Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
Are you not tempted to start charging her rent? 😉
BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Are you not tempted to start charging her rent? 😉
First Aspect
Active Member
Yes. In terms of energy security and the need for low carbon energy, Germany would benefit from nuclear.
There was probably a policy to taper them off anyway, but it was brought forward in response to Fukashima. Whatever the arguments concerning that form of power in a tectonically active region, they do not apply to Germany (or the UK for that matter).
There is an issue with what is potentially eternal waste. I do not know what generation of technology Germany is using, but the ones the UK are building and the modular ones Rolls Royce think they can build generate a small fraction of the waste that the original 50s and 60s reactors generated. And besides, as the only viable low carbon electricity generation capable of the scale of generation to replace fossil fuels, for me the balance between global warming and risks and consequences of nuclear waste, accidents etc. strongly favoured nuclear for the past generation.
Possibly doesn't starting from now, given developments in renewables and energy strorage, but the ship has certainly said regarding global warming in the meantime.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Senior Member
Given humans' insatiable demand for electricity, nuclear now seems like the least-worst option for relatively stable base supply. Germany is still dependent (I think) on Russian gas to a sizeable extent, and that's not good on the climate and political fronts.
Of course, as we are seeing with Hinkley, reactor construction isn't yet a smooth process. If France is going to replace its reactors (still 75% of their energy is nuclear), it will need to be a much more routine construction process.
First Aspect
Active Member
Hence the idea of small modular reactors. Which simply means a bit smaller, and of a standardized design.
The pros and cons are something I would, and probably should, know more about.
The pros and cons are something I would, and probably should, know more about.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Senior Member
Not getting my hopes up for anything substantive, but at least a minor retreat from the hard Brexit lunacy will be welcome.
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
It's good to see a spot of realism finally creeping into your views on Brexit.
PurplePenguin
Member
Nuclear is expensive and inflexible, so I'm not sure it offers much beyond saving space.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Senior Member
This is pretty wild
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
First Aspect
Active Member
Hinckley is an exercise in how not to do it. See above on modular reactors. The inflexibility seems not to be an issue for France, so can be discounted. We use a lot of electricity all the time, basically.
PurplePenguin
Member
It's not an issue for France because it exports its excess power. That logic falls apart when every country has the same strategy. It's possible to curtail every other form of generation when required, but that only makes nuclear even more expensive and caps the level of power it can produce to the minimum level of demand.
Modular reactors are an idea. They may be cheaper, but I'd surprised if they are as cheap as other tech.
First Aspect
Active Member
Time will tell. They will be more expensive than gas, so take your pick. Milliband seems to think CCS squares the circle. And I know there's a lot of R&D going on in that sector from the work I do. I'm not convinced scaling it will be cost effective through. Will that mean costs end up in the same place as nuclear? I don't know, but if costs are too high for CCS it just means it won't get used.
The UK doesn't need 75% non renewable, (neither does France). The slow rate of control over output of nuclear simply isn't an issue.
PurplePenguin
Member
I think if you are going to make the assertion that flexibility is of no value, you should at least look at a typical demand curve for a day and work out what you are shifting around to where and how.
First Aspect
Active Member
As part of an energy mix, where some other part of that mix can be switched on and off in moments, the inflexible part becomes much less of a problem?
PurplePenguin
Member
Yes, but if that is its use, you may as well use the cheapest tech unless there is a shortage of space/terrain. I summarised this with my first post:
"Nuclear is expensive and inflexible, so I'm not sure it offers much beyond saving space."
