Nuclear power : how visions change

kinger101

cells wrote: »

I think what we have or had 10 years ago even was fine. a mix of coal and gas and extending the lives of the old nukes we have

you can go to a generation of 30GW nuclear and 30GW mix of coal/gas and it would work fine and be 75% nuke 25% other

however as i have said multiple times now, the systems in place in the UK are that new nukes would be too expensive to be worthwhile so just keep what we have for another 10+ years

So essentially you're not even discussing removing fossil fuels from mix. I think we've been having two different conversations.

stator

kinger101 wrote: »

Seems good. I think the hydrogen buses are supposed to be about $1 million. So both are more expensive than a conventional bus. I guess its just a matter of how much scale and new technology could reduce production costs. The electric certainly would need any additional infrastructure.

I suspect batteries will win over hydrogen in the long run. There just seems to be more innovation. They will get lighter with new materials.

There's not been any significant improvement in lithium-ion batteries for quite a few years.

cells

stator wrote: »

Trolley busses are nice but probably not going to happen in London and definitely not in the rest of the UK. The point about encouraging hydrogen is that it could be used to power all vehicles eventually. You can keep it in a tank and top up at a petrol station, so as long as the infrastructure is there you have unlimited range, like petrol/diesel. So you start with busses because they produce a lot of pollution and are controlled by TFL, then you move onto taxis and then other private vehicles.

i dont think so

but if we are able to design crazy things then i suggest going back to the steam engine bus.

but instead of coal heating a tank of water we can have a zap of electricity at each stop. the water pressure can then propel the vehicle

its a stupid idea and I don't think it should be done. but it would be a lot better than hydrogen buses

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

So essentially you're not even discussing removing fossil fuels from mix. I think we've been having two different conversations.

if it aint broke.....

My view is the next 15 years will see quite a lot of change so trying to put in place a system now will be a little silly.

Within 10 years it will be much clearer if PV/Wind will indeed get cheaper, if EVs will work, if self drive cars will be viable and if china is able to build nukes to an affordable budget

At that point it will be better to make a decision on the best course of action

cells

stator wrote: »

There's not been any significant improvement in lithium-ion batteries for quite a few years.

there hasn't really been the demand for large scale batteries on the tens of KWh until fairly recently. Dedicated large scale manufacture of larger units should help in every way.

However, its dam hard to best the battery that is a lump of coal or a fuel rod. You pay for the energy and get the storage for free.

Batteries might improve transport but its not likely imo to allow distributed solar or intermittent grid sources to be commercially viable

chris_m

cells wrote: »

However, its dam hard to best the battery that is a lump of coal or a fuel rod. You pay for the energy and get the storage for free.

A very poor analogy, have you ever tried to reconstitute a lump of coal from a pile of ash and a cubic metre of CO2?

What's needed is reusable storage, coal is like a match - use once and it's gone.

Generali

stator wrote: »

There's not been any significant improvement in lithium-ion batteries for quite a few years.

Has anyone told Tesla this?

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/09/tesla-powerwall-home-installations-are-starting-for-pilot-customers/

That's quite a misapprehension that they are labouring under.

Martyn1981

kinger101 wrote: »

It's not similar at all. They have 8 types of generation, which together are capable of meeting peak demand. Cells was coming up with artificial situations involving two types of generation.

I agree, what I was trying to show is that the country closest to the numbers cells posted, is actually planning to move away from current policy, and boost renewables.

Even our National Grid no longer believes in large nuclear baseload, as per this very recent article:

National Grid CEO: Large Power Stations For Baseload Power Is Outdated

Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the company that operates the gas and power transmission networks in the UK and in the northeastern US, believes the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations to be used for baseload power is “outdated”. “From a consumer’s point of view, the solar on the rooftop is going to be the baseload. Centralised power stations will be increasingly used to provide peak demand”, he says, in an exclusive interview for World Energy Focus, a publication of the World Energy Council produced by Energy Post. The chief of National Grid also notes that energy markets “are clearly moving towards much more distributed production and towards microgrids”.

Mart.

stator

Generali wrote: »

Has anyone told Tesla this?

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/09/tesla-powerwall-home-installations-are-starting-for-pilot-customers/

That's quite a misapprehension that they are labouring under.

7kwh? That's about £1.05 worth of electricity. At a cost of $3000 I don't think their battery is any different to what is currently used in Electric cars.

cells

chris_m wrote: »

A very poor analogy, have you ever tried to reconstitute a lump of coal from a pile of ash and a cubic metre of CO2?

What's needed is reusable storage, coal is like a match - use once and it's gone.

Storage of energy is just that, storing energy until its needed and a lump of coal is storage hence why our coal plants store the stuff in large coal beds near the power station awaiting use.

Nat gas also is storage but its a little more costly than coal or fuel rods to store but its done in huge quantities as nations have stage for often weeks or months