What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Then the answer is simply to keep an industrial/political finger in the French nuclear pie .... at some stage nuclear fusion will become a reality and the countries with a pre-existant nuclear research and industrial base will have a pretty large advantage over the global competition ....

Add to this the UK's intent to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent and it becomes quite a basic premise that negotiations for the renewal/replacement of a developed delivery system wouldn't get very far if the country had abandoned the ability to process/reprocess and develop the warheads ....

One question, two answers ....

HTH
Z

Well, thanks for having a go. It at least proves that engineers can be as creative as the arty types when needs must.

I find it a little strange that throughout the last few years when Nukes cropped up and I seemed to be a lone voice saying they are coming anyway, that you also knew they were, albeit for military reasons rather than civil, and yet you never stated that view on here. It could well have lessened the shock to most here who thought, and probably still think, Nukes would never see the light of day in the UK again due to 'green' approved technologies being far superior in every respect. Afterall, imv, it's far more admirable to predict an event in advance rather than after it.

Also, just a day or two ago, I think you gave your view that our electricity supply needs to cover the UK in windmills and solar to approximately 200% penetration, but in that view, I don't think you mentioned a contribution from Nuclear at all. Why didn't you include the Nuclear contribution then?

Still, could you give your opinion on how many Nuclear stations we will need in the future to ensure a supply of bombs to the military? Is it just the one, together with the second being talked about, or perhaps several more? How much Nuclear capacity do we need the French to install to satisfy the reasons you gave?

On a different point, the offers on the plugin Prius seem to be getting generous - on top of the £5k government grant, my main dealer is offering a £1.5k 'loyalty' gift, and also a £1k bung if a purchaed is financed through Toyota (which I think offsets completely the interest costs over a year). It's getting tempting. Do you find the reserved parking/charging places useful, which I expect for some would be a great advantage?

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well, thanks for having a go. It at least proves that engineers can be as creative as the arty types when needs must.

I find it a little strange that throughout the last few years when Nukes cropped up and I seemed to be a lone voice saying they are coming anyway, that you also knew they were, albeit for military reasons rather than civil, and yet you never stated that view on here. It could well have lessened the shock to most here who thought, and probably still think, Nukes would never see the light of day in the UK again due to 'green' approved technologies being far superior in every respect. Afterall, imv, it's far more admirable to predict an event in advance rather than after it.

Also, just a day or two ago, I think you gave your view that our electricity supply needs to cover the UK in windmills and solar to approximately 200% penetration, but in that view, I don't think you mentioned a contribution from Nuclear at all. Why didn't you include the Nuclear contribution then?

Still, could you give your opinion on how many Nuclear stations we will need in the future to ensure a supply of bombs to the military? Is it just the one, together with the second being talked about, or perhaps several more? How much Nuclear capacity do we need the French to install to satisfy the reasons you gave?

On a different point, the offers on the plugin Prius seem to be getting generous - on top of the £5k government grant, my main dealer is offering a £1.5k 'loyalty' gift, and also a £1k bung if a purchaed is financed through Toyota (which I think offsets completely the interest costs over a year). It's getting tempting. Do you find the reserved parking/charging places useful, which I expect for some would be a great advantage?

Hi

I don't know why you're attempting to spin things a little. I'm not anti-nuclear at all and have never posted anything of the sort. However, whilst the nuclear sector is effectively playing a game of poker with the government, then the government should simply leave the table for a while.

The answers I gave in the previous post were based on a logical premise, that doesn't mean that I am in total agreement with the positions which would follow. It's important to note that even without the ability to create new weapons-grade materials, current warheads could have an extended lifespan of 75 years before reprocessing ( http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml ). Link to this the planned lifespan of the existing reactors - Sizewell B PWR was due to be decommissioned in 2035, however EDF plan to extend this by an additional 20years, with some AGRs also having their life extended by 7years ( http://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/EDF-Energy-announces-seven-year-life-extension-to-Hinkley-Point-B-and-Hunterston-B-nuclear-power-stations.shtml ), so there's no rush to make an immediate decision based on defence policy ....

To the question on why I didn't include nuclear in the mix, well it's pretty simple ..... timescales and the attitude of the nuclear industry. It makes absolutely no sense to create a monopoly in nuclear generation through EDF and then agree to subsidise them on a cost+ contract basis when every other potential operator has seen the competitive threat of shale-gas on the horizon and pulled the plug on capital intensive generation in the UK.

The difference between nuclear and gas generation is that nuclear is capital intensive with low revenue (fuel etc) costs and gas is revenue intensive with low capital investment. It therefore becomes obvious where a standard project based financial risk-assessment would point .... it's much cheaper to 'get-it-wrong' by taking the gas approach than nuclear, it's also considerably faster to deliver working systems ....

