Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    • 8,925Posts
    • 13,897Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 6:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 6:25 AM
    MSE Insert:

    We've seen some debate on this thread about the relevance of some posts to the topic.

    To ensure the thread remains on topic for forumites wanting to discuss the latest news we're asking that all posts contain a link to the news you're discussing.

    For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks.

    Back to Martyn1981's original post.

    ---

    I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for posting general news items that may be of interest.

    PV and the 'Solar in the news' thread attract a lot of interest, so here's a thread for all the other goings on.

    Mart.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 9:41 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Page 124
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Jul 19, 2:18 PM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    New nuclear can load follow a lot better, And France has coped perfectly well with matching summer/winter demand.


    Just look at what happened in the "beast from the east" 2, And then imagine it, if we had batteries instead of gas, The was low wind all over Europe, No solar, And if bad seas had meant the LNG tankers could not get the gas to us we would have had power cuts or cold homes, So yes a smaller grid means its easier to build that 7 day battery, or you burn less gas when the wind is low.

    A lot of what ive read and the numbers seem to back it up is that Gas has replaced Coal, not wind or solar, so until we can store that wind and solar we are stuck with Gas.

    When we do get that 7-14 days of storage i think it will be Flow battery's, Ammonia, Compressed Air, Some sort of synth Gas, or thermal with molten salt.
    Originally posted by markin



    Mart is wrong he is doing his best to be anti nuclear by assuming a static baseload throughout the year (which is wrong as you can refuel the reactors in the lower demand months so instead of 90% average you can have 80% summer 100% winter) plus he uses the absolute low demand periods and assumes we have zero pumped storage and zero links to Norway (we have pumped storage and two links to Norway are being built)

    Nuclear works just fine
    France works because it 'curtails nuclear' and over invested in nukes

    The UK could do 37GW nuclear (France has 63GW) and get to 87% nuclear 13% NG
    Or if BEVs happen the UK could go to 57GW nuclear and become 98-100% nuclear and 0-2% NAT gas

    Build District heating and use the nuclear waste heat for seasonal heating for 6 months of the year and you get towards 100% nuclear for transportation heating and electricity. maybe 1-3% NAT gas. All achieved with as little as 57GW of nuclear power

    There is no clear path to close to 100% decarb with wind/pv
    But there is a path towards 80% which in my books is good enough so I'm ok with a windy UK path rather than a nuke path

    Although the French should keep their nukes and build District hearting from the waste heat
    They would be a good example of 100% nuclear country if they built out district heating and if BEVs replaced oil cars. They wouldn't even need to build any more nukes just divert some of the waste nuclear heat from going to the ocean to instead going to french homes offices shops. Likewise charge their BEVs overnight and on weekends. Their existing fleet of nuclear plants could get them towards 100% nuclear.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Jul 19, 2:30 PM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The same ole same ole ....... as one funding method fails, just keep looking for another ....... don't consider a change in energy policy.

    New UK nuclear funding model could leave taxpayers liable

    Thought it was Sizewell C, but regardless, HPC is a copy of the reactors being built (for decades it seems) in Finland and Flamanville. How many times can the 'well that one was a FOAK, we know what we're doing now' excuse be used?
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    The UK doesn't need additional nuclear
    And they won't be built
    This is going to be obvious fairly soon
    Because we will be getting reports of 0% fossil fuel hours in the grid

    By which point everyone will understand we don't need new nuclear, or tidal or solar and that additional wind will start to curtail existing green sources

    This will happen potentially as soon as 2023
    Night time demand as low as 20-21GW
    6GW existing summer UK nuclear
    7.4GW french imports
    2.8GW Norway imports
    2GW elsewhere imports
    18.2GW there while demand is 20-21GW at night

    So during nights when the wind blows just 2-3GW we will be 100% non fossil fuels

    Why do we need new nuclear or tidal when we will be curtailing at summer night?


    The UK grid is fixed no need for additional nuclear
    I wish the politicians could see this
    Let's hope no new contracts are considered at any price
    New nuclear even at £60/MWh (a great price) isn't needed

    It's akin to the French building more nuclear...why it isn't needed
    • Piddles
    • By Piddles 15th Jul 19, 2:40 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 146 Thanks
    Piddles
    Despite all the protests for a better climate, Germans fly so much more than ever before.
    This is a bit of universal hypocrisy isn't it.

    So what to do?

