The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

On what basis do we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in any case - political advocacy alone? Faith / belief? Politics and faith?

Why cut back on plant food, tree food and crop food emissions when there's no empirical data or other credible evidence that those emissions are doing anything harmful to cancel out the obvious benefits?

No evidence ?

Increasing storms seem to be not only happening, but also a logical consequence of increasing temperatures. Drought and flood patterns seem to have changed.

True, the postulations are not all bad for every country.

The big problem is this is superimposed on a natural cycle so how to we really know, but I think it's a bit much to say no evidence.

[Toltec]

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

On what basis do we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in any case - political advocacy alone? Faith / belief? Politics and faith?

Why cut back on plant food, tree food and crop food emissions when there's no empirical data or other credible evidence that those emissions are doing anything harmful to cancel out the obvious benefits?

No evidence ?

Increasing storms seem to be not only happening, but also a logical consequence of increasing temperatures. Drought and flood patterns seem to have changed.

True, the postulations are not all bad for every country.

The big problem is this is superimposed on a natural cycle so how to we really know, but I think it's a bit much to say no evidence.

You would think increasing temperature would mean more storms, I certainly did, however according to what I was told on the Climate Science thread and the IPCC that is not the case. Higher temperatures mean lower temperature differentials between the poles and tropics so less storms, the recent spate are due to the cooling brought on by la nina events apparently.

Though of course it is then agued that the la nina events are a consequence of global warming, so go figure.

[Gary C]

Toltec said:

You would think increasing temperature would mean more storms, I certainly did, however according to what I was told on the Climate Science thread and the IPCC that is not the case. Higher temperatures mean lower temperature differentials between the poles and tropics so less storms, the recent spate are due to the cooling brought on by la nina events apparently.

Though of course it is then agued that the la nina events are a consequence of global warming, so go figure.

You might be right, and it's all so political it's hard to get it straight, but I would hesitate at claiming there is no evidence.

This seems to be a big problem, by the time we will really know, most of us will be dead.

However, the retreat of ice and glaciers, the increase in sea level and the increase in the number of cat 4 & 5 hurricanes since records started are a fact, what isn't a fact is why

Should we really ignore the possibility ?

Edited by Gary C on Friday 12th January 15:40

[Toltec]

Gary C said:

You might be right, and it's all so political it's hard to get it straight, but I would hesitate at claiming there is no evidence.

This seems to be a big problem, by the time we will really know, most of us will be dead.

However, the retreat of ice and glaciers, the increase in sea level and the increase in the number of cat 4 & 5 hurricanes since records started are a fact, what isn't a fact is why

Should we really ignore the possibility ?

Edited by Gary C on Friday 12th January 15:40

There is plenty of recorded data, working out what it all means appears to be still at the best guess stage and is being used very politically.

As far as being dead, well yes, in fact I thought I'd killed the thread for a while...

Whether CC, AGW etc. exists or not as a general principal I would say seeking less polluting methods of generating power as well as reducing the use of/reliance on fossil fuels is a reasonable aim. From a purely physical perspective is generally easier or more efficient to extract power from a source with a higher energy differential than a low one, an undershot waterwheel needs to be a lot larger and have a higher water flow than a turbine with tens of metres of head.

There was a company that proposed powering street lighting using piezo generators powered by the footfall of pedestrians, it worked, but you would never reclaim the manufacturing energy within the lifetime of the mats. Of course if it had gone ahead I'm sure someone would have made money from it.

[turbobloke]

Gary C said:

No evidence ?

Increasing storms seem to be not only happening, but also a logical consequence of increasing temperatures. Drought and flood patterns seem to have changed

Is that claim referring to a few decades, or when a much more appropriate timescale for climate is considered?

There is no fixed pattern with which any short-term series of events can be compared. Weather is constantly varying, naturally - what we've seen is within natural limits. Apart from missing causality to humans another issue here is 'living memory' which is way too short to make any valid judgement. It needs data on a more relevant timescale and this shows no human influence in either hurricanes or (UK) storms which caused flooding in recent years. The claim from global warming 'theory' was that the jet stream would weaken and move towards the pole but what has brought storms over the UK was a chaotic jet stream shift involving strengthening while moving away from the pole. This is totally opposite to the agw claims.

in addition any increase in extreme weather if it's ever reliably identified would definitely not be a logical consequence of increasing temperatures. Extreme weather increases with global cooling not global warming (see Climate 101) being linked to the temperature differential between equator and pole. Illustrating this and beyond living memory are the severe storms of the Little Ice Age including the great storm of 1703.

