The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[MYOB]

Ali G said:

Am intrigued as to why a question cannot be answered by a further question, since the presumption would be that you expect a response with a 'solution' or no response at all.

I therefore reply with 'no response at all'

And this is giving me a sleepless night.

[LongQ]

MYOB said:

Ali G said:

Am intrigued as to why a question cannot be answered by a further question, since the presumption would be that you expect a response with a 'solution' or no response at all.

I therefore reply with 'no response at all'

And this is giving me a sleepless night.

Why?

Do you think it is something that will affect you imminently?

[DJFish]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Energy storage is being trialled currently - on a very very small scale - as is floating wind of course.
As all things - experimental sites and tech - fine tune, and roll out in mass.

I was at an industry thing recently, they seemed to think large scale & domestic storage is going to be a massive area of growth in the next decade.

[DJFish]

Blue Oval84 said:

Just dropped by this thread as I thought that today's Gridwatch looked interesting, I see you're all on it already

Today was interesting: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-12...

Coal still has a place in the UK and it's here to stay until at least 2025.

[PRTVR]

MYOB said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Easy answer therefore is get Nuclear to the table at a reasonable price. Something I wholly endorse.


Why can’t they ?

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

I have always thought boulby mine near Whitby was a logical place, the mine is the deepest in Europe and out under the sea, has a rail link and I think is on run down, is the local area was helped with money and jobs, it may provide a solution.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Out of your last two posts I am struggling to decide which Is the most stupid

You're clearly not an electrical engineer if you believe that volts flow. That goes a long way to explaining your inability to grasp the basic requirements of power generation in the UK

When in a hole stop digging.
You’ve taken a turn of phrase to - actually I don’t know what, other than look like a dick.


Oh and gloss over the fact that you see zero concerns with the consumption of coal.

Jog on and do try not to question others on PH in the process.

Is this the hole you've created by stating that volts flow?

Is questioning not permitted?

[V8 Fettler]

PRTVR said:

MYOB said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Easy answer therefore is get Nuclear to the table at a reasonable price. Something I wholly endorse.


Why can’t they ?

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

I have always thought boulby mine near Whitby was a logical place, the mine is the deepest in Europe and out under the sea, has a rail link and I think is on run down, is the local area was helped with money and jobs, it may provide a solution.

Risk losing control of the waste (flooding, structural collapse of the mine). The real answer is to use technology to extract more energy from the "waste", i.e. waste = fuel.

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

It's the degree of back-up required that's the issue with wind. What back-up was required for coal today, when it was really needed?

Just think of those lovely windy days where the turbines are spinning freely and on that day, some coal power stations can be shut down. That is one day of reducing pollution. A simplistic view but you get the gist

You can't simply shutdown a coal-fired power station at the click of the fingers because the wind has suddenly put in an appearance.

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

How is coal used for power generation in the UK an environmental disaster?

Pollution/air quality. And don't you think all those mines where excavation was carried out had an adverse affect on the ecological and environmental matters?

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

[PRTVR]

V8 Fettler said:

PRTVR said:

MYOB said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Easy answer therefore is get Nuclear to the table at a reasonable price. Something I wholly endorse.


Why can’t they ?

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

I have always thought boulby mine near Whitby was a logical place, the mine is the deepest in Europe and out under the sea, has a rail link and I think is on run down, is the local area was helped with money and jobs, it may provide a solution.

Risk losing control of the waste (flooding, structural collapse of the mine). The real answer is to use technology to extract more energy from the "waste", i.e. waste = fuel.

The mine is 1500 ft deep and has 630 miles of tunnels,I am sure some area could be made secure as a stop gap till a more acceptable solution is found.

[PRTVR]

I will give that a miss thanks, I worked with a few people who worked there, sounds an interesting place and at least it will be warm down there.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Amazing how the bulk of everyone on the 'other thread' scoffed at it ever breaking £100 MWh... oh what a year brings (bets boys, bets.) ?

I agree the Engineering in the 'Haynes' ironically, is lite. I have tried to fill in blanks for you and others previously.

