Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes changing your mind might seem odd to religious zelots

I would not have approved HPC it is too low volume to be economically successful but I might have approved a 25GW build out of ~20 LWR reactors across ~6 sites (existing nuke sites and perhaps some of the old coal sites) all of the same design if I had believed the total cost would be below £5,000/KW to be followed by another 25GW if BEVs took off. The combined 50GW would have been sufficient to meet ~90% of electricity+transport needs with the remaining ~10% from NG. A further 5GW could have been built to meet base load heating needs

Actually even then I would not have decided on nuclear because I do not think the first 20 reactors would be enough volume for economic success vs fossil fuels. If economics was a secondary consideration and did not matter then this 50GW scenario could have achieved deep decarb and is not beyond the realms of possibility considering the french did a 60GW+ build decades ago with a smaller population and less technology at their disposal

Anyway that is an irrelevant what if.

The reality is the UK/EU will install more and more wind and keep doing so while probably phasing out most of its existing nukes bar perhaps France. If Germany is anything to go by the next 12 years will be more and more wind and some more solar so by 2030 the German grid sees some -30% in FF usage compared to 2017

Hi

There you go then, anti nuclear & pro nuclear at the same time whilst maintaining an abusive posting tone ... are you really sure you can't understand why your "ideas and predictions erk" plenty of others so much, particularly when so many have gone to long lengths to help you understand that those very "ideas and predictions" are almost exclusively totally unsupported, not relevant to the thread in which they're posted & often so totally tangential to any ongoing discussion that they're effectively meaningless - so much that you've repeatedly been asked to stop doing so or to open a specific discussion thread by almost every regular contributor over the years .... combine this with the continuation of a focussed & personalised argument strategy over time, employing multiple alter-egos to maintain & regain credibility and almost any reasonable being would understand why some would likely be irked ...

Anyway, regarding the post quoted in #1539 ... you obviously can support the postulations that bio & synthetic fuels (specifically excluding FF derived synthetic fuels!) are substantially 'dirtier' than the !!!!!! they would displace and have a ground-breaking view as to how their relative climatic impact compares ... perhaps you could open a thread on these fuel types specifically to entice regular discussion, possibly including how production processes could be scaled to a level to displace renewable energy generation curtailment etc, if that floats your boat ... or are you not confident enough to open a relevant discussion that would need supportable evidence, preferring to continue trolling in order to create disruption?

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Any storyline continuity issues arising here ... weren't you particularly pro-nuclear in the past, before recently stating "I was also pro nuclear but now am anti nuclear ... " specifically on cost grounds -

Odd really, argue when it suits, then self-absolve when reality finally hits home ... however, although those limited to argument may have the luxury of being able to flip positions, multi-year, multi-£billion project decisions don't ... if you'd been in a position to influence decisions on building HPC, maybe you'd now consider those decisions to have be flawed and extremely costly compared to alternatives you now support, thus wasting vast sums of money ...

However, do occasionally continue to consider that "This sub forum is a waste of my time ..", it'll finally sink in that your unsupported postulations and tedious argument regarding global and national policies are totally misdirected as this forum is not frequented by the policy makers you need to attempt to impress (even if it was then we'd still not be impressed!), it's simply a loose community of like minded individuals looking to make a difference and, in the case of this particular thread, follow newsworthy issues & developments which may be of personal interest.

It seems that whilst many reading these posts have taken solid steps to do something to contribute towards energy efficiency & emissions reduction, others use multiple profile registrations to contribute absolutely nothing but recycled argument, negativity & hot air ...

HTH
Z

It's interesting to see him promoting an un-economic argument as being economic. Not the first time I've seen it 'attempted' on forums by nuclear supporters.

So, the argument goes, if you want to produce hydrogen or bio-methane from excess RE generation, then it will be intermittent, so better to produce it from nuclear which is predictable.

But, of course, the nuclear generation costs far, far more than RE generation, and will also be intermittent, since the nuclear gen excess will only be available at times of low demand, when production is higher than demand (demand being variable, thus making excess nuclear intermittent) unless you build too much nuclear, which is economic suicide.

So, you can run the chemical storage from cheap excess RE generation, or expensive nuclear generation ....... tricky choice!

Also ...... quick logic test ....... at times when there is not enough RE generation to give excess, to give chemical storage production ........ wouldn't we be drawing down on storage, not looking to produce more? If you have excess generation 100% of the time, then you have too much generation all the time, and no need for storage. Is it just me that questions that broken logic?

Anyways, here's a reminder of the articles I posted a while back showing that nuclear plans should be paused as it's not economically competitive now on cost:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Too many important paragraphs to select, .........

