• UK to shut down all of its coal power plants in the next 10 years, replace with nuclear and gas
    101 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34851718[/url] [quote]The UK's remaining coal-fired power stations will be shut by 2025 with their use restricted by 2023, Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has announced. Ms Rudd wants more gas-fired stations to be built since relying on "polluting" coal is "perverse". "We need to give a clear signal to people who are in the market for building gas stations that coal will no longer crowd out new gas." Environmentalists are concerned little is being done to promote renewables. Currently, coal provides almost a third (28%) of the UK's electricity, but Ms Rudd said "We are tackling a legacy of underinvestment and ageing power stations which we need to replace with alternatives that are reliable, good value for money and help to reduce emissions."[/quote]
Getting rid of coal is great, but replacing it with mostly natural gas, while better, still isn't the same as replacing it with nuclear (which is doing some but not a lot) and renewable sources of energy.
Something to make up for lying about reducing fossil fuel subsidies and for cutting on renewables at least.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49138511]Something to make up for lying about reducing fossil fuel subsidies and for cutting on renewables at least.[/QUOTE] Wow! You had that as well. We had something similar and it was cut.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49138505]Getting rid of coal is great, but replacing it with mostly natural gas, while better, still isn't the same as replacing it with nuclear ([B]which is doing some but not a lot[/B]) and renewable sources of energy.[/QUOTE] It's doing far more than renewables.
[QUOTE=download;49138594]It's doing far more than renewables.[/QUOTE] Oh I know but we should have a lot more than we do.
I am glad we are getting more nuclear power but I hope that the government can get better deals on new plants than Hinkley point C, £25 billion and double the current generating tariff.. u wot m8? Not to happy about more Natural gas stations, while a definite step up from coal they really should be aiming to have more renewables IMO. In 10 years renewables should ideally be the primary energy source, supported by nuclear. But that's not going to happen unfortunately with the government gutting subsidies for all forms of renewables. Rooftop solar was doing really really well in the UK but the government just killed it: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pcXR5aQ.png[/IMG] Wind is in a similar boat but I don't have a graph for that.
We need to do a lot of that here, mostly in the southern states.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49138954]I am glad we are getting more nuclear power but I hope that the government can get better deals on new plants than Hinkley point C, £25 billion and double the current generating tariff.. u wot m8? Not to happy about more Natural gas stations, while a definite step up from coal they really should be aiming to have more renewables IMO. In 10 years renewables should ideally be the primary energy source, supported by nuclear. But that's not going to happen unfortunately with the government gutting subsidies for all forms of renewables. Rooftop solar was doing really really well in the UK but the government just killed it: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pcXR5aQ.png[/IMG] Wind is in a similar boat but I don't have a graph for that.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it really has to be nuclear supported by renewable. Most renewable power sources suffer significant fluctuations more rapidly than the draw-up and draw-down rate of a nuclear station can handle. So they have to be run at a constant or gradually-changing generation rate while renewable makes up the rest. It's more of a challenge than people think. Also who the fuck thought double the current energy tariff was a good idea? People are already having to switch off or not eat for a day a week to pay for their fucking energy. If there's one Corbyn policy I do support, it's ripping the energy industry to pieces and rebuilding it, at least the financial side, so that it doesn't arse rape the customer at every level.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49138954]I am glad we are getting more nuclear power but I hope that the government can get better deals on new plants than Hinkley point C, £25 billion and double the current generating tariff.. u wot m8?[/QUOTE] Westinghouse is trying to build new AP1000s in the UK, but the UK won't let them until a few design issues are fixed. We are currently building 2 here at Vogtle in Georgia, and the estimated cost for it is $14bn, or $7bn per unit.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49138505]Getting rid of coal is great, but replacing it with mostly natural gas, while better, still isn't the same as replacing it with nuclear (which is doing some but not a lot) and renewable sources of energy.[/QUOTE] Nuclear is great but imagine the shit storm from the public. Also if we get China to build all our nuclear plants for way inflated costs using outdated designs, then it's bullshit.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49139005]Nuclear is great but imagine the shit storm from the public. Also if we get China to build all our nuclear plants for way inflated costs using outdated designs, then it's bullshit.[/QUOTE] Most causes of nuclear plants going over budget is needless red tape and frivolous lawsuits. Plenty of Asian nations have put up nuclear plants on or under budget. France did too in the 70s and 80s.
