Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

16061636566803

Comments

  • EricMears
    EricMears Posts: 3,230
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Are SMRs supposed to be a means of generating electricity ?

    Surely their real target should be to replace large diesel engines as fitted to ships etc (they're already used for submarines and a few other naval vessels where cost isn't an issue).
    NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq5
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    EricMears wrote: »
    Are SMRs supposed to be a means of generating electricity ?

    Surely their real target should be to replace large diesel engines as fitted to ships etc (they're already used for submarines and a few other naval vessels where cost isn't an issue).

    Yep, the plan is small modular nuclear generation dotted around the country.

    The technology is based on the units used for submarines and aircraft carriers, but I believe they aren't powerful enough for tankers and big transport ships, which weigh 2-5x more.
    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
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    michaels wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40372613


    Who'd have thought it?!

    There is also the (low likelihood high impact) risk that one of the Canary Islands collapse and send a tidal wave along the S and W coasts of the UK - is this covered in the design?

    The 10yr wait for Hinkley could be a looong 10yrs if off-shore wind goes cheaper in the 3 CfD auctions this year (for delivery in 2021/22).

    I read this in the weekly carbon commentary newsletter:
    6, Offshore wind. The Dutch asked for zero subsidy bids for new licences in the North Sea. That is, it wants to know whether bidders are capable of funding new offshore wind without any price guarantees. Can they live with wholesale prices of perhaps €40-€50 a megawatt hour? We don’t know whether developers believe this will be possible, but recent Dutch and German experience suggests optimism. In the UK, the chief of the energy regulator talked about getting bids at less than £70/€80 per megawatt hour in the next offshore auction. (This figure isn’t directly comparable to the Dutch figure because the Netherlands pays for the transmission infrastructure centrally). This is perhaps 30% below the figures for contracts signed two years ago.

    I've found this article from Bloomberg:

    U.K. May Get Subsidy-Free Power From Offshore Wind Farms
    The amount of subsidy paid is the difference between the wholesale price of energy and the investment required to make a return on a renewable energy plant. To match Denmark, the Netherlands and excluding grid costs, the U.K. would need to see bids from 60 pounds to 69 pounds a megawatt-hour, said RenewableUK.

    “For it to be shockingly cheap in the way that Denmark and the German auction have been, a price in the 60s would be amazing,” said Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of RenewableUK. “My personal view is that a price in the 70s is not unlikley.”

    Prices for offshore wind in Europe have fallen dramatically in the last half decade and plunged 22 percent in 2016 alone, according to BNEF.

    For clarification, I believe all costs are given in 2012 monies, so comparable to the original £92.50/MWh deal for HPC, not the current inflation adjusted figure of approx £100/MWh.

    Also the off-shore wind contracts have a 15yr subsidy, whereas HPC has a 35yr subsidy. So the RE contracts are more rapidly replaced by later, cheaper deals, hopefully subsidy free.
    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.
  • EricMears
    EricMears Posts: 3,230
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    The technology is based on the units used for submarines and aircraft carriers, but I believe they aren't powerful enough for tankers and big transport ships, which weigh 2-5x more.
    Aircraft carriers are quite big too. Perhaps not as big as the biggest ore-carriers or container ships but still bigger than most others.

    But a huge ore-carrier wouldn't be limited to one engine; if one nuclear power plant wasn't beefy enough you could consider fitting several.
    NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq5
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    EricMears wrote: »
    Aircraft carriers are quite big too. Perhaps not as big as the biggest ore-carriers or container ships but still bigger than most others.

    But a huge ore-carrier wouldn't be limited to one engine; if one nuclear power plant wasn't beefy enough you could consider fitting several.

    Aircraft carriers are quire small combined to supertankers and the giant container ships. Even the giant Nimitz class carriers are only about half the size of the new container ships.

    Container ship size stuck at PananaMax for decades, but then they realised that going far larger was cheaper than the savings from going through the Panama Canal, so they lept in size. And Panama is now building new superlocks to prevent losing all the business.

    Plus military ships naturally carry a lot of security on board preventing the misuse of small nuclear reactors.

    Not trying to be negative, I think SMR's would be a fantastic solution to shipping emissions, so hopefully all such issues can be resolved.
    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.
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    EricMears wrote: »
    Aircraft carriers are quite big too. Perhaps not as big as the biggest ore-carriers or container ships but still bigger than most others.

    But a huge ore-carrier wouldn't be limited to one engine; if one nuclear power plant wasn't beefy enough you could consider fitting several.
    Hi

    There are a really couple of major issues to address here ...

