Forum Home» Green & Ethical MoneySaving

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) - Page 254

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)

edited 9 October 2018 at 10:41AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving
5.3K replies 416.5K views
1251252254256257528

Replies

  • GreatApeGreatApe
    4.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Yep, nuclear would have been a great deployment in the 80/90's, but it seems it can't keep up with the modern world.

    If French nuclear is such a great idea, then why doesn't France build it on the NW coast then sell it to us via interconnectors at market rates ....... after all, it's a great idea isn't it?

    Here's the Guardian version of that story:

    New UK nuclear plants could be paid for upfront by consumers



    What France could do is

    1 deploy a large district heating grid so 85% of French homes and businesses are heated by district heating grids from the waste heat of nuclear reactors

    This reduces electricity demand in France by about 160TWh (as a lot of French homes and businesses are heated by the grid using simple resistance heaters)

    2. Upgrade and uprate their existing reactors to add 10GW of nuclear capacity (without building additional nukes). And Increase capacity factor to 92%. This increase nuclear output by some 190TWh

    This allows France to export an additional 350TWh annually which is massive it's more than 100% of UK needs.

    3. Build/complete additional links to UK/Italy/Germany/Spain/etc

    4. Close down its CCGT fleet and coal fleet (unnecessary as peak domestic winter electricity demand would fall from about 90GW towards 50GW)

    Could be done in as little as 10 years

    Just to note that theoretical french nuke industry could be enough to provide 25% of all of the EUs (510 million people) electricity needs.. more likely 100% of France and 50% of its neighbour countries

    Plus 85% of France's heating needs

    But of course this won't happen too much anti nuclear sentiment
    Nuclear heating should be considered
    It can provide significant quantities of cheap clean heat
    It can also reduce electricity demand currently met by electrical heating in countries like France Norway Sweden etc
  • edited 23 July 2019 at 12:49PM
    GreatApeGreatApe
    4.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 23 July 2019 at 12:49PM
    2024 summer night UK Demand 20GW

    6.5GW domestic nuclear
    7.4GW link to France (excess nuclear in summer nights)
    2.8GW link to Norway (hydropower)
    0.5GW domestic hydropower

    That is 86% of demand there will of course be some wind power output
    Which means a lot of the time we can be 100% non fossil fuel in summer nights

    Why do we need more nuclear if we are already 100% fixed as soon as 2024?? Likewise no need for mass tidal etc

    Summer days are also interesting about 35GW demand but by 2024 we have enough non fossil fuel capacity to be around 85% non fossil assuming zero wind output. Of course there will be wind output

    What I'm trying to say is that by 2024 there will be times perhaps significant times both day and night when the UK can be zero FF on its grid. Hence no need for any mass PV or nuclear. We just need to complete what is under construction and committed to over the next 5 years and have a small carbon tax for the electricity sector.

    Why do we need additional new nuclear when we will already be 100% non fossil fuel?


    However I'd be quite pro heat reactors to power seasonal and base load heating
    But we don't need reactors for electricity existing infrastructure is sufficient for a low carb grid


    UK should build 2 more links to Norway (4 in total) and another 5 or so links to the rEU on too of what is under construction. Those links would do more than a dual reactor nuke station. Would be quicker too and be negative cost is save consumers money

    Nuclear only makes sense in the UK as a way to do heating
    It's currently 85% natural gas boilers and 15% other (oil wood LPG electricity) so a huge scope to do nuclear heating. Perhaps as much as 50GW of nuclear heat reactors
  • GreatApeGreatApe
    4.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    The state should give free heating to the people via nuclear heat for 10 years then charged at 5p a unit

    Much safer than traditional electricity nuclear generation

    Solves existing and future nuclear waste (you just keep it in the heating pools and it's decay heat becomes a resource for heating buildings)

    Lowers electricity demand from ~335TWh towards 300TWh

    Close to 100% domestic jobs and GDP (most the cost is the district heating side which are shovels and pipes) rather than importing Chinese PV panels or German wind blades. Could also innovative like micro directional drilling to lower costs of building out a district heating grid

