Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 240 total)
  • anothrer nuclear power station cancelled
  • Premier Icon theaccountant
    Free Member

    TJ – Dinorwig is still a hydro electric generator as it generates power using water flow. The technology used is a subset of hydro technology

    I’d thoroughly recommend the tour to anyone though. Even my son (22) enjoyed it

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Gobuchal – if a system that has been running for 3 years at commercial levels is not proven then what is?

    the arguements pro nuclear folk use are so contorted relying on next generation nuclear tech ( thorium, fast breeders) and comparing it with last generation renewables.

    No pro nuclear person will address the two elephants. 1) what to do with the waste?
    2) where to get the fuel. At the moment nuclear provides somewhere in the region of 5% of the worlds energy usage and we have 40 years worth of fuel. for nuclear to have any significant effect on carbon emissions it needs to be scaled up hugely. where is the fuel going to come from

    No one has ever given a coherent answer to these two issues.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    The further you move power through the grid, the more it costs, both in transmission loss and cost of building the lines. I don’t think it’s political, just distance to point of use.

    Building a generator near the scottish central belt intended to power those 3 million people attacts far higher access charges than one in England powering a smaller local population.

    Premier Icon hols2
    Free Member

    For example, we could automate our factories to the point where they can stop and start nearly on demand with low workforce.

    If you can automate something that effectively, you’d run it 24/7 to reduce your capital costs. Humans have evolved to sleep at night and forage during the day. Electricity consumption patterns will continue to reflect that.

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    Gobuchal – if a system that has been running for 3 years at commercial levels is not proven then what is?

    Proven on a small scale.

    What you are talking about is the installation of literally 1000’s of these units.

    Besides 3 years, for an offshore installation is not a long time. For example, typically for offshore wind, you are looking at least 20 years for return on investment.

    How long is that machine going to last for? The Pentland Firth is a wicked place and it has literally swallowed ships during winter storms. Anything floating around up there is going to take one hell of a beating.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    There are things you can do at consumer end to reduce peaks and troughs in demand. smart chargers for electric cdars is one whereby they effectivly become a part of the grid charging only on excess electricity and stopping charging or even putting some energy back into the grid when demnand is high

    IIRC Aus uses this sort of tech on electric water heaters

    Premier Icon 5thElefant
    Free Member

    Alex – what are you going to do with the waste – thats the pollution problem along with the huge amounts of concrete used and the fossil fuels required to get the fuel.

    The waste is a convenient solid format. Stick it in a hole.
    Unlike CO2 which we just pump into the air.

    Doesn’t get greener than that.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Gubuchal – generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.

    Nice shift of the goalposts BTW. You claimed it was not available at commercial levels now you insist a 3+ year commercial scale plant is only small scale.

    you said there was only one commercial scale project. Untrue

    Premier Icon keithb
    Full Member

    What I honestly think would help is a little joined-up technology being deployed off-shore.

    So you install a tidal stream generator, with a wind turbine on top of it.  Then stick a cowl round the columns in the water and pass the air being pumped in/out the cowl through a turbine to generate power from the wave action.

    Obviously, optimally positioning for tidal stream means it’s likely to be non-optimal for wave/wind, but it means you get increased generation from a single location, and can use the infrastructure being installed anyway to increase overall generation.

    I thought of this 20 years ago, and cannot believe no-one has done it yet…

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    1) what to do with the waste?

    Well depending on the ACTUAL (rather than perceived) hazard you encase it properly and store it somewhere geologically stable and monitor it for the long term. By no means a perfect solution but if you waited until you had perfect solution you’d never do anything.

    2) where to get the fuel

    Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.

    To be clear although I am generally pro nuclear I don’t disagree that we also need other power generating options.

    BTW are you going to back up that “20% of UK energy” claim you made earlier?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    The waste is a convenient solid format.

    Wrong IIRC.

    Premier Icon the-muffin-man
    Full Member

    What’s wrong with sealing nuclear waste underground for 300 yrs? 300yrs is a tiny amount of time in lifespan of the earth, and we might have figured out what to do with it by then!