[QUOTE=TestECull;49138971]We need to do a lot of that here, mostly in the southern states.[/QUOTE] Will never happen as long as the south is saturated in republican politicians and coal lobbyists.
[QUOTE=OvB;49139185]Will never happen as long as the south is saturated in republican politicians and coal lobbyists.[/QUOTE] I would've thought republicans would've loved the idea of having their precious nukes also power their shit.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49139193]I would've thought republicans would've loved the idea of having their precious nukes also power their shit.[/QUOTE] Not if it conflicts with where they get their campaign money. They would be okay with popping in a new one here or there as there are already a lot of reactors in the south as is. But as soon as you say [I]replace[/I] coal with X, they're not going to want X.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49138984]Westinghouse is trying to build new AP1000s in the UK, but the UK won't let them until a few design issues are fixed. We are currently building 2 here at Vogtle in Georgia, and the estimated cost for it is $14bn, or $7bn per unit.[/QUOTE] That's relatively cheap. Hinkley Point C will cost $37.2 billion at current exchange rates and it only has two reactors. The government has also guaranteed to pay £92.50 per MWh produced, the current price is £50 per MWh. Oh and that price will get adjusted for inflation of course. Unfortunately Nuclear power stations are slow to increase / decrease their output compared to gas power stations which are relatively quick, and with renewables fluctuating we obviously need something in the middle here if we want to cut out gas. I really think batteries could provide that. We can use excess power to charge them up and then pull power out when demand rises or renewable output decreases, effectively equalizing the load.
[QUOTE=OvB;49139185]Will never happen as long as the south is saturated in republican politicians and coal lobbyists.[/QUOTE] NRC's projected new reactor map (based on permits applied for) shows 15 new units in the south on top of the 4 currently being built. This is compared to the 4 new units in the north.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49139622]NRC's projected new reactor map (based on permits applied for) shows 15 new units in the south on top of the 4 currently being built. This is compared to the 4 new units in the north.[/QUOTE] Will that be enough to entirely replace coal? Coal will exist in the south for some time I think.
I think nuclear is arguably the best option.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49139259]I really think batteries could provide that. We can use excess power to charge them up and then pull power out when demand rises or renewable output decreases, effectively equalizing the load.[/QUOTE] The cost of building "battery clusters" to support this sort of power need fluctuation alone would not only be extremely expensive, but extremely energy-wasteful. Battery technology is still pretty much garbage on a large scale. It may be able to support light residential needs but storing energy like that for commercial and industrial purposes is a pipe dream right now.
[QUOTE=OvB;49139730]Will that be enough to entirely replace coal? Coal will exist in the south for some time I think.[/QUOTE] Coal exists mainly in the north east, centering around Kentucky/Indiana/Ohio. The majority of plants in the south are natural gas fired. Hell, Louisiana could cut out coal completely with 2 new AP1000s. The only states who could realistically cut coal out completely within the next decade are states like Louisiana and California who would need only a couple reactors since the majority of their power comes from natural gas. I know people like to assume that southern states are the problem, but if you look at the map of coal power plants, the north east is the biggest culprit in coal.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;49139845]The cost of building "battery clusters" to support this sort of power need fluctuation alone would not only be extremely expensive, but extremely energy-wasteful. Battery technology is still pretty much garbage on a large scale. It may be able to support light residential needs but storing energy like that for commercial and industrial purposes is a pipe dream right now.[/QUOTE] Using Li-ion batteries you can get 92% round trip efficiency on a 100 KWh battery at an initial cost of $250 / KWh. In the UK we already use pumped hydro storage for storing grid energy that only has 75% round trip efficiency. For example the latest plant they are building at a cost of £120 million holds 500 MW of energy (but is only capable of outputting 50 MW peak), this is used for a fast grid fluctuation response. So let's say we wanted to replace the system with a battery system. Looks like current Li-ion tech being suggested for grid storage is capable of outputting ~70% of capacity at peak, so we'd need at least 65 MWh of storage here. 65 MWh of storage would cost $16,250,000 (£10,682,075.30 at current exchange rates, probably would end up being £12 - 15 mill when you account for importing costs and such), but batteries don't last forever so every 8 - 10 years you might need to completely rebuild this system but at those costs it would take 85 - 110 years to break even with the initial cost of the hydro station, not even accounting for the lost power using the hydro system. Building plants of batteries like that though is a bad way to go about it though IMO, would be better off putting them at substations to lessen load on the grid and reduce losses from transmission. So in the UK at least it is already viable.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49139259]That's relatively cheap. Hinkley Point C will cost $37.2 billion at current exchange rates and it only has two reactors. The government has also guaranteed to pay £92.50 per MWh produced, the current price is £50 per MWh. Oh and that price will get adjusted for inflation of course. Unfortunately Nuclear power stations are slow to increase / decrease their output compared to gas power stations which are relatively quick, and with renewables fluctuating we obviously need something in the middle here if we want to cut out gas. I really think batteries could provide that. We can use excess power to charge them up and then pull power out when demand rises or renewable output decreases, effectively equalizing the load.[/QUOTE] Why can't we just use the excess to pump water up behind hydro dams to store the energy instead?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49140160]Why can't we just use the excess to pump water up behind hydro dams to store the energy instead?[/QUOTE] I covered it in my last post but... I guess I'll post it again? Hydro pumped storage has lower efficiency than batteries, you have the local environmental damage from the dams, you have higher initial cost to get that same peak output that you need when grid demand fluctuates, and you have to build that as it's own plant while with batteries you can put them at substations so you minimize transmission loss.
