HPC

[MikeNovack]

In this case, the sinking caused by the global rebound of Scotland minor/slow compared to the sea level rise caused by the collapse of the Antarctic (and possibly Greenland) glaciers. Order of magnitude.

The first part of the Antarctic collapse (Thwaits) will probably cause a rise of about a meter by the end of the century and with Thwaits not sitting as a cork in the bottleneck, the glaciers behind will then collapse causing about another 2 meters of rise over the following century.

AFAIK they're not yet sure what will happen with Greenland.

[MikeNovack]

And that's without any sea-level rise from melting ice-caps and glaciers. I think they are mad, and it's a shame that my money and all my descendants money will be being shovelled into it.

The sea level rise caused by the collapse of Thwaites Glacier (Antarctica) is already underway, irreversible, and will probably cause a sea level rise of a meter by the end of the century. That's like 25 times more than the effect of the sining. And once Twaites no longer there as a cork in the bottleneck, the ice behind will probably start to collapse adding another two meters in the following century.

AFAIK we are less sure about Greenland. Russell Glacier is collapsing, add 25 cms by the end of the century. But I don't know what else.

[Mart]

Sometimes I just like to compare things to see how the options weigh up. Now perhaps to this Gov and the previous it all does make sense, but I'm a tad baffled at spending something like £40bn for this 3.2GW (2.95GW after 92%cf) of generation.

That would buy us around 40GW of PV, with little to no OPEX.
Maybe 30+GW of on-shore wind, or 20GW of off-shore wind, though with higher OPEX's.

But here's a thought, linking to the recent thread chat about curtailment. What about storage costs?

So, looks like a Tesla Megapack costs about $0.96m for 3.9MWh, so let's call it $1m for 4MWh.
That's $40m for 160MWh, or
$40bn for 160GWh.

For 1,000 units, the price drops to $900k (each), and allowing for falling storage costs over this decade (and next) and possibly dollar to pound conversion, perhaps ~300GWh of storage is reasonable?

So, would we be better off with the storage, maybe spread around to catch excess generation during generation peaks to prevent curtailment, and to pre-load high consumption areas ready for peaks etc etc etc?

I seem to recall estimates of ~500GWh being the level of storage the UK would need for ~100%RE grid to cover intraday fluctuations. So it's not just the benefit of the storage, but also the easier deployment of more RE and sooner.

[But just to be clear, that's short term storage for intraday, not an amount that will cover us for extended low RE generation periods.]

[dan_b]

Some recent goings on over at Flamanville 3

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/edf-to ... -epr-core/

[dan_b]

Looks like Sizewell C is nearing a start. From what I can figure, the Gov has finally found a way to finance it ...... us!

Sizewell C nuclear power plant ‘could get go-ahead within weeks’

The government is understood to be in the final stages of securing billions of pounds of investment from the private sector to back the project, which follows the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which is under construction in Somerset.

Ministers are expected to use the government’s spending review, scheduled for 11 June, to set out the UK’s investment in the project, which will ultimately rely on a mix of funding from taxpayers and via energy bills.

The UK government’s stake in the project stood at 84% at the end of last year compared with EDF’s 16% share of the project. The French state’s cash-strapped utilities company is understood to be eager to reduce its stake in the project even further.

The Financial Times also reported that other private investors are on board -
“these investors include the Singaporean infrastructure fund GIC, the Canadian pension fund CDPQ, Amber Infrastructure Partners, Brookfield Asset Management, pension fund USS, Schroders Greencoat and Equitix.”

[Moxi]

Forgive me my little rant please !

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/r ... 7229&ei=24

Oh how sad I thought the independent was a semi reasonable paper but how can someone make the fundamental error of labelling Sellafield as a "nuclear power plant" ? Its a nuclear reprocessing and waste processing facility.

The rest of the article isn't much better as its high on sensationalism and very very low on technical detail which if applied brings the whole net effect in to focus and reduced to a more acceptable situation - yes its not perfect but neither is it a potential catastrophe.