    Solves the hardest aspects of a 0% fossil word which is heating especially seasonal heating

    Potential for hybrid nuclear designs like LWR followed by HWR designs to get 3x the energy output from the same fuel rods. Also 90% overall efficiency rather than 33% for nuclear electricity

    Reduces consumer costs (no need to buy gas boilers or heat pumps and replace them every 10-20 years and maintain them)

    Could be done in as little as 10 years (potentially as little as 5 years
    If reactors are delayed could power the District heating grids via natural gas until they are ready
    Could heat 95% of buildings (the very remote homes can be heated via electricity)

    6-7 million homes to be built now to 2050 could direct plug into district heating saving them £5-15k on a heat pump. Existing 30 million or so gas boiler heated buildings and homes can be converted at lower cost than paying £5-£20k for a heat pump each.
  • ed110220ed110220 Forumite
    1.3K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    GreatApe wrote: »
    The state should give free heating to the people via nuclear heat for 10 years then charged at 5p a unit

    Much safer than traditional electricity nuclear generation

    Solves existing and future nuclear waste (you just keep it in the heating pools and it's decay heat becomes a resource for heating buildings)

    Lowers electricity demand from ~335TWh towards 300TWh

    Close to 100% domestic jobs and GDP (most the cost is the district heating side which are shovels and pipes) rather than importing Chinese PV panels or German wind blades. Could also innovative like micro directional drilling to lower costs of building out a district heating grid

    Solves the hardest aspects of a 0% fossil word which is heating especially seasonal heating

    Potential for hybrid nuclear designs like LWR followed by HWR designs to get 3x the energy output from the same fuel rods. Also 90% overall efficiency rather than 33% for nuclear electricity

    Reduces consumer costs (no need to buy gas boilers or heat pumps and replace them every 10-20 years and maintain them)

    Could be done in as little as 10 years (potentially as little as 5 years
    If reactors are delayed could power the District heating grids via natural gas until they are ready
    Could heat 95% of buildings (the very remote homes can be heated via electricity)

    6-7 million homes to be built now to 2050 could direct plug into district heating saving them £5-15k on a heat pump. Existing 30 million or so gas boiler heated buildings and homes can be converted at lower cost than paying £5-£20k for a heat pump each.

    I'm sorry, but your proposals/forecasts etc seem to be getting more and more fanciful. First you assert that climate change will have no real net negative effects when all mainstream scientific and economic authorities have found that they will be severe.

    Now you're talking of nuclear powered district heating, which I'm not aware of even being proposed seriously on a large scale from large centralised power stations, let alone installed. OK, it may work if we were to build sizeable towns from scratch next to nuclear power stations (like the Soviet Union did at Pripyat, Novovoronezh etc) but the idea that waste heat from say Hinkley Point could be practically and economically piped to and round Bristol and all the streets and gardens dug up to distribute it is a total fantasy.
  • GreatApeGreatApe
    4.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    ed110220 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but your proposals/forecasts etc seem to be getting more and more fanciful. First you assert that climate change will have no real net negative effects when all mainstream scientific and economic authorities have found that they will be severe.

    Now you're talking of nuclear powered district heating, which I'm not aware of even being proposed seriously on a large scale from large centralised power stations, let alone installed. OK, it may work if we were to build sizeable towns from scratch next to nuclear power stations (like the Soviet Union did at Pripyat, Novovoronezh etc) but the idea that waste heat from say Hinkley Point could be practically and economically piped to and round Bristol and all the streets and gardens dug up to distribute it is a total fantasy.


    No one said solving heating would be easy. It's going to be more difficult than electricity and more difficult than transport maybe even more difficult than aviation

    Piping hot water to homes would not be an impossible task. We pipe water gas and electricity to homes so it's just one additional service. Plus there exists ways to lay pipe without having to dig ever meter of distance. Plus these pipes would not be massive as water is a great energy carriers you can transfer tens of KW of power with a 15mm pipe (about the thickness of your finger)

    By comparison what is the alternative? 40 million heat pumps at £10k average would cost £400 Billion and only last about 15 years talk about a mega project!!. plus heat pumps would add a huge demand to the grid so grid upgrades plus gas fired station backup for when the wind doesn't blow plus mass offshore wind to power it all

    By the way it doesn't have to be nuclear.
    You can do District heating with anything
    Biomass. Natural gas. Coal. Oil. High temp heat pumps. Electricity. Or nuclear.

