Did you see the report that boilers sales are to stop 2025

[Jacob]

I believe I said the jury was out on that:



but that dome on the HPR1000 is designed to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner, and the A380 must weigh around 600 tons or so. And there is second one made of concrete and stainless inside of that.

That Chernobyl reactor had a dangerous design. It had a positive void coefficient, which means if cooling is lost the reaction increases. Most western reactors are negative. On top of that it was moderated with graphite, so if the reaction gets away on them, the graphite will catch fire and the whole mess will fuse together and there is no way to stop it. Again not possible when the moderator is heavy water, for example.

This the problem with the nuclear fear industry, they operate on the mantra that all reactors are the same, and that what happened in Chernobyl could happen at any reactor, and that is not the case.

The nuclear fear industry is based on a degree of common sense, knowing that all humans make mistakes, not just Russian communist states. 3 mile Island, Fukushima for starters.
Even if mistakes were not made something simple and unexpected like a new unknown virus could knock out the staff and leave the thing completely uncontrolled.

 

[sirocosm]

The nuclear fear industry is based on a degree of common sense, knowing that all humans make mistakes, not just Russian communist states. 3 mile Island, Fukushima for starters.
Even if mistakes were not made something simple and unexpected like a new unknown virus could knock out the staff and leave the thing completely uncontrolled.

No deaths from either. And with logic like that, I am surprised we didn't ban airplanes back in the day.

Fukushima probably would not have happened if they were using Candu.

 

[Jacob]

No deaths from either. And with logic like that, I am surprised we didn't ban airplanes back in the day.

Fukushima probably would not have happened if they were using Candu.

A few at Fukushima but at both a high probability that there were more incidents as side effects not directly attributable.
But the point is - mistakes will be made, events will occur.

 

[sirocosm]

A few at Fukushima but at both a high probability that there were more incidents as side effects not directly attributable.
But the point is - mistakes will be made, events will occur.

Yes, and people die from all other forms of power generation tech. So far nuclear has the track record of the fewest deaths per terawatthour, with the smallest impact on the environment. And this is with tech mostly developed in the 60-80s.

 

[Rorschach]

Lets just go back to good old coal, you knew where you were with coal!

 

[D_W]

Lets just go back to good old coal, you knew where you were with coal!

In the house with asthma here, but coal generation was pretty big here and if you lived in a valley, the air quality reflected it.

Nat gas has made a huge difference (only a few large coal generation plants left here in my region and they're east and ride the wind away rather than toward - more west of me, but far fewer than 20 years ago).

Valley asthma rate (diagnosis and prescription rate for steroid and bronchodilators) was extremely high and has declined as coal has gone offline. Economically, areas that were coal dependent are in bad shape, though - other areas have fared better with gas (net positive)

 

[D_W]

Yes, and people die from all other forms of power generation tech. So far nuclear has the track record of the fewest deaths per terawatthour, with the smallest impact on the environment. And this is with tech mostly developed in the 60-80s.

it probably also claims the largest number of acres where people aren't allowed to live.

 

[sirocosm]

it probably also claims the largest number of acres where people aren't allowed to live.

That is so silly, oil alone be would several orders of magnitude more.

 

[Spectric]

Even if mistakes were not made something simple and unexpected like a new unknown virus could knock out the staff and leave the thing completely uncontrolled.

There was a documentary some time back where there had found that the human race has crossed a line, before this line there was a high probability of the human race surviving and eventually recovering from a major catastrophe such as an asteroid strike or a very bad pandemic but now we probably would not. The reason is that you cannot just ignore the worlds nuclear sites, either power generation, fuel reprocessing or decomisioning sites for a long period of time before they start to contaminate the planet, they all require very high levels of maintenance so if all the operators were gone!

 

[D_W]

That is so silly, oil alone be would several orders of magnitude more.

Well, there's some truth to that, but oil is what we'd think of as a stationary energy supply. AT least not since about 1930 or in remote places. If we're going to start mixing in motor fuels, this gets confusing.

 

[D_W]

Fukushima probably would not have happened if they were using Candu.

