Thread: Nuclear

Originally Posted by trout1105

That has Nothing whatsoever to do with Nuclear power

I agree, it has as much to with nuclear, as it has with renewables (which are part of the same energy industry, by the way). Some people like to draw a long bow when it comes to nuclear, or any other entity they feel they shouldn’t like.

Originally Posted by speleomike

Hi

"For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels. The milestone has been passed for the first five months of 2019. National Grid says clean energy has nudged ahead with 48% of generation, against 47% for coal and gas. The rest is biomass burning. The transformation reflects the precipitous decline of coal energy, and a boom from wind and solar. National Grid says that in the past decade, coal generation will have plunged from 30% to 3%. Meanwhile, wind power has shot up from 1% to 19%. Mini-milestones have been passed along the way. In May, for instance, Britain clocked up its first coal-free fortnight and generated record levels of solar power for two consecutive days."
Ref: Clean electricity overtaking fossil fuels in Britain - BBC News

In the graphs Nuclear has been providing about 20% of Britain's power plants for the last decade as there were built a few decades ago and will still be operational for some time. Gas is about the same but the big change is coal. That's where the renewables are eating into and replacing. Says a bit about Australia's decision to support Adani when the global coal market is literally collapsing. Britain though would not be building any more Nuclear plants in the future given the rise of the renewables, and their public's distrust of Nuclear energy.

Mike

Thanks Mike

I do think some caution is needed regarding the BBC report and your comments.

Firstly, one of the key causes for the decline in coal fuel use in the UK has been the conversion of the Drax coal fired power station to the burning of wood pellets largely sourced from the USA. Energy generated from this biomass is treated as though it has no CO2 emissions since if the forests that were cleared to produce the pellets was to regenerate, then, in the long run, the CO2 emitted by the power station would be removed from the atmosphere. Setting aside the assumption that the forests will be regenerated, there is an issue that the rate of CO2 fixation by the forests is slow, so that there is in fact a long period when CO2 emissions rise from this allegedly green power source.

Secondly the claim that the coal market is 'collapsing' is difficult to square with the current price of thermal coal. Moreover the BP statistical review of world energy which is generally regarded as being authoratative has recently reported that coal consumption grew by 1.4% in 2018. However it does note that 'coal's primary share in primary energy fell to 27.2%. Incidentally, the largest increase in coal production in 2018 was in China.

Thirdly, the UK has approved the construction of a new nuclear plant - the Hinkley C plant. This has been controversial for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the high guaranteed price that has been agreed to to support the construction of the plant - of GBP 92.50/MWh. This, I think, is one of DiscoMick's points - that nuclear is expensive.

Since I have stuck my neck out and noted the high costs of the Hinkley C plant, why do I persist in arguing that nuclear should be at least considered? Well firstly one of the reasons that the Hinkley plant is so expensive is that it is an early version of a relatively new design. Rightly or wrongly I suspect that unit costs would decrease in the event of further plants being built - this is a key question that an Australian review of the nuclear option should consider. Secondly, if you include the cost of firming the capacity of intermittent renewables into the full cost of renewables, it is highly questionable that renewables really are cheaper than nuclear - once again a matter that needs a full analysis rather than assertions by people like me. [As an aside, for the last 4 days wind capacity factors across the eastern australian grid have averaged less than 15% due a large high pressure dropping wind speeds across Eastern Australia. Just as proponents of nuclear power need to explain the economic and environmental matters associated with nuclear power so proponents of intermittent renewables must explain and produce plausible costings as to how such variability is to be managed.]



Michael