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Wherever we find it. Same as every other raw material.

    that is no answer. We know of 40 years worth of fuel deposits at 5% of the worlds energy needs. Where are you going to find 10X that to actually make a difference to climate change?

    Premier Icon Murray
    Full Member

    Re “waste” or spent fuel – mined uranium is so abundant and cheap that it’s not worth reprocessing at the moment i.e. separating the “unburnt” uranium from the rest.

    Fast spectrum reactors can use the waste with minimal reprocessing i.e. no need to seperate the minor actinides. When they do so, the resultant waste stream is less radioactive than the ore in ~ 300 years.

    Example is Moltex

    Another waste burner but thermal spectrum is Candu

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    Gubuchal – generators have been anchored in the pentland firth for over a decade now. I think thats been sussed although i am surprised that so few of them have ended up in other places.

    Really? Floating ones? Some one better get a Nav Warning out as they aren’t charted!

    I think you are just coming out with what you want to believe!

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    mined uranium is so abundant and cheap

    Eh? according to the stuff I have seen we have 40 years supply and much of it it unstable countries – and extracting it is expensive

    those two things are not yet built are they? – another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    that is no answer.

    It is literally the only answer to your question.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

     and much of it it unstable countries

    I think Australia has the biggest deposits of Uranium, doesn’t it? and Canada has loads as well. I know the Aussie like a drink or two, but I don’t think it makes them unstable…

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    Yes floating ones.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445

    That is not the Pentland Firth.

    It is location that is well protected from the worst of the weather.

    There is not sufficient room for the installation of the thousands that would be required.

    those two things are not yet built are they? – another example of basing your pro nuclear arguments on possible future tech

    Which is exactly what you are doing!

    There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.

    If it was ready to go then a lot of the struggling high tech Aberdeen based O&G companies would be all over it.

    Or are you suggesting it’s being held back?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    I think this point has been comprehensively proved by this thread

    the arguements pro nuclear folk use are so contorted relying on next generation nuclear tech ( thorium, fast breeders) and comparing it with last generation renewables.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    There is potential in tidal but to claim it is proven is wrong.

    When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven

    and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons

    Premier Icon retro83
    Free Member

    tjagain

    and if the energy “market” was not rigged so as to make generation in Scotland uneconomic. ( done purely for political reasons)

    tjagain

    Access charges I think they are called – to allow generators to connect to the grid. the further you are from london the more you pay to be allowed to put your electricity to the grid. This means that any electricity generated in scotland starts off with a huge disadvantage in the marketplace. Build a generator in the south of england you get subsidised. Build one in Scotland you pay to access the grid.

    Why do you think this is the market being ‘rigged’, as opposed to it reflecting the high cost of installing and maintaining the high voltage transmission lines needed to move electricity long distances?

    Scotland already produces more electricity than it needs (around double, i think?) so it is not being used locally.

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    Well TJ I’ve made no such claims regarding nuclear power and Fast Breeder reactors aren’t next generation tech, Dounreay was a fast breeder plant, was brought online in the 1960s and is no longer in operation.

    Now about this “20% of the UKs energy” claim you made…

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons

    What political reasons are those?

    There has been major investment in that location off Eday for years now.

    Why would any government hold back energy technology that could be the equivalent of the North sea oil boom? Even BJ isn’t that thick.

    Offshore O&G is in decline. The UK has invested billions in offshore wind. I know I have worked in the industry one and off for 10 years and have seen the step changes in that period. To suggest it’s being held back is absolute nonsense.

    So why would they “hold back” tidal?

    Premier Icon GavinB
    Full Member

    Underwater generation

    According to the website, it’s all underwater.

    Interesting discussion though.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    scotgov publications – look it up. 14 gb from the pentland firth alone altho that is a disputed figure

    Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose

    No one has made a fast breeder work for electricity generation ( or is superpheonix actually online yet?) No one has made a commercial scale thorium generator yet have they altho IIRC india has a pilot plant

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Full Member

    When there are multiple schemes producing electricity for years on a commercial scale then i suggest that is proven

    How much though? Just because a small scale plant works doesn’t mean that it will scale up to all our energy needs, does it?