Energy storage is being trialled currently - on a very very small scale - as is floating wind of course.
As all things - experimental sites and tech - fine tune, and roll out in mass.

pretty sure i was one of those scoffing at the time. now to be fair to date these final claims have not been met so that remains to be seen,my main point was agreeing with you on the rapid improvements over time and i don't know enough to estimate what level the price floor is . one other good thing was the apparent increase in uk jobs. locally it was a real piss boiler when every single person that turned up at fife energy park appeared to be from anywhere bar the uk. now before the racist comments start it was a piss boiler to see that other nations had invested in some actual training to put their people in the position of being the go to experts.

this despite the uk being the world number one for offshore wtg according to the document. so it appears when we talk about subsidy farming we are talking about other countries harvesting our subsidies.would be far easier to sell to the tax paying population if there was a higher percentage of their cash staying at home. again those writing the document recognise this and understand the need to reduce/remove the reliance on subsidy.

back to the energy storage issue. i wonder how much sea water a concrete tower the height of the burj khalifa would hold and how much energy it would produce when released through some turbines after being pumped full on days when the wind was blowing ? london doesn't seem to mind tall buildings so we could build them on the brown field sites of no interest to developers, or tower hamlets

you know i am not a fan of wind but if we are going to have it foisted upon us by politicians intent on saving the world from plant food the least we should do is get the most from it. to date it looks like minds only became focused once the easy money began to be withdrawn, though again to be fair it is much the same in many areas the world over.

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

You can't simply shutdown a coal-fired power station at the click of the fingers because the wind has suddenly put in an appearance.

Yes you're quite right. I didn't mean for anyone to take me literally but I understand why some may have.

[Ali G]

For what it's worth, a spot of on-line material relating to management of fission by-products.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/n...

At least as difficult would be managing the perception of there being a bomb in the back yard or mass extinction due to cancer rot.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

As opposed to burning fossil fuels in abundance
Or fracking
or....

well we have run that experiment and so far apart from a bit of uhi and the general greening of the planet i don't see many problems. air transport of things like migrating birds , pollen, iron rich dust required for ocean fertilisation may, note the word may, all be affected by removing some of that energy.

with energy density being even greater in the oceans similar effects in the marine world could well be significantly worse, at least on a local level. maybe i could start an alarmist cult based on removing energy from active planetary energy streams instead of the current one based on removing relatively inert energy sources buried under the ground

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

First off, I'm not the one talking "disaster".

Secondly, I've already mentioned some of the issues of coal. Does it really matter whether it's 2017 or not?

It's simple really. Coal is not conducive for quality air or ecological and environmental matters.

[wc98]

V8 Fettler said:

Risk losing control of the waste (flooding, structural collapse of the mine). The real answer is to use technology to extract more energy from the "waste", i.e. waste = fuel.

it has been a while since i was involved in the manufacture of components used in the nuclear energy industry but i can remember talking to people from bnfl that mentioned big improvements in that very area, something about new tech/ methods cutting waste by 90%. can't seem to find anything on it online though.

[wc98]

MYOB said:

First off, I'm not the one talking "disaster".

Secondly, I've already mentioned some of the issues of coal. Does it really matter whether it's 2017 or not?

It's simple really. Coal is not conducive for quality air or ecological and environmental matters.

i think with current technology it can be. there have been environmental issues in recent years, mainly with the typical scammers operating open cast ,taking the money then folding when reparations to the areas in question are supposed to take place. maybe someone digging up the directors gardens with a jcb and leaving it like that might focus the right minds. even so these are generally short term problems as nature has a great habit of sorting things like that out all by itself given enough time.

[jet_noise]

MYOB said:

V8 Fettler said:

For the UK in 2017, what is the extent of the environmental "disaster" associated with using coal to produce electricity?

First off, I'm not the one talking "disaster".

Secondly, I've already mentioned some of the issues of coal. Does it really matter whether it's 2017 or not?

It's simple really. Coal is not conducive for quality air or ecological and environmental matters.

May I confirm that CO2 is not a pollutant?

[Gary C]

PRTVR said:

MYOB said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Easy answer therefore is get Nuclear to the table at a reasonable price. Something I wholly endorse.


Why can’t they ?

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

I have always thought boulby mine near Whitby was a logical place, the mine is the deepest in Europe and out under the sea, has a rail link and I think is on run down, is the local area was helped with money and jobs, it may provide a solution.

Personally, I like above ground dry store for spent fuel. Easily inspected and managed. Chucking it down a mine smacks of dump it and forget it. The amount of spent fuel is quite small. An AGR will have about 2000 tonnes from 40 years of operation (which given its a dense heavy metal that's smaller in volume than you might think.

I would store it at the site and safe store the reactors. Many years of having to secure a site afterwards, but it would be a small and manageable site. Cheaper that green fielding it too.

Low level waste could be dumped (it's overalls etc). Medium level stuff (ion exchange resins from active effluent treatment plant, filters etc) I would solidify and store with the hlw.