camelot-forum.co.uk

__

Wish the BBC would give context as to what the output was today compared to that of wind ,,might give people ideas, ..BAD ideas the govt would prefer you not to think maybe!? (& where we need to go, cheaply in the short term)
5.56pm today
9.55% Nuclear versus 27.62% for wind..
4.11 GW versus 11.88GW

CCGT 42.63% 18.34GW

Because it's not responsible to do so, the output is not equivalent.

Life extensions on aging reactors is not a sign of a healthy energy system, these need replacements... Yesterday.

Ideally we need a Japan style fleet rollout without the historically "Brits know best!!" Thinking that stuck us with magnox.

Mr Gus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:58 pm Wish the BBC would give context as to what the output was today compared to that of wind ,,might give people ideas, ..BAD ideas the govt would prefer you not to think maybe!? (& where we need to go, cheaply in the short term)
5.56pm today
9.55% Nuclear versus 27.62% for wind..
4.11 GW versus 11.88GW

CCGT 42.63% 18.34GW

Not sure what that would achieve. The wind generation figure is effectively a random number. Had the news been announced last Sunday or Tuesday night and the BBC published the Wind figure it would have been a lot less than Nuclear.

Yes we need more wind/solar/renewable generation, but more urgently we need to crack on and build more Nuclear and seriously consider SMR's on the sites of the old Nuclear stations. At the same time we need to get serious about long term storage. It's OK to say "build more wind" it's cheaper per MWh, but that's only when they are generating - we need more proper storage and "back up" generation for when it is not - which happens more often than people care to admit. Just looking at cost is short sighted and is what accountants and the Treasury do, which is partly why we are in this mess.

But RE and storage is now cheaper than nuclear, and certainly faster to deploy. So spending money on nuclear actually harms the net result.

As per the Gov's own economic advice given to them in 2018, and all of the studies and reports, such as that recently posted on here from Mark Jacobson's team at Stanford University.

Cool down nuclear plan because renewables are better bet, ministers told

No Miracles Needed

As I understand it SMR's are being seriously considered in the UK and US, but so far, they appear to be far more expensive and 'tricky' than hoped, so looking like just another overhyped hope for the nuclear industry. Rolls Royce hope that with enough subsidy support they can get their SMR's down to the cost of HPC, and then eventually to ~£60/MWh, a cost of generation that off-shore wind, on-shore wind, and PV have already beaten in the UK.


Essential to remember too that nuclear will require storage. Focus is always on nuclear generation when RE is low, but it will also, of course, be generating when RE is high. Since the UK should be approaching net 100% low carbon generation by 2030, then any new nuclear commissioned today, would not be generating till much later than that, and will therefore be competing directly with RE for market share when generation is greater than demand.

It seems to me that for the UK, and dare I say all countries now, the focus should be on the fastest deployment of RE, with the development and growth of storage, internal tansmission, and international interconnectors.

MM, I thought it was pretty clear, it was a snapshot in that instance..

Highlighting the fact that winter is a pretty good season for wind generation & has potential to plug gaps (as does any build) fast, the press seem to make nuclear the saviour, we know it is not.

With a bit of thought, fast to erect & close the gap on seasonal requirements that necessitate the firing up of 1-2-3-4 coal powered stations.

Meaning that if turbine sites already identified could be fulfilled within the next 12-18 months the next few winters, nay all seasons would be potentially secure-er & clean-er fast-er than simply planning opposition & ground breaking the soil of a 7-10 year project with spiralling costs ..a'la HS2.

Turbines may go up in cost, but as they can be sorted "piecemeal" without being a mothballed monstrosity that once started has to be finished.. will be across maybe 2- 3 or more full term serving governments ( ) if we take other historic builds & the likely price rise across that time to eventually chuck out some power.

& it is all about timely stitching of energy to give us the best chance through coming seasons with so much uncertainty right? not& we'll have more "energy so cheap" etc..

Germany has 62% RE generation capacity but last Dec it only provided 22% of energy used. They spent 100 billion euros to achieve this. Meanwhile French nuclear put in place by people long dead an buried (from 1970s) has enabled them to have GHG clean energy for decades.

I don't think the maths (or physics) is there to say that RE + storage is still solved. With our current technology you'll end up with a grid dependant on fossil fuel.

I still have not seen grid scale chemcial storage done. It is not ready technology. Let alone the actual mineral assessment of such an endeavour.

You must be extremely careful saying "wind is cheap!!!" Or "wind is mineral efficient!!!" Or "nuclear is slow".

Globally, 374 out of 441 reactors were built in 10 years or less. 18 reactors were completed in 3 years or less! 12 of those in Japan, 3 in the USA, 2 in Russia and 1 in Switzerland. It does not need to take forever to build new reactors given good supply chain, expertise and engineering protocols. Japan's fleet was a particularly impressive rollout.

The world record for longest time taken goes to Argentina, and construction was paused for significant lengths of time.

The total average is 7.5 years, which is actually shorter than the average of all wind projects. (Which is a little bit of an unfair comparison, since those are often delayed so much that the actual turbines become obsolete by install date).

Mart wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:15 pm But RE and storage is now cheaper than nuclear, and certainly faster to deploy. So spending money on nuclear actually harms the net result.

Yes but "that" storage is short term storage, and by storage you really mean a stack of batteries which will ride out a bit of peak demand for a few hours. No good for periods of a day or two let alone a week or two when renewables just are not producing the goods - which as I said in my last post happens more than some care to admit. Some get very excited when there is a new record for wind generation, but there is little or no comment when we get a week of low wind, unless there is a chance for a few to cash in on an Octopus saving session.

New nuclear could be load following if it was designed that way. Diverting "nuclear" money to build out even more renewables would, as I said before, in my opinion be short sighted. No good having 100 or even 200GW of wind if the wind isn't blowing. Besides I am not sure the industry has the capacity to scale up to build that sort of capacity in the short term.

Others on here, and elsewhere, have said we need everything including the kitchen sink, so New Nuclear (big stuff like Hinkley and hopefully Sizewell) as well as SMR's, More renewables, Wind and Solar and maybe tidal (though sceptical it would every be reliable and wouldn't have massive environmental effects) and wave (again sceptical anything could be built to survive long in a hostile marine environment). We are limited on places for more hydro and even pumped storage., so for now short term battery storage seems to be the best we have. In my view new nuclear does not stop or detract from investment in renewables, as you often say, as costs have fallen so much renewable generation can and does appear to stand own two feet.

We often quote figures such as " in February wind produced 31% of electricity demand". It is a true fact, but it gives the impression that if we had just over 3 times more wind generation, wind would generate 100%. It won't, not for a whole month or year. There will be days when it will and there will be excess to be used to stored in some (as yet to be properly determined form) and there will be days, possibly up to a week or two when we would be lucky if it generated 20%. Most wind farm load-duration curves show that 20% of the time they generate 10% or less of their rated output.

Wind is great, I ran a wind turbine for 5 years and meticulously recorded its output, I had battery storage with it, so I have a feel for what it can, can't do. It's a great plan A, but we need to invest in a Plan B as well. (and probably an plan C, D and E).

If you don't start on ramping up anything, it's a long sit in the dark without even the smallest additional energy contribution.

What is time & money well spent for increased energy output measurable in 12 months from now, which projects would show results started tomorrow? (whilst still in the planning stages of that big kahoona Nuclear plant)?

After ukraine is finished having badly aimed rockets aimed at it the energy requirements for rebuilding will likely cause another HS2 materials shortage as it is swept up for ukraine as is & crimea rebuild AND future defence, after the problems with their nuclear fleet what next for confidence in nuclear bearing in mind just how few russian forces have taken & held it for 11? months & counting posing a not unsubstantial risk to many countries in the process.