The Lemon Fool

When Sustainable Energy Becomes Unsustainable

Renewables are supposed to be saving the planet. Instead, they’re making the problem worse. Here’s why: Installing wind and solar increases CO2 emissions.
...
The Duck Curve
...
Sweden thought about replacing its nuclear with wind. It found that every gigawatt of nuclear replaced by wind would require an additional gigawatt of gas-based electricity.
...
And used nuclear fuel still has about a hundred times more energy than was extracted from it. Reprocessing that fuel enables it to be used again… and again.

France, Russia, and Japan already re-use their nuclear fuel, getting more energy out of it each time.

The above article makes a compelling argument I'd suggest. In the arly 70's France embarked upon a nuclear power building spree.

Construction of the first three nuclear plants under the “Messmer Plan” started in December 1974. They were completed six years later.
...
To this day, nuclear power generation in France remains so high that nuclear plants occasionally close for the weekends. It’s an unbeatable level of energy security.

The Nuclear Surge is Here

This free educational series powered by Uranium Energy Corp will explore the case for nuclear and why it’s the key to the world’s energy requirements. By every possible metric, nuclear is the best, most reliable source of carbon-free energy on the planet.

I'm not suggesting the above website is correct. It's an alternative view. Obviously do your own research.

This site may be of some interest

https://carboncredits.com/

AiY(D)

I think the correct approach to energy security is to have your energy coming from various sources.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something I think should replicate in the UK - but with offshore wind.

Tedx wrote:I think the correct approach to energy security is to have your energy coming from various sources.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something I think should replicate in the UK - but with offshore wind.

Where does the energy come from when the wind doesn't blow?

Nimrod103 wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think the correct approach to energy security is to have your energy coming from various sources.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something I think should replicate in the UK - but with offshore wind.

Where does the energy come from when the wind doesn't blow?

Where does the energy come from when you've found multiple cracks at a number of your nuclear reactors? Or when a foreign country cuts off your gas supply?

That's why I said we should have multiple sources of energy.

In the UK we are blessed with huge amounts of wind power and the technology to harness it. And when we make too much we should find ways of storing the excess for when the wind doesn't blow. And have nukes etc.

Tedx wrote:I think the correct approach to energy security is to have your energy coming from various sources.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something I think should replicate in the UK - but with offshore wind.

The site is by the Uranium Energy Corp, and is slightly biased towards an energy source that leaves a long legacy of contaminated waste, spent fuel is only a small part of it. It is also a poorly thought out arguement based around a small scenario, with as far as I saw no consideration given to storage and release, for instance charging cars during the day and releasing the energy at night becomes viable in somewhere as sunny as California. It seems is is never windy in the USA, perhaps if they'd modelled Chicago things might have been different.

I'm not saying it is Andrew Wakefield levels of flawed, but it is coming pretty damned close.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something we should have replicated in the UK 40 years ago when we closed the mines and became reliant on imported coal. Wind and solar have their place, but in the UK they tend to be seasonal (fortunately the seasons don't overlap much) and it is only viable if we can store the energy to smooth the curve using pumped hydroelectric, battery, hydrogen, etc.

Paul

Nimrod103 wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think the correct approach to energy security is to have your energy coming from various sources.

Saying that, the French nuclear building program is something I think should replicate in the UK - but with offshore wind.

Where does the energy come from when the wind doesn't blow?

You would require a fleet of nuclear plants, with the equivalent name plate capacity, on hot standby, for when the wind didn't blow.

My brother-in-law works in the nuclear industry since the 80's and I remember furious dinner table conversations where he would make the case for nuclear electricity generation and be shouted down by those believing that he was promoting nuclear Armageddon. The same hysterical conversations are now being had around fossil fuels and all but the most ardent eco types accept that nuclear has to form part of the plan for a baseload of supply. The problem for nuclear is that we are so late to the party, with the new reactors at Hinckley and Sizewell years late. The spent fuel and waste issues are still a problem, not least the huge cost of safe storage. Solar and Wind have the characteristics that politicians love, they are politically and viscerally visible proof that the government is 'doing' something, its largely done without government money and the fact that it doesn't solve the issue of supply in no wind/night scenarios can be glossed over because there is 'no alternative' to de-carbonisation of energy.
Most probably, like the NHS, energy needs a long term plan that is largely de-politicised, but that's too much to hope for, but as an investor in quite a few sustainable energy funds, the rate that the industry, particularly wind, has ramped up building assets is really impressive. But the answer to a non nuclear base load appears a long way off. Fusion is probably that answer for our grandchildren.

scotview wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
Where does the energy come from when the wind doesn't blow?

You would require a fleet of nuclear plants, with the equivalent name plate capacity, on hot standby, for when the wind didn't blow.

I don't know, but I can't imagine it costs much less to have a nuclear plant on hot standby than producing power. I mean, you've already built and staffed the plant, so effectively you would be paying twice for the same capacity, once for wind and once for nuclear.

RC

You would say have half your energy coming from nuclear, permanently on. The other half would come from renewables. Excess renewable energy stored as hydrogen, compressed air, pumped storage, batteries, flywheels etc ready for use when the wind drops/sun dont shine.

The target for offshore wind is 50GW by 2030, but there's 100GW in the pipeline and plenty more potential as turbines get ever bigger and more efficient (8.7GW turbines at Hornsea 2 v 14.7GW at Dogger Bank) and floating offshore turbine tech is cracked.

Theres also a huge opportunity in repowering older windfarms with 3-6 times more energy potential.

I'm optimistic. I think the problem wont be making the juice, it'll be what to do with it all.

Tedx wrote:You would say have half your energy coming from nuclear, permanently on. The other half would come from renewables. Excess renewable energy stored as hydrogen, compressed air, pumped storage, batteries, flywheels etc ready for use when the wind drops/sun dont shine.

The target for offshore wind is 50GW by 2030, but there's 100GW in the pipeline and plenty more potential as turbines get ever bigger and more efficient (8.7GW turbines at Hornsea 2 v 14.7GW at Dogger Bank) and floating offshore turbine tech is cracked.

Theres also a huge opportunity in repowering older windfarms with 3-6 times more energy potential.

I'm optimistic. I think the problem wont be making the juice, it'll be what to do with it all.

Your proposition looks logical. Trouble is, it is very easy and relatively cheap to build massive wind farms and solar farms. It is also getting easier and cheaper every year.
The other end of the things, the storage at a mass scale, at this time, is neither easy nor cheap. There is no scalable tech on the horizon to facilitate the energy storage required now, let alone in our brave new electric future. As Bill Gates said, storing energy is really difficult!

airbus330 wrote:The problem for nuclear is that we are so late to the party, with the new reactors at Hinckley and Sizewell years late. The spent fuel and waste issues are still a problem, not least the huge cost of safe storage.

We were at the nuclear vanguard, once.
Then it all got overcomplicated.

The Germans had the right idea with their 'convoy' nukes in the 80s, a series of stations built without design changes. Unfortunately the Greens have thrown away that legacy.

Long-term, the nuclear fuel problem is bound to come around and bite us badly, the hope being that it won't be us it bites but some conveniently distant generation.

The world managed without electricity for quite a long time; currently I'm reading Richard Harris's Second Sleep where he postulates a post-apocalypse existence a thousand years hence, a la middle ages. No electricity.
They seem to manage OK, although I haven't read to the end as yet.

V8

88V8 wrote:

airbus330 wrote:The problem for nuclear is that we are so late to the party, with the new reactors at Hinckley and Sizewell years late. The spent fuel and waste issues are still a problem, not least the huge cost of safe storage.

We were at the nuclear vanguard, once.
Then it all got overcomplicated.

The Germans had the right idea with their 'convoy' nukes in the 80s, a series of stations built without design changes. Unfortunately the Greens have thrown away that legacy.

Long-term, the nuclear fuel problem is bound to come around and bite us badly, the hope being that it won't be us it bites but some conveniently distant generation.

The world managed without electricity for quite a long time; currently I'm reading Richard Harris's Second Sleep where he postulates a post-apocalypse existence a thousand years hence, a la middle ages. No electricity.
They seem to manage OK, although I haven't read to the end as yet.

V8

Yes, thats quite right. The Germans got sunk by their Greens, the French Nuclear fleet is being sunk by their lack of forward maintenance planning. Its all part of the malaise in the industry rooted to the political unacceptability of nuclear in the post cold war world. We're now reaping the whirlwind.
If we end up with no leccy, at least we'll solve the population problem as half the humans would probably die.
Now where is that can of whale oil for the lamp

The French are planning on reducing their nuclear generation from the current 70% to 50% by 2035 (originally 2025 but postponed).

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

Tedx wrote:Where does the energy come from when you've found multiple cracks at a number of your nuclear reactors? Or when a foreign country cuts off your gas supply?

Or supply of nuclear fuel? Fuel rather than raw ore.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/russia- ... hains.html

Russia owned 40% of the total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world in 2020, and 46% of the total uranium enrichment capacity in the world in 2018, according to the report.

As you said, we need a mix. However we import much of our gas, our nuclear fuel and we closed down our pits and started importing coal. I wonder how sustainable a policy to increase our dependence upon imports is.

To be fair to our lords and masters, they are not unaware of the issue.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mini ... -influence

These issues are NEVER as simple or cut and dried as pressure groups portray.

For what it's worth I'm a supporter of wind and solar, but while I think we need more of it, we need a mix of energy sources.

I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors. Much like we had with the original nuclear and the windfall of the North Sea. The thing is, we have a bad habit of screwing the opportunity up.

I see our houses being heated by Heat pumps, our cars running on batteries, our industry powered by hydrogen and our food being grown under vast glasshouses.

All powered by nuclear reactors and renewable energy

...and none of this requires new technology. It exists in smaller pockets throughout the world. It's there to be done.

Phew. I Need a lie down now.

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

MrFoolish wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

MrFoolish wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

Maybe it's cheaper to install a turbine, but is it cheaper per MW? Onshore wind is lower speed and less reliable compared to offshore. See https://www.windy.com/?54.841,-3.683,5
Perhaps the extra cost of installing larger offshore turbines still produces lower cost overall and more reliable supply
doolally

DrFfybes wrote:

MrFoolish wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

OK, we'll put the on-shore wind turbines where you and the other NIMBYs can't see them - which basically means nowhere. Apparently we put up a grand total of TWO onshore wind turbines last year. It's no wonder we have an energy crisis when people adopt this selfish "me me me" attitude.

doolally wrote:

MrFoolish wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

Maybe it's cheaper to install a turbine, but is it cheaper per MW? Onshore wind is lower speed and less reliable compared to offshore. See https://www.windy.com/?54.841,-3.683,5
Perhaps the extra cost of installing larger offshore turbines still produces lower cost overall and more reliable supply
doolally

Yes. I read that the Kincardine offshore demonstration floater is nearing 55 to 60% capacity- 10 to 15% above your typical on shore installation. And youd never get away with the sheer size of the current on offshore turbine on land