    There doesn't seem to be any technological magic bullet in the offing (nothing that isn't stuck in the theoretical/early development/investment pitching stage anyway), so we're left with incremental improvements like lighter, more efficient aircraft and engines, bio fuel mixes, utilisation, (others?). But nothing that is going to offset the projected growth in aviation.

    So, maybe we just have to recognise this and work with it the best we can.

    In addition to the UK's Air Passenger Duty (or maybe "instead of" might be a better sell), how about a subtle Carbon Offset Charge. Charged directly to the airline, it's based on maximum capacity of the model of aircraft (so taking into account of the efficiency of that model with those engines), distance, type of fuel, etc. It wouldn't be based on seat sales, so it would incentivise the airlines to cooperate to maximise utilisation to reduce the number of actual flights, and give them more incentive to upgrade their technology faster. The revenue would be ring fenced for projects that remove the equivalent amount of carbon used, plus a surcharge for past emissions, plus a surcharge for government grants for carbon free technology research (just aviation or others as well?).

    Ryanair wouldn't be allowed to pass it on as an extra in any shape of form! (ie it wouldn't be directly visible to the end customer - not possible as the actual amount per passenger isn't known until the actual flight takes off).

    Hopefully it would kill off the Heathrow expansion, so Boris might like it...

    Guilt free flying? (no such thing really, but it might help the presentation as it's actually a green tax....)

    Probably not a new idea here, but what do you all think?
    Last edited by Piddles; 15-07-2019 at 2:45 PM. Reason: englis
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Jul 19, 2:44 PM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The UK, France and Spain should crack on with it, using mostly CSP, Many plants already have 8-9hrs of thermal energy storage scaled up we could get power 24hrs

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations#Operational

    Originally posted by markin

    This will never work
    Why should/would the UK invest in and import electricity from thousands of miles away?
    Especially since by as soon as 2023 we are already at 100% non fossil fuel in electricity?
    And already have a clear path to 90% non fossil year round as soon as 7 years from now by just completing what is under construction and committed to?

    Electricity is already solved
    Move on to transport (which is global hopefully BEVs work out)
    Then there is heating to solve. Very difficult
    Could be a deep decarb with offshore wind powering heat pumps and hybrid boilers
    Or possibility of heat only nuclear reactors working 6 months of the year for distributed heat or using the waste heat of existing reactors plus district heating.

    Maybe for England we could use the 8GW waste heat from hinkley C and B for district heating of East England or even London. Would be enough to meet the heating needs of all of London and then some with heat that is just waste and dumped into the sea currently.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Jul 19, 3:06 PM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    This is a bit of universal hypocrisy isn't it.

    So what to do?

    There doesn't seem to be any technological magic bullet in the offing (nothing that isn't stuck in the theoretical/early development/investment pitching stage anyway), so we're left with incremental improvements like lighter, more efficient aircraft and engines, bio fuel mixes, utilisation, (others?). But nothing that is going to offset the projected growth in aviation.

    So, maybe we just have to recognise this and work with it the best we can.

    In addition to the UK's Air Passenger Duty (or maybe "instead of" might be a better sell), how about a subtle Carbon Offset Charge. Charged directly to the airline, it's based on maximum capacity of the model of aircraft (so taking into account of the efficiency of that model with those engines), distance, type of fuel, etc. It wouldn't be based on seat sales, so it would incentivise the airlines to cooperate to maximise utilisation to reduce the number of actual flights, and give them more incentive to upgrade their technology faster. The revenue would be ring fenced for projects that remove the equivalent amount of carbon used, plus a surcharge for past emissions, plus a surcharge for government grants for carbon free technology research (just aviation or others as well?).

    Ryanair wouldn't be allowed to pass it on as an extra in any shape of form! (ie it wouldn't be directly visible to the end customer - not possible as the actual amount per passenger isn't known until the actual flight takes off).

    Hopefully it would kill off the Heathrow expansion, so Boris might like it...

    Guilt free flying? (no such thing really, but it might help the presentation as it's actually a green tax....)