ETA
https://www.gethistory.co.uk/historical-period/ear...

Climate models can't get down to the spatial scale of what are in effect mall-scale weather phenomena, as a result any predictions and related claims being made involve hand-waving without sufficient basis.

With respect you have bought into climate propaganda without researching the background sufficiently. You're not alone.

There are climate threads for more on this aspect of baseless/pointless widespread use of renewables.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 12th January 16:55

[turbobloke]

Toltec said:

Whether CC, AGW etc. exists or not as a general principal I would say seeking less polluting methods of generating power as well as reducing the use of/reliance on fossil fuels is a reasonable aim.

Is that 'less polluting' a local reference to the perceptions of middle class Volvo or Prius drivers who dislike living near power stations (wind farms too btw) while chattering about the great green blob, when perhaps it ought to refer to the environmental catastrophe that rare earth extraction for use in windymills has created at source? Just as one example.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rare+earth+extraction+polluti...

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

Is that claim referring to a few decades, or when a much more appropriate timescale for climate is considered?

There is no fixed pattern with which any short-term series of events can be compared. Weather is constantly varying, naturally - what we've seen is within natural limits. Apart from missing causality to humans another issue here is 'living memory' which is way too short to make any valid judgement. It needs data on a more relevant timescale and this shows no human influence in either hurricanes or (UK) storms which caused flooding in recent years. The claim from global warming 'theory' was that the jet stream would weaken and move towards the pole but what has brought storms over the UK was a chaotic jet stream shift involving strengthening while moving away from the pole. This is totally opposite to the agw claims.

in addition any increase in extreme weather if it's ever reliably identified would definitely not be a logical consequence of increasing temperatures. Extreme weather increases with global cooling not global warming (see Climate 101) being liked to the temperature differential between equator and pole. Illustrating this and beyond living memory are the severe storms of the Little Ice Age including the great storm of 1703.

Climate models can't get down to the spatial scale of what are in effect mall-scale weather phenomena, as a result any predictions and related claims being made involve hand-waving without sufficient basis.

With respect you have bought into climate propaganda without researching the background sufficiently. You're not alone.

There are climate threads for more on this aspect of baseless/pointless widespread use of renewables.

Not sure it's fair to say I've 'bought into' propaganda, when I explicitly say above that I don't know

I have looked at some of the data, though the Internet is a very unreliable research tool, and some of the data through work.

We built our station for a certain tidal range based on historical data and we have already exceeded the maximum expected (though no flooding as the safety margin is very large) and data our safety case people have does predict higher mean levels.

Is it bks ?, maybe but I still say it's going too far to say there is no evidence of climate change being bad. Models won't work as we can never put all the data in, there is always something missed, it's probably harder than successfully explaining the rate of expansion of the universe, but is that a reason not to at least try and understand and mitigate ?

I also admit that as a nuclear power employee, that we and many others have used the climate change argument to push our (by which I mean the companies) agenda.

So, the future of energy in the uk, will be driven by the climate change agenda until either

It's proved wrong

Or

We have a cheap, reliable baseload supply that everyone is happy with.

Or

Storms and flooding kill us all

Think I will be dead before anything happens.

[turbobloke]

Gary C said:

Not sure it's fair to say I've 'bought into' propaganda, when I explicitly say above that I don't know

I have looked at some of the data, though the Internet is a very unreliable research tool, and some of the data through work.

We built our station for a certain tidal range based on historical data and we have already exceeded the maximum expected (though no flooding as the safety margin is very large) and data our safety case people have does predict higher mean levels.

Is it bks ?, maybe but I still say it's going too far to say there is no evidence of climate change being bad. Models won't work as we can never put all the data in, there is always something missed, it's probably harder than successfully explaining the rate of expansion of the universe, but is that a reason not to at least try and understand and mitigate ?

I also admit that as a nuclear power employee, that we and many others have used the climate change argument to push our (by which I mean the companies) agenda.

So, the future of energy in the uk, will be driven by the climate change agenda until either

It's proved wrong

Or

We have a cheap, reliable baseload supply that everyone is happy with.

Or

Storms and flooding kill us all

Think I will be dead before anything happens.

