EDF confirms funding for Sizewell C

[Swwils]

The shortage of storage is both economic and technical. The technology does not exist to do the required chemcial storage at grid scale.

[spread-tee]

*If the fact that there is an ultimate budget for spending is still dismissed, then the argument can still be tested by using the 'test it to the extreme' method. So we spend more money on RE, but still have extra for nuclear - great, now take that extra for nuclear, spend it on RE (and storage), and you get more generation, sooner. If there's still more spare money for nuclear on top, then we can take that money, and do better by spending it on RE (and storage) instead. This extreme test can be repeated over and over.

No chance Mart, we have the capacity to create money far faster than extra manufacturing capacity, I paid a load of money for a bunch of Pylontec batteries 2 months ago and I am still waiting, by your argument they should be here now, we see supply shortages all over the place despite the money chasing them, in fact this is why we have such high inflation at the moment.

TTFN

Desp

PS, this is an interesting read about how money is created and the myth that we need to raise revenue by taxing income streams.

https://ponderwall.com/index.php/2019/0 ... reloaded=1

[Mart]

Hi Mart,

there is a magic money tree, otherwise known as quantitative easing, see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetar ... ive-easing

you can see the GOVT created nearly 400Bn to cover the costs of the Covid pandemic back in 2020 , also back in 2008 they created a similar amount to save the banking system from collapse, those amounts didn't come from some mythical pot. and very little has been "paid back" I put that in parenthesis because the GOVT own the BOE so in effect there is no debt, how can you owe yourself something??.

The GOVT is free to create any amount of money it likes to spend where it likes, as I have said many times before all we need is the political will, sadly that is a lot harder to come by.

Desp

Thanks Desp, yes that is sorta an example of a magic money tree, but of course the price of printing money is typically inflation - "Too much money chasing too few goods".

But that still takes us back to the 'test it to the extreme' test, and we could use that new printed money to buy some nuclear generation in the distant future, or more RE gen, sooner. Since the problem is so great and so urgent, we can't waste money on more expensive and less timely solutions. We need the most now.

But as I've said, the argument is mostly moot. the vast majority of countries have no intention of using nuclear as they progress to 100% low carbon generation. RE and now storage is rolling out everywhere, and longer term solutions such as H2 or CAES look viable, especially given the vast difference in cost of RE v's nuclear. That difference provides for a huge amount of storage spending.

I suspect that's why the NIC, the studies, reports, Marc Jacobson at Stanford, RethinkX etc etc etc keep pointing to RE + storage as the better solution. I'd really appreciate a link to something similar explaining why/where nuclear may fit in, if you have any? There is now a growing argument/support for SMR's, but the RR solution looks like yet another great hyped hope, and NU-Scale in the US is struggling too.

I appreciate that we won't see eye to eye on this, but most importantly I also appreciate that your view is based on wanting to do the best, not any particular love for nuclear. Mine is the same, I would argue for nuclear if I thought it would help, however I believe it's a net loss due to the opportunity cost.

[Mart]

Many thanks Nowty. Please don't think I'm denying the fact that a lot of storage is needed, that's why I refer to studies and reports all the time. I simply have to follow the evidence, especially since it's moved only one way in the 5yrs or so that all of us have been debating the nuclear or not issue.

Obviously time will tell, and we'll get to see each year how things develop. Till 2030(ish) it's not so important as we/Europe look towards net low carbon figures, using FF's to demand follow. It's after we all start to get FF's really low, and don't have that demand following resource to fall back on, that's things get trickier.

Now that 'simple' intraday and vehicular storage is ramping up at an exponential rate, we should get a better picture as to what is needed as we move into the medium and long term. It may be that we add some sort of heat storage, like the ultra cheap, but basic storage that's started to be tested on a very small scale. I'm only pondering that as it's simple, cheap, and ties in with residential energy demand peaks.

But my money would be on flow batts and LAES, then perhaps CAES/H2 if we need to scale up into TWh's. Hopefully the UK's Highview Power will be one of the winners. I seem to recall their storage being scaleable to about 200MW/1,200MWh, each, so perhaps somewhere between intraday and longer term storage.

But again, as I said to Desp, if I thought there was a net gain from adding more nuclear, I'd support it, but I truly believe we get less by including it. I think it's a bit like CCS for FF's ('clean coal'), and H2 for road transport, they sound like they'll help, but in reality slow down the shift away from FF's by wasting time, a resource we simply don't have enough of.

[spread-tee]

Inflation is a risk if the money created isn't absorbed into the economy by being used for some useful work, services or better still manufacturing, which is limited by capacity in all kinds of areas. We are though a Country of low productivity by many standards so at the moment there is quite a lot of room.

Over the years I have become very much less keen on Nuclear energy due in no small part to your posts among others, but I think it fair to say I feel it is way to early in our renewables adventure to replace it.

To be honest, personally ,I don't care where our energy comes from as long as it doesn't wreck the environment or other peoples lives.

Desp

[Oldgreybeard]

Leaving aside RE for a moment, as we know beyond any doubt that we cannot keep the grid going at the moment with only RE, the choice really comes down to how we choose to generate power when there is no wind or sun.