    And District heating has/does exist on some areas. Like Poland (but that's mostly coal fired) and Finland which is a mix of biomass gas etc and Iceland (geothermal)

    And yes I am aware there are no plans to do nuclear district heating
    There isn't really a plan to do mass decarb of heating
    On an individual level a home can just install electric heaters or heat pumps that's fine (if you can afford the £10k for a heat pump or can afford paying 15p for electricity rather than 3p for natural gas) but on a national level it gets really difficult. Try pulling 40 million X 2KW for resistance heating and you add 80GW to winter demand. With heat pumps maybe it's half or even one third that number but then the government needs to find £400 billion to mass install heat pumps should that £400 billion come from healthcare or school budget? Plus what do you do in a winter week when the wind isn't blowing strong? Do you fire up natural gas fired power stations to feed the electric heaters and heat pumps? That's not very green is it? People think.... hydrogen will solve storage but it's s pipe dream with a lot of problems

    Nuclear heating could work it solves heating
    90% efficiency
    No energy storage problem because you can control it's output to match demand
    No real 'waste' in that the waste generates heat so let it generate heat for the district heating system for decades and decades
    Very different from electricity generation nuclear. Low pressure low temperature
    Can be built as small as 2MW to heat 1,000 homes to as big as 10GW to heat 5 million homes
    Saves households the cost of buying maintaining and replacing gas boilers or heat pumps
    Really cheap energy
    But expensive distribution costs. But that is true for NAT gas and electricity too they cost about 1/3rd wholesale as they do retail

    Plus this can be done in 10 years or less
    There is no other way to decarb heating that fast
    There is no other way to do such a deep (95-100%) decarb of heating
    The big cost is the district heating grids not the nuclear aspects
    You may find the nuclear side is 10% of the cost and the district heating grid is 90% of the cost.

    As mentioned nuclear power stations already produced lots of heat
    While an EPR reactor is 1.6GW electricity it is in fact 4.5GW heat
    Not having to make electricity would probably reduce costs by 70%
    So even using EPR figure of about £100/MWh you get towards £10/MWh for a heat only reactor
    Perhaps much less still once you have a learning curve
    The UK could build and use for instance 100 X 1GW thermal reactor. One hundred reactors would be enough to learn and get good.

    Not that it is necessary but there is almost no limit to the size of a heat only reactors
    You could even just build one nuclear heat station for all of England. Something like a 85GW thermal reactor (more likely multiple piles in the same pool). With electricity you are limited by a lot of things but one in particular is the machinery to make electricity plus the fact you don't want one massive electricity station as if it trips you can cause problems. While thermal reactors can be turned off and on without much trouble as the system has inbuilt thermal energy storage so if a thermal heat reactor tripped it would cause no problem at all but if an EPR tripped depending on the size of your grid it could take the whole grid down hence why you won't find a country like Ireland deploy an EPR it's too big


    Oh and I know this isn't likely because well... nuclear run for the hills

    But it solves heating
    Can control power
    Can scale from 1MW to even 100GW
    Much simpler design smaller cheaper than electricity
    90% efficient
    No 'waste' as when the fuel rods are used you just keep them in the pool so they contribute to the heat so it's a useful product not 'waste' you can even store existing nuclear waste in these pool heat reactor systems so they too contribute to heat
    Can be built faster (since it's a nuclear power station minus about 70% of the bits and bobs)

    Again I don't think this is likely but it certainly would work and would be effective

    A deep decarb of heating quite rapidly (10 years) at probably a cheap price

    There is no other plan for a deep decarb of heating that comes close to this.
    The only other plan is a mass deployment of heat pumps
    But installing 40 million heat pumps on the UK will cost around £400 billion and these things run off expensive electricity and where do you get the electricity in the winter when PV output is very limited and when we can have a weeks worth of windless days? Also a heat pump lasts about 15 years a heat reactor would be designed for 60 years and most likely the reactor and the district heating grids would be fine for 100+ years.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • GreatApeGreatApe
    4.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    ed110220 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but your proposals/forecasts etc seem to be getting more and more fanciful. First you assert that climate change will have no real net negative effects when all mainstream scientific and economic authorities have found that they will be severe.

