@daffy HPC won't be renewing its entire fuel supply in those time frames, there will be a number of new elements inserted of course and the ones that have burnt out will be removed but a lot will be moved around the core similar to how you stoke a fire.
@stevextc uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that's easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
As for dogma, I'm being objective. I have the academic credentials to talk about renewables, I'm also strongly in favour of nuclear but you are just talking shite.
and ??? a big so what …
And???
And if one operator got caught out with a football sized hole in their pressure vessel from corrosion you can bet others will likely have issues.
And if that's how you treat your plant you can't reasonably expect it to perform well past its design life.
And given in the 70s QC and QA weren't a shade in what we have today we only have best guesses and endless NDT to predict the fatigue life of the components within these stations.
Saftey is not a big so what, especially in the nuclear industry. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown what happens if people do think that way.
FWIW I work in a recently shut down nuclear station that wasn't ragged anything like some of the horror stories in the US. It was, by virtue of design, far safer than a water reactor as well. We still got shut down early because although the core was still safe the rate at which it was deteriorating was deemed unacceptable. We also maintained our plant but you know what? 50 year old plant is 50 years old no matter how you slice it and it will still find interesting ways to eat itself or just generally fail, the alternative is complete refit which is just unviable for a number of technical and economic reasons.
Even if there is 100years of fuel reserves at a few % of the worlds energy needs then for nuclear to be a significant part of the solution ie maybe 20% of energy needs that 100 year supply becomes around 20 years
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel.
Do you really think companies would invest many billions in building reactors when there wasn't going to be fuel for them in a few years? Experts disagree with you on how much fuel there is.. So please don't talk about 'hard facts' it makes your argument less credible not more.
There are plenty of arguments against nuclear, and consequently I am not pro-nuclear, but fuel running out in a few years is not one of them.
To make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases then nuclear would need to be increased by perhaps a factor of ten. It is a hard fact that there is a limited supply of fuel. Estimates vary from 40 years to over a hundred at current usage rates of known fuel
So if nuclear is expanded by a factor of ten then the fuel supply available becomes estimated from a few years to a decade or two.
Nuclear only supplys a few % of the worlds energy needs ATM. It would need a massive increase to have any appreciable effect on climate change
The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
Don’t get me wrong … firstly I’m probably someone who’d err to living in the woods with a woodburner in a romantic way… and I understand that the eco-system is an eco system.. and interdependent but philosophically I can’t support mass killing of other humans to get to this utopia.
This is to be honest the problem with most if not all philosophical idea society systems the end point as painted in an ideal world (that never would exist) is good. However the journey to get there and the blood involved is ignored. See extreme free market nuts, communist nuts every other extreme political theortical view.
@stevextc uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that’s easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
As for dogma, I’m being objective. I have the academic credentials to talk about renewables, I’m also strongly in favour of nuclear but you are just talking shite.
You aren't being objective because you care if something is renewable to your definition when objectively all that matters is we have enough.
And if one operator got caught out with a football sized hole in their pressure vessel from corrosion you can bet others will likely have issues.
You completely missed the point ... if we will have some failures and some people die .. SO WHAT
If we continue warming the planet at the current rate hundreds of millions to billions will die.
To make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases then nuclear would need to be increased by perhaps a factor of ten
It only needs to supply base load.
Simply calculating current fossil fuel demand and replacing it with nuclear to demonstrate the unfeasibility of nuclear is not necessarily how it would work.
There's no one solution, and I don't think even pro-nuclear people believe that. We need massive efficiency savings AND huge renewable capacity AND large scale storage AND something to generate base load.
That last one is still the open question and that's where nuclear would fit. Base load doesn't mean backup generators, it means base load.
You completely missed the point … if we will have some failures and some people die .. SO WHAT
If we continue warming the planet at the current rate hundreds of millions to billions will die.
Steve this isn't either/or. The choice isn't either large scale nuclear or billions dead. We need to build a better world, and there will be many many pieces involved.