Cool down nuclear plan because renewables are better bet, ministers told

.........

and that 100% generation from RE is now economically possible with today's technology and economics:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For those that still doubt, here are some very clear and to the point paragraphs:-

Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources?

Have to say it's refreshing to read something so clear and straight to the point.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, the argument goes, if you want to produce hydrogen or bio-methane from excess RE generation, then it will be intermittent, so better to produce it from nuclear which is predictable

That is not what I suggested, I suggested producing syn fuels from either is a bad idea but that powering such a plant with constant nuclear operating 100% CF for 18 months then down for a month to refuel is going to be less bad than trying to build a massive chemicals plant and only operating it 30% CF when only when the wind blows too hard. The wind scenario is absurd because what do you do, hire your chemical engineers on zero hour contracts and send them a text a day before saying come in lads the forecast wind is going to be blowing sufficiently hard this Tuesday!

But, of course, the nuclear generation costs far, far more than RE generation

How do you know this when almost no nukes have been built in the west over the last 20 years? and how do you know what the price would be if there was a 50 reactor build out? And what penetration level are you talking about? Wind will get harder and harder and more expensive the more you try to integrate into the grid just like the Germans are finding out they not only need wind power they also need massive grid upgrades to move that power half way across the nation and they are at barely 25% wind/PV at this stage. And perhaps more importantly you have yet any real evidence that shows wind power can do a deep decarb sure power point presentations are nice but it would be nice to see a real world wind island going to 100% electricity

Anyway as I keep saying all this is pointless speculation the road we are on is a windy road the nuclear option has been abandoned and probably rightly so

and will also be intermittent, since the nuclear gen excess will only be available at times of low demand, when production is higher than demand (demand being variable, thus making excess nuclear intermittent) unless you build too much nuclear, which is economic suicide.

If you wanted syn fuel, which is a bad idea, you would indeed have dedicated nuclear plants feeding them and both operating at 100% capacity for 18 months then down for a month refueling/retooling. There are indeed some heavy power users that run off nukes this way I think the UK had an aluminium plant that did this but it closed down when the next door nuke closed down. With nukes + BEVs you can conceivably get towards 90% of transport and electricity with the remaining 10% from CCGTs you do not need much else. in fact if BEVs were already out and FF cars were long gone the existing french fleet could power all their electricity plus transport plus base load heating needs

So, you can run the chemical storage from cheap excess RE generation, or expensive nuclear generation ....... tricky choice!

Your idea is silly and shows you have no understanding of heavy industry
You dont build a £billions chemicals plant and hire a workforce of 3,000 people and have the plant and people come in and start up only when the wind is blowing hard. Even if it was a case of expensive nuclear vs half price wind the expensive nuclear would win in this scenario as it allows the plant/labor to be much more efficient than the plant operating at low CF to match excess wind.

You also face grid problems with your idea, with the nukes the chemical plant is built next door and there is no need for long distance power transmission or loss. Also you are imagining a wind world where wind capacity is much in excess of 100GW that means the grid needs to be able to handle 100GW compared to a nuke world where 50GW of nukes would only need 50GW capable grid. So on top of your wind farm costs you need to put aside money to boost the grid just like the Germans are having to spend billions on grid infrastructure to move the wind power and they are nowhere close to fully wind/pv

Also ...... quick logic test ....... at times when there is not enough RE generation to give excess, to give chemical storage production ........ wouldn't we be drawing down on storage, not looking to produce more? If you have excess generation 100% of the time, then you have too much generation all the time, and no need for storage. Is it just me that questions that broken logic?

No your logic is correct, you do not need any electricity to chemicals plants in a nuclear heavy grid because the nukes esp with BEVs would produce electricity at a rate that is more or less perfect to demand unlike the wind sinario in which you either accept lots of curtailment or imagine up heavy industry employing chemical engineers on zero hour contracts being paid by the hour and only being told to come into work by text message when the wind forcast is high...

The chemical plants using excess wind is a non starter it will never be a good idea just like hydrogen cars are silly compared to BEVs so hydrogen car future is non existent

Anyways, here's a reminder of the articles I posted a while back showing that nuclear plans should be paused as it's not economically competitive now on cost:

Yes agree they cost too much compared to just using !!!!!! in existing plants but if cost was a secondary factor there is no doubting nuclear can do deep decarb of a grid and transport (with BEVs)

and that 100% generation from RE is now economically possible with today's technology and economics:

'Economically possible' what does that even mean?
What you are suggesting is that it can be done at prices no higher than todays FF infrastructure which is simply propaganda.