The political agenda is clear, politicians don't like u-turns or egg on face and worse still, both.

Periods of warmer climate in the past (Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period etc) have been termed 'climate optima' and with good reason. Cooling is far worse than warming for humans.

What there is a lack of is any causal link between the microtrends being claimed and human emissions, including temperature, ice, bears and 'higher mean levels' of whatever. This suspension of critical thinking smacks of the effects of relentless propaganda which most folks have little time to look into too deeply, which is how it gets to work as well as it does.

There does seem to be an over-readiness in several quarters to note something vaguely relevant to the weather, regard it as unusual or unprecedented when it isn't, and assign it to a human cause, when there's no established causality to humans in sight.

Better continued over at the climate thread imo.

[Toltec]

turbobloke said:

Toltec said:

Whether CC, AGW etc. exists or not as a general principal I would say seeking less polluting methods of generating power as well as reducing the use of/reliance on fossil fuels is a reasonable aim.

Is that 'less polluting' a local reference to the perceptions of middle class Volvo or Prius drivers who dislike living near power stations (wind farms too btw) while chattering about the great green blob, when perhaps it ought to refer to the environmental catastrophe that rare earth extraction for use in windymills has created at source? Just as one example.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rare+earth+extraction+polluti...

Total system including, materials production, manufacturing, transportation, maintenance, operating output and decommissioning etc. Definitely not, the wind is free and windmills do not produce carbon so green and cheap.

I think one of the big problems is nuclear power stations are staggeringly expensive, difficult to build and dispose of so recovering the investment is a significant part of the cost of the power produced. You are also betting that there will not either be a political shift that forces closure well before the end of the projected lifetime or some clever boffins come up with an alternative that is much cheaper and you get priced out of the market.

Yes, I'd live near a nuclear station, in fact I would hope they do tours.

[turbobloke]

Toltec said:

Yes, I'd live near a nuclear station, in fact I would hope they do tours.

Same here. I'd stay well away (and do stay well away) from onshore wind farms.

PS try taking a look into totals of anything - pollution from windymills being a case in point - it's a tough one. Like rare earth pollution, unfavourable data seems to get buried.

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

.

Better continued over at the climate thread imo.

Yep, probably. It's just that it isn't the fundamental underscore to the question asked.

Without considering it, no statement on the future of power generation has any credibility.

As an aside, we had a fright on Thursday. Suddenly every alarm screen filled with alarms and the back wall which has the station electrical supply controls, lit up like a Christmas tree and my grid computer started bleating away with 'loss of excitation' alarms.

Thought we had lost both units, but was a 400kV line trip and DAR due to an 'unknown fault' to the south causing a large voltage transient. Still waiting for the real reason. Was an exciting moment for a while

[Gary C]

Toltec said:

Yes, I'd live near a nuclear station, in fact I would hope they do tours.

We do, just go on our website (edf energy) and do a search, you do need to book though so they can do a background security check, you can't just turn up anymore.

Yo get to look in the turbine hall, look at the control room and pile cap from the viewing gallery and walk through the feed storage tank room and look out over the cooling water outfall.

But don't tap on the window, feels like we are in a zoo at the best of times

[Toltec]

turbobloke said:

Same here. I'd stay well away (and do stay well away) from onshore wind farms.

PS try taking a look into totals of anything - pollution from windymills being a case in point - it's a tough one. Like rare earth pollution, unfavourable data seems to get buried.

Clearly it all happens in China so it doesn't count

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

turbobloke said:

Same here. I'd stay well away (and do stay well away) from onshore wind farms.

PS try taking a look into totals of anything - pollution from windymills being a case in point - it's a tough one. Like rare earth pollution, unfavourable data seems to get buried.

Clearly it all happens in China so it doesn't count

Much of it does so the UK (GB) can be green and cut energy consumption over all, despite increasing numbers of humans to support, by exporting energy usage and much of the general manufacturing pollution - at least until China becomes a higher cost manufacturing location at which time people will be looking to see where energy and other costs are lowest.

[Gary C]

LongQ said:

at least until China becomes a higher cost manufacturing location

But will that happen ?

Thing with China, the human resources are almost limitless and have virtually no rights, meaning people costs can be kept low.

[rolando]

Two pieces of good news on the fracking front
One
Two
Possibility of some low cost gas to provide dispatchable power generation.

