The Alternative Green Energy Thread

QrizB

michaels said:

shinytop said:

I saw numbers for HPC of £100 or so?  Doesn't that mean these are around £60 (100*7/12)? Surely that's cheaper than wind plus batteries that would give the same certainty of supply.     

Why would anyone build plants like HPC if there is an 'off the shelf' alternative that is 40% cheaper?

HPC is an "off the shelf" design (there are two operational in China and one due to switch on in Finland this year) which is why I'm sceptical of Rolls Royce's claim that their plant will be 40% cheaper.

HPC was originally budgeted at £18bn, roughly £5.50/watt. Rolls's estimate for their plant is £1.8bn, roughly £3.80/watt.

And let's not forget that HPC was meant to produce power for £24/MWh, rather than the £92/MWH that it's finally going to cost us. A good part of that increase is due to the UK government insisiting on private financing.

Verdigris

rather than the £92/MWH that it's finally going to cost us

I'd wager that we, the taxpayers, will be paying extra at the end for disposal, but I won't be around to collect my winnings.

shinytop

I think there is a case for 20-30% nuclear to co-exist with wind and solar.  More depending on how flexible the nuclear is.  We need to look beyond RE idealogy and stop trying to aim for the cheapest solution.  That's what we've been doing and it hasn't gone very well.   

JKenH

Why Britain still needs nuclear power – and Rolls-Royce's mini reactors

Article in the Telegraph that looks at the pros and cons of nuclear and renewables. The arguments for RE are put quite strongly but an interesting point is made on overbuilding nuclear compared to overbuilding RE to cope with the vagaries of demand.

He says nuclear is a better bet for making hydrogen too, because the electrolysers needed to strip water molecules of their hydrogen atoms need to be run continuously to be at their most efficient, and nuclear can provide power day and night.


Reference is also made to another benefit of nuclear which I hadn’t seen discussed before.

But nuclear has another advantage in that the energy starts off as heat, allowing for more options with storage when a power bank is needed, Matthews says. Nuclear power stations can be built with extra generation capacity to make use of extra heat stored in rocks or as molten salt, making up for gaps in renewable production.

The heat can also be used in new processes to make hydrogen from water that do not require expensive catalysts, further cutting costs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/11/britain-still-needs-nuclear-power-rolls-royces-mini-reactors/

thevilla

Does the molten salt mix with the molten uranium?  Isn't the idea to keep it all relatively cool to avoid a 3 mile island?

Verdigris

Molten salt is a relatively cheap and efficient energy store. However, I think it is far safer to store solar energy that way. Running nukes at those sorts of temperatures sounds like a Chernobyl waiting to happen.

Tories thrive on disaster capitalism, of course.

JKenH

Verdigris said:

Molten salt is a relatively cheap and efficient energy store. However, I think it is far safer to store solar energy that way. Running nukes at those sorts of temperatures sounds like a Chernobyl waiting to happen.

Tories thrive on disaster capitalism, of course.

The article is quite balanced including observations from other parties such as 

“The long game of transition is 100pc solar, wind and electrification. This is a valid plan. This really works,”

The quotes I originally included related to arguments I hadn’t heard before about nuclear. I can’t quote the whole article but I included a link to the source for you to read. 

ABrass

Great, new nuclear plants designs. Throw in a decade for design and prototyping delays and that would be 20 years away. We might as well wait for Fusion.

Also, electrolysers need cheap energy, nuclear isn't cheap and the industry doesn't seem to be insisting that constant power is needed based on the number of renewables plus electrolyser projects announced.

shinytop

ABrass said:

Great, new nuclear plants designs. Throw in a decade for design and prototyping delays and that would be 20 years away. We might as well wait for Fusion.

Also, electrolysers need cheap energy, nuclear isn't cheap and the industry doesn't seem to be insisting that constant power is needed based on the number of renewables plus electrolyser projects announced.

Isn't that because apart from nuclear, the industry builds what will make a profit, not what will ensure energy security?  There are no viable storage at scale projects in the pipeline because nobody is funding them.  The assumption was made that gas would fill the gaps in RE and look how well that has gone. 

I don't have the answer but we need a coherent plan that isn't just 'build more RE' and I don't see it.    

ABrass

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

Great, new nuclear plants designs. Throw in a decade for design and prototyping delays and that would be 20 years away. We might as well wait for Fusion.

Also, electrolysers need cheap energy, nuclear isn't cheap and the industry doesn't seem to be insisting that constant power is needed based on the number of renewables plus electrolyser projects announced.

Isn't that because apart from nuclear, the industry builds what will make a profit, not what will ensure energy security?  There are no viable storage at scale projects in the pipeline because nobody is funding them.  The assumption was made that gas would fill the gaps in RE and look how well that has gone. 

I don't have the answer but we need a coherent plan that isn't just 'build more RE' and I don't see it.    

It isnt that complex, daily variability will be sorted with lion batteries. Seasonal variation and unusual lulls will be met with demand shedding (no, we don't need to make Hydrogen 24x7) and interconnectors, plus the rump of the fossil fuel brigade.

This stuff has been thought out and modeled excessively, it's there for the finding.