as long as the nuclear reactors dont fuck up im okay with that least thing any1 even outside of the uk wants is another incident like that im sure
[QUOTE=erkor;49140264]as long as the nuclear reactors dont fuck up im okay with that least thing any1 even outside of the uk wants is another incident like that im sure[/QUOTE] Modern reactors are very very safe. Fukushima was old technology and it took one of the most powerful earthquakes plus a tsunami to take it out. The UK doesn't really have any natural disasters either.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49140308]Modern reactors are very very safe. Fukushima was old technology and it took one of the most powerful earthquakes plus a tsunami to take it out. The UK doesn't really have any natural disasters either.[/QUOTE] Can we count chavs as a natural disaster?
[QUOTE=Morgen;49140249]I covered it in my last post but... I guess I'll post it again? Hydro pumped storage has lower efficiency than batteries, you have the local environmental damage from the dams, you have higher initial cost to get that same peak output that you need when grid demand fluctuates, and you have to build that as it's own plant while with batteries you can put them at substations so you minimize transmission loss.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure that batteries are much more expensive and less efficient in the longer term though, and the hydro option is something that's already done and is a currently feasible technology scotland and wales are both full of hilly places where nobody lives or nothing grows where all the dams are, so i assume it wouldn't be too hard to utilize those places remember that batteries often use ecologically damaging methods to manufacture them too, and that they are almost always only used for small scale applications. we don't really see any electric trains driven by batteries, while electric cars are expensive and serve a niche market (the infrastructure you speak about us needing will be far in excess of that).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49140550]i'm pretty sure that batteries are much more expensive and less efficient in the longer term though, and the hydro option is something that's already done and is a currently feasible technology scotland and wales are both full of hilly places where nobody lives or nothing grows where all the dams are, so i assume it wouldn't be too hard to utilize those places remember that batteries often use ecologically damaging methods to manufacture them too, and that they are almost always only used for small scale applications. we don't really see any electric trains driven by batteries, while electric cars are expensive and serve a niche market (the infrastructure you speak about us needing will be far in excess of that).[/QUOTE] Li-ion is very efficient and it's more than capable of beating the 75% efficiency of hydro storage. I am talking about current technology. Sure battery manufacturing has an environmental impact but it is localized to mines and where the batteries are made. They can be recycled as well. Yeah battery capacity degrades over time so you have to replace them eventually, much sooner than you would the hydro plant but the lower cost and higher efficiency offsets that. [video=youtube;yKORsrlN-2k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k[/video] Since then they have been able to substantially improve the continuous and peak power output without adding anymore cost.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49138505]Getting rid of coal is great, but replacing it with mostly natural gas, while better, still isn't the same as replacing it with nuclear (which is doing some but not a lot) and renewable sources of energy.[/QUOTE] getting off coal to begin with is a massive step, see america's coal country, its poor, never had money, and it kills the very people who protect it. rand paul may bitch about a war on coal, but coal has never done his state any good, people have been barely scraping by in coal mines for 100 years and only at the height of the unions power in the US did they have a semblance of prosperity, but that was over in the span of a few years as unions lost power and mines closed up. getting off coal should be the priority right now, renewables will build themselves out, and nuclear is rapidly improving, but coal keeps dragging everything down
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.