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

[AlanY]

France built 56 reactors in around 15 years in response to the oil crisis of the 70s. They now export power, nuclear is more than 70%, and have less than 10% of generation from fossil fuel. And their power rates are cheaper than the UK, despite a healthy 31% tax. Cheaper and greener.

I remember back in the 70's having a discussion with the manager of Wilfa power station and he said something that has stayed with me all these years. We were talking about the life of nuclear stations and I asked how we planned to decommission Wilfa at the end of its life. "Beggared if I know. Best guess is we will remove the fuel rods and cover the reactor chambers with a mountain of concrete". His answer sent a chill down my spine. We now know a bit more about decommissioning as a process, as a risk and as a cost. Hugely complicated, very dangerous and mind-blowingly expensive. And France has 56 of these things to do at some point! As I recall, Wilfa had two magnox reactors, but I do not know what the French stations are.

 

[sirocosm]

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

Nuclear power currently has a lower carbon footprint than wind, and it always will. And just because they mine and transport the materials needed for both with diesel today, doesn't mean they can't do it with electricity tomorrow. But there is a limit as to how much they can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete, and it is a simple fact that wind power uses considerable more, and did I mention that wind turbines are ugly?

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Nuclear power currently has a lower carbon footprint than wind, and it always will. And just because they mine and transport the materials needed for both with diesel today, doesn't mean they can't do it with electricity tomorrow. But there is a limit as to how much they can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete, and it is a simple fact that wind power uses considerable more, and did I mention that wind turbines are ugly?

I think that wind turbines are beautiful - the Rampion farm is really something to see and provides enough power for half the homes in Sussex. I think you need to be clear about the lifetime cost (not just in carbon, either) of these two different power sources. We have world class offshore wind and tidal resources and we should be exploiting them much more.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... the Rampion farm is really something to see and provides enough power for half the homes in Sussex when the wind is blowing ...

Ftfy.

 

[sirocosm]

A man walks into a bar and a heated discussion is going on about wind vs nuclear. The nuclear guy keeps referring to the turbines as windmills. Frustrated, the wind guy says "What's the matter with you, don't you even know the difference between a windmill and a wind turbine?"

The nuclear guy says, "Sure I know the difference, a wind turbine is ugly!"

 

[doctor Bob]

I quite like them, load near Newmarket along with fields of solar panels.

 

[Rorschach]

I don't have an aversion to wind on aesthetic grounds, I hate them for other reasons lol.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

They shouldn't use fields for solar panels until every roof on every industrial estate has them.

 

[Rorschach]

They shouldn't use fields for solar panels until every roof on every industrial estate has them.

I would be inclined to agree but it's not a terrible thing to have them in fields, makes them easy and safe to clean and maintain and it doesn't do any damage to the land unlike putting in a wind turbine.

 

[Cooper]

I never understood why the greenies were so upset by coal in the UK.

You obviously didn't live in London and go to school in the 50s. We used to put a scarf over our nose and mouth (which were covered in muck where we breathed through) and truly there were smogs where you couldn't see 4 meters in front of you on the way to school (though we talked in yards, in those days) .
Insulation of every house would do a lot to reduce fuel poverty, which I think is the only legitimate grumble. It would also create proper jobs. I cannot understand why the green deals are turned on and then off, just when installers are trained and companies have a full order book. We benefited from a green deal grant to insulate the walls of our maisonettes, massively increased the comfort of our tenants, ended the condensation and mould in the cold corners and dramatically reduced their energy bills. (They never even said thank you!)
When we were in school our science teacher was a nuclear skeptic, he said if every home had a thatched roof we wouldn't need nuclear power.

 

[Rorschach]

You obviously didn't live in London and go to school in the 50s. We used to put a scarf over our nose and mouth (which were covered in muck where we breathed through) and truly there were smogs where you couldn't see 4 meters in front of you on the way to school (though we talked in yards, in those days) .
Insulation of every house would do a lot to reduce fuel poverty, which I think is the only legitimate grumble. It would also create proper jobs. I cannot understand why the green deals are turned on and then off, just when installers are trained and companies have a full order book. We benefited from a green deal grant to insulate the walls of our maisonettes, massively increased the comfort of our tenants, ended the condensation and mould in the cold corners and dramatically reduced their energy bills. (They never even said thank you!)
When we were in school our science teacher was a nuclear skeptic, he said if every home had a thatched roof we wouldn't need nuclear power.

You are talking about the use of coal in a totally different way though.

 

[Spectric]

Wilfa had two magnox reactors

Always a great combination, radioactive magnesium swarf from fuel reprocessing, god help us if that burns.

One day the french will have to decommision all those reactors, then they will lose all the gains in being low carbon .

