The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[turbobloke]

Have Investors Lost Interest In Green Energy?
15/08/18
Roger Andrews, Energy Matters

http://euanmearns.com/have-investors-lost-interest...

[GT03ROB]

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

NuScale appear to be going ahead with a 12 module reactor - scheduled to be generating in mid 2020's.

https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/co...

I doubt that there is the political will to enable the development of a UK-based equivalent.

Have to agree and it's disappointing.

...of course you know Nuscale is operating in the UK in collaboration with the government; the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) at the University of Sheffield; Sheffield Forgemasters on castings.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/nuscale-in-u...

[turbobloke]

GT03ROB said:

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

NuScale appear to be going ahead with a 12 module reactor - scheduled to be generating in mid 2020's.

https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/co...

I doubt that there is the political will to enable the development of a UK-based equivalent.

Have to agree and it's disappointing.

...of course you know Nuscale is operating in the UK in collaboration with the government; the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) at the University of Sheffield; Sheffield Forgemasters on castings.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/nuscale-in-u...

'compatibility with UK energy policy'

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

GT03ROB said:

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

NuScale appear to be going ahead with a 12 module reactor - scheduled to be generating in mid 2020's.

https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/co...

I doubt that there is the political will to enable the development of a UK-based equivalent.

Have to agree and it's disappointing.

...of course you know Nuscale is operating in the UK in collaboration with the government; the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) at the University of Sheffield; Sheffield Forgemasters on castings.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/nuscale-in-u...

'compatibility with UK energy policy'

The tech and the ability is within the UK - the will of the politicians resides elsewhere.

[Gary C]

andymadmak said:

It's a shame that P&M + Gary C have abandoned the thread. But, they leave having never been able to satisfactorily answer the questions of intermittency of renewables and the impact of that on UK energy security as we fail to invest in adequate carbon or nuclear based generation technologies. ( imho.)
When you get people saying that "it's boring" being asked the same questions you have to ask whether the reason for the lack of any credible answer on their part has little to do with boredom, and much to do with them not actually having a satisfactory answer.

If Ali G and others take it upon themselves to shout "the king is in the altogether" rather than bow down to the "consensus" that "his doublet is a lovely shade of green" then far from ruining the thread they are actually doing us all a service.

Instead of constantly spouting theoretical wind generation capacity numbers as the answer to future demand, P&M would have done better to concede the point that "capacity is nowt, it's what's delivered when needed that counts" (Copyright Andymadmak! ) Seeking to mock and ridicule other posters for pointing out that there have been occasions in the not too distant past when reliance on renewables on the scale being envisaged would have seen the lights go out and people getting cold did not do P&M any favours imho.

lol, not abandoned, just sodding trying to keep it polite, the constant bickering was boring, no real discussion :0

didnt know id been asked the question though. I thought id made myself clearish.

Wind needs lots of conventional backup, so it will always be expensive (unless someone could prove that there would always be enough wind somewhere and we could just interconnect it around europe, but im not convinced)

EDF just published their internal view on it. In 2035 ish there is looking like a 30% gap in generation due to the closure of all the coal, most of the nuclear and a large proportion of the gas.

The proposal is a mixed energy approach as we all recognise that wind and solar cant do it. The backup to the intermittancy will be, Gas.
Very short term frequency stabilisation maybe battery plus a little hydro and a few tinkering projects.
Nuclear should form the backbone and we will need a backbone, who's going to generate the MVars ? Wind generation has our gen transformer tap changer playing tunes all day !

But it will cost, Ive said it before. if we want wind we will have to pay the cost of the backup. Its not rocket science, its expensive (hum, that does actually sound like rocket science)

the energy gap is comming, only sizewell B and Hinckley C for nuclear will be on the bars in ~2030.

We know whats the driver but I'm not certain on CO2, its a difficult subject that i dont think anyone really knows whats going to happen, lets face it, the CO2 came from the air and im sure the planet will survive, but not sure what effect it will have on us, so I dont berate those who are planning a low carbon future, it might be the best thing we can do. However its probably pissing in the wind if the rest of the world just continue to burn coal.

So, for me, we need to build lots of nuclear plants

Will see if im allowed to publish any of the graphs and figures from the report.

[crankedup]

Pity we closed down our coalmines, clean coal tech coupled with modern extraction would have provided plenty of jobs and energy. Same as our closing of rail branch lines, short term thinking very costly.
Expected to read lots of JJ posts as this would appear to be his subject area, but no, nothing at all!

