Nuclear vs Renewable

[AUFC90]

OK, very funny and no surprise you don't know in which context it is meant. It's free energy in a financial sense, if you do not have to pay in money for the source then it is then considered free energy. That any better and what is meant by free energy.

Which source of energy do you not have to pay money for or money to capture ? You're all over the place here. Your original point was free energy generators which simply don't exist. You then went onto a tangent about the wonders of the universe or some shit.
And for the record, the first law of thermondynamics is an absolute fact, not probability or theory but fact. Until such time that it's proved wrong it will remain a fact. That's how science works.

[Crossbill]

Interesting (but far too brief) opinion piece from the Economist.  Cost of renewables is plummeting while we have committed to paying over double the current electricity wholesale price from Hinckley point.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21703367-britain-should-cancel-its-nuclear-white-elephant-and-spend-billions-making-renewables?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/hinkleypointless

 

[dorlomin]

On 05/08/2016 at 10:39, Crossbill said:

Interesting (but far too brief) opinion piece from the Economist.  Cost of renewables is plummeting while we have committed to paying over double the current electricity wholesale price from Hinckley point.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21703367-britain-should-cancel-its-nuclear-white-elephant-and-spend-billions-making-renewables?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/hinkleypointless

 

The dramatic fall in the costs of solar pv mean that in the coming years countries with very good solar resources are likely to be at a strong competitive advantage in energy intensive industries. Solar is still seen as a bit of a gimmick for hippies. In the UK we have pretty poor solar resources (but excellent wind) so this tends to reinforce the intuitive sense of solar as a gimmick. But a couple of graphs, one its costs are following the kind of curve we have seen in other silicon industries like RAM and CPUs, 

 

 

It is one renewable that really responds well to economies of scale. And if we look at where the people are 

 

And where the solar energy is 

 

Its actually a resource that is in many places where the people are. That said its at its best in the "30 degree" lines of latitude, that is because these tend to be the driest places on earth as this is where the desiccated airs of the Hadley Cell return to the surface (click for link). 

The consequences of this are not yet really being felt but you can see the trend emerging. 

New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar, Now Undercutting Coal

 

 

[banana]

Geezer for Chinese Hinkley firm getting done for espionage.

Whichever board and executive decision maker gave the go-ahead for Chinese involvement is either being heavily bribed or is thick as shit with no understanding of how China and Chinese 'business' works.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Ideally we should be investing in research into nuclear fusion and the storage of (solar) power.

A lot is made about the environmetal damage of nuclear and fossil fuels but many if the renewables also have environmental impacts.  Solar panels not only have the issue of bring made from toxic chemicals eg Sulphur Hexafluoride but also have damage caused by waste water from their production processes.

Tidal power is still in unknown territory regards environmental impact but there are concerns over the effect it has on the movement of endangered marine species not mention issues of silting.

Wind power has less perceived environmental impact than the likes of fossil fuels but there are still concerns over the visual impact as well as deaths to avian and chiropteran species.

Ultimately I think it comes down to having the correct balance in both of guaranteed power generation, cost, and environmental impact.

Unfortunately, what has happened in the past has been politically motivated decisions for first coal power, then nuclear power, then gas power - without having a balanced view.

Even the decision over Hinckley seems to have been made not on sensible justified grounds (and it quite easily can be) but purely for political expediency.

Edited August 13, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh

[DeeTillEhDeh]

On 29/07/2016 at 20:35, Granny Danger said:

This first sentence is correct and worrying.  The second is nonsense.  There are many alternate forms of energy that could offer more.  The amount spent on research and development in tidal, wind and other renewables is a fraction of that spent on nuclear.

 

 

Tidal power is a no go for me - one only has to look at the damage from existing schemes eg Bay of Fundy, to see why.

Edited August 13, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh

[SandyCromarty]

I swear to god this is true and not a joke.

I was listening to a scientific programme after four on Radio 4 yesterday and of course the team discussing various issues were of the Oxbridge top educated variety, anyway the subject of the universe and especially black holes came up, and this guy after a few minutes listening to the rest talking, piped up and seriously said, 'I don't mean to be vulgar but if I stuck my penis in a black hole and left my testicles outside what would happen'? 

Honestly I laughed so fuckin much I didn't hear an answer, did anyone on here listen to that yesterday afternoon?

[dorlomin]

This thread is some read.

Anyway, currently (pre Covid 19) the UK emits about the same CO2 as it did in the 1890s.

Some of this has been "exported" but most of it is down to changing from coal to renewables and gas.

Our energy mix

About 1/5th nuclear and about 4/10ths renewables. Downside is that a big part of the renewables is woodpellets that are not all that low in CO2 and have other environmental impacts. They do allow for more "dispatchable" electricity than wind, that is it can be turned out whenever you want. Wind is pretty cheap, cheaper than new nuclear. But as more and more of the energy comes from wind and solar you will have start running into capacity problems. First and most serious is storage. Grid scale storage is here in things like lithium ion batteries that are reasonably cheap. But these are for "peaking" that is to be used most days when demand peaks. That means the installed cost can be spread over 365 days a year of use. Once you start getting beyond that to where you need more storage for periods of little wind or solar, you start having to build much more storage that is used far less frequently so the cost of the unit goes up massively (you need far more of it) and the times it runs to pay it back goes down, say you only need to run it 30 days a year, the capital cost the consumer pays will have to go up 10 times per unit electricity delivered. If we are to get anywhere near 100% renewables we will need storage that can last for a week or more than will only be used a couple of times a year.

This is part of why many feel nuclear has a role for many years to come. Its more expensive than renewables when they are running, but when you have a larger penetration of wind and solar into the market the costs will change.

The other alternative is CCS, or carbon capture storage. That is where you have fossil fuelled plants that can be turned on and the CO2 captured and stored underground. The technology is feasible but its still in its infancy and its costs are unknown.

These are the expect temperatures given various emissions scenarios

 

And here are the worlds current emitters.

 

Source global carbon project.

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/19/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2019.pdf

tldnr: its complex, but nuclear does have some advantages.

[Detournement]

Surely China building Hinkley C is going to be off the cards now as well?

 

[sophia]

Hinkley > £92/MWh (inflation linked for 35 (thirty five) years

Offshore wind < £40/MWh

Despite this, there are too many Tory troughers involved to spare us poor consumers the eye watering nuclear sums for decades.

[jakedee]

Trees used for wood pellets consume more CO2 growing, than is given off in the burning process. Hence why the installation of a bio fuel wood pellet burning boiler attracts the Govt' RHI payment.

[dorlomin]

On 15/07/2020 at 12:56, MixuFruit said:

 

At least people are staying in their swim lanes. 

[dorlomin]

12 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I'm sorry but standards must be maintained.

One of us is as thick as pigshit. We just differ on which one it is. 

Try reading the thread from page 1 to see your weighty contributions.  Stay in your swim lane my friend.