    Probably not a new idea here, but what do you all think?
    Originally posted by Piddles


    Seems like double accounting
    Why not just tax the airlines or cars (which is already done)
    And government to plants trees or whatever for the offset

    Anyway the solution to aviation is

    1: self drive software and EVs which takes away the demand for sub 500 mile flights
    2: higher motorway speeds of 120mph or even 150mph with self drive EVs which takes away the demand for sub 1000 mile flights
    3: mini tunnels with self drive EVs taking away the demand for sea crossing via planes (eg London to Paris or London to Dublin would be very quick in a mini tunnel and EVs directly from one to the other) about 2hours

    The above might reduce demand by 50%
    The other 50% can be covered by liquid hydrogen or liquid NG planes
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 15th Jul 19, 3:55 PM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Also bear mind that the primary reason why winter demand is higher is actually electrically heated homes rather than lighting. This is easy to see/prove by the fact winter night time demand say 3am is also higher than summer demand at 3am and summer or winter 3am is dark. We can also check and find that there are 1.8 million electrically heated homes in the UK and a significant number of offices shops etc

    What I'm trying to say is, excluding heating via electricity, demand for electricity is pretty much constant throughout the year with a small uptick for more lighting hours. If a nation like the UK had distributed heat displace electrically heated homes then total demand would probably be something like 40-50 TWh less. For France if she had distributed heating fed by waste nuclear her electricity demand would be some 150TWh less!

    A mega city of 10 million people (roughly the number of people who live inside the M25) could be powered and heated with just one nuclear power station with 4EPRs. The electricity generated would be sufficient for all needs including BEVs. The waste heat of the reactors instead of being dumped into the sea could be dumped into district heating for the colder 6 months. Give the heat away for free (I mean a fixed monthly charge and use as much as you want with the charge based on bedrooms or floor size or even calculated for heat loss, or maybe even totally free with the sum needed to pay for the district heating recovered from Electricity sales). You could have a warm home all year round set it to 22 and forget it. Its waste heat totally 'free' although the distribution will be costly is it going to be more costly than keeping 5 million gas fired boilers going and replacing 300-400 thousand a year at £1500 a go....

    Water is also a good heat Conductor. A typical 15mm pipe can easily transfer 30KW of power you only need a 15mm pipe into a house to provide the heating in fact a 15mm pipe would be fine to provide the heating of five homes. And hit water into a home is safer than flamable natural gas into a home
    • pile-o-stone
    • By pile-o-stone 15th Jul 19, 4:57 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 374 Thanks
    pile-o-stone
    This is a bit of universal hypocrisy isn't it.

    So what to do?
    Originally posted by Piddles
    For individuals: Just have one holiday flight a year, fly economy (more people per aircraft), fly with less baggage (lower weight = better fuel efficiency), try and find direct flights to your destination (perhaps take the train to an airport that has direct flights if your local one doesn't).

    For airlines: Start weighing people and their baggage together and charge accordingly. No need for green taxes, just charge people according to the amount of aviation fuel they use (and therefore the carbon they generate).
    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.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Jul 19, 5:36 PM
    • 8,925 Posts
    • 13,897 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    New nuclear can load follow a lot better, And France has coped perfectly well with matching summer/winter demand.


    Just look at what happened in the "beast from the east" 2, And then imagine it, if we had batteries instead of gas, The was low wind all over Europe, No solar, And if bad seas had meant the LNG tankers could not get the gas to us we would have had power cuts or cold homes, So yes a smaller grid means its easier to build that 7 day battery, or you burn less gas when the wind is low.

    A lot of what ive read and the numbers seem to back it up is that Gas has replaced Coal, not wind or solar, so until we can store that wind and solar we are stuck with Gas.

    When we do get that 7-14 days of storage i think it will be Flow battery's, Ammonia, Compressed Air, Some sort of synth Gas, or thermal with molten salt.
    Originally posted by markin
    France matches it by exporting (dumping) cheap leccy at a loss. Those older reactors can't demand follow, when ramped down, if I recall correctly, they first have to be shutdown before restarting, as ramping up is tricky.

    The new EPR at HPC can ramp down to 60%, but that's not the same as demand following, and 'can' is not the same as 'will' since the contract docs say that it won't ramp down.

    I thought generation from the wind farms was good during the Beast from the East? Wasn't a new record set? Btw, wasn't it German and UK coal that kept France going during the 'Beast' as about a third of their reactors were down due to safety issues?

    Yes, totally agree that more nuclear means a smaller battery is then built (we'd effectively be a smaller RE nation, as per my example), but more nuclear, means more cost/expense, monies that could be spent on a bigger battery ..... yes?

