Sustainable Power Isn't working

Science & Environment Science & Environment: Chat / Discussions
21

I agree with the nuclear stance, but the part about damaging the environment was fairly weak. The damage included birds and bats and other animals. That was a pretty weak argument. If solar and wind worked reliably, the birds and bats that get killed aren’t the strongest argument against it.

The unreliability wasn’t that strong either. Diverting energy to another state isn’t the worst thing that can happen. The problem is more about not having enough.

His case for nuclear was OK, but needs more specifics. There are some nuclear power plants that are safer than others. I supported a candidate for US President who was supportive of nuclear in the US. That is a political issue the TedTalk guy glossed over. Without political support, there’s not enough money to do anything with his ideas.

1 Like
22

Hi

A fascinating thread.

I have watched the video, very impressed with the way he presented it, but also, in my opinion, very biased.

Wind and solar are weather dependant, so not ideal, but very useful in the right areas.

There is one form of sustainable energy which is dependant, and that is tidal energy.

This has been known for ages.

We now have the technology to use tides to generate electricity when rising and falling and also to generate electricity from waves.

There is some argument amongst the experts as how much we could generate here in the UK.

The Eco Warriors claim 100%, others 50%.

There is a difference between theory and practice.

!00% is possible, but it is not a constant viable supply, simple really, the weather changes.

It is my opinion that 80% is practicable for 90% of the time.

This still leaves a huge gap, we need electricity all the time and the amount we need need varies according to the time of day and the weather.

How do we fill that gap?

My view is that it has to be Nuclear, however that has problems.

The video is wrong, Nuclear does produce waste and it is dangerous and very expensive.

Enough for now, a new post is needed to explain this.

23

Have no fear for atomic energy, none of them can stop the time.

24

And that’s the problem with nuclear reactors.

1 Like
25

Actually I am not sure that is entirely true. There are turbine systems which can allow the steam to entirely bypass the turbine and be dumped almost entirely into the condensers. This means that when generation is not required the boiler doesn’t have to be shut down yet the turbine is kept spinning and up to temperature which saves a lot of money not having to restart steam generation I am not familiar enough with nuclear power to know if it is used very often.

It was certainly a feature of the soon to be closed early Eraring Power Station (four 660MW generators from memory). It is being closed early because renewable energy has made it uneconomic.

BTW Michael Shellenburger has no environmental or engineering qualifications whatsoever he specialises in public relations

1 Like
26

It isn’t the steam that is the problem. It is the nuclear power. that issue. It takes half a day to power up.

27

@Besoeker, but surely the use of mini modular reactors would solve
the spin up problem Besoeker, as each one of them would only take
probably a hundred times less to reach working temperatures than a larger
nuclear reactor!!
And they could be switched on or off individually to accommodate grid
conditions?? Plus smaller variations could be regulated in the normal
workings of each generator too?
A major flaw in going nuclear would be the fact that if it became too
Popular world wide then the price of the fuel would rise and we could still
be held to Ransome politically !!
But this fact is true for all forms of fuel as we have seen !!
Another plus for modular reactors is that RR believe they can have a working
model available within ten years !
Donkeyman! :thinking::thinking:

1 Like
28

That was my point (it’s the same with any boiler whether fired by nuclear fuel, bagasse or coal) if you keep the boiler running all the time (by condensing the steam it produces) and keep the turbine up to temperature using a little of that steam even when not generating then getting up to full load is very quick measured in minutes rather than hours.

29

@Bruce , See my answer to Besoeker in previous post Brucy ??
Donkeyman! :thinking::thinking:

30

I’ll try again. Nuclear is mostly used as base load. because it is so slow and other technologies are much more flexible.

31

@Besoeker , See my previous reply to Besoeker
Donkeyman! :+1::+1:

32

But was it being generated just when we needed it Besoeker, or was it sent to earth?

33

I knew I could rely on you Harbal…
:+1:

1 Like
34

Of course with nuclear power stations you have the massive issue of waste which will remain highly dangerous for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
This issue has not been resolved over the past 70 odd years and will not be anytime soon though that fool that is Johnson told parliament that he would find a solution very soon?

35

I’m not saying other methods of producing a quick fix of power are not required Besoeker, there were two jet engines in Thorpe Marsh coal fired power station to take care of the shortfall at periods of peak consumption before the rotors could spin up to max revs.
How about the reactors in nuclear subs? Surely they don’t take too long to adjust to max output. So my theory about having smaller nuclear units serving local needs would be more favourable, and would also reduce the massive losses due to power transmission across great distances.

1 Like
36

Assman you don’t understand power generation. All boilers no matter the fuel have a minimum load at which they are stable, say that load is one third of their maximum capacity then you need to do something with that amount of steam. If the generator is not producing power then that steam needs to be condensed, used for some other purpose. or the boiler has to be shut down.

It doesn’t matter whether it is a 30 tonne (of steam) boiler or 500 tonne boiler there is a minimum it has to produce to keep it running. If you don’t keep it running then it, and its auxilliary equipment, cool down very quickly and it takes a long time to warm them up because it has to be done very slowly otherwise you would distort, damage or even, in some places, melt the metal.

Ironically using nuclear fuel is a very inefficient way of producing power it is only because the fuel is so cheap and low maintenance costs (because of low wear and tear) that makes it very economic. From memory nuclear plants run at only about 35% thermal efficiency whereas coal fired plants run at 40% and combined cycle gas turbines at about 60%. Most of this energy loss is heat thrown away in the turbine cooling systems.

37

@OldGreyFox , See my reply to Besoeker in a previous thread Foxey !!
Donkeyman! :+1::+1:

1 Like
38

Yes I totally agree Bruce, and as I said earlier, perhaps nuclear as a stand alone means of power generation would not be sufficient to take care of sudden surges in demand, but perhaps smaller more local nuclear sub stations would be the way to go. I read somewhere that battery power would only last around one hour to supply a small town, and the competition for lithium and other rare metals in their construction would be competing with the new wave of EV’s.

39

It depends on the size of the battery I guess but speaking very generally you would only need to use a battery for a few minutes before hydro or even a gas turbine would kick in to fill the gap.

I think the Liddell Power station site which closes this year is to be used for a 500MW battery

1 Like
40

Very little waste from a nuclear power station Tabby. It’s not so much the amount of waste as the fact that the waste is radio active and difficult to dispose of. A coal fired station would produce thousands, if not millions of tons of ash. In a nuclear power station the heat is produce by immersing two different materials together that react and produce heat.
The heat then produces steam, which as Bruce mentioned earlier, powers conventional steam turbines.
The trick is, not to let the heat run out of control producing ‘Thermal runaway’ or known as a ‘Meltdown’ it is believed that in such circumstances the core of the reactor would melt through the surface of the earth. For this reason, reactors are usually built on the coast where unlimited amounts of water are available for cooling. This method of producing heat requires no combustible products, and therefore produces hardly any waste products.

2 Likes