Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

D.P. said:
no, this is why we shouldn't waste money on new nuclear as it has bo future, but i believe most countries aiming for net-zero by 2035 either don't have nuclear or will leave operating nuclear plants in service but reduce their life dpan.

Ultimately economics will simply kill off nuclear plants anyway. Nuclear generation will literally end up 100x more expensive than renewables so they simply will cease to exist except for state run facilities to generate material for weapons, which has only ever been their design goal
Click to expand...

Economics don't matter if you're having blackouts.

China is massively expanding it's nuclear program so to say it is dead when there are a variety of entirely new types of reactors being brought online is just incredibly ignorant, it's regurgitating the typical green ideology.

D.P. said:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-renewables-arent-reason-california-blackouts



California's problems are really nothing to do with renewables, snd in fact it large scale renewable and battery storage that will solve them
Click to expand...

So that link basically says yes, renewables are the problem because if they used nuclear these blackouts would not be happening. They keep hoping that grid storage can be used as a sticking plaster to solve the major issues with renewables.
 
Energize said:
China is massively expanding it's nuclear program so to say it is dead when there are a variety of entirely new types of reactors being brought online is just incredibly ignorant, it's regurgitating the typical green ideology.
Click to expand...
hmmh - the china/edf one does have design problems though - so it may have been judicious for UK to reject it (without considering huawei debate too),
what serious engineering are the Chinese accomplishing , without plagiarising western technology or expertise.
 
Which article did you read , as the one linked doesnt say that at all. It clearly says the instant on capacity failed (as can happen in the uk if pump storage also doesnt come on time). Battery is the solution for Calif issue and they are doing that.
 
D.P. said:
which is why the battery storage race has started. Massive increase in orders. In California there is more planned battery storage than any kind of any generation.

Costs have reduced about 70-80% in the last 20 years snd will further decrease by 60-70 in the next. Which is why by 2030 it will cheap than pumped hydro.
Installed Capacity and duration are doubling every 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that you're not potentially storing electricity for hours/days but you may need it for weeks/months? For instance in Q3 of 2021 there were some of the lowest average wind speeds ever and that resulted in a 30% decrease of all wind power generation for the quarter vs prior year. That’s about 5.5TWh of lost generation. You would need 1.8million Tesla Megapacks just to store that kind of deficiency or severely over spec your energy generation to account for long periods of low generation, which is a huge cost.
 
Last edited:
Natural gas prices basically at record highs again.

If it keeps anywhere near this level that October price cap is gonna hit 3200-3500 a year at a rough guess :(
 
Harlequin said:
Which article did you read , as the one linked doesnt say that at all. It clearly says the instant on capacity failed (as can happen in the uk if pump storage also doesnt come on time). Battery is the solution for Calif issue and they are doing that.
Click to expand...

Historically in the UK what you describe was provided in several different overlapping well thought out ways.

Because we had many heavy rotors at synchronous speed their inertia covers the instantaneous drop. In the quarter second time frame large thermal power stations opened their steam valves and relied on the stored energy on the boiler. Within a second the burners would start firing harder in coal and oil stations. So each station was able to provide a few megawatts almost instantly. Dinorwig would start up it's turbines on compressed air in secnds and water would be through the turbines in under 30 seconds. Low frequency open cycle aero derivatives would kick in within seconds and be at full load in less than 2 minutes. In the hour long time frame other plant will be dispatched on contract variations.

Batteries can do the most instant part of that role. This becomes necessary because there is less inertia on the system because their is less conventional plant. Wind turbines and solar do not provide any inertia. The problem in the Uk is sufficiently large that the grid is actively investing in inertia only plant.
 
PlacidCasual said:
Historically in the UK what you describe was provided in several different overlapping well thought out ways.

Because we had many heavy rotors at synchronous speed their inertia covers the instantaneous drop. In the quarter second time frame large thermal power stations opened their steam valves and relied on the stored energy on the boiler. Within a second the burners would start firing harder in coal and oil stations. So each station was able to provide a few megawatts almost instantly. Dinorwig would start up it's turbines on compressed air in secnds and water would be through the turbines in under 30 seconds. Low frequency open cycle aero derivatives would kick in within seconds and be at full load in less than 2 minutes. In the hour long time frame other plant will be dispatched on contract variations.