    Firstly, nuclear means nuclear, therefore it's very unpopular to many in many countries ... following that basic reality through to a logical conclusion and we find that international bulk and container shipping using nuclear powered vessels would likely be excluded from some countries and their territorial waters. For example, New Zealand have prohibited all nuclear powered vessels from entering their waters since 1984, which considering their remote location and reliance on deep-sea transport would have a significant impact on the investment strategies of shipping companies considering nuclear. On the sub-national scale, there are many port cities and regions around the world that have declared as nuclear free zones and therefore exclude nuclear vessels from docking at their facilities ...

    Secondly, and probably more importantly, is the fact that deep-sea transport is both a cheap and relatively carbon-efficient solution for trade. A few years ago it used to be said that the carbon footprint of transporting goods by car (or delivery by van) from a local source was far greater than the total transport from the Far-East, so where's the imperative for concentrating investment on something which has a relatively low ecological impact, surely lower hanging fruit should take priority. Keeping the cost of transport down is imperative in a competitive shipping market, that's why container ships are becoming larger: more goods: same crew: less fuel/tonne ... yet these massive ships can be built & brought into service for around £800/tonne which would resolve to £160-£200million each ... now for the crunch - the USN operated nuclear powered aircraft carriers have two reactors, each costing ~$200million, so allowing for the lower speed requirements but at least double the displacement it would be reasonable to conclude that a nuclear powered container ship would cost at least 3x that of a conventional powered vessel.

    Not saying it's impossible ... just extremely improbable considering that it would almost certainly result in financial suicide for the leading-edge company who tries ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Yep, the plan is small modular nuclear generation dotted around the country ...
    Hi

    I've seen this raised many time before and believe it to be no more than a door to door nuclear-salesman's banter.

    No matter what the size of the reactor, it's nuclear, therefore it's nuclear, therefore it's nuclear ... and aren't there serious security issues around nuclear?: isn't security important? ... Okay, point made in a flippant way, but in reality it means that small reactors won't be distributed (/dotted) around the grid in anywhere near the way that is being suggested, it's likely that current and decommissioned plant sites with existing grid infrastructure will simply have a new role, hosting not one or two reactors in massive halls, but maybe ten or a dozen smaller units on reasonably sized secure & hardened buildings in close proximity ....

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Cheap Solar & Wind Energy Means US Will Meet Paris Targets Despite Trump
    “Numerous key markets recently reached an inflection point where renewables have become the cheapest form of new power generation, a dynamic we see spreading to nearly every country we cover by 2020,” the report says.

    “Renewable power will be the cheapest new entrant in most markets, in our view, and we assess emissions rate of change profiles over near (2020) and longer (2025) time frames.”

    The 800lb economics gorilla has changed sides, looks like the game is over. And who said PV wasn't a good idea?
    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.
  • michaels
    michaels Posts: 27,949
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Cheap Solar & Wind Energy Means US Will Meet Paris Targets Despite Trump



    The 800lb economics gorilla has changed sides, looks like the game is over. And who said PV wasn't a good idea?

    So what do we expect?
    1) More Spanish style 'PV is stealing sunshine' laws?
    2) EDF charging for Hinkley C output on a minimum price basis looking like a very wise move on their part and suicidal for the UK power consumer....
    I think....
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Solar and wind do not harm US grid, draft DoE report states
    The deployment of renewables does not have a negative impact on the grid, according to a draft of the report commissioned by US energy secretary Rick Perry.

    The leaked incomplete version of the study has been reported by Bloomberg and Reuters with the latter making it publicly available. Perry had asked for clarity on whether the loss of baseload generation sources was driving up prices.

    The draft deflates this concern.

    “One of the benefits of renewable energy is that it can serve as a hedge for more volatile fossil-fuelled generation. Many customers seek a steady bill payment because it’s easier to budget for and manage than a bill that varies by month. To the degree that renewable energy stabilizes the cost of an overall energy portfolio (or even just a customer’s bill), that affects perceived affordability.”

    It also backs existing studies that claim “significantly higher levels of renewable energy can be integrated without any compromise of system reliability”. It then lists numerous examples from various regions and US states where renewable penetration has risen above 30%. A parallel report by clean energy advocates had similar findings in June.

    In April, Perry requested the wide-ranging review to assess the impact of renewables on the grid and whether they had contributed to accelerated retirement of coal power generation. The draft identifies a number of minor factors but is clear that the main trigger for coal retirements has been market forces, not environmental regulations or subsidies for renewables.
    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.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards