The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[alangla]

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

[skwdenyer]

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

Wasn't that the logic behind dropping them down old oil wells / other offshore holes?

[PRTVR]

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

Why not place it in the second deepest mine in Europe, with rail links ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulby_Mine

[Talksteer]

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

What do you think the effects of shelling some spent fuel casks would be?

[hidetheelephants]

PRTVR said:

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

Why not place it in the second deepest mine in Europe, with rail links ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulby_Mine

Mainly because it's easier and cheaper to keep the casks on the surface; mines need inspection and drainage pumps.

[Zad]

I would imagine that a halite mine wouldn't be that stable over the very long term, especially compared to mines excavated from harder rocks.

[alangla]

Talksteer said:

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

What do you think the effects of shelling some spent fuel casks would be?

Leakage of the contents, ground & water contamination in the local area and a small amount of airborne contamination I’d imagine. Basically the same as any other significant leak.

[skwdenyer]

In other news, Germany is to nationalise Uniper. As an interesting side-effect, it will mean the German govt will own the coal-fired Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire.

Germany's paying ~€500m for the shares (less even that the subscribed share capital), taking on a ~€7bn line of credit from Uniper's current parent (in addition to €13bn already advanced earlier in the year), and injecting a further ~€8bn.

Uniper paid dividends of €480m in 2020, up from €400m in 2019, etc.

Fortum (current majority owners) have done badly, having bought in at a high price (~€6.5bn spent on acquiring Uniper shares by 2020).

[Condi]

skwdenyer said:

Fortum (current majority owners) have done badly, having bought in at a high price (~€6.5bn spent on acquiring Uniper shares by 2020).

Fortum are a Finnish state owned company anyway.

[dickymint]

Finally some common sense on fracking - Rees Mogg on Newsnight coming up

Edit: bit of a damp squib as it turned out soz

Edited by dickymint on Wednesday 21st September 23:41

[skwdenyer]

Condi said:

skwdenyer said:

Fortum (current majority owners) have done badly, having bought in at a high price (~€6.5bn spent on acquiring Uniper shares by 2020).

Fortum are a Finnish state owned company anyway.

I thought Fortum were only ~50% state-owned? In any case, they've still done badly on the Uniper deal Moving forward, >50% of their group profits came from Uniper, too, so something of a headache I guess.

[Talksteer]

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

alangla said:

Talksteer said:

I think a more reasonable perspective would be to store the spent fuel in casks for 500 years and then let future generation decide where to store these now minimal hazards.

If society has collapsed the casks will be safe from interference anyway.

I would probably have agreed with that, until the Russians started shelling Zaporizhzhia. I'm not suggesting that a land war in the UK is likely in our lifetime but bear in mind that in 1940 that would very much have been a possibility. As a result, and given the timescales we're talking about here, one could argue that something that was at least protected from airstrikes might be a good idea.

What do you think the effects of shelling some spent fuel casks would be?

Leakage of the contents, ground & water contamination in the local area and a small amount of airborne contamination I’d imagine. Basically the same as any other significant leak.

This is the key bit, the hazard of the military weapons required is substantially greater than the effects of attacking spent fuel.

You'd be much better off just attacking people directly with the weapons. The same goes for crashing a hijacked aircraft into a nuclear plant.

Spent fuel in a cask is basically inert, the decay heat it gives off is well within the capabilities of air cooling to remove. It's not going to set fire to itself not distribute itself over a wide area. Of the stuff in it at this stage nothing has a very good pathway into the human body.

[Talksteer]

dickymint said:

Finally some common sense on fracking - Rees Mogg on Newsnight coming up

Edit: bit of a damp squib as it turned out soz

I think it is reasonable to point out that the concerns around earthquakes are utterly trivial as are the issues around water consumption.

The more obvious stuff is that any UK fracked gas is going to be very late to the party and have negligible impacts on the cost of energy. You could of course draft some taxes that basically hand the profits back to the state to offset the costs of buying expensive gas on the international market but they aren't going to do that because Tory.

