The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Strange how people are calling out for the UK to be a world leader in technology and engineering and reclaim some lost glory from the industrial age, yet as soon as the government announce a project which really pushes the boundaries of science it's derided as a waste of money and jobs for the boys.
Do we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
Do we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
Condi said:
Strange how people are calling out for the UK to be a world leader in technology and engineering and reclaim some lost glory from the industrial age, yet as soon as the government announce a project which really pushes the boundaries of science it's derided as a waste of money and jobs for the boys.
Do we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
This.Do we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
We should be continuing research into fusion for a long, long time. I don't care if we achieve viable fusion power generation. It's an incredible technology testing ground and drives complex innovation from science and engineering.
There is much to design and work out for the STEP program – like….
How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
One of the key points with any engineering development involving something new and unproven is to recognise when you'll be stuck at the 80% 'almost working' stage forever, and maybe it's time to take a step back.
I've been there before and binned three iterations of a project before the actual working approach came through - the others were temptingly close but were never going to get past the problems, always 'just a couple more weeks' - so approaching from another angle was the realistic choice in that case even if people were deeply attached to the (admittedly huge) sunk cost and the sort of working thing they had in front of them.
Fusion development seems firmly stuck in the 'almost working' phase with no obvious plans (or even ideas) to progress past the flaws. Getting it to actually work, let alone as something useful, is always over the horizon, which throws up lots of red flags.
So yes development is nice and tokamaks are a shiny toy but pouring money into another project isn't going to fix much for the foreseeable, if ever, and is an aeon away from any impact on power generation. So if people are building anything they need to be clear what they've actually got, what's worth building and not pretend something is close to delivery.
I've been there before and binned three iterations of a project before the actual working approach came through - the others were temptingly close but were never going to get past the problems, always 'just a couple more weeks' - so approaching from another angle was the realistic choice in that case even if people were deeply attached to the (admittedly huge) sunk cost and the sort of working thing they had in front of them.
Fusion development seems firmly stuck in the 'almost working' phase with no obvious plans (or even ideas) to progress past the flaws. Getting it to actually work, let alone as something useful, is always over the horizon, which throws up lots of red flags.
So yes development is nice and tokamaks are a shiny toy but pouring money into another project isn't going to fix much for the foreseeable, if ever, and is an aeon away from any impact on power generation. So if people are building anything they need to be clear what they've actually got, what's worth building and not pretend something is close to delivery.
Condi said:
Strange how people are calling out for the UK to be a world leader in technology and engineering and reclaim some lost glory from the industrial age, yet as soon as the government announce a project which really pushes the boundaries of science it's derided as a waste of money and jobs for the boys.
Do we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
agreed, but we cannot even insulate our housing stockDo we want to become a world leader in science and engineering, but only proven science and engineering other countries have already done I wonder? Not that there is much world leading if other countries have done it first, mind you....
bucksmanuk said:
There is much to design and work out for the STEP program – like….
How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
What do you do at Culham? I work in a connected field (I run some accelerators which are occasionally used for materials testing).How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
I believe that the reactor intended for the West Burton site will be a spherical tokamak - effectively a development of MAST. These are potentially more efficient than the 'tradiational', JET style, tokamaks.
Interesting. Germany warns it may restrict power exports this winter.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrap...
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrap...
bucksmanuk said:
There is much to design and work out for the STEP program – like….
How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
In 2018 I had a meeting with some senior technical people at the then CCFE (Culham). The subject of Tokamak Energy came up.How do you get 1+ GW of energy out of a plasma, that is about 100 million °C, past superconducting magnets (at 4-8 kelvin) and into a boiler to raise enough energy to support itself? Never mind get it down the transmission lines to me sat at home waiting for my kettle to boil.
JET is at a peak efficiency level of 0.67, so today, it would only generate 67% of the energy to maintain the plasma ALONE. The technology doesn’t just need to increase this to 1.05- it needs to shift the decimal point, and almost double it, to make it a viable proposition. I am not aware of any efforts to engineer this bit yet…
JET genuinely started off as science research program to look into fusion as a possible way forward in nuclear tech. The possibilities and compromises were known with JET some time ago, if not at Day 1. In all honesty it should have been shut down at least 15 years ago and another program that would allow them to push the technology further started in its place.