[LongQ]

Keeping content within the Haymarket family I though it might be worth providing this link for those interested in watching the development of Wind power around the world.

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/tender-watch

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Pity we closed down our coalmines, clean coal tech coupled with modern extraction would have provided plenty of jobs and energy. Same as our closing of rail branch lines, short term thinking very costly.

China has an alternative view to the UK gov't and it also happens to be an alternative view compared to what they say at climate boondoggles (and elsewhere).

"China is building coal power again"

https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/10761-China-is-...

[turbobloke]

WRT to NuScale and ''compatibility with UK energy policy' does anyone know where the current UK government Energy Policy can be downloaded - I tried these HMG web pages and even after clicking the Policies link on the first page then using the Search facility on the second, none of the six documents that emerged using 'energy' as the policy search term hit the spot.

https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/energy

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies?keywords=en...

Surely it can't be on the hoof with one carpus permanently bent to the false green god?

[Ali G]

Google-Fu Bryony Worthington

[Toltec]

crankedup said:

Pity we closed down our coalmines, clean coal tech coupled with modern extraction would have provided plenty of jobs and energy. Same as our closing of rail branch lines, short term thinking very costly.
Expected to read lots of JJ posts as this would appear to be his subject area, but no, nothing at all!

I'm not convinced by 'clean coal' technologies, not if they mean complete capture of CO2 anyway. Coal is basically carbon captured from atmospheric CO2 by living organisms using solar power, i.e energy has been used to break the carbon-oxygen bond. We can now burn coal which recombines the carbon with atmospheric oxygen to release energy, entropy tells us we will get less useful energy than was used to form the coal in the first place. The idea that you can burn the coal for energy and yet still convert the resulting CO2 into a form that is not released into the atmosphere with any kind of net efficiency would seem unlikely. Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?

Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.

[LoonyTunes]

Toltec said:

Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.

You are in deep st on so many levels now

[Ali G]

LoonyTunes said:

Toltec said:

Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.

You are in deep st on so many levels now

Is that a threat Loony?

[Toltec]

LoonyTunes said:

Toltec said:

Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.

You are in deep st on so many levels now

Does it help if I add that using nuclear would be better still?

Or were you talking about methane bioreactors?

[rolando]

turbobloke said:

WRT to NuScale and ''compatibility with UK energy policy' does anyone know where the current UK government Energy Policy can be downloaded - I tried these HMG web pages and even after clicking the Policies link on the first page then using the Search facility on the second, none of the six documents that emerged using 'energy' as the policy search term hit the spot.

Not surprising that you've found little on UK energy policy.
Since 1974 there have been 13 ministers responsible for energy, including the present incumbent.
Of these there are:
Graduates:
4 PPE
2 Economics
1 Law
1 History
1 Geography
Other:
1 Sandhurst
1 Accountant
2 with no further education beyond school
Not an engineer or scientist among them.
No wonder we have difficulty in seeing the future of power generation in GB.

[andymadmak]

Gary C said:

andymadmak said:

It's a shame that P&M + Gary C have abandoned the thread. But, they leave having never been able to satisfactorily answer the questions of intermittency of renewables and the impact of that on UK energy security as we fail to invest in adequate carbon or nuclear based generation technologies. ( imho.)
When you get people saying that "it's boring" being asked the same questions you have to ask whether the reason for the lack of any credible answer on their part has little to do with boredom, and much to do with them not actually having a satisfactory answer.

If Ali G and others take it upon themselves to shout "the king is in the altogether" rather than bow down to the "consensus" that "his doublet is a lovely shade of green" then far from ruining the thread they are actually doing us all a service.

Instead of constantly spouting theoretical wind generation capacity numbers as the answer to future demand, P&M would have done better to concede the point that "capacity is nowt, it's what's delivered when needed that counts" (Copyright Andymadmak! ) Seeking to mock and ridicule other posters for pointing out that there have been occasions in the not too distant past when reliance on renewables on the scale being envisaged would have seen the lights go out and people getting cold did not do P&M any favours imho.

lol, not abandoned, just sodding trying to keep it polite, the constant bickering was boring, no real discussion :0

didnt know id been asked the question though. I thought id made myself clearish.

Wind needs lots of conventional backup, so it will always be expensive (unless someone could prove that there would always be enough wind somewhere and we could just interconnect it around europe, but im not convinced)

EDF just published their internal view on it. In 2035 ish there is looking like a 30% gap in generation due to the closure of all the coal, most of the nuclear and a large proportion of the gas.

