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

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a huge flaw in your 100% nuclear plan. Nuclear power plants can not adjust their output quickly enough. They work best if left to run as baseload, we still need something else to cover for peak load.

The demand for electricity varies hugely, currently from around 30GW to 50W in a 24hr period with lots of smaller spikes in between. What happens when there is a sudden increase in demand - for example when everyone puts the kettle on at half time during the footy? Also, what if a nuke goes offline? We need immediate cover for this.

Unless of course you are suggesting we have around 20GW of nukes sitting there as spinning reserve.

I give in. What does happen?

Does solar or wind help in this situation, or make the situation worse?

Martyn1981

PeterZ wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a huge flaw in your 100% nuclear plan. Nuclear power plants can not adjust their output quickly enough. They work best if left to run as baseload, we still need something else to cover for peak load.

The demand for electricity varies hugely, currently from around 30GW to 50W in a 24hr period with lots of smaller spikes in between. What happens when there is a sudden increase in demand - for example when everyone puts the kettle on at half time during the footy? Also, what if a nuke goes offline? We need immediate cover for this.

Unless of course you are suggesting we have around 20GW of nukes sitting there as spinning reserve.

I'd guess that nuclear is self limiting as regards the amount that can be installed. The more nuclear you add, the higher the cost of leccy goes, and the more renewables that will become viable.

Looking at projected nuclear subsidy estimates, it gets a bit confusing with 20 to 40 year subsidies, and estimates ranging from 6p to 15p per kWh.

If the subsidy is 10p, and nuclear supplies 25% of our leccy, then that could move average cost from around 5p to 7.5p (25% @15p + 75%@5p).

Adding 2.5p to wholesale income, or retail leccy savings will boost the viability of other alternatives, and also support storage methods. De-commissioning costs (not included in the subsidies) could add another 1p/kWh to nuclear generation.

Then there's storage. To avoid have large amounts of unwanted nuclear doing nothing, storage would have to be developed and rolled out so that an average amount of nuclear could be built. But the moment you solve the storage issue, cheaper wind generation will swoop in and use it.

There's also the problem of just how much nuclear we can pay for. EU state aid rules mean that we won't be able to hide these costs in general taxation, which itself prevents true energy competition, and reduces the true savings from energy efficiency measures. The Tories were trying to get round this by reclassifying nuclear, but I think the LibDems were blocking them.

The other means of subsidising nuclear is by increasing subsidiy tariffs on our energy bills, but there are limits on the size of such increases, and nuclear would exceed these.

I've no idea how much nuclear we can theoretically roll out, but the practical limit is a long, long way short of 100%.

Mart.

PeterZ_2

The subsidiy (and hidden subsidiy) for nuclear are a major concern, along with the obvious safety concerns. This will push up future energy costs.

No one single technology on its own is the solution, rather the current approach of a 'mix' is the right way to go. Regardless of what energy source we use, there is always the need to satisfy the hugely variable demand so we will always need some form of storage or generation plant that can spin up quickly.

An introduction of control on the demand side would help, good old E7, proper smart metering with variable pricing and smart appliances.

spgsc531

PeterZ wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a huge flaw in your 100% nuclear plan. Nuclear power plants can not adjust their output quickly enough. They work best if left to run as baseload, we still need something else to cover for peak load.

The demand for electricity varies hugely, currently from around 30GW to 50W in a 24hr period with lots of smaller spikes in between. What happens when there is a sudden increase in demand - for example when everyone puts the kettle on at half time during the footy? Also, what if a nuke goes offline? We need immediate cover for this.

Unless of course you are suggesting we have around 20GW of nukes sitting there as spinning reserve.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I give in. What does happen?

Does solar or wind help in this situation, or make the situation worse?

Why would solar or wind help? Why would solar or wind make the situation worse?

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

The subsidiy (and hidden subsidiy) for nuclear are a major concern, along with the obvious safety concerns. This will push up future energy costs.

No one single technology on its own is the solution, rather the current approach of a 'mix' is the right way to go. Regardless of what energy source we use, there is always the need to satisfy the hugely variable demand so we will always need some form of storage or generation plant that can spin up quickly.

An introduction of control on the demand side would help, good old E7, proper smart metering with variable pricing and smart appliances.

Could you tell us what these subsidies are for Nuclear? If they are hidden, how can you know? I hope you're not extrapolating the costs of treating waste from 60 years ago, when basically weapons and not disposal was the priority, and this legacy waste is causing unique problems which haven't been repeated during the last 50 years.