Much of the JET equipment is at the end of its working life, spares can be a nightmare, and if some of the JET parts fail, then its game over NOW. There is no way some of the equipment can be replaced. The JET program definitely finishes at the end of ’23 - no exceptions
Culham/JET have had the last 15 years messing about and been spending £250M a year since, with I must admit, not that much to show for it. This isn’t just my opinion either. Each fusion pulse goes through £37K worth of electricity in about 20 seconds. They might do 3 pulses a day, it might be 14. It might be 6 days a week of operation. It might be a week out as a piece of ancillary equipment has failed.
The STEP program is still in “thinking caps on” mode. They are years away from a design solution. They don’t even know how many steam turbines they should order, because they don’t what the efficiency of the system will be. We aren’t talking the difference between 36% and 38%, its 5% or 75% orders of difference. This is my bugbear. Why wasn’t this preliminary design work started years ago?
Is it a personal fiefdom for some? Maybe, I don’t see much evidence of it.
Is it filled with people who can spend an entire career doing very little in a well-paid job and promising something might happen given another decade or two of spending?” Oh God yes…. the paperwork is mind numbing….I’ve worked on nuclear stuff and know its paperwork heavy, but Culham is “form filling city”
That’s why I’m leaving.
There was no love lost between CCFE and Tokamak as they were formed by a bunch of their sperehical Tokamak engineering team who got frustrated with the lack of progress.
CCFE's viewpoint was that in theory the compact sperehical Tokamak with high temperature super conducting magnets in theory could produce the conditions where you would get enough engineering break even to generate net power.
However those estimates were extrapolations based on physics done in much less capable machines. Their view was that Tokamak energy were taking their venture capital bankers for a ride. (Though I don't think they understood that venture capitalists would probably still invest with all the risk laid out, is not like they couldn't hire an independent physicist). Fusion has a habit of finding new physics when the machines are scaled up which prevents them from achieving their objectives.
What appears to have changed is that Culham realised that they could pull the same trick with their own "investors", the UK government. Hence STEP, they are basically the same offer as Tokamak Energy but without the incremental experimental pathway to get to it.
My other misgiving is that it is a spherical Tokamak. The clever bit in these next generation tokamaks is that they are using high temperature superconductors, MIT plan to make theirs works with a conventional toroid. It strikes me odd to add another complexity that the rest of the world appears to ignore? The spherical Tokamak is really a British/Culham hobbyhorse.
The analogy I could give was whether the first gas turbines should be radial or axial flow. The actual answer is that either will work, the radial is easier to develop and having the best materials count's more than the general arrangement for the first generation of machines.
irc said:
Interesting. Germany warns it may restrict power exports this winter.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrap...
Does that include running the nukes too so they've got headroom or is that still basically off the table? They have some weird priorities at times. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrap...
They're having some fun doing things at their neighbours expense to clean up their own energy mess - like the €200 billion energy subsidy which is somehow leading to EU chatter about debt sharing.
The thing I've recently found out and thought was slightly astonishing is just how little radiation damage data is available for the superconducting magnets people are planning on using. They might not work at all.
Tons of venture capital money taking a punt on all sorts of fusion companies at the moment.
Tons of venture capital money taking a punt on all sorts of fusion companies at the moment.
I don’t want to derail this thread, as its obvious there are some people here with some fantastic “close to the coal face” experience. Maybe it should continue in the fusion thread in the science area of the forum
To continue – I know someone in a senior position in Tokomak energy, he is cagey about the chances of success.
Physicists making sure money is available for physicists, Culham is basically an out of date PhD factory.
To continue – I know someone in a senior position in Tokomak energy, he is cagey about the chances of success.
Talksteer said:
What appears to have changed is that Culham realised that they could pull the same trick with their own "investors", the UK government. Hence STEP, they are basically the same offer as Tokamak Energy but without the incremental experimental pathway to get to it.
And that’s it in a nutshell….Physicists making sure money is available for physicists, Culham is basically an out of date PhD factory.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes as various government bodies push on with knee jerk reactions to the high prices, which if not done very carefully will mean when things return to normal we are hobbled with higher energy prices for years to come....
Europe has traditionally not tendered for long term gas contracts preferring to buy spot whereas Asian countries have used longer term contracts, often tied to oil prices. Overall buying spot tends to be cheaper, but there is no security of supply and you are more exposed to high prices when the market spikes. The UK is currently in discussions with Norway for a 20 year gas contract, with the intent of fixing prices for the medium term. How exactly this would work I'm not sure because companies within the UK buy from other private companies, not usually involving the government. At a guess there would be a government department in the middle (never a good idea) from whom generators and suppliers have to buy a proportion of their gas at a fixed price. This would not only be anti-competitive but also we are planning to fix when gas prices are at record highs, and while the contract would be considerably cheaper than the price for this winter saving money in the short term, in 10 years time it could look agonisingly expensive.
There is a similar plan with renewable and nuclear generators, whereby the government wants generators not exposed to gas prices to fix for a long period of time at below current levels. As with the gas contract, it might save money this year, but when prices come down again (which they will), then we could end up with our cheapest forms of generation tied in to expensive long term contracts, effectively subsidised by the bill payer.
Major changes are being proposed to the market design. In GB we have 1 price for electric, if that is from nuclear, wind or gas generation. When companies are selling power 2 years ahead of time they might not know what is going to be generating that power, or where in the country it will be. National Grid are proposing 2 changes; to split the market into "gas powered" and "non gas" generation, which would trade at different prices and be entirely separate markets, and splitting the GB market into up to 5 different areas (nodes), meaning generation in 1 part of the country would be worth more or less depending on the supply and demand dynamic. Eg if it was windy in Scotland but not in the South East, you could have negative prices in Scotland and electric worth hundreds of Pounds in London. This presents many issues which National Grid don't have answers to - what would happen to consumer prices in different areas? Who would compensate generators which built assets based on the current system? What about the destruction of liquidity in markets from years ahead to real time? etc. The idea is proposed to encourage generators to build generation where it is needed (SE and Midlands), rather than where it is best situated. This is an admission of failure on National Grid's part, as their infrastructure hasn't been upgraded and modernised to account for where new generation has been built, which is something we have been saying for some time. A wind farm is not built overnight, but the North/South transmission capacity has only had 1 new line built in the last 10 years. As a result NG spend millions turning off generation in Scotland turning on generation in England to compensate. The change would also make the transmission network (owned by NG) extremely valuable as they would essentially be buying power in cheaper areas and sell it in more expensive areas, so it is no surprise they are pushing for the change, but expect some huge resistance from the industry. The only people who are in favour are National Grid, the consultants who stand to earn a lot of money from the changes, and small developers who can "innovate" but only by destroying the market as it exists at the moment.
Rightly or wrongly there are going to be huge long term changes made on the back of the last 12 months, the biggest worry is that knee jerk reactions and changes to a market which has worked for 20 years will make it more fragmented, less robust, and impossible for companies to trade efficiently, which will mean greater costs to consumers for decades to come.
Europe has traditionally not tendered for long term gas contracts preferring to buy spot whereas Asian countries have used longer term contracts, often tied to oil prices. Overall buying spot tends to be cheaper, but there is no security of supply and you are more exposed to high prices when the market spikes. The UK is currently in discussions with Norway for a 20 year gas contract, with the intent of fixing prices for the medium term. How exactly this would work I'm not sure because companies within the UK buy from other private companies, not usually involving the government. At a guess there would be a government department in the middle (never a good idea) from whom generators and suppliers have to buy a proportion of their gas at a fixed price. This would not only be anti-competitive but also we are planning to fix when gas prices are at record highs, and while the contract would be considerably cheaper than the price for this winter saving money in the short term, in 10 years time it could look agonisingly expensive.
There is a similar plan with renewable and nuclear generators, whereby the government wants generators not exposed to gas prices to fix for a long period of time at below current levels. As with the gas contract, it might save money this year, but when prices come down again (which they will), then we could end up with our cheapest forms of generation tied in to expensive long term contracts, effectively subsidised by the bill payer.
Major changes are being proposed to the market design. In GB we have 1 price for electric, if that is from nuclear, wind or gas generation. When companies are selling power 2 years ahead of time they might not know what is going to be generating that power, or where in the country it will be. National Grid are proposing 2 changes; to split the market into "gas powered" and "non gas" generation, which would trade at different prices and be entirely separate markets, and splitting the GB market into up to 5 different areas (nodes), meaning generation in 1 part of the country would be worth more or less depending on the supply and demand dynamic. Eg if it was windy in Scotland but not in the South East, you could have negative prices in Scotland and electric worth hundreds of Pounds in London. This presents many issues which National Grid don't have answers to - what would happen to consumer prices in different areas? Who would compensate generators which built assets based on the current system? What about the destruction of liquidity in markets from years ahead to real time? etc. The idea is proposed to encourage generators to build generation where it is needed (SE and Midlands), rather than where it is best situated. This is an admission of failure on National Grid's part, as their infrastructure hasn't been upgraded and modernised to account for where new generation has been built, which is something we have been saying for some time. A wind farm is not built overnight, but the North/South transmission capacity has only had 1 new line built in the last 10 years. As a result NG spend millions turning off generation in Scotland turning on generation in England to compensate. The change would also make the transmission network (owned by NG) extremely valuable as they would essentially be buying power in cheaper areas and sell it in more expensive areas, so it is no surprise they are pushing for the change, but expect some huge resistance from the industry. The only people who are in favour are National Grid, the consultants who stand to earn a lot of money from the changes, and small developers who can "innovate" but only by destroying the market as it exists at the moment.
Rightly or wrongly there are going to be huge long term changes made on the back of the last 12 months, the biggest worry is that knee jerk reactions and changes to a market which has worked for 20 years will make it more fragmented, less robust, and impossible for companies to trade efficiently, which will mean greater costs to consumers for decades to come.
bucksmanuk said:
I don’t want to derail this thread, as its obvious there are some people here with some fantastic “close to the coal face” experience. Maybe it should continue in the fusion thread in the science area of the forum
To continue – I know someone in a senior position in Tokomak energy, he is cagey about the chances of success.
Physicists making sure money is available for physicists, Culham is basically an out of date PhD factory.
But is this a big problem? I work with a lot of folks who have worked Winfrith, Culham, and various other blue sky locations. Their skills are transferable to other more applied areas and we have a national skills shortage. To continue – I know someone in a senior position in Tokomak energy, he is cagey about the chances of success.
Talksteer said:
What appears to have changed is that Culham realised that they could pull the same trick with their own "investors", the UK government. Hence STEP, they are basically the same offer as Tokamak Energy but without the incremental experimental pathway to get to it.
And that’s it in a nutshell….Physicists making sure money is available for physicists, Culham is basically an out of date PhD factory.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
But is this a big problem? I work with a lot of folks who have worked Winfrith, Culham, and various other blue sky locations. Their skills are transferable to other more applied areas and we have a national skills shortage.
Exactly. If we weren't throwing money at Culham we'd have to pay somewhere else to teach people use radiation transport codes.Condi said:
There is a lot going on behind the scenes as various government bodies push on with knee jerk reactions to the high prices...
It's not a surprise but it's still going to bite.I mean what kind of moron decides the time to negotiate a long term contract is when the market is actually in a squeeze and not before? No doubt managing to lock in high prices forever? The supplier certainly won't point out this little error and will cheerfully sign up.
Or thinks about restructuring a market because of an immediate problem, in a way that likely achieves nothing positive,rather than look at what got them to this point.
You look at the historic and current decisions and realise a lot of people with no clue decide things based on only what's right in front of them this instant and is palatable within their social circle.
pquinn said:
Condi said:
There is a lot going on behind the scenes as various government bodies push on with knee jerk reactions to the high prices...
It's not a surprise but it's still going to bite.I mean what kind of moron decides the time to negotiate a long term contract is when the market is actually in a squeeze and not before? No doubt managing to lock in high prices forever? The supplier certainly won't point out this little error and will cheerfully sign up.
Or thinks about restructuring a market because of an immediate problem, in a way that likely achieves nothing positive,rather than look at what got them to this point.
You look at the historic and current decisions and realise a lot of people with no clue decide things based on only what's right in front of them this instant and is palatable within their social circle.
And the Cheese... Think of the Cheeeeeeeeze!
TGCOTF-dewey said:
But those pork markets...
And the Cheese... Think of the Cheeeeeeeeze!
I'd pin plenty of blame at the feet of the civil servants not their short term boss; this is a long term problem and it's the monkeys that are really in control not whoever is the organ grinder of the day.And the Cheese... Think of the Cheeeeeeeeze!
If you want to see an epic balls up you can usually find someone behind it with no fear of their job or lifestyle being on the line when they f
k up. spaximus said:
Speaking with my sister in law who lives in France. Every household has been sent a letter saying that they can expect rationing of electricity this winter and that people must reduce their usage by 30%.
The gillets jaunes won't like that... I wonder if rationing will take into account individual usage needs? I'd be pretty miffed if I was a tradesman who'd invested in an electric van and then was told I couldn't charge it at home because that would use my family's entire electricity ration. Likewise, as a homeworker I'd be pretty annoyed if the need to power my equipment, heat the office and run the kettle meant I had to choose between a hot meal and a hot shower.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff