Is it time to go nuclear?

Markcheese · 24-01-2020 8:26pm

Just heard on the radio that Britain's building a whole load of new mini nuclear power stations ... Rolls Royce building them ,government and private funding ,supposed to provide 20 % of uk power at a lower price than new large-scale nuclear ..
I'll believe it when it's delivered on price and Target .

Markcheese · 24-01-2020 8:29pm

BBC News - Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444

Found the link ...

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 10:34pm

Small scale nuclear is one of the few power sources that is not well suited for a distributed system, just on the security issues alone.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 10:41pm

If you bothered to read the article, you would have seen that the security issue was well addressed.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-01-2020 10:57pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Just heard on the radio that Britain's building a whole load of new mini nuclear power stations ... Rolls Royce building them ,government and private funding ,supposed to provide 20 % of uk power at a lower price than new large-scale nuclear ..
I'll believe it when it's delivered on price and Target .

In fairness RR have been building small self contained reactors for the Royal Navy Subs for the last 60 years. So it's not one of the usual paper companies.

However, the reactors have had problems and there is the disposal issue.
Not so long ago all of the UK's Attack Subs were out out of service for various reasons including reactor problems.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 10:57pm

I read the article before it was posted, in depth.

It mentions both siting the reactors at existing facilities, and also that every city could have one ?

Anyway to have loads of small reactors at a single facility, seems pointless, as Elon says the best part is no part, and this solution would involve so many more parts, and management then a single big one.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:03pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I read the article before it was posted, in depth.

It mentions both siting the reactors at existing facilities, and also that every city could have one ?

Anyway to have loads of small reactors at a single facility, seems pointless, as Elon says the best part is no part, and this solution would involve so many more parts, and management then a single big one.

Lol, so not like solar panels and wind turbines all over the shop?

Bleep, bleep, bleep, Elon bleeping Musk.

Security just isn't a hard problem, so no reason cities shouldn't have them.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 11:04pm

More expensive, more risky, and not ready until mid 2030s.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 11:05pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Lol, so not like solar panels and wind turbines all over the shop?

No they are well suited for a distributed power system due to the lack of security/contamination risk. Simple logic really.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 11:10pm

We already use the biggest windmills we can build, and solar is a single electrical connection, no or moving parts, high pressure steam, deadly nuclear fuel, etc.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:17pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

We already use the biggest windmills we can build, and solar is a single electrical connection, no or moving parts, high pressure steam, deadly nuclear fuel, etc.

Ah, solar, that genius tech that on only works 12 hour shifts, no matter how much overtime you offer.

unkel · 24-01-2020 11:23pm

Wind is far cheaper than nuclear (and that's before even taking into account waste issues) and we are a prime location for it (probably the best in the world)

For this country the solution is very simple really. And yes, SlowBlowin is right that we need a lot more solar PV too as we have near nothing. Also very cheap, and fewer environmental issues than with any other electricity generation method

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:31pm

unkel wrote: »

Wind is far cheaper than nuclear (and that's before even taking into account waste issues) and we are a prime location for it (probably the best in the world)

For this country the solution is very simple really. And yes, SlowBlowin is right that we need a lot more solar PV too as we have near nothing. Also very cheap, and fewer environmental issues than with any other electricity generation method

So what we need is enough solar panels and wind turbines to provide 100% of our electricity needs? Gotcha, can't see any problems there, get spending then. I'll just sit elsewhere and watch.

unkel · 24-01-2020 11:33pm

cnocbui wrote: »

So what we need is enough solar panels and wind turbines to provide 100% of our electricity needs?

Nope. About 200-300%.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 11:38pm

cnocbui wrote: »

So what we need is enough solar panels and wind turbines to provide 100% of our electricity needs? Gotcha, can't see any problems there, get spending then. I'll just sit elsewhere and watch.

You really like to put words in peoples mouths.

I am simply saying this "SMR plan" seems full of flaws and less suited to the job than other possible solutions, including conventional nuclear.

SlowBlowin · 24-01-2020 11:56pm

As far as I can see everyone seems to be gearing up and expanding battery production. Huge production capacity increases are happening every month, and prices are falling.

In a few years the surplus market is going to be awash with surplus car batteries. Tesla are suggesting a major breakthrough is going to be announced at battery investor day 2020, this is suspected to include a step jump in capacity as well as lifetime, pushing more cells into the second life market.