    No polite way to say it - you are wrong about gas replacing coal. Gas generation the last year or so, is less than we saw around 2008-2010. Gas and coal gen both fluctuated depending on price, so sometimes we had more gas, sometimes we had more coal, but together they totaled approx 75%, now gas and coal are down to about 50% (nuclear has dropped a tad). Also RE gen has risen from approx 5% to 35%. So in summary, RE has displaced coal, and gas is next.



    Yes, I think we'll see a mix of storage too, almost certainly bio-gas, but perhaps also bio-mass if that generation starts to demand follow.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Jul 19, 5:42 PM
    • 8,925 Posts
    • 13,897 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    For individuals: Just have one holiday flight a year, fly economy (more people per aircraft), fly with less baggage (lower weight = better fuel efficiency), try and find direct flights to your destination (perhaps take the train to an airport that has direct flights if your local one doesn't).

    For airlines: Start weighing people and their baggage together and charge accordingly. No need for green taxes, just charge people according to the amount of aviation fuel they use (and therefore the carbon they generate).
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone
    How about a carbon ration per head? That way 'the poor' could sell some of theirs to the rich? I haven't flown since 2000, but not against it as such, we just need to do less, and find a friendlier way to do it, but imagine selling all those carbon credits ...... then a fortnight in Blackpool!


    PS, did you see this (no pressure, it's just that I think you might have missed it)

    Thought you might like this short news piece about a book coming out looking at food production going forward into an AGW world.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Jul 19, 5:48 PM
    • 8,925 Posts
    • 13,897 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Probably not a new idea here, but what do you all think?
    Originally posted by Piddles
    Rather than off-sets etc, could we simply require airlines to buy/use bio-fuel? Start with a percentage X and set annual increases to 100% by say 2030/40 perhaps?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • markin
    • By markin 15th Jul 19, 8:33 PM
    • 787 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    markin
    Also bear mind that the primary reason why winter demand is higher is actually electrically heated homes rather than lighting. This is easy to see/prove by the fact winter night time demand say 3am is also higher than summer demand at 3am and summer or winter 3am is dark. We can also check and find that there are 1.8 million electrically heated homes in the UK and a significant number of offices shops etc

    What I'm trying to say is, excluding heating via electricity, demand for electricity is pretty much constant throughout the year with a small uptick for more lighting hours. If a nation like the UK had distributed heat displace electrically heated homes then total demand would probably be something like 40-50 TWh less. For France if she had distributed heating fed by waste nuclear her electricity demand would be some 150TWh less!

    A mega city of 10 million people (roughly the number of people who live inside the M25) could be powered and heated with just one nuclear power station with 4EPRs. The electricity generated would be sufficient for all needs including BEVs. The waste heat of the reactors instead of being dumped into the sea could be dumped into district heating for the colder 6 months. Give the heat away for free (I mean a fixed monthly charge and use as much as you want with the charge based on bedrooms or floor size or even calculated for heat loss, or maybe even totally free with the sum needed to pay for the district heating recovered from Electricity sales). You could have a warm home all year round set it to 22 and forget it. Its waste heat totally 'free' although the distribution will be costly is it going to be more costly than keeping 5 million gas fired boilers going and replacing 300-400 thousand a year at £1500 a go....

    Water is also a good heat Conductor. A typical 15mm pipe can easily transfer 30KW of power you only need a 15mm pipe into a house to provide the heating in fact a 15mm pipe would be fine to provide the heating of five homes. And hit water into a home is safer than flamable natural gas into a home
    Originally posted by GreatApe



    Electric heated home are often remote! or they would be on the gas grid, far cheaper than running water pipes.







    LONDON (Reuters) - Increasing use of electricity to warm Britainís homes instead of gas could more than triple power demand from the heating sector by 2050, energy research company Aurora said on Tuesday.
    Around 80 percent of British homes are heated by gas, but Chancellor Philip Hammond last week pledged to ban fossil fuel heating systems in new homes built from 2025.
    Heating homes from electric sources such as heat pumps could increase power demand from the sector to around 100 terawatt hours (TWh) a year by 2050, from around 27 TWh a year today, Aurora said in new research.
    Britainís total electricity demand is around 320 TWh a year.
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-energy-demand/uk-power-demand-to-soar-on-plans-to-end-gas-home-heating-research-idUKKCN1R0003
    • markin
    • By markin 15th Jul 19, 9:52 PM
    • 787 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    markin
    The was around 3 days of low wind in feb during the "beast 2".


