The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

13»

Comments

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Here you go. The historic mix. Note the declining production. Also, not sure how it treats roof-top solar.

    Temp.jpg

    Why the dip in gas and increase in coal in around 2012?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    Thanks TBB. Looking at the daily and monthly graphs on Gridwatch, you can see very clearly that nuclear provides the constant base generation with other modes coming in and out to meet the fluctuating demand. That looks quite different in the projected mixes you posted.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    TheBigBean wrote:
    not sure how it treats roof-top solar.
    With disdain, probably
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    rjsterry wrote:
    Thanks TBB. Looking at the daily and monthly graphs on Gridwatch, you can see very clearly that nuclear provides the constant base generation with other modes coming in and out to meet the fluctuating demand. That looks quite different in the projected mixes you posted.

    If you look at the actual production, rather than the relative production, only the high nuclear scenario involves more nuclear than the UK currently has. The CCC scenario is the most likely one as they are advising the government. This relies on carbon capture becoming cheaper.

    Essentially, there is little expectation that nuclear will become cheaper, but there is expectation that everything else (carbon capture, battery storage, renewables) will become cheaper. As I posted in the other, it is already looking like wind (definitely) and solar (probably) will be the cheapest way of producing electricity quite shortly.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    Pross wrote:

    Why the dip in gas and increase in coal in around 2012?

    Not sure. Random guess would be coal prices were lower or a major CCGT was offline.
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    65 years ago my dad worked at radiation city ( then calder hall-- winscale) I remember him saying " electricity will be so cheap it won,t be worth the cost of putting meters in houses " HO-HO-HO.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    Overrun at Hinkley makes more nuclear less likely.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    I'm amazed that with all the Ground Investigation work that was done pre-construction that they would be unaware of the ground conditions. Irrespective of views on nuclear power it's an absolutely fascinating construction scheme to visit, I've had to go there a couple of times to review the ever changing internal 'temporary' roads and the sheer scale of it is incredible. If anyone ever gets a chance to visit for any reason I would recommend going.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    How can a nuclear power station cost 1/3 of a train line?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    How can a nuclear power station cost 1/3 of a train line?

    Do you think it should be a greater or lesser percentage?
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I would have thought it would be much, much more.

    Like the numbers reversed - 20bn for train, 60bn for nuclear.

    But I know zilch about infrastructure projects.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    I would have thought it would be much, much more.

    Like the numbers reversed - 20bn for train, 60bn for nuclear.

    But I know zilch about infrastructure projects.

    A train line needs a lot of land currently owned by someone else.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    I would have thought it would be much, much more.

    Like the numbers reversed - 20bn for train, 60bn for nuclear.

    But I know zilch about infrastructure projects.

    A train line needs a lot of land currently owned by someone else.

    There are also numerous tunnels that are miles long (longest on Phase 1 is about 16km at a rate of £33 million per km for a single tunnel so presumably doubled up for the two way line), all the roads and rivers crossed require bridging and you probably need to build fairly major temporary roads to allow construction access. Then you've got your new stations, signalling, overhead lines, alterations to existing structures, road improvements and new access roads for the stations etc.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Elizabeth line - £17.6bn for comparison. Surely a much more complex project than slipping brown envelopes to dignitaries in the countryside.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Elizabeth line - £17.6bn for comparison. Surely a much more complex project than slipping brown envelopes to dignitaries in the countryside.

    Half the length and significantly less land take due to much of it being underground. Also, less related infrastructure. That said, I really struggle with the idea that HS2 is justifiable, especially when the extension of the South Wales electrification scheme was binned on cost / benefit grounds at a significantly lower price.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,738
    Pross wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Elizabeth line - £17.6bn for comparison. Surely a much more complex project than slipping brown envelopes to dignitaries in the countryside.

    Half the length and significantly less land take due to much of it being underground. Also, less related infrastructure. That said, I really struggle with the idea that HS2 is justifiable, especially when the extension of the South Wales electrification scheme was binned on cost / benefit grounds at a significantly lower price.
    HS2 connects to London, innit.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    How can a nuclear power station cost 1/3 of a train line?
    Have you seen the extent and footprint of the trainline? Even the cost/volume/mass of materials would be much greater.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    The cost of HS2 could be significantly lowered i believe if they dropped the line speed by about 10mph!
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • lesfirth
    lesfirth Posts: 1,382
    elbowloh wrote:
    The cost of HS2 could be significantly lowered i believe if they dropped the line speed by about 10mph!

    My son, who has been working on HS2 planning ( Birmingham to Crewe bit) for the last 2 years, tells me that "some" cost saving could be made by changing the proposed track from a concrete slab to conventional ballast track but max speed would be reduced by 30mph. Significant cost for 10 mph is rubbish.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,674
    In the internet age I fail to see the relevance of reducing travel time between Birmingham or points north and London by 10, 15, nn%. A spurious benefit vs immense costs. Spend a fraction of the ever expanding HS2 budget on improving East West train lines, e.g. TransPennine, Oxford - Cambridge.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    The biggest mistake was not calling it High Capacity 2.
  • lesfirth
    lesfirth Posts: 1,382
    TheBigBean wrote:
    The biggest mistake was not calling it High Capacity 2.

    Correct.

    If you could close a rail track for about 3 years, improving existing tracks could be considered but you simply can not.

    Another problem with HS2 is where the electric to power it is going to come from. You can't just plug it into a 13amp. socket.
    A train drawing 12 MW of power would require the output of 12 wind turbines.( http://www.voxopp.org.uk/449/where-will ... come-from/) However when the wind does not blow ......


    Errr, what was the title of this thread?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    Assuming the grid isn't green, it can be hydrogen powered. Note that the grid is considered one of the easiest to decarbonise.
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,002
    Pross wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    A train line needs a lot of land currently owned by someone else.

    There are also numerous tunnels that are miles long (longest on Phase 1 is about 16km at a rate of £33 million per km for a single tunnel so presumably doubled up for the two way line), .

    Does that mean they could build 100 km for £6.6 billion and avoid having to buy land?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    A train line needs a lot of land currently owned by someone else.

    There are also numerous tunnels that are miles long (longest on Phase 1 is about 16km at a rate of £33 million per km for a single tunnel so presumably doubled up for the two way line), .

    Does that mean they could build 100 km for £6.6 billion and avoid having to buy land?

    Some tracks might come in useful!

Categories