The Brick
This is to be honest the problem with most if not all philosophical idea society systems the end point as painted in an ideal world (that never would exist) is good. However the journey to get there and the blood involved is ignored. See extreme free market nuts, communist nuts every other extreme political theortical view.
Exactly .... though it doesn't stop there.
Equally we are committing our children and our grandchildren to this philosophy.
Breeder reactors (gen IV reactors) will burn the spent fuel of other, earlier reactors - they're just not commercially operational yet in the west, but I believe they're the plan for France. India and Russia currently have the lead in the technology with Russia having 2(?) operational reactors and India in the process of commissioning one. They're also hideously expensive.
Stevextc - motor refurbishment isn't material intensive to complete - the material is either cleaned/decontaminated and re-used or recycled.
Daffy = then we are back to pie in the sky. No commercial scale electricity generating breeder reactor is yet possible. France tried really hard and failed
Thorium looks a good bet but again its not available yet
Molgrips - nuclear provides IIRC 4% of the worlds energy needs. Its not zero carbon but lowish carbon. to create a significant effect on reducing greenhouse gas then this needs to be expanded massively. There is not the fuel to provide for this massive expansion. Also time scales are two long. 20+ yrears to bring one new reactor on line and we would need hundreds of new reactors
Squirrellking who knows far more about this stuff than you or I agrees in principle with my point tho he is more optimistic.
uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that’s easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
Time, effort and money spent on nuclear means that there is less time money and effort on other solutions
Once again - the elephant in the room is developing nations - their energy usage is going to increase or are you going to deny them clean water, fridges and phones?
Daffy = then we are back to pie in the sky. No commercial scale electricity generating breeder reactor is yet possible. France tried really hard and failed
Totally agree - hence my post earlier on wind/battery/hydrogen. People
Retrofitting Air source heat pumps will cause huge issues. My partner works for a small housing association and they are installing asps on a small estate.
The roads have been dug up for months as the electrical supply has been improved and extra sub stations built.
There appears to be some doubt about how good asps are when retro fitted to existing houses.
It’s easy to sit at your keyboard and tell it like it is, but things have to work for real people in real life.
And the gas main would need the same doing to it. But you're going to have to do the electric grid anyway to support EVs, so why do both? IF electricity can be provided by renewables at a cheaper rate, then the cost of running an ASHP for longer will still be cheaper and more sustainable. Moving electricty around is MUCH easier than moving hydrogen, trust me.
Molgrips – nuclear provides IIRC 4% of the worlds energy needs. Its not zero carbon but lowish carbon. to create a significant effect on reducing greenhouse gas then this needs to be expanded massively. There is not the fuel to provide for this massive expansion.
Yes. As I said, we need many tools to solve this problem. Including nuclear doesn't have to mean replacing everything with nuclear.
Molgrips
Steve this isn’t either/or. The choice isn’t either large scale nuclear or billions dead. We need to build a better world, and there will be many many pieces involved.
There’s no one solution, and I don’t think even pro-nuclear people believe that.
Totally agree with both those statements. Hence why nuclear, gas and other tech is NOT off the list of better than present choices.
Where I take issue is how we define a "better world" .. and "better for whom". and very specifically where forced depopulation fits into that
As I've said previously, lots of the developing world needs affordable gas... it's not ideal but its WAY WAY better than burning wood and dung. The LPG taxi's in India are in crisis (or were last time I checked Indian press something I probably do way more often than most STW readers) meanwhile rural cooking and boiling drinking water is done using wood and dung and the Indian government is trying to get then to switch to gas due to the decreased carbon footprint whilst the wealthier obviously want air conditioning at home.
As Daffy points out India are fast tracking breeder reactors... we are dicking about
MEANWHILE: Europe is currently importing gas that goes right past many developing nations (like India) on its way to us. I can't believe we are talking about reopening coal mines... and complaining about the minor inconveniences of fracking.
We go on about heatpumps that only work efficiently with proper design, and very good insulation whilst being philosophically opposed to petroleum based insulation.
very specifically where forced depopulation fits into that
Do you mean limiting family size?
Harness the amount of hot air being expelled on this thread?