[Gary C]

In other news, flammanville EPR is undergoing cold hydraulic testing, before achieving engineering run conditions later this year.

The Chinese EPR will be the first to come on line followed by the French reactor. Been a long time coming, but it looks as if (finally) the EPR's are almost ready

[LongQ]

Gary C said:

LongQ said:

at least until China becomes a higher cost manufacturing location

But will that happen ?

Thing with China, the human resources are almost limitless and have virtually no rights, meaning people costs can be kept low.

Remember we in the "developed" economies are rather keen on things like social mobility - a concept that has no pre-defined attribute for direction of movement.

China does not have to become a high cost location - just a higher cost location in relative terms.

Moreover if labour is replaced by automation the cost of energy is likely to be more significant than the cost of labour.

(Of course if labour is therefore "low cost" one wonders how products would be affordable en masse anyway to those subject to whatever income streams might appear but that's a different problem perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.)

[Gary C]

LongQ said:

Remember we in the "developed" economies are rather keen on things like social mobility - a concept that has no pre-defined attribute for direction of movement.

China does not have to become a high cost location - just a higher cost location in relative terms.

Moreover if labour is replaced by automation the cost of energy is likely to be more significant than the cost of labour.

(Of course if labour is therefore "low cost" one wonders how products would be affordable en masse anyway to those subject to whatever income streams might appear but that's a different problem perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.)

Maybe but it's amazing the amount of work done that would normally be done by machines but is done by people paid peanuts and if they complain, they get someone else.

Was an eye opener going there and my dad worked in China for many years. People are so disposable, that when someone fell of the scaffold, no one batted an eyelid, and when security found someone stealing stuff, they beat him to death with rebar.

Amazing place, like being in NY one minute, and medieval Europe the next.

[LongQ]

Gary C said:

LongQ said:

Remember we in the "developed" economies are rather keen on things like social mobility - a concept that has no pre-defined attribute for direction of movement.

China does not have to become a high cost location - just a higher cost location in relative terms.

Moreover if labour is replaced by automation the cost of energy is likely to be more significant than the cost of labour.

(Of course if labour is therefore "low cost" one wonders how products would be affordable en masse anyway to those subject to whatever income streams might appear but that's a different problem perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.)

Maybe but it's amazing the amount of work done that would normally be done by machines but is done by people paid peanuts and if they complain, they get someone else.

Was an eye opener going there and my dad worked in China for many years. People are so disposable, that when someone fell of the scaffold, no one batted an eyelid, and when security found someone stealing stuff, they beat him to death with rebar.

Amazing place, like being in NY one minute, and medieval Europe the next.

There are other places with similar social policies. Indeed one might suggest that the developed world has a relatively small population which is conditioned to be sensitive to matters of social justice. Energy usage per capita (using averages) tends, on balance, to identify where societies are positioned on the scale. An economy has to be strong enough to be able to support itself based on the current cost of energy - or adjust the cost of energy to match its needs. That means that the mass of people need to be able to afford energy at a basic level for them to survive and be productive - whatever "productive" might mean. For example that could mean being less of a burden on the finances of others because they are still able to self fund.

As an example of change China is one of the more evident places that has experienced huge changes in the the past 20 to 30 years and somehow the politicians have kept a lid on the pressure that usually grows during such changes. I would not bet against them continuing to do so for another 20 to 30 years but it might get ever more difficult as the current "old guard", weaned in the Chairman Mao era, pass through the system and a new generation of influencers who have no connections to any historic movement (at its roots) slowly achieve positions of control.

Similarly with India although circumstances and social tensions are very different in cause if not effect.

In the context of matters of importance to people on PH, if new car sales continue to fall as rapidly as reported recently (and assuming the reports are in fact presenting reality) AND if Government and Local Government policies continue to make vehicle ownership and use less attractive as a life success target for all generations, then we may see more manufacturers struggling at the top of the feed chain and fewer services surviing at the bottom.

If the people on a car wash have no cars to wash they will be unable to act as significant consumers even at base level. They would drop out of the market for goods and services unless funded by the State. The market for imported goods would, one assumes, decline quite significantly. (Although I suppose it might offer an opportunity to shift cheap, lower quality products for a time.)

That's when the exporters would need to turn to their internal markets to take up the capacity to keep thing ticking over. They need the internal economy to be working at least that well no matter how cheaply they value the human resources.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 13th January 19:51