Heat Pumps

May 31, 2025 Last reply: 1 year ago 136 Replies

On 05/06/2025 16:47, Jeff Layman wrote: the top of your list?

The problem is, that there *is* no large scale storage. The chepaest - pumped hydro - costs at leasts the same again as a solar farm. Batteries at that level of storage simply don't exist at *any* price. The batteries are there not to store energy overnight, but to act in place of the energy stored in rotating generators when an overload happens.

The options - pumped storage, large DC links to Norway's hydro, batteries, gas backup plant - ALL of these cost money, that is never included in the LCOE of 'renewables' because the figures would simply be too shocking to justify subsidies for a moment linger

Rebewables *by themselves* cannot make a functional electricity supply for the country

Oh, its happening. Just not in the headlines.

My guess is that once Red Ed is packed off to history, we will start fracking gas and use north sea gas as a temporary stopgap while a frantic nuclear de-regulation happens and small modular reactors are banged in at the rate of about 4-5 a year.

The gas power stations will remain as emergency power backup, and the renewables will simply cease to be subsidised - although existing contracts will be honoured - and the big issue of the day is who is going to pay to decommission them and return the land to green field once the companies they belong to have ceased trading, and who and how the waste is going to be dealt with

I doubt there will be a single wind or solar farm still running past 2040.

Link works for me

Actually that is not unplanned. Its planned. Note the use of 'turned off' not 'tripped'

France has already got a policy in place for that. In summer demand is lower and the plants that use river cooling must be reduced in power BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS LIMIT THE WATER TEMPERATURE RISE TO PROTECT THE FISH.

Normally they run at reduced power or shut them down for maintenance and refuelling

UK has IIRC all its reactors on the coast.

The same restriction apply to gas power stations. They too dump a lot of heat into the cooling water.

That is not a problem. A container of uranium fuel rods will power London for a couple of months.

Compare that with draining e.g. a loch Ness sized lake 10 feet...

The reed thatch is laid at a steep angle. In essence you have loads of micro gutters channeling rain to the eaves

Any that escapes the first layer will meet the underlying layer and by the tine you get to the bottom of a foot thick thatch none gets through

The requiremnt to seal the eves is independent of the requirement to keep the rain out

That was where my calculations ended up,

Every single option to make 'renewables' work ended up more expensive overall than nuclear power.

Sadly there are days when the whole of NW Europe is under a bloody great anti-cyclone and the wind aint blowing anywhere.

And even if it is, what is the COST of building a link from Scotland's wind to Bavaria...to move the energy.

The original purpose of Gridwatch™ was to see how *much* the 'wind was always blowing somewhere' in the UK was true.

To get a handled on the costs of storage and backup.

The short answer was that 'the wind is always blowing somewhere' is near enough a total lie as to make no practical difference.

But the more I looked into it the more it became apparent that renewable energy was not, never was, never would be, *and was never intended to be* a solution to low carbon energy at all. It was a profit making industry that had carefully deceived governments into thinking that wind and solar could provide low carbon reliable electricity at an affordable cost.

So instead of carbon taxation, which would have favoured Nuclear power, the stupid corrupt EU drew up a 'Renewable Obligation' instead.

If the trucks drove fast enough, then the turbines would turn and generate power :-)

There are some good examples where safety protocols have been bypassed.

Stick a pin through the Midlands[1] and just rotate the country to suit.

[1] OK, somewhere a bit north of there would be better.

Our SMR project has started here.

300MW BWR at 7 billion a pop, built on a site that already has nukes and has the grid connections for the project. Um, that doesn't sound particularly cheap somehow. It's being done by private industry, and involves a long term loan. It's not clear where the money was borrowed from. The conversion to other currencies is also listed here, for comparative purposes. There hasn't been any squealing yet about being over-budget.

formatting link
On another project unrelated to that, the project final cost was 3x the estimate, and just the price of the bidirectional power line to move the power costs $1 billion. And worth it, as the line was reversed at first, to move power from a "Have" situation to a "Have not". The line is running in the forward direction today. That's the only good part of the story, demoing that bidirectional capabilities on your interties, are useful. Even if you only use the capability one time, for a year or so, it's worth it. Part of that line, goes underwater (you wouldn't do that in your bath).

Paul

No. It isnt.

That is 'old style' nuclear prices not SMR Should be aroudn $1.5bn per reactor or $4,5bn per GW

£7billion per GW is top price UK build out,

It's being done by private industry,

"The total cost of the four-SMR project is CAD20.9 billion. That's USD15.1 billion, GBP11.2 billion or EUR13.3 billion."

So nothing LIKE what you said of 7 billion per reactor At worst $5bn CANADA per reactor or £2.8bn UK

So why quote it?

Interesting, thanks for that. Lot of ambiguity - because of course the future can't be known, and the funding mechanisms look, er, obscure. Remarkably (suspiciously?) similar to renewable costs:

' . . . replacing the project with wind, solar, and battery storage would require 5,600 to 8,900 MW of capacity at a cost of 13.5–18.4 cents per kWh compared with the 14.9 cents'.

If the battery is expected to last 20 years don't you also have to factor in the capacity loss of perhaps 1% to 1.5% per year so on day one have to build in an excess in capacity of 20%? Is this included in the cost analysis?

No idea - but yes, it would have to be built in, maybe a sinking fund.

The straw or reed thatch are steeply inclined cylinders, water hits one and the adhesion causes it to run down the stem some distance before falling onto the next one down and so on. It's like the Coanda effect when you move the convex side of the bowl of a spoon slowly toward a small but steady stream of water from a tap, the water touches the spoon and then falls off at a tangent to the surface.

I just refer people to a windless day - say 22ns Jan 2025. Much easier to understand

Andy

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required