On the Prius front, get away from the SE or major cities and there's a complete void in the provision of public charging points, the most you'll see are outside certain car dealerships (Nissan, Toyota, Vauxhall etc). Apart from that it's simply down to yourself and/or your employer ...

HTH
Z

albyota

My contribution to this thread is as follows:

Many years ago, nobody had phones, then we had telephone boxes, remember them, then we had landlines wired into our houses, now almost everybody has a mobile phone.....or two!

Many years ago, we had to wash clothes by hand, squeeze out or drip dry or put through the mangle, then put them on the washing line, then we had the twin-tub and spinner, at the same time launderettes opened for those that could not afford a machine, then came the automatic washing machine and tumble dryer.

Even though some, the rich, early adopters, had televisions, If you wanted to see a film, you had to go out to a cinema, then came the VHS, now most have HD flat screen digital TV, with surround sound, with hard disk drive recorders and DVD's.

The electricity transmission system in England and Wales consists mainly of 4,500 miles of overhead lines and 420 miles of underground cables operating at 275,000 and 400,000 volts.

Now, the national grid has always been supplied by the power stations situated miles away from towns and cities, so to transmit the electricity through the wires, means, a supergrid of lots of huge pylons carrying the cables with these high voltages, which is fed to transformers dropping the voltage to 33 kvA then 11 kvA, then to street supplies of 450 volts and 240v into our homes and business's,schools and hospitals, at efficiencies of about 38%.......62% loss according to NG.

So if we produce electricity much closer to where it is required, there should be fewer losses. Whether it is solar PV and wind fed into storage of batteries, graphine super-capacitors, pumped hydro using underground reservoirs and ground based lakes and reservoirs, flywheel storage, fuel cell, or compressed air storage. Nuclear will also have to be in the mix, so will landbased and offshore wind, and tidal wave. As for the intermittency caused by the mix of these energies, ABB or someone will have solved the frequency / voltage issues. A Solar PV inverter already controls under / over voltage and frequency.

Thousands of homes in small towns and villages are at the very end of
long runs of overhead cable lines, so the losses are even greater, lots of these cables are being upgraded and put underground by DNO's to minimise repair and maintenance costs from our changing weather. This could be enhanced with water/oil cooling, using the heat for community / public buildings.

"For example, National Grid is at the forefront of developing new “smart meters” which will allow real-time adjustment to the electricity consumption of millions of “smart appliances”, such as fridges and freezers, reducing the need for expensive, carbon- intensive generation to meet peak demands. Other “smart grid” technologies may include solar cells and new types of gas-fired central heating boiler that will generate electricity as well as heating the home."

Source: national grid

Ceres fuel cells are already being trialled by British gas in a 1000 UK homes.

I think before the new generation nuclear plants are built, there will be further developments in fuel cell technology and like the pioneers and early adopters of plasma screen TV's, the latest mobile device, the hybrid car, these people will be the first to have the fuel cell powering their homes.

However, with more electrical demand coming on the grid, with a proposed 200,000 new houses built per year fitted with ground and/ or air source heat pumps or gas CHP boilers or fuel cells, recharging of electric vehicles, railway expansion, etc. etc. there will be a turning point where fossil fuels will only be used for generating electricity, until...............



guess your not quite ready for this yet.......but your kids are gonna love it........

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

My contribution to this thread is as follows:

Many years ago, nobody had phones, then we had telephone boxes ....

.... guess your not quite ready for this yet.......but your kids are gonna love it........

Hi

.... As has been the case for eons and summarised pretty well by Heraclitus ~2500 years ago ... "Nothing endures but change" ....

HTH
Z

Energetic_2

This came up on Twatter earlier, Germany has provided 50% of its 10-11am energy today from wind and PV.

http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/Statutory%20Publication%20Requirements%20of%20the%20Transmission%20System%20Operators

Interesting site...

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Ok, we'll take it you don't want Nuclear in your mix.

But this is a very simple question, and I have difficulty understanding your reluctance to explain what you mean by a mix. Afterall, it's not really a solution to our energy needs to say 'we need a mix'. You have to flesh it out a little more.

So, could I ask you again, on a winter's evening with zero solar contribution and zero wind contribution, what would your mix consist of?

You have to make 60GW , solar = 0, wind = 0, nuclear = 0, coal = 0, oil = 0, gas = 0 - I'm just wondering (isn't everyone else too?) how you get to 60GW. Or do we just give up and have no electricity?

I also may add that whatever you come up with for the 60GW has to be affordable.

Sheesh, these are the extremely simple and obvious considerations and requirements. Are we ever going to progress to the really difficult problems, like maintaining frequency within limits?

It's Ok saying all the technologies you don't want, how about some you do want, which satisfy the 60GW generation (remember wind, which I suppose everyone here loves but unfortunately gives no contribution in the scenario posed however many hundreds of billions have been spent, ditto solar).