Instead they appear to have come up with mechanisms to transfer money from the national debt to natural gas suppliers and wind farms owners.

[hidetheelephants]

Any reason the UK couldn't do what the aussies just did and abolish a dysfunctional electricity market? The gas price is another matter but the govt's proposed system leaves something to be desired.

[Gary C]

Does anyone know why they have to inject a chemical mix to frack rather than just water ?

Not found a satisfactory explanation.

Ignore me, just found it !

[Fatboy]

Gary C said:

Does anyone know why they have to inject a chemical mix to frack rather than just water ?

Not found a satisfactory explanation.

Ignore me, just found it !

Can you please share it for us lazy People?

[Condi]

hidetheelephants said:

Any reason the UK couldn't do what the aussies just did and abolish a dysfunctional electricity market? The gas price is another matter but the govt's proposed system leaves something to be desired.

Why do you think its dysfunctional? If you abolish the market how do generators get paid, and what effect will that have on future investment in new generation?

The market is functioning as intended, even if politicians don't like the outcome. The more you intervene the larger the unintended consequences.

[Gary C]

Fatboy said:

Gary C said:

Does anyone know why they have to inject a chemical mix to frack rather than just water ?

Not found a satisfactory explanation.

Ignore me, just found it !

Can you please share it for us lazy People?

"Chemicals Used in Fracking
Different chemicals are added for different purposes, based on the rock type and other specifics of a fracking site. Acids, for example, are used to dissolve minerals to help fossil fuels flow more easily; biocides eliminate bacteria; gelling agents help carry proppants into fractures; and corrosion inhibitors prevent steel parts of the well from being damaged by fracking fluid"

[hidetheelephants]

Condi said:

Why do you think its dysfunctional? If you abolish the market how do generators get paid, and what effect will that have on future investment in new generation?

The market is functioning as intended, even if politicians don't like the outcome. The more you intervene the larger the unintended consequences.

I'd regard a system that is producing electricity price forecasts that most consumers cannot pay as fairly dysfunctional, YMMV.

[Condi]

hidetheelephants said:

I'd regard a system that is producing electricity price forecasts that most consumers cannot pay as fairly dysfunctional, YMMV.

You clearly don't understand how markets work then.

Say there are 10 people in the world, and 10 oranges. Everyone wants 1 orange, and is prepared to pay £1 for their orange. Everyone pays £1 and gets 1 orange. Next year the orange harvest is very good, and there are 12 oranges produced, but still only 10 people wanting 1 orange. The price of oranges comes down because 2 people have to be encouraged to buy 2 oranges. So 8 people buy 1 orange, and 2 people buy 2 oranges, but will only pay 75p each, and so the price of oranges are 75p each. The following year the orange harvest is very poor and there are only 6 oranges produced. There are still 10 people wanting 10 oranges, but only 6 to go round. 6 people are prepared to pay £2 for their oranges, but the remaining 4 people are poor and can only pay £1.50. The price of oranges is then £2, and the poorest people have to go without an orange.


The market doesn't care how much you can pay, in fact, the market is actively pricing out some people to reduce demand, and to encourage more supply onto the system. Subsiding prices here just means someone elsewhere goes without. Pakistan have had blackouts for months simply because they can't afford fuel. If the government pays our bills here, and we use the same as what we always did, that just means that other countries who can't afford to pay as much will have less. The market is working exactly as it should, it is trying to balance a limited supply of gas and electricity with the demands of people who want to use it.

Fun fact, in the 1990's the average heating temperature in Europe was 19 degrees, today it's 22 degrees. If we turned the heating back down to 19 degrees it would save a huge amount of gas and bring down costs for everyone.


It's why I (and most other economists/traders) disagree with the idea of a flat price cap across all electricity prices. There are people who need help, but there are also people who will still be heating their swimming pools and hot tubs who should be exposed to the full price of suppling them with power. The price cap doesn't save money, it will actually cost us a lot more money, because not only do we have the cost of gas and power to pay for, but also the interest bill to borrow the money for 10/20 years until it gets paid back.