Batteries can do the most instant part of that role. This becomes necessary because there is less inertia on the system because their is less conventional plant. Wind turbines and solar do not provide any inertia. The problem in the Uk is sufficiently large that the grid is actively investing in inertia only plant.
Click to expand...

Havent read anything of inertia storage for along long time, so not sure the UK is `actively investing` in it at all; more they are looking for anyone to build nuclear at a price they can afford (which isnt the USA)
 
@Harlequin National grid has tendered contract for synchronous compensators in the last year at numerous sites. Don't know if any tenders accepted. But part of the compensation requirement was inertia.

edit: sorry misread - not inertia storage. System inertia. The mass of the rotors oppose the frequency drop, like a car inertia if you take your foot off the gas. Not storage of energy by inertia flywheels.
 
jpaul said:
hmmh - the china/edf one does have design problems though - so it may have been judicious for UK to reject it (without considering huawei debate too),
what serious engineering are the Chinese accomplishing , without plagiarising western technology or expertise.
Click to expand...

The Chinese have a 600MWe fast neutron reactor, the first commercial scale fast reactor in the world, that's an innovation not plagiarism!

Their main reactor of choice going forward is the Hualong One advanced pressurised water reactor which is a Chinese design, not EDF's, though since China are diversifying into many different models of reactor they may have some EDF ones. For example they are building a number of EPR reactors which are the same type as the ones we are currently building in the UK.

They plan to install a massive 150GWe of nuclear capacity by 2030.

Harlequin said:
Which article did you read , as the one linked doesnt say that at all. It clearly says the instant on capacity failed (as can happen in the uk if pump storage also doesnt come on time). Battery is the solution for Calif issue and they are doing that.
Click to expand...

Basically if they had more nuclear capacity they wouldn't have had blackouts. Their setup is dependent on, on demand fossil fuel production as you say, so it's a failure as a green solution.

There’s no question that transitioning to a fully renewable electric grid will add to the challenge of keeping electricity flowing reliably. Technologies like natural gas or nuclear that can be counted on to fill the gaps will need to remain part of the mix for decades.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Jesus. I think I lost a few braincells reading the comment section of that video. Probably still have orders of magnitude more than most of the people posting them though! :cry:
Click to expand...

It's worse than daily mail. At least there are a few non crazy comments there.
On that video people worried about EM from the devices, people suggesting bypassing the meter and others asking how to do it.

Crazy.
 
Energize said:
The Chinese have a 600MWe fast neutron reactor, the first commercial scale fast reactor in the world, that's an innovation not plagiarism!

Their main reactor of choice going forward is the Hualong One advanced pressurised water reactor which is a Chinese design, not EDF's, though since China are diversifying into many different models of reactor they may have some EDF ones. For example they are building a number of EPR reactors which are the same type as the ones we are currently building in the UK.

They plan to install a massive 150GWe of nuclear capacity by 2030.
Click to expand...

Its russian not chinese :

China starts building second CFR-600 fast reactor : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News (world-nuclear-news.org)

and the bigger one isnt built yet
 
Energize said:
Well it's a collaboration, but would you say that's not innovative or is plagiarism? I would say they are paving the way ahead and leaving the West behind which is concerning.
Click to expand...

No i would say you are incorrect that its not the first commerical fast breeder (thats Russian the BN-600 in use since 1981) heck the UK had a working `prototype` call PFR at Dounraey since 1976
 
Gammawolf said:
Have you considered that you're not potentially storing electricity for hours/days but you may need it for weeks/months? For instance in Q3 of 2021 there were some of the lowest average wind speeds ever and that resulted in a 30% decrease of all wind power generation for the quarter vs prior year. That’s about 5.5TWh of lost generation. You would need 1.8million Tesla Megapacks just to store that kind of deficiency or severely over spec your energy generation to account for long periods of low generation, which is a huge cost.
Click to expand...


No, because the supply requires sufficient capacity and diversity.

I think you are mistaking ehat i am posting as my opinion, when i am simply summarizing the current industry state of the aet and the models created by energy department and research institutions across the world..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom