• UK to shut down all of its coal power plants in the next 10 years, replace with nuclear and gas
    101 replies, posted
[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] One of the reasons they're using gas instead of Coal for power is that (besides emissions) it's a very scaleable power source, it's the perfect addition for a country transitioning to renewable sources while dealing with the fluctuations in generated power. Additionally, it's something that can be produced locally or imported easily.
The problems with renewable have been well stated. GenIV or eventually GenV reactors are the way to go, but the public is fucking retarded about that shit so good luck. Not to mention the power of the coal and oil lobby on national and international levels. Storage technology isn't feasible, most other renewables aren't feasible (excepting hydro, but thats out because we're at capacity pretty much). Barring large advances in the reliability and energy density of batteries it doesn't make much sense aaaaaand lithium mining, which is what is used in most batteries (chemically lithium compounds are AWESOME for energy storage), is terrible in terms of environmental impact.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49141823]The problems with renewable have been well stated. GenIV or eventually GenV reactors are the way to go, but the public is fucking retarded about that shit so good luck. Not to mention the power of the coal and oil lobby on national and international levels. Storage technology isn't feasible, most other renewables aren't feasible (excepting hydro, but thats out because we're at capacity pretty much). Barring large advances in the reliability and energy density of batteries it doesn't make much sense aaaaaand lithium mining, which is what is used in most batteries (chemically lithium compounds are AWESOME for energy storage), is terrible in terms of environmental impact.[/QUOTE] I agree that nuclear is great but why aren't storage and renewable technologies feasible? Li-ion batteries are fairly energy dense already (hence why they are used for everything mobile). I see a lot of people claiming these sort of things and it seems like people have a very old fashioned view on batteries. Lead acid batteries suck plain and simple, a Li-ion battery with a decent composition doesn't. Li-ion batteries are highly efficient and small enough for effective both home use and storing enough energy in a small enough space to add them to sub-stations without requiring more land. Solar panel efficiency is starting to reach 22% for consumer grade rooftop panels, which is pretty good. A lot of people go for 4KW arrays on their homes, and if prices meet expected goals that would cost a mere £1500 for the whole array, minus the inverter. Unfortunately with the UK cutting the feed in tariff for solar, the company that makes these panels decided to pull out of the UK. The UK isn't that great for solar anyway, the UK should be really focusing on wind as it really is the wind capital of Europe, but that got cut to because of "eye sores".
My home area was due to have a giant offshore wind turbine farm, so far away that it could barely be seen, but it was cancelled due to complaints and protests. We're literally risking our planet becoming uninhabitable because we don't want to see tiny white blips on the horizon.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49142071]I agree that nuclear is great but why aren't storage and renewable technologies feasible? Li-ion batteries are fairly energy dense already (hence why they are used for everything mobile). I see a lot of people claiming these sort of things and it seems like people have a very old fashioned view on batteries. Lead acid batteries suck plain and simple, a Li-ion battery with a decent composition doesn't. Li-ion batteries are highly efficient and small enough for effective both home use and storing enough energy in a small enough space to add them to sub-stations without requiring more land. Solar panel efficiency is starting to reach 22% for consumer grade rooftop panels, which is pretty good. A lot of people go for 4KW arrays on their homes, and if prices meet expected goals that would cost a mere £1500 for the whole array, minus the inverter. Unfortunately with the UK cutting the feed in tariff for solar, the company that makes these panels decided to pull out of the UK. The UK isn't that great for solar anyway, the UK should be really focusing on wind as it really is the wind capital of Europe, but that got cut to because of "eye sores".[/QUOTE] Because you seriously miscalculated how many batteries you would need to store electricity at night or when the wind isn't blowing, seriously overcalculated their lifetime and miscalculated how much extra generating capacity is required to charge them.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49142071]I agree that nuclear is great but why aren't storage and renewable technologies feasible? Li-ion batteries are fairly energy dense already (hence why they are used for everything mobile). I see a lot of people claiming these sort of things and it seems like people have a very old fashioned view on batteries. Lead acid batteries suck plain and simple, a Li-ion battery with a decent composition doesn't. Li-ion batteries are highly efficient and small enough for effective both home use and storing enough energy in a small enough space to add them to sub-stations without requiring more land. Solar panel efficiency is starting to reach 22% for consumer grade rooftop panels, which is pretty good. A lot of people go for 4KW arrays on their homes, and if prices meet expected goals that would cost a mere £1500 for the whole array, minus the inverter. Unfortunately with the UK cutting the feed in tariff for solar, the company that makes these panels decided to pull out of the UK. The UK isn't that great for solar anyway, the UK should be really focusing on wind as it really is the wind capital of Europe, but that got cut to because of "eye sores".[/QUOTE] Li-Ion batteries are a solution, but are still costly. And I do believe that a few quick studies (calculations and research papers basically) found that it would still be cheaper and more efficient in the long run to just go with pushing GenIV reactors even more to the forefront. Li-Ion are better than most other types. Lead Acid are right out, NiMH are out, NiCd aren't even a legitimate thought, and LiPoly are fine if you want your house to incinerate and/or explode into a burst of flaming everything. Running solar for expected daytime usage is smart, and phasing the output of reactors over a period of hours is a possibility during the transition to nighttime energy consumption levels and the loss of solar ability. Natural Gas also creates a dependency on those with the resources- Canada, Norway and Russia are the big three here. Li-Ion has a specific energy of 0.85MJ/kg, and thats the top-of-the-line type models. No telling if larger battery arrays would have to be optimized for discharge/recharge cycling at the cost of longevity. Even wood is technically more efficient when used for steam, even if we were to lowball and assume 75% efficiency conversion it comes in at ~12.1MJ/kg. Uranium? 80,620,000MJ/kg. Even after we consider the relative longevity, usage, pollution, and costs of the construction of new plants thats orders of magnitudes larger than other non-fission based energy sources. The only ones that are more efficient are fusion and matter-antimatter reactions. I think the smartest method is to say fuck storage all together. Gravitational potential energy storage is laughably low for its size and cost, but is at least effectively infinite in that it doesn't wear out as entirely as batteries and other sources. Instead, I believe that studying the current usages of the grid and trying as hard as possible to build a smart grid is the smartest way out. With sophisticated enough modelling and monitoring it would become fairly easy to predict major fluctuations in power. Having backups on-hand for "oh shit" type scenarios is great, yes, but using nuclear fission and eventually nuclear fusion as the backbone, coupled with renewables like solar+wind+tidal to ease the burden a bit is smarter. And no one should be focusing on wind. Takes up a lot of space for how much it can make, uses a fair amount of materials, and fluctuates just as much (if not more) than solar. Is it a great additional source? Yes. But it is not a primary or secondary or even tertiary source alone by any means. Idk though, most of this is highly sophomoric. I'm taking a class or two (just 1cr natural science shit) on engineering challenges behind energy generation next quarter as a schedule filler, and after that taking a course on computational mathematics as applied to neural networks, with which I [I]really[/I] want to do a feasibility study of smart grids and just how much we can apply them and use them. Distributed high-redundancy computing on a number of fairly low-level MCU's would probably be enough to get the job done. Again, I'm just mostly postulating here. At best I'll probably vaguely research more of this topic after that class if I my summer work schedule is what i think it'll be.
[QUOTE=OvB;49139185]Will never happen as long as the south is saturated in republican politicians and coal lobbyists.[/QUOTE] Actually, my home state (South Carolina) has a few pro-nuclear republicans (a rarity, I know), but most of them (like Lindsey Graham) are mainly supportive of the Savannah River Site and the massive amount of jobs it supports within SC and GA. That all being said, what's happening at Vogtle is good and I really hope to see some new-gen reactors start coming online in the next decade or two.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49142208]Nuclear power is so cheap it's not even worth the investment of Lithium batteries for 25% loss.[/QUOTE] The fuel is extremely cheap for nuclear power but it's buried in a lot of bureaucratic bullshit. Hinkley Point C is going to cost £24 billion for 2 reactors producing a total of 3200 MW, with the government guaranteeing them at least £92.50 per MW produced. That's crazy. You are paying £7.66 per watt of generating capacity, that's more than double the average cost per watt from even the most expensive solar panels current on the market. [QUOTE=paindoc;49142429]Li-Ion batteries are a solution, but are still costly. And I do believe that a few quick studies (calculations and research papers basically) found that it would still be cheaper and more efficient in the long run to just go with pushing GenIV reactors even more to the forefront. Li-Ion are better than most other types. Lead Acid are right out, NiMH are out, NiCd aren't even a legitimate thought, and LiPoly are fine if you want your house to incinerate and/or explode into a burst of flaming everything. Running solar for expected daytime usage is smart, and phasing the output of reactors over a period of hours is a possibility during the transition to nighttime energy consumption levels and the loss of solar ability. Natural Gas also creates a dependency on those with the resources- Canada, Norway and Russia are the big three here. Li-Ion has a specific energy of 0.85MJ/kg, and thats the top-of-the-line type models. No telling if larger battery arrays would have to be optimized for discharge/recharge cycling at the cost of longevity. Even wood is technically more efficient when used for steam, even if we were to lowball and assume 75% efficiency conversion it comes in at ~12.1MJ/kg. Uranium? 80,620,000MJ/kg. Even after we consider the relative longevity, usage, pollution, and costs of the construction of new plants thats orders of magnitudes larger than other non-fission based energy sources. The only ones that are more efficient are fusion and matter-antimatter reactions. I think the smartest method is to say fuck storage all together. Gravitational potential energy storage is laughably low for its size and cost, but is at least effectively infinite in that it doesn't wear out as entirely as batteries and other sources. Instead, I believe that studying the current usages of the grid and trying as hard as possible to build a smart grid is the smartest way out. With sophisticated enough modelling and monitoring it would become fairly easy to predict major fluctuations in power. Having backups on-hand for "oh shit" type scenarios is great, yes, but using nuclear fission and eventually nuclear fusion as the backbone, coupled with renewables like solar+wind+tidal to ease the burden a bit is smarter. And no one should be focusing on wind. Takes up a lot of space for how much it can make, uses a fair amount of materials, and fluctuates just as much (if not more) than solar. Is it a great additional source? Yes. But it is not a primary or secondary or even tertiary source alone by any means. Idk though, most of this is highly sophomoric. I'm taking a class or two (just 1cr natural science shit) on engineering challenges behind energy generation next quarter as a schedule filler, and after that taking a course on computational mathematics as applied to neural networks, with which I [I]really[/I] want to do a feasibility study of smart grids and just how much we can apply them and use them. Distributed high-redundancy computing on a number of fairly low-level MCU's would probably be enough to get the job done. Again, I'm just mostly postulating here. At best I'll probably vaguely research more of this topic after that class if I my summer work schedule is what i think it'll be.[/QUOTE] There's lot of different variations of Li-ion batteries. There isn't a "top model", literally a shit ton of variations that all have different pros and cons. Some mixtures can charge fast but aren't very energy dense, some mixtures are fairly high in density so they can hold a lot of power but might charge very slowly or have low efficiency... and so on.. The currently suggested composition however is rated at 92% round trip efficiency, is rated for 5000 cycles before capacity degrades to 80% of original and will only cost $250 / KWh We do need a mix of nuclear and all types of renewables though to fully get rid of fossil fuels. Modeling is important to predict how power usage will be and start changing the power plants in time. The problem with nuclear though is that the output is slow to change and you can't start changing it to far ahead of time, if you don't have anything to consume that power the voltage and frequency increases on the grid. Most devices have some tolerance to that as it does fluctuate slightly but you only have so much tolerance. You also ideally want your nuclear power stations running flat out 24 / 7, due to the high cost of building them and the cheap fuel. Renewables can fill the gaps and battery storage can equalize the load on the grid.
[quote]The currently suggested composition however is rated at 92% round trip efficiency, is rated for 5000 cycles before capacity degrades to 80% of original and will only cost $250 / KWh [/quote] I struggle to believe that.
[QUOTE=download;49142920]I struggle to believe that.[/QUOTE] Me too [editline]18th November 2015[/editline] When I said top model I was clearly referring to energy density as well and specified the other parameters that could change it
[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;49142577]Actually, my home state (South Carolina) has a few pro-nuclear republicans (a rarity, I know), but most of them (like Lindsey Graham) are mainly supportive of the Savannah River Site and the massive amount of jobs it supports within SC and GA. That all being said, what's happening at Vogtle is good and I really hope to see some new-gen reactors start coming online in the next decade or two.[/QUOTE] If you mean Gen III+, then you'll see it in a few years when Vogtle 3 and 4 come online. If you mean Gen IV, then we're still a ways away.
[quote]The currently suggested composition however is rated at 92% round trip efficiency, is rated for 5000 cycles before capacity degrades to 80%[/quote] You would need to source that. I would like to see someone that has developed a li-ion battery that can withstand 5,000 cycles, and still retain 80% of its capacity. Sure, we can talk every year how battery technology is going to get better. But yet none of this has come to fruition, just more white paper and pipe dreams. It is almost idiotic to go with battery energy retention. The cost from ore to product for batteries has always been expensive, in terms of energy expended to extract, manufacture and deliver the product to its destination. Not to mention their lifespans are relatively short, so far Li-Ion only being able to handle around 300-400 cycles before capacity starts to seriously dive off. CAES, Pumped hydro and hamster-turned turbine technology is a better choice than current battery designs, technologies and chemistry.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49145144]If bureaucracy is the problem, then wouldn't it also increase the already expensive Li-ion batteries as well with red tape?[/QUOTE] Batteries don't have that problem because people aren't idiots when it comes to deploying them. Nuclear power has to deal with people going "But butt buttt is it gonna explode??? Will I get radiation poisoning from living x miles away??? Will my cat start glowing in the dark??" [QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49144893]You would need to source that. I would like to see someone that has developed a li-ion battery that can withstand 5,000 cycles, and still retain 80% of its capacity. Sure, we can talk every year how battery technology is going to get better. But yet none of this has come to fruition, just more white paper and pipe dreams. It is almost idiotic to go with battery energy retention. The cost from ore to product for batteries has always been expensive, in terms of energy expended to extract, manufacture and deliver the product to its destination. Not to mention their lifespans are relatively short, so far Li-Ion only being able to handle around 300-400 cycles before capacity starts to seriously dive off. CAES, Pumped hydro and hamster-turned turbine technology is a better choice than current battery designs, technologies and chemistry.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/powerwall[/url] for grid storage it's the powerpack but no real general public facing site for it. Of course when you factor in the losses from the inverter you are probably looking at another 2% - 3% efficiency loss. Pilot projects are already having batteries delivered but it's slow going until the [URL="http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/tesla-gigafactory-production-582px.png"]Gigafactory [/URL]comes online next year.
You haven't demonstrated $250/kwh batteries.
[QUOTE=download;49145506]You haven't demonstrated $250/kwh batteries.[/QUOTE] [url]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/594186544174366720[/url]
i'm still pretty skeptical if it was that cheap and easy i'm wondering why nobody has bothered to do it yet
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49146856]i'm still pretty skeptical if it was that cheap and easy i'm wondering why nobody has bothered to do it yet[/QUOTE] It's not cheap or easy to do it at all. Tesla are building a factory that will produce more than the rest of the world's Li-ion battery output combined, about 35 GWh of cells a year. It's a 13.6 million square feet factory that will cost $5 billion. Will provide about 7000 jobs. This factory is also a bit different than the others. Raw lithium materials go in and finished battery cells come out. Right now Li-ion battery cells end up making several round trips around the world before you get cells out of it. Here's an old rendering of the factory. It will actually be 40% larger than this. [IMG]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/assets/img/gigafactory/hero.jpg[/IMG] Here you can see a small part of it that will come online next year while the rest is being built: [video=youtube;7QDApUM41js]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDApUM41js[/video] [thumb]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/gigafactory_updated.jpg?w=2000&h=0[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Morgen;49145907][url]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/594186544174366720[/url][/QUOTE] Now demonstrate they get 5000 cycles before reaching 80% of rated capacity.
[QUOTE=download;49149985]Now demonstrate they get 5000 cycles before reaching 80% of rated capacity.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thestreet.com/story/13142191/4/tesla-motors-tsla-earnings-report-q1-2015-conference-call-transcript.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Morgen;49150198][url]http://www.thestreet.com/story/13142191/4/tesla-motors-tsla-earnings-report-q1-2015-conference-call-transcript.html[/url][/QUOTE] You realise the 7kWh model is significantly under rated, right? That's why it has a long cycle life. It's also more than US$500/kWh
[QUOTE=download;49150250]You realise the 7kWh model is significantly under rated, right? That's why it has a long cycle life. It's also more than US$500/kWh[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about the Powerwall here. The same chemistries are used in the 100 KWh versions of the Powerpack for utility level storage, which is significantly cheaper per KWh.
I don't understand the backlash against natural gas. It's probably the cleanest form of fossil fuel, it may not even make sense to call it a fossil fuel these days anyway. There's active research being done to make it a renewable resource.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49150273]We aren't talking about the Powerwall here. The same chemistries are used in the 100 KWh versions of the Powerpack for utility level storage, which is significantly cheaper per KWh.[/QUOTE] And you haven't demonstrated that the utility version will be rated at 80% 5000 cycles and $250kWh. You have a seriously derated 7kWh version (which is actually a 10 kWh version) rated at 5000 cycles and claims of utility scale version for $250/kWh which certainly is not rated at 5000 cycles.
[QUOTE=download;49150311]And you haven't demonstrated that the utility version will be rated at 80% 5000 cycles and $250kWh. You have a seriously derated 7kWh version (which is actually a 10 kWh version) rated at 5000 cycles and claims of utility scale version for $250/kWh which certainly is not rated at 5000 cycles.[/QUOTE] The utility scale one is literally a rack of the batteries from the Powerwalls. They are exactly the same in terms of what the cells are capable of because the cells are exactly the same. [IMG]http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/LW3A1486-1024x768.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE=Sleepy Head;49150288]I don't understand the backlash against natural gas. It's probably the cleanest form of fossil fuel, it may not even make sense to call it a fossil fuel these days anyway. There's active research being done to make it a renewable resource.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, natural gas plants are probably the best fossil fuel you can get. But it still emits a decent amount of CO2. It's good to favor gas over coal but in the long term we don't want it either. Nuclear with a mix of renewables is simply the best way to go.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49150344] Don't get me wrong, natural gas plants are probably the best fossil fuel you can get. But it still emits a decent amount of CO2. It's good to favor gas over coal but in the long term we don't want it either. Nuclear with a mix of renewables is simply the best way to go.[/QUOTE] Except there is active research in which certain organisms can convert CO2 in the atmosphere into natural gas. That, in theory, wouldn't affect the atmosphere very much.
[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] China is has and is building more modern reactors than the UK has, [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000[/url] they wont get these until 2024.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;49139736]I think nuclear is arguably the best option.[/QUOTE] Wind is probably the best option. We have the materials to make all of the turbines necessary to power our countries and we don't have any crazy byproducts to deal with.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49150344]The utility scale one is literally a rack of the batteries from the Powerwalls. They are exactly the same in terms of what the cells are capable of because the cells are exactly the same. [IMG]http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/LW3A1486-1024x768.jpg[/IMG] Don't get me wrong, natural gas plants are probably the best fossil fuel you can get. But it still emits a decent amount of CO2. It's good to favor gas over coal but in the long term we don't want it either. Nuclear with a mix of renewables is simply the best way to go.[/QUOTE] The cells in the 7kWh wallpack are the 10kWh model downrated to 7kWh. When running at 10kWh it only gets a few hundred cycles. If the utilities want $250/kWh they will have to run them at full power and only get a few hundred cycles out of them. Do some research on what you're actually talking about before talking shit, please.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49150748]Wind is probably the best option. We have the materials to make all of the turbines necessary to power our countries and we don't have any crazy byproducts to deal with.[/QUOTE] You are seriously underestimating the amount of turbines required + the amount of storage necessary to compensate for weather changes. Best option is simply a hybrid system using different power sources
[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;49150950]You are seriously underestimating the amount of turbines required + the amount of storage necessary to compensate for weather changes. Best option is simply a hybrid system using different power sources[/QUOTE] Plus the new power lines needed to route power from windy areas to where people live. A powerline suitable for a 1GW wind farm would set you back several million per kilometre.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.