Wind will cost more than using !!!!!! in existing FF plants but that is acceptable. Wind might be cheaper than nuclear when you compare low wind in a grid vs first of a kind in decades nuke build out but it is yet certain that a deep wind vs deep nuke grid will be cheaper. Anyway once again this nukes vs wind debate is pointless we are already on the windy road nuclear lost in the west and probably most other places too

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

There you go then, anti nuclear & pro nuclear at the same time

You even know nuclear can work well and do a deep decarb we have the French as proof of that. But on cost grounds compared to just continuing to use !!!!!! in existing infrastructure it is going to be costly and therefore if cost is a primary concern nuclear would be a bad idea.

We have yet evidence that you can get towards 100% with solar/wind at an acceptable cost and no power point presentations and projections dont count as proof.

Anyway again this is a pointless argument, we have abandoned nuclear. The road ahead is more and more wind for at least the next 15 years and then we will see what needs doing after that

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

You even know nuclear can work well and do a deep decarb we have the French as proof of that. But on cost grounds compared to just continuing to use !!!!!! in existing infrastructure it is going to be costly and therefore if cost is a primary concern nuclear would be a bad idea.

We have yet evidence that you can get towards 100% with solar/wind at an acceptable cost and no power point presentations and projections dont count as proof.

Anyway again this is a pointless argument, we have abandoned nuclear. The road ahead is more and more wind for at least the next 15 years and then we will see what needs doing after that

Hi

.. and yet you still continue to base argument on power generation with a significant nuclear element, 55 reactors (50+5GW) at below £5k/kW being the point at which your economic test becomes viable, so around £275billion in build costs - the question raised here would be related to the difference between the costed tender and the final costs of build, and of course, the finance deal.

Hinckley C, comprising 2x1.6GW EPR reactors represents the 5th & 6th examples of the type(not the "first of a kind for 20 years"! ), was originally costed for project approval at well below £10billion, with initial approval being based on EDF's 2012 planned cost of £12billion, 2017 updates predicting £19.6billion ... (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/393/393.pdf) ... with some predictions being around £25billion ... even at £19.6billion HPC has been described as the most expensive one ever planned, and the final costs aren't yet known because build is still at an early stage!

Okay, why is this relevant ... let's take the original 2012 approval estimate of £12billion for a 3.2GW plant ((12/3.2)*1000) = £3750/kW on a nameplate basis .... well below your disclosed threshold ...

GreatApe wrote: »

I would not have approved HPC it is too low volume to be economically successful but I might have approved a 25GW build out of ~20 LWR reactors across ~6 sites (existing nuke sites and perhaps some of the old coal sites) all of the same design if I had believed the total cost would be below £5,000/KW to be followed by another 25GW if BEVs took off. The combined 50GW would have been sufficient to meet ~90% of electricity+transport needs with the remaining ~10% from NG. A further 5GW could have been built to meet base load heating needs

... so at approval stage your current economics test would have recommended build of 50-55 reactors ... even at £19.6billion the cost would only be 22.5% (((19.6/3.2)*1000)/5000) over the threshold, possibly acceptable considering the 'learning process' and economies of scale which could pass through to the remaining ~53 builds .... effectively, if HPC doesn't meet the economics test, the entire case for a 50-55 reactor build doesn't either!

... and then there's the funding ... £275billion in build costs, potentially rising to ~£450billion((275/12)*19.6), or more, has what impact on bills when appropriate finance/CfD, operational costs, depreciation & investor profit etc have been applied over the relevant period ... HPC's 35year CfD support alone moved from an initial £6billion in Oct'13 to £30billion (March'16) with current estimates ranging between £50&£80billion (2012 Economics) ... as the competitive impact of cheap RE continues to create a divergence between forecast energy prices & reality, the case for HPC & any generating technology with similar costs collapses without vast subsidy provision through guaranty schemes such as CfD ... move the economics to a current period basis & apply similar CfD contracts and you can start to shine a light on the impact of the 55 reactor at £5k/kW model proposal you would obviously still support ...

... that's why a number of regular posters tend to help understand the issue you raise ... it's not aimed at helping your understanding or to counter your position on personal grounds, but to ensure that the vast majority that read the G&E forum threads without contributing aren't mislead by unsupported postulations ...

Now, can you emerge from the below-bridge shade & start to play nicely by opening relevant discussion threads of your own choice to argue & play your own games using whatever alter-ego you choose to use at the time, and thus allow this thread to return to information regarding 'Green, ethical, energy issue in the news.' as opposed to your ongoing personal vendetta against renewable energy.

HTH
Z

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It's interesting to see him promoting an un-economic argument as being economic. Not the first time I've seen it 'attempted' on forums by nuclear supporters.

So, the argument goes, if you want to produce hydrogen or bio-methane from excess RE generation, then it will be intermittent, so better to produce it from nuclear which is predictable ...