I'm not sure what you are proposing to generate 60GW at 17:30 on a cold February evening when there is zero solar contribution and sometimes zero wind contribution - what do you suggest? Can't be coal - I don't suppose you like that. Can't be gas, you've already correctly stated it is insane burning gas for electricity, oil?, get 60GW throught he French link? get 60GW from Dinorwig? Sorry, taking words out of your mouth - tell us your solution. Also, there's a question in my previous post if you want your theories testing, which explains why you haven't attempted an answer.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are proposing to generate 60GW at 17:30 on a cold February evening when there is zero solar contribution and sometimes zero wind contribution - what do you suggest? Can't be coal - I don't suppose you like that. Can't be gas, you've already correctly stated it is insane burning gas for electricity, oil?, get 60GW throught he French link? get 60GW from Dinorwig? Sorry, taking words out of your mouth - tell us your solution. Also, there's a question in my previous post if you want your theories testing, which explains why you haven't attempted an answer.

Try reading his post?? Or as you declare yourself the GURU on such matters, why don't you educate us with your answer? I seem to recall someone mentioning you were all in favour of nuclear?

PeterZ wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a huge flaw in your 100% nuclear plan. Nuclear power plants can not adjust their output quickly enough. They work best if left to run as baseload, we still need something else to cover for peak load.

The demand for electricity varies hugely, currently from around 30GW to 50W in a 24hr period with lots of smaller spikes in between. What happens when there is a sudden increase in demand - for example when everyone puts the kettle on at half time during the footy? Also, what if a nuke goes offline? We need immediate cover for this.

Unless of course you are suggesting we have around 20GW of nukes sitting there as spinning reserve.

grahamc2003

spgsc531 wrote: »

Try reading his post?? Or as you declare yourself the GURU on such matters, why don't you educate us with your answer? I seem to recall someone mentioning you were all in favour of nuclear?

My question was addressed to Peter, I'd like to see what his generic 'mix' of generation would be, since in other posts he seems to be against all of the remaining technologies except wind and solar which aren't contributing anything in the scenario posed.. I'm sure Peter doesn't need you not to answer the question for him, he's quite capable of not answering all by himself.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

My question was addressed to Peter, I'd like to see what his generic 'mix' of generation would be, since in other posts he seems to be against all of the remaining technologies except wind and solar which aren't contributing anything in the scenario posed.. I'm sure Peter doesn't need you not to answer the question for him, he's quite capable of not answering all by himself.

PeterZ's question was addressed to jonesjw. I'm sure PeterZ doesn't need you not to answer the question for him[sic].

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Could you tell us what these subsidies are for Nuclear? If they are hidden, how can you know? I hope you're not extrapolating the costs of treating waste from 60 years ago, when basically weapons and not disposal was the priority, and this legacy waste is causing unique problems which haven't been repeated during the last 50 years.

Are there no limits to your hypocrisy?

So you spend years attacking PV subsidies, which have worked to lower costs and speed up the introduction of an additional energy source. Yet ..... you dismiss the vast de-commissioning costs of nuclear (NDA annual budget is currently £2.5bn) as 'legacy costs'.

If paying those legacy costs, and weapons development to launch nuclear was ok (is ok, and will be ok for approx 100 years), why is paying a far, far smaller amount in subsidies for PV (and wind, hydro, CHP biomass etc) wrong?

You can't have it both ways.

Then you defend the (current) hidden leccy cost nuclear subsidies on the grounds that we don't know what they are, so shouldn't be challenging them!!!! Hiding leccy costs in general taxation distorts competition and subsidies, and reduces the true financial benefits of energy saving/efficiency.

How about the proposed subsidies, which do you think is more accurate, the 6p or 15p per kWh? How do you feel about paying such large subsidies for another 40 years, after 50 or 60 years (your figures, but I agree) of nuclear support already?

Are you content with the Crown accepting all liability costs, on the grounds that no company could ever afford the insurance, nor any underwriter afford to offer insurance.

We may not be able to avoid nuclear, but don't try to argue against the costs, hidden or otherwise.

Mart.

Edit: Bloomberg report - Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind Pummels Prices

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/nuclear-industry-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy.html#.UT4wuT2h3vw.twitter

M.

PeterZ_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

Try reading his post?? Or as you declare yourself the GURU on such matters, why don't you educate us with your answer? I seem to recall someone mentioning you were all in favour of nuclear?

Graham has been challlenged to provide his solution before, and he can't because he has no solution.