Come on all the armchair electricty experts, lets get the simple and obvious requirements dealt with, I want to move on to the difficult almost tightrope walking requirements which require considerable intellectual capacity to solve so we can all plug our kettles in when we want - they are much more interesting.

Have to say, I have enjoyed the forum for the last week or 2.

But, I must ask, why do you concentrate on zero wind and solar on a winter evening as if that 'wins' your argument all year round? And seems the only basis of your wind and solar don't work repetition?

What point are you actually trying to make?

Martyn1981

Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors

But experts said the National Grid's decision to spread the cost of extra standby capacity amounted to a subsidy for the new power stations. "There is no justification for nuclear being exempted from paying the additional costs to the system other than to make nuclear look cheaper than it is relative to other sources of electricity," said Prof Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter. "It is clear to me that were there a genuine, transparent and comprehensive examination of the costs and benefits to society of nuclear versus renewables, the latter would be of far greater value both in the short and long term."

Mart.

Martyn1981

"Financial problems facing EDF could force the French energy giant to pull out of the £14bn project to build the first of a new generation of nuclear power plants in Britain, a French expert has warned."

"Mr Schneider said that EDF with debts of €39bn (£33.3bn) might not have the cash to put into Hinkley and added: “It’s not certain it will go ahead."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9978548/EDF-in-big-trouble-says-French-nuclear-expert.html

It's a shame that nuclear isn't smaller, more modular, and faster to install and respond to competition.

If it was, then rather than just govts and national giants investing - we might see households investing a few thousands, or companies investing a few 100's of thousands, or larger companies investing several millions. Especially if they could utilise unused spaces or coastal waters, and could start generating within a year, or even a week or so. :idea:

Mart.

OffGridLiving

rogerblack wrote: »

Speaking personally - new nuclear building program to around 20 times the current capacity.
Completely decarbonise the existing electricity generation sector, and move all industries and homes using oil, coal or gas for heat over to electricity.
With the rise of China, India, ... in the next several decades, we _MUST_NOT_ be in a position where we are paying for fuel imports at the same time as our export industries run into problems due to 'the third world' upskilling.

Save the oil and gas for export, and industrial non-thermal use.
Renewables as makes economic sense on top of this.

^ This!

I was about to post my thoughts on the subject and then I read your post. It's exactly how I feel we should proceed, with the exception of the (forced?) move from natural gas and the addition of a hefty RHI to help those heating their houses with electricity to move onto heat pump technology.

Similar to solar PV, once heat pumps receive this sort of investment their efficiencies will increase and their costs will reduce, eventually becoming cheaper to run than gas, which will encourage people to rip out their gas heaters just as the advent of the electric lightbulb did for gas lights.

I'm more of a 'carrot' than a 'stick' person.

OffGridLiving

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's a fair question. But what is the alternative?

Under EU rules governments can't support industries such as gas, coal, nuclear (steel, cars etc). So the proposed nuclear subsidies have to go onto bills now. The Tories were trying to get nuclear classed as 'green energy', since that can (I believe) be supported through general taxation. But the Lib Dems are strongly against this form of subsidy - after all, we'll still be paying it, but it will artificially reduce leccy prices (as at present).

By falsely reducing bills, this undermines the savings of both renewables and energy efficiency / energy savings.

Next, if we fund leccy investment through taxation (rather than keep the costs within the industry and consumers) then the money will have to come from some new or additional taxation.

Perhaps a solution would be to find a product that is consumed by all households and industry, then tax it proportionately to consumption by placing a 10% tariff on it. Apologies if this seems argumentative, but isn't that what the Green Tariff does?

Regarding my VAT argument, it is only my opinion, and yes I appreciate that it would push up energy bills for high consumers, but also it would encourage demand side renewables, energy efficiency and energy savings. The real losers would be the energy companies, as their product would become more expensive, and they would need to improve efficiencies/lower costs to maintain consumption levels.

If the increased tax revenue was ring fenced, then it could be directed back into the poorer energy consumers, via free/subsidised energy efficiency measures, and an increase in the bottom tax bracket. I see it as having no net increase on tax revenues (in an ideal world), but redirecting funds via a green tax on high consumption.

Mart.

I hope you don't mind me moving the discussion onto here Mart, I've already been told off once by Eric for hyjacking threads.

I feel that securing national energy supplies is too vital to be left in the hands of private companies. Nuclear should never have been put into the private sector and with the delays, arguments and safety concerns, it's apparent why. As a public company, there should be no issues around unfair competition and subsidies.

I also feel that everyone in the country should contribute towards this sort of infrastructure investment via general taxation rather than through bills. it spreads the cost more fairly, proportionate on income rather than on useage of a particular energy source.