 

[sirocosm]

Always a great combination, radioactive magnesium swarf from fuel reprocessing, god help us if that burns.

One day the french will have to decommision all those reactors, then they will lose all the gains in being low carbon .

The "French" don't have to pay for it, the EDF does, and they have to set aside money for it, which is already in the price of the electricity.

 

[Jacob]

The "French" don't have to pay for it, the EDF does, and they have to set aside money for it, which is already in the price of the electricity.

Sounds perfect in every way! What could possibly go wrong?

 

[sirocosm]

Sounds perfect in every way! What could possibly go wrong?

Well, they could get shutdown prematurely because the of the renewables brigade. If that happens, the additional cost should really be factored into the cost of wind and solar.

 

[mikej460]

Have a read of this call from Centrica to the government for hybrid boilers (gas and air source heat pump).
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/ar...mass-rollout-of-hybrid-boilers-across-the-uk/

 

[AlanY]

Have a read of this call from Centrica to the government for hybrid boilers (gas and air source heat pump).
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/ar...mass-rollout-of-hybrid-boilers-across-the-uk/

If British Gas are taking the lead on this I expect it to be a complete SNAFU. I plan to change my boiler to a gas combi in 2024 and, hopefully, that will see me out and I won't have to worry about this green crap.

Also, I have an air source heat pump to heat the pool and, as much as I enjoy its efficiency, it can be a tad noisy. Okay for the pool which is at the end of the garden so the heater cannot be heard, but I would hate to have that blinking great fan going right next to the house. To be fair, my heat pump is getting on now. Maybe modern ones are quieter?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Glass half full vs glass half empty! Things we could do do reduce consumption:

• better insulated homes
• put on thermals
• improve heating and ventilation controls
• improve public transport
• reduce travel by more local schools, hospitals, etc
• drive smaller cars

Things we could do to modify demand to help match variable "green" capacity:

• back up generators in industry
• hydrogen production and storage to be used when demand exceeds supply
• water or weights falling
• web connected home appliance which only switch on if supply is there
• integrate EVs into power supply network

Things that are profoundly daft:

• dig up coal, burn it, then put it back into the ground (at great cost)
• assume that when oil and gas run low, a solution will somehow present itsself

Things that we have a choice over:

• nuclear power providing a base load - green until it leaks
• offshore/onshore wind - offshore is more expensive but less intrusive

If unconcerned about the future because you don't care, are soon going to a (well equipped, Festool decorarted) heavenly workshop, are happy to leave future generations to their fate, you've wasted two minutes reading this!

We need an intelligent debate, not preconceived biases. There is no perfect solution, only compromises. Delay and prevaricate will not (unsurprisingly) speed things up.

 

[D_W]

I remember back in the 70's having a discussion with the manager of Wilfa power station and he said something that has stayed with me all these years. We were talking about the life of nuclear stations and I asked how we planned to decommission Wilfa at the end of its life. "Beggared if I know. Best guess is we will remove the fuel rods and cover the reactor chambers with a mountain of concrete". His answer sent a chill down my spine. We now know a bit more about decommissioning as a process, as a risk and as a cost. Hugely complicated, very dangerous and mind-blowingly expensive. And France has 56 of these things to do at some point! As I recall, Wilfa had two magnox reactors, but I do not know what the French stations are.

it's expensive enough and complicated enough that in the US, stations are required to be bonded (or pre-funded) so that they can't be abandoned - if a power company decides to shut down a station, the pre-funded bits come into play covering the shutdown costs.

I don't know that there's any solution for the waste, though - IIRC, most has stayed on site and will continue to (including shutdown power plants).

Though that could be out of date. The contentiousness here re: the waste is that in order to move it, you have to haul it somewhere and nobody wants it hauled through their area.

 

[D_W]

Nuclear power currently has a lower carbon footprint than wind, and it always will. And just because they mine and transport the materials needed for both with diesel today, doesn't mean they can't do it with electricity tomorrow. But there is a limit as to how much they can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete, and it is a simple fact that wind power uses considerable more, and did I mention that wind turbines are ugly?

Here in pennsylvania, we just love the look of the cooling towers. I keep iosat on hand in case the station upwind from me has an issue and there's an emergency. I don't keep anything preventive in the house for wind turbine failures.

I don't actually have any real problem with nuclear except that it's not cost effective and that's unlikely to change. New levelized cost here for pretty much anything else is way lower. For ongoing, levelized new installations are less than *ongoing* nuclear, though most of that nuclear money goes to staff and that's good in general for the local economy near a station (that's such a big issue that many of the plants receive state subsidies to stay online so as not to put 1200 people out of work in a single area).