Nuclear Britain

peter_the_piper

Did I misunderstand the gas heater thing? I thought it meant that no new gas heaters from 2035  so would we really need stacks of gas fitters?

[Deleted User]

Ultrasonic said:

I was anwering your question!

No, you weren't!

[Deleted User]

coffeehound said:

Verdigris said:

I would be happier if the nuclear generation was based on Thorium reactors, as that obviates many of the downsides of "traditional" nuclear and can, indeed, help mitigate "old nuclear" by rendering nuclear waste  less dangerous.

Interesting, sounds like it is some decades away from becoming viable though.  We had our own breeder reactor programme once, until M Thatcher shut it down

Had a revisit to the Dounreay project and the subject of Thorium reactors.  I find the early years of nuclear fascinating although somewhat disturbing at the same time.

In the early days (i.e the Manhattan WW2 project),  the generation of usable power from nuclear fission was the by-product of creating a fission nuclear bomb.  Uranium (specfically U-235) undergoes a chain reaction because it is a 'fissile' isotope.  Thorium was never a starter in the early days as the right isotope was 'fertile' but incapable of producing Plutonium 239.  However a Thorium reactor can 'breed' Uranium 233 which is fissile and could have theoretically be used for weaponising as well as being used as a nuclear fuel.  There must have been some scientific/manufacturing reasons why U233 was discounted in weapons creation in those early days and why Thorium has not been utilised in civilian power generation to any degree to date.  I also wonder what the original purpose of the Dounreay project was?  Was it more to do with the UK having an indigineous production of even more weapons-grade Plutonium 239 than power research?  I suspect it was, because of the start-up date of the inital reactor in 1955 (at the height of the Cold War).  The 2nd PFR reactor (250 MWe) at Dounreay appeared to be beset with technical issues and not very efficient at power production either.  It is true that it had funding decimated from £105m to £10m in 1988 but the writing was on the wall for the PFR program considering the Chernobyl blow-up in 1986 and what that did to the nuclear industry.  The proliferation of weapons grade material throughout the world has not helped the breeder cause either.  Many countries in the report below have curtailed breeder usage/research since those early hedonistic days of the benefits of the breeder program using the Uranium/Plutonium cycle.    

Good information from p73 about the UK's fast breeder program in https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf  

 

Ultrasonic

DeletedUser said:

Ultrasonic said:

I was anwering your question!

No, you weren't!

I very much was. Please if you have a point that you wish to make, make it. Don't waste other people's time asking questions that you know the answer to.

QrizB

peter_the_piper said:

Did I misunderstand the gas heater thing? I thought it meant that no new gas heaters from 2035  so would we really need stacks of gas fitters?

That DM article is fictitious drivel. It appears to take three separate things:

• Ending new connections to the UK gas network in 2025 (this story);
• Stopping new gas boiler installations in 2035 (this story);
  
• UK Gov't proposals for grants for heat pumps in new homes (this story)

... and turns them into "Government plans to ban gas boilers by 2025". They then get a rentaquote to say there aren't enough plumbers in the UK to replace 25M boilers in the next 3 years.

It's complete nonsense but makes good clickbait and might even sell a few papers.

matelodave

Depending on the sort of heatpump you may need refrigeration engineers as well as plumbers to work on the refrigerant circuits, not forgetting electricians to wire them all up.

Possibly more lorry drivers to deliver them without considering the number of manufacturers to make 25m heatpumps, especially if the rest of the worl has the same daft idea

[Deleted User]

Ultrasonic said:

DeletedUser said:

Ultrasonic said:

I was anwering your question!

No, you weren't!

I very much was. Please if you have a point that you wish to make, make it. Don't waste other people's time asking questions that you know the answer to.

No. You obviously think you were, which is think is your problem right there.

Please don't waste people's time by posting meaningless responses to pertinent questions.

In complete contrast, the very next post by Matelodave, contained lots of useful information, which unlike your effort, i found very useful.

Would be interesting to know why given the drawbacks, they used DC.

 

Verdigris

Would be interesting to know why given the drawbacks, they used DC.

Lower losses over long distances, despite the AC/DC conversions. I think it also makes the design of underground/sea cables easier.

matelodave

Have a read here - https://engineering.fandom.com/wiki/Submarine_power_cable and here https://engineering.fandom.com/wiki/HVDC

[Deleted User]

Chrs, hadn't really considered reactivity. I just hope we don't have any more storms!