The proposal is a mixed energy approach as we all recognise that wind and solar cant do it. The backup to the intermittancy will be, Gas.
Very short term frequency stabilisation maybe battery plus a little hydro and a few tinkering projects.
Nuclear should form the backbone and we will need a backbone, who's going to generate the MVars ? Wind generation has our gen transformer tap changer playing tunes all day !

But it will cost, Ive said it before. if we want wind we will have to pay the cost of the backup. Its not rocket science, its expensive (hum, that does actually sound like rocket science)

the energy gap is comming, only sizewell B and Hinckley C for nuclear will be on the bars in ~2030.

We know whats the driver but I'm not certain on CO2, its a difficult subject that i dont think anyone really knows whats going to happen, lets face it, the CO2 came from the air and im sure the planet will survive, but not sure what effect it will have on us, so I dont berate those who are planning a low carbon future, it might be the best thing we can do. However its probably pissing in the wind if the rest of the world just continue to burn coal.

So, for me, we need to build lots of nuclear plants

Will see if im allowed to publish any of the graphs and figures from the report.

Thank you for this reply. Genuinely appreciated. And it makes much sense.

[turbobloke]

Following this:

"China is building coal power again"

There's this:

"Generous subsidies have been slashed or removed"

Article said:

China’s solar manufacturers are unhappy with recent government policy changes that have put a brake on the sector.

“We’ve already halted work on 11 megawatts of industrial and commercial distributed solar PV projects,” says the marketing director for one solar photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturer in Guangdong province.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10775-China-s-solar-industry-is-at-a-crossroads

[crankedup]

Toltec said:

crankedup said:

Pity we closed down our coalmines, clean coal tech coupled with modern extraction would have provided plenty of jobs and energy. Same as our closing of rail branch lines, short term thinking very costly.
Expected to read lots of JJ posts as this would appear to be his subject area, but no, nothing at all!

I'm not convinced by 'clean coal' technologies, not if they mean complete capture of CO2 anyway. Coal is basically carbon captured from atmospheric CO2 by living organisms using solar power, i.e energy has been used to break the carbon-oxygen bond. We can now burn coal which recombines the carbon with atmospheric oxygen to release energy, entropy tells us we will get less useful energy than was used to form the coal in the first place. The idea that you can burn the coal for energy and yet still convert the resulting CO2 into a form that is not released into the atmosphere with any kind of net efficiency would seem unlikely. Some schemes seem to rely on transporting the CO2 and sequestering it, the question then becomes, for how long? Even radioactive waste decays eventually, but what will we do with all of this stored CO2 and who is going to be responsible for it in a couple of centuries time?

Using wind and solar to produce ammonia or methane which can be burnt cleanly without having any long term residual storage seems a better bet really.

Likely correct for long term viability, however I do feel it very wasteful that clean coal tech’ has not been developed into something we could all benefit from. With centuries worth of coal beneath our feet and tech’ to extract and fill seems an obvious solution whilst other tech’ in energy is explored and developed. As Turbobloke points out, the Chinese take the view that thier economy comes first and environment second. Something which is not agreeable to most people or Countries.

[Toltec]

crankedup said:

Likely correct for long term viability, however I do feel it very wasteful that clean coal tech’ has not been developed into something we could all benefit from. With centuries worth of coal beneath our feet and tech’ to extract and fill seems an obvious solution whilst other tech’ in energy is explored and developed. As Turbobloke points out, the Chinese take the view that thier economy comes first and environment second. Something which is not agreeable to most people or Countries.

They are maybe just more honest or at least less self deceiving, see the plastics issue which has been evident for at least a couple of decades.

[turbobloke]

rolando said:

Not surprising that you've found little on UK energy policy.
Since 1974 there have been 13 ministers responsible for energy, including the present incumbent.
Of these there are:
Graduates:
4 PPE
2 Economics
1 Law
1 History
1 Geography
Other:
1 Sandhurst
1 Accountant
2 with no further education beyond school
Not an engineer or scientist among them.
No wonder we have difficulty in seeing the future of power generation in GB.

Really?! That's very interesting indeed. It may boil down to paying politicians more, which brings MPs' job criteria into the equation which are mostly age and citizenship related, with the added requirement of getting a nomination and funding the deposit while avoiding disqualifiers...nothing about level of education or relevant experiences. Polirical careers are based as much on musical chairs within a perceived hierarchy where once again relevant experience and expertise are side dishes at best or may be seen as a disadvantage due to the possibility of 'going native' (see under John McGregor as Edu Sec despite alternative explanations).

Then recall who Miliband asked to be the chief architect of the CCA..