Boils my blood sometimes when crap editing and crap reporting is just spewed out for the masses to absorb without thought -

Thanks I feel a bit better now

Moxi

[Stinsy]

Forgive me my little rant please !

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/r ... 7229&ei=24

Oh how sad I thought the independent was a semi reasonable paper but how can someone make the fundamental error of labelling Sellafield as a "nuclear power plant" ? Its a nuclear reprocessing and waste processing facility.

The rest of the article isn't much better as its high on sensationalism and very very low on technical detail which if applied brings the whole net effect in to focus and reduced to a more acceptable situation - yes its not perfect but neither is it a potential catastrophe.

Boils my blood sometimes when crap editing and crap reporting is just spewed out for the masses to absorb without thought -

Thanks I feel a bit better now

Moxi

I used to read The Indi back in my commuting days. However, I switched to The Times because the standard of reporting became intolerable. I guess that was 2002 or 2003.

However there is a fundamental problem with journalists being 99% arts graduates. They lack the self-awareness even to know when they're advertising very clearly that theyve totally missunderstood the fundamentals.

[MikeNovack]

[quote=Stinsy post_id=60607 time=1749113260 user_id=69 used to read The Indi back in my commuting days. However, I switched to The Times because
However there is a fundamental problem with journalists being 99% arts graduates. They lack the self-awareness even to know when they're advertising very clearly that theyve totally missunderstood the fundamentals.
[/quote]

Not the source of the problem. Were that the case, then they'd be doing better reporting "culture" << I've seen reviews of books, movies, plays etc.that make it look as if the writer of the piece had zero background >> YOU HAVE TO care, and if you don't know, LOOK UP.. those skills don't depend on whether you are an arts or a sciences major.

Though I didn't do any "journo" past high school, I'm sort of from a family with connections to journalism "back then". My father helped pay his way through Pharmacy being drama critic for the city paper. And a cousin of his was I.F.Stone (a rather famous independent investigative reporter analyzing politics -- the I F Stone Weekly was read by all stripes of the political spectrum)

[Countrypaul]

Forgive me my little rant please !

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/r ... 7229&ei=24

Oh how sad I thought the independent was a semi reasonable paper but how can someone make the fundamental error of labelling Sellafield as a "nuclear power plant" ? Its a nuclear reprocessing and waste processing facility.

The rest of the article isn't much better as its high on sensationalism and very very low on technical detail which if applied brings the whole net effect in to focus and reduced to a more acceptable situation - yes its not perfect but neither is it a potential catastrophe.

Boils my blood sometimes when crap editing and crap reporting is just spewed out for the masses to absorb without thought -

Thanks I feel a bit better now

Moxi

I used to read The Indi back in my commuting days. However, I switched to The Times because the standard of reporting became intolerable. I guess that was 2002 or 2003.

However there is a fundamental problem with journalists being 99% arts graduates. They lack the self-awareness even to know when they're advertising very clearly that theyve totally missunderstood the fundamentals.

Seems to be a common problem for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6r04e870do
First they suggested the bombs were 20,000kg but later amended that mistake. Now they claim 10,00 sq metres area evacuated, which is 100 x 100 so only 50m from the bomb (other sources suggest either 1km or 1.5km radius evacuation zone.

[MikeNovack]

Forgive me my little rant please !

Seems to be a common problem for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6r04e870do
First they suggested the bombs were 20,000kg but later amended that mistake. Now they claim 10,00 sq metres area evacuated, which is 100 x 100 so only 50m from the bomb (other sources suggest either 1km or 1.5km radius evacuation zone.

LOL, I think the heaviest bombs dropped in WW II were ~4000Kg "dam buster" bombs designed to skip over the nets guarding the dams from torpedoes. BUT, the evacuation zone error MIGHT be confusion. First the absolute evacuation zone , and !00 m not crazy for that. And then a much greater :warning zone "stay away from windows".

I don't believe any WW II era plane could carry 20,000 Kg. I think the biggest of the "heavies" not more than 6,000 Kg