Overall I hope this will put a lot more storage capacity at the edge, where it makes sense. This coupled with more home solar will make a difference. I still think Ireland is very slow in utilising hydro on a smaller scale, and exploiting this in the future will also make a huge difference.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2020 1:38pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Ah, solar, that genius tech that on only works 12 hour shifts, no matter how much overtime you offer.

Ah, nuclear, that genius tech that works 24/7 whether you need it or not.

There are HUGE costs associated with supporting nuclear on a grid.

It can only be used for base load unless you have pumped storage.
If you have pumped storage then renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

cnocbui · 25-01-2020 3:08pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ah, nuclear, that genius tech that works 24/7 whether you need it or not.

There are HUGE costs associated with supporting nuclear on a grid.

It can only be used for base load unless you have pumped storage.
If you have pumped storage then renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

Countries, like France, can and have run on nuclear power for decades. No country can or has been run exclusively on solar or wind power.

Nuclear is the only option on the table if a country wants to get serious about transitioning to a zero carbon emission electricity grid, unless it happens to be one of the scant few that is lucky in geography and can use hydro or geothermal.

It's astonishing how the electricity price in Germany just continues to climb, now some of the most expensive in Europe, even though they are moving to renewables faster than most. Half a Germans electricity bill is made up of green taxes and charges to pay for cheap renewables. The shift to renewables there has lead to considerably higher electricity bills than when they had stable and reliable nuclear power. They are even expanding coal mining into forests, because they made the stupid decision to turn off the reactors. Real green, that!

But keep on pushing that renewables are cheap line, I'm sure someone out there will fall for it.

Markcheese · 25-01-2020 3:13pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ah, nuclear, that genius tech that works 24/7 whether you need it or not.

There are HUGE costs associated with supporting nuclear on a grid.

It can only be used for base load unless you have pumped storage.
If you have pumped storage then renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

True , but even with renewables and pumped storage ( or huge grid level batteries ,) you still need a back up that you can bring on line for that dead calm winter week that we get once every 4 or 5 years ..

Markcheese · 25-01-2020 3:15pm

Claiming that the mini nukes will be comparable in cost to off shore wind ...
But then reminding everyone of cost over runs on hinkley c and hs 2 ...

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2020 3:44pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Countries, like France, can and have run on nuclear power for decades. No country can or has been run exclusively on solar or wind power.

Thanks to the Alps and Pyrenees France has 25GW of Hydro to balance the 63GW of nukes.

How much excess energy does France export to the UK and Germany at night ? How much renewable energy does it import ?

How much efficiency have the French nuclear power plants lost because they were designed to burn up neutron poisons more quickly so they could reduce output a little at weekends ?

Would you care to comment on France reducing nuclear to 50% in the near future or the EPR delays ?

Care to comment on the failure of the breeder program and what that would mean to uranium costs were demand for nuclear power to increase ?

Nuclear is the only option on the table if a country wants to get serious about transitioning to a zero carbon emission electricity grid, unless it happens to be one of the scant few that is lucky in geography and can use hydro or geothermal.

At best Nuclear power is several elections away. It's too little too late.

The move to more efficient CFL and LED light contributed more to balancing electric demand worldwide than nuclear.

That's because nuclear power provides less electricity than was used by incandescent light bulbs. Better insulation could reduce demand even more for water and space heating.

A reminder that a large nuclear power plant is a money pit that blocks funding for other projects. Hinkley C will cost more than the multinational ITER fusion project.

It's astonishing how the electricity price in Germany just continues to climb, now some of the most expensive in Europe, even though they are moving to renewables faster than most.

Phasing out Coal isn't cheap.

But it's still cheaper than nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2020 4:12pm

Markcheese wrote: »

True , but even with renewables and pumped storage ( or huge grid level batteries ,) you still need a back up that you can bring on line for that dead calm winter week that we get once every 4 or 5 years ..

All it needs is lots of energy and lots of money.

You could decarbonise electricity production by adding hydrogen from renewables to natural gas to reduce it's carbon footprint. Embrittlement of steel limits how much you can add. 10-15% shouldn't be a problem, 20-25% may mean small changes, 50% or more is doable with a good bit of work.