This thread has been fun.
Anybody got Thanos' phone number?
I hear he has an effective solution.
Molgrips
Do you mean limiting family size?
Not necessarily, rich families could have more kids... so long as we limit the poor.
Sorry... that's a bit blase.
You seem to find the numbers ChevyChase gives as a bit unpalatable... but I don't think they are too far out of line with this idyllic eco world where man lives in balance with nature.
This is the difference I am trying to get across between climate change and "eco"/"green" philosophy rewilding the UK, getting rid of commercial food production and living like ChevyChase / pre-industrial groups. (Sami, North American First nations etc.++)
We are too late to limit now without going past the next point of no return climate wise where best case scenario is even bleaker so we would need to accelerate depopulation** initially, perhaps as a one off but that would need to happen in the future if the "better world" is that utopia of the Green movement described by ChevyChase.
From China 1 Child to Logans Run, forced sterilisation to euthanising criminals, disabled or poor to letting natural disasters run their course.
**Yes... that's a euphemism it means what you know it means. This living sustainably with the environment just isn't even close to possible with 1/4 of the worlds current population even with modern medicine
Steve this isn’t either/or. The choice isn’t either large scale nuclear or billions dead. We need to build a better world, and there will be many many pieces involved.
In the same way yes it's not either/or.... I'm not against less pollution at all, I'm against selling less pollution (e.g. Nox) as better for climate change and widespread greenwashing because I see the "Clear and Present Danger" above all else is climate change.
ChevyChase talks more shite than you, i wouldnt base your perception of environmentalism on him.
Stevextc - what age do we start culling people? 80, 75, or as low as 60.
I'm finding all this very uncomfortable.
Bunnyhop
Stevextc – what age do we start culling people? 80, 75, or as low as 60.
I should imagine its more based on wealth, ethnicity and disabilities than age in practice.
Last time the UK did this due to lack of food it was Indians and the time before** that Irish
**unless I missed some inbetween?
I’m finding all this very uncomfortable.
Me too. But without rapid and huge depopulation we can't keep doing this "eco" or "green" stuff that accelerates climate change without mass depopulation or further accelerating climate change.
This whole idea of living "sustainably" using "renewables only" whilst removing all commercial farming and covering the UK in trees again in some wonderful utopia means returning to a pre-industrial revolution population very quickly or instead we die from climate change.
Even returning to 1900 population is 30M from the current 68M...
You seem to find the numbers ChevyChase gives as a bit unpalatable
I've absolutely no problem with people having one kid. It's not 'unpalatable' as you put it. But it would cause significant economic issues down the line, which was my point.
I don't accept his actual numbers because whilst maybe if we all piss resources up the wall those numbers are okay, but the more efficiently we can live the more people the Earth can support.
You aren’t being objective because you care if something is renewable to your definition when objectively all that matters is we have enough.
No, I'm simply pointing out that factually, your assertion that nuclear is renewable is utter horseshit.
You completely missed the point … if we will have some failures and some people die .. SO WHAT
Okay now I know you're trolling. Either that or you really need to go speak to a professional, and I don't mean an engineer. The nuclear industry cannot and absolutely will not tolerate such a lax attitude to safety.
Time, effort and money spent on nuclear means that there is less time money and effort on other solutions
You do realise its not an either/or scenario right?
Oh and India is doing stuff with breeder reactors and we aren't because we abandoned Gen IV development decades ago. SMR tech is mostly based on Gen IV (breeder, pebble bed etc.) rather than the glorified sub reactors we are dicking about with.
I’m against selling less pollution (e.g. Nox) as better for climate change
I've never seen that claimed and I see a lot of eco stuff. It's claimed it's better for local air quality, which it is.
You do realise its not an either/or scenario right?
to some extent it is. We have limited amounts of engineers, money and effort. So every person/ hour spent on nuclear is a person hour unavailable for other things
Daffy, I said nothing about hydrogen I just said there are infastructure problems with asps and some doubts about how well they work with existing housing stock. The problems are not trivial and we need long term planning and a touch of realism to do any good. The fundamental problem is the mass of the population dont want change and dont like the solutions.