    Your tendency towards being single minded does not help give you a broad overview of the problems and issues.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    and yes – its being deliberately held back for political reasons

    Really, 50p says this is nonsense. Any govt of any stripe would be all over this like a rash if they thought it would work, renewable energy, built “in country” what possible reason could there be?

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    On this tech it does molgrips. You do not build a bigger one – you build more of the smaller units. this has huge implications because repairs do not mean the whole plant goes offline as you are in effect having thousands of small generators. It also means economies of scale as you can build the units on a production line.

    Molgrips – this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.

    when people are pretending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows t e poverty of the arguement.

    anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    So why would they “hold back” tidal?

    Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.

    Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    According to the website, it’s all underwater.

    Interesting discussion though.

    It’s still basically 4 prototypes. They seem to be struggling to get it working properly.

    faults-found-on-tidal-turbines-in-the-pentland-firth/

    Like I said, potential but not yet proven.

    The very fact that it’s an excellent source of tidal power, means it’s a very hostile environment particularity subsea.

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    Dounray was not a generator was it? ( or not as its main purpose

    It was I believe the worlds first fast breeder reactor to export electricity in January 1975.

    Molgrips – this is something I have been studying for years I have a decent laymans grasp of the issues.

    I’m afraid you don’t.

    when people are prentending that actual working tidal plants do not exist it shows th epoverty of the arguement.

    Literally no one has said that on this thread.

    anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds

    Pot meet kettle.

    “Now about this “20% of the UKs energy” claim you made…”

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Full Member

    Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels

    Except it’s not currently available.

    Last summer I went for a fascinating tour round Dinorwig hydro power station

    It’s not a power station it’s a pumped storage scheme. Basically just a big battery.

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    Because it would make Scotland more wealthy and independent of england on electricty supply.

    Its held back in 3 ways. the access charges. the lack of investment from Westminster and the deliberate refusal of Westminster to allow Holyrood to raise money to invest in it.

    What a load.

    Non engineer/non mariner thinks that installing sub sea turbines in one of the most hostile marine environments on the Planet is not going ahead because of political motives, to restrict growth for a particular area of the UK, despite the fact that the whole of the UK would benefit if it was successful!

    It’s not happened yet because it’s **** difficult and the tech isn’t proven!

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    another reason is the SNP are in thrall to the O&G industry and really do not get it.

    No gobuchal – when its been producing electicity for years then its proven – ior as proven as nuclear.

    Its al rehashing old arguements as folk are wedded to the glamour of hi tech nuclear rtathrrt than low tech tidal

    once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming

    Premier Icon gonefishin
    Free Member

    once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste and where to get the fuel for the massive expansion of nuclear needed to make any impact on global warming

    No TJ you’re just ignoring the answers same as you’re ignoring my repeated question to you to back up your claim of 20% of the UKs energy that could be available from the Pentland firm I believe it was.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Literally no one has said that on this thread.

    You did a few posts above. You denied the floating tidal generators existed

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Gonfishing – so where are you going to increase the supply of uranium by a factor of 100 or more?

    What are you going to do with the waste?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Full Member

    anyway – as ever views will not be changed but i do hope that a few folk might actually read up a bit on this and make up their minds.

    Talk about arrogant!

    1) You’re the most intransigent person I’ve ever known, so chastising us for not changing our minds in response to a weak argument (and yes, it is weak as we’ve shown) is a bit rich and extremely self-unaware.

    2) You’re assuming we haven’t read up about it. There are people here who actually work in the industry and are aware of the projects and their problems, and you refuse to accept their input because you’ve ‘read up a bit’.

    Honestly, have a word with yourself.

    once again tho the pro nuclear folk still cannot answer the two questions of what to do with waste

    Who’s pro-nuclear? We’re simply trying to educate you on the issues with tidal that you seem to be ignoring.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 240 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.