    Now you're talking of nuclear powered district heating, which I'm not aware of even being proposed seriously on a large scale from large centralised power stations, let alone installed. OK, it may work if we were to build sizeable towns from scratch next to nuclear power stations (like the Soviet Union did at Pripyat, Novovoronezh etc) but the idea that waste heat from say Hinkley Point could be practically and economically piped to and round Bristol and all the streets and gardens dug up to distribute it is a total fantasy.


    Also you don't need to build a heat reactor in the middle of a city you can pipe hot water long distances in the way you can pipe oil long distances but of course water would be much easier . In fact most existing nuclear power stations already pipe their waste heat about 2-3km out to sea. They do that with VERY large pipes because they discharge at fairly low temperatures
    The pipes needed to carry heat for District heating would be smaller than the pipes used to discharge heat into the sea.

    Also I think there would be little objection to heat only reactors if people understood them

    I'd have the government build them and give heating for free to everyone for 10 years (limited to perhaps 10,000 heat units a year beyond that you pay) and I'd put them fairly close to demand centers. No one is gona object to free heat. The next 50-100 years they can pay for it hopefully at a rate that's cheaper than natural gas is today

    BTW you can generate nuclear heat in designs that have no high temps or high pressure. Here is a video of a small reactor students play with. You can literally look down and see the reactor with your eyes it's just in water

    https://youtu.be/5QcN3KDexcU
  • pile-o-stonepile-o-stone Forumite
    396 posts
    ✭✭
    ed110220 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but your proposals/forecasts etc seem to be getting more and more fanciful.

    Which is one of the reasons a lot of us have this poster on ignore. All I now see now is a message "This user is on your ignore list", usually displayed multiple times in a row as the poster floods the discussion thread with 3, 4 or 5 posts at a time. Every so often someone 'quotes' his post and it underlines that I was correct to put him (and keep him on) ignore.
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 300L thermal store.
    Vegan household with 100% composted food waste
    Mini orchard planted and vegetable allotment created.
  • pile-o-stonepile-o-stone Forumite
    396 posts
    ✭✭
    Anyway, in an attempt to get this thread back on the topic of Green Energy in the News....

    "Renewable energy providing more electricity than coal and nuclear power combined in Germany.

    Solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power generates nearly half of country’s output"


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/renewable-energy-germany-electricity-coal-nuclear-power-a9017821.html
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 300L thermal store.
    Vegan household with 100% composted food waste
    Mini orchard planted and vegetable allotment created.
  • silverwhistlesilverwhistle Forumite
    3.2K posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Which is one of the reasons a lot of us have this poster on ignore.


    Amen.



    Germany gets lots of stick for its use of lignite but at least it seems to be moving in the right direction. Perhaps not quite fast enough, but unlike here you suspect that there is more political will behind the moves.
  • PiddlesPiddles Forumite
    123 posts
    Is that map available with any more granularity?
    I eventually found the source.

    You have to register to download the detailed map, but you can get reasonable detail by just zooming in on your browser on the ones on the above page.

    They have both solar and wind maps and they are really fascinating.

    For example, two areas that have both suitable wind and high solar have longstanding serious political and economic problems that maybe, just maybe, could be resolved with increased international attention.

    Western Sahara has been in a mess since the Spanish colonialists moved out. I tried to visit once, but couldn't because of all the mines. Could they potentially supply much of Europe?

    Somalia's problems, on the other side of Africa, are probably more familiar. Their position could be more pivotal in global emissions by supplying clean new capacity to India's ever growing economy?

    Apparently (anecdotally), the geology of both areas might lend themselves to underground storage of hydrogen (empty aquifers, etc.), so if it makes it out of the lab in a decade or so, it could help with seasonal demands in the northern hemisphere.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support