Beyond that the technology exists to make storable hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. It just takes too much energy to be economic at present. Methane is natural gas so store it in the network. Methanol is a liquid. There are other molecules too further up the chain but cost more. Methanol, ethanol or some esters can be used to stretch or replace petrol.

SlowBlowin · 25-01-2020 4:57pm

I think it would be a good idea, as a global project, to offer some sort of incentive to companies to produce fuel form the earths atmosphere. This option is a treble win, as it provides fuel while reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and cleaning the atmosphere at the same time.

Counties like Iceland have a huge surplus of cheap abundant energy from ground thermal, a global incentive to help turn this into fuel, maybe for standby loads elsewhere in the world, seems a sensible thing to do, this technology needs to be advanced and it seems Iceland would be the perfect place to do it.. I understand that this would be inefficient initially, but you have to start somewhere.

As CaptMidnite said, adding hydrogen to existing gas distribution seems like a good idea. In the UK the grid often pays Scottish wind farms to stop production as the grid can't handle the power, would make more sense to use this spare production to produce something, H2 seems the logical choice.

unkel · 25-01-2020 6:31pm

Agreed the only reason for producing H2 is as a last resort, when we can't store the excess from renewable electricity production in any other "battery", like a chemical battery, pumped hydro, interconnector, etc. and it would otherwise have gone to waste or the generator would even have to be switched off.

SlowBlowin · 25-01-2020 6:56pm

unkel wrote: »

Agreed the only reason for producing H2 is as a last resort, when we can't store the excess from renewable electricity production in any other "battery", like a chemical battery, pumped hydro, interconnector, etc. and it would otherwise have gone to waste or the generator would even have to be switched off.

Yes, but that "last resort" tag you give it, while being 100% accurate is also misleading. I see this last resort being used quite often, like when you said 200 ~ 300 % solar, that comes from your experience. To live with solar you need to spec it so its producing 2 or 3 times more than you need on a clear sunny day. What to do with that excess power is important, and when I spent time looking at my personal situation I came up with 3 options:

1. Mine crypto currency & at the same time produce heat.
2. Produce hydrogen.
3. Produce nitric acid for fertiliser via Birkeland Eyde process.

I chose the first one, but now H2 seems the best option, the third option could result in arrest.

Obviously feed back into the grid is an option, but only if everyone isnt doing it.

TimeToShine · 25-01-2020 7:01pm

unkel wrote: »

Agreed the only reason for producing H2 is as a last resort, when we can't store the excess from renewable electricity production in any other "battery", like a chemical battery, pumped hydro, interconnector, etc. and it would otherwise have gone to waste or the generator would even have to be switched off.

Hydrogen isn't a last resort, it's an end to end solution and likely to be the future unless fusion comes to fruition in the next 50 years. It can be used to decarbonize transport (especially ships and HGVs), industry, displace LNG and even be burned for energy like natural gas is in CCGTs today.

Your suggestions are solutions to the power sector, hydrogen is a potential system-wide, global solution to GHG emissions.

unkel · 25-01-2020 7:03pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yes, but that "last resort" tag you give it, while being 100% accurate is also misleading. I see this last resort being used quite often, like when you said 200 ~ 300 % solar, that comes from your experience. To live with solar you need to spec it so its producing 2 or 3 times more than you need on a clear sunny day.

Oh, I agree! I did not mean "last resort" to sound negatively. Just that the other storage is preferable over producing H2.

gozunda · 25-01-2020 7:08pm

Hypothetically If we did choose to go nuclear at some point in the future - where would the best place to build it?

West coast? Midlands on previously cut over bog? Near Dublin?

Afaik theres nothing stopping the UK building one in NI. Would we get a say in that?

SlowBlowin · 25-01-2020 7:17pm

If its as safe as the supporters say, then the best place is obviously Dublin.

Close to the main customers, hence efficient, close to the sea for cooling, and close to the docks for transport of the waste to some poor country that will accept it..

If the government were to put it anywhere else, other than Dublin, they would be as hypocritical as the English who prefer the Scottish, Cambrian and Welsh highlands..

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2020 8:13pm

unkel wrote: »

otherwise have gone to waste or the generator would even have to be switched off.

Unless it's a nuclear plant.

Because neutron poisons mean you have to have it back up and running soon or you have to wait a few days. Because nuclear is very inflexible.

Is it time to go nuclear?

Comments