Hi

Standard smoke & mirrors ... with high intermittency in a high RE scenario, curtailment becomes an issue, but the logical approach to mitigate curtailment is unacceptable because it require demand shifting and changes in working practices ....

Anyway, can't remember if it's been posted on the thread before, but I came across this company's developments some time ago after reading some reports/articles & find it both relevant & interesting in light of recent exchanges ...

http://carbonengineering.com/history-and-trajectory/

... still some time away before full commercial viability, much of which depends on the market price of oil, but the concept seems to deserve keeping an eye on ....



HTH
Z

pile-o-stone

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but the development of these huge offshore turbines is fantastic.

https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/vestas-unveils-gigantic-10-mw-wind-turbine.html



"The offshore wind industry has already smashed cost-reduction goals over the past few years, but larger, more powerful turbines could go a long way toward making offshore wind even more competitive with fossil fuels.

The more electricity you can produce from each turbine, the fewer foundations you need to anchor to the sea floor, the fewer maintenance trips you have to make per kWh produced, and the more energy you produce from any given area of the ocean. All of these should help to ensure even lower prices in the future. Larger, taller turbines also tend to make better use of available wind resources—turning regions once thought unsuitable for wind into viable options for development."

EricMears

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but the development of these huge offshore turbines is fantastic.

https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/vestas-unveils-gigantic-10-mw-wind-turbine.html

Makes a pleasant change to read a post in this thread which actually relates to the thread's title ! :T

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

.. and yet you still continue to base argument on power generation with a significant nuclear element, 55 reactors (50+5GW) at below £5k/kW being the point at which your economic test becomes viable, so around £275billion in build costs - the question raised here would be related to the difference between the costed tender and the final costs of build, and of course, the finance deal.

Hinckley C, comprising 2x1.6GW EPR reactors represents the 5th & 6th examples of the type(not the "first of a kind for 20 years"! )

I dont know if a 50GW reactor build can be done in the UK at a good price but I know it can be done because the French managed to build out >60GW and they did so with a population at the time ~4/5ths of what the UK now. The proposal is only 60% of what the french achieved (on a per capita basis) and we now have more technology and productivity to draw from and cheaper cost of capital. Plus the UK builds could mostly be next to the sea while the french had to do many more costly inland versions that require cooling towers and operate slightly less efficiently

The French are not bankrupt they still have an economy more or less the same size as the UK so I doubt your idea that the UK could not achieve 60% of what the french achieved decades ago would hold true

And HPC is first of a kind because its a whole different workforce building it.
In the same way custom house builds are always more costly and delayed not because no one has ever built a house before in the UK but that the person having it built is a novice. The UK nuclear builders are novices but if we did have a 50 reactor build one would hope after say #10 they would have most the experience under their belts so #11 to #50 would be built a lot quicker and to a lower cost.

But I say once again nuclear is dead in the uk and probably everywhere else too so the road is a windy one not a nuclear one. I hope the windy road can indeed achieve as much as the 50GW of nuclear reactors could achieve in decarbing the grid and transport. The nukes could have produced 400-420TWh annually.

Lets hope the uk can build out the 100-120GW of wind and 100-120GW of solar plus all the grid upgrades plus all the thermal backup plus all the interconnectors plus all the battery storage that will be needed to produce a similar quantity of clean energy

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Standard smoke & mirrors ... with high intermittency in a high RE scenario, curtailment becomes an issue, but the logical approach to mitigate curtailment is unacceptable because it require demand shifting and changes in working practices ....

Anyway, can't remember if it's been posted on the thread before, but I came across this company's developments some time ago after reading some reports/articles & find it both relevant & interesting in light of recent exchanges ...

http://carbonengineering.com/history-and-trajectory/

... still some time away before full commercial viability, much of which depends on the market price of oil, but the concept seems to deserve keeping an eye on ....

Curtailment isn't actually a massive issue it just means that wind power needs to get cheaper still to the point where curtailment is an affordable action. Or we just have to accept the higher price

We wont do fantasy mass electricity to syn fuel projects nor are we likely to do mass battery storage we will just overbuild wind and accept curtailment

The problem, not a massive problem, is that we probably will need full gas fired backup for when the wind is low for days on end. That is not a huge problem because we can build cheap highly automated OCGT/CCGTs. The only problem there is that we will probably end up with a grid that is somewhere around 80% wind/pv and 20% NG/Dity-Biomass. That is still a success assuming it is an acceptable cost

The only counter argument to this is that nuclear could have potentially achieved a deeper decarb perhaps closer to 95% nuclear 5% NG but as I keep repeating nuclear is dead in the UK and pretty much everywhere else so the road is a windy one.