    Looking at january when the was no wind it hit £155 MWH And when the was plenty of wind at night it hit £12 MWH, we need to store it.



    Its days like this that are the problem 7GW of Coal 1-2GW wind, 4 days of very low wind.

    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 16th Jul 19, 12:41 AM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Electric heated home are often remote! or they would be on the gas grid, far cheaper than running water pipes.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-energy-demand/uk-power-demand-to-soar-on-plans-to-end-gas-home-heating-research-idUKKCN1R0003
    Originally posted by markin

    Plenty in the city too even in zone 1 London
    Also it's not just homes. Lots of shops offices and other buildings have no gas and are electrically heated

    Regarding it being expensive to do District heating for remote homes. Sure they can stick with heat pumps or wood heating or whatever it is they currently have but 85% of the UK is classed as urban so high density this good for distributed heat which could in theory come from the waste heat of nuclear plants or dedicated heat only reactors (about 1/20th the power of a traditional reactor yet heating 200,000 homes)

    Also distributed heat is more than just energy it also take away the capital cost of buying replacing and maintaining a gas boiler which is a significant cost especially for lower energy use homes. The true cost of a gas boiler is probably another £200 on top of your annual gas bill that £200pa paying for maintenance replacement and capital cost of the gas boiler system.

    Almost certainly it would be much cheaper for flats to have communal heating fed by one or two central gas fired boilers (which can be replaced in the future by heat pumps or hybrid boilers or even city wide district heaters. Why have a block of 100 flats all with an individual gas fired boiler when just 3 normal boilers could feed a tank to feed all 100 properties their hot water and heating needs. You reduce boiler cost and maintenance by 97%. It isn't very common because metering heat useage is more difficult than metering gas or electric useage. However it can be done you just measure the flow and temp and do the calculation pretty easy in this digital age.

    In the future instead of gas boiler feeding these 100 flats it could be a heat pump or distant waste heat from nuclear
    5 heat pumps feeding a communal system for 100 flats would be substantially cheaper than 100 heat pumps doing the same.
    Last edited by GreatApe; 16-07-2019 at 12:57 AM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 16th Jul 19, 12:49 AM
    • 3,520 Posts
    • 2,655 Thanks
    GreatApe
    The was around 3 days of low wind in feb during the "beast 2".

    Looking at january when the was no wind it hit £155 MWH And when the was plenty of wind at night it hit £12 MWH, we need to store it.
    Originally posted by markin

    Storage is unnecessary for a start you would be storing coal/gas generated energy and you would be doing so at losses on the charging and discharging and conversion of AC to DC and back to AC

    We are yet to get to periods of 0% fossil fuels in the grid before then storage is a waste both monetarily and ecologically (produce waste to produce batteries)

    But even when we get to periods of 0% fossil fuel in the grid it will probably just be easier to curtail the excess rather than store it or most likely import less via the significant Interconnectors and perhaps even reverse them and export power

    Overall the storage problem isn't a problem for the near future and is mostly solved by next gen higher CF offshore wind turbines. Some quite their next gen models as high as 63% average CF (might be marketing propaganda) if true that reduces variability and the need for storage
    • ed110220
    • By ed110220 16th Jul 19, 7:04 AM
    • 1,225 Posts
    • 702 Thanks
    ed110220
    How about a carbon ration per head? That way 'the poor' could sell some of theirs to the rich? I haven't flown since 2000, but not against it as such, we just need to do less, and find a friendlier way to do it, but imagine selling all those carbon credits ...... then a fortnight in Blackpool!


    PS, did you see this (no pressure, it's just that I think you might have missed it)
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    The well known climate scientist James Hansen has suggested a tax and dividend system whereby carbon would be taxed and then the revenue divided up and paid back to everyone. Therefore if you didn't use much you would receive a net payment. Using such a "reward" for low users as well as a "punishment" for high users is a good idea in my opinion.
    • ed110220
    • By ed110220 16th Jul 19, 7:17 AM
    • 1,225 Posts
    • 702 Thanks
    ed110220
    New nuclear can load follow a lot better, And France has coped perfectly well with matching summer/winter demand.


    Just look at what happened in the "beast from the east" 2, And then imagine it, if we had batteries instead of gas, The was low wind all over Europe, No solar, And if bad seas had meant the LNG tankers could not get the gas to us we would have had power cuts or cold homes, So yes a smaller grid means its easier to build that 7 day battery, or you burn less gas when the wind is low.