So every person/ hour spent on nuclear is a person hour unavailable for other things
Spoke like a true project manager.
If a woman can have a baby in 9 months 9 women can have a baby in one month.
🙂
I just said there are infastructure problems with asps and some doubts about how well they work with existing housing stock
This is true. I have learned that my boiler is rubbish, and I looked around at reasonable replacements. Looks like I can get a decent gas boiler for £1,300. I looked at heat pumps, some estimates went up to FIFTEEN GRAND.
That needs to change.
Uncle Bill (Gates) is coming to save us all with traveling wave reactors. 🙂
As I’ve said previously, lots of the developing world needs affordable gas… it’s not ideal but its WAY WAY better than burning wood and dung.
Really? Wood and dung are renewable.
Wood, assuming new trees are planted to replace those burnt, is completely renewable. Dung just happens anyway, rather than let it decompose and give off greenhouse gases why not burn it and release those same gases but replace the ones which the gas would have given off? It's us which should be copying them, moving from gas to wood and dung! (yes, yes, call it biomass boilers because that sounds fancy, but that's what it is)
The problem with wood and dung for those in the developing world is the I'll heath for the users.
@andrewh I suggest you read up about Drax, burning wood as biomass is absolute greenwash it's still burning stuff and releasing co2 - let alone all the other issues with burning either pellets or wood chip. Unless burning locally sourced wood waste & regenerating locally then it's a non starter.
One of the problems with growing trees, (ultimately new forests and woods), is the over population of deer. Deer munch on saplings and lower branches of trees, thus preventing proper growth. Also there is the over population of grey squirrels, who are also destroying many trees (they take off the bark). These trees never make it to full maturity and therefore we can't rely on wood as a source of fuel for most of the population.
Drax had contracts signed for local coppiced willow when they first converted. Local landowners had actually started growing it but then Drax got an offer to undercut this from logging of virgin forest in north america. So the local folk got shafted and instead virgin forest gets cut down and shipped in. ( from memory - think this was drax)
@tjagain yup that's right.
Also, dung can be burnt much cleaner by extracting the methane via an anaerobic digester. Burn the gas through an engine and you have a source of electricity. Burning directly in a fire hasn't been good practice for years now. See also any other bio waste.
The leftover product is fertiliser.
I looked at heat pumps, some estimates went up to FIFTEEN GRAND.
Only 15?
The ground source i have cost over 25k to fit. Over half to drill the hole in the ground.
On the plus side, when i moved over it cost me about the same to heat this place in scandi weather (large villa in the countryside) as it did my shitty 2 bed terrace in the midlands.
Molgrips
I’ve absolutely no problem with people having one kid. It’s not ‘unpalatable’ as you put it. But it would cause significant economic issues down the line, which was my point.
How are "we" going to enforce this and what happens when someone or some whole country breaks it?
Rank
Country
2022 Population
2021 Population
Growth Rate
Area
Density (km²)
1 China 1,425,887,337 1,425,893,465 -0.00% 9,706,961 147/km²
2 India 1,417,173,173 1,407,563,842 0.68% 3,287,590 431/km²
3 United States 338,289,857 336,997,624 0.38% 9,372,610 36/km²
4 Indonesia 275,501,339 273,753,191 0.64% 1,904,569 145/km²
5 ****stan 235,824,862 231,402,117 1.91% 881,912 267/km²
6 Nigeria 218,541,212 213,401,323 2.41% 923,768 237/km²
7 Brazil 215,313,498 214,326,223 0.46% 8,515,767 25/km²
8 Bangladesh 171,186,372 169,356,251 1.08% 147,570 1,160/km²
9 Russia 144,713,314 145,102,755 -0.27% 17,098,242 8/km²
10 Mexico 127,504,125 126,705,138 0.63% 1,964,375 65/km²
Lets ignore Russia for now and remove those we might work with ... leaving India, Indonesia, ****stan, Nigeria, Bangladesh
India has already embarked on drastically lowering its CO2 ... but Europe is selfishly doing all they can to prevent that by buying the LPG they need to reduce their CO2 so what do we do threaten India they must abandon their initiatives (already well ahead of ours) and instead adopt a 1 child policy and we don't care how they enforce that?