That's only a relevant comment if you talk about the actual cost of the reactor and ongoing function. In the western world ,those reactors can't generate enough power to cover their costs and employees.

Last project quoted on google was $24-26BB for 3.2GW in Canada (project was scrapped). Given the high cost, it would seem to be a better idea in second and third world countries where building and labor are far lower in cost.

 

[sirocosm]

That's only a relevant comment if you talk about the actual cost of the reactor and ongoing function. In the western world ,those reactors can't generate enough power to cover their costs and employees.

Last project quoted on google was $24-26BB for 3.2GW in Canada (project was scrapped). Given the high cost, it would seem to be a better idea in second and third world countries where building and labor are far lower in cost.

Recent nuclear projects in Canada have been scrapped mostly for political reasons, not economic reasons, although the two are often intertwined. I am going to guess you are talking about Darlington.

Interesting story that, the anti-nuke lobby managed to get the government to double the cost of the Darlington station by imposing construction delays for studies and consultations after construction had started. And those studies didn't accomplish anything, it is not like they changed the design of the final product, they just wasted time and money, and that was their goal. Ontario power consumers pick up the tab for that, BTW. Currently they pay around .1CAD/kWh (around 6p/kWh), with 60% of Ontario's power nuclear.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is a crown corporation, ie government owned, and after pressure groups got them to nix plans to expand Darlington with a 4 unit 4.8GW project in 2011, they are now planning to go ahead and build a small modular reactor there, although methinks they have plans for a few more.

Small reactors are a great idea. They are cheaper to build than big ones, last just as long, are less dangerous, and reduce the financial risk from government meddling.

Nuclear energy would be cheaper than gas if it wasn't for nuclear fear mongering.

 

[Spectric]

Nuclear energy would be cheaper than gas if it wasn't for nuclear fear mongering.

Do you have shares in EDF or some other company with a vested interest in nuclear?

Nuclear can never be cheap because it has to obtain a government site license in order to operate, this license consist of many parts that have to be fully complied with and met, one of the most expensive is the safety case which is a massive live document, this alone is already costing the tax payer an absolute fortune in the legacy plants because if you change anything from the original design the safety case needs to be updated, it is cheaper to get obsolete parts re-manufactured rather than change the paperwork.

The other issue is security, again anything involving a nuclear materials comes under scrutiny and security provided by the CNC, then all the ongoing vetting of the workforce so the cost just keeps on rising and so much cheaper to build offshore windfarms, even though they could reach a size that impacts our weather patterns.

 

[sirocosm]

Do you have shares in EDF or some other company with a vested interest in nuclear?

Nuclear can never be cheap because it has to obtain a government site license in order to operate, this license consist of many parts that have to be fully complied with and met, one of the most expensive is the safety case which is a massive live document, this alone is already costing the tax payer an absolute fortune in the legacy plants because if you change anything from the original design the safety case needs to be updated, it is cheaper to get obsolete parts re-manufactured rather than change the paperwork.

The other issue is security, again anything involving a nuclear materials comes under scrutiny and security provided by the CNC, then all the ongoing vetting of the workforce so the cost just keeps on rising and so much cheaper to build offshore windfarms, even though they could reach a size that impacts our weather patterns.

And yet Ontario generates 60% of its power from nuclear, exports power, and charges 6p/kWh, and that is on top of the nuclear fear mongering cost, which is a probably a few p.

Wind farms are just virtue signalling cast in concrete, and will never power the UK in any meaningful way, just like they don't really power Germany. For every gigawatt built, there will need to another gigawatt of backup technology, and in Germany that means coal. In the end they are an environmental disaster, and an ugly blight on the countryside, future generations will look back at us and laugh. Can't wait for the day when they start pulling them down.

 

[D_W]

Nuclear energy would be cheaper than gas if it wasn't for nuclear fear mongering.

If the reactor cost half as much and took less to maintain, it would still cost more than gas. Reactors already in place in the states cost more than gas just with ongoing benefit costs for the complement of workers required to meet spec.

