| Useful interim measure on 11:08 - Nov 11 with 2463 views | GeoffSentence |
Yep, I have been following stories on SMR's for a while and agree that they do look like a decent interim solution.
Should keep us going for 30 years until fusion power is here  |  |
|  |
| Useful interim measure on 11:14 - Nov 11 with 2459 views | StokieBlue |
Yes, seems like a good idea in order to provide baseline capacity. Also great if it can be designed and produced in this country creating jobs.
I heard about this on a podcast the other day, not the most efficient but simple and good for providing surge demand coverage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528
60-70% efficiency is absolutely fine for something like this - also nice it was designed by some guy in his shed.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 11:26 - Nov 11 with 2435 views | EdwardStone |
Another day, another wet dream from the Nuclear Industry
If renewables had been showered the love and cash that the atomic boys have benefitted from, we would have been running on zero carbon genuine green energy 2 decades ago
"Too cheap to meter" they said....too expensive to contemplate I reckon |  | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:27 - Nov 11 with 2432 views | CoachRob |
| Useful interim measure on 11:14 - Nov 11 by StokieBlue |
Yes, seems like a good idea in order to provide baseline capacity. Also great if it can be designed and produced in this country creating jobs.
I heard about this on a podcast the other day, not the most efficient but simple and good for providing surge demand coverage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528
60-70% efficiency is absolutely fine for something like this - also nice it was designed by some guy in his shed.
SB |
Great to see citizen science alive and well.
Interesting to see if XR will come behind this - I have seen a few strong objections to nuclear from XR members but there seems little alternative. |  | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:27 - Nov 11 with 2431 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
On a related note: electric car batteries. Would it not make more sense to electrify motorways, so that cars charge as they drive on them, and make cars with 50 to 100 miles of stored range, for journeys off-motorway, rather than sticking lots of heavy batteries in every car because of the tiny percentage of long journeys that most people make? |  | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:29 - Nov 11 with 2426 views | woiii |
Serious question... is this a benefit of brexit? Or would this have to go out to EU wide tender under EU rules? |  | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:40 - Nov 11 with 2410 views | Guthrum |
| Useful interim measure on 11:27 - Nov 11 by ArnoldMoorhen |
On a related note: electric car batteries. Would it not make more sense to electrify motorways, so that cars charge as they drive on them, and make cars with 50 to 100 miles of stored range, for journeys off-motorway, rather than sticking lots of heavy batteries in every car because of the tiny percentage of long journeys that most people make? |
It's a good idea, but the infrastructure costs would be eyewatering.
Cheaper might possibly be to use Channel Tunnel-style trains to transport cars en masse between hubs. |  |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 11:46 - Nov 11 with 2402 views | Guthrum |
| Useful interim measure on 11:26 - Nov 11 by EdwardStone |
Another day, another wet dream from the Nuclear Industry
If renewables had been showered the love and cash that the atomic boys have benefitted from, we would have been running on zero carbon genuine green energy 2 decades ago
"Too cheap to meter" they said....too expensive to contemplate I reckon |
Unfortunately, the green energy sector lacked the "sexiness" of the nuclear one (and possibly the PR expertise). Plus government ministers love big projects.
Question is whether it's better to - as far as possible - abolish fossil fuel generation sooner rather than later, given where we are now with the development of renewables and the climate situation. At least stop pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Useful interim measure on 11:49 - Nov 11 with 2395 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Useful interim measure on 11:40 - Nov 11 by Guthrum |
It's a good idea, but the infrastructure costs would be eyewatering.
Cheaper might possibly be to use Channel Tunnel-style trains to transport cars en masse between hubs. |
I'm thinking induction chargers, like phones use, underneath the car, which lower down on motorways for close proximity to the charging coils in the road surface, then raise up when the car goes off the motorway for better ground clearance.
It would eliminate the need for fuel stops (efficiency savings) and could be charged in road-pricing to meet the infrastructure cost. I'd like to see the cost comparison with HS2.
And while we're at it, why don't dairy farmers capture the methane produced by the cows in those massive metal barns? It's a seriously damaging greenhouse gas anyway, so surely better to use it for micro-electricity generation? | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:52 - Nov 11 with 2390 views | EdwardStone |
| Useful interim measure on 11:49 - Nov 11 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I'm thinking induction chargers, like phones use, underneath the car, which lower down on motorways for close proximity to the charging coils in the road surface, then raise up when the car goes off the motorway for better ground clearance.
It would eliminate the need for fuel stops (efficiency savings) and could be charged in road-pricing to meet the infrastructure cost. I'd like to see the cost comparison with HS2.
And while we're at it, why don't dairy farmers capture the methane produced by the cows in those massive metal barns? It's a seriously damaging greenhouse gas anyway, so surely better to use it for micro-electricity generation? |
I know that some local dairy farms are using slurry to generate electricity, I like the idea of the barn methane capture....good thinking Mr Moorhen | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 11:57 - Nov 11 with 2382 views | EdwardStone |
| Useful interim measure on 11:46 - Nov 11 by Guthrum |
Unfortunately, the green energy sector lacked the "sexiness" of the nuclear one (and possibly the PR expertise). Plus government ministers love big projects.
Question is whether it's better to - as far as possible - abolish fossil fuel generation sooner rather than later, given where we are now with the development of renewables and the climate situation. At least stop pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. |
Exactly this....politicians are entranced by the Grand Gesture....the magical silver bullet that will solve a problem in a jiffy
Loft insulation and energy efficiency aren't in the slightest bit shiny or sexy, but they play a critical part in driving down CO2
Maybe we could go even smaller with micro-nuclear....mount a small leaky reactor on the back of a truck and say to people that unless they insulate their loft and use less energy then we will park the wretched thing on their driveway. That might encourage folks to consider their carbon footprint | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 12:04 - Nov 11 with 2376 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Useful interim measure on 11:26 - Nov 11 by EdwardStone |
Another day, another wet dream from the Nuclear Industry
If renewables had been showered the love and cash that the atomic boys have benefitted from, we would have been running on zero carbon genuine green energy 2 decades ago
"Too cheap to meter" they said....too expensive to contemplate I reckon |
If the money and lives spent on the Iraq War had been spent on renewables...
When we're aware of the disastrous effect of micro-plastic in the oceans on the food chain, greenhouse gases on the Ozone layer, and industrial off-spill on lakes and rivers, which will continue to blight the world for generations, I can't get enthusiastic about a move to nuclear where we receive the benefits and future generations face the clean-up costs. Not right, not fair, not wise. | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 12:09 - Nov 11 with 2365 views | JakeITFC |
It’s my personal opinion that building and committing to long term contracts for something as inflexible as nuclear power is the wrong way to think of the problems that the UK energy mix is going to encounter in the coming years. |  | | |
| Useful interim measure on 12:12 - Nov 11 with 2357 views | StokieBlue |
| Useful interim measure on 12:09 - Nov 11 by JakeITFC |
It’s my personal opinion that building and committing to long term contracts for something as inflexible as nuclear power is the wrong way to think of the problems that the UK energy mix is going to encounter in the coming years. |
How would you provide the baseline power required by the UK?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 12:47 - Nov 11 with 2309 views | NewcyBlue |
Battery storage? I don’t want to be negative, but are you positive? |  |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 13:06 - Nov 11 with 2296 views | HARRY10 |
| Useful interim measure on 12:47 - Nov 11 by NewcyBlue |
Battery storage? I don’t want to be negative, but are you positive? |
yes
AAA, to be exact | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 13:16 - Nov 11 with 2278 views | JakeITFC |
| Useful interim measure on 12:12 - Nov 11 by StokieBlue |
How would you provide the baseline power required by the UK?
SB |
Baseload generation is obviously critically important but I think the lack of flexibility that nuclear provides means that we could be stuck with GWs of generation that could easily be surpassed in the coming years.
Examples of technologies like gas and biomass (perhaps both with carbon capture) provide baseload generation but have the ability to flex up and down to satisfy other grid needs. It is important that we don't just think of this problem as a simple case of total demand v total generation but also about how we deal with the gaps in generation that comes with such intermittent sources as solar and wind. | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 15:38 - Nov 11 with 2227 views | Guthrum |
| Useful interim measure on 11:49 - Nov 11 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I'm thinking induction chargers, like phones use, underneath the car, which lower down on motorways for close proximity to the charging coils in the road surface, then raise up when the car goes off the motorway for better ground clearance.
It would eliminate the need for fuel stops (efficiency savings) and could be charged in road-pricing to meet the infrastructure cost. I'd like to see the cost comparison with HS2.
And while we're at it, why don't dairy farmers capture the methane produced by the cows in those massive metal barns? It's a seriously damaging greenhouse gas anyway, so surely better to use it for micro-electricity generation? |
Perhaps, if we're committed to building it, make HS2 large enough that fully-loaded lorries can be put on the trains, then abolish the M1/M40?
Wonder if the same could be done with human waste? | |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 15:53 - Nov 11 with 2216 views | EdwardStone |
| Useful interim measure on 15:30 - Nov 11 by Guthrum |
The problem with wave and tidal projects is that they do come at a cost. If you take the energy out of water, it drops the silt suspended within it. Which is why dams quite quicly lose capacity.
If you put barrages across major tidal rivers (e.g.the Severn), it will not only likely cause flooding upstream, but certainly destroy associated ecosystems. |
Tidal lagoons are the answer apparently.....all of the energy but without the habitat destruction.
Still the problems with silting though
As for cost....well, the Atomic fantasy hasn't actually been cheap, has it? | | | |
| Useful interim measure on 16:13 - Nov 11 with 2197 views | ghostofescobar |
| Useful interim measure on 11:27 - Nov 11 by ArnoldMoorhen |
On a related note: electric car batteries. Would it not make more sense to electrify motorways, so that cars charge as they drive on them, and make cars with 50 to 100 miles of stored range, for journeys off-motorway, rather than sticking lots of heavy batteries in every car because of the tiny percentage of long journeys that most people make? |
Like a massive Scalextric track? |  |
| |
| Useful interim measure on 19:28 - Nov 11 with 2150 views | Ryorry |
| Useful interim measure on 15:30 - Nov 11 by Guthrum |
The problem with wave and tidal projects is that they do come at a cost. If you take the energy out of water, it drops the silt suspended within it. Which is why dams quite quicly lose capacity.
If you put barrages across major tidal rivers (e.g.the Severn), it will not only likely cause flooding upstream, but certainly destroy associated ecosystems. |
I've always been much more of a fan of wave power as it seems less intrusive, but didn't know that it was affected by silting - or is it sand that's the problem? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
