BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Cirrus]

We clearly need to have the reactors offshored in Rwanda….

 

[briantrumpet]

Intriguing (and a passable graph). I wonder why...

 

[First Aspect]

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."

It's low carbon. See my post above about the potential issues of achieving that with fossil fuels plus CCS.

 

[PurplePenguin]

It's low carbon. See my post above about the potential issues of achieving that with fossil fuels plus CCS.

The reason to use gas CCS is that it is flexible. That's the only reason.

 

[briantrumpet]

Ah yes, the real measure of a medium's worth.

 

[First Aspect]

The reason to use gas CCS is that it is flexible. That's the only reason.

No, I think it's seen as potentially quicker cheaper and easier to retrofit existing power stations. However I'm not convinced. It's certainly technically possible, but I'm simply have no feel for the scalability.

 

[briantrumpet]

I wonder if people would donate more if he put it towards therapy.

 

[PurplePenguin]

No, I think it's seen as potentially quicker cheaper and easier to retrofit existing power stations. However I'm not convinced. It's certainly technically possible, but I'm simply have no feel for the scalability.

This is getting a bit tedious. The process is going to be expensive however it is done, so it is considered flexible generation that can be used when wind is low for a sustained period.

There may be some nutjobs that think it will allow everything to just carry on unchanged, but they shouldn't be taken seriously.

NESO's recent decarbonisation report (which I have read) has only essential gas usage planned.

 

[First Aspect]

This is getting a bit tedious. The process is going to be expensive however it is done, so it is considered flexible generation that can be used when wind is low for a sustained period.

There may be some nutjobs that think it will allow everything to just carry on unchanged, but they shouldn't be taken seriously.

NESO's recent decarbonisation report (which I have read) has only essential gas usage planned.

I should have taken no for an answer, like an obedient pupil.

https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/...rated/how-electricity-generated-using-nuclear

There's a whiff of a familiar discussion style, PP/BB.

 

[briantrumpet]

Ah yes, of course. Like we did before.

 

[First Aspect]

You get the sense he would also prefer we didn't get anything. It is a similar mindset to Trump, whereby who we thought were our closest friends are in fact our most hated enemies all along.

 

[briantrumpet]

You get the sense he would also prefer we didn't get anything. It is a similar mindset to Trump, whereby who we thought were our closest friends are in fact our most hated enemies all along.

Given his track record, it's a fairly sure bet that the exact opposite of whatever Hannan says will be the case.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I should have taken no for an answer, like an obedient pupil.

https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/...rated/how-electricity-generated-using-nuclear

There's a whiff of a familiar discussion style, PP/BB.

Not sure which part of your link you are focusing on, but it is worth nothing the advantage of building near demand has the government salivating because it means they don't need to build more politically unpopular transmission lines.

 

[First Aspect]

Not sure which part of your link you are focusing on, but it is worth nothing the advantage of building near demand has the government salivating because it means they don't need to build more politically unpopular transmission lines.

The bit about zero carbon future and the role of nuclear. From the same organisation you mentioned. Anyhow, its a bit tedious, right?

 

[PurplePenguin]

Yes