Beaver Valley near me has a complement of 1000-1200. natural gas labor needs are about 30 full time employees per gigawatt. Nuclear is 600+. The average wage and benefit cost is probably around $100k for each per year (or more). Former employees generally add more legacy costs, perhaps bringing the nuclear facility employee cost to $100MM more more per year.

 

[Jacob]

Seems to me that the more dependent we would be on nuclear the greater the catastrophe when that fails too. Not to mention the many minor catastrophes which would be inevitable if there were lots of generators. The advantage seems to be that we could carry on much as we are, still extravagant and wasteful but with an even bigger shock awaiting us when it fails.
On the other land low-tech is low risk and sustainable. That includes a lot of things from wind power to peat regeneration, perhaps insulation top of the list, but more than anything big changes in how we live.
Heat pumps look like a flash in the pan (if you are lucky!) and EV maybe just a dream. Trolley buses/trains with power pick-up lines/rails makes more sense.
Bring back the horse and the sail! And the woodworker of course.

 

[AlanY]

Very little in the grand scheme, but the UK (or by that time, a group of bickering insignificant nations) become(s) the leader(s) in alternative technology and sells it to the rest of the world and perhaps then the economy grows and a significant impact to the climate can be made. However... it might well all be offset by an ever increasing population, which I have always maintained is the biggest problem.

It will make no difference whatsoever to the climate. All it will achieve is putting the majority of the UK population into fuel poverty and the usual few richer. As for the technology, we have all heard the 'we will become World Leaders in Renewables' nonsense, which just means that, as usual, the expertise and manufacturing will go to China and, thus, make all the sacrifices in the UK meaningless.

World population is the real problem. Needs to get back down to a sustainable level, but it never will.

 

[Jacob]

.....

World population is the real problem. Needs to get back down to a sustainable level, but it never will.

It will!
Either by our own efforts or by climate change severe enough to take us back to the stone age.
First thing to consider is what are the factors which keep populations down in various parts of the world. Some places falling population is seen as a problem. Population decline - Wikipedia
".......However, almost all societies experience a drastic drop in fertility to well below 2 as they grow more wealthy....."
Hence; could worldwide UBI (plus peace and stability) lead to reduction in population?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Energy is far too cheap. A large part of that consumed is simply squandered unnecessarily. With relatively trivial changes, consumption could be reduced by 50% or more without materially impacting any lifestyles - some examples:

• cars limited to 750kg instead of ~1500kg. Engines limited to 1.0L or EV. There is no need for them to exceed more than (say) 90mph.
• reduce distances travelled - smaller and more numerous schools, hospitals, surgeries, shopping centres.
• make it easier to relocate closer to work, positive encouragement for work from home
• home insulation improvements to say 90% of what is theoretically achievable. Wear a jumper, turn thermostats down 2C.
• decent and complete cycle lanes to properly encourage cycle and scooter use - not the current excuse which mostly passes for a network
• tax food miles to encourage eat local

Some of these changes would need legislation, but many would happen simply through market forces were the tax regime radically changed. Imagine income tax at 10% and energy taxes on direct usage and embedded energy increased to compensate.

All this is unlikely to happen as almost every interest group would find some element of such a strategy worthy of protest. A political party seeking election on the back of such a strategy would get but a handful of votes - cue the Green Praty!!

 

[AlanY]

My electrician told me he's installing more and more Economy 7 (many areas around here haven't mains gas.)

Ironically (unless it's been changed) it doesn't work with Smart Meters. I would have thought one of the main objectives of smart metering would be ultimately to introduce variable charging.

Yes it does, but it is a relatively recent bit of functionality. Smart metering now works on single rate and multi-rate regimes. But they are still not there for folk who have solar and export to the grid. So much for smart renewables, eh?

Does anyone actually believe that, with the coming massive increase in electric vehicle charging and electric central heating, the national grid generation capacity of the UK will cope? Renewables is a bit of a joke in my eyes simply because there will be insufficient power for the country every time the UK is engulfed in high pressure and no wind. The only real solution is to do a France and go all nuclear. But we all know the problems associated with that.