Cable and Davey dribble over Nuclear renaissance..

I simply do not know what to make of this.

I know its nearly April 1st, but two Liberal Democrats, from a party absolutely against nuclear power, putting their signatures on a missive that say we will have up to *160GW* of electrical capacity by 2050???

When current peak electrical demand is only 60GW...

"Nuclear energy is clean, secure and reliable. The Government is clear on the important role nuclear has to play in the energy mix and is working to ensure that the market can and will bring new nuclear power forward. The Government?s Carbon Plan 6 to reduce UK CO2 emissions to

2050 aims for there to be competition between different forms of low carbon electricity generation. Although there are no set targets, within 3 of the 4 key scenarios in the Government?s Carbon Plan nuclear energy is shown to deliver a much larger amount of generation than that available now, with the potential to deliver between 16 GW and 75 GW of the UK?s electricity needs. The 75 GW from nuclear energy is part of a scenario where total installed capacity in the UK is around 160 GW by 2050. Nuclear could contribute roughly 40-50% to the energy mix under this scenario, compared with nearly 20% today."

The only possible way I can make any sense of this, is if the 160GW capacity is comprised of mainly windmills and solar panels..which is TOTALLY senseless if you also have nuclear*. But even then..

Running the putative numbers - let's say we have 75GW of nuclear.

That of and by itself is enough to meet the entire nations current electricity demand. More than enough. So let's say we have 85GW of intermittent renewable capacity on top. delivering an average of 20GW of energy. That's a grid capable of averaging more than three times existing demand.

Are we expected to have three times current population then? All be driving electric cars? All be using heat-pumps for heating, or direct electrical heating?

Can anyone shed light on this astounding document, beyond the seemingly logical conclusion that DECC has gone stark staring bonkers?

In case it is a joke, and gets removed from DECC's web site, I took a copy.

formatting link

  • if carbon reduction is the aim. spending the money on 75GW of nuclear power is enough to make for 70GW of reliable zero carbon power. Adding wind to it to 'save uranium' will not result in one iota of emission reduction beyond what is already achieved and indeed will increase emissions by dint of having to build and maintain the windmills.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

I can't offer any insight, but if electricity is set to cost a pound a unit (mentioned on here recently, IIRC), who is going to buy it all?

Reply to
Terry Fields

I might read the document later.

My first thought is that they have simply extrapolated the current year on year rise in demand out to 2050? That is 37 years away and it wouldn't take much of year on year rise to get to silly numbers. Just 2% (not compounded) a year gets the current 60 GW deamnd up to 104 GW.

Then factor in the poor load factor of windmills that they want at 20% or so by 2020? 20% of 104 GW of demand is 20 GW give or take so that is 60 GW of installed wind being generous...

Remember that 160 GW is a capacity figure not demand...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

formatting link

Selling electricity to Germany. Using electric kettles to evaporate water before rivers flood. Setting a ludicrously high level of 75GW and saying that will will be

40-50% - but actually expecting it to be 80-90%. Using fan heaters to melt snow. Setting a high level of 75GW but expecting on to achieve half of that at best.
Reply to
polygonum

(mentioned on here recently, IIRC), who is

well at the very very worst, EDF's insistence on a strike price of 14.5p for nuclear is the worst it COULD get. Oh, apart from the insane idea of 'reducing uranium usage' by using whirligigs.

Currently bulk electricity prices are around the 5p mark give or take.

Even at 10p wholseale, thats a massive incentive to nuclear investors, who can, if the gvernment allows them to, generate at around 6p-8p, compared with a minimum of 12p for a wind/gas mixture and up to 30p+ for offshore wind or solar, and gas.

If the government were to make loans available at the same sort of interest rates it makes them available to itself, to nuclear new build...it would be even less.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I'm guessing that domestic gas for heating may be a distant memory by then....

Reply to
Phil

No interconnects.

That sounds like it might have come from the bowels of Greenpeace's Karma.

Yerrs. That has a slight ring of truth about it. I have asked a certain person at DECC to clarify, but I don't expect a rapid answer.

why no simply have a sno blower equipped with used fuel rods? Or better still a working reactor? could use the sno top provide cooling for a nuclear powered steam turbine.

I am sure a submarine sized reactor could be popped into a caterpillar tracked machine that would fit on a motorway.

'That's not the Plusnet way'..always set targets lower and pat yourself on the back when you achieve them.

What I am waiting for is the howls of protest from Limp Dumb menbers when their brightest and best sign of a report that says 'we are firmly committed to shit loads of nuclear power' when the Limp dumb manifesto is all about getting rid of nuclear power altogether..