None of the choices are free from environmental consequences, so we need to choose the least worst way to keep our electricity supply going when there is no wind or sun. The proven choices we have are burning stuff (coal, oil, gas, biomass) or nuclear. Which is the least harmful to the environment?

There are unproven options, that may or may not work, like large scale tidal power generation, or nuclear fusion, but there are no new technologies in the pipeline that look likely to be able to deliver power at scale in the next couple of decades.

Storage clearly goes hand in hand with existing RE generation, but again we only have limited choices when it comes to proven technology, at the moment the only two contenders are batteries (with a limited operating life) or pumped hydro. Both have a significant environmental impact, be that through mining and manufacture or direct destruction of the environment by building pumped storage.

The whole problem needs to be looked at holistically, in terms of the least worst way to provide the energy we need. For example, it's madness to replace gas with burning wood or coal, as the pollution from such a change is orders of magnitude worse (and, as an aside, I think we are going to see a catastrophic increase in air pollution, and deaths and illnesses from it, this winter as people do just this in their homes).

If we choose to not use nuclear power, then the next best option is unquestionably burning gas. It's massively cleaner than burning oil, coal or wood, as well as being very efficient (CCGTs are way more efficient than other fuel burning technologies used in generation). Still produces a lot of CO2, even if the particulates etc are very much lower, but perhaps that's the price we have to pay.

[Ken]

Mart,
You might like to again look at http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-pa ... and-solar/
It calculated 35,000kwh storage required to get to zero gas. At 500GWh 14% of demand will be required as gas (in some form or other)

Lithium batts will not be used for straight storage. They are at the moment because they suit short time grid support and will replace synchronous generation which needs to be run at the moment "just in case". Flow batts siut this job quite well as the ingredients can be stored for ages.

Anyway whats with this zero gas thing anyway. If in the good times of RE we make a long lasting product that can be used at will when the "wind dont blow and sun dont shine" We already have enough gas plants.

This problem is far too complex. I have no doubt that supply and demand will win out as long as the gov steers the arguments to net zero.

[Swwils]

Hydro is not viable for this scenario as it takes decades to build out (unavoidably) and days to dispatch even when constructed. It also faces just pure inhibition due to geological situations, it's not something you can do with all the will in the world.

If you choose to not pursue nuclear, all that happens is an eventual requirement of the thermal energy of coal or gas. Otherwise you face nation level deindustrialization.

If you take this further and now enter into a thought experiment - the Romans created glass using accessible energy - for some reason this energy source was lost or curtisled and it contributed to the collapse of Roman civilisation; later on the Anglo saxons who did not have the Roman technology famously repurposed Roman glass into treasured items.

Most people will agree that the entirety of human civilization is built upon the means to get and do things with, accessible energy.

P.s. I am not joking about chemcial storage not being ready, of the largest installs in the world currently, several have had large fires, module failures and not many (of any significant capacity) are anywhere near the sensible operating status for mass deployment into the challenge the grid faces.

[Oldgreybeard]

The one glimmer of light in all this gloom is that there are now concerted efforts being made to reduce electricity demand, both at a small scale (people reducing personal consumption) and at a larger scale (industries reducing or shifting their electricity demand). With luck these changes may stick, with the net result that demand for electricity accelerating over the pretty steep demand reduction seen over the past decade or so.

We need to be thankful that total demand for electricity last year, for example, was only 254,665GWh, compared with 332,539GWh a decade earlier in 2011, or even the peak year, before the decline, 2003, when we used 362,600GWh. It's quite remarkable that in the space of 18 years we have been able to reduce electricity consumption by nearly 108,000GWh, a reduction of over 30%. Be interesting to see the numbers for 2022, I bet there will be an even greater year-on-year reduction than there has been in recent years.

Source for the number was the data produced alongside that for DUKES: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... icity-data

[Ken]

There are unproven options, that may or may not work, like large scale tidal power generation, or nuclear fusion, but there are no new technologies in the pipeline that look likely to be able to deliver power at scale in the next couple of decades.

Storage clearly goes hand in hand with existing RE generation, but again we only have limited choices when it comes to proven technology, at the moment the only two contenders are batteries (with a limited operating life) or pumped hydro. Both have a significant environmental impact, be that through mining and manufacture or direct destruction of the environment by building pumped storage.

I would not bet on that ! "next couple of decades" Just think where we have got to in the last ten yrs alone EVs,PV, batts. Everyday some new twist of energy supply keeps showing. I would not even bet on 5yrs.

You seem to be only thinking of Li batts but there are many other chemistries waiting in the background which negate your concerns. Pumped hydro has not caught the limelight yet mainly because there is not enough excess RE. Just imagine when we have frequent RE excesses and leccy is close to £xero.then all storage will be falling over themselves to get some of the action. SSE already has a big hydro storage in mind with planning permission and i believe initial spade work has already started to supply building access.

Dont get this Gov needs to fund this or that, gov funding is not needed they just use it to steer the market. Wind,Solar and storage dont require subsidy.