How should we deal with Indonesia and Bangladesh? Threaten to reduce aid ??
You see perhaps why the ban more than one child policy quickly becomes very distasteful.
source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries
I don’t accept his actual numbers because whilst maybe if we all piss resources up the wall those numbers are okay, but the more efficiently we can live the more people the Earth can support.
UK Pop today about 68M -- 1900 30M -- 1700 5M we can feed ourselves somewhere between 1700 and 1900 levels.. but
the more efficiently we can live the more people the Earth can support
That isn't what the green movement are generally pushing... there is a contingent that want to stop all commercial farming and live "sustainably" that you can compare to the ERG in the Tory party ... fundamentalists that view mankind as a blight and like the ERG they keep getting their policies through... EVEN when this means making climate change worse they do not compromise because their philosophy is mankind being reduced to live sustainably.
If we were starting from scratch... it sounds idyllic to me. My objection is how we depopulate.
Example of this in action:
Really? Wood and dung are renewable.
Wood, assuming new trees are planted to replace those burnt, is completely renewable.
Again what does renewable matter if they are releasing CO2? It's a religious dogma then you get the apologists who also succumbed to the dogma.
Also, dung can be burnt much cleaner by extracting the methane via an anaerobic digester. Burn the gas through an engine and you have a source of electricity. Burning directly in a fire hasn’t been good practice for years now. See also any other bio waste.
Except that isn't what the developing world are doing for their cooking/boiling water....
andrewh
It’s us which should be copying them, moving from gas to wood and dung! (yes, yes, call it biomass boilers because that sounds fancy, but that’s what it is)
Which particular rural communities in developing countries do you spend your time in?
Do you quickly make them a biomass boiler and they are amazed?? Please let us know about your extensive experience and why you know so much better than the people who actually live and work in these communities.
That isn’t what the green movement are generally pushing… there is a contingent that want to stop all commercial farming and live “sustainably” that you can compare to the ERG in the Tory party … fundamentalists that view mankind as a blight and like the ERG they keep getting their policies through… EVEN when this means making climate change worse they do not compromise because their philosophy is mankind being reduced to live sustainably.
As someone who is a dark green politically IE a fundamentalist I have never seen this, never heard of it and would like to see something to back this up
Certainly no fundamentalist green policies are in action in the UK right now
Remind me again on GreenPease supporting getting rid of diesel cars and supporting ULEZ zones?
Thats not a green fundamentalist position. Thats mainstream. Green fundies like me would get rid of all private cars
Looks like the world population will be declining in less than 80 years.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/30/health/elon-musk-population-collapse-wellness/index.html#:~:text=Population%20projections%20by%20the%20numbers&text=The%20UN%20predicts%20the%20global,billion%20in%20just%208%20years.&text=By%202080%2C%20the%20worl d's%20population,begin%20to%20decrease%20by%202100.
So.... we need to plan how best to feed, clothe and supply enough energy for about 9 billion people....
Of course the growing UK population is not because we are having too many kids but immigration. So largely irrelevant when discussing planet impact because it is just people moving from one place to another.
Though granted if a person movves from a poor country their carbon footprint will be higher here.
How are “we” going to enforce this
We're not, that's been my point this whole thread.
Green fundies like me would get rid of all private cars
And ignore the practicalities... This kind of "thinking" gives the green movement a bad name and is actually harming progress.
Molgrips - Im just pointing out that what steve thinks is fundamentalist is not
Of course it needs both time and interim arrangements to reach that aim. But without dramatic action immediately we are looking at deaths in the billions in your childrens lifetimes
Its not"ignoring the practicalities" to understand this point. Its dramatic action now or the planet becomes uninhabitable for humans
tinkering around the edges will not work. Pretending its not a mass extinction for humans coming rapidly is not understanding the situation.