    A lot of what ive read and the numbers seem to back it up is that Gas has replaced Coal, not wind or solar, so until we can store that wind and solar we are stuck with Gas.

    When we do get that 7-14 days of storage i think it will be Flow battery's, Ammonia, Compressed Air, Some sort of synth Gas, or thermal with molten salt.
    Originally posted by markin
    The problem with nuclear load following isn't fundamentally technical, it is economic. With a fossil fuel power station, if the demand for electricity drops you stop burning fuel and stop generating electricity, thereby cutting your costs to match the drop in income. With a nuclear power station the cost is basically all in the construction, maintenance and decommissioning which are the same whether you generate electricity all the time or only half the time etc. As nuclear is massively capital expensive, the last thing you want to do is have it sitting idle and not producing electricity. In other words the lower the capacity factor of a nuclear plant, the more expensive it is per MWh.

    This is one of the main reasons France never achieved 100% nuclear electricity, as that would involve building massively expensive reactors that were only used sometimes in winter.
    • pile-o-stone
    • By pile-o-stone 16th Jul 19, 8:09 AM
    • 231 Posts
    • 374 Thanks
    pile-o-stone
    PS, did you see this (no pressure, it's just that I think you might have missed it)
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Yes, I watched that thanks. It's a depressing thought that we could have 9 billion humans on the planet all craving the sort of lifestyle and food of the West. We'd need several earths for that.

    With global warming reducing the amount of arable land, and with more parts of the earth becoming desperate for water, I simply cannot see us continuing to grow crops to feed animals and continuing to use vast amounts of water it takes to raise them. It's won't be just a case of people voluntarily reducing their animal protein consumption, the meat just won't be there anymore, except for the very rich. TBH, when the rich see how healthy the rest of us become from our plant-based diets, they'll probably give up meat too.

    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.
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 16th Jul 19, 8:16 AM
    • 2,592 Posts
    • 3,829 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    On the flying front there is a growing movement within Europe of people who have chosen not to fly. I'm not one of them, but haven't flown since 2016 (for a football match!). The one a couple of years before that was an internal flight as the trains to Scotland from the south coast were so, so expensive (and yes, I did try booking in advance!).



    So although I think the carbon ration is not a bad idea we do also need to improve alternative transport and make it a more reasonable cost. For all the talk about democratisation of flying and not excluding people due to cost there are still 22% of people in the UK who have never flown and in any one year a higher proportion than that.


    [Actually, tell a lie, I've recently been for a couple of helicopter flights, so there's my guilt trip.. I enjoy flying, my first scheduled flight was in a DC-3!]
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 16th Jul 19, 8:34 AM
    • 3,045 Posts
    • 1,377 Thanks
    NigeWick
    It's a depressing thought that we could have 9 billion humans on the planet all craving the sort of lifestyle and food of the West. We'd need several earths for that.
    Originally posted by pile-o-stone
    That is actually incorrect. Permaculture systems could feed more than 11 Billion and are regenerative rather than destructive as current farming is.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Jul 19, 10:53 AM
    • 8,925 Posts
    • 13,897 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    The was around 3 days of low wind in feb during the "beast 2".


    Looking at january when the was no wind it hit £155 MWH And when the was plenty of wind at night it hit £12 MWH, we need to store it.



    Its days like this that are the problem 7GW of Coal 1-2GW wind, 4 days of very low wind.

    Originally posted by markin
    So we need more RE generation, some short term storage, and bio-gas making use of the existing 25GW of capacity.

    If you still can't see a way passed nuclear, then try breaking the problem down into bite sized parts.

    Can the UK find RE and storage solutions equal to 1.6GW of nuclear generation, if yes, then given that RE and storage have no scaleability issues, we can solve two reactors, or three, or four.

    Or alternatively, if we can't solve any of these problems, then 3-10GW (16GW seems unlikley now that the government, H of L, and economic advisors have said RE is a better/cheaper option) of nuclear will guarantee our energy supply crashes and fails, so we'll need 20GW's or 30GW's or 40GW's ....... tell me when to stop?

    That's why I pointed out that nuclear (non demand following (as that would be economic suicide)) simply makes the UK a smaller leccy nation. If that smaller nation can cope without nuclear, then why can't we?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

170Posts Today

1,529Users online

Martin's Twitter