# The case against nuclear power - does it stack up?



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

Greenpeace have submitted the following as part of the ongoing Sizewell C planning process:



			https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-006603-DL6%20-%20Greenpeace%20UK%20-%20Other-%20submission%20in%20relation%20to%20Policy%20and%20Need%20session%20ISH9.pdf
		


They look at the various plans for decarbonizing the grid. A key point is this:

"The proportion of wind and solar that  the grid can accommodate is only likely to keep increasing as the collapsing cost of batteries, other forms of storage and green hydrogen allow ever greater proportions to be managed. Insisting on a nuclear component for this purpose is a punt on saying that the innovation process will slow or stop."

Their argument hinges on future innovation. If we abandon nuclear and don't get those things working quickly, we'll be relying on fossil fuels for a long time.

If Ed Millband's ten nuclear power stations had been built, the amount of gas and coal we'd need to burn during periods of low wind and solar would be much reduced. Today for example we're burning 15GW worth of gas. With 20GW available nuclear capacity instead of 5, that would be zero.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

Nuclear power stations cause childhood leukemia - and here's the proof
					

Controversy has been raging for decades over the link between nuclear power stations and childhood leukemia. But as with tobacco and lung cancer, it's all about hiding the truth, writes Ian Fairlie. Combining data from four countries shows, with high statistical significance, that radioactive...




					theecologist.org


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nuclear power stations cause childhood leukemia - and here's the proof
> 
> 
> Controversy has been raging for decades over the link between nuclear power stations and childhood leukemia. But as with tobacco and lung cancer, it's all about hiding the truth, writes Ian Fairlie. Combining data from four countries shows, with high statistical significance, that radioactive...
> ...



There's a climate emergency. We can't allow a possible 5 leukemia cases in 35 years to stop us doing the right thing. Besides, studies in other countries show that such cases aren't associated with nuclear power plants per se, but only where certain waste-handling activities are conducted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2021)

ITER comes online in 2025, at which point fission tech is yesterdays dirty news.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There's a climate emergency. We can't allow a possible 5 leukemia cases in 35 years to stop us doing the right thing. Besides, studies in other countries show that such cases aren't associated with nuclear power plants per se, but only where certain waste-handling activities are conducted.


'We' lol.

So how much childhood cancer is acceptable?

And it's a disingenuous reply because if you increased it tenfold it would obviously be far more. 

It also locks us into non-zero carbon energy production in an extremely inflexible way. Nuclear doesn't pair well with renewables because it takes so long to power up and down. It may not stink like coal but it's a long way from zero carbon which is what our government has agreed to.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> 'We' lol.
> 
> So how much childhood cancer is acceptable?
> 
> And it's a disingenuous reply because if you increased it tenfold it would obviously be far more.



No it wouldn't, there's no reason it would increase at all as there’s no plan to build the kind of plants with which such cases have been associated. 



> It also locks us into non-zero carbon energy production in an extremely inflexible way. Nuclear doesn't pair well with renewables because it takes so long to power up and down. It may not stink like coal but it's a long way from zero carbon which is what our government has agreed to.



How much gas should we keep burning while wait for lower-carbon alternatives? Every GW of nuclear means one less GW capacity of fossil fuels, it’s not hard to do the carbon-equivalence sums to see how many GWh of fossil fuel generation could be eliminated.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2021)

The point is that we don’t need to take the risks because there are enough other technologies that we can transition away from fossil fuels without having to rely on nuclear. Michael Mann (the guy behind the famous hockey stick graph) devotes a chapter of his latest book to this point.  He’s in a position to know.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No it wouldn't, there's no reason it would increase at all as there’s no plan to build the kind of plants with which such cases have been associated.



I'd like a non industry source on this. One of the problems with nuclear is the amount of pro-nuclear propaganda about it.




> How much gas should we keep burning while wait for lower-carbon alternatives? Every GW of nuclear means one less GW capacity of fossil fuels, it’s not hard to do the carbon-equivalence sums to see how many GWh of fossil fuel generation could be eliminated.


Reduce demand.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

Part of the problem with nuclear is that it's been a culture war battlefield for some decades. However often you point out the short and long term dangers and the fact that it's not zero carbon some 'free-thinking' edgelord like Bi0boy will go on about it just because they think they're poking the hippies.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> The point is that we don’t need to take the risks because there are enough other technologies that we can transition away from fossil fuels without having to rely on nuclear. Michael Mann (the guy behind the famous hockey stick graph) devotes a chapter of his latest book to this point.  He’s in a position to know.



Not according to Greenpeace. If you’ve read that chapter do you care to elaborate?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Reduce demand.



To near-zero so we can get by on dull windless days without any base load? Good luck with that.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

It’s really expensive once you factor in disposal, but the current British fleet could perhaps be considered ‘free’ as we needed the reactors for the  weapons programme. ITER may be able to deliver but, if it does it’s still 20-30 years to turn that tech into commercial power generation.

Modular nuclear would be brilliant, except for the risk of baddies blowing up or stealing multiple sites which would be uneconomic to guard to the same standard as the current fleet.


Baseload in winter high pressure lulls will be the problem till we get meaningful storage (ammonia perhaps?)

My two penny worth. Build three identical off the shelf jobbies - probably the Westinghouse ones but I can be persuaded- and two more Dinorwic scale pumped storage assets* . Stop fucking about with stupid funding models to ‘keep it off the books’ and make them HMG assets at the current cheap interest  rates. Should see us through to 2060.

*Which was primarily built to cover a nuke tripping out. The demand flattening is a byproduct. But more would make the current system a bit more efficient.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

A380 said:


> but the current British fleet could perhaps be considered ‘free’ as we needed the reactors for the weapons programme


We should be getting rid of the missiles too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not according to Greenpeace. If you’ve read that chapter do you care to elaborate?


Yeah,  I’ll have to look at it again for details though.  I’ll get back to you.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> We should be getting rid of the missiles too.


And then how are we going to stop people coming to take the stuff we’ve stolen off them back?


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

A380 said:


> And then how are we going to stop people coming to take the stuff we’ve stolen off them back?


Nukes don't really work for that sort of stuff anyway. They're just to make prime ministers look tough. Fuck mass murder.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nukes don't really work for that sort of stuff anyway. They're just to make prime ministers look tough. Fuck mass murder.


No one’s taken their stuff back off of us for a while. The issue with nukes is whilst they are individually eye wateringly expensive they are still a much cheaper way of delivering mass murder than conventional weapons. How many aircraft would we need to burn down a city and kil it’s inhabitants with conventional bombs?  lots. I doubt we could afford enough to do more than one at a time.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2021)

Talking about Michael Mann - This just popped up in my Twitter feed. I haven’t listened to this podcast yet, but from the blurb Mann does seem to say again that there’s enough technology to replace fossil fuels: 'We Don't Need a Miracle, Bill Gates. We Need Political Willpower': 'BradCast' 8/11/2021


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

A380 said:


> No one’s taken their stuff back off of us for a while. The issue with nukes is whilst they are individually eye wateringly expensive they are still a much cheaper way of delivering mass murder than conventional weapons. How many aircraft would we need to burn down a city and kil it’s inhabitants with conventional bombs?  lots.


I'm in favour of disbanding the armed forces entirely, but that's another thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 25, 2021)

A380 said:


> My two penny worth. Build three identical off the shelf jobbies - probably the Westinghouse ones but I can be persuaded- and two more Dinorwic scale pumped storage assets* . Stop fucking about with stupid funding models to ‘keep it off the books’ and make them HMG assets at the current cheap interest  rates. Should see us through to 2060.
> 
> *Which was primarily built ldt to cover a nuke tripping out. The demand flattening is a by product. But more would make the current system a bit more efficient.


More pumped storage is a must, and sooner rather than later. Its true value will only be realised once it's powered solely by renewable, but it's absolutely essential if we're aiming for net zero.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 25, 2021)

What about wave power? There are waves every day.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

quimcunx said:


> What about wave power? There are waves every day.



Decades worth of testing and prototypes and it hasn’t got very far. I reckon we’ll get fusion on the grid first in any kind of meaningful way.


----------



## elbows (Sep 25, 2021)

We will probably end up with a little bit of new nuclear but I think the largest versions of our nuclear future are already dead. Which makes me happy.

However the picture is mixed with many uncertainties so I shouldnt make overly confident predictions.

But I note the recent concerns that CO2 shortages could affect our nuclear power stations if it dragged on for long enough (its used as a coolant).

And one of the reasons I'm very far from convinced that nuclear will end up being a large part of our energy mix comes from the timescales. It looks like we will have capacity issues this decade, and new nuclear builds take ages and are notorious for massively overrunning construction timescales. This leaves a window of opportunity for other stuff that can be done quicker and that still offers base load capacity to fill the gap in the meantime, further squeezing nuclear out of the picture.


----------



## elbows (Sep 25, 2021)

If the nuclear industry is lucky then they might manage to position themselves as an important part of the 'hydrogen economy'. But since there have been previous occasions where hydrogen was touted as the next big thing, decades ago, I suppose I'll be a bit skeptical about that side of things until it actually happens. And if it does happen, nuclear still might not get a substantial role in that picture.

Biomass stuff tends to go under the radar in peoples discussions too, and I think its relevant as something that potentially fills the role some want to give to nuclear. Since it is something that can scale to a reasonable extent and has base load potential. Although its also an area where suspicions of greenwashing and creative carbon accounting tend to emerge.

Predictions about the demise or rebirth of nuclear might be easier to make once we'e seen what years of high prices and supply fears do to the picture.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

Seems the government have been thinking about this over the past few days:









						UK in talks with Westinghouse over new nuclear power plant in Wales - The Times
					

Britain is in talks with U.S. nuclear reactor company Westinghouse on building a new atomic power plant on Anglesey in Wales, The Times reported.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Ministers close to deal that could end China’s role in UK nuclear power station
					

Exclusive: deal in which UK government would take stake in Sizewell C would risk inflaming geopolitical tensions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

elbows said:


> And one of the reasons I'm very far from convinced that nuclear will end up being a large part of our energy mix comes from the timescales. It looks like we will have capacity issues this decade, and new nuclear builds take ages and are notorious for massively overrunning construction timescales. This leaves a window of opportunity for other stuff that can be done quicker and that still offers base load capacity to fill the gap in the meantime, further squeezing nuclear out of the picture.



Yes, the time to act decisively to end fossil-fuel burning for electricity generation in this country prior to Extinction Rebellion's current 2025 net zero demand was certainly under the last Labour government. Still, with expedited planning, new nuclear power stations now could help achieve the current government's 2050 net zero goal.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

elbows said:


> If the nuclear industry is lucky then they might manage to position themselves as an important part of the 'hydrogen economy'. But since there have been previous occasions where hydrogen was touted as the next big thing, decades ago, I suppose I'll be a bit skeptical about that side of things until it actually happens. And if it does happen, nuclear still might not get a substantial role in that picture.
> 
> Biomass stuff tends to go under the radar in peoples discussions too, and I think its relevant as something that potentially fills the role some want to give to nuclear. Since it is something that can scale to a reasonable extent and has base load potential. Although its also an area where suspicions of greenwashing and creative carbon accounting tend to emerge.
> 
> Predictions about the demise or rebirth of nuclear might be easier to make once we'e seen what years of high prices and supply fears do to the picture.


Trouble with bio mass (like the two Drax unit conversions) is its supposed to be by product but it has ended up being fed by cutting down trees specifically. The latest IPCC recommendation is that  given the pressure it puts on food production bio should only really be used for aviation.


----------



## StoneRoad (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nuclear power stations cause childhood leukemia - and here's the proof
> 
> 
> Controversy has been raging for decades over the link between nuclear power stations and childhood leukemia. But as with tobacco and lung cancer, it's all about hiding the truth, writes Ian Fairlie. Combining data from four countries shows, with high statistical significance, that radioactive...
> ...


To go back to this for a moment ...

Any idea where one of the highest childhood leukemia clusters is located ?

Answer - Gateshead ... 
... and the nearest nuclear plants are Hartlepool or Sellafield.
(this one was blamed on an incinerator, which has since ceased operations)


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, the time to act decisively to end fossil-fuel burning for electricity generation in this country prior to Extinction Rebellion's current 2025 net zero demand was certainly under the last Labour government. Still, with expedited planning, new nuclear power stations now could help achieve the current government's 2050 net zero goal.


At the moment the only firm demand responsive generation is gas. Nukes can't follow demand, you can't throttle them, they are on or off and take days to come on, Drax and the last coal plant takes about 18 hours to spin up. Wind and solar aren't firm (If the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing you cant do much), you can't really turn them down either. Dinowic is great but has about 20 minutes of UK demand.

Gas isn't too bad in the short term,The latest CCGTs run about 60% efficiency (Siemens think they will get 63% at Keadby) which is pretty good. You can spin them up in about three hours (15 mins if you bypass the combined cycle element).

What we really really need to focus on is demand side response (DSR), we probably get about 3 % of what we could have and a big chunk of that is  behind the meter micro generators rather than 'proper' DSR (despite what the DSR lobby claim...)

Storage on a meaningful scale and DSR  will be the solution but are probably as far off as fusion from ITER. It makes no sense from a carbon point of view to depend on CCGT for base load, which is why I favour new nukes. But to support a wind based system the only real current option is CCGT smoothed with more pumped storage.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 25, 2021)

elbows said:


> Biomass stuff tends to go under the radar in peoples discussions too, and I think its relevant as something that potentially fills the role some want to give to nuclear. Since it is something that can scale to a reasonable extent and has base load potential. Although its also an area where suspicions of greenwashing and creative carbon accounting tend to emerge.
> 
> Predictions about the demise or rebirth of nuclear might be easier to make once we'e seen what years of high prices and supply fears do to the picture.



My understanding of biomass is that it’s absolutely fucking appalling because it’s not just carbon it emits but (iirc) methane which isn’t measured so much but is absolutely even worse for warming than carbon.

I see nuclear as the choice between a fairly horrible and lingering energy source that’s at least visible and measurable whereas coal and gas so far is something that is fire and carbon but far easier to ignore. So these days I’m moderately ok with nuclear. It’s not ideal but so little is.

Not in favour of building it somewhere like Japan (Fukushima seems to be the latest disaster to kill nuclear) mind because Jesus don’t fuck around in a tectonically active zone guys.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> My understanding of biomass is that it’s absolutely fucking appalling because it’s not just carbon it emits but (iirc) methane which isn’t measured so much but is absolutely even worse for warming than carbon.
> 
> I see nuclear as the choice between a fairly horrible and lingering energy source that’s at least visible and measurable whereas coal and gas so far is something that is fire and carbon but far easier to ignore. So these days I’m moderately ok with nuclear. It’s not ideal but so little is.
> 
> Not in favour of building it somewhere like Japan (Fukushima seems to be the latest disaster to kill nuclear) mind because Jesus don’t fuck around in a tectonically active zone guys.


No problem building nukes in Japan...


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

The Daily Mail is now parroting Bi0boy:









						MOS COMMENT: Forget petrol - it's a nuclear strategy that we need
					

MOS COMMENT: There is a lot of politics going on here, with diehard Remainers anxious to pin the blame for the HGV driver shortage on Brexit.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




MORE dead kids so MAIL readers can have ELECTRIC SUVs


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

This is a good starting point: Radiation and Reason. The link will take you to a free PDF and links as to where you can buy a physical copy. A good introduction to the topic for non-specialists. Has a central argument that, yes radioactivity is very dangerous, but nothing like the world destroying risks it has been painted as and that a lot of the exaggeration of the  risk was beneficial to both the USA and USSR for different reasons during the cold war. An easy read.









						√ Agen Sbobet Terpercaya | Login Daftar Sbobet88 Resmi
					

Autowin88 adalah agen sbobet resmi terpercaya di indonesia, kami menyediakan link daftar sbobet untuk permainan judi bola, sbobet88 dan semua jenis permainan live casino online sbobet.




					www.radiationandreason.com


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> This is a good starting point: Radiation and Reason. The link will take you to a free PDF and links as to where you can buy a physical copy. A good introduction to the topic for non-specialists. Has a central argument that, yes radioactivity is very dangerous, but nothing like the world destroying risks it has been painted as and that a lot of the exaggeration of the  risk was beneficial to both the USA and USSR for different reasons during the cold war. An easy read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read a couple of the articles (not the long pdfs) and it was all 'no deaths at three mile island', 'what about bhopal' yada yada yada by some fella who owns a company called 'supporters of nuclear energy ltd.' I'm not going to read any more unless you want to quote a specific article.


----------



## yield (Sep 26, 2021)

BBC World Service - Newsday, Fukushima water release is 'unknown territory'
					

Japan plans to release a million tonnes of contaminated water from nuclear plant into sea




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Too many nuclear power stations are coastal. It's short sighted. Creating another problem for future generations.

How the U.S. betrayed the Marshall Islands, kindling the next nuclear disaster 

And like maomao said how many children's lives is it worth? Reminds me of https://libcom.org/files/ursula-k-le-guin-the-ones-who-walk-away-from-omelas.pdf

Many of those DM readers would become instant nimbys if their neighbourhood was near a proposed site.


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I read a couple of the articles (not the long pdfs) and it was all 'no deaths at three mile island', 'what about bhopal' yada yada yada by some fella who owns a company called 'supporters of nuclear energy ltd.' I'm not going to read any more unless you want to quote a specific article.


The book, read the book. Don't let me spoon feed you knowledge. And no one died at Three Mile island. That's not particularly controversial.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> The book, read the book. Don't let me spoon feed you knowledge.


It's hardly spoon-feeding to ask for an actual argument. You've presented a source and I've said he looks like a crank and a paid shill. Your whole argument can't be 'this fella says it's fine'.


In particular I'd like to know what happens to the waste. I've heard there are still barrels lying about from the 1940s that haven't been processed. Is the plan still to pay poor countries to have it? How's that going?


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's hardly spoon-feeding to ask for an actual argument. You've presented a source and I've said he looks like a crank and a paid shill. Your whole argument can't be 'this fella says it's fine'.
> 
> 
> In particular I'd like to know what happens to the waste. I've heard there are still barrels lying about from the 1940s that haven't been processed. Is the plan still to pay poor countries to have it? How's that going?


 Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the industry knows there is no solution to high level waste and not much of one for mid level- See my first post on this thread. I wasn't aware there has been any serious proposal to export waste to third world since the 1980s, as neither they not producing companies are that stupid. Happy to see any source material that you have to show it has been occurring post then?

Frankly if you are so unmotivated as to be able to do your own reading and research when people provide with some links you give the impression of not caring about this issue;  or deliberately seeking an internet spat, something which seems to be one of your prime uses of Urban. Which is fair enough.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the industry knows there is no solution to high level waste and not much of one for mid level- See my first post on this thread. I wasn't aware there has been any serious proposal to export waste to third world since the 1980s, as neither they not producing companies are that stupid. Happy to see any source material that you have to show it has been occurring post then?
> 
> Frankly if you are so unmotivated as to be able to do your own reading and research when people provide with some links you give the impression of not caring about this issue;  or deliberately seeking an internet spat, something which seems to be one of your prime uses of Urban. Which is fair enough.


I did have a little read, understand his position, and didn't see anything new beyond the stuff you get in the broadsheets about how it's all safe now, including the obligatory 'Bhopal was much worse' reference. In addition, the author is clearly a paid propagandist for the nuclear industry. I'd rather not read it but gave you the chance to point out any particular killer arguments. You can't just wave any old shite at people and insist they read it or they don't understand. 

I'm obviously not an industry expert but was involved with anti-nuclear and anti-war campaigns since a very early age and have a personal interest in childhood cancers. I think that gives me a right to question the pro-nuclear positions here. I'd much rather have an argument than a fight but I can't see that you've presented one yet.


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I did have a little read, understand his position, and didn't see anything new beyond the stuff you get in the broadsheets about how it's all safe now, including the obligatory 'Bhopal was much worse' reference. In addition, the author is clearly a paid propagandist for the nuclear industry. I'd rather not read it but gave you the chance to point out any particular killer arguments. You can't just wave any old shite at people and insist they read it or they don't understand.
> 
> I'm obviously not an industry expert but was involved with anti-nuclear and anti-war campaigns since a very early age and have a personal interest in childhood cancers. I think that gives me a right to question the pro-nuclear positions here. I'd much rather have an argument than a fight but I can't see that you've presented one yet.


No one says you don’t? But you cherry pick one article from a link I posted how to get a very useful and accessible book which would inform you. Not those links. 

Nuke power and weapons were intertwined from the start. Again see my original post. Nuclear Weapons provide an existential  threat to human civilisation. Nuclear power doesn’t. It is dangerous in a similar way to the chemical industry and has killed far less.

We don’t need civil nukes for weapons now as we and our allies have  more Pu for the physics packages than we will ever need.

For the UK civil nukes and wind can get us to and beyond our Paris agreements  for electricity until we have a solution for both heat and storage.

By the way lots of us played active roles in the peace movement. It doesn't give us the right to anything on here…


----------



## Riklet (Sep 26, 2021)

That graph is shocking tbh. 2021 and we are still reliant on natural gas for 50% of electricity production. 0% hydro and biomass could be way higher. As could solar power tbh. I think they've put too much emphasis on wind power and not enough on using the sea we have a pleanty of...

I'm all in favour of more nuclear, at least temporarily- the 9% of electricity imported is inevitably made from nuclear power in France or burning gas in Norway. Idk about the Netherlands. Personally I think we should be exporting power not importing it! Germany is a good example of why we should not just be listening to the environmental lobby - they are back to burning more fossil fuels than before!

Another key key aim IMO should be reducing our fuel and energy usage and making the whole country more efficient. I can but dream...


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

Riklet said:


> That graph is shocking tbh. 2021 and we are still reliant on natural gas for 50% of electricity production. 0% hydro and biomass could be way higher. As could solar power tbh. I think they've put too much emphasis on wind power and not enough on using the sea we have a pleanty of...
> 
> I'm all in favour of more nuclear, at least temporarily- the 9% of electricity imported is inevitably made from nuclear power in France or burning gas in Norway. Idk about the Netherlands. Personally I think we should be exporting power not importing it! Germany is a good example of why we should not just be listening to the environmental lobby - they are back to burning more fossil fuels than before!
> 
> Another key key aim IMO should be reducing our fuel and energy usage and making the whole country more efficient. I can but dream...




We could always do with more Hydro.  There is already 'too much' solar PV on the system already more could be almost impossible to balance till storage turns up. Bio is a bit of a scam now, Drax is big and already burning Canadian trees cut down specifically for it.

Yes, Germany is the last possible developed nation we should look too. They shut their nukes then filled the gaps by building lignite (brown shit coal thats really carbon heavy for MWh) power stations in Poland. These are owned and funded by Germany and export all capacity to Germany but their emissions show against Poland. It is probably the single most cynical action in the energy world for the last 20 years,

Spot on for the last paragraph though.


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

I have posted this before on other threads but this shows real time usage and generation for the big sources and pretty accurate estimates for smaller generation types. It shows both GB and France.






						G. B. National Grid status
					






					www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> Nuclear Weapons provide an existential threat to human civilisation. Nuclear power doesn’t. It is dangerous in a similar way to the chemical industry anf has killed far less.


This is his main strawman, that anti-nuclear opinion are all the result of being convinced that nuclear is more dangerous than it is. I don't object to nuclear power because it's an existential threat to humanity or because I think it's as big a danger as nuclear war; I object because it's dirty, it harms people, it poisons land and it poses long term waste problems that haven't been answered properly in three quarters of a century. I'm not some feeble-minded fool brainwashed by cold war propaganda.

I also don't believe the carbon cost quoted by the industry. There is a lot of money invested in persuading people that it's clean but all the figures quoted are based on very optimistic LCAs. It doesn't seem to be nearly as close to carbon neutral as is widely claimed.









						False solution: Nuclear power is not 'low carbon'
					

Claims that nuclear power is a 'low carbon' energy source fall apart under scrutiny, writes Keith Barnham. Far from coming in at six grams of CO2 per unit of electricity for Hinkley C, as the Climate Change Committee believes, the true figure is probably well above 50 grams - breaching the CCC's...




					theecologist.org
				




Overall it feels like politicians ramming dirty 1950s and 60s technology down our throats as a poor substitute for genuinely dealing with our problems and addressing overproduction and overconsumption.


----------



## A380 (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> This is his main strawman, that anti-nuclear opinion are all the result of being convinced that nuclear is more dangerous than it is. I don't object to nuclear power because it's an existential threat to humanity or because I think it's as big a danger as nuclear war; I object because it's dirty, it harms people, it poisons land and it poses long term waste problems that haven't been answered properly in three quarters of a century. I'm not some feeble-minded fool brainwashed by cold war propaganda.
> 
> I also don't believe the carbon cost quoted by the industry. There is a lot of money invested in persuading people that it's clean but all the figures quoted are based on very optimistic LCAs. It doesn't seem to be nearly as close to carbon neutral as is widely claimed.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure the politicians do want it, They know we need new nuclear plants but have been dodging the issue for at least the last 15 years. 

How you going to do it then? Before the Star Trek technology turns up?


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> How you going to do it then? Before the Star Trek technology turns up?


I'm not convinced nuclear is necessary with current renewable technology. More pumped storage, more wind, more tidal, and reduce consumption. The 'we need nuclear' option is based on everything else staying the same.


----------



## elbows (Sep 26, 2021)

Accurately ascertaining the health implications is a big quagmire full of hard to pin down detail and propaganda on all sides.

For that reason, I usually prefer to focus on stuff that is less easily quibbled about, such as evacuations and no-go zones when fuel melts. And I think about those sorts of risks in the following way: The chances of that sort of accident are very small, but the consequences on the rare occasions that such accidents happen are very large.


----------



## yield (Sep 26, 2021)

There's been an increase in low-probability, high-impact weather events.

The nuclear industry like the fossil fuel companies ignore the externalities.


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If Ed Millband's ten nuclear power stations had been built, the amount of gas and coal we'd need to burn during periods of low wind and solar would be much reduced. Today for example we're burning 15GW worth of gas. With 20GW available nuclear capacity instead of 5, that would be zero.



No this just isn't true; the one plant that's really under way now - the EPR at Hinckley C was one of Ed Milliband's plants. It's nowhere near ready and everyone knows it won't be for years. The EPR being built at Olkiliuoto in Finland was supposed to be generating electricity to help Finland meet its obligations under the Kyoto deal which expired in 2010 - 11 years ago. It's still not generating anything. The EPR at Flammanville is years behind schedule. This is a story that is repeated time and again with nuclear power plants - if they weren't so utterly shit at actually delivering you can bet there'd be an awful lot more of them. But despite all the promises of the industry they are reliably disappointing in reality. We have - at best - a decade really to turn around the carbon problem, we literally don't have the time to fart around on another lot of will-they, won't-they nuclear plants. Even if they work they'll come on stream too late.

Probably the greenest thing about them is that the electricity they produce is so expensive that nuclear-generated energy helps to drive investment in reducing usage.

But yes, horrendous waste of money. Had the vast sums spent on buying licences and developing sites etc been invested straight into renewables that could have been operational in months, we'd have been generating significant amounts of totally renewable energy for the last 15 years instead of relying on fossil fuels.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 27, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> My understanding of biomass is that it’s absolutely fucking appalling because it’s not just carbon it emits but (iirc) methane which isn’t measured so much but is absolutely even worse for warming than carbon.
> 
> I see nuclear as the choice between a fairly horrible and lingering energy source that’s at least visible and measurable whereas coal and gas so far is something that is fire and carbon but far easier to ignore. So these days I’m moderately ok with nuclear. It’s not ideal but so little is.
> 
> Not in favour of building it somewhere like Japan (Fukushima seems to be the latest disaster to kill nuclear) mind because Jesus don’t fuck around in a tectonically active zone guys.



They fucking love their nuclear here (the govt and those in the industry, that is).  

They keep telling us how safe it is, even going to pour waste in the ocean, because it'll be fine...


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> But yes, horrendous waste of money. Had the vast sums spent on buying licences and developing sites etc been invested straight into renewables that could have been operational in months, we'd have been generating significant amounts of totally renewable energy for the last 15 years instead of relying on fossil fuels.



I'd say that we are generating significant amounts of electricity from renewable sources as a result of much progress over the last 10+ years. There is a long way to go, and some of that will come from further demand reduction rather than on the supply side, but progress has still been more impressive than I'd have dared to hope. People might have thought I was a nut if I'd been able to come out with these sorts of numbers 20 years ago.

The investment and progress with renewables also shifting the economic arguments because even if tricks are used to make nuclear appear cheaper than it really is, as of a few years ago UK renewables managed to become cheaper on paper than nuclear.

Wind has proven it can scale up, catch on big time, and be competitive in terms of costs. Issues of storage and dealing with periods lacking in wind remain as fairly major challenges, and I'd rather we directed funds there rather than on nuclear investment. But I also think demand reduction will be a bigger part of the picture than currently tends to be acknowledged, and that will be a messy picture that has implications politicians etc arent being completely open about yet. The longer they leave a hole where new nuclear was originally supposed to be, the more I think we can expect a rude awakening on that front at some point.



From https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/1016822/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2021.pdf

If that graph is accurate then I'd be inlined to reject the common narrative that we've used gas to replace coal for electricity generation. Gas replacing coal has got more truth to it if we go back far enough, but in terms of the last 10-15 years I'd say gas has carried on as before and that its renewables and some demand reduction thats replaced coal. With imports/other used to fill in much of the gap caused by dwindling nuclear capacity.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> No this just isn't true; the one plant that's really under way now - the EPR at Hinckley C was one of Ed Milliband's plants. It's nowhere near ready and everyone knows it won't be for years. The EPR being built at Olkiliuoto in Finland was supposed to be generating electricity to help Finland meet its obligations under the Kyoto deal which expired in 2010 - 11 years ago. It's still not generating anything. The EPR at Flammanville is years behind schedule. This is a story that is repeated time and again with nuclear power plants - if they weren't so utterly shit at actually delivering you can bet there'd be an awful lot more of them. But despite all the promises of the industry they are reliably disappointing in reality. We have - at best - a decade really to turn around the carbon problem, we literally don't have the time to fart around on another lot of will-they, won't-they nuclear plants. Even if they work they'll come on stream too late.
> 
> Probably the greenest thing about them is that the electricity they produce is so expensive that nuclear-generated energy helps to drive investment in reducing usage.
> 
> But yes, horrendous waste of money. Had the vast sums spent on buying licences and developing sites etc been invested straight into renewables that could have been operational in months, we'd have been generating significant amounts of totally renewable energy for the last 15 years instead of relying on fossil fuels.



I said "if they had been built". It has been perfectly possible to build them in the intervening period since 2009, Hinkley was delayed by years due to planning and contract negotiations.

Massive renewable capacity has been added in 15 years, adding a lot more wouldn't really have stopped us relying on gas to plug the gaps. However, with more nuclear it would have meant the gaps would have been smaller e.g. we're burning gas for 30% of our electricity right now, France is 7%.

Sizewell's strike price is likely to be in the range £30-60 per MWh, way cheaper than the current grid price of £150 per MWh, which is so high due to the need to burn gas to compensate for the deficiencies of renewables.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I said "if they had been built". It has been perfectly possible to build them in the intervening period since 2009, Hinkley was delayed by years due to planning and contract negotiations.
> 
> Massive renewable capacity has been added in 15 years, adding a lot more wouldn't really have stopped us relying on gas to plug the gaps. However, with more nuclear it would have meant the gaps would have been smaller e.g. we're burning gas for 30% of our electricity right now, France is 7%.
> 
> Sizewell's strike price is likely to be in the range £30-60 per MWh, way cheaper than the current grid price of £150 per MWh, which is so high due to the need to burn gas to compensate for the deficiencies of renewables.



Your confidence about achievable price and timescales for new nuclear builds is curious to me. I dont think experts tend to have that level of confidence about it at all. There are plenty of risks in this area, and a lot of history that gives no cause for confidence.

The only reason I cannot currently claim with high confidence that we will be able to cope without nuclear being part of the mix at all, without having to keep a big chunk of fossil fuel generation capacity, is that I am not clued up as to how much storage capacity it is credible to expect we can deliver within comparable timescales. If renewable-generated electricity can be stored at mass scale, then remaining arguments in favour of nuclear go right down the toilet. And on a cost basis, nuclear is already in very bad trouble. I dont reject it in full just yet because I feel the need for us to hedge our bets a little, but I dont think we are far off having other proven solutions that are a much better alternative hedge.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> Your confidence about achievable price and timescales for new nuclear builds is curious to me. I dont think experts tend to have that level of confidence about it at all. There are plenty of risks in this area, and a lot of history that gives no cause for confidence.
> 
> The only reason I cannot currently claim with high confidence that we will be able to cope without nuclear being part of the mix at all, without having to keep a big chunk of fossil fuel generation capacity, is that I am not clued up as to how much storage capacity it is credible to expect we can deliver within comparable timescales. If renewable-generated electricity can be stored at mass scale, then remaining arguments in favour of nuclear go right down the toilet. And on a cost basis, nuclear is already in very bad trouble. I dont reject it in full just yet because I feel the need for us to hedge our bets a little, but I dont think we are far off having other proven solutions that are a much better alternative hedge.



Nuclear is expensive, it’s even more expensive than it needs to be because of delays and general fucking about with finance models to keep it offf the books. No private company can afford the risk on the balance sheet- Half the EDF board resigned over The last UK nuke. Also people like to fuck about with the designs. Three off the shelf with HMG funding wouldn’t be a ridiculous price over their lifetime- although we still don’t have a high level waste solution.


And we need lots more DSR. Currently the markets are massively over complicated to let DSR in and it still very rarely wins. We could do with a completely separate DSR mechanism to promote reduction. And cut the hands off anyone who gets DSR contracts for behind the meter generation…


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I said "if they had been built". It has been perfectly possible to build them in the intervening period since 2009, Hinkley was delayed by years due to planning and contract negotiations.



Olkiliuoto 3 (an EPR, the exact same design as Hinckley C) was begun in 2005 and is still not operating. It was meant to be finished in 2009 and delivering electricity to allow Finnish compliance to Kyoto by the end of 2010 when Kyoto expired. The exact same process is being repeated at Flammanville in France, also with an EPR, begun in 2007, scheduled to start operating in 2012, still non-operational now, 9 years later. 

Why would Hinckley magically avoid the same fate?

Vincent de Rivaz who was responsible for EDF (the supposed operator of Hinckley) said we would all be cooking our Christmas dinners using electricity from Hinckley in Christmas 2017. No one I know thinks it'll be finished this decade.

This entire industry is so full of bullshit, always promising the world (remember "energy too cheap to meter"?, that's one for us oldies) and delivering little or very often nothing, but always, reliably soaking up vast quantities of capital and time. I really cannot think of any other industry outside of defence that gets away with this level of BS, maybe reflecting nuclear's roots in the defence industry.


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Nuclear is expensive, it’s even more expensive than it needs to be because of delays and general fucking about with finance models to keep it offf the books.


 Let's not forget the massive, massive legal actions that take place as the various operators and contractors sue each other over its failure to deliver. The only people who _really_ do well out of nuclear are big construction companies and contract lawyers.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> This entire industry is so full of bullshit, always promising the world (remember "energy too cheap to meter"?, that's one for us oldies) and delivering little or very often nothing, but always, reliably soaking up vast quantities of capital and time. I really cannot think of any other industry outside of defence that gets away with this level of BS, maybe reflecting nuclear's roots in the defence industry.



On the bullshit front, one of the awkward things I noticed with Fukushima involved regulatory body conflicts on interest. The IAEA had to criticise the fact that the same body that was responsible for regulation in Japan was also responsible for promoting nuclear power. I considered this to be an awkward conclusion for the IAEA because as best I could tell the IAEA has exactly the same conflict of interests, since they have a role in both safety and promotion.

Atoms for peace was propaganda.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Trouble is we need to cut carbon. If it wasn’tt for that we could happily churn out CCGTs. There’s enough gas under Kuwait alone to keep the world going for about 60 years- if we built more LNG tankers- but we CAN’T BURN IT ALL BECAUSE WE WILL DIE IF WE DO.


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> On the bullshit front, one of the awkward things I noticed with Fukushima involved regulatory body conflicts on interest. The IAEA had to criticise the fact that the same body that was responsible for regulation in Japan was also responsible for promoting nuclear power. I considered this to be an awkward conclusion for the IAEA because as best I could tell the IAEA has exactly the same conflict of interests, since they have a role in both safety and promotion.
> 
> Atoms for peace was propaganda.


 It's a genuine problem within the entire industry, because the skills and the knowledge base are so specialised it's inevitably a very small pool of people who actually really know what's what. A lot of this has also been linked to the need for secrecy because of nuclear's military potential of course - I've almost never met a nuclear scientist/administrator/bureaucrat who wasn't a white middle-aged university-educated man, it's like an old-fashioned Victorian club, they all know each other, were all educated at the same places etc.


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Trouble is we need to cut carbon. If it wasn’tt for that we could happily churn out CCGTs. There’s enough gas under Kuwait alone to keep the world going for about 60 years- if we built more LNG tankers- but we CAN’T BURN IT ALL BECAUSE WE WILL DIE IF WE DO.


 I know, hence the attraction of the Magic Grand Projet that will solve everything at a stroke using Technology. I'd love nuclear to be that thing, but it isn't. Pity.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> I know, hence the attraction of the Magic Grand Projet that will solve everything at a stroke using Technology. I'd love nuclear to be that thing, but it isn't. Pity.



There isn’t one thing. Even ITER won’t be for years.

We are lucky in the UK. Could do it with wind and gas and DSR. Not all countries could.

Adding a few new nukes would reduce the days we were running the CCGTs as base load.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

This is from the IEA assessment of the UK that was done in 2019:



> The United Kingdom remains a leader in the civil use of nuclear energy. Its institutional infrastructure is sound and all the important issues of nuclear power development, which include regulation, financing, construction, supply chain, fuel supply, skills, and decommissioning are systematically addressed. A UK export strategy for nuclear power components and skills that was always part of this framework does not look unreasonable. In addition, the United Kingdom is one of European countries in which the first concrete has been poured as part of the construction of a new NPP.





> However, there is no longer a momentum in the United Kingdom today to fill a potential supply gap with a fleet of new Generation 3 PWR and ABWR reactors (following the phase-out and retirement of coal plants, closed Magnox reactors, and ageing AGRs). One of the reasons is the Brexit process that drains policy-making resources from other sectors. Nuclear energy, with the large size of its installations, the need for special safeguards, and the difficult-to-quantify benefits, is likely to be more affected by this Brexit process than other energy carriers. At the same time, the government is aware of this and has launched a number of initiatives in the nuclear field, most importantly with the publication of its Nuclear Sector Strategy of June 2018 that set out a coherent case for new nuclear development.





> Ultimately, however, the overall dynamics of the UK nuclear sector will depend on continuing and expanding nuclear new build. Inevitably, the ambitious target of the UK industry of 16 GW of new nuclear capacity by 2030 that was initially announced, establishes the backdrop against which success or failure will be assessed. The new build project at HPC by a French-Chinese consortium with 3.2 GW is a sizeable step, but will not be sufficient on its own to carry the momentum of UK nuclear development forward. At least one additional project needs to be agreed in the coming two years to maintain momentum. Otherwise, the creation of an internationally competitive UK supply chain for nuclear new build will be difficult to sustain in an industry that is subject to very strong increasing returns to scale at all levels.





> A decisive element in this context is the need to articulate better the contribution that is expected of nuclear energy to the UK low-carbon electricity supply. Do current projections of the evolution of the UK electricity market suggest that nuclear energy will be able to run in an economically efficient baseload mode or will it be primarily used as a low-carbon backup for the generation from variable or intermittent renewable resources? The answer will have a bearing on the cost and financing of nuclear electricity, on its optimal share, as well as, to some extent, on the appropriate technology to be chosen.





> Overall, nuclear energy in the United Kingdom benefits from a strong policy framework and good public support. However, current arrangements do not yet ensure the economic viability of the projects for new NPPs beyond HPC. This means that UK nuclear power is approaching, rather quickly, a bifurcation that will decide whether the original ambitions for its development can, by and large, be maintained or whether the share of nuclear power in UK electricity supply will decrease dramatically after 2025. If UK policy makers are convinced that nuclear energy should remain an important part of the electricity mix, they will need to set out the overall system’s contribution of nuclear power in terms of carbon emissions, reliability, flexibility, grid services, and diversification, to create a broad consensus that the economic incentives required do, indeed, constitute good value for money.



From https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/a..._IEA_Countries_United_Kingdom_2019_Review.pdf

If we assume that the pandemic has slightly affected some of the timescales they talk about, I suspect we are still entering a crucial period where they need at least one new build deal really quite soon in order to maintain the necessary momentum.


----------



## pug (Sep 27, 2021)

I thought rolls Royce were going to build 16 mini nukes?


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> This is from the IEA assessment of the UK that was done in 2019:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for that, interesting. I used to be quite involved in this but I'm out of touch.

Great word though "momentum" - it does always make me assume that the thing is on the point of running aground. The main "momentum" demand of the last 2 decades driving nuclear energy in Europe has really been the French need to come up with some sort of strategy to replace their aging and nearly-dead nuclear fleet. The cost is going to be phenomenal, the timescale horrendous (their existing plants will all be dead before they can get new ones up now) and there's an obvious argument to pile into renewables and take advantage of the common European energy market neither of which were around in the 70s when the oil crisis pushed them into nuclear. On the other hand they have a strong nuclear lobby. They need to keep AREVA (their principle nuclear build/design engineering co) alive until then (it's on the brink of bankruptcy, another reason not to buy EPRs) and have been hawking EPRs around the world trying to spin out business until they can decide what to do. Hinckley C is basically keeping AREVA going at the moment.

And yes Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

pug said:


> I thought rolls Royce were going to build 16 mini nukes?



They are pitching for their ‘modular’ nuclear reactor model. Technically it would make sense. The problem is how would you guard so many sites to stop baddies nicking the glowing hot stuff.  The only ‘probably successful’ way is for lots of women and men with guns to guard them. It’s really expensive at the big plants with The Civil Nuclear Constabulary ( who are much more an armed guarding service than anything resembling a ‘normal’ police force.) You’d probably need almost as many people at each modular site than at a big plant.

I did hear someone suggest you could put them on military bases and really on that for security but I imagine that the MOD might not be that keen and I don’t know how many airbases or barracks are near grid connection points.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> Thanks for that, interesting. I used to be quite involved in this but I'm out of touch.
> 
> Great word though "momentum" - it does always make me assume that the thing is on the point of running aground. The main "momentum" demand of the last 2 decades driving nuclear energy in Europe has really been the French need to come up with some sort of strategy to replace their aging and nearly-dead nuclear fleet. The cost is going to be phenomenal, the timescale horrendous (their existing plants will all be dead before they can get new ones up now) and there's an obvious argument to pile into renewables and take advantage of the common European energy market neither of which were around in the 70s when the oil crisis pushed them into nuclear. On the other hand they have a strong nuclear lobby. They need to keep AREVA (their principle nuclear build/design engineering co) alive until then (it's on the brink of bankruptcy, another reason not to buy EPRs) and have been hawking EPRs around the world trying to spin out business until they can decide what to do. Hinckley C is basically keeping AREVA going at the moment.
> 
> And yes Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.



I can’t see how the French get out of it. They are massively nuke dependent, their fleet as you say is ageing and was built by the state. Even with the French approach to applying EU law I can’t see them getting away with direct state funding and no companies are big enough to even carry one nuclear plant development on their books, let alone a fleet.

And untill someone can make deep water off shore wind work, they are t as fortunate as us given the challenges in the Atlantic as compared to the North Sea.

Mind the French do love big technology solutions . Perhaps they will pull it off. If ITER does work then I think the race will be between France and China for the first fission power station…


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

co-op said:


> Brexit will really effect EDFs business model - half the time they're generating money by spinning electricity across super-connectors into other markets and taking advantage of that rather than just generating and selling power and I have no idea how Brexit affects their ability to do that.



I'm rusty and have only started paying attention to detail again this month. I aim to continue from now on.

Interconnectors are very much on my list of things to pay attention to. I dont think the new one between us and Norway has officially launched yet but I've still seen flows showing up on this interconnector via live data recently so official launch is probably close. Imports show up much more strongly than exports, although the picture has also been affected by the fire which has taken out 2GW of capacity to/from France, half of which was originally off for planned reasons but with slipping restart timescales as a result of the fire (now late October not late September), and the other half not even currently scheduled to become available till next March  ( UK's National Grid says IFA Interconnector planned outage extended to Oct 23 ). The most obviously consistent exports have been to Ireland via the Moyle interconnector, which isnt surprising especially as Ireland got in deep shit on September 9th and we came to their aid using a rather expensive source we had on standby, which caused a spike in the price stats on that date.

EDF are probably still smarting from having to make a decision that they were never going to be able to restart Dungeness B, and moved to the defuelling phase instead ( EDF Energy scraps plans to restart Dungeness B nuclear plant ) . And there have been plenty of unscheduled outages recently, which I keep an eye on via Power station daily status . 4 reactors are currently still down due to unplanned outages, and one due to a planned outage. I wait to see if they can bring them back online in the currently envisaged timescales.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

Oh and regards loss of momentum, I remember that at some point after Germany decided to phase out nuclear, there were some signs of them getting cold feet over that decision. But the industry told them it was too late to u-turn because too much momentum and skills/investment base had already been lost. I wish I could find the artilcle I read about this some years ago, but so far I cannot.

Nuclear stuff being like a giant ship that takes a huge amount of time to turn around is one of the things that make me unclear about the future of that industry here. Because the pandemic did rather demonstrate how equations with a strong 'value for money' emphasis can end up going straight in the bin if the shit really hits the fan to the extent that security and necessity suddenly trump cost, not to mention how much costs of certain competing alternatives can explode in such circumstances (although those often end up affecting nuclear costs anyway). Its not hard to imagine our energy picture reaching a point where security of supply suddenly becomes the big undeniable issue of the day, but very few of the solutions apart from significant demand destruction could come to the rescue quickly, least of all nuclear.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Sizewell's strike price is likely to be in the range £30-60 per MWh, way cheaper than the current grid price of £150 per MWh, which is so high due to the need to burn gas to compensate for the deficiencies of renewables.



Suggestions from EDF about the strike price for Sizewell C are inexorably linked to haggling about how the build is funded. Specifically RAB keeps coming up in connection with this at the moment. And there is still the hangover from the golden era of relations between the UK and China to deal with. 

If there is one thing I dont take seriously with nuclear, its the price estimates, especially at this stage. Plus some of the price increases elsewhere inevitably affect the build costs, so its not as simple as the rise in gas prices making nuclear generation costs seem more attractive.

This sort of article from just a few days ago touches on some of the above in more detail:









						Ministers close to deal that could end China’s role in UK nuclear power station
					

Exclusive: deal in which UK government would take stake in Sizewell C would risk inflaming geopolitical tensions




					www.theguardian.com
				




I suppose if I were forced to guess, I'd say the UK establishment will be quite desperate to ensure that at a bare minimum Sizewell C goes ahead. And if momentum is gained via Hinkley and Sizewell success, Bradwell may be unlocked. And seperately, the USA is sniffing around Wylfa possibilities.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 27, 2021)

Couple of articles I found interesting 









						US team claims viable path to commercial fusion power
					

A record-breaking superconducting magnet developed by researchers in the US could pave the way for practical, commercial, nuclear fusion.




					www.theengineer.co.uk
				












						Magnet protection spurs tokamak fusion development
					

Tokamak Energy has developed a new magnet protection technology that promises to bring spherical tokamak power plants to market sooner.




					www.theengineer.co.uk
				




Basically saying that high powered magnets required for fusion are coming and may lead the way to the promise of clean and cheap energy for all.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

weltweit said:


> Couple of articles I found interesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its hard to take those claims too seriously due to the long history of hope not delivering.

I'd still take it seriously enough to keep funding research, but not seriously enough that I can include it in calculations about how the hell we are going to cope in future. I am neutral in terms of expectations about whether it will ever happen, just cant begin to bank on it, and its dangerous if false hopes on that front get in the way of all the tougher choices required elsewhere. Better to plan as if it will never happen, and then experience much relief and joy if it ever manages to come good.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> I'm rusty and have only started paying attention to detail again this month. I aim to continue from now on.
> 
> Interconnectors are very much on my list of things to pay attention to. I dont think the new one between us and Norway has officially launched yet but I've still seen flows showing up on this interconnector via live data recently so official launch is probably close. Imports show up much more strongly than exports, although the picture has also been affected by the fire which has taken out 2GW of capacity to/from France, half of which was originally off for planned reasons but with slipping restart timescales as a result of the fire (now late October not late September), and the other half not even currently scheduled to become available till next March  ( UK's National Grid says IFA Interconnector planned outage extended to Oct 23 ). The most obviously consistent exports have been to Ireland via the Moyle interconnector, which isnt surprising especially as Ireland got in deep shit on September 9th and we came to their aid using a rather expensive source we had on standby, which caused a spike in the price stats on that date.
> 
> EDF are probably still smarting from having to make a decision that they were never going to be able to restart Dungeness B, and moved to the defuelling phase instead ( EDF Energy scraps plans to restart Dungeness B nuclear plant ) . And there have been plenty of unscheduled outages recently, which I keep an eye on via Power station daily status . 4 reactors are currently still down due to unplanned outages, and one due to a planned outage. I wait to see if they can bring them back online in the currently envisaged timescales.



Interconnector nerd alert. The Norwegian one is t technically an interconnector as it isn’t designed to work both ways. It’s funding is to sell Scandi hydro power here.

I really ought to get out more…

If you get really bored start digging into TERRE which is a future platform for trading ‘virtual capacity’ across the various European synchronous areas and is designed to promote inter connector development. It made my head hurt if I’m honest.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

weltweit said:


> Couple of articles I found interesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...





elbows said:


> Its hard to take those claims too seriously due to the long history of hope not delivering.
> 
> I'd still take it seriously enough to keep funding research, but not seriously enough that I can include it in calculations about how the hell we are going to cope in future. I am neutral in terms of expectations about whether it will ever happen, just cant begin to bank on it, and its dangerous if false hopes on that front get in the way of all the tougher choices required elsewhere. Better to plan as if it will never happen, and then experience much relief and joy if it ever manages to come good.



My understanding is it’s not so much the controlling fusion burn anymore. They can run Jet as long as the magnets hold out - 8 seconds? - ITER is to prove this. I haven’t been down to Culham for over three years though. 

The issue is how you get the power out. Current plans require refitting the torus with sacrificial steel  for about a third of its life ( i.e  a Tokamak would run two thirds of its life and be in refit the other third. Because of the radiation this would probably need to be delivery by robotics  there are several other second order issues,, if ITER does prove the JET findings correct.

My predictions- it won’t be quick and it won’t be cheap.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Interconnector nerd alert. The Norwegian one is t technically an interconnector as it isn’t designed to work both ways. It’s funding is to sell Scandi hydro power here.
> 
> I really ought to get out more…
> 
> If you get really bored start digging into TERRE which is a future platform for trading ‘virtual capacity’ across the various European synchronous areas and is designed to promote inter connector development. It made my head hurt if I’m honest.



Whats your source for it only being one way, and if so then how come everything I read about it online including sources such as those who built and operate it say that it works both ways? And how come I've seen it go into negative (=UK export) territory once or twice on the graphs that the following site and many others visualise from a common source of data? National Grid: Live Status

The market and trading aspects of some of this data and systems are what largely prevent me from going beyond a certain level of detail and monitoring of nerdy data myself, I cant be arsed with some of those layers.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> Whats your source for it only being one way, and if so then how come everything I read about it online including sources such as those who built and operate it say that it works both ways? And how come I've seen it go into negative (=UK export) territory once or twice on the graphs that the following site and many others visualise from a common source of data? National Grid: Live Status
> 
> The market and trading aspects of some of this data and systems are what largely prevent me from going beyond a certain level of detail and monitoring of nerdy data myself, I cant be arsed with some of those layers.




You are right, it is bi directional . My knowledge came from talking to the grid interconnector teams a few years back. I’ve probably got it mixed up with the proposed Iceland link. At least this shows I’m not the interconnector nerd I thought I was…


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> They are pitching for their ‘modular’ nuclear reactor model. Technically it would make sense. The problem is how would you guard so many sites to stop baddies nicking the glowing hot stuff.  The only ‘probably successful’ way is for lots of women and men with guns to guard them. It’s really expensive at the big plants with The Civil Nuclear Constabulary ( who are much more an armed guarding service than anything resembling a ‘normal’ police force.) You’d probably need almost as many people at each modular site than at a big plant.
> 
> I did hear someone suggest you could put them on military bases and really on that for security but I imagine that the MOD might not be that keen and I don’t know how many airbases or barracks are near grid connection points.



I dont think the security aspect is that big a deal because 

(a) That security threat gets overhyped, and that was especially true in the early years of the 'war on terror'. 

(b) I think one of the reasons nuclear power woos successive governments is that the job creation aspect is very attractive to them. Specialised jobs and local jobs. Temporary jobs and permanent jobs. So I think thats considered an upside for them, not a downside. And Rolls-Royce probably need the business, and both need the exports, given aviation sector woes.

(c) The current plans arent that mini or that numerous. A quantity of something like 16 perhaps (still early days in regards me reading about Rolls Royces plans). With output per unit that may look small compared to the big beasts, but still seem kind of equivalent to each of the highest rated Magnox generation of reactors we once had (again, unless I've misread something).

Press reports recently seem to indicate that the government are going to combine their pro-nuclear instincts with momentum from the recent crisis and push ahead big time with funding etc for these sorts of plans. I suppose that shouldnt surprise me given that the tory 'levelling up agenda' is rather hollow and this sort of idea will be seen as something that could add a bit of substance, and killing multiple birds with one stone.

Probably the flaw/risk I would focus on with this sort of plan involves the modular construction aspect. Track records are long proven in terms of the engineering side of the equation, but like the other size of nuclear developments the story of nuclear is so messy in part because it involve the building industry. And when it comes to the history of building and modular/factory construction, thats an industry that has a very messy history that drives me batshit crazy over the lost opportunities to bloody do it properly and dislodge other, on-site forms of building that have managed to remain dominant. We probably need a separate thread about all of that, more broad than nuclear, but my point remains that there are very few aspects of nuclear power that I can think about without having to drag the whole world of building into the equation.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> I dont think the security aspect is that big a deal because
> 
> (a) That security threat gets overhyped, and that was especially true in the early years of the 'war on terror'.
> 
> ...



I don’t think we will see them. Security plus numbyisn will
See them off. Unfortunate as I quite like the idea.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> You are right, it is bi directional . My knowledge came from talking to the grid interconnector teams a few years back. I’ve probably got it mixed up with the proposed Iceland link. At least this shows I’m not the interconnector nerd I thought I was…



No worries.

By the way I discovered that I can watch ESO Operational Transparency weekly webinars if I want to immerse myself in a world which I dont actually work in or have contacts within. ESO Data Portal: ESO Operational Transparency Forum - Dataset| National Grid Electricity System Operator

I watched one and I discovered that if I let all the jargon and detail that I dont need to understand wash over me, I can pick up clues about specific events and operational details. A lot of the questions sound like they are from people involved in the trading who dont agree with certain decisions about price etc, and are seeking a forum to grumble and probe. But for example thats where I got enough clues about what happened with Ireland on September 9th that I could then go and search news etc sources to flesh out the story in a different direction.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> I don’t think we will see them. Security plus numbyisn will
> See them off. Unfortunate as I quite like the idea.



I probably dont like them because its tempting in my mind to think about the risk of nuclear accidents increasing when far more reactors are in operation. 

It might be possible to guess from my mini rant about the building industry that a major upside I'd welcome from successes with the modular concept would be if it provided some momentum and best practice success stories for modular building more broadly.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> I probably dont like them because its tempting in my mind to think about the risk of nuclear accidents increasing when far more reactors are in operation.
> 
> It might be possible to guess from my mini rant about the building industry that a major upside I'd welcome from successes with the modular concept would be if it provided some momentum and best practice success stories for modular building more broadly.




Are you signed up to Cornwalls insight  bulletins? They use them to advertise their paid services and courses but  provide a useful free précis of the sector, commercial, government and technical.









						Home - Cornwall Insight
					

Cornwall Insight provides energy market intelligence and analysis through consultancy, insight services, publications and training.




					www.cornwall-insight.com
				




I used to vaguely know a couple of the people who put it together. They did like rubbish puns for sub headings but I think they got told off by the grown ups for doing it too much.


----------



## HAL9000 (Sep 28, 2021)

elbows said:


> I'd say that we are generating significant amounts of electricity from renewable sources as a result of much progress over the last 10+ years. There is a long way to go, and some of that will come from further demand reduction rather than on the supply side, but progress has still been more impressive than I'd have dared to hope. People might have thought I was a nut if I'd been able to come out with these sorts of numbers 20 years ago.
> 
> The investment and progress with renewables also shifting the economic arguments because even if tricks are used to make nuclear appear cheaper than it really is, as of a few years ago UK renewables managed to become cheaper on paper than nuclear.
> 
> ...



I think renewables will only fill the gap, if the electrical storage problem can be solved.   This story suggests 20GW battery storage,

Report: An additional 20GWh of battery storage could significantly reduce wind power curtailment in UK - Renewable Energy World

whatever the final figure is, its likely to be a large number, to fill in the peaks when gas power station would run or capture excess power generated when there's less demand, like the middle of the day. Currently we have 50 MW of storage, we would need to increase this by 400x to get to 20gwh.









						Battery storage power station - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





Lithium batteries are not a good solution, need something cheaper.  
At the moment, there are some potential solutions, like flow batteries.   But no one has picked a winner yet.
Electric vehicles may help a bit, but there's also the risk that the battery life is shortened if its constantly being charge/discharge to help the grid plus whatever the driver uses the car for.
Its also likely the electrical grid will need to be updated to cope with higher peak demand (see this McKinsey report The potential impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems).   With more renewables, may need changes where more electricity comes from lots of medium/small power sources.


----------



## elbows (Sep 28, 2021)

Cheers for the info.

I suppose I should consider separating this into two different things.

There is the stuff that has grabbed most of the attention so far, such as the need for storage and demand side stuff to cope with short-lived fluctuations in electricity generation from renewables vs demand at particular moments in time. It seems feasible that storage and demand solutions can be made to scale up to that challenge.

But what 2021 has probably drawn into sharp focus are issues arising from a much more prolonged dunkelflaute (dark wind lull). I havent studied the 2021 wind data properly yet but it seems likely that rare but prolonged periods with that lack of wind goes very far beyond what we can envisage dealing with using traditional storage solutions. Which probably means we are left with 3 ways to imagine coping with that in future: Ongoing  secure supply of gas & associated generation capacity that can fill the gap when required (eventually combined with carbon capture), significant nuclear generation capacity, significant hydrogen production and storage. I suspect the 2021 wind situation will be used to bring fresh momentum to the nuclear plans. And I doubt we can afford to drop the ball in regards hydrogen this time around. But I still have a lot to learn.


----------



## A380 (Sep 28, 2021)

elbows said:


> Cheers for the info.
> 
> I suppose I should consider separating this into two different things.
> 
> ...


Winter lulls ( probably caused by high pressure) are the main planned for threat. But then the most planned for threats no one had really planned for the massive drop in demand that Covid brought and the challenges of managing the grid. New products were being designed  in days. A key issue was: if you don’t have enough energy to balance the grid that’s bad as you have to turn people off. However, if you have too much energy that’s worse as it can damage the transmission system itself in ways that could take days or weeks to put right.

The other good starting point, if you haven’t already read it is.   


			Cost of energy review: independent report - Dieter Helm
		


Commissioned by HMG from Helm it was supposed to inform the debate on the much delayed White  Paper, (so it’s a tad dated.) The first section describes how we got where we are today, the next options and the final recommendations. If you are coming back to this after a few years ( or for people new to the area this is probably the ideal starting point.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 28, 2021)

Nuclear is the only energy that can steer us out of fossil fuels. It’s not perfect but right for right now. We’re already on 2.0 and 10.0 is coming soon.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 28, 2021)

Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.


----------



## elbows (Sep 28, 2021)

weltweit said:


> Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.



Spent fuel waste management, implications of accidents, build timescales, cost are the obvious big ones people probably tend to pick from. 

The only downside that has at least diminished for me with nuclear is that if it had much more momentum in recent decades than actually turned out to be the case, it could have happened in a way that stifled the rise of renewables.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 28, 2021)

weltweit said:


> Surely the key issue against Nuclear power is the nasty stuff that is required to make it work and the fact that we haven't yet found a solution for the spent fuel rods with the massive half lives we already created. Unless we think that them all sitting around getting lost at Sellafield is ok I suppose.



Guess we could balance that against billions of tons of carbon dioxide sat in the atmosphere.
Would be nice if renewables could get us through the coming pinch, but I haven't seen anything convincing on that score.

We'll probably have used the nukes on each other fighting over lithium deposits for home storage solutions by the time it becomes pressing anyhoo...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 28, 2021)

Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 28, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.


God’s giggling away, and Archangel Michael’s like (roll eyes) : “what have you done?”
“Oh, nothing, just irony”.


----------



## A380 (Sep 28, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Kind of bizarre that we’re short of carbon dioxide at the moment.


It does make you proud to be British...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> It does make you proud to be British...



My home town is fucked (yet again) as that’s one of the main fertiliser plants that they’re just going to let fold. Presumably Co2 cheaper in India. Red Wall my arse.


----------



## elbows (Sep 28, 2021)

8ball said:


> Would be nice if renewables could get us through the coming pinch, but I haven't seen anything convincing on that score.



That also depends on the detail of the pinch you are expecting. Theres probably quite a broad range of expectations about that, and its timing.

Plus other pinches are expected too, eg plenty of analysis implies there will be a period this decade where electricity generation capacity in this country will struggle to meet our needs. And that situation may well end up being a catalyst for a number of things, but I cannot be sure which ones. Our new nuclear build timescales mean it cant hope to prevent that period from arriving, at best it may be part of what gets us out of it eventually. It could either gain or lose momentum as a result of that particular pinch; it might start to look attractive, or its tendency to feature terrible delays to operational start dates may yet cast it in the role of a terrible tease.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 28, 2021)

I still think micro hydro would fill a gap. There used to be thousands of water mills all over the country and gravity isn't affected by the weather.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 29, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> I still think micro hydro would fill a gap. There used to be thousands of water mills all over the country and gravity isn't affected by the weather.



Well, for most values of “weather”. 

I don’t know much about it but (astonishing ignorance trigger warning), I watched some
videos about historical uses of it and it looked pretty interesting, as did just some old ways of storing energy based on just lifting other really heavy things.


----------



## co-op (Sep 29, 2021)

elbows said:


> Oh and regards loss of momentum, I remember that at some point after Germany decided to phase out nuclear, there were some signs of them getting cold feet over that decision. But the industry told them it was too late to u-turn because too much momentum and skills/investment base had already been lost. I wish I could find the artilcle I read about this some years ago, but so far I cannot.


The decision was reversed and then re-reversed due to remarkably unlucky timing. The original decision was to retire the fleet at the end of their lifetimes (ie by about now, dependng on how long they could credibly patch them up). But at some point (and I really am too lazy to google it  ) Merkel announced that she was going to keep nuclear. Then very soon afterwards, Fukushima happened and suddenly the Green Party started getting huge vote boosts in German Lande elections, putting on 20%, and more and Merkel quickly re-reversed the keep-it decision, in fact phasing out the fleet prematurely which as many have pointed out was a really crazy decision because once you've actually got a functioning plant, they do produce relatively low carbon electricity and in Germany, that power was replaced by buying dirty coal from Poland instead which is way worse for the world, or nuclear generated stuff from France which kind of seems to undermine the original point.

Nuclear's always been way more unpopular in Germany than any other big European country except maybe Italy so it's had a political salience there it's never had here. But I don't recall absence of expertise being directly raised as a reason for the second reversal. I think it's a dead duck in Germany now, it's politically toxic.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2021)

Yeah what I was on about was much later. Hard to say more unless I find what I originally read. When failing to find that I did find some suggestion that made me think the skills thing was just an excuse by some entities involved with the power stations that didnt want to extend the closure timetable for other reasons by that point.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2021)

Anyway maybe I will just skip over whatever that was and look to more recent sentiments from Germany. I probably need to dig into the following, which is far too brief a story from this source but I dont have time to look for more right now:









						Merkel sees no future for nuclear energy in Germany | Headlines
					

Read more about Merkel sees no future for nuclear energy in Germany on Devdiscourse




					www.devdiscourse.com
				






> It is too late to change Germany's commitment to phasing out nuclear energy, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday, adding that green hydrogen was the future.
> 
> Telling reporters she did not expect any future government to reverse the exit from atomic energy, she said: "Nuclear energy is not sustainable in the long run."



If Germany is able to throw its weight behind green hydrogen properly then my opinion of what is possible and likely in the years ahead could shift quite a lot.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2021)

Oh a couple of other things about Germany. I believe that even pre-Fukushima when nuclear was still part of their climate change/transition plans, it was considered as a bridging technology rather than something sustainable for the very long term. So Merkels recent comments arent really a shift from that earlier sentiment. I expect there are many discussions we can have about quite how sustainable some of the sustainable alternatives really are, and that debate stands a chance of being more honest if certain things are labelled as being transitional bridges rather than stuff truly sustainable for the longterm. But that debate would probably lead all the way to considering the extent to which we'll eventually end up in a state not far off pre-industrial times, and if so what the likely timescales are.

I think there is at least one study out there which estimates how many lives have been lost in Germany as a result of increased pollution from non-nuclear generation thats been used to fill the gap in the last 10 years. And I know the likes of Monbiot were keen to point to such things when he took a pro-nuclear stance in the wake of Fukushima. I suspect such arguments have trouble gaining traction because of the very long history of various societies and their establishments managing to downplay some of the health impacts from traditional pollution. Its not like such things are a secret, but in the past various ways were found to turn a blind eye to such realities. There are occasional and specific exceptions, but the overall theme has remained. I expect these blind spots to die out since the entire climate and energy agenda means such aspects stop being inconvenient truths and start becoming convenient ones, part of the material used to drive us in a different direction, but this still seems to be a slow process. When it comes to judging nuclear fairly and in full context, those blind spots were unfair, and I can acknowledge that despite not being pro-nuclear at all myself. And nuclear has to contend with the psychology of radiation, some of which wont be fair to it either. But overall its hard not to see the atomic age as a terrible curse that cast a long shadow over humanity. Even though much of that was bomb related I probably still dont feel too sorry that nuclear power was tarred with the same brush.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2021)

Just to clarify that last bit, one of my beefs with nuclear is that even if it were actually more benign than many like to think, there is no escaping the sense that its a curse. If for no other reason than the psychology of radiation, which isnt good for peoples mental health. Again the bomb and the threat of mass death is one of the big causes of that, but not the only one, and there have been just enough nuclear power station disaster already that its hard to imagine it ever having a great image everywhere. Massive energy crises that mess up peoples lives in dramatic ways and leave humanity desperate might I suppose be enough to turn attitudes on their head under certain circumstances, but I still wouldnt bank on it. Not that thats expected to be enough to put UK PLC off on its own, and nuclear stuff is an area where its easy to imagine this country ending up on the wrong side of history, a promoter out of step. Although that also means that should a time eventually arrive where we flip to the other side, the UK will be sure to grandstand about its change of heart.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> as did just some old ways of storing energy based on just lifting other really heavy things.


There's lots if old (coal) mine shafts around that could be used for lowering and raising heavy weights to store energy.


----------



## A380 (Sep 29, 2021)

WouldBe said:


> There's lots if old (coal) mine shafts around that could be used for lowering and raising heavy weights to store energy.


Tin mines too,,,









						UK startup eyes abandoned mine shafts for energy storage
					

Disused mine shafts around the UK could soon be used as giant gravity batteries, capable of reacting to grid demands in under a second.




					www.theengineer.co.uk


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2021)

A380 said:


> Tin mines too,,,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A more modest demo setup generated for the first time earlier this year:









						Gravitricity battery generates first power at Edinburgh site
					

The Gravitricity system acts like a giant battery to balance the electricity coming from renewables.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2021)

What about flywheel storage? That was used in some of the coal-fired plants. I recall a tale about one of them having a concrete flywheel the size of a house, that if it broke loose it would roll for thirty miles flattening everything in its path…


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 1, 2021)

elbows said:


> A more modest demo setup generated for the first time earlier this year:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



250kW for ten seconds. That's a lot of steel and construction to boil four kettles, hope it's worth the million quid construction costs in the data they get from it, although Gravitricity have been going for ten years so I'm not holding my breath like the £2 million crowdfunders must be.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2021)

Gravity storage is inhenently very inefficient because gravity is so weak. Mass x Height x 9.8 = Joules stored. There are ~15,000 Joules in an AA battery, so you'd have to raise one tonne by ~1.5m to store the same amount of energy.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Gravity storage is inhenently very inefficient because gravity is so weak. Mass x Height x 9.8 = Joules stored. There are ~15,000 Joules in an AA battery, so you'd have to raise one tonne by ~1.5m to store the same amount of energy.


I’m hoping there’s some way that this could be harnessed to give us more funicular railways though.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2021)

Or on windy nights send some of those modern trains with regenerative braking that feeds back into the power supply up Shap incline and then run them back down in the morning when everyone sticks the kettle on for their morning brew.


----------



## A380 (Oct 1, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> What about flywheel storage? That was used in some of the coal-fired plants. I recall a tale about one of them having a concrete flywheel the size of a house, that if it broke loose it would roll for thirty miles flattening everything in its path…



Flywheels are about inertia. Which isn’t really storage. Basically when we had 30 coal power stations and thousands of tons of steel spinning at 3000 rpm that provided lots of benefits to the grid, a main one being limited the rate of frequency change. Wind, solar and interconnectors don’t have any inertia. Flywheels are one possible way of providing it- there are others. 

A lack of inertia is bad in and of itself, and doubly bad as we use frequency change rate as the main safety indicator to generators to shut themselves of if they get disconnected.

Also if you want a big chunk of energy for a few seconds a flywheels is good. I think they still have one at Culham for JET although it might have gone.


----------



## A380 (Oct 1, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Or on windy nights send some of those modern trains with regenerative braking that feeds back into the power supply up Shap incline and then run them back down in the morning when everyone sticks the kettle on for their morning brew.


Don’t forget roller coasters either…


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2021)

Flywheel energy storage is a thing. You use magnetic bearings and seal it in a vacuum but even still the energy leaks out through friction & eddy currents. They can be drained quicker than batteries, so they get used in applications where that's important.


----------



## A380 (Oct 1, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Flywheel energy storage is a thing. You use magnetic bearings and seal it in a vacuum but even still the energy leaks out through friction & eddy currents. They can be drained quicker than batteries, so they get used in applications where that's important.



That’s what the one at Culham is/was for.

And in non electrical transmission energy storage scenarios, there where experiments  with flywheel  electric busses.









						Gyrobus - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2021)

Good bit of contex





Crispy said:


> Gravity storage is inhenently very inefficient because gravity is so weak. Mass x Height x 9.8 = Joules stored. There are ~15,000 Joules in an AA battery, so you'd have to raise one tonne by ~1.5m to store the same amount of energy.



Not _inefficient_ as such.  Likely expensive, though.  

elbows - Careful about phrasing things in terms of kettles  - before XR start blocking our tea deliveries! 

I kind of envisioned that thing as a proof of context for something much bigger tbf.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2021)

A380 said:


> That’s what the one at Culham is/was for.
> 
> And in non electrical transmission energy storage scenarios, there where experiments  with flywheel  electric busses.
> 
> ...



_before reading the article_

I bet the gyroscopic effects made it corner weird


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2021)

Crispy said:


> _before reading the article_
> 
> I bet the gyroscopic effects made it corner weird



I always wondered about that when they put those boosters in the GP cars (not that I ever looked at the tech in proper detail).


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2021)

8ball said:


> elbows - Careful about phrasing things in terms of kettles  - before XR start blocking our tea deliveries!



That wasnt me, it was someone responding to me.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> 250kW for ten seconds. That's a lot of steel and construction to boil four kettles, hope it's worth the million quid construction costs in the data they get from it, although Gravitricity have been going for ten years so I'm not holding my breath like the £2 million crowdfunders must be.



I'm not wildly excited about it, I only mentioned it because someone else did.

Not that I would judge it based on the scale and construction of the demo version. I'd judge it based on versions that could fit our mineshafts, taking into account expected lifetime of the device.

Even then I doubt I would be impressed by the total storage capacity. But maybe it has a role to play in things like grid frequency stabilisation, eg in order to buy a little time for other things to kick in in response to supply/demand imbalances at particular moments in time.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2021)

elbows said:


> That wasnt me, it was someone responding to me.



D'oh!


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2021)

Compressed air storage is also a thing, I believe they were doing a trial on this somewhere out on the east coast using old salt caverns. One of the senior geotechnical guys at my last job was a professor and was doing a paper on it and used my CAD skills to do a couple of the illustrations.  I think it was to use surplus energy from an offshore wind farm nearby to power a compressor that forced air into the cavern, which could then be released through a turbine to power a generator during slack periods.  From memory it had fairly poor efficiency, but that didn’t matter much as the surplus wind generation was basically free energy, so anything not wasted was a bonus.

This was around ten years ago I’d estimate, so I presume it may have been discounted since.


----------



## maomao (Oct 1, 2021)

Pumped storage is the most impressive but I suppose you need the geography. Not every mountain has room for a lake on top.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> We should be getting rid of the missiles too.



Good luck with Iran and North Korea.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 1, 2021)

Just noticed at the bottom of my leccy bill it gives the nuclear waste per kWh of my supply. I am responsible for about half an ounce per year. Probably a couple of gloves and a spec of dust from a fuel rod.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Just noticed at the bottom of my leccy bill it gives the nuclear waste per kWh of my supply. I am responsible for about half an ounce per year. Probably a couple of gloves and a spec of dust from a fuel rod.



I expect you still wouldnt fancy inhaling that 'spec of dust'.

Which reminds me of one of the things that gets on my nerves when some try to quantify the health risks from disasters like Fukushima by only going on about matters in terms of dose of radiation from the environment, comparing such things favourably to x-rays and flying. I think that angle rather ignores those who end up in circumstances where a hot particle enters their body.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 1, 2021)

Isn’t fusion coming online soon?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 1, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Isn’t fusion coming online soon?


It seems it is always 15 years ahead


----------



## weltweit (Oct 1, 2021)

However if you check my post upthread linking to articles from the Engineer, there are some great new magnets available which may make smaller fusion reactors possible .. sooner


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 1, 2021)

weltweit said:


> It seems it is always 15 years ahead



It fixes everything. Bit of an overlap though and I think the powers that be are hedging their bets on it.
Isn’t Norway basically run on renewables?


----------



## elbows (Oct 3, 2021)

A380 said:


> You are right, it is bi directional . My knowledge came from talking to the grid interconnector teams a few years back. I’ve probably got it mixed up with the proposed Iceland link. At least this shows I’m not the interconnector nerd I thought I was…



The Norway interconnector that came up earlier is now officially operational:









						Full power ahead for UK to Norway under-sea power cable
					

The 450-mile cable connects Blyth in Northumberland with the Norwegian village of Kvilldal.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Its the purple one labelled NSL on graphs from websites like the following one (near bottom of the page). Its been importing steadily at about 0.69GW so far.









						National Grid: Live
					

Shows the live status of Great Britain’s electric power transmission network




					grid.iamkate.com
				




Next time I have something non-nuclear to say about UK electricity, the grid, interconnectors etc then I'll start a different broad thread, unless someone else beats me to it.


----------



## A380 (Oct 3, 2021)

If you really want to get into the weeds then the National Grid (EMR) bodies Capacity Market Registers list (almost) every non renewable generator from Drax and the Nukes down to the smallest diesel in a container peaking plant (and a tiny number of non CFD funded renewables that want to play in the CM.

It's updated every couple of weeks normally and goes back years. The T-4 four year ahed (actually nearer three) auctions are the larger more interesting data sets. the T-1 year aheads are much smaller.

Guaranteed insomnia cure. But I find it interesting. The wider site has all the industry facing CM materials and you can also fins some CfD information although more of that is with the Low Carbon Company (LCCC).





__





						EMR Portal - Registers
					






					www.emrdeliverybody.com


----------



## A380 (Oct 3, 2021)

elbows said:


> The Norway interconnector that came up earlier is now officially operational:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I meant to tag you in the CM post above.


----------



## A380 (Oct 3, 2021)

Other links:





__





						EMR Portal - Registers
					






					www.emrdeliverybody.com
				




LCCC Home page. Their data is under resources. I haven't seen if their Portal is working recently





__





						Low Carbon Contracts Company & Electricity Settlements Company | Low Carbon Contracts Company
					






					www.lowcarboncontracts.uk
				




I prefer this real time and historic grid status page to the Grid one. (as do lots of people who work for Grid...) it also has a page for France as well/






						G. B. National Grid status
					






					www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
				




elbows ...


----------



## elbows (Oct 3, 2021)

I used to use that last one but it hurts my eyes too much these days. Id rather use the one I already mentioned or Drax Electric Insights

Are there any that show frequency for more than the last 60 minutes? Here is one that shows it for the last 60 minutes.





__





						ESO Data Portal: Live System Information - Dataset| National Grid Electricity System Operator
					






					data.nationalgrideso.com


----------



## NoXion (Oct 14, 2021)

weltweit said:


> It seems it is always 15 years ahead



Phrases like this aren't at all helpful, because they imply that no progress has been made. Fusion isn't taking any longer to develop into a practical form than solar power took. The photovoltaic effect was discovered all the way back in 1839.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 17, 2021)

Incoming policy alert:

UK to put nuclear power at heart of net zero emissions strategy


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 3, 2022)

Was just reading this Nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap. We need it to stop global heating

I can possibly see the case for using it in the short to medium term, because at present the alternatives to back up variable renewables are basically fossil fuels. Though I wish we were also talking more about reduction in energy use - lots of space to act there still I think.


----------



## A380 (Feb 3, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Was just reading this Nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap. We need it to stop global heating
> 
> I can possibly see the case for using it in the short to medium term, because at present the alternatives to back up variable renewables are basically fossil fuels. Though I wish we were also talking more about reduction in energy use - lots of space to act there still I think.


It’s only for the medium term as we will have fusion in 20 years. Just like we’ve been going to have fusion in 20 years since 1953.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> It’s only for the medium term as we will have fusion in 20 years. Just like we’ve been going to have fusion in 20 years since 1953.



Fusion, the ultimate 'Are we there yet?'


----------



## NoXion (Feb 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> It’s only for the medium term as we will have fusion in 20 years. Just like we’ve been going to have fusion in 20 years since 1953.



Nuclear fusion isn't taking any longer to get going than solar power has. Progress in nuclear fusion has undeniably been made since 1953. I wish people would stop repeating this canard. Note that photovoltaics have had a 100-year head-start over nuclear fusion.


----------



## A380 (Feb 3, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Nuclear fusion isn't taking any longer to get going than solar power has. Progress in nuclear fusion has undeniably been made since 1953. I wish people would stop repeating this canard. Note that photovoltaics have had a 100-year head-start over nuclear fusion.


That’s the joke.

 With JET being able to maintain a stable  burn for as long as they can keep the magnets cool ( just under 8 seconds) and ITER building, maybe we are only 20 years off from Tokamak based plenty. I hope so.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 3, 2022)

From the ITER website in 2005:


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> It’s only for the medium term as we will have fusion in 20 years. Just like we’ve been going to have fusion in 20 years since 1953.


The Big Tokamak is always 20 years away, but the rapid development of high-temp superconducters has enabled a whole load of smaller devices. There's now healthy competition (and multiple approaches) between commerical fusion companies. I predict one of them will achieve net power before ITER fuses a single nucleus, and at a considerably lower cost.









						The chase for fusion energy
					

An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.




					www.nature.com


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Was just reading this Nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap. We need it to stop global heating
> 
> I can possibly see the case for using it in the short to medium term, because at present the alternatives to back up variable renewables are basically fossil fuels. Though I wish we were also talking more about reduction in energy use - lots of space to act there still I think.



Without nuclear, and the development of new nuclear technologies, I think we are fucked.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> That’s the joke.
> 
> With JET being able to maintain a stable  burn for as long as they can keep the magnets cool ( just under 8 seconds) and ITER building, maybe we are only 20 years off from Tokamak based plenty. I hope so.


And still will be 20 years away in 20 years time. 

From what I gather (I'm no expert) at the moment the fusion reactions achieved consume more juice than they provide. Hydrogen is the answer.


----------



## elbows (Feb 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> Without nuclear, and the development of new nuclear technologies, I think we are fucked.



If people can only imagine success and sustainability as somehow sticking to a world that strongly resembles the "old normal" then there are many ways we can be fucked this century, with or without nuclear. I do not expect the realities of this century to be quite that dull.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

elbows said:


> If people can only imagine success and sustainability as somehow sticking to a world that strongly resembles the "old normal" then there are many ways we can be fucked this century, with or without nuclear. I do not expect the realities of this century to be quite that dull.



There’s the old adage that people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

That idea might be getting a good testing soon.


----------



## A380 (Feb 3, 2022)

Crispy said:


> The Big Tokamak is always 20 years away, but the rapid development of high-temp superconducters has enabled a whole load of smaller devices. There's now healthy competition (and multiple approaches) between commerical fusion companies. I predict one of them will achieve net power before ITER fuses a single nucleus, and at a considerably lower cost.





Sasaferrato said:


> And still will be 20 years away in 20 years time.
> 
> From what I gather (I'm no expert) at the moment the fusion reactions achieved consume more juice than they provide. Hydrogen is the answer.


Not quite, the issues are getting the energy out and replacing  the chamber walls. Both more engineering than science.

Hydrogen- on Earth- isn’t an energy source. It’s a way of storing and transporting energy- possibly a good one- but the energy still has to be generated, harvested to start with.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Hydrogen is the answer.



Well, it’s the answer to “what element comprises roughly one ninth of the mass of a water molecule”…


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> Well, it’s the answer to “what element comprises roughly one ninth of the mass of a water molecule”…



It is the answer to our energy needs. It is also something that I'm hearing about more and more. Hydrogen powered ships (that really is a biggie in pollution reduction, at present they burn shit that is so turgid it needs to be heated in order to be pumped), hydrogen powered busses and cars. 

I've been an advocate of hydrogen for decades, the world is finally listening.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is the answer to our energy needs. It is also something that I'm hearing about more and more. Hydrogen powered ships (that really is a biggie in pollution reduction, at present they burn shit that is so turgid it needs to be heated in order to be pumped), hydrogen powered busses and cars.
> 
> I've been an advocate of hydrogen for decades, the world is finally listening.



It has… a few uses.  It also has some very enthusiastic advocates.  The nature of investment hype tends towards single technologies being the answer to everything and I think hydrogen is likely to lose out completely for this reason.

Buses, yes in some cases, I think.
Cars - I would bet heavily against, aside from slightly odd hobbyists producing the fuel in their garden shed.

Ships - I haven’t really looked at the data.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> It has… a few uses.  It also has some very enthusiastic advocates.  The nature of investment hype tends towards single technologies being the answer to everything and I think hydrogen is likely to lose out completely for this reason.



Nope. California has built IIRC 200 hydrogen filling stations for cars, more to follow.

The glory of hydrogen is that your wind, tidal and solar outputs are never wasted. Excess generation goes into hydrogen production, and the raw material for the hydrogen is cheap and plentiful. At the moment, we have wind turbines being paid to do nothing, when generation exceeds supply, which is ridiculous. Using that power to generate hydrogen is sensible. I do feel that hydrogen and graphene go hand in hand, graphene tanks can hold hydrogen under immense pressure.

If you want an aide memoir about the strength of graphene, to break through a graphene sheet one molecule thick with an object the size of a fine pencil point, you need to balance an elephant on it.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Ah, yeah, California.  The home of prudent and cost-efficient energy management. 

So what is the source-to-pump cost of these filling stations?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> Ah, yeah, California.  The home of prudent and cost-efficient energy management.
> 
> So what is the source-to-pump cost of these filling stations?



No idea. Expensive I should imagine, which all emerging technologies tend to be.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> No idea. Expensive I should imagine, which all emerging technologies tend to be.



This is part of the problem ie. that hydrogen is behind the development curve and hence very expensive.  It has various other problems too, but this can kill superior technologies by itself.

I can see hydrogen playing a part in making renewables more viable - the example you gave about making use of unpredictable over-supply is a good one.  I’d be willing to bet heavily against anything but a tiny minority of new cars being hydrogen-powered in 10 years, though.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> And still will be 20 years away in 20 years time.
> 
> From what I gather (I'm no expert) at the moment the fusion reactions achieved consume more juice than they provide. Hydrogen is the answer.



Hydrogen is not an energy source. It could however be quite a useful way of _storing_ energy, assuming of course that we had some plentiful and dependable source of electrical energy in order to run the required electrolysis of water... such as nuclear fusion.

In the meantime, nuclear fission is a proven technology that does not generate CO2 as part of its crucial function.


----------



## elbows (Feb 3, 2022)

Hydrogen is considered attractive because there has long been a sense that some form of liquid fuel will need to be part of the mix in future.

As well as the practical problems with hydrogen, its reputation suffers from past hype and bullshit about the 'hydrogen economy'. This includes stuff in the 1970s when battery technology wasnt very good, when the future for nuclear power was considered more rosy than its since become, and when political & pricing shocks in regards fossil fuels forced a lot of hype onto the agenda without actually having to live up to any of it in the short-medium term.

There have also been further periods of hydrogen hype this century which didnt really live up to expectations at the time, eg the period a while ago when fuel cells were heavily hyped including in the consumer gadgets arena, but what we ended up with instead was far more lithium batteries with somewhat better specs than batteries of the past.

I'm wary of the past hype but at this stage I rule nothing out. I expect future solutions involve a big mix of many different things on many fronts, including reductions on the demand side. Nuclear looks like it will remain part of the medium term mix, but its already clear that things like wind are going to account for a larger chunk of the mix than seemed plausible a few decades ago. And in the very long term I wouldnt bet on nuclear, but that will be beyond my lifetime anyway.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Hydrogen is not an energy source. It could however be quite a useful way of _storing_ energy, assuming of course that we had some plentiful and dependable source of electrical energy in order to run the required electrolysis of water... such as nuclear fusion.
> 
> In the meantime, nuclear fission is a proven technology that does not generate CO2 as part of its crucial function.


It is also so far into the future that you need binoculars to see it.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2022)

Hydrogen is a complete bastard to work with. It makes metals brittle, it leaks through almost anything, it has to be stored at very low temperatures or high pressures otherwise it takes up a collosal amount of space. The only real upside is that it's relatively easy to turn into electricity and vice versa. There are better liquid fuels and there are better energy stores.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is also so far into the future that you need binoculars to see it.



What is?


----------



## A380 (Feb 3, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is the answer to our energy needs. It is also something that I'm hearing about more and more. Hydrogen powered ships (that really is a biggie in pollution reduction, at present they burn shit that is so turgid it needs to be heated in order to be pumped), hydrogen powered busses and cars.
> 
> I've been an advocate of hydrogen for decades, the world is finally listening.


Ammonia is probably a bed storage medium for wind and solar and deffo a better fuel option for ships and perhaps HGV and PSV transport. It’s just not sexy though.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> Ammonia is probably a bed storage medium for wind and solar and deffo a better fuel option for ships and perhaps HGV and PSV transport. It’s just not sexy though.



Refresh my ancient chemistry. What is the reaction?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 3, 2022)

Mmmm sexy ammonia....


----------



## A380 (Feb 4, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Refresh my ancient chemistry. What is the reaction?


NH3










						Haber process - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NoXion (Feb 4, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Hydrogen is a complete bastard to work with. It makes metals brittle, it leaks through almost anything, it has to be stored at very low temperatures or high pressures otherwise it takes up a collosal amount of space. The only real upside is that it's relatively easy to turn into electricity and vice versa. There are better liquid fuels and there are better energy stores.



Wouldn't hydrogen be better off used as a feedstock for creating easier to handle fuels? I.E. hydrogen + atmospheric carbon = synthetic hydrocarbons.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 4, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Wouldn't hydrogen be better off used as a feedstock for creating easier to handle fuels? I.E. hydrogen + atmospheric carbon = synthetic hydrocarbons.


Probably more efficient to skip the H2 production step and just go CO2 + H2O -> CH + O2 directly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2022)

Crispy said:


> The Big Tokamak is always 20 years away, but the rapid development of high-temp superconducters has enabled a whole load of smaller devices. There's now healthy competition (and multiple approaches) between commerical fusion companies. I predict one of them will achieve net power before ITER fuses a single nucleus, and at a considerably lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


news








						Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
					

A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 9, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> news
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I was looking for somewhere to post that.  Exciting.  I just hope the world leaders don’t decide that means decarbonisation has been solved and wait for that to come on line before doing anything.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 9, 2022)

Double what they achieved in 1997, wayhey!


----------



## elbows (Feb 9, 2022)

Perhaps if my lifespan was hundreds of years I could afford to get excited about it.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 9, 2022)

fusion timeline by some french guy working on Iter being interviewed on R4 about it: 1st generating plants around 2050ish.


----------



## elbows (Feb 9, 2022)

Nobody can really know whether that imagined timetable will stay true or slip. But certainly if its going to be part of the solution, it seems to be a story for the second half of this century at the earliest. Which means it could still be relatively timely in terms of the greatest energy challenges ahead, but I wouldnt be too confident about it. Neither would I give up on it just because its a long hard slog, but I'd still need to keep hold of a plan for circumstances where it never achieves what is needed and we end up having to rely on all the other options instead.

I suppose in so much as there is any sort of overarching plan, its to use one more generation of fission reactors in the meantime and then hope to replace those with fusion. Not clear whether the scale of this new generation of fission will reach what is presently imagined or not, or the extent to which timetables for new fission builds will slip further, and there is always the risk that we are only one big accident away from fission aspirations being partially thwarted.


----------



## RileyOBlimey (Feb 9, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There's a climate emergency. We can't allow a possible 5 leukemia cases in 35 years to stop us doing the right thing. Besides, studies in other countries show that such cases aren't associated with nuclear power plants per se, but only where certain waste-handling activities are conducted.



The very fact we’re in a climate emergency should prohibit building new nuclear power stations. Where are these power stations built? On the coast. What is a major risk of climate change? Rising sea levels. But surely, engineers could deal with a gradual rise! I hear you cry. There is no guarantee sudden huge rise will be averted.


----------



## RileyOBlimey (Feb 9, 2022)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> fusion timeline by some french guy working on Iter being interviewed on R4 about it: 1st generating plants around 2050ish.



…and that date is optimistic.


----------



## elbows (Feb 9, 2022)

RileyOBlimey said:


> The very fact we’re in a climate emergency should prohibit building new nuclear power stations. Where are these power stations built? On the coast. What is a major risk of climate change? Rising sea levels. But surely, engineers could deal with a gradual rise! I hear you cry. There is no guarantee sudden huge rise will be averted.


Hopefully they wont hire Tepco engineers for that task:

"Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami":



			Welcome to nginx!
		




> Katsumi Naganuma, 70, a former worker at Tokyo Electric Power Co., feels particular guilt because he knows that a 35-meter-high bluff overlooking the Pacific was shaved down to build the plant closer to sea level more than 40 years ago.
> 
> Tepco, assuming tsunami 3.1 meters or higher would never hit the coast, reduced the bluff by some 25 meters and erected the plant on artificially prepared ground only 10 meters above sea level.





> In fact, Tepco decided to build the plant on low ground based on a cost-benefit calculation of the operating costs of the seawater pumps, according to two research papers separately written by senior Tepco engineers in the 1960s.
> 
> If the seawater pumps were placed on high ground, their operating costs would be accordingly higher.


----------



## rich! (Feb 9, 2022)

A380 said:


> Ammonia is probably a bed storage medium for wind and solar and deffo a better fuel option for ships and perhaps HGV and PSV transport. It’s just not sexy though.


there's a lot of people in places like Siemens looking at ammonia - it's easy to make fertiliser from, once you've got it in a tank it can be burnt in a controlled manner to power an engine, and there is a process of making it using electricity and a catalyst from air, I believe. So a farm could use a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels to make fuel and feedstock...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 9, 2022)

rich! said:


> there's a lot of people in places like Siemens looking at ammonia - it's easy to make fertiliser from, once you've got it in a tank it can be burnt in a controlled manner to power an engine, and there is a process of making it using electricity and a catalyst from air, I believe. So a farm could use a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels to make fuel and feedstock...


And explosives.


----------



## A380 (Feb 9, 2022)

8ball said:


> And explosives.


Stored energy innit. Fun fact: There is more energy in a pound of butter than in a pound of C4 plastic explosive. But the explosive can be made to release it at faster than the speed of sound.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 9, 2022)

A380 said:


> Stored energy innit. Fun fact: There is more energy in a pound of butter than in a pound of C4 plastic explosive. But the explosive can be made to release it at faster than the speed of sound.


I'll make sure I take my explosives in butter form next time I board a plane


----------



## A380 (Feb 9, 2022)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> I'll make sure I take my explosives in butter form next time I board a plane


I can’t believe it’s not Semtex.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 9, 2022)

Labour now seem to think so, again.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 9, 2022)

One of the many reasons I have always been against nuclear power was the security threat from terrorism. I've now got to add the threat from warfare. I never thought even the military machine would be stupid enough to attack nuclear power stations, especially on your own doorstep. Wrong again.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> One of the many reasons I have always been against nuclear power was the security threat from terrorism. I've now got to add the threat from warfare. I never thought even the military machine would be stupid enough to attack nuclear power stations, especially on your own doorstep. Wrong again.



Except the Russians have attacked them to seize control of them, not to blow them up.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 10, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Except the Russians have attacked them to seize control of them, not to blow them up.


Mistakes never happen, do they? Future dictators, and current ones, are always predictable and mentally balanced. So are religious extremists.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Mistakes never happen, do they? Future dictators, and current ones, are always predictable and mentally balanced. So are religious extremists.



Discarding nuclear energy on that basis is just daft, just like it would be daft to abandon the use of fire because of arsonists. Look at the deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear fission energy is comparable to renewables in that respect. We can't decide policy based on theatrics, otherwise aircraft would be banned because thousands of people died on 9/11.


----------



## yield (Apr 7, 2022)

Interview in the Guardian at the weekend. 

Energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins: ‘It’s the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest way to address the crisis’
Sat 26 Mar 2022


> The most energy-inefficient design of all, he says, may be nuclear power, which is heavily subsidised, costly and pushed by a politically powerful lobby. Using it to address shortages of electricity or to counter climate change, he argues, is like offering starving people rice and caviar when it’s far cheaper and easier to give just rice.





> “When you have a climate and energy emergency, like now, you need to invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to buy the most efficient solution. Far better to deploy fast, inexpensive and sure technologies like wind or solar than one that is slow to build, speculative and very costly. Anything else makes climate change worse than it needs to be.”





> He demolishes the technology with statistics. “In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”


The whole article is worth a read.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 7, 2022)

yield said:


> Interview in the Guardian at the weekend.
> 
> Energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins: ‘It’s the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest way to address the crisis’
> Sat 26 Mar 2022
> ...



Can’t say I’m convinced on this alone that nuclear won’t be a valuable part of the mix, but a guy who grows tropical fruits in his house without heating when the temperatures outside are sub-zero is definitely worth listening to when it comes to energy efficiency.


----------



## elbows (Apr 7, 2022)

8ball said:


> Can’t say I’m convinced on this alone that nuclear won’t be a valuable part of the mix, but a guy who grows tropical fruits in his house without heating when the temperatures outside are sub-zero is definitely worth listening to when it comes to energy efficiency.



it will likely end up an important part of the mix in a whole bunch of countries for exactly the reasons mentioned in the article - there are a bunch of powerful interests that want it to be part of the mix, and combining that with not wholeheartedly doing all the things he goes on about on the demand and efficiency side of things, we end up needing something else to ensure sufficient supply to meet that demand for periods when, for example, the wind isnt blowing strongly.

I cannot make an exact prediction about what proportion of the mix it will end up making. Because it isnt clear exactly how far our renewable ambitions will stretch, or our power storage ambitions, or our efficiency and reduced demand ambitions. Although we can be reasonable sure that in a country like the UK we dont want to do the efficiency and demand reduction stuff properly. We'e squandered a lot of opportunities this century so far to actually sort our housing stock out properly, and I expect that will bite us in the arse big time at some point. And also I struggle with exact predictions because there are a bunch of setbacks that nuclear will likely face, but its not so easy to know exactly how bad they will be. We can expect timescales to be unreliable, and for costs to spiral especially given the general inflationary picture. We cannot predict whether there will be any further nuclear accidents at a delicate moment which give the nuclear industry a massive kick in the balls and really upset plans. And we cannot predict whether public support will diminish dramatically for any other possible reasons.

Anyway I see the much-delayed UK energy strategy stuff emerged in the news today. But it was the typical stuff we probably already expected, and seemed lacking in detail as usual:









						Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production
					

The government wants to boost UK energy production and independence as household bills soar.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




All I really learnt is that they really love the 'Great British' branding they are attaching to new entities these days. Great British Nuclear, joining Great British Railways and maybe some others I'm not aware of.


----------



## elbows (Apr 7, 2022)

And I suspect the detail is lacking is because I believe reports suggested the plan was previously delayed because the treasurey were quibbling about funding. So all these plans still leave me feeling like we are still stuck within the holding pattern of 'the UK has nuclear ambitions but doesnt want to fund them properly'. A story that feels like its been dragging on this whole century so far.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2022)

Who's building the Great British Nuclear plants then? The Chinese or the French?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 7, 2022)

I expect it has already been posted to the thread but Rolls Royce wants to produce a number of small modular nuclear power stations to be positioned around the country. The argument is that they made small reactors for nuclear subs and slightly larger units could power parts of the country.


----------



## elbows (Apr 7, 2022)

weltweit said:


> I expect it has already been posted to the thread but Rolls Royce wants to produce a number of small modular nuclear power stations to be positioned around the country. The argument is that they made small reactors for nuclear subs and slightly larger units could power parts of the country.



Yeah, although thats part of the future vision that people are most likely to take the piss out of. I dont much like the idea myself, but I have an open mind about whether it will actually be viable and done at some point.

Having said that, even that side of things features talk of other countries in the UK document about the energy strategy:



> we will also collaborate with other countries to accelerate work on advanced nuclear technologies, including both Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs)



They bring up the queen in that document too:



> When Her Majesty The Queen opened the world’s first nuclear power station at Calder Hall in Cumbria in 1956, she described being present at the making of history. The UK had indeed led the world as the first country to split the atom, and the first to pioneer this new form of power.







__





						British energy security strategy
					






					www.gov.uk
				




Funnily enough they dont mention that the power station she opened there was dual purpose and was mostly used to produce plutonium for bombs in its early years, or the 1957 fire and radioactive release from the original two plutonium-producing military reactors at the same site.


----------



## Elpenor (Apr 8, 2022)

maomao said:


> Who's building the Great British Nuclear plants then? The Chinese or the French?


Not the Japanese though as the Wylfa project on Anglesey was shut down from 2018-9; a huge amount of money spent on a new concept that hadn’t ever been proven.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 13, 2022)

yield said:


> Interview in the Guardian at the weekend.
> 
> Energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins: ‘It’s the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest way to address the crisis’
> Sat 26 Mar 2022
> ...



If nuclear energy was being pushed by a powerful lobby, then it would have displaced fossil fuels as a source of baseload power, starting in the 1970s. Instead what happened is that the true power, AKA the fossil fuels industry, strangled baseload nuclear energy in the crib when it could have done the greatest amount of good. We should still build them, by the way. We're not starving and nuclear fuel isn't anything like caviar, which is pricey and and can't be reprocessed into more caviar.


----------



## elbows (Apr 13, 2022)

NoXion said:


> If nuclear energy was being pushed by a powerful lobby, then it would have displaced fossil fuels as a source of baseload power, starting in the 1970s. Instead what happened is that the true power, AKA the fossil fuels industry, strangled baseload nuclear energy in the crib when it could have done the greatest amount of good. We should still build them, by the way. We're not starving and nuclear fuel isn't anything like caviar, which is pricey and and can't be reprocessed into more caviar.



Its still a powerful lobby, just nowhere near as powerful as the traditional fossil fuel ones. And in terms of the timescale you indicated, the UK had North Sea oil and gas fields to exploit, and would have been eyeing when production would reach its maximum from those sources.

Also a chunk of the power of the nuclear lobby relates to nuclear submarines and weapons, including the historical overlap and the way that the nuclear powers of this world resulting strategic interest calculations include want to have a broader nuclear industry and technical technical expertise in place to support the military side of things.

Factors that have made this an uneven competition between these lobbies include nuclear projects having a history of ending up a pain in the arse for governments, because of technical and timescale setback risks and problems making the costings look politically attractive, and the risk of unwanted public opposition. Repeatedly kicking long term waste storage considerations off into the distance hasnt helped. Fossil fuel stuff had less technical risk, and very large amounts of quick money sloshing around. Only now that our own fossil resource exploitation is well past its peak, combined with other sustainability issues including possible global production ceilings and climate change issues, and geopolitical considerations given who the major producers are, is there more room again for alternatives to get a look in. And a couple of renewable technologies were able to exploit these changes more effectively than nuclear could. The UK approach to nuclear stuff is still half-hearted in terms of the appetite to invest in it to the required extent to meet energy security goals. The prize of energy security is undervalued despite the rhetoric, with other sorts of risk and rapid reward calculations still tending to win out so far.

If all this stuff happened on a level playing field with no lobbying and non-energy (eg military) considerations included, then nuclear is still not a genuinely attractive option, and renewables will easily win a lot of such battles. Its only when energy security in terms of baseload, periods of a lack of wind etc are considered that justifications for nuclear can be constructed which allow it to remain on the table as a serious option in the UK. Plus the occasional local employment political considerations.I suppose it will also benefit if the floor for what we expect to pay for energy from other sources remains elevated for a prolonged period, but then again periods of inflation are not exactly going to help with spiralling construction cost fears.

All things considered I still tend to believe that the most realistic prediction is that nuclear will be kept around but the timescales will often slip, and pro-nuclear optimists are never going to see anything remotely close to the percentage share of energy generation they think nuclear can and should offer. Not with fission anyway, not in this era. And personally I'd like to see nuclear power get absolutely trounced to ever increasing and obvious extents by renewables and storage in future, forms of generation that can exceed expectations in terms of their growth, rather than always failing to live up to claims like nuclear has.


----------



## elbows (Apr 13, 2022)

Plus a narrative that involves the genuine possibilities in the 1970s should really include the wider story about the state of British industry at the time. It wasnt just lobbying by the energy alternatives or a lack of political will that doomed nuclear things to fall short of ambitions back then. A lot of the problems were the same ones affecting other industries at the time, too big a gap between ambitions, funding and capabilities when it came to home grown stuff. Industrial decline that we'd tried to be in denial about throughout the post-war period for as long as possible. And we know how that story went in many other industries in the end - retreat and disinterest rather than a project to save that stuff on a massive scale. No appetite to find a way to invest and renew, rather conceding that we couldnt compete and shouldnt bother trying. In a situation where we gave up on stuff like our own design of high speed rail, we were going to give up on UK reactor designs eventually too, no appetite to deal with the scale of setbacks that come with that territory. In the case of nuclear pwoer, it was probably just as well, the priorities in this country and corner-cutting are a poor fit for nuclear safety requirements (eg see the fact that 'Cockrofts folly' was given such a condescending name until it saved our bacon).

At least that stuff isnt a factor now, we are long past the point of relying on our own designs. Maybe if the modular nuclear stuff gets anywhere in future there will be a chance to see how we do in this way in a modern context, but even there it seems likely that we'll rely on international cooperation rather than hopelessly banking on being able to punch above our weight.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 14, 2022)

The 8 new reactors are a Bargin much like the 40 new hospitals they ain't getting built 🤬even the Mistress of the Handbag Maggie only got one through in 12 years. 
 The idea de piffle can drive 8 through the planning process is laughable.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2022)

What's happening or not with thorium based reactors? Are they still in the experimental stage?

Where's good to read up on them? I only vaguely have some notion that if they work at scale, it's a system that's safer / cheaper than other types of contemporary fission reactors.


----------



## Aladdin (Apr 14, 2022)

I often think that Ireland could run itself on one big nuclear power station.
It could be build deep under a mountain...which would address any explosive problems. 

Nuclear Waste is of course the big problem. Where to put that and how to ensure its never going to reach a water table or come in contact with any life form. 

Quite frankly the only way to completely eradicate the risks from nuclear waste would be to deposit them off the planet somewhere.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2022)

xenon said:


> What's happening or not with thorium based reactors? Are they still in the experimental stage?
> 
> Where's good to read up on them? I only vaguely have some notion that if they work at scale, it's a system that's safer / cheaper than other types of contemporary fission reactors.



Ah e2a. Not cheaper but other advantages. still technically difficult, commercial scale reactors some way off.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

It’s pretty shit when the Daily Mail is calling out the sort of scaremongering that you might find in the Guardian, and not the other way around:









						DOMINIC LAWSON: Greens' hatred of nuclear played into Putin's hands
					

DOMINIC LAWSON: Prepare for nuclear Armageddon. That is, if you believe what the likes of Greenpeace are saying about the fighting around Ukraine's nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s pretty shit when the Daily Mail is calling out the sort of scaremongering that you might find in the Guardian, and not the other way around:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I hear the words Dominic Lawson I reach for my sick bucket. For once i actually bothered to read the article (I don't normally with the Daily Mail). What. A. Load. Of. Crap. 
He praises Daddy, Nigel Lawson, for approving a nuclear power plant in the UK when he was a minister, but strangely fails to mention that Daddy is a climate change denier. 
He says how well built the nuclear power plants are in ex-Russian states and how they will withstand attack, with no comment on how these same plants may have been modified by the occupiers, how the usual maintenance will have been disrupted, how all the backup installations will be vulnerable in different ways. No. Nothing to see here. Nuclear power plants are totally safe during modern warfare.
Because of Daddy.
Oh yes, and Greenpeace are the unwitting stooges of evil genius Vladimir Putin.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> When I hear the words Dominic Lawson I reach for my sick bucket. For once i actually bothered to read the article (I don't normally with the Daily Mail). What. A. Load. Of. Crap.
> He praises Daddy, Nigel Lawson, for approving a nuclear power plant in the UK when he was a minister, but strangely fails to mention that Daddy is a climate change denier.
> He says how well built the nuclear power plants are in ex-Russian states and how they will withstand attack, with no comment on how these same plants may have been modified by the occupiers, how the usual maintenance will have been disrupted, how all the backup installations will be vulnerable in different ways. No. Nothing to see here. Nuclear power plants are totally safe during modern warfare.
> Because of Daddy.
> Oh yes, and Greenpeace are the unwitting stooges of evil genius Vladimir Putin.


Not the _most_ accurate precis of an article that I've ever read.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Not the _most_ accurate precis of an article that I've ever read.


It was almost word for word.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s pretty shit when the Daily Mail is calling out the sort of scaremongering that you might find in the Guardian, and not the other way around:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What that article fails to state explicitly is that the nuclear concerns in Ukraine have been a shameless part of the war propaganda there right since the start. And that it is the Ukrainian government and nuclear agency that shout loudest about this stuff, using it as part of their attempts to get the world and their allies to take the war seriously and back Ukraine in a strong and ongoing way.

The article also features the standard attempts to diminish the mental scars of Chernobyl, by going on about the containment around reactors that Chernobyl lacked. But of course when the article then seeks to make use of Fukushima to tell a positive story, it fails to mention that Fukushima also demonstrated a limitation of such containment, being that if a loss of coolant or other issue causes fuel to melt, pressure rises in the reactor vessel and within the containment layer, and a deliberate or uncontrolled release of pressure from containment will follow, enabling radioactive material to enter the wider environment. But when it comes to containment this article features a different magnitude of misleading statement - the claim that "these colossal casings prevented any breach during the full-scale attack, involving shelling, by Russian troops when they seized the plant in March". This is bollocks since the 'full scale attack' did not involve any direct hits on the reactor buildings that would have tested the strength of the containment walls there.

The rest of the article makes standard use of the very messy and contentious picture when it comes to human health impacts of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Its not very easy to get a true view of such things, and both sides of the debate are prone to rushing to the extremes when it comes to that stuff. Even if we attempt to peer beyond the extremes, by looking at illnesses rather than deaths, a clear picture will not emerge. For example attempts to study incidence rates of childhood thyroid cancer in the Fukushima region still end up featuring the usual split of opinion, with claims of an obvious increase vs claims that the screening programme led to over diagnosis.

We are never going to escape the fact that all things nuclear are mired in propaganda, and that people in general will be more attuned to the potential threat than they often are with other forms of pollution. Nor can we escape the fact that the pro nuclear side have long been setup to fight loudly on this propaganda front. And that this stuff has had an impact on the extent to which particular governments pressed on with ambitious nuclear energy plans over various decades. However all of this mess is still only one aspect of that picture, there are other reasons why the enthusiasm for and timescales of our own governments nuclear energy programme has fluctuated in our lifetime. Easy, profitable exploitation of fossil fuels made it relatively easy for them to turn to other options instead, and only now that that traditional fossil fuel story is threatened from multiple directions do we find that the nuclear power equation is belatedly shifting again here. Although still dependant on quite how long the Ukraine-related threats to gas security and energy prices persist, the economic case for nuclear will be altered by recent global events, although it still has to be noted that inflation also has an impact on nuclear construction costs.

As for the Guardian, I would hardly describe them as being an anti-nuclear publication. They will run stories about peoples concerns and the various issues with nuclear, but they are also the paper of Monbiot who was quite prepared to be very pro-nuclear even in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima, even when making such a case required him to write articles that utterly failed to acknowledge the impact on humans of evacuations and exclusion zones.


----------



## elbows (Aug 16, 2022)

The latest nuclear stuff from Ukraine, just to illustrate one of my points in previous post. What Zelensky says here is consistent with their previous rhetoric:



> In his nightly address, Zelensky says a catastrophe at the station would threaten the entire region.
> 
> "If through Russia's actions a catastrophe occurs the consequences could hit those who for the moment are silent," he says.
> 
> "If now the world does not show strength and decisiveness to defend one nuclear power station, it will mean that the world has lost."



From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...fb62174929d817e9777600&pinned_post_type=share


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2022)

The main case against nuclear fission is that we don't have a solution for the waste nuclear fuel rods which are produced by the process. At the moment they are being held above ground at Sellafield (Windscale) and they have a massive half life. There was discussion on the possibility of reusing the fuel, I don't know how feasible that is. 

So, the holy grail is nuclear fusion, which hasn't been achieved in a demo reactor anywhere yet. The theory is that for an input of energy of X, there will be an output of energy of X+Y and I think no waste fuel. At the moment there is more investment than ever before being put into fusion research. However that money is dwarfed by the amount being donated in weapons to Ukraine for example.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2022)

weltweit said:


> I expect it has already been posted to the thread but Rolls Royce wants to produce a number of small modular nuclear power stations to be positioned around the country. The argument is that they made small reactors for nuclear subs and slightly larger units could power parts of the country.



Some of the arguments In favour of this are quite interesting - that existing nuclear power stations are essentially completely bespoke because of the infrequency of construction and their scale which means they cost a lot.

In theory the small rolls Royce ones - which they’ve made quite a few of for nuclear subs, can be made at scale and just installed on site.

Also see nuclear power stations on boats, make them at a “nuclear power station boat” factory and then take them where you need them.


----------



## elbows (Aug 18, 2022)

weltweit said:


> The main case against nuclear fission is that we don't have a solution for the waste nuclear fuel rods which are produced by the process. At the moment they are being held above ground at Sellafield (Windscale) and they have a massive half life. There was discussion on the possibility of reusing the fuel, I don't know how feasible that is.



Until not that long ago Sellafield was part of the oldschool ways of reprocessing some types of UK fuel, with a contract for Japan to take quite a bit of it, but the changed nuclear industry in Japan in the wake of Fukushima, and some scandals with falsified documents, brought that particular operation to an end. It tends to be a messy business that generated different sorts of nuclear waste problems during the processing. France probably does quite a lot of this stuff to so maybe do a search for their reprocessing industry to learn more. The sort of reactors in use makes a difference to the technicalities of this too, and so the picture will also have changed over time as our original generation of power stations reached their end (eg bye bye Magnox reactors).

Getting the whole 'where are we going to store the used fuel in the longterm?' question off the mainstream news/political hot potato radar has been one of the more obvious changes to the nuclear picture in this country in my lifetime. I could call it one of the more obvious victories for nuclear industry PR, but there are probably also other reasons why it isnt in the news like it was in the 1980s. It probably featured in the news plenty back then because there were big decisions to be made about potential sites, and big questions as to the extent to which this country was going to commit to the next generation of new nuclear power stations. But in the end they backed off most of the difficult questions in those regards and just kept kicking things into the long grass instead, till the issue eventually lost most of its public attention. Plus back then the general theme of nuclear also had a lot of attention because of Chernobyl, cold war nuclear weapons stuff, the politics of coal and miners when it came to the broader uk electricity generation story and future. And I suppose the 'environmental concerns' movement was still in a somewhat nascent state back then, climate change, plastics etc hadnt risen to the top of the totem of such concerns, and nuclear power issues were able to occupy a larger chunk of awareness and activism on that front.


----------



## elbows (Aug 18, 2022)

alex_ said:


> In theory the small rolls Royce ones - which they’ve made quite a few of for nuclear subs, can be made at scale and just installed on site.



The signs are they will want to dabble with this stuff, not least because there will be questions about how well it actually works out in practice until its actually attempted.

Some of the potential benefits but also the questions about how well it will turn out in practice remind me of a different, non-nuclear story thats all about the building and construction industry. At various times over the decades there has been much hope and hype in regards the idea of modular buildings, where precision work is done in the factory rather than on-site. It hasnt lived up to expectations on any of those occasions, but the failures are probably not purely technical stories, they also involve the politics of labour, variation in skills and on-site quality control, and the status quo and lobbying/political fear. The modular nuclear builds will probably stumble into some of these areas, and the delicate nature of some of these themes may lead to obfuscation of what the real issues and potential advantages really are, and the risk that political will to press on will evaporate in the face of any resistance and technical setbacks.


----------



## elbows (Aug 30, 2022)

Ah I see the issue of long term waste storage popped back onto the BBCs radar:









						UK looks to Sweden for a solution to nuclear waste
					

After decades of experimentation Sweden is ahead of the UK when dealing with nuclear waste.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




The piece starts off in a simplistic fashion but ends in a different way:



> It is unlikely that a site for a UK GDF will be settled upon for at least another 15 years. But some experts question whether it should ever be built at all.
> 
> Among them is Dr Paul Dorfman, associate fellow of the science policy research unit at the University of Sussex and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
> 
> "Geological disposal is a concept, not a reality," he explains. "There is significant scientific uncertainty about whether the materials which would be used can survive the depredations of time."





> He believes the government's enthusiasm for new nuclear power stations is the reason why it is pushing to build a GDF.
> 
> "If you can't get rid of the waste, you can't produce more, which means that nuclear's USP - that it's climate-friendly and so on - is completely dependent on the notion that you can get rid of this waste," he says.
> 
> "Geological disposal is in fact, unfortunately, a nuclear fig leaf."


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 30, 2022)

The Nuclear Consulting Group is a rent-a-quote fake-neutral anti-nuclear campaign group, I suppose it's no surprise that the BBC went to them for a quote to "balance" the article.


----------



## elbows (Aug 30, 2022)

I only have to spend a minute looking at articles they write or contribute to to see that they are not pretending to be neutral, they dont think there is a case for nuclear power in our future and they are keen to make the case against it. I only disregard a small percentage of what they draw attention to, eg some occasional opportunistic fear-based stuff such as that related to the nuclear propaganda coming out of the Ukraine war. A lot of what they say is very sensible analysis that cannot be dismissed via cheap smears. I'll be using them as a source more often from now on, since they notice things such as all the woes France is having with its nuclear power stations at the moment.


----------



## elbows (Aug 30, 2022)

Unless France manages to hit targets that analysts seem to think are unrealistic, France is not going to be a good advert this winter for the reliability and security of supply that some claim nuclear can offer.









						Analysis-France braces for uncertain winter as nuclear power shortage looms
					

France, once Europe's top power exporter, may not produce enough nuclear energy this winter to help European neighbours seeking alternatives to Russian gas, and may even have to ration electricity to meet its own needs.  France has for years helped to underpin Europe's electricity supply...




					uk.finance.yahoo.com
				




There is quite a lot of info in the article, here are just a few quotes:



> France has for years helped to underpin Europe's electricity supply, providing about 15% of the region's total power generation.
> 
> But this year, for the first time since French records began in 2012, France has become a net power importer as its own production of nuclear energy hit a 30-year low, based on data from consultancy EnAppSys.
> 
> The supply squeeze, caused by a wave of repairs at the country's nuclear power stations, couldn't have come at a worse time. Europe is in the grip of an energy crisis as Russian gas supplies plummet in the wake of the Ukraine conflict and France, which derives 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, has lost its edge.





> Last week, EDF - which this year has cut its nuclear output forecasts several times and issued four profit warnings - delayed the restart of several reactors to at least mid-November, fuelling more uncertainty.
> 
> Current power market prices reveal a lack of confidence in EDF's ability to put all its reactors back online in time for the cold season, a parliamentary source close to government said, although this source also said the availability of the fleet should improve from current low levels.





> EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Levy said on Monday that among the reactors that are closed, 12 were for corrosion problems and the rest were either shut for routine maintenance delayed by the pandemic or taken off-line to prepare them for winter.
> 
> Levy said the company was "totally mobilised" to avoid more outages.
> 
> "These works are heavy, we will need hundreds and hundreds of very skilled people, we are making them come from abroad, the U.S. in particular," he told a business conference. He said corrosion issues required workers to operate in a part of the reactor where radiation is high, meaning exposure had to be limited.





> Longer term, questions remain over whether EDF, which is in the process of being fully nationalised, can maintain its ageing fleet of existing power stations - mostly build in the 1980s - or build new ones quickly enough to replace them.
> 
> France's nuclear safety watchdog ASN said in May that fixing the corrosion issues affecting EDF's reactors could take years.
> 
> The next generation nuclear reactors EDF has built - including one in Flamanville in France, and another at Hinkley Point in England - have run billions over budget and several years beyond schedule.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2022)

Since I'e always been interested in energy issues and we are entering a messy era, I've decided to attempt to be capable of looking at these nuclear issues from anotehr angle, one where I suspend various safety concerns and public concerns and look at things from a purely practical and economic point of view.

I've started reviewing the history of the industry, with particular emphasis on the UK and France. What happens in France may well be key to determining whether nuclear power really gets going again or continues to flounder.

I wont try to tell all sorts of stories from history right now, I will probably have a few at some point. For now I'll just say that there have been technological development, industry failures, and a long failure of political will. There ahve been problems with competitiveness and some ambitious plans have been scuppered via a combination of these factors rather than one thing alone in the past.

For example, in the UK this is not the first time that we've hard from the government that they have plans to support a new nuclear power station every year for 10 years. Such things were touted decades ago too. And those werent scuppered via a simple story of public objections or problems with getting the right design of reactor. Projections for future electricity demand changed, other economic circumstances changed, other alternatives became more attractive, to name a few other factors. And if we look at France, which managed to build a rather large quantity of reactors, they also ended up with changing demand forecasts which upset certain equations and left them with so much capacity that they had to export a lot of electricity and ended up running their nuclear plants at far below the sort of capacities that are considered desirable for nuclear. 

If we assume that the political will to do a lot of nuclear has returned to the UK and France via energy crisis shocks involving security and price of supply issues, then we can remove lack of political will from those equations. Placing to one side any public concerns, we can then look at other factors and lessons from both the successful and unsuccessful eras of the nuclear industry in these countries.

To start with I will probably also place to one side any possible soured relations between countries, issues with rival sources of generation, issues with financing, and the risk of any setbacks due to accidents or failures with existing nuclear power stations. Including how much trouble they may have in extending the life of existing power stations in the way currently envisaged to cover the timescale gap. When doing that, I am left thinking about two issues: 

Are we using the right design of reactor for this next generation of plants?
Can we get the industry and the workforce into an appropriate state to deliver these projects roughly within the required timescale and budget?

These are big issues that are already visible, and are likely going to get a bit more press attention. For example my own thoughts reached that stage some days ago, but now I've seen this FT article on France:



			archive.ph
		




> Confirmation of the new plants is good news for EDF, though, after years of clamouring for clarity from the government so that it may invest. The former electricity monopoly has embarked on a hiring drive and plans training schools in specialist skills, such as welding. Building a pair of new reactors as planned at Penly, in northern France, will require about 8,000 staff to move there, Faudon says.





> However, some of the sector’s problems derive from EDF fiascos. Corrosion in some existing reactors has forced it into an unprecedented number of plant shutdowns, straining electricity supply in Europe at a critical time and adding fuel to the fire for nuclear power critics.
> 
> And the only French reactor commissioned as a prototype in the last quarter century, Flamanville 3 on the Normandy coast, is more than a decade over deadline and four times over budget.
> 
> “We saw an industry that had forgotten how to build,” Berthélemy says. “It didn’t have the staff and the capacity, and we also saw a regulatory framework that was not sufficiently stabilised, with constructors not understanding what the regulator wanted. You have to find the modus operandi not to repeat that.”





> One encouraging lesson is that France’s ambitious nuclear construction plan of decades ago — accelerated by the 1973 oil crisis — was started from scratch, notes Dominique Vignon, former boss of equipment maker Framatome. He simply says of today’s plan, “it’s a shame it’s all come so late.”



Its going to take quite some time to find out whether these issues will be surmountable, so even if I allow myself to be positive about nuclear energy, so far I still favour a substantial hedging of bets. Ideally if there is going to be much energy and money put into attempting a nuclear renaissance, I would like to see equal attention paid to getting a revolution in energy storage going at large scale. We no longer have to question whether it is viable to do renewables at great scale, but really huge questions remain about whether we are going to store spare power from those sources at great scale, preventing us from wasting many terawatt hours of wind power, for example. Lets have a race where we back both these horses, so that if one doesnt come to fruition we at least have a chance of the other one coming to our rescue.


----------



## DarkStars (Sep 26, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> ITER comes online in 2025, at which point fission tech is yesterdays dirty news.


While I wish with all my heart that you were right, I have to say I think you've more chance of seeing Jesus in a strip club as ITER is delayed until 2031. Which puts it in grave risk of not having sufficient tritium to start it as we are globally running out fast. The trouble with half life.

Then you have to keep things in perspective my friend, ITER is not a commercial reactor, they are not planning to generate surplus grid power with it and even if proven successful, it will be at least 2060 before the first commercial fusion reactor has been built and is generating surplus power to a domestic grid. By which time I will probably be dust, as will half this world and then some.


----------



## elbows (Oct 6, 2022)

The following doesnt prove very much other than demonstrating the rather obvious fact that there is an awkward gap between the end of life of the last generation of nuclear power stations and any substantial new era of nuclear builds, but I will post it anyway. Because some of the stats are interesting, and the price thing and the delay thing are some of the main reasons I'm not yet willing to give nuclear prospects a glowing bill of health at this stage.









						Nuclear share in energy generation falls to lowest in four decades-report
					

The share of nuclear power in global gross electricity generation fell below 10% last year to the lowest in around four decades, an industry report showed on Wednesday.




					www.reuters.com
				






> LONDON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - The share of nuclear power in global gross electricity generation fell below 10% last year to the lowest in around four decades, an industry report showed on Wednesday.
> 
> Nuclear energy generated 2,653 terawatt hours of electricity last year, accounting for 9.8% of global generation - the lowest since the 1980s, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.





> As of mid-2022, 411 reactors were operating in 33 countries, four less than a year earlier and 27 below a 2002 peak of 438.
> 
> The slow pace of new projects coming on stream has meant the average age of reactors is around 31 years old.
> 
> Out of 53 reactors under construction currently, at least half of the projects are delayed. Five new units became operational in the first half of this year, while eight closed last year.





> Global investment in new nuclear construction projects last year was around $24 billion, accounting for 6.5% of total investment of $366 billion in non-hydro renewables projects.
> 
> Nuclear power is also losing ground to renewables in terms of cost as reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to build.
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2022)

Another angle on that report:









						Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report
					

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.




					www.reuters.com
				






> BUDAPEST/PARIS (Reuters) - Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.





> “Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”





> The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution.
> 
> “To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time,” Schneider said.





> Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.
> 
> For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
> 
> Capital flows reflect that trend. In 2018, China invested $91 billion in renewables but just $6.5 billion in nuclear.





> In the United States, renewable capacity is expected to grow by 45 GW in the next three years, while nuclear and coal are set to retire a net 24 GW.
> 
> China, still the world’s most aggressive nuclear builder, has added nearly 40 reactors to its grid over the last decade, but its nuclear output was still a third lower than its wind generation.
> 
> Although several new nuclear plants are under construction, no new project has started in China since 2016.


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2022)

I havent had time to read the report for myself yet but I will do so. Its available here:









						World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022
					

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022 (WNISR2022) assesses on 385 pages the status and trends of the international nuclear industry. It provides a comprehensive overview of nuclear power (...)




					www.worldnuclearreport.org


----------



## bcuster (Oct 11, 2022)

Greta seems to prefer nuke to coal:









						Thunberg: Coal worse than keeping German nuclear plants on
					

Climate activist Greta Thunberg says it would be "a mistake" for Germany to switch off its nuclear power plants if that means the country must burn more planet-heating coal.  The German government is still debating the future of its nuclear plants, long set to be shut down this year, given the...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## elbows (Oct 11, 2022)

Well thats a pretty standard stance for those concerned about climate change, so its unsurprising to see it applied to the current German context. For example its why, in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima, the likes of Monbiot were still busy writing desperate pro-nuclear articles. Germany have got a very awkward gap as a result of the Russian gas situation and they are going to partially fill it with something, certainly with some coal even if they keep their remaining nuclear plants going for longer than planned. And Germany was already reliant on coal for a significant chunk of its electricity generation. In the medium to long term its very important that Germany gets a grip on effective use of renewables, both in terms of their own use of power but also because their induistrial might applied to renewables will probably have influence on useful technologies and products that can be used around the globe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2022)

elbows said:


> Well thats a pretty standard stance for those concerned about climate change, so its unsurprising to see it applied to the current German context. They've got a very awkward gap as a result of the Russian gas situation and they are going to partially fill it with something. And Germany was already reliant on coal for a significant chunk of its electricity generation. In the medium to long term its very important that Germany gets a grip on effective use of renewables, both in terms of their own use of power but also because their induistrial might applied to renewables will probably have influence on useful technologies and products that can be used around the globe.


The medium to long term? We don't have that long for them to get their act together


----------



## elbows (Oct 11, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The medium to long term? We don't have that long for them to get their act together



Regardless of how immediate the climate threat is judged to be, little of great significance can be achieved in the short term, not when it comes to significant swings in percentage of generation from renewables terms. Key decisions could be made in the short term, but they would still take years to come to fruition, and so thats why I speak of the medium to long term. Plus the transition remains inevitable even if it doesnt happen with a timescale compatible with saving us from a temperature rise with consequences, and sadly I have to talk about what will happen rather than what I'd like to have happened.

The only thing that could really be done to make a huge difference in the short term would be massive destruction of demand, but the industrial powers are not likely to go for that either.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

elbows said:


> The only thing that could really be done to make a huge difference in the short term would be massive destruction of demand, but the industrial powers are not likely to go for that either.



You mean the people. The people aren’t not likely to go for that. The only way the “industrial powers” could go for that (which would need to be an order of magnitude greater than any covid shutdown) in the absence of overwhelming public support would be via massive opression.


----------



## elbows (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You mean the people. The people aren’t not likely to go for that. The only way the “industrial powers” could go for that (which would need to be an order of magnitude greater than any covid shutdown) in the absence of overwhelming public support would be via massive opression.



My language wasnt very clear - by industrial powers I was mostly thinking of industrial nations that have a lot of sway globally.

But I suppose I could apply it to the powerful industries within nations too, since the politicians etc tend to be in alignment with them and neither of those would favour that degree of demand destruction either, they would be a barrier to it long before the wider public were called upon to demonstrate their opposition to such life-changing degrees of destruction.

The picture probably gets murkier when it comes to a slower, more modest and managed form of demand destruction. We get that at times via economic policy, and some of the stories of this century elsewhere have involved the removal of fuel subsidies, which somestimes causes unrest in countries where such subsidies are a vital part of any poverty safety net that keeps the multitides heads above water. 

When the most radical climate protesters were calling for net zero to be achieved with a very short timescale indeed, my first reaction tended to be to wonder whether they really understood the ramifications of what they were calling for, did they realise quite what an impact to the economy and almost every aspect of our lives that would actually entail? 

So please dont confuse me for the sort of radical who treats the prospect of that scale of demand destruction, over a short period of time, as a prospect to relish. It would be very ugly. Rather I am the sort of person who, when looking at the scale of transition required this century, has frequently wondered quite how much of the action will ultimately end up happening on the demand side rather than the supply side. But I dont have a fixed sense of timescales or quite what proportion will happen on that side of the picture, or how well managed this will be. And if it were to pan out in a way where demand destruction was a big chunk of the picture, whether it would happen in a way that seemed planned and somewhat orderly or via a series of awful shocks and declines. Since I first thought about such things I have been vaguely impressed with how much renewable capacity it has been possible to build in some countries, whilst remaining unimpressed with nuclear, the amount of effort and investment put into electric storage solutions, efforts to build a lot of housing stick that requires much less heating, and the gap between how fast we are transitioning and how fast we should have been.

Covid shutdowns were certainly an interesting source of  revelations. Certain conclusions about maintaining order under sudden, shocking changes to everyday life are probably not safe to make because the lockdowns etc were seen as a temporary phenomenon, while some other conclusions may be a little safer to make than they would have been if we hadnt had lockdowns as a practical demonstration. eg we could perhaps cope with certain forms of routine mass transportation being curtailed in certain ways. And in the sectors of employment where IT enables working from home to be a practical reality, the pandemic may have acted as a catalyst for change. Certainly even though the impact on energy use was not subtle, I would agree that in some ways it was just a fraction of what truly massive demand destruction under certain scenarios would involve, and that could be used to add to the mind-boggling sense of quite how much of a challenge the energy transition this century will be.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2022)

FIndlands new nuclear plant has had another setback, pump damage:



> OSLO, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Damage has been detected in the feedwater pumps of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor during maintenance work, which will likely delay the commissioning of the plant and the startup of regular production, operator TVO said on Tuesday.
> 
> The damage to Europe's largest nuclear reactor is a setback for Finland, where the national grid operator has warned of potential power blackouts in the coming winter if OL3 could not reliably supply electricity.











						Finland's OL3 nuclear reactor risks more delays after damage found
					

Damage has been detected in the feedwater pumps of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor during maintenance work, which will likely delay the commissioning of the plant and the startup of regular production, operator TVO said on Tuesday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2022)

Looking at things like the world energy outlook, and setting to one side the usual concerns about nuclear safety, the prospects for nuclear still arent very exciting at this time. A picture emerges of plenty of effort and expense being directed towards new nuclear, and keeping the industry alive, but the main result is that nuclear gets to maintain about a 10% share of global electricity generation. As such most bigger picture reports tend to focus on talking about other sources of power where far more of the notable, dramatic stuff is in terms of them ending up with a much bigger share of the electricity picture in the coming decades.

Of course that picture could yet be changed by future events. In terms of the UK picture, this decade doesnt seem too exciting, and if reality is going to live up to the stated aims of where we will be by 2050, perhaps we wont see more dramatic signs of quite how this will be possible until after 2030. Simply announcing ambitions to agree a new plant every year for 10 years is not going to cut it since that sort of rhetoric, often of exactly the same 'one every year for 10 years' form, has happened many times in the past without results. And alternative nuclear technologies or scales of plant are still some years away from gaining full commercial backing as far as I can presently tell. Progress with experimental and trials of these things will offer clues about their viability but I dont think I'll spend much effort talking about them until the results are seen, which wont be anytime soon.

Meanwhile it seem that in the UK this is happening on Wednesday, so I will try to remember to tune in:



> The Science and Technology Committee begin its Delivering Nuclear Power evidence sessions on National Engineering Day in the UK. This session examines how UK nuclear energy production will be maintained and increased.





> Wednesday 2 November 2022, Committee Room 6, Palace of Westminster
> 
> Panel 1
> 
> ...





> The Government has said nuclear power will play a key part in the UK’s energy security and goal of reaching Net Zero emissions by 2050, setting the intention to triple the current electricity output by 2050. However, all but one civil nuclear reactor in the UK will be decommissioned by 2028 under current plans. And only one new reactor, Hinkley point C in Somerset, is currently expected to be operational before 2030.
> 
> In the final panel, the Committee will question EDF executives on the four-year delay in the construction of Hinkley Point C, completion of which is expected in 2027. The progress in plans for a new reactor in Sizewell C in Suffolk will also be discussed.





			https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/135/science-and-technology-committee/news/173958/academics-and-industry-questioned-on-uk-nuclear-power-supply/


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2022)

Here is an early example of the 10 year rhetoric that I have noted from the past:

18th Dec 1979 - Government announces 15000MW of new nuclear, one new nuclear station a year for 10 years from 1982 represented a reasonable prospect.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 30, 2022)

elbows said:


> Here is an early example of the 10 year rhetoric that I have noted from the past:
> 
> 18th Dec 1979 - Government announces 15000MW of new nuclear, one new nuclear station a year for 10 years from 1982 represented a reasonable prospect.



All Praise to Maggie for making sure this happened, otherwise electricity in the U.K. would be in a really bad way.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2022)

elbows said:


> FIndlands new nuclear plant has had another setback, pump damage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A bit more detail emerged:









						Cracks found in Finnish OL3 nuclear reactor's feedwater pumps
					

Cracks of a few centimetres have been found in all four feedwater pumps of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor, operator TVO said on Friday, adding it was still unclear how the damage would impact the scheduled commissioning of the plant.




					www.reuters.com
				






> Cracks of a few centimetres have been found in all four feedwater pumps of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor, operator TVO said on Friday, adding it was still unclear how the damage would impact the scheduled commissioning of the plant.
> 
> The damage was first reported by the operator earlier this month and it later said it had postponed the expected startup of regular production to Dec. 27.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2022)

Should the world actually manage the sort of net zero scenario envisaged in this years IEA energy outlook report, there is certainly still a role for nuclear. It doesnt look very exciting in terms of overall contribution, with solar and wind providing the exciting action in the graphs, but a large increase in nuclear generation is still required to deliver even this picture:



I'm including this one because nuclear get a mention in the 2035 milestones:





> Nuclear power generation more than doubles in the NZE Scenario by 2050, although its share falls from 10% in 2021 to 8% in 2050, as total generation expands rapidly. More than 30 countries, where nuclear power is accepted, increase their use of nuclear power. Widespread lifetime extensions in advanced economies provide a foundation. An annual average of 30 GW of new nuclear capacity comes online in the 2030s, marking a major comeback for the nuclear industry, and innovative technologies including small modular reactors become available on the market.





> In the NZE Scenario, electricity becomes the new linchpin of the global energy system, providing more than half of total final consumption and two‐thirds of useful energy by 2050. Total electricity generation grows by 3.3% per year to 2050, which is faster than the global rate of economic growth across the period. Annual capacity additions of all renewables quadruple from 290 GW in 2021 to around 1 200 GW in 2030. With renewables reaching over 60% of total generation in 2030, no new unabated coal‐ fired plants are needed. Annual nuclear capacity additions to 2050 are nearly four‐ times their recent historical average.











						World Energy Outlook 2022 – Analysis - IEA
					

World Energy Outlook 2022 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.




					www.iea.org
				




The report is far too long for me to quote all the relevant bits, and the net zero scenario is only one of three scenarios discussed in the report. And I dont mean to use this report to paint an entirely negative picture for nuclear, its clearly got a role in the net zero scenario and a significant increase in new nuclear builds and investment are required to get there. But there is a lot of regional variation and the most dramatic increase of nuclear comes in places like China, whereas in Europe its wind power that gets the headline slot, and in some other places solar gets star billing.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2022)

And here is the relevant part of a graph about global average annual energy investment by sector/technology that would be needed for their net zero scenario, hopefully offering some further context for the role of nuclear:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2022)

I'm interested in what would happen if we finally worked out how to do fusion on a large scale and to what extent it would turn all this upside down. I suppose it would all depend on how expensive it was to implement - but if it became cheap enough would renewables simply become redundant?


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm interested in what would happen if we finally worked out how to do fusion on a large scale and to what extent it would turn all this upside down. I suppose it would all depend on how expensive it was to implement - but if it became cheap enough would renewables simply become redundant?



Too many variables to give a useful answer I suspect.

I suppose the presumption would be that costs would gradually come down over time, but it would still take ages for it to outcompete every other source, and the existing infrastructure for other sources would be kept going till the end of life of other projects was reached. Then there are questions of what rare minerals etc are required for all the sources of power to be implemented at great scale. And issues to do with construction timescales, skilled workforces, investment flows etc. And how well everything stacks up in terms of reliability and other risks. 

Chuck in the idea of energy security and not putting all your eggs in one basket, and I would suggest that in our own lifetimes we will continue to see a complex mix of multiple sources of electricity generation. And that even if there are great developments with fusion at scale much quickjer than we may imagine, we'll only get to see the opening, relatively modest chapters.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2022)

Responding again to your question, I found an old article which discusses the issues of how far nuclear power could be scaled up. They list numerous issues that would make nuclear fusion as the complete solution to our energy needs as completely absurd. They then go on to discuss a couple of issues which would affect fusion reactors too. I am not qualified to say whether they've got all the detail on this right. But they say that the issue of 'neutron embrittlement' affects both reactor types, and would require a silly and impossible rate of new plant construction in order to compensate for how many plants would need to close if we had enough in operation to cover all the worlds needs. They also discuss an issue with

An overview of the article which focuses mostly on fission:









						Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs
					

(PhysOrg.com) -- The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of...




					phys.org
				




The full paper, and a few quotes from it:



			IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:
		




> All forms of nuclear power, whether thorium or uranium, fission or fusion, emit neutrons that irradiate all metal surfaces inside the nuclear vessel. Over time these metal surfaces develop cracks due to neutron embrittlement [7]. It is an unavoidable consequence of any form of nuclear power and is part of the aging process that requires every nuclear power station to be decommissioned after 40–60 years of operation. Thus, if nuclear stations need replacement every 50 years on average, then in the steady state for 15 TW, one nuclear power station needs to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day.





> To date, globally, there have been ~580 nuclear reactors that have operated for a cumulated total of 14 000 reactor years, with about 11 accidents of the magnitude of a full or partial core melt [10] this corresponds to failure rate of 11 x 100/580 = 2%. Thus, if the world had a single reactor, it would take on average 14 000/11 ~1300 years to have an accident of a similar magnitude. Thus, for a scaleup to 15 000 reactors we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.





> the underlying problem of neutron embrittlement (Section III) will limit scalability as it does with fission. The rate of commissioning and decommissioning fusion reactors would be equally untenable.
> 
> There are a number of serious problems that limit practicability. For example, the walls of a fusion reactor absorb tritium and would need regular ablation resulting in the generation of tritium-laden explosive dust [5].





> It would also appear that fusion events feed power to the fundamental mode of instability for Tokamaks.





> It turns out a whole host of exotic rare metals are used to control and contain the nuclear reaction. For example, hafnium is a neutron absorber, beryllium a neutron reflector, zirconium is used for cladding, and many of the other exotics (e.g., niobium) are used to alloy steel to make the vessel last 40–60 years against neutron embrittlement.





> Then, if we scale up to 15 000 reactors we will either rapidly exhaust these materials or drive them into a high price volatility regime, creating market instability. In solar thermal technology, all the metals are abundant and recyclable, whereas in nuclear technology, the metals are rare and become radioactive. Thus, in the endgame, one expects greater price volatility in a nuclear utopia than in a solar thermal utopia.





> In Section III, we indicated that in a nuclear utopia a nuclear station would need to be built somewhere in the world every day. In such a regime, we simply do not have the containment materials to keep up with the required construction of nuclear power stations.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2022)

I watched the selexct committee nuclear thing on Wednesday but havent had time to put my notes about it here yet. But now due to some news tonight I will comment on one bit from it.

Sizewell C came up, EDF are expecting to make a funding decision within the next 18 months, and since the UK government were due to take a 50% share in it they were hoping to see a commitment to it in the autumn budget statement. After funding decision it will take 10-12 years to build according to their current estimates. They are touting it being able to run for 60-80 years. They are keen to go on about how it will be exactly the same design as Hinkley C so there will be less issues and delays. And there is some sensitivity these days to criticisms about nuclear being inflexible in terms of being able to respond to demand or lack of demand, so they were making various claims about how actually it will be flexible.

But now this has appeared in the news:









						Sizewell C: Government denies new nuclear plant under review
					

A government official had told the BBC that every major project was under review.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> *A new nuclear power plant in Suffolk is under review and could be delayed or even axed, as the government tries to cut spending, the BBC has been told.*
> 
> Sizewell C was expected to provide up to 7% of the UK's total electricity needs, but critics have argued it will be expensive and take years to build.
> 
> ...





> Last month, Mrs Truss and France's president Emmanuel Macron pledged "full support" for Sizewell C station on Suffolk's coast, which is set to be developed by French energy company EDF.
> 
> The government gave the go-ahead for the plant in July. EDF has said it could generate enough for about six million homes.
> 
> But there was confusion on Thursday as executives at the French energy contractor EDF - already building a new plant at Hinkley in Somerset - and the Business and Energy department seemed blindsided by a potential change in tack on existing government policy, which promises to press ahead with both large and smaller scale nuclear projects.





> "As far we know, it's still on", said one nuclear industry executive close to the matter.
> 
> New large-scale nuclear plants have been a key part of a government strategy to help reduce the UK's reliance on fossil fuels. Boris Johnson whilst PM declared it was his intention to build eight new reactors in the next eight years.
> 
> A shift away from that position would represent a major change in UK energy policy that some will lament and some will celebrate.



Obviously too early to say whats actually going to happen with this one. But one of the themes from the select committee was about having the right skilled workforce to develop and run these plants, how there are already shortfalls in terms of graduate numbers, and how important it is for people who may consider that career path to know that the projects and jobs are certain to be there. Another theme was, rather unsurprisingly, how late we have left it to build new nuclear to replace the stuff thats due to be retired in the coming years. I think any further delay or cancelation of Sizewell C will have quite large implications on these fronts, and any big blow could yet be a fatal one given the delicate nature of the industry in this country at this time. The window of opportunity could close in a way that means other energy tech will end up taking the place of nuclear to a much greater extent than nuclear advocates have been calling for.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2022)

Although another theme was that EDFs current choice of reactor design doesnt have the best reputation (thats probably obvious given the delays its caused on various projects) and also that the UKs claims about how many new reactors they want as part of their nuclear ambitions can only possibly be supported by including a bunch of the smaller designs in the mix. So if Sizewell C does get axed or put on ice, they could still end up with a new nuclear era if they manage not to keep dropping the ball on the smaller projects in future. However on that front there was some suggestion that what Rolls Royce call a Small Modular Reactor is actually larger than the strict definition of a SMR, and is more like the sort of generation size as our original 1st gen Magnox reactors were. And a point was made that the economics of nuclear really fail to add up even worse than normal unless stuff is scaled up to quite a large size, with the implciation that some of the really small reactor plans some tout are a load of guff.

Something else that came up is how we mostly have all our eggs in one basket in terms of who is actually prepared to be a nuclear licensee in this country, they are all int he EDF family of companies, and its not clear who is going to come along to improve this situation since Hitachi backed out some years ago.

The people giving evidence were asked about Great British Nuclear and none of them had a sense of what its role is actually supposed to be.

There was a sense that the politicians asking questions were rather worried about the scheduled decommissioning of our advanced gas-cooled reactors in the years ahead, and they were even fishing around to see if there was any possibility of reopening the bunch of reactors that have already been shutdown in the last year. The answers they got should leave them with little doubt that its unrealistic to expect any of those already closed reactors to be recommissioned. But when it comes to extending the life of the remaining AGRs, there is some potential for life extensions.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2022)

I can't see them cancelling Sizewell C at this stage, pretty sure it's just a political PR strategy saying "everything is on the table" so they can cancel some northern rail or something and say "we considered axing the nuclear power station instead but decided it was more important".


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2022)

Yes I know what you mean, and so I wont be surprised if the project survives. I really wont be surprised if its cancelled either though, given the large amount of money involved and the ongoing concerns about delivering that reactor design on time and on budget, and the way these projects can end up being seen as something of a while elephant. If they are really desperate to save huge chunks of money with one swipe of the pen, and avoid slashing routine services by unfeasible amounts, then stuff like Sizewell is an obvious candidate. It may come down to factors that I dont have much grasp on at the moment, such as whether they have crunched numbers to come up with a plausible sounding alternative strategy, either through other sorts of nuclear or some other generation sources entirely, and other stuff such as relations with France and the detail of the grand plan over there to save EDF.

Plus recessions have an impact on future electricity demand forecasts.

And I do struggle to escape the idea that lack of confidence with nuclear delivery, and a long history of expensive mistakes with the industry in this country (eg the way AGRs were done is down in history as one of our most expensive procurement errors), dont provide a very good foundation for rebooting the industry confidently in the UK. Even if the damaged reputation is unfair, it may sway decisions at a time like this. Not just government confidence either, and as the BBC article somewhat hints at, commercial partners can also end up with cold feet if the UK continues to flip-flop on its nuclear commitments. Much needs to happen for me to really put to bed the idea that nuclear could still end up with a 'not worth the hassle' epitaph in this country.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2022)

elbows said:


> Yes I know what you mean, and so I wont be surprised if the project survives. I really wont be surprised if its cancelled either though, given the large amount of money involved and the ongoing concerns about delivering that reactor design on time and on budget, and the way these projects can end up being seen as something of a while elephant. If they are really desperate to save huge chunks of money with one swipe of the pen, and avoid slashing routine services by unfeasible amounts, then stuff like Sizewell is an obvious candidate. It may come down to factors that I dont have much grasp on at the moment, such as whether they have crunched numbers to come up with a plausible sounding alternative strategy, either through other sorts of nuclear or some other generation sources entirely, and other stuff such as relations with France and the detail of the grand plan over there to save EDF.



Sizewell C is probably the most efficient opportunity to build another large nuclear power station at the moment because it's mirroring Hinkley C and so there would be huge cost savings in transferring people, skills and knowledge across, and all the preparatory work, planning, habitat mitigation etc is already sorted. Unless we want to be left with nothing but Sizewell B and Hinkley C after 2028, or Hinkley C only after 2035 then it needs to get the go ahead. I don't think there's a currently envisaged path to net zero that relies on us having just one nuclear power station at that point.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2022)

Yes I understand the logic of what you are saying, I'm hedging my bets because I cannot completely rely on the government sticking fully with that rationale. Especially since theyve fudged the timescales and commitments plenty of times in the past.

In terms of efficiency and cost, the fact they are treating the design of Sizewell C as if its an additional 2 reactors for Hinkley C did come up in the recent select committee meeting. But I suppose that has to be balanced against any remaining concerns about this type of reactor and cost and timescale overruns experienced with that design so far.

As fror what we'll be left with and when, there is impetus to stretch the life of the plants currently due to close by 2024 and 2028 a bit further, but it wont be by all that many years, and practical realities could yet scupper such plans. eg some AGRs closed earlier than hoped, not later. I think they are more confident that they'll manage to get a more meaningful life extension for Sizewell B, but again there are always unknowns.

Just looking at my notes from watching EDF at the select committee, it my notes are accurate then they are currently investigating how much extra life to attempt to get out of Hartlepool and Heysham 1, which are currently due to close in 2024, and aim to make a decision about that in the coming year. They also hope to make a decision about the 2028 ones (Heysham 2 and Torness) before 2024 arrives. I dont know what to expect since there are some issues with these sorts of reactors at this stage of their life. And for Sizewell B, their most optimistic hopes seem to be of a life extension of 20 years for that one, and I think the wikipedia page for UK nuclear power also mentions that sort of strategic aim for Sizewell B!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2022)

Well the BBC have edited the article now following a denial from Downing Street:

“The government has denied that plans for a new nuclear power plant in the south east of England are under review.

A government official had told the BBC that every major project was under review "including Sizewell C" as ministers try to cut spending.

But on Friday Downing Street quashed the idea that plant would be now delayed or reviewed. However, a new high-speed rail line in the north of England is expected to be significantly scaled back.”


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2022)

In that case I'll revert back to what I was going to be looking for on this front - EDF want something in the autumn budget statement that will help them with their own funding decision. So lets see if there is a commitment in there or whether the government are stalling or indulging in any underhanded use of semantics when it comes to this project.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

A paper has come out that I havent read properly yet:



> Swift and deep decarbonisation of electricity generation is central to enabling a timely transition to net-zero emission energy systems. While future power systems will likely be dominated by variable renewable energy (VRE) sources, studies have identified a need for low-carbon dispatchable power such as nuclear. We use a cost-optimising power system model to examine the technoeconomic case for investment in new nuclear capacity in the UK’s net-zero emissions energy system and consider four sensitivity dimensions: the capital cost of new nuclear, the availability of competing technologies, the expansion of interconnection and weather conditions. We conclude that new nuclear capacity is only cost-effective if ambitious cost and construction times are assumed, competing technologies are unavailable and interconnector expansion is not permitted. We find that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and long-term storage could reduce electricity system costs by 5–21% and that synchronous condensers can provide cost-effective inertia in highly renewable systems with low amounts of synchronous generation. We show that a nearly 100% variable renewable system with very little fossil fuels, no new build nuclear and facilitated by long-term storage is the most cost-effective system design. This suggests that the current favourable UK Government policy towards nuclear is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.





			https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222023325?via%3Dihub


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

elbows said:


> A paper has come out that I havent read properly yet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At a glance it seems to be base its case on the usual reliance on stuff that isn't here yet, whereas nuclear build decisions need to be made right now.

For example they model systems using dozens of GW of grid-installed lithium battery storage, as well as carbon capture and storage, and stuff like "we include long-term storage which uses hydrogen produced by electrolysis as the energy storage medium in salt caverns and H2 burning CCGT and OCGTs for power output"

I'm sure it's pretty easy to come up with nuclear-free net-zero futures if you include all that sort of stuff, but deciding to go down those routes now in the hope it all works out quickly is a different matter.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

I'm in the middle of reading it so I will get back to you on that point.

They dont agree with the reduced nuclear costs over time thing you mentioned recently:



> Negative learning-by-doing has been measured for the French and USA nuclear programmes (i.e. capital costs increased rather than reducing as the programme progressed). At best, costs have been reduced only very slightly in major programmes, for example in South Korea [43]. An assessment of US LCOEs concluded that cost estimates tend to be overly low and that historical analogues provide a better indication of likely costs [44]; one reason is that nuclear reactors are the most prone to cost overruns as a percentage of budget and frequency [45].


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> At a glance it seems to be base its case on the usual reliance on stuff that isn't here yet, whereas nuclear build decisions need to be made right now.
> 
> For example they model systems using dozens of GW of grid-installed lithium battery storage, as well as carbon capture and storage, and stuff like "we include long-term storage which uses hydrogen produced by electrolysis as the energy storage medium in salt caverns and H2 burning CCGT and OCGTs for power output"
> 
> I'm sure it's pretty easy to come up with nuclear-free net-zero futures if you include all that sort of stuff, but deciding to go down those routes now in the hope it all works out quickly is a different matter.


In recent days I have started to study via half-hourly data stretching back several years the large amount of variability that we already have with our existing renewable generation capacity.

Its a massive issue and its going to require some of the 'stuff that isnt here yet' in order to even begin to make the 2050 plan workable. Unless I am missing something I really dont see nuclear changing this point at its most fundamental level. Even the most ambitious new nuclear build plans touted to date dont seem to me to significantly change this picture, they only make a difference to the exact scale of deployment of various forms of storage, interconnectors and demand flexibility that will be required. And that potential difference in scale is already relatively modest compared to the size of the holes we have to fill due to weather-related variations in renewable generation. So as far as I can tell right now, whether we have no new nuclear or maximum new nuclear, the technologies you are expressing skepticism about are still required. The amount of wiggle room that nuclear offers seems very modest to me, can you demonstrate otherwise?

There is no truly 'typical month' that I can use to illustrate this point so for now I will pick just two months from 2022 to illustrate this point. And note that these graphs show what proportion of total demand each generation source was fulfilling during each half hour, not the raw amount of GW generated, due to the data source I have so far got available to me to construct these graphs. And since I am not directly showing demand separately, its baked into the oscillations shown by this data, eg the nuclear proportion is oscillating every day as demand varies over the course of each 24 hour period.

There is no nuclear plan where nuclear is going to fill the huge gaps currently filled by gas (in red) is there? So some of those other technologies and flexibility options that papers like the one above include in their model absolutely have to be a large part of the future path to net zero dont they? Nuclear, whether we embrace it, abandon it, or proceed in a half-hearted manner, is not going to remove the need for these other solutions to be made to work and deployed at scale is it?

May 2022:



October 2022:


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

elbows said:


> There is no nuclear plan where nuclear is going to fill the huge gaps currently filled by gas (in red) is there? So some of those other technologies and flexibility options that papers like the one above include in their model absolutely have to be a large part of the future path to net zero dont they? Nuclear, whether we embrace it, abandon it, or proceed in a half-hearted manner, is not going to remove the need for these other solutions to be made to work and deployed at scale is it?



Sure, but there's all sorts of non-improbable scenarios involving problems with one or more of these future technologies to which "thankfully we have some nuclear" might be part of the answer. We need to give the denizens of 2035-2050 as many tools in their armoury as we can. Most of these we'll hopefully develop in the coming years by making R&D decisions now, but nuclear needs build decisions now.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

elbows said:


> October 2022:
> 
> View attachment 350351



People often say that nuclear doesn't help plug the gaps, but of course it makes the gaps smaller. If Ed Milliband's modest 2009 plan for UK nuclear had gone ahead, the above chart would look something like this:


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> People often say that nuclear doesn't help plug the gaps, but of course it makes the gaps smaller.



Thats not a simple purely good news story though because it wouldnt just make the gaps smaller, it would also reduce the amount of renewable capacity we'd be looking to end up with, reducing the total scope for wind. And the gaps would still be very large and would necessitate a huge amount of success with storage etc. I'm still contemplating these sorts of details, and am open to evolving my stance in future. But at the moment given the massive amount of clean energy we can and already do get from wind and the massive amount of already unavoidable work that will be required to fill in the gaps due to variability of wind in our current supply picture, I'd rather put most of the effort, funding etc into the tech that will fill those gaps in a fully flexible, on demand way.



platinumsage said:


> If Ed Milliband's modest 2009 plan for UK nuclear had gone ahead, the above chart would look something like this:



Delivering on that ambition was not a modest ask at all and we cant judge whether nuclear makes sense in future plans without taking account of how these delays and uncertainties are some of the downsides of nuclear that make people look for alternatives in the first place. I doubt the Milliband would have delivered the first new power station very much quicker than we are actually going to get Hinkley C, despite what timescale claims they made at the time. Yes politicians changes of heart are part of the picture of delays, but there are many other factors too. Fukushima would still have caused a pause, there would still have been issues with approving the reactor designs quickly enouygh to fit the original timescale. There would still have been issues with finding commercial partners, still issues with finance, EDF would still have run into issues and delays with its other reactors of the same EPR design, with knock on consequences for their project(s) here. And there would still have been the sort of report that David King did, that the following 2011 news article covers British nuclear industry needs overhaul before it can expand, says top scientist



> The structure of the UK nuclear industry, having been designed to address the rundown of nuclear power in the UK, is not well suited to the changed situation involving new nuclear build and an expanded UK nuclear role, and there is a need for realignment of policy across the sector," the report found.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

Regardless of what I think, this wont be the last time a case such as the one in the above report will be made. More questions will be asked about what 'baseload' we really need from the likes of nuclear in the future. Various attempts at costing the different options will be made. Any dramatic further setbacks with nuclear and its funding will play into these discussions. 

And when some of the storage etc options start to prove themselves more comprehensively, the rug could be pulled from under the feet of the more sizeable nuclear ambitions. And if, in the meantime, some in government have these possibilities in the back of their minds, they might moderate their nuclear ambitions and drag their feet in an attempt to play for time. Nuclear advocates will always be there, but I still wouldnt bet on them ultimately getting their way. There are still some aspects of nuclear that are attractive to those in power for sure, which is why it isnt game over already, but there are still limits to how much the nuclear industry can over-promise and under-deliver before they end up being left out in the cold. And at this rate it doesnt even need to be a conscious decision by those in power, it will happen by default via lack of funding and the alternatives surging past them in the transition.

I may still change my tune in future, but only if additional projects actually get the go ahead and funding, going past the point of no return. If we only end up with Hinkley C then I'll probably paint a dramatic picture of nuclear being relegated to the margins in the UK. If we get Sizewell C as well then I wont be quite so dramatic about it. But I suppose its down to what projects, if any, we get beyond Sizewell C that will cement my opinion of where nuclear is going in this country and how much of the future energy mix its going to influence. I wouldnt want to have to put a bet on which eventuality will actually come to pass.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 5, 2022)

The tragedy is that you probably don’t get economies of scale unless you build about 5, which they will never do. not only do you never get really cheap power (
Offshore wind in the last contract for difference auctions was less than half of the hinkley point price - and the wind will be online sooner ), but you look like a bunch of jokers who can’t build nuclear power stations so you don’t get any foreign orders either.

They should be aiming to build a nuclear power station coming online every 24 months forever.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

alex_ said:


> The tragedy is that you probably don’t get economies of scale unless you build about 5, which they will never do. not only do you never get really cheap power (
> Offshore wind in the last contract for difference auctions was less than half of the hinkley point price - and the wind will be online sooner ), but you look like a bunch of jokers who can’t build nuclear power stations so you don’t get any foreign orders either.



I dont think there will be much reputation damage bleed into other industries, not at this stage of the nuclear programme. Because with Hinkley C and Sizewell C if there are further embarrassing issues then the damage will just get added to the already large and well known story of EDFs struggles with that particular reactor design (EPR). Or into an even broader narrative about the difficulties of Europe in general managing to get a new nuclear build era humming on all cylinders, including staffing, skills and civil construction issues. And thats a story that can potentially even be blended with a post-pandemic workforce challenges story. And should the reputation damage spread even further beyond the bounds of these stories, the broader reputation of nuclear power is no stranger to these sorts of issues and this will just be seen as the latest chapter in the nuclear saga. If we have a proven track record at delivering non-nuclear energy projects then our broader reputation will not be significantly contaminated by failures on the nuclear front.

The front where UK reputation damage and loss of investor etc confidence could spread beyond nuclear is more on the decision making front when it comes to large, partially government funded project approval, investor confidence and project delivery, and issues such as governments delaying, flip-flopping and moving the goalposts. Stuff that is on the radar at the moment anyway due to 'UK political turmoil' etc. But even in this area, there is likely to be more forgiveness when the issues show up with nuclear builds, because there are funding and delivery issues with nuclear that arent a problem unique to the UK, its tricky, and inflationary pressures, recessions and the somewhat fragile status of some parts of the nuclear industry arent going to help. UK government and PLC likely wont end up being seen as the only ones culpable if it goes tits up. Not unless we end up being the only country that struggles with effective delivery of nuclear power on time and budget this century, and it seems unlikely we'll be alone in that if it happens.



alex_ said:


> They should be aiming to build a nuclear power station coming online every 24 months forever.



In this country or more broadly? I would drop the concept of 'forever', because even if everything was going really well in terms of political will, financing, reactor design, industry challenges and public support, there are limits to exactly what scale of new nuclear build is desirable and practical. There are limits to the number of sites where nuclear is practical, and limits to what share of the electricity generation picture it is desirable to let nuclear provide. Even a country like France which had a very high proportional of nuclear in its energy mix up to this point understands that and has introduced a bit more of a balanced approach to its future plans and the proportion of the picture that nuclear is envisaged to supply. And I'd still say this even if my own personal opinion about what percentage of nuclear made sense was quite different to my opinion that I've more than hinted at in recent posts, this stuff is stuff pro-nuclear governments will acknowledge, not just me and the anti-nuclear brigade.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

I've been guilty of not paying much attention to the state of play in the USA so I'm going to try to familiarise myself with that in the coming weeks.

Here is an article from a couple of years ago which forms a small part of my starting point. There are many familiar themes such as new designs, issues with capital costs and turning around an industry that has been in a long decline. And claims about a role nuclear might have there in a decade or two to compensate for some of the issues that come with a much increased share of renewables, including some claims which given our recent conversation I view with quite some skepticism. For example theres a claim in here that as the share of intermittent sources like solar and wind climb, the cost of them will go up, and I doubt that a simple claim about cost is really the right way to consider those issues of intermittency at all.






						Science | AAAS
					






					www.science.org
				




Next I will try to find some info about more recent, post-Trump developments. Certainly I've seen a few Westinghouse stories in the news recently, including the company being sold (with unsurprisingly upbeat assessments of the industry by those doing the buying), and also of Westinghouse being chosen to get Polands new nuclear build programme started:









						Westinghouse to be sold in $7.9-bln deal as interest in nuclear power grows
					

Cameco Corp and Brookfield Renewable Partners said on Tuesday they would acquire nuclear power plant equipment maker Westinghouse Electric in a $7.9-billion deal including debt, amid renewed interest in nuclear energy.




					www.reuters.com
				




https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poland’s-government-confirms-Westinghouse-for-nucl

I suppose I better look into their AP1000 design thats being touted in the Poland article. Since I go on about the state of the industry in Europe and EDFs EPR issues, I really have to look at the other current commercial options in order to get a fuller picture.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2022)

So the history of the AP1000 reactors so far has some similarities with issues seen in Europe. Only more stark witht he economic side of things in some ways, since Westinghouses bankruptcy scuppered various plans including some US and UK power stations. Also in common with the story of EDFs new reactors, China is the main location so far that has actually gotten some of these reactors built and running.









						AP1000 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Turkey is listed as a customer but from what I can tell those plans have stalled and a Russian reactor has been the one to reach the most advanced stage there, although that project may now have been complicated by the effect of sanctions against Russia on the ability to obtain overseas components.

I guess I may end up judging progress with these reactors in the West via what happens with the planned switch on of Vogtle 3 & 4 in the US in about a years time. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Wikipedia


----------



## alex_ (Nov 6, 2022)

What I mean by “forever” is that they take 10 or 15 years to build, and seem to last for 40 or 50 years. So rather than building a small number every few decades you’d be better off building them “every couple of years” ( or whatever the optimum gap is ) - so there are always about 20 (or whatever that optimum number is )in service, plus you’d maintain a skills base and potentially actually be good at it.

Comment about exports was specifically about building nuclear power stations for other countries, rather than general exports.

The key point is that building one off nuclear power stations is really, really expensive, because you never get economies of scale.

This last point is true of any large scale infrastructure projects, such as high speed rail - and the uk’s general inability to do projects of this type because of our inability to do any sort of strategy.

We don’t do them because we aren’t good at them, we aren’t good at them because we don’t do them.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2022)

Certainly one of the reasons our procurement of AGRs back in the day was considered to be a disaster was that we kept fiddling with the design. Although I havent yet had time to read a proper post-mordem on that eras nuclear build yet, so maybe other factors will show up when I do.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive, very capital intensive even if you build lots of them. Yes in theory it gets a bit easier over time, the more you build, but thats only one factor and many others have blighted nuclears economic reputation over the decades. Also if there are issues with the first ones that are learnt via the experience of building them, the temptation is to fiddle with the design for subsequent ones, which can introduce new issues.

Attempts to make the economics make sense via economies of scale is also why we've ended up with some very large stations based on the EPR design as our first attempt to launch a new era. But the high output from these plants also limits how many of them it will be plausible to build in future, there is no way we are going to plan to have 20 of them. I'll do some research to see what a plausible number would be, but I think it will be a low number, and it wont surprise me if Hinkley and Sizewell end up being the only ones of this type. I'll get back to you on that one. Maybe if Sizewell goes ahead and goes well, and France is successful at rebooting EDF, we might end up with another pair of this type of reactors at a site up north one day, but I wouldnt have any deep conviction about that at this stage.

The skills base issue is important but its often seen from an angle thats more about the running & maintenance of the plants rather than the construction phase with a specific eye on construction contracts overseas. Which is not to say there is no ambition at all on that front. And however well the UK does with these particular reactors they are ultimately a EDF design with reputation issues that became entrenched long before we started building any here. Hinkley delays wont help that reputation, but it is still possible that more successful delivery and costs of the 2nd Hinkley reactor and the Sizewell ones could become a part of turning that reputation round. But when it comes to our hopes for UK PLC nuclear exports and overseas contracts, the hopes at the moment are more about certain smaller reactor designs, eg the stuff Rolls Royce is currently touting and a small bunch of other SMR designs, including molten salt based ones. And even further ahead, they would like fusion research in this country to strike gold one day. Some of the SMR hype may be unfounded, with claims and hopes far from proven, but can see why they want to promote this possibility because the scale makes them more suitable for use in smaller countries with less total electricity demand, and they hope to move a lot of the tricky stuff away from the sphere of civil construction and into the realm of factory assembly. And if they actually get a successful design and factories churning these out, it can bring down costs and create viable exports. But even in that respect I end up with some hype alarms flashing because that factory angle has something in common with all the hype about non-nuclear modular building construction in general, which is another area where setbacks and failures to deliver have been more common over the last 70 years than roaring successes.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2022)

A simple chart that tells a story or three.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2022)

I found some scathing written evidence to the select committee that covers plenty of my own complaints and suspicions. To quote just one part of it that refers to one specific issue that I have alluded to in the past:



> An additional important jeopardy to the stability and sustainability of nuclear financing lies in an evident lack of public candour about civil nuclear policy. It has been documented in evidence to other Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiries that the consistent pattern observed here – of official favouritism towards nuclear power in the UK energy sector – reflects military pressures to sustain a nuclear industrial base that is shared with the naval submarine programme. These incentives have been confirmed by the submarine industry itself and (on questioning by a different Parliamentary Select Committee) by the then senior responsible UK government official. The same pattern is also openly officially acknowledged in France and the USA. In effect, an otherwise arguably unaffordable military infrastructure is being invisibly subsidised by taxpayers (through disproportionate support for civil nuclear power) and by energy consumers (through elevated electricity prices) – outside the defence budget, away from critical scrutiny and entirely off the public books. Yet this rationale remains virtually entirely unacknowledged – and even actively denied – in general official public communications. This evident warping of zero-carbon energy strategies by pressures from another field of policymaking may help to further undermine the confidence of markets in the rigour and objectivity of UK nuclear strategies and make financing in this field even more difficult and more expensive to secure.



From https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/112071/pdf/ found at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6864/delivering-nuclear-power/publications/

Thia written submission comes from various people at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2022)

Anyway that particular issue is a mixed bag. Its certainly one of the reasons why I havent tended to expect us to end up with no nuclear power stations, no nuclear industry, and no nuclear research at all. And I dont doubt that people with far more positive opinions about the role of nuclear power than me would use such things to justify the use of nuclear and to label other potential paths as unrealistic and incompatible with the needs of our country, should they feel comfortable acknowledging the military aspects at all. And flipping things around, probably in the past I was most likely to touch on that issue when talking about why abandoning nuclear was an easier decision for the likes of Germany. 

I suppose it is also possible to argue that the need for the industry and skills base to support the military applications of nuclear still leaves plenty of room for debate about the exact extent that nuclear power stations are required to underpin such things. There are probably some ways to keep that foundation alive without having to indulge in a large number of new builds. And this entire angle wouldnt matter so much if nuclear powers costs, risks and timescales were better able to compete and improve. But the military angles probably do at the very least provide added impetus to gush out large quantities of positive spin about the prospects of nuclear, to talk it up and for it to continue to have a sacred place around the tables of power despite its messy history and blatant downsides.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2022)

Meanwhile I have reviewed government papers from recent years on energy and net zero transition in order to see if we can get a better sense of what scale of nuclear they have decided upon, and whether there are any numbers in there that we can use to end up with a number in mind when it comes to scale of new build of either plants of the large output variety we've been talking about in recent posts, or the other, smaller ones.

What I found seems pretty consistent with what I already thought I knew:

The only solid aspiration applicable to the ERP sized nuclear power stations is to get one more to the finance stage within the lifetime of this parliament, and we can probably assume that its Sizewell C that they have in mind for that.

Pages that deal with such projects have caveats such as 'subject to clear value for money'.

They wont commit to a sense of scale at this stage of this decade at all. They arent even willing to commit to a fixed sense of what proportion of electricity generation should come from nuclear, wont commit to a particular defined mix of sources.

They do have in mind the obvious stuff such as a large increase in electricity demand, such as double the current demand for electricity by 2050, in order to support climate change & energy transition goals and the electrification of various sectors.

Several illustrative scenarios, modelled in other technical papers, are made use of to put some flesh on those bones. The nuclear industry is fond of pointing to these in order to be able to positively spin that we'll need 30GW or 40GW of nuclear generation capacity to meet the needs of that future. But the government is not actually prepared to commit to that at this time, they are only prepared to highlight some scenarios where this is the case, and they dont shout about those numbers unlike when they talk about wind where they are happy to state that 40GW of offshore wind by 2030 is their ambition, for example.

One of the reasons they dont want to put numbers on the nuclear thing involves the key differences between different modelled scenarios. For example when it comes to things including the heating of buildings, there are different scenarios depending on exactly what role hydrogen ends up playing at great scale. Including whether hydrogen is used directly in peoples homes as a fuel, or whether all the action inside homes will be electric and hydrogen is therefore used for generation at power plants in pursuit of that goal.

They are happier to shout more loudly about their nuclear ambitions when talking about the more futuristic stuff, such as small modular reactors, advanced gaqs-cooled reactors, and fusion. Including export potential. But again they arent going to put capacity numbers or generational mix numbers on such things at this stage, with those things their vision is to do with how much research funding to put into such things, and ensuring the regulatory approval pathways are ready for such designs. When it comes to timescales, they are prepared to state ambitions for when certain test reactor projects might emerge.

Having said all that, I am still prepared to post the following chart in order to give people some sense of possible scale of future generation mix to grasp. Just be aware that its illustrative, it is very far from being set in stone as far as government public pronouncements go:


I got to all these recent papers via this page from the Nuclear Industry Association. Because I dont mind seeing what positive spin they put on things, but have to read the actual papers they link to in order to unspin some of their claims.






						UK Nuclear Policy - Nuclear Industry Association
					






					www.niauk.org


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2022)

I've established that the page I used is missing a more recent paper, April 2022's Energy Security Strategy.

I havent read it yet but I was reading a report from the Climate Change Committee (an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008), called "June 2022 Progress in reducing emissions report to parliament", which spells out what new government nuclear ambitions were in the ESS:



> Long-term ambition. In the ESS the Government announced an ambition to deploy up to 24 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, which could represent up to 25% of UK electricity generation. In addition to taking one project to a final investment decision (FID) this Parliament, the plan is now to take a further two projects to FID in the next Parliament.



Oh and since I mentioned a 40GW offshore wind by 2030 ambition in my previous post, I should say that this was increased to a 50GW ambition in the ESS (including 5GW floating offshore).
The ESS that I havent read yet:






						British energy security strategy
					






					www.gov.uk
				




Decarbonising the electricity sector is supposed to be covered by a subsequent CCC report due this year. I'm still wading threough their website to see if this or anything else of note is already availabe.  Skimming through the rest of the June 2022 document I see that in the risk mitigations chart, for nuclear they have the following:



> Accelerate development and No deployment of alternative forms of schedulable low-carbon generation
> 
> Identify key decision points required to preserve optionality



And nuclear gets by far the worst marks on their policy scorecard:



From 2022 Progress Report to Parliament - Climate Change Committee


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2022)

Quoting the ambition directly from the ESS this time:



> increasing our plans for deployment of civil nuclear to up to 24GW by 2050 – 3 times more than now and representing up to 25% of our projected electricity demand
> within this overall ambition, we intend to take one project to FID this Parliament and 2 projects to FID in the next Parliament, including Small Modular Reactors, subject to value for money and relevant approvals. This is not a cap on ambition, but a challenge to the industry to come forward and compete for projects and aim to come online this decade
> depending on the pipeline of projects, these ambitions could see our nuclear sector progressing up to 8 more reactors across the next series of projects, so we improve our track record to deliver the equivalent of 1 reactor a year, rather than 1 a decade



So in terms of scale tahts basically the equivalent of 8 Hinkley C sized plants by 2050. Not that this is really the right way to think about it, since I think its very unlikely they want all the projects to be that big, they want a mix of different things.

This is also hinted in the way they mention sites a bit later on:



> the UK has 8 designated nuclear sites: Hinkley, Sizewell, Heysham, Hartlepool, Bradwell, Wylfa, Oldbury and Moorside. To facilitate our ambitious deployment plans we will also develop an overall siting strategy for the long term


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Bradwell B is another example of setbacks and difficulties in guessing what will actually happen next.

This is a site on the designated list, and the original hope involved China General Nuclear being very interested in putting its HPR1000 pressurised water reactors on the site. They have big hopes for that reactor type in the export market, and Bradwell would have been a showcase. They would partner with EDF.

But then UK-China relations deteriorated, palcing this project in jeopardy, and since then Bradwell B has tended not to be mentioned much in the national press, and government doesnt seem keen to mention it by name.

I've had a brief poke around and Bradwell B does still come up in local press articles, and on nuclear industry news sites. It appears that the regulatory approval process for HRP1000 has still been progressing, but this on its own is not a reliable guide as to what might happen next due to the sensitive politics with regards China. I suppose one plausible possibility is that the next time we hear our government going on about Bradwell B, it will be with a different partner and reactor type in mind.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 8, 2022)

I can’t see them doing any deals like this with Chinese companies, as there really aren’t any Chinese companies who aren’t actually the Chinese state.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

I cant say I was previously aware of the National Infrastructure Commission but they are:



> The Commission is an Executive Agency of HM Treasury, providing government with impartial, expert advice on major long term infrastructure challenges. While the Commission carries out its work in accordance with the remit and terms of reference for specific studies set by the government, it has complete discretion to determine its own work programme and recommendations.



I havent read any of their full reports yet but in the energy section they say this about nuclear:



> The case for committing to a new fleet of nuclear power stations now is weakened as the costs of deploying onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar have fallen dramatically.
> 
> The National Infrastructure Assessment recommended that government should not agree support for more than one nuclear power station, beyond Hinkley Point C, before 2025.
> 
> ...



From Energy & Waste - NIC

I will read some of those documents when I get a chance.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Oh and one of their number is at this weeks select committee meeting. Their chief economist, James Richardson.

Also features people from the nuclear side of GE Hitachi, Jacobs, Bechtel. And the chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, the MD of Terrestrial Energy, and the chair at the Nuclear Skills Strategy Group.

Time permitting I will watch like I did last week.



			https://committees.parliament.uk/event/14628/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2022)

elbows said:


> Oh and one of their number is at this weeks select committee meeting. Their chief economist, James Richardson.
> 
> Also features people from the nuclear side of GE Hitachi, Jacobs, Bechtel. And the chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, the MD of Terrestrial Energy, and the chair at the Nuclear Skills Strategy Group.
> 
> ...


can you catch up on iplayer?


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> can you catch up on iplayer?


You can get replays from the parliament live tv site, for example here is last weeks session:






						Parliamentlive.tv
					

Science and Technology Committee




					parliamentlive.tv
				




Its pretty dull stuff most of the time though, not exactly riveting viewing, although it does have its moments from my particular point of view.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2022)

elbows said:


> You can get replays from the parliament live tv site, for example here is last weeks session:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but useful for insomniacs


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Skimming through the first National Infrastructure Assessment 2018 mentioned a few posts ago. Perhaps some more material for the 'they are doing the bare minimum to keep the industry (& military) going' pile:



> For energy, the Commission’s judgement is that the supply chain for nuclear power should be maintained by agreeing a further plant beyond Hinkley Point C, even though renewables look like an increasingly viable alternative, as the costs of re-establishing the nuclear supply chain would be very high.





> Given these uncertainties, the Commission is recommending a ‘one by one’ approach to new nuclear plants, as opposed to the current government policy to develop a large fleet. This is preferable to a ‘stop start’ approach, in which the nuclear programme is cancelled only to be restarted at a later date. It will allow the UK to maintain, but not expand, a skills base and supply chain. This allows the UK to pursue a high renewables mix, which is most likely to be the preferred option, without closing off the nuclear alternative.











						National Infrastructure Assessment 1 - NIC
					

This assessment - the UK's first - looks at the UK's long term needs up to 2050 across a wide range of different infrastructure




					nic.org.uk
				




There is loads of stuff in there about cost, and costs and risks of a renewable system instead, but I cant really do justice to that topic with a reasonable number of small quotes, so I wont try for now.

Instead I will try to skim through their more recent documents to see how their position has evolved since that report of some years ago.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Well their next assessment is not due until autumn 2023. So I cant see a direct evolution of though in that format from them.

There are a few other documents from the intervening years that mention nuclear. For example they provided advice to government before the autumn 2021 budget and spending review:









						Advice note on nuclear power plant deployment - NIC
					






					nic.org.uk
				






> It should not be more nuclear beyond what government has already committed to. Nuclear is a firm low carbon source of power and more nuclear may well have a role to play in a 2050 net zero emissions power system. By constructing two new projects, the UK will already be building four reactors over the next decade, twice as many as the United States is and four times as many as France. But over 70 years of experience building large scale nuclear power plants shows that they are incredibly difficult to deliver on short timescales. Since 1990 around half of all plants have faced at least a 50 per cent delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90 per cent delay in construction. If a third new large scale nuclear project began next year and took as long as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it wouldn’t come online until the mid 2040s. It is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget.





> New nuclear technologies, such as small and advanced nuclear reactors, may have a role to play in the long term. But relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky. They will face both the challenges of being first of a kind plants and being a nuclear technology.





> Instead, alternative technologies should be pursued. The analysis from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sets out that a near zero carbon power system can be delivered by complementing renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This is supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other expert bodies such as National Grid ESO and the Climate Change Committee.





> These alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years. Whilst none of these technologies have been deployed at scale in the UK, there are pilot or commercial projects deployed elsewhere in the world. And the engineering of each is fundamentally sound. These technologies are smaller and more modular, exactly the type of technology the UK has experience delivering over short timescales. Deploying new technologies at scale will never be risk free. But the best way government can mitigate this risk is to act swiftly and finalise the policy frameworks under development that can facilitate the investment needed.



Given the gas component of that, I will now need to check whether their thoughts have already evolved, eg in their response to this years Energy Security Strategy.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

It seems their response to the Energy Security Strategy was to emphasise things that can yiend quicker results, which is certainly not nuclear:



> “The government should be credited with its scale of ambition to expand offshore wind and solar generation. The challenge is to take these stretching targets and turn them into delivery of cheaper electricity into people’s homes as quickly as possible.
> 
> “The steps on onshore wind are unlikely to unlock significant new capacity rapidly, while government’s aim to build more major nuclear plants will also take many years to realise.
> 
> “Alongside shifting supply away from fossil fuels, some of the quickest wins can be found in improving energy efficiency by better insulating our homes and public buildings to cut overall demand. The potential benefits are now bigger than ever, and we again call on government to set out a costed, long term plan for meeting its own targets and help households make the right choices for their pocket and the planet.”











						Commission welcomes "scale of ambition" of Energy Security Strategy - NIC
					

The Commission's immediate response to the Government's Energy Security Strategy




					nic.org.uk
				




But now I better look at their infrastructure progress review 2022 which is mentioned on that page.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

That progress review says only the following about nuclear: https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/NIC-Infrastructure-Progress-Review-2022-FINAL.pdf



> The Commission proposed taking a one by one approach to deploying nuclear power stations beyond Hinkley Point C and recommended that government should not agree support for more than one additional nuclear plant before 2025. In September 2021, the Commission advised government that the sixth Carbon Budget did not result in a change to this advice. Other technologies can deliver an electricity system consistent with meeting the sixth Carbon Budget and these technologies are less risky than delivering more than one new nuclear plant by 2035.35 The timelines for deploying additional plants mean nuclear cannot play a short term role in reducing reliance on natural gas.





> The government is also making progress in bringing one new large scale nuclear project, beyond Hinkley Point C, to Final Investment Decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to it being good value for money and securing all relevant approvals. A decision was made in 2021 that new nuclear projects would be funded using a regulated asset base.



I think I am done for now in exploring these themes. It certainly seems evident that I dont need to rely at all on 'the anti-nuclear brigade' in order to reach the same sort of opinions about appropriate scope and scale of UK nuclear projects as I already had when I started. The government are doing the bare minimum to keep nuclear alive, and future aspirations such as 24GW of nuclear by 2050 are based on a phase of research and development and alternative nuclear options that simply isnt ripe yet. In the years ahead we will get to see how these progress, how many more delays afflict current nuclear projects, and the extent to which non-nuclear alternatives for providing electricity supply flexibility (and compensating for the variability of wind etc) manage to take off. All I might learn in this parliament is whether Sizewell C goes ahead, what life extensions the remaining 2nd gen nuclear fleet get, and what the select committee conclude about the wider picture. And perhaps then a few more projects will get the go ahead next parliament.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2022)

Oh and I do note the essay that the NIC chair gave to the Telegraph some months ago. Its clear where the emphasis is, with nuclear almost relegated to a footnote and more often to be used to contrast the previous maximum capacity of our nuclear fleet with the scale of ambition for wind and solar:









						Armitt: Exit strategy from fossil fuels will boost energy security and lower household costs - NIC
					

In an extended essay published in the Daily Telegraph on 29 September 2022, Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, Sir John Armitt, explores the importance of accelerating the development of renewable energy sources, cutting energy waste and boosting the take-up of low carbon heating...




					nic.org.uk
				






> Part of the answer – as the government has noted in its recent announcements – is to embrace the homegrown solution of cleaner sources of energy that won’t deplete over time, in the form of renewables like wind and solar power supported by nuclear as necessary.





> Government’s existing ambitions reflect this, setting targets including 50GW of power from offshore wind within the next decade, and a five fold increase of solar to around 70GW by 2035. (By comparison, at its historic peak in 1995, nuclear energy was providing 12.7GW.)



Thats where the real ambition and excitement is to be found, not in nuclear. eg:



> Crucially, renewables operators are ready to move. Developers are confident that onshore wind turbines, for instance, could be operational within a year of approval in the right policy and planning environment.
> 
> In the context of the new ambition for the UK to be a net exporter of energy by 2040, our geography means that offshore wind in particular could represent a sizeable economic opportunity to sell electricity across the channel or beyond.



There is also a lot of talk about reducing waste and energy efficiency. A subject that is where much of the action in the decades ahead is actually to be found. I shall certainly attempt to turn much of my time to these aspects in future, even though it 'isnt sexy', and spend less time refuting the priorities of the desperate proponents of nuclear solutions. You've had decades and decades to make a positive nuclear case and in most instances the whole nuclear business has been a dismal pain in the arse and a story of failure and timescales we dont have the luxury of banking on, rather than a decent foundation for a safe and secure future. The energy transition is too vital and urgent to put many eggs in the nuclear basket. And even if things somehow went better in future, the entire nuclear project is only ever one major nuclear accident away from a setback of epic proportions.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2022)

This weeks select committee was a tale of two halves, with the first half being mostly about what people at companies in the industry want to see, and the second half being about skills and the workforce. Video at Parliamentlive.tv but I will make a post with links to transcripts eventually.

Plenty of the stuff from the companies ended up being glorified sales pitches. They love to mention the 24GW by 2050 number, although some of them used it in an especially crude and silly manner. For example someone from Hitachi Nuclear was touting their small modular reactors and so decided to wank on about how we need to build 80 reactors to hit the 24GW target. Just because their  own SMR is about 300MW so youd need 80 of them to deliver 24GW, never mind the fact that we already have one 3GW plant under construction and at least one more planned, and that nobody in the real world is expecting all of the 24GW target to be achieved via SMRs on their own.

Our regulatory and approval system was discussed plenty, and unsurprisingly the people from nuclear companies were going on about how they'd like to see greater international harmonisation and stuff like  approval in one country enabling fast tracked approval elsewhere. 

There was a nice contrast between their vision and what the guy from the National Infrastructure Commission kept saying. The companies want a long pipeline of projects to be backed far in advance, NIC wants government to approve just enough to keep the industry alive, to keep our nuclear options open for longer, playing for time to see whether the hype about costs coming down and new types of reactors can actually become more demonstrably true many years down the road, or whether the alternatives to nuclear will end up making more sense by then. The guy from the Nuclear Industry Association hates the NIC stance and kept wanking on about Abu Dhabi and moaning about 'non-fact economic judgements' that piss on his parade, the NIC guy kept pointing out that actually their analysis was based on the economic realities of hundreds of projects from all over the world.

To be continued.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2022)

Unlike the previous committee evidence session where people were skeptical of Great British Nuclear, what it was supposed to be and what it was supposed to achieve, the nuclear company people at this session seemed rather keen. Mostly because it sounds like the government has recently solicited their views about what GBN should be, and these companies are hoping they are listened to and that GBN helps deliver a long pipeline of projects they can bank on. We will probably need to wait for government to come out with more info about what details they've settled on for GBN before getting deeper into that.

The new funding method of Regulated Asset Base was discussed by the NIC bloke quite a bit. He said that the treasury had a long memory of the costs they ended up with on their books from previous generations of nuclear build, and also that the treasury orthodoxy is traditionally not fond of using RAB for these sorts of projects, but broader government decisions on this probably overrode the treasury. He bluntly stated that RAB has been chosen because no private company is willing to take on the financial risk of building new nuclear plants, due to the history of cost overruns. Makes it clear that government, tax payers and consumers now carry this risk burden under the RAB arrangement. Says the median cost overrun is 40% for past nuclear projects, a number derived from looking at hundreds of past projects.

The NIC bloke was also keen to point out that nuclear doesnt solve some of the biggest challenges in terms of the grid and future flexibility. He mentioned Frances current issues with their nuclear fleet. He went on about how nuclear gives a pretty constant output so it doesnt remove the need for a lot of focus and funding being required to bring flexibility to the system via storage, fancier grid, hydrogen. One MP on the committee was pushing for a bigger set of future nuclear project commitments and the NIC guy pointed out that Sizewell is a commitment that runs well into the 2030s which is already a long time for a government commitment. But he is also clear that if we didnt commit to anything at all beyond Hinkley C, we'd effectively be taking future nuclear options off the table because the industry, supply chain skills etc would dwindle away, and its not a good idea to kill off future nuclear possibilities at this stage. But he thinks the value for money case could change in future and so shouldnt commit to a large number of projects that wont come online till the 2040s, because all sorts of factors will change later. Gives an example of how when the economic case for Hinkley C was decided, the cheapest offshore wind was priced into calculations at £80/MWh, and since then its fallen to £37/MWh.


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 12, 2022)

elbows said:


> For example someone from Hitachi Nuclear was touting their small modular reactors and so decided to wank on about how we need to build 80 reactors to hit the 24GW target. Just because their  own SMR is about 300MW so youd need 80 of them to deliver 24GW, never mind the fact that we already have one 3GW plant under construction and at least one more planned, and that nobody in the real world is expecting all of the 24GW target to be achieved via SMRs on their own.


Probably Duncan Hawthorne… Scottish I think but recruited from Canada and paid a LOT of money by hitachi / Horizon to ultimately deliver nothing (used to do their payroll!).


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2022)

I looked it up and it was Michelle Catts, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Programs, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2022)

The Sizewell C stuff they wanted to hear in the mini budget sounds like it got said. Contracts to be signed in the coming weeks.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2022)

But they will no doubt be crying about the 40% windfall tax on nuclear power generation profits.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2022)

It was some BBC live updates thing I was reading at the time that said 40% and I havent figured out why they said 40 rather than 45, maybe they just made a mistake or maybe there is some nuanced explanation I didnt figure out yet.

I see from the full statement that they were laying it on thick:



> Since 2010, our renewable energy production grew faster than any other large country in Europe.
> 
> We need to go further, with a major acceleration of home-grown technologies like offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and, above all, nuclear.
> 
> This will deliver new jobs, industries and export opportunities and secure the clean, affordable energy we need to power our future economy and reach Net Zero.





> So I can today announce that the government will proceed with the new plant at Sizewell C.
> 
> Subject to final government approvals, the contracts for the initial investment will be signed with relevant parties, including EDF, in the coming weeks.
> 
> ...



(from The Autumn Statement 2022 speech which then goes on to say that energy efficiency is just as important).

I think 'above all' and 'the biggest step' are overblown language, and as discussed previous the Sizewell commitment is actually the bare minimum they needed to do to ensure that it will still be possible to add other nuclear possibilities to the picture in future, if those later nuclear options are ever deemed to be the best value for money or otherwise necessary.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2022)

The announcement didnt impress Prospect very much:



> Sue Ferns, from the engineering union Prospect, welcomed the chancellor's statement but said "merely restating previous announcements is not enough".
> 
> "When are we going to get confirmation of the government investment decision?" she said.
> 
> "Potential investors are seeking assurances now and without their commitment, dependent on a firm decision from the government, the project risks being holed below the waterline."











						Autumn Statement: Government to push ahead with plans for Sizewell C
					

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt renews a commitment to build the £20bn nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## elbows (Nov 29, 2022)

Progress withthe Energy Bill means today offers another opportunity to confirm the Sizewell C committment. Great British Nuclear gets another mention and a promise of funding, but not much else for me to say about that until more detail emerges.



> The government’s historic £700 million stake in Sizewell C is positioned at the heart of the new blueprint to Britain’s energy sovereignty, as plans to develop the new plant are approved today. This is expected to create 10,000 highly skilled jobs and provide reliable, low-carbon, power to the equivalent of 6 million homes for over 50 years.
> 
> Today’s approval comes alongside the government’s continued commitment to develop a pipeline of new nuclear projects, beyond Sizewell C. To support this, the UK is working at pace to set up Great British Nuclear, the vehicle tasked with developing a resilient pipeline of new nuclear builds, with an announcement expected early in the new year.





> For Britain to achieve energy security, a pipeline of new nuclear is needed, alongside one large-scale project. Today the government is confirming its commitment to set up Great British Nuclear, an Arms’ Length Body (ALB) which will develop a resilient pipeline of new builds, beyond Sizewell C. With support from industry and our expert adviser Simon Bowen, this vehicle will help through every stage of the development process while ensuring these projects offer clear value for money for taxpayers and consumers. The UK government can confirm today that it will back Great British Nuclear with funding to enable the delivery of clean, safe electricity over the decades to come, protecting future generations from the high price of global fossil fuel markets, with an announcement expected in the new year.



Also in regards Sizewell C:



> The investment also allows for China General Nuclear’s (CGN) exit from the project, including buy-out costs, any tax due and commercial arrangements.











						UK government takes major steps forward to secure Britain's energy independence
					

The Business and Energy Secretary announces further measures to help secure the UK’s energy independence.




					www.gov.uk


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2022)

I havent gotten round to writing up what was said about skills at a previous select committee meeting. But for now this article about Frances recruitment struggles ends up covering some of the key themes:









						Welders wanted: France steps up recruitment drive as nuclear crisis deepens
					

French power giant EDF is looking to recruit a new generation of welders, pipe-fitters and boiler makers to fix its ageing nuclear reactors and build more of them, as Europe's energy crisis rekindles the allure of atomic power.




					www.reuters.com
				




I've still got a subsequent select committee meeting to write up too. I watched it and wrote notes, but not sure when I will get round to summarising it here.


----------