"No to nuclear and dirty coal. The power stations we rely on are not only threatening the climate, many of them are coming to the end of their useful life. As we replace them, we have to move on from old technologies. We will not waste taxpayer subsidies on nuclear power. And we will block any plans for dirty coal power stations."

formatting link

"We will say no to a new generation of nuclear power stations; nuclear power is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy."

formatting link

Not how difficult it is to actually get at these policy documents. The liberal democrats on their front pages don't HAVE a policy on energy, only on the 'environment'

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

That may in fact be the case.

160GW of capacity is enough (at a decent capacity factor) to run nearly all the country on.

They must be looking to electric trains, cars buses...electrically heated homes..offices..warehouses..

And even nuclear electric synthesised fuel.

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

On Wednesday 27 March 2013 10:22 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I think I just had a heart attack.

Perhaps someone is assuming we'll have no gas or petrol at all?

Reply to
Tim Watts

Plenty of time to lay one, two, three,... :-)

Or could it not go via France? (Have not thought about this so might be crazy if France is already soaking their interconnects with Germany.)

Reply to
polygonum

On Wednesday 27 March 2013 11:37 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I just walked past a bus near Drury Lane, London, with a big sign on the side saying "Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered"

And there is the odd jelly-bean micro car around here that is always plugged into a roadside EDF charge point.

Reply to
Tim Watts

well we have ta the moment just 1.5GW of interconnect working to France and 1GW to Holland.

And no plans to build more.

There is allegedly going to be a GW or so to Norway, but I ain't holding my breath. Too damned far.

Besides if Hollande's 'zero nuclear' plans get implemented, France will need all the power it can get for itself.

Mind you, according to Der Spiegel, Marine le Pen* is more popular than Hollande right now.

  • France's equivalent of Nigel Farage.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Correction. The French interconnect is down to just 1GW AGAIN.

In fact the only time it was running at 2GW (rated capacity) was for August and September last year.

In short it has been broken more often than its been fixed in the last TWO YEARS.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

In article , The Natural Philosopher writes

And what about dealing with the waste from all these extra nuke stations?

You can bet your bottom dollar the energy companies will in the contract to build and operate, avoid any obligation to deal with the waste and it'll be left to guvmint to work out what to do with it and the taxpayer to pick up the bill, which will be gigantic.

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

In article , The Natural Philosopher writes

I thought we were selling energy to Germany via the French interconnect after they shuttered all their nukes last year?

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

that is actually in the plan there. Its no big deal since I think most of it gets recycled into new fuel. Or its so low in radioactivity its barely intersting hazard wise.

Well no, I will not bet on that at all, because waste disposal and decommissioning costs are built into any of strategies that are proposed, And they are done by the companies that operate the reactors.

That principle is well established and no one is contesting it. Nuclear power must pay for its own decommissioning and waste disposal. The argument is to what level that needs to be done.

Remember that paper is more about investment in research than in in investment in actual power generation. They only talk about that in terms of justifying the research - i.e. leading to a viable profitable job-creating industries and exports.

I picked up on those figures because they seem over optimistic.

The only solid thing in there was about 16GW of nuclear by 2025 or something., THAT seems reasonable.,

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Not really. Its complicated. Mostly we import cheap nukey power from france and presumably wind overcapacity from holland MOST of the time.

winter 2011/12 we had all the coal and gas cranked up high and were pushing power to FRANCE, because they don't have the peaking capacity we do.

Germany used to be a net exporter of electricity too. Italy is the big importer in Europe, running off French and German nuclear and German coal.,. but Germany still has half its nukes running for now, and although its grid is in a total mess from renewables, they are not actually short of energy, even when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

They do look set to become energy neutral however..losing the nukes at the same time the coal comes online will adversely affect that.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So they promise lots of nuclear energy. But only when the total capacity is more than twice current need. So an excuse to carry on building windmills to make up the rest of planned capacity. "Nuclear *could* contribute..." and in their world porcine aviation is a real possibility.

Reply to
djc

The problem I have is that its not so airy fairy as to be completely dismissible, and yet so lacking in detail that its unclear what they really think (if indeed they do [really think]).

It bears the hallmarks of someone putting out a policy documents that uses as its basis some other internal document of which we are entirely unaware.

And THAT is what I want to understand - what their strategic (tunnel) vision/hallucination is, because you can bet your sweet bippy they will be basing all sorts of lunacy on it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You obviously didn't bother to listen to Prof Sue Ion on "The Life Scientific" on R4 a few tuesdays ago. Waste from reactors is *already* being dealt with, and has been for 20 years or so, by the *known* techniques of glassifying it and similar. It can then be safely transported and buried underground, with no chance of leakage.

Disposal of this stuff is a *political* not a *technical* issue.

All the nasty waste is stuff we will have to deal with at some point

*whether or not* we build any new nukes. Mostly , AIUI, it relates to bomb making and has no relation to nuclear power.
Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.