing people regularly, air pollutants from burning fossil fuels will kill more of us than something like covid ever will, it's not just about wanting to save the planet or nature, we're all being poisoned every day by burning fossil fuels, yet astonishingly (said sarcastically) you never hear much about it....hmmm wonder why?

Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest method of producing enough energy to meet the worlds demands that we have available to us, unfortunately people still don't really understand how it works so there's not much support for it.  Thanks to incidents like Chernobyl and Fukashima which were caused by a mix of human error and the malfunction of an old outdated design and a natural disaster that would never occur in this country and popular tv shows like the Simpsons people greatly overestimate the dangers of nuclear power plants and think nuclear waste is some mutation inducing glowing green goo that would end up in our water supply or something when that just isn't how the whole process works. 

We should've built more plants 20+ years ago to be honest. Renewables can play their part as well, but as it stands nuclear power appears to be the only viable solution to the problems we currently face and we need to get a move on. Sadly I think the switch is going to come too slowly because there just won't be enough public support. Most people would worry about having so many plants dotted around out of an illogical fear of it exploding like a bomb or something when in reality they should be much more worried about the poison they're breathing in every day from cars and fossil fuel plants. 

The safest and most efficient if you have the means is Hydroelectric, Norway is about 90% hydro! 
Tidal power along with wind is the way Denmark are going and we should be looking at Tidal power too.

But certainly with the new RR nuclear plants, hopefully they will be ready to go very soon, quicker to build and lot cheaper!

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

surely the first and best option is to use less energy, insulate homes and enable communities to generate their own energy from alternative sources should they so wish to do that.

This might glue them together and make them less malleable but it is to be preferred to french owned EDF leaving a legacy of waste/inefficiently burned, still very active fuel rods for our children to deal with.

We have turned our thermostats down this winter and will try and get a local energy coop together. Onshore wind power was rejected because it would/could put us in control of our own local power generation.

The policy was not worth writing down, a ten year old could have done better.

[Creative Midfielder 2,180]

On 07/04/2022 at 19:23, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Government has announced its new energy strategy

Nuclear features big 

Is nuclear that bad 😄

Starmer is undoubtedly right that this is too late, but I don't think we can pin this all on the current government, the warning signs were there in the 70's

Personally, I think renewables are more desirable, but then I would say that  wouldn't I 😊

What's right for the UK?

 

I think, that as usual with this government, calling it an energy 'strategy' is a complete misnomer - more a random collection of ideas which clearly haven't been thought through at all and which don't appear to have any coherent objectives, aside of course from providing  ministers with a basis to talk bullsh*t about our world beating energy policy 😂

We do desperately need a proper and intelligent energy strategy both for the long term but also to immediately address the energy supply and cost crisis we are already in.

Whether people think nuclear is 'bad' or not is largely irrelevant IMO - it is massively expensive compared to both renewables and alternative forms of dirty generation, and it is extremely slow to build and deploy, so suggesting it should be the focus of our attempts to tackle the short term energy cost crisis is totally nonsensical.

Whether nuclear is ever going to make real sense as part of a longer term strategy I don't know but IMO it looks unlikely - of course there are developments coming along but they still have issues compared to renewables and more importantly I don't believe they will ever be competitive on cost with renewables, viz wind and increasingly wave power and in certain areas hydro.

[dylanisabaddog 5,792]

On 07/04/2022 at 20:14, keelansgrandad said:

I read somewhere that wind power energy accounts for between 10 and 12% of our energy. I don't know what Norfolk is like but I can see why as there are thousands of wind mills in Cornwall. My next door neighbour monitors them on her laptop from home.

Is anyone brassed off sincerely with windmills? They don't bother me one bit. Would I feel the same if there were 8 times as many? I doubt I can conceive what that would like.

Solar has a finite amount of time each day of course so can really only be an addition.

I never really had any objections to nuclear. But I can't believe, seeing how long the new Hinckley Point took to get through finance alone, that there is serious talk of seven more. 

I'm 62 so I don't really think I should have a voice on the issue. 

What really intrigued me about your post was the fact that your neighbour monitors wind pumps on her laptop. I think KG that you should start a new thread inviting posts about all our weird neighbours. Between Norfolk and Cornwall we should have some stories to tell. 

PS If I was young I would vote for the Rolls Royce mini nuclear plants

[KiwiScot 1,660]

Crazy cheap idea. Free pair of warm socks and thermal underlayer for every person.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

49 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm 62 so I don't really think I should have a voice on the issue. 

What really intrigued me about your post was the fact that your neighbour monitors wind pumps on her laptop. I think KG that you should start a new thread inviting posts about all our weird neighbours. Between Norfolk and Cornwall we should have some stories to tell. 

PS If I was young I would vote for the Rolls Royce mini nuclear plants

Its not a weird hobby mate. She does get paid very well for it Dylan.

[dylanisabaddog 5,792]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its not a weird hobby mate. She does get paid very well for it Dylan.

I could do that. Give us a job 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

On 07/04/2022 at 19:23, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Government has announced its new energy strategy

Nuclear features big 

Is nuclear that bad 😄

Starmer is undoubtedly right that this is too late, but I don't think we can pin this all on the current government, the warning signs were there in the 70's

Personally, I think renewables are more desirable, but then I would say that  wouldn't I 😊

What's right for the UK?

 

Renewable doesn't necessarily translate into 'good for the environment', biogas for example creates a lot of greenhouse gases.

Also, nuclear can become renewable if we switch from mined ore uranium to uranium extracted from seawater.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,292]

21 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Renewable doesn't necessarily translate into 'good for the environment', biogas for example creates a lot of greenhouse gases.

Also, nuclear can become renewable if we switch from mined ore uranium to uranium extracted from seawater.

I find it hard to believe that there are any projects that are large enough to generate a commercial supply that don't have some sort of impact on